Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

ParaGoomba Slayer September 16th, 2016 06:54 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2108269)
Quote:

Originally Posted by ParaGoomba Slayer (Post 2108189)
Hillary has to win because women should have the right to their own bodies. A blastocyst or a fetus is not a person, therefore it should not override the rights of a an actual person.

Okay, so if that is your single most important issue, Gary Johnson is the much better presidential candidate with that stance.

Since it's my single most important issue, I'm not going to throw away my vote on a third party candidate.

Dad_Scaper September 16th, 2016 09:26 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Yup. As I said earlier in this thread about third party candidates, my vote is both more precious and less precious than that. I don't care to own a bumper sticker that says "don't blame me," I just want not to have a xenophobic incompetent narcissist as President.

Nukatha September 17th, 2016 10:46 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
And I'm never going to throw my vote away either of these two.
How the heck do you personally determine a 'wasted vote'? It seems to me that by your metric, any vote for an individual who lost the election was wasted.

You have two individuals so entrenched in the cronyism and corruption that both exploit daily to their benefit. How can you, in good conscience, vote *FOR* either candidate?
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1625...cy-you-see-you

Dad_Scaper September 17th, 2016 11:04 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Well, that's your opinion. In my opinion, your cynicism is dangerous to our democracy, and to world peace. Your cynicism with respect to Clinton is particularly upsetting. See dok's post, above.

Back during the primary season, I'd already read about the Clinton Foundation and I thought it might be a problem for her. Since all the coverage of it more recently, though, it turns out that the Clinton Foundation has dotted its I's and crossed its T's and has been an efficient force for good in the world. I don't understand where a well-informed person gets this incredibly toxic dislike of Clinton, but it's there. See dok's post, above.

But even if you were right, I have too much to lose. I have a job and a family and a community; I have a country and my country has its dignity. Electing the racist pumpkin would imperil all of it, *now*, in the *short term*. So I'll vote for Clinton, because I believe she's qualified and I believe the so-called "scandals" have been essentially meritless from people whose job it is to make scandals about her (and Obama, etc.). And what is a meritless accusation? Nothing. Nothing on the scale.

Against her, an unqualified narcissistic buffoon whose base is the worst of us as a nation.

So, a reason to vote for her, a reason to vote against him. You counter with a cynical comment about "cronyism and corruption," but cynicism is a point of view. Not facts.

Dysole September 17th, 2016 11:15 PM

Reasoning
 
Because although I want to fix our election system, that is not a feasible goal this election. Therefore while I am not enthused about either mainstream candidate, I will support the one more closely aligned with my views. (And it's not even a close contest; I knew my vote would be Democratic a couple months into the primaries) Until we fix the voting system, I see attempts to bring a third party candidate in as ultimately just going to kill one of the other two dominant parties or maintain its own status quo. That just swaps the faces; it doesn't eliminate the problem.

On another more personal matter, voting Democratic has sadly become a matter of survival for me even setting aside Trump. The GOP has made it very clear that they don't want me and will actively pass legislation targeting me. While I sometimes worry that the Democratic party might care more about my vote as a member of the LGBTQ bloc rather than me as a person, they haven't tried to pass legislation actively targeting me. When one of the parties in play has a theoretical future that confines you largely to the Pacific Northwest for safety concerns, you kind of get okay with the other candidate regardless of other concerns you might have.

~Dysole, who apologizes if she comes across as harsh

dok September 18th, 2016 01:01 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Dysole brings up a point I've brought up with some other people in other forums. If you can say "I'm OK with losing this election because [long game]" then you are coming from a place of privilege, where you basically think you're going to be OK no matter what happens. That's not true for a lot of people.

Additionally, you're probably:
  • Underestimating the extent of negative impact you, personally would suffer from a bad result
  • Wrong about how good that long game impact would be.
I'm going to copy something I wrote on another forum. It was addressed to someone who was leaning towards Jill Stein, but much of the content is meaningful anyway.

Spoiler Alert!

keglo September 18th, 2016 01:34 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110317)
And I'm never going to throw my vote away either of these two.
How the heck do you personally determine a 'wasted vote'? It seems to me that by your metric, any vote for an individual who lost the election was wasted.

You have two individuals so entrenched in the cronyism and corruption that both exploit daily to their benefit. How can you, in good conscience, vote *FOR* either candidate?
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1625...cy-you-see-you

Well said. I approve this message. :)

Nukatha September 18th, 2016 03:04 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dok (Post 2110332)
Dysole brings up a point I've brought up with some other people in other forums. If you can say "I'm OK with losing this election because [long game]" then you are coming from a place of privilege, where you basically think you're going to be OK no matter what happens. That's not true for a lot of people.

Additionally, you're probably:
  • Underestimating the extent of negative impact you, personally would suffer from a bad result
  • Wrong about how good that long game impact would be.
I'm going to copy something I wrote on another forum. It was addressed to someone who was leaning towards Jill Stein, but much of the content is meaningful anyway.

But I'm in the position where I honestly believe the policy that either Clinton or Trump would enact is damaging and downright dangerous to this nation. If I either result is a loss, why not take a stand?

Both, in different ways, seek to remove civil liberties of individuals. The government has no right to tell an individual to take part in an action that opposes his religious beliefs, and the government has no right to define marriage or remove an individuals method of personal defense. The government has no right to determine winners and losers in industry, yet does so now with countless subsidies to businesses and branches of industry that could not support themselves if left alone. Neither of these two candidates would do a thing about that, and would increase said support as it benefits them individually. Trump's pushed for government assistance to his personal endeavors for years, and you all know the huge donations Clinton's campaign and foundation have received from corporations over the years.

I honestly cannot see a year 2020 that actually has the United States better off then than today with either of these two in charge. You can argue all day over who is worse, but I have yet to be convinced that either is good. How horrible do your two choices need to be for you to consider a third option? I've been pushed over that line.

vegietarian18 September 18th, 2016 03:41 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party don't run their presidential campaigns with the goal of winning. If they wanted to wield political power, they could pump the funds they put into the presidential campaign into random seats in Congress and start to make little differences that way. Instead, they just want to influence the political discourse in the direction of issues they think are important. Which is just the future of our environment or your legal right to smoke marijuana, depending on which area of hippiness you prefer.

That doesn't mean you can't vote for them, if you think the issues that they push are important enough for you to give them an ever so slightly louder microphone for next time. But I think it's important to recognize that they don't have the complete platforms, experience, or support necessary to be successful as a president. It is voting for an idea rather than a difference.

What makes me sad is that I don't want to throw my vote away on a third party candidate, and I don't want Trump to win, but I don't want to support the direction I see the Democratic party going in. But I have to do one of these things. It's by far the least of the evils to vote for Hillary, but I am worried that the issues will continue to be attacked in the wrong way and we won't ever fix them but we will have to keep voting Democrat anyways.

Dysole September 18th, 2016 04:59 AM

Ahem
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 211036)
The government has no right to tell an individual to take part in an action that opposes his religious beliefs, and the government has no right to define marriage or remove an individuals method of personal defense.

Just have to say that yeah we do put limits on people's religious beliefs. You aren't allowed to use your religious beliefs to justify murder or discriminating by race.

Marriage was established as a constitutional right in the 20s and reaffirmed with Loving vs Virginia and again with Ogerfell (sp.?). As long as marriage is attached to a bunch of federal privileges, it's something they need to define.

As for firearms, overturning the 2nd amendment is hard. Like stupid hard. The one amendment we've overturned was overturning something banning something. A president has insanely little control over that.

I kinda agree with vegie but again my hand is kind of forced.

~Dysole, who really should be asleep but she knew she wouldn't sleep well if she didn't respond

Tornado September 18th, 2016 12:35 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Is that some kind of veiled birther propaganda Kuba2016?

Not sure what you are going for but I support your platform.

And btw, I will have a great. :)

Nukatha September 18th, 2016 04:55 PM

Re: Ahem
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dysole (Post 2110376)

Just have to say that yeah we do put limits on people's religious beliefs. You aren't allowed to use your religious beliefs to justify murder or discriminating by race.


Dysole, you know what I meant, and what the Libertarian stance on the topic is.
Quote:

Marriage was established as a constitutional right in the 20s and reaffirmed with Loving vs Virginia and again with Ogerfell (sp.?). As long as marriage is attached to a bunch of federal privileges, it's something they need to define.
I don't follow. The only amendment to pass in the 20s was the 19th, guaranteeing that no individual can be denied the right to vote on the basis of sex.
Show me exactly where in the Constitution marriage was ever established. Furthermore, I would argue that such legal benefits to marriage are, in fact, unconstitutional. Heck, Loving v Virginia would never have been a thing if governments had not attempted to overstep their bounds and define marriage.

Quote:

As for firearms, overturning the 2nd amendment is hard. Like stupid hard. The one amendment we've overturned was overturning something banning something. A president has insanely little control over that.

I kinda agree with vegie but again my hand is kind of forced.

~Dysole, who really should be asleep but she knew she wouldn't sleep well if she didn't respond
Oh, its absolutely hard, and for good reason. A system of government that rapidly bends to the daily whims of the populace or elected officials is chaotic and unstable. Relatively slow change is the only way to get things done on the grand scale. However, the president can still advocate for his/her causes, and as Mr. Obama and others before him have demonstrated: There are little to no consequences for overstepping one's Constitutional executive powers, allowing them to pseudo-legislate from their desk until Congress or the Court tells them otherwise.
Again, if I see the nation as worse off in 2020 than today under Clinton or Trump, then I cannot vote for either. Can you honestly say that a 2020 after 4 years of a Johnson administration would be worse than 4 years under Mrs. Clinton?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2023 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.