Hillary won the popular vote, but trump took the electoral college votes... your vote means fuck all.
Missed my point. No one's disputing the fact that the electoral college sucks. But not voting for the Democrat 100% guarantees the Republican wins.
Each state apportions its electors using that state's popular vote. It's stupid, and gives backwards, rural voters more electoral power than they should have, but that doesn't mean you have none at all.
No it does not. I wouldn't vote for the Democrats anyways. So how again does my non vote exactly vote magically for the Republicans.
Well, like I said earlier, you're removing your own voice from politics because you have the luxury of ideological purity. I don't. I have kids who actually have to live in this world. I can't let outright evil scumbags who want my kids dead win just because their most viable opponents aren't perfect.
But you're apparently fine with that.
What are you talking about, what rep is wanting kids dead?
Are you kidding me? The Republican party as a whole wants LGBTQ+ kids - like both of mine - shoved back in the closet, which means suicide for lots of them, especially trans kids who are denied gender-affirming health care.
Trans kids like my son.
I can't afford to pretend to moral superiority by throwing my vote away on candidates who will never win. I have to vote for the ones who can win and won't be a danger to my kids.
Fair enough, I just don't see the Dems doing much for LGBTQ+ rights. Hell they didn't support same sex marriage until term 2 Obama. And you know Biden doesn't.
What we really need is RCV, so we can actually get better candidates
The official party platform has support for LGBTQ+ rights in it now,^1^ it was Biden who convinced Obama to get on board with it,^2^ and in states where Republicans are leading crusades to dehumanize LGBTQ+ people, it's Democrats who are suing to stop them.
Have you considered the possibility you're wrong about the Democrats?
I do agree with you that we need ranked choice voting. But until we have it, I don't really have the choice to vote for a third-party candidate who cannot win. I have to use my vote in the system we have now to support the candidate who can.
2: I love the absurd (in retrospect) tone of the articles at the time, like this one. It was all, "Biden is creating a problem for Obama by supporting gay marriage." Biden was ahead of his time by recognizing it was not only the right thing to do, but also a political winner, as the majority of the country had gotten over its hangups.
No I'm not wrong about them. They're still big busyness war hawks and still are all about corps. Along with no single payer still, and still demonize drug users. Biden still says he's hard on crime, which is pushing for locking up non violent drug offenders while letting violent criminals out. This isn't news.
I can be just as pissed with the Dems as I can the repubs. Both want to take my rights away and further their control. Neither is ok with me.
They’re still big busyness war hawks
How so? In the last 35+ years, it has been Republicans engaging in broad military adventurism. First Gulf War? Bush I. Invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq? Bush II, leaving us mired in horrible long-term wars with no way out. Trump decided to take a shit on Biden by agreeing to the U.S. just yanking American forces out of Afghanistan, and Biden handled that pretty well, given the circumstances.
Where did Biden - or Obama or Clinton, for that matter - mire U.S. forces down in wars?
Along with no single payer still
This is absurdly naive. There has been precisely one time in the last 20 years when Democrats had enough of a majority in the Senate to overcome Republican filibusters on that, and it was a brief stretch under Obama when passing a single-payer health care bill would have been impossible due to the fact that a critical vote for it would have been Ted Kennedy, who was in the process of dying from brain cancer.
Biden still says he’s hard on crime
...while doing nothing as states legalize marijuana left and right. He presents himself that way politically, but the fact of the matter is that the DOJ is ignoring states that do this now, and the path forward is clearly national legalization. And I have no idea what you mean by Biden "letting violent criminals out." Can you cite some violent criminals who were tried and convicted in federal courts who Biden let out? Draw a map for me.
Everything you cite reads like bizarre alternate-reality depictions of Democrats invented to absolve you of any guilt when Republicans do horrific things in office. "Well, Democrats are just as bad," you tell yourself. But no. They're not. Not even close.
You've been remarkably hesitant to address the fact that if Republicans gain power, my kids' lives are at risk. If you had an argument that they're equally at risk under Democrats, I'd think you'd have shared it by now. But you haven't. Please directly address that. And if you concede that it makes more sense for me to vote for Democrats, given the safety concern for my kids, please explain why that same logic doesn't apply to you.
what are we doing in Africa?
how many Democrats still in Congress voted for doma?
Wow...no it does not. How you come to the conclusion that a vote for anyone but a dem magically allows the repub to win is just false.
Math. That's how I come to that conclusion. In any state that grants all its electors to one candidate who wins a plurality or more of the votes in that state (which is most of them) this is how it works:
Say you've got two major parties, the Kicking Puppies (KP) party and the Snuggling Puppies (SP) party. Normally, the snugglers always win except for in that one weird county we don't like to talk about. Then along comes a new party: The Snuggling Kittens (SK) party. They're a small party, but they work tirelessly to pull votes... from the SPs. I mean, it's not like the KPs are going to vote for any snuggling party, right?
So come election time, the results look like this:
Kicking Puppies: 36%
Snuggling Puppies: 35%
Snuggling Kittens: 29%
By a clear, resounding majority, the state does not want to start kicking puppies. Yet with our current election system, the rise of the kitten snugglers has resulted in the puppies getting kicked.
The problem is that mostly we have first-past-the-post and winner-take-all elections. Until that changes, small parties are always going to be spoilers for whichever major party most closely aligns with them politically. Does it suck? Of course. But that's just the mathematical reality. Any vote going to a party candidate who cannot possibly win is one less vote for the one who can.
Until we change the system and start using something like ranked-choice or STAR voting, this is what we're stuck with.
And Republicans know that, which is why it's so common to find out that funding for the Green party in the United States is coming from Republicans. They're well aware of the spoiler effect that can only exists because of our fucked system.
Now you're aware of it, too.
the democrats fund republicans too. clinton bolstered trumps first primary campaign.
i don't want to support the democrats or the republicans. so i'm going to vote green.
it's my understanding that the fines for vote-sellig are $5000 in my state and the same at the federal level. for $20000 i'll vote for your preferred candidate in a swing state.
Shoo. I'm in the middle of an actual interesting conversation, and neither of us need trolls cluttering things up.
this isn't a refutation.
calling me a troll doesn't get me to vote for your candidate.
How far up your ass does your head have to go before you think you start seeing daylight?
You don't understand how the electoral college works.
I know exactly how it works. I was replying on why your vote doesn't matter much with the electoral college in place. It's designed to give rural states as much a voice as larger city style states. But ok tell me again how Hillary winning the popular vote got her elected.
Hillary won the popular vote, but trump took the electoral college votes... your vote means fuck all.
Missed my point. No one's disputing the fact that the electoral college sucks. But not voting for the Democrat 100% guarantees the Republican wins.
Each state apportions its electors using that state's popular vote. It's stupid, and gives backwards, rural voters more electoral power than they should have, but that doesn't mean you have none at all.
No it does not. I wouldn't vote for the Democrats anyways. So how again does my non vote exactly vote magically for the Republicans.
Well, like I said earlier, you're removing your own voice from politics because you have the luxury of ideological purity. I don't. I have kids who actually have to live in this world. I can't let outright evil scumbags who want my kids dead win just because their most viable opponents aren't perfect.
But you're apparently fine with that.
What are you talking about, what rep is wanting kids dead?
Are you kidding me? The Republican party as a whole wants LGBTQ+ kids - like both of mine - shoved back in the closet, which means suicide for lots of them, especially trans kids who are denied gender-affirming health care.
Trans kids like my son.
I can't afford to pretend to moral superiority by throwing my vote away on candidates who will never win. I have to vote for the ones who can win and won't be a danger to my kids.
Fair enough, I just don't see the Dems doing much for LGBTQ+ rights. Hell they didn't support same sex marriage until term 2 Obama. And you know Biden doesn't.
What we really need is RCV, so we can actually get better candidates
The official party platform has support for LGBTQ+ rights in it now,^1^ it was Biden who convinced Obama to get on board with it,^2^ and in states where Republicans are leading crusades to dehumanize LGBTQ+ people, it's Democrats who are suing to stop them.
Have you considered the possibility you're wrong about the Democrats?
I do agree with you that we need ranked choice voting. But until we have it, I don't really have the choice to vote for a third-party candidate who cannot win. I have to use my vote in the system we have now to support the candidate who can.
1: You can read it for yourself here: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2020-democratic-party-platform. Search for "LGBTQ". There's an entire section on protecting healthcare services for LGBTQ+ people.
2: I love the absurd (in retrospect) tone of the articles at the time, like this one. It was all, "Biden is creating a problem for Obama by supporting gay marriage." Biden was ahead of his time by recognizing it was not only the right thing to do, but also a political winner, as the majority of the country had gotten over its hangups.
No I'm not wrong about them. They're still big busyness war hawks and still are all about corps. Along with no single payer still, and still demonize drug users. Biden still says he's hard on crime, which is pushing for locking up non violent drug offenders while letting violent criminals out. This isn't news.
I can be just as pissed with the Dems as I can the repubs. Both want to take my rights away and further their control. Neither is ok with me.
How so? In the last 35+ years, it has been Republicans engaging in broad military adventurism. First Gulf War? Bush I. Invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq? Bush II, leaving us mired in horrible long-term wars with no way out. Trump decided to take a shit on Biden by agreeing to the U.S. just yanking American forces out of Afghanistan, and Biden handled that pretty well, given the circumstances.
Where did Biden - or Obama or Clinton, for that matter - mire U.S. forces down in wars?
This is absurdly naive. There has been precisely one time in the last 20 years when Democrats had enough of a majority in the Senate to overcome Republican filibusters on that, and it was a brief stretch under Obama when passing a single-payer health care bill would have been impossible due to the fact that a critical vote for it would have been Ted Kennedy, who was in the process of dying from brain cancer.
...while doing nothing as states legalize marijuana left and right. He presents himself that way politically, but the fact of the matter is that the DOJ is ignoring states that do this now, and the path forward is clearly national legalization. And I have no idea what you mean by Biden "letting violent criminals out." Can you cite some violent criminals who were tried and convicted in federal courts who Biden let out? Draw a map for me.
Everything you cite reads like bizarre alternate-reality depictions of Democrats invented to absolve you of any guilt when Republicans do horrific things in office. "Well, Democrats are just as bad," you tell yourself. But no. They're not. Not even close.
You've been remarkably hesitant to address the fact that if Republicans gain power, my kids' lives are at risk. If you had an argument that they're equally at risk under Democrats, I'd think you'd have shared it by now. But you haven't. Please directly address that. And if you concede that it makes more sense for me to vote for Democrats, given the safety concern for my kids, please explain why that same logic doesn't apply to you.
what are we doing in Africa?
how many Democrats still in Congress voted for doma?
Wow...no it does not. How you come to the conclusion that a vote for anyone but a dem magically allows the repub to win is just false.
Math. That's how I come to that conclusion. In any state that grants all its electors to one candidate who wins a plurality or more of the votes in that state (which is most of them) this is how it works:
Say you've got two major parties, the Kicking Puppies (KP) party and the Snuggling Puppies (SP) party. Normally, the snugglers always win except for in that one weird county we don't like to talk about. Then along comes a new party: The Snuggling Kittens (SK) party. They're a small party, but they work tirelessly to pull votes... from the SPs. I mean, it's not like the KPs are going to vote for any snuggling party, right?
So come election time, the results look like this:
By a clear, resounding majority, the state does not want to start kicking puppies. Yet with our current election system, the rise of the kitten snugglers has resulted in the puppies getting kicked.
The problem is that mostly we have first-past-the-post and winner-take-all elections. Until that changes, small parties are always going to be spoilers for whichever major party most closely aligns with them politically. Does it suck? Of course. But that's just the mathematical reality. Any vote going to a party candidate who cannot possibly win is one less vote for the one who can.
Until we change the system and start using something like ranked-choice or STAR voting, this is what we're stuck with.
And Republicans know that, which is why it's so common to find out that funding for the Green party in the United States is coming from Republicans. They're well aware of the spoiler effect that can only exists because of our fucked system.
Now you're aware of it, too.
the democrats fund republicans too. clinton bolstered trumps first primary campaign.
i don't want to support the democrats or the republicans. so i'm going to vote green.
it's my understanding that the fines for vote-sellig are $5000 in my state and the same at the federal level. for $20000 i'll vote for your preferred candidate in a swing state.
Shoo. I'm in the middle of an actual interesting conversation, and neither of us need trolls cluttering things up.
this isn't a refutation.
calling me a troll doesn't get me to vote for your candidate.
How far up your ass does your head have to go before you think you start seeing daylight?
You don't understand how the electoral college works.
I know exactly how it works. I was replying on why your vote doesn't matter much with the electoral college in place. It's designed to give rural states as much a voice as larger city style states. But ok tell me again how Hillary winning the popular vote got her elected.