logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 737

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

Hmm. Yet another Trump supporter banned from the site. I’m starting to notice a pattern here.

Author
Time

Mango said:

Hmm. Yet another Trump supporter banned from the site. I’m starting to notice a pattern here.

?

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time

Mango said:

Hmm. Yet another Trump supporter banned from the site. I’m starting to notice a pattern here.

I don’t even see who is banned, much less a trump supporter, or a pattern? Who is banned?

Author
Time

I believe mango was confused by MFM’s Avatar

Author
Time

But he’s not a Trump supporter. And I can’t think of anyone banned in the last few months who claimed to be one either.

.

Author
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

But he’s not a Trump supporter. And I can’t think of anyone banned in the last few months who claimed to be one either.

Mango may be confused by more things than just the avatar… I can’t explain it either.

Author
Time

I don’t know what I would’ve been banned for. I’m definitely not a Trump supporter, just thinking about him makes me throw up.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Trident said:

moviefreakedmind said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

It’s not really about mfm himself not voting, but him being a part of a massive group (perhaps majority) of non-voters who could together make real change if individually could be convinced to vote.

This is a bad line of reasoning. First of all, I hated our candidates. Yes, Hillary would’ve been infinitely better than Trump but I hate a lot of what she stands for and plus she and her DNC cronies cheated at every turn. Voting for her would’ve been selling out and degrading and disgusting to me. Also, I don’t like the idea that we just need more people to vote. Most people shouldn’t be voting. Most people are really dumb. What if someone who isn’t voting would vote for a really horrible candidate like Trump? I definitely don’t want them to vote. Basically, if you don’t vote, you’re a problem. If you vote your conscience and vote for a third party, you’re a problem too. You can’t win in people like Frink’s eyes unless you lower yourself to voting for the lesser of two evils. Staying inside and relaxing after another long and shitty day at a shitty job is more appealing to me than pointlessly participating in whatever passes for democracy in this country.

Yeah. I sort of agree with you on this score.

I agree with the sentiment, but not the reasoning. A choice between two equally bad options is a choice anyone would avoid. A choice between one tolerable and one bad option isn’t really a choice either – it’s a Hobson’s Choice where you’re railroaded toward a conclusion someone else pre-ordained. A choice between two good options with differing qualities is the sort of choice that makes you believe in free will again. A choice between more than two options means you live in Europe.

But in that sense it’s academic whether you thought Clinton was as bad as Trump or not. The very fact that The Howling Abyss was one of the options on the ballot meant that, at best, this time around people got a Hobson’s Choice. If you chafe at such a thing, that’s a big problem.

But to misquote Donald Rumsfeld, you vote in the election you have, not in the election you wish you had. If you find yourself frequently wishing for different elections, or bemoaning “whatever passes for democracy in this country”, there are things you can do – some of them are hard work and will accomplish very little, some of them are not much work and accomplish nothing, such are your bad choices when you want to change an entrenched system. If you want better political parties, change the system so that different political parties or candidates can be relevant. Campaign finance reform, open primary systems, public financing, redistricting reform, national popular vote, proportional representation, and so on. Heck, think big and go full parliamentary system. Usually these things start local at the city level and filter up, and it can take decades. You might not feel good about your voting options until you’re 90, or your kids are 90, but that’s still better than never. I’m not necessarily advocating for these things myself, but if improving the quality of the two parties is a big deal to you, or making third parties relevant is a big deal to you, these are all worth considering. Voting for third parties in a system in which they are irrelevant, however, truly is equivalent to staying home.

Great, but how does this change the math of being just one voter in a sea full of voters who are dead-set on doing the craziest and most irresponsible thing possible (i.e. living in Oklahoma)? It doesn’t. But ask Doug Jones how that math sometimes can still work out when conditions are right.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah that’s all way too much work. I don’t enjoy life enough to devote myself to any of that shit. If elections in this country keep failing to provide me with candidates that inspire me enough to leave my home and vote for them, then I will continue to not vote for them.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

I think voting for none of the above is a meaningful choice. Third parties have little hope if we must insist they can’t win. I get the pragmatic consideration of picking somebody who can win, who is even marginally better, but there are other valid ways of weighing who to vote for.

I’m fine with Frink or whoever else thinking it’s crazy, but in the last election I didn’t see a marginally better choice.

The notion that everybody should obviously have voted for Clinton is nonsense. I think all of America should have refrained from voting in 2016.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah that’s all way too much work. I don’t enjoy life enough to devote myself to any of that shit. If elections in this country keep failing to provide me with candidates that inspire me enough to leave my home and vote for them, then I will continue to not vote for them.

How very un-American.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

I think voting for none of the above is a meaningful choice. Third parties have little hope if we must insist they can’t win. I get the pragmatic consideration of picking somebody who can win, who is even marginally better, but there are other valid ways of weighing who to vote for.

I’m fine with Frink or whoever else thinking it’s crazy, but in the last election I didn’t see a marginally better choice.

Do you still feel that way now?

The notion that everybody should obviously have voted for Clinton is nonsense. I think all of America should have refrained from voting in 2016.

I think the notion that everybody should have refrained from voting is nonsense.

Author
Time

I think there should be a legitimate “none of the above option” and a requirement if no one wins actual majority of the vote, there must be a runoff

.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well if you’re a zillionaire there’s another option. Let’s say hypothetically Amazon had chosen to put its HQ2 in Oklahoma City or thereabouts. Assuming it’s on par with HQ1, you’d get about 40,000 people at Amazon itself, with 1,100 people moving to the area per week (the current rate in Seattle) to make money supporting that tech boom.

There are 136,911 more registered Republicans than Democrats in Oklahoma*. I realize that’s throwing out independents and libertarians, and assuming no RINOs or DINOs, but we have to start somewhere. You also can’t know the makeup of these tech workers, but I think it’s safe to assume they skew way more liberal than Oklahoma on average. So at least theoretically, you could have Democrats outnumbering Republicans within two years. That’s what happens when your electoral dominance hinges on support in less-populated states. Get enough California retirees flowing into Missoula, and Montana starts looking pretty purple (this is actually happening too, but it’s slower than the HQ2 scenario).

* Voter registration numbers are always closer than you’d think in “deep red” or “deep blue” states, because once the margins are beyond a certain value, the minority party’s voters don’t bother to show up, and the size of the margin is exaggerated in vote totals.

Third parties have little hope if we must insist they can’t win

Third parties have no hope whether or not we observe that they can’t win, until we change the political system to permit them to win. And voting for them really doesn’t qualify as changing the political system, it’s just easier.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Hillary’s loss isn’t just Hillary’s fault. It is, but it is also the fault of the Democratic National Committee. A lot of people hated Hillary because of perceived corruption on her part, and the fact that the DNC railroaded Bernie and Hillary then hired Debbie Schultz afterward didn’t help such perceptions.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

Hillary’s loss isn’t just Hillary’s fault. It is, but it is also the fault of the Democratic National Committee. A lot of people hated Hillary because of perceived corruption on her part, and the fact that the DNC railroaded Bernie and Hillary then hired Debbie Schultz afterward didn’t help such perceptions.

Yes, it’s her fault. And the DNC’s fault. And Comey. And the Fox News/Infowars/Breitbart ecosystem. And Russia. And Wikileaks. And Facebook/Twitter. And racists. And sexists. And on and on and on. And it’s all true, all of it.

The election was way too close to pretend there was one just one thing to blame, or even just a few things.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Third parties have no hope whether or not we observe that they can’t win, until we change the political system to permit them to win. And voting for them really doesn’t qualify as changing the political system, it’s just easier.

This. And also it’s like the similar point above that “no one should vote, that’ll teach 'em.” Sounds great, won’t ever happen.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think voting for none of the above is a meaningful choice. Third parties have little hope if we must insist they can’t win. I get the pragmatic consideration of picking somebody who can win, who is even marginally better, but there are other valid ways of weighing who to vote for.

I’m fine with Frink or whoever else thinking it’s crazy, but in the last election I didn’t see a marginally better choice.

Do you still feel that way now?

We can never know how terrible (or not) it would have been under Clinton so I can’t say. Trump has exceeded my (low) expectations in some areas to advance conservative causes. Maybe Clinton would have been like her husband and made deals to pass conservative policies with the GOP congress and maybe she’d have us more heavily involved in Syria. Too many what ifs.

The notion that everybody should obviously have voted for Clinton is nonsense. I think all of America should have refrained from voting in 2016.

I think the notion that everybody should have refrained from voting is nonsense.

That’s fair, but it would have been the right thing to do.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

it would have been the right thing to do.

Not in a democracy it wouldn’t have been.