We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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

No, I was describing your contrarianism, in response to something TM said.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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

If I thought that, I'd have voted for Trump.

I don't know how to say this more concisely: To vote for the third party is to vote against the two choices offered. It is not a vote for one's pocketbook. Logically, it cannot be so. If I were voting my pocketbook, the calculation would have been:

Trump: Probably lower taxes, more economic activity in the short term, but possible market/economic damage outweighing any gain in taxes avoided.

Hillary: Probably higher taxes, unsure future in re economic activity, but more stability going forward.

It's nearly a push. But Trump edges her out.

Instead, I voted for a third party candidate, against immediate interest.

So I'm voting selfishly how again?

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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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

Trump's "brilliant marketing" was to put the racism, xenophobia and misogyny right up front. What's this behind-the-scene nonsense you're on about?

Yeah, if you talk to a Trump voter, they aren't copping to being there for that. But why wouldn't you believe their actions over their words?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but who the fuck cares? I don't give a shit about his ridiculous contrarian urges that require he be on the opposite side of whatever, whenever. I don't care about what he's interested in chatting about. I care about actions. You can talk all the shit you want. But if your actions lead to Sessions running Justice, then you might as well be in favor of for-profit prisons, eliminating scientific evidentiary standards, bringing back the drug war with all the destruction that causes black and brown people, eliminating any advances made during the last Administration towards holding police departments accountable for their institutional racism, etc. ad fucking naseum.

He votes his wallet. Period. That's all that matters. The fact that he thinks it's irrational for anyone to not do exactly that means he is unreachable. And that translates to a message to notbob and anyone else of "Don't waste your fucking breath."

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Bernie is running again!

God save us.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

He votes his wallet. Period.

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

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.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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

Except it's not. It's to abstain. It's literally saying, "I don't care, you guys decide."

If I were voting my pocketbook, the calculation would have been:

Trump: Probably lower taxes, more economic activity in the short term, but possible market/economic damage outweighing any gain in taxes avoided.

Hillary: Probably higher taxes, unsure future in re economic activity, but more stability going forward.

Or you could have considered all of the bad non-economic things we spent so much time telling you were likely to happen under Trump, and the good things that could happen under Hillary. Especially given how much you declared your devotion to criminal justice reform.

As an aside, you really need to stop thinking that politics matters so much to the economy.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

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

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

Yes. Hank made a good point there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes. Hank made a good point there.

Not if they didn't vote in 2012.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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

TM

I voted for John Kerry as well. That was a straight up vote against self-interest. Iraq pissed me off so I protest voted against Bush.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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

I was not sure I'd be in the same position either way. As I noted above, I thought Trump would be incrementally better short term. I could not vote for him because I found him too ludicrous and unfit.