Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.
Let's compromise and agree that politicians will do whatever they want regardless of whether or not we vote for them.
Hey that kind of sounds like one of the reasons why they're not trustworthy.
And yes that article is absolutely a sales pitch.
^ Yes, I could go along with that, although I'd prefer to swap the word "will" for "maybe quite often in some circumstances might."
ME: Why is the "lesser of two evils" approach so criticised?
MERIT: Because you're voting to get f*cked over, just to a lesser degree.
ME AGAIN: Well, if you're f*cked over to a lesser degree, then you might arrive at this point:
Also, by not voting, you abdicate all say in how f*cked over you are, so if anything, [MERIT] you seem to be supporting the idea that you should vote for the lesser evil. Thanks, I think.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
Lisnaholic
You should at least come to a basic understanding of anarchism before you start citing examples like the Rwandan genocide as representative of the ideology in action.
Try the Pueblo Indians at their best.
If you’re just going to disregard it without educating yourself then (and I’m not trying to be rude) please don’t comment on it
^ Maybe anarchism doesn't always end up in chaos. I forgot that some communities of like-minded thinkers, hippies and hunter-gatherers have been able to live in peaceful anarchy. But in the more prevalent modern circumstance, where resources are scarce and guns are plentiful, I don't think anarchy works very well, esp for the vulnerable. Still, I take your point and will def look at the Pueblo Indians. If I have the patience I'll educate myself a bit more on anarchy, though tbh, in the new tradition of internet debate, I may just trawl though wikipedia until I find some zingers that will support my position.
__________________ "Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953
"Would you prefer Billy or John to beat you up? Neither? Well okay then but you don't get to complain about it!"
^ Vote for the guy who wins/Vote for the guy who loses/ Don't vote - as far as I'm concerned we all retain the right to complain. i for one have never suggested taking that away from anybody.
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Something I notice is that several people are reading into the act of voting something that isn't there. I disagree with all the bolded bits declaring that a vote is more than what it is:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 66Sexy
If you vote for someone you don't agree with you are still voting for every single thing they have or will do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
Because you're giving a pass to evil? Voting for a candidate tells them "people voted for me, so I can do what I want."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
Sure, but I'm not going to do both until there is an actual candidate worth voting for. In the meantime I'll live and die doing the best I can to enjoy my life and have a net positive effect on society while the droves of idiots continue to applaud and accept disgusting individuals as suitable candidates.
To me, a vote is just a way of nudging history in a preferential direction, either nationally, as in blocking Trump's notion of governance, or locally, as Blarobbarg suggests:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blarobbarg
PS- I get it if y'all are totally fed up with politics, I am too, but at least vote on things that are local to you. School boards, local laws, county sheriffs; those have tangible effects on your community, and on you.
**** politicians for the most part, but our communities matter. Our students matter. If someone gets onto a school board who rips away funding for opportunities, for the arts, for mental health assistance, that's on your head if you did nothing about it.
That's all I really have to contribute to this garbage fire thread.
__________________ "Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
Something I notice is that several people are reading into the act of voting something that isn't there. I disagree with all the bolded bits declaring that a vote is more than what it is:
Quote:
If you vote for someone you don't agree with you are still voting for every single thing they have or will do.
What would you say of people who only voted for Trump because they knew he'd bring conservative judges? Are they only responsible for the judges or is it all of Trump's actions that they're responsible for? Because this applies to a great deal of his constituents who also felt that they were voting for the lesser of two evils.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.
Well, I'd say that the voter only has limited responsibility for what his candidate does when in office. As we all know, campaign promises are made and broken, secret agendas come to light. The voters responsibility is to make the best decision he can, according to his ideology, at the moment of voting.
If your preferred candidate has some good, some bad policies, I think you should make a value judgement as best you can; vote for him if his good outweighs his bad, or not if it's the other way round.
__________________ "Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953
Well, I'd say that the voter only has limited responsibility for what his candidate does when in office. As we all know, campaign promises are made and broken, secret agendas come to light. The voters responsibility is to make the best decision he can, according to his ideology, at the moment of voting.
If your preferred candidate has some good, some bad policies, I think you should make a value judgement as best you can; vote for him if his good outweighs his bad, or not if it's the other way round.
I don’t want to circle around but to me voting would be a degrading form of submission.
On another note, I got charged like around $600 (I forget now) for NOT having healthcare for three months. Called “shared responsibility”. No argument ever - even if I lived 1000 years will ever convince me charging me for something I didn’t receive retroactively is fair. I lost my job. Went without healthcare because I was THAT broke and then when I ****ing needed my tax returns I didn’t get it and that’s “affordable” care under the Democrats? Don’t even bother trying to justify that ****. The republicans never did me that dirty. That was the craziest justification of theft I ever saw. There’s no way I could ever ever vote for the ****wads that supported kicking me when I was down like that. That **** was nasty.
How about we take two dudes, have them lay down, and start laying stones on them. Give 'em a good 'ol Giles Corey. Then we take the one who doesn't get crushed to death and we throw him in office. Clearly he has superior capability.
![[MERIT]'s Avatar](https://www.musicbanter.com/avatars/2287.gif?dateline=1547879150)
Linear Mode
