The Firestarter
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,236
If a second corona wave hits during November , do you think election can be postponed?
If a second corona wave hits during November , do you think election can be postponed?
If its as bad as the first one then probably yes. If its the lesser intense, second wave where there are treatments, mitigations, or possibly a cure, then I would think the election would happen as scheduled.If a second corona wave hits during November , do you think election can be postponed?
But then it's a bit of constitutional problem ? Trump must leave office by end January, if none is elected?If its as bad as the first one then probably yes. If its the lesser intense, second wave where there are treatments, mitigations, or possibly a cure, then I would think the election would happen as scheduled.
It would be a mess for sure, which is why it would take something pretty severe to derail the original date.But then it's a bit of constitutional problem ? Trump must leave office by end January, if none is elected?
Cant get more severe than a global pandemic. Well , maybe a global thermonuclear war. But I'd settle for a game of chess for now.It would be a mess for sure, which is why it would take something pretty severe to derail the original date.
Delaying it requires an act of Congress, and him staying in office longer actually requires a Constitutional amendment.Cant get more severe than a global pandemic. Well , maybe a global thermonuclear war. But I'd settle for a game of chess for now.
That could happen, but my best guess is we may see an unusually high turnout because of everything that is at stake, which generally favors the Dem candidate.I just can't see Biden winning, because I think we'll just be tormented with his horrific ramblings on too many occasions between now and election day. My bet is we'll see an incredibly low participation rate, with Trump winning.
Yes, yes, we get it. You were looking for someone to to reply "What ever do you mean Dante? Please enlighten us!", letting you get your predictable digs in about Bernie Bros (TM). Instead someone engaged you in an actual discussion, the wickedest of sins.What are you struggling to understand?
I'm talking about the people who would only ever vote for Bernie, and will now instead sit at home on election day.
What the feck are you on about?Yes, yes, we get it. You were looking for someone to to reply "What ever do you mean Dante? Please enlighten us!", letting you get your predictable digs in about Bernie Bros (TM). Instead someone engaged you in an actual discussion, the wickedest of sins.
Which administration built the cages?I'm talking about the people who believed in Bernie or bust. The ones who refused to vote for Hilary and will now refuse to vote for Biden. The ones will willingly make the path clearer for a second Trump term.
Their argument appears to be about principles: only a candidate who fully represents their views is worthy of their vote, even if not voting means making an enemy of the greater good for sake of the perfect.
If principles are the guiding factor, they should vote Green. If they're choosing not to vote Green because it's tactically pointless, then they should make a tactical vote for Biden. Anything else is a bitter act of cutting off their nose to spite caged up children.
Your original post was very simple:What the feck are you on about?
My original post was easy to understand. It was about whether it's correct to abstain from voting purely because your favourite candidate isn't on the ballot.
This seemed like a good starting point for a discussion on the intersection between Bernie supporters and Green Party voters, and the larger issue of whether or not Bernie supporters would vote for Biden - and if they wouldn't, what that said about the concept of the "lesser evil" in American politics. Some people certainly treated it like that. But it quickly became clear you weren't actually looking for that discussion, you were actually just looking for an opportunity to use your mildly clever line about caged-up children. I mean, it was clever, just maybe not as clever as it sounded in your head. Speaking of...Why don't all the former Bernie supporters vote for the Green Party?
Isn't "accidentally stupid" just a wordy way of saying stupid? Why can't I be accidentally obtuse or deliberately stupid? That sounds much nicer.You're either being deliberately obtuse or accidentally stupid.
??????What the feck are you on about?
My original post was easy to understand. It was about whether it's correct to abstain from voting purely because your favourite candidate isn't on the ballot.
You're either being deliberately obtuse or accidentally stupid.
It wasn't clever and wasn't trying to be.Your original post was very simple:
This seemed like a good starting point for a discussion on the intersection between Bernie supporters and Green Party voters, and the larger issue of whether or not Bernie supporters would vote for Biden - and if they wouldn't, what that said about the concept of the "lesser evil" in American politics. Some people certainly treated it like that. But it quickly became clear you weren't actually looking for that discussion, you were actually just looking for an opportunity to use your mildly clever line about caged-up children. I mean, it was clever, just maybe not as clever as it sounded in your head. Speaking of...
Isn't "accidentally stupid" just a wordy way of saying stupid? Why can't I be accidentally obtuse or deliberately stupid? That sounds much nicer.
If everyone who replies to you is fundamentally misunderstanding the point, that should be a clue that maybe your post was too ambiguously worded. It would have been much simpler if you just right away specified that you were talking about a very specific group of voters, and not actually "Bernie supporters". That way you wouldn't have to spend the next page and a half berating people for discussing Bernie supporters.It wasn't clever and wasn't trying to be.
Once again, what the feck are you on about? The discussion never went in the direction of "the lesser evil". It went in the direction of fundamentally misunderstanding the point. So I tried to bring it back on track.
Even if that leaves the path open for Trump???????
People vote for their favorite candidate o someone they can relate to. That's the only correct way to vote.
Why would you vote for someone who go against everything you are standing for? weird...
It was one person who misunderstood.If everyone who replies to you is fundamentally misunderstanding the point, that should be a clue that maybe your post was too ambiguously worded. It would have been much simpler if you just right away specified that you were talking about a very specific group of voters, and not actually "Bernie supporters". That way you wouldn't have to spend the next page and a half berating people for discussing Bernie supporters.
This would depend on whether a voter is Bernie or Bust or just an ordinary progressive, or an independent who was in some way attracted to the Sanders platform.Even if that leaves the path open for Trump?
There are three options here. They go with principle (vote Green), prudence (vote Biden) or acquiesce to Trump (abstain). If Bernie supporters have a particular progressive agenda, then abstaining is the worst possible option as it makes achieving that agenda more difficult in the future. A for the Greens will send a message on the national stage, whilst a vote for Biden will stop Trump from taking the the country in the opposite direction.
You're in Australia. Do you disagree with compulsory voting?
But the Bernie platform is antithetical to the Trump one. Whereas Biden's platform is at the very least neutral and the Green party platform is relatively similar.This would depend on whether a voter is Bernie or Bust or just an ordinary progressive, or an independent who was in some way attracted to the Sanders platform.
The stories of the people detained in these conditions are horrific, their sheer consistency shocking: children left crying through the night from cold and hunger, or denied medical attention; detainees sick, exhausted, and shivering, pleading in vain for Border Patrol agents to turn up the temperature; others forced to lie next to filthy toilets or unable to even sit down due to overcrowding; and the repeated response of agents that this mistreatment is their punishment for coming to the U.S.
The government is well aware that this is going on. In response to a 2014 ACLU complaint, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security acknowledged "recurring problems" with Border Patrol detention conditions. Still, the government failed to implement any meaningful reforms and continues to deny access to outside observers, including attorneys.
What if someone thinks the entire American system is fundamentally broken (labour relations, welfare inequality, health system, the works)? At that point, voting for the lesser evil just because it's the lesser evil might be better in the short term, but in the long term it also perpetuates a broken system. I wouldn't really accept this argument when it comes to Norwegian politics (because we've got a pretty well-designed and open system), but the American system is practically designed to resist change.But the Bernie platform is antithetical to the Trump one. Whereas Biden's platform is at the very neutral and the Green party platform is relatively similar.
Abstaining from voting is clearing the way for the platform that you most disagree with, rather than at least helping the platforms with which you might share some ideas. It doesn't make logical sense.
You're right in that abstaining doesn't buy you any political leverage after the election.But the Bernie platform is antithetical to the Trump one. Whereas Biden's platform is at the very neutral and the Green party platform is relatively similar.
Abstaining from voting is clearing the way for the platform that you most disagree with, rather than at least helping the platforms with which you might share some ideas. It doesn't make logical sense to abstain.
Bernie would be more ethical than Biden. Sure, I don't disagree.https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrant...aclu-and-partners-file-suit-against-us-border
The fact is that liberals don't care about kids in cages. They don't care about drone strikes of wedding parties. They don't care about sexual assault or metoo. They don't care about the environment. They don't care about the working class.
Its always the same cycle. When a Democrat is in power, they continue the same abuses and rapacious policies that Republicans do. When a republican is in power, they claim a moral high ground. When there is an election, they cynically deploy it as a cudgel against the left, gleefully ignoring their own history of abuses.
Oh and the kicker is that even if she had won there would still be family separation and kids in cages, except you'd have the people who came up with Facebook bumper stickers keeping track of them.To follow onto the discussion from yesterday, Hillary Clinton isnt actually opposed to family separation.
18:55
"One of the worst things this administration has done is to separate those children and have no system that actually would tell you where they are."
If you think this is an uncharitable reading, she goes on to say
"I would go to the big tech companies and say 'okay you've got 15 days, give me a system so I can keep track of everybody'".
So the Democratic candidates plan was Still Separate Families, But Give Each Member A Facebook Page And A QR Code Tattoo.
They literally do not care. You are deluded if you think so. They only pretend to care when they want your vote then they go right back to not caring.Biden has his faults, but the Democrats at least care enough to listen to objection about kids in cages. The Republicans have been willing to double down on the issue.
Perhaps none of this should be surprising, given Border Patrol's culture of abuse and refusal to hold agents accountable. Indeed, notwithstanding long-overdue efforts to reform local police departments, Congress and the Obama administration have continually given the U.S. Customs and Border Protection — the largest federal law enforcement agency – a free pass to violate rights on a massive scale and with near total impunity.
You've explained it to yourself there.What if someone thinks the entire American system is fundamentally broken (labour relations, welfare inequality, health system, the works)? At that point, voting for the lesser evil just because it's the lesser evil might be better in the short term, but in the long term it also perpetuates a broken system. I wouldn't really accept this argument when it comes to Norwegian politics (because we've got a pretty well-designed and open system), but the American system is practically designed to resist change.
Prudence = vote for Biden? That's going too far. He is just another big corporation status quo preserver puppet.Even if that leaves the path open for Trump?
There are three options here as I see it. They go with principle (vote Green), prudence (vote Biden) or acquiesce to Trump (abstain). If Bernie supporters have a particular progressive agenda, then abstaining is the worst possible option as it makes achieving that agenda more difficult in the future. A vote for the Greens will at least send a message on the national stage, whilst a vote for Biden will stop Trump from taking the the country in the opposite direction.
You're in Australia. Do you disagree with compulsory voting?
I've not vilified anyone. I've only said that the stance of 'Bernie or bust' doesn't make logical sense.Prudence = vote for Biden? That's going too far. He is just another big corporation status quo preserver puppet.
If I were a "Bernie Bro" I would have only two options. Stay home or vote green. Personally, I would probably go and vote green, but wouldn't vilify those who stayed home.
I'm in Chile now, and we have had both systems during my lifetime. I'm definitely not against compulsory voting, on the contrary to be fair. Compulsory voting doesn't mean you are forced to pick a candidate.
Of course it makes sense from a DNC primary perspective.I've not vilified anyone. I've only said that the stance of 'Bernie or bust' doesn't make logical sense.
How do you square the two bolded statements?
Ooh, edgy.A vote for Biden is a vote for white nationalism. Just a softer version of it.
Why would I vote when both candidates reinforce the same idealogy?Ooh, edgy.
So how soft of a racism contribution is not voting at all?
Because you’re into some vague idea of democracy being maintained, and possibly the environment being saved.Why would I vote when both candidates reinforce the same idealogy?
100% true.Yeah it absolutely suck that Bernie lost out again, but can anyone really face another 4 years of Trump? Just bite your lips and vote for Biden for fecks sake, he sucks but seriously Trump is going to happen again unless people deal with it.