Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 515385)

But are you seriously asserting there weren't economic concerns baked into the decision to vote for Hillary?

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 515370)

You are wasting your fucking time. No amount of "Not everyone votes tax cuts or their wallet because some of us are invested in having a functioning government, society, world, whatever" will get through. The attitude he espouses is why we have what we have. "I vote for me. If I get a tax cut of $100 a month, the poor get fucked, and the vast majority of wealth goes up to the very rich, I'm okay with it." He doesn't really give a shit about disgusting, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, hate-filled policy because it doesn't affect him. Sure, he'll say, "Yeah, I'm against that stuff." But he doesn't really give a shit unless it affects him or his wallet directly. Until it does, Dems and Republicans are essentially the same--"invested in the status quo." He says this without really understanding or caring that one party is burning every protection for people who aren't him to the ground.

Not giving a fuck about anyone outside your manufactured isolation shell is the ultimate luxury. Save your breath.

TM

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 515381)

Not trying to discourage you at all. I read yesterday that Jill Stein raised $7m for a 2016 recount and has been spending it since then on herself, travel and staff for whatever it is she does. So maybe you can use that to convince some of those people to put their vote to a better use.

That said, it just seems to me to be harder to go to people who were motivate to vote and to change their minds, as opposed to finding people who basically agree with you and didn't bother to cast a vote. Both have their challenges, but a mind is a terrible thing to change. As we prove here on a daily basis.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 515385)

Your side is exactly and entirely what it says it is, while their side is the only group with behind-the-scenes agendas?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 515376)

Sebby is more interested in criminal-justice reform than many of us. You just have to push different buttons to get him to say that, but it comes from the same urge to be contrarian. When people talk about major party candidates, his contrarian impulse requires him to say that he votes his wallet, just to deflate the idealistic pretensions any of us might have that our vote would somehow make a difference in the world. When people talk about crimes in the news, his contrarian impulse requires him him to point out that the criminal justice system is unfair, just to deflate the idealistic pretensions any of us might have that wrongdoers are punished.

Sebby definitely gives a shit about what other people think. If we didn't have idealistic pretensions, he would not be able to deflate them. He's not a conservative, but what he shares with conservatives is a preoccupation with what his peers (a/k/a "elites") are thinking, and a desire to take them down a notch or two. But he does believe the criminal-justice system is unfair and thinks it should be more fair, unlike most conservatives, who generally like the way it perpetuates traditional heirarchies.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 515378)

Bernie is running again!

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 515389)

By definition, Green Party voters are people who care deeply about something but lack any understanding of how to accomplish it. Those are difficult people to reason with.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 515391)

He votes his wallet. Period.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 515388)

I don't know how to say this more concisely: To vote for the third party is to vote against the two choices offered.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 515388)

It's funny. Here, I'm a selfish enabler. To Trump supporting people I know, I'm a fool who didn't know he'd usher in so much new development. You just can't win.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 515393)

The 50K Stein voters that Hank mentioned -- I'd really like to know whether they voted in 2012, and if so for whom.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 515397)

Yes. Hank made a good point there.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 515394)

He voted for Gary Johnson. That's not a vote for his wallet. It's a futile gesture of privileged disaffection.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 515394)

And look, I agree that actions > talking shit, but on the other hand I spend a chunk of my life on a chatboard for lawyers, so you're going to have to take that with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 515396)

Right. You can't win when you're consistently full of shit.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 515399)

Don't let his latest bullshit fool you. He was absolutely convinced that he'd be in the exact same position either way at the time, which permitted that privileged disaffection. If he thought for a minute he'd get hit, he'd have voted for whoever he thought would get him the highest return, no matter how small.

Hey, debate is fine. We all know this shit is mostly pointless. But notbob was all, "Come on, man. Think about this perspective and that reality." That's different. That's a waste of time, breath, effort.

TM