Plus it's unlikely to change anyone's mind. At this point you're either pro or anti Trump and you've had at least eight years to pick your side.
That whole attitude of picking sides is what got us in this mess to begin with
... Picking a side is literally what an election is.
A side as opposed to either side is how it should be. But don’t take my word for it, George Washington allegedly warned us of the potential perils of a two-party system on his deathbed but I’m unsure if that is common myth or actually true
George Washington eschewed political parties because he didn't want to establish a precedent where his choice as first president set the standard everyone else had to conform to, and there's a little irony in people holding him up as an example in that light more than 200 years later.
He, and the other founders largely, disliked political parties in their entirety, not just having some specific number of them.
They also built the system that enshrined the two party dichotomy as the only option, actively sought to ensure that the "right" people could override the will of the people if needed, and founded the parties they had previously argued against.
They are far from infallible bastions of correctness in this matter.
It's what modern elections are, and maybe even all historical elections, though I'm not old enough to determine that. What elections should be is throwing your support behind someone that you think is going to be beneficial for everyone. I know that is idealistic, and unfortunately the current system makes that basically impossible, but Washington said that partisan politics would be the downfall of this country, and his words are playing out in front of us. I really wish we would throw the parties, and lobbyists, out and force candidates to run on policy and merit.
See, you're talking partisan politics, I'm talking "you literally have to pick someone". We've had these candidates before. You already know which one you're going to vote for. You picked your side four years ago when you were asked the same question.
Beyond that though, there's "parties" and then theirs "sides". One side is xenophobic, homophobic and actively wishes harm on a lot of people. The other side doesn't, for all their flaws.
There are more parties than there are sides in the past few elections.
By saying you think you should vote for someone who will be good for everyone, you've picked a side. The side that doesn't want to do good for only the "right" people, or make sure only the "right" people get hurt.
The only question is if you'll vote for that side to win, or if you'll let idealism or anger drive you to vote otherwise.
I shall, once again, for the 6th time in my life, hold my nose and vote for the milquetoast candidate the DNC has foisted on us. I wish we had RCV so I could vote for someone good, like Bernie, or heck I'd almost take Vermin Supreme at this point.
Dude, have you actually read vermin Supremes platform, or rather his actual political philosophy and beliefs?
I read through some of them once, and had the horrifying realization that the contemporary political figure that I think I agree with most closely is:
unelectable
best known for wearing a boot on his head
I couldn't find where a lot of his actual opinions got discussed a bit more formally, but this random video snippet from 2008 does a decent job capturing it.
If I had (got? Got. I'd love to need to make the choice) to pick between a democratic socialist or a social anarchist, I think I'd honestly lean towards the social anarchist, all things being equal.
I just know he wants free ponies for all. Never considered him a serious candidate.
Oh yeah, he's totally not a viable candidate, but he does have an actual political philosophy and opinions that are surprisingly agreeable. He just lacks the actual political fortitude or will to get elected.
Yeah crazy that people have to pick the fascist or not fascist side haha
They're both fascists.
They're both right wing, but moderate right wing bought by corporate interests isn't the same as fascist. It's trending towards fascism, sure, but it's less likely to go on a killing spree.
bOth ARe tHe sAMe!!!!
They are, if you're older than 11
When's your 11th birthday coming up?
10 years from now
You have no idea what fascism means. Stop making yourself look dumb.
It's obviously a common vernacular simplification from authoritarian with a broad definition. This is a commonplace and accepted vernacular in most modern western media based social media outlets.
Fascist can be liberal, they can also be conservative. Or communist. Or almost anything. More often fascists will lie and say they are more socialist than many of their policies would lead you to reasonably expect.
Grown ups are talking. Go play outside. You obviously need to touch grass, child.
Plus it's unlikely to change anyone's mind. At this point you're either pro or anti Trump and you've had at least eight years to pick your side.
That whole attitude of picking sides is what got us in this mess to begin with
... Picking a side is literally what an election is.
A side as opposed to either side is how it should be. But don’t take my word for it, George Washington allegedly warned us of the potential perils of a two-party system on his deathbed but I’m unsure if that is common myth or actually true
George Washington eschewed political parties because he didn't want to establish a precedent where his choice as first president set the standard everyone else had to conform to, and there's a little irony in people holding him up as an example in that light more than 200 years later.
He, and the other founders largely, disliked political parties in their entirety, not just having some specific number of them.
They also built the system that enshrined the two party dichotomy as the only option, actively sought to ensure that the "right" people could override the will of the people if needed, and founded the parties they had previously argued against.
They are far from infallible bastions of correctness in this matter.
It's what modern elections are, and maybe even all historical elections, though I'm not old enough to determine that. What elections should be is throwing your support behind someone that you think is going to be beneficial for everyone. I know that is idealistic, and unfortunately the current system makes that basically impossible, but Washington said that partisan politics would be the downfall of this country, and his words are playing out in front of us. I really wish we would throw the parties, and lobbyists, out and force candidates to run on policy and merit.
See, you're talking partisan politics, I'm talking "you literally have to pick someone". We've had these candidates before. You already know which one you're going to vote for. You picked your side four years ago when you were asked the same question.
Beyond that though, there's "parties" and then theirs "sides". One side is xenophobic, homophobic and actively wishes harm on a lot of people. The other side doesn't, for all their flaws.
There are more parties than there are sides in the past few elections.
By saying you think you should vote for someone who will be good for everyone, you've picked a side. The side that doesn't want to do good for only the "right" people, or make sure only the "right" people get hurt.
The only question is if you'll vote for that side to win, or if you'll let idealism or anger drive you to vote otherwise.
I shall, once again, for the 6th time in my life, hold my nose and vote for the milquetoast candidate the DNC has foisted on us. I wish we had RCV so I could vote for someone good, like Bernie, or heck I'd almost take Vermin Supreme at this point.
Dude, have you actually read vermin Supremes platform, or rather his actual political philosophy and beliefs?
I read through some of them once, and had the horrifying realization that the contemporary political figure that I think I agree with most closely is:
unelectable
best known for wearing a boot on his head
I couldn't find where a lot of his actual opinions got discussed a bit more formally, but this random video snippet from 2008 does a decent job capturing it.
If I had (got? Got. I'd love to need to make the choice) to pick between a democratic socialist or a social anarchist, I think I'd honestly lean towards the social anarchist, all things being equal.
I just know he wants free ponies for all. Never considered him a serious candidate.
Oh yeah, he's totally not a viable candidate, but he does have an actual political philosophy and opinions that are surprisingly agreeable. He just lacks the actual political fortitude or will to get elected.
Yeah crazy that people have to pick the fascist or not fascist side haha
They're both fascists.
They're both right wing, but moderate right wing bought by corporate interests isn't the same as fascist. It's trending towards fascism, sure, but it's less likely to go on a killing spree.
bOth ARe tHe sAMe!!!!
They are, if you're older than 11
When's your 11th birthday coming up?
10 years from now
You have no idea what fascism means. Stop making yourself look dumb.
It's obviously a common vernacular simplification from authoritarian with a broad definition. This is a commonplace and accepted vernacular in most modern western media based social media outlets.
Fascist can be liberal, they can also be conservative. Or communist. Or almost anything. More often fascists will lie and say they are more socialist than many of their policies would lead you to reasonably expect.
Grown ups are talking. Go play outside. You obviously need to touch grass, child.