Jill Stein: There is a Plan B for Sanders' Supporters looking to waste their vote - Polidicks

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50488362]It is? Well fuck that then.[/QUOTE] Australian Greens [quote]The Australian Greens believe that: The world should be free of nuclear weapons and the nuclear fuel chain. There is a strong link between the mining and export of uranium and nuclear weapons proliferation. The use of nuclear weapons, nuclear accidents or attacks on reactors pose unacceptable risk of catastrophic consequences. Future generations must not be burdened with dangerous levels of radioactive waste. Nuclear power is not a safe, clean, timely, economic or practical solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Australia's reliance on the United States nuclear weapons 'umbrella' lends our bases, ports and infrastructure to the US nuclear war fighting apparatus, and is in conflict with our national sovereignty.[/quote] UK Green Party [quote]EN261 We will cancel construction of new nuclear stations and nuclear power will not be eligible for government subsidy; the Green Party opposes all nuclear power generation and is particularly opposed to the construction of new nuclear power stations, electricity from which is likely to be significantly more expensive per unit supplied than other low-carbon energy sources, and too slow to deploy to meet our pressing energy needs. Cancellation will avoid the costs and dangers of nuclear energy and waste being passed on to future generations long after any benefits have been exhausted.[/quote] German Alliance 90/The Greens (taken from Wikipedia as their website is in German obviously) [quote]From the inception of the party, they have been concerned with the immediate halt of construction or operation of all nuclear power stations. As an alternative, they promote a shift to alternative energy and a comprehensive program of energy conservation.[/quote] Etc etc Not that I disagree with their views; the collective boner on Facepunch for nuclear energy is barely justified

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50486678] It is nothing. If you aren't looking to exercise political power to get what you want done, then you should give up on politics because you're wasting your time. [/QUOTE] It's amazing how people can't see how incredibly insulting it is to tell another "don't bother voting" because they disagree with their preferences. Imagine being so angry for another voting for someone we all know won't win just to stick to their personal principles. How stupid does one have to be to get to that level?

[QUOTE=sb27;50488512]the collective boner on Facepunch for nuclear energy is barely justified[/QUOTE] It is though, Nuclear energy is the cleanest, most renewable energy source we have available. It also kills the least amount of people and pollutes the least for per watt of energy produced. It will be the future of energy as our demands for electrical energy increase, especially as we begin to rely on it for charging an increasing electrically powered market and labor force (Electric cars and increased automation being two of the big ones). I'm pretty certain that it's mostly demonized and expansion of it's usage has been blocked by lobbyists who's primary backers are fossil fuel companies who would lose the vast portion of their demand if we took significant strides with nuclear.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;50487665]That's not how it works.[/QUOTE] If you're in a swing state where it's uncertain which of the two major parties will win, then yes, that's exactly how it works. If you're in states like Texas or New York that are rather certain, then it really doesn't matter who you vote for.

d

[QUOTE=sb27;50488512] Not that I disagree with their views; the collective boner on Facepunch for nuclear energy is barely justified[/QUOTE] [URL="http://physics.kenyon.edu/people/sullivan/PHYS102/PHYS102F12Lecture15.pdf"]Nuclear Energy is the safest and cleanest source of energy currently available.[/URL]

[QUOTE=Octavius;50488769]You can't take a vote away from someone if they were never going to get it. It's pretty simple.[/QUOTE] That's beside the point. If you're in a swing state, any non-Hillary vote in favor of another liberal party is a Trump vote. The spoiler effect is a very easy concept to understand and it's a natural product of the system we have. Whether or not Hillary would have ever gotten that vote doesn't change the fact that it helps Trump.

[QUOTE=daschnek;50488919]That's beside the point. If you're in a swing state, any non-Hillary vote in favor of another liberal party is a Trump vote. The spoiler effect is a very easy concept to understand and it's a natural product of the system we have. Whether or not Hillary would have ever gotten that vote doesn't change the fact that it helps Trump.[/QUOTE] We literally don't care. If the DNC wanted our vote, they wouldn't have selected Hillary. If Trump wins because of that, it's on them, don't blame us because the DNC selected a shitty candidate.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50488984]We literally don't care. If the DNC wanted our vote, they wouldn't have selected Hillary. If Trump wins because of that, it's on them, don't blame us because the DNC selected a shitty candidate.[/QUOTE] The DNC didn't select Hillary. The people did. By over three million more votes than Bernie.

d

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50488984]We literally don't care. If the DNC wanted our vote, they wouldn't have selected Hillary. If Trump wins because of that, it's on them, don't blame us because the DNC selected a shitty candidate.[/QUOTE] So you're saying the DNC was right, and Sanders supporters actually don't care about politics beyond their single preferred candidate? Might want to rethink that argument. If Trump wins over any appreciable amount of Bernie supporters, I can and will blame every single one of those supporters. If you don't vote, I don't care. If you vote against your best interests, yes, I care, and yes, I'll put the blame on you.

d

[QUOTE=sb27;50488512] Not that I disagree with their views; the collective boner on Facepunch for nuclear energy is barely justified[/QUOTE] the whole "Massive piles of toxic radioactive waste" thing is garbage. we (as in the whole world) don't handle nuclear waste right because its politically unfavorable to do so, it is not a limitation of the technology, it is completely political fearmongering that prevents us from having a managed waste disposal system. like take all the nuclear repositories, anti-nuclear people will winge about how we can't know for certain that 10,000 years from now nothing will happen. 10k is a stupid timespan because all of human civilization has existed less time and there's no way we are going to not have a better solution in the next 10,000 years to deal with that waste, they also worry about how in 1000 years someone will wander in there and die of radiation poisoning, which if people don't know about radiation in 1000 years then who the fuck cares because we've nuked ourselves out of existence at that point because the yucka mountain isn't like love canal, its a gigantic vault built into an already massively radioactive region of nevada, and you're just not going to wander into that thing unless the world has gone to hell and your name is max thats kind of the problem with the green party though, they almost stand for a technocracy, yet they toss science and logic out the window when it comes to stuff they disagree with, like vacines or GMOs or nuclear, which makes them not that much better than the republicans who do the same thing about the military and climate change

[QUOTE=Octavius;50489007]If Hillary was never going to get that vote, then it does not hurt her. It's exactly the point. It literally [b]cannot[/b] hurt Hillary or help Trump. This is extremely simple to understand. It would only help Trump if you assume the vote is taken away from Hillary. If the vote wasn't going to go to Hillary, then the spoiler effect is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] It's a matter of perspective. If you don't want Hillary to win, then not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary. Likewise, if you don't want Trump to win, not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump. But it doesn't change the spoiler effect because the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, have a noticeable shift against their candidate, which only benefits Trump. And if abstain from it entirely, then you have no right to complain about who wins.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50489048]the whole "Massive piles of toxic radioactive waste" thing is garbage. we (as in the whole world) don't handle nuclear waste right because its politically unfavorable to do so, it is not a limitation of the technology, it is completely political fearmongering that prevents us from having a managed waste disposal system. like take all the nuclear repositories, anti-nuclear people will winge about how we can't know for certain that 10,000 years from now nothing will happen. 10k is a stupid timespan because all of human civilization has existed less time and there's no way we are going to not have a better solution in the next 10,000 years to deal with that waste, they also worry about how in 1000 years someone will wander in there and die of radiation poisoning, which if people don't know about radiation in 1000 years then who the fuck cares because we've nuked ourselves out of existence at that point because the yucka mountain isn't like love canal, its a gigantic vault built into an already massively radioactive region of nevada, and you're just not going to wander into that thing unless the world has gone to hell and your name is max thats kind of the problem with the green party though, they almost stand for a technocracy, yet they toss science and logic out the window when it comes to stuff they disagree with, like vacines or GMOs or nuclear, which makes them not that much better than the republicans who do the same thing about the military and climate change[/QUOTE] Also Thorium reactors either are or are soon to be a thing. They don't produce nuclear waste.

[QUOTE=Octavius;50489007]If Hillary was never going to get that vote, then it does not hurt her. It's exactly the point. It literally [b]cannot[/b] hurt Hillary or help Trump. This is extremely simple to understand. It would only help Trump if you assume the vote is taken away from Hillary. If the vote wasn't going to go to Hillary, then the spoiler effect is irrelevant. [/QUOTE] Yes, however, saying that it was a vote that would never go to Hillary is just another way of saying that the vote would always favor Trump. You're trying to find a third option in a place where one doesn't exist. It's the same story with the Never Trump Republicans threatening to spoiler Trump with some other candidate, or some who are more honest and willing to say they'll either vote Hillary, or stay home with the knowledge that their non-Trump vote effectively counts as a Hillary vote. They were never going to vote for Trump, it's right in their title, but it helps Hillary and we all know it.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50489019]If you vote against your best interests, yes, I care, and yes, I'll put the blame on you.[/QUOTE] Voting for Hillary is by far the furthest thing from voting for my own interests. [QUOTE=sb27;50488998]The DNC didn't select Hillary. The people did. By over three million more votes than Bernie.[/QUOTE] Fine, then blame those voters for selecting a shitty candidate, I don't care. I didn't vote for either of the two current nominees, I don't want either of them in office, I did my part, the rest is on whoever selected those two to represent them in the first place. Don't try to blame me for not voting for a candidate I want nothing to do with.

The founding fathers are rolling in their graves over the people who literally are so ignorant they shovel the bipartisan system into their mouths, grinning a big shit filled grin and saying 'THERES NO OTHER OPTION '

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50489725]The founding fathers are rolling in their graves over the people who literally are so ignorant they shovel the bipartisan system into their mouths, grinning a big shit filled grin and saying 'THERES NO OTHER OPTION '[/QUOTE] It's just the cruel reality that was created by accident. Show me a realistic solution that isn't just a drop in the ocean.

[QUOTE=Octavius;50487717]How about you abandon your [B]crusade for mediocrity[/B] and dump the Democratic Party? Since apparently Hillary isn't capable of defeating Trump without the support of the people voting for Stein, all Hillary supporters should now vote for Stein too, right? It's the lesser of two evils! You can either continue your Hillary support or have Trump become president![/QUOTE] Is this what we're calling living in the real world now? And sadly, I don't think you realize how few of you there are. Most young voters are fickle and probably going to get swayed by November. You want real change? Start at the local level. Campaign to have a green party congressman, assemblyman, or even senator elected in your area or state. There are other offices in this country besides the presidency, which is something a lot f people here seem to forget. Because it beats staying on a carousel ride where you have pie in the sky dreams ever 4 years and then bitch when they rather obviously don't happen.

Im voting trump, for me it was either bernie or bust, and with bust i mean bust up the political system. I hope trump makes a total mess, gets impeached and pushes the republican and democrat party to breaking up into smaller parts... 2 party system is bullshit.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50490248]Im voting trump, for me it was either bernie or bust, and with bust i mean bust up the political system. I hope trump makes a total mess, gets impeached and pushes the republican and democrat party to breaking up into smaller parts... 2 party system is bullshit.[/QUOTE] the two-party system isn't caused by the parties, it's an intrinsic problem with First Past the Post. and i can guarantee you that Trump won't call for a new voting system if FPTP improves his chances

d

At this point, I honestly hope Trump wins. Hopefully, the huge responsibility that is the presidency and "leader of the free world" tempers his insanity and we continue the cycle of mediocrity. Or he fucks enough shit up to make America the laughing stock of the world and people realize (lol) what a huge mistake it was voting for someone like him, and something major changes. Not sure which makes me more apathetic to the whole process.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50487280]So let's say the Green party pulls an unprecedented 15% of the General Election vote, and the Libertarians manage to pull 15% as well. They make zero difference. Neither of them get into the presidency. Neither of them get any representatives elected. Neither of them get [i]anything[/i]. Let's say they pull an even higher, even more unprecedented [i]25% each[/i], leading to a very close four-way race. The United States' voting system requires [i]an absolute majority[/i] to win. Not a plurality, as it is in many other more proportional voting systems. An absolute majority. This means that [i]unless you win 50% or more of the electoral base[/i], Congress will decide who the president will be for you. So if we had a four-way tie between Libertarians, Greens, Democrats, and Republicans, [i]none of them would be actually capable of winning[/i]. [B]Congress would have [i]their own vote[/i] on who to elect as president.[/B] How is this more democratic?[/QUOTE] Congress are the elected representatives of the people, having them vote for the president is perfectly democratic. A 4 way split would not be a 4 way tie, more likely you get something like 30% Democrat, 25% Green, 25% Republican and 20% Libertarian. In which case the Democrats and Greens form a coalition government, Democrat President, Green Vice-President and the two parties co-operating on policy. You can do this with 3 parties too. 30% Republican, 25% Libertarian, 45% Democrat? Republican President, Libertarian VP, two parties working together to represent 55% of the country.

[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50487658]It's not fear mongering if it'S completely iustified, think about something other than your naive ideological crusade for one second and fry to realize the big picture.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the big picture is that our politics are fucked, and you're adamantly supporting it. [QUOTE=sb27;50488998]The DNC didn't select Hillary. The people did. By over three million more votes than Bernie.[/QUOTE] That's a disingenuous number, it doesn't count caucuses. [QUOTE=.Isak.;50489019]So you're saying the DNC was right, and Sanders supporters actually don't care about politics beyond their single preferred candidate? Might want to rethink that argument. If Trump wins over any appreciable amount of Bernie supporters, I can and will blame every single one of those supporters. If you don't vote, I don't care. If you vote against your best interests, yes, I care, and yes, I'll put the blame on you.[/QUOTE] Oh, but we do care about politics, and the politics are fucked up in both major parties. You're conflating not being willing to be complicit in corruption with trying to tear down the US. Our best interests are to get electoral, healthcare, and education reform. The two candidates have no interest in this. At most they'll give lip service to these ideals, but secretly work against them, or they will just say blantantly that they have no interest in those reforms. So while you advocate keeping spoopy scurry Trump from the white house, you advocate putting in a criminal with a history of blatant corruption into the white house. Also, who the fuck are you to dictate to us what our "best interests" are when you don't even seem to register the problems that we face as a nation? [QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;50490180]Is this what we're calling living in the real world now? And sadly, I don't think you realize how few of you there are. Most young voters are fickle and probably going to get swayed by November. You want real change? Start at the local level. Campaign to have a green party congressman, assemblyman, or even senator elected in your area or state. There are other offices in this country besides the presidency, which is something a lot f people here seem to forget. Because it beats staying on a carousel ride where you have pie in the sky dreams ever 4 years and then bitch when they rather obviously don't happen.[/QUOTE] You act like that's not going to happen. We've already seen several state petition the government for campaign finance reform due to the Wolf PAC organization.

[QUOTE=Octavius;50490860] It doesn't favor Trump if it wouldn't have reasonably gone to Hillary in the first place. That's the key thing to the spoiler effect. Like really, just look it up. You assume it helps the other candidate because you'd like to assume everyone is so politically close that they would have voted for a certain person in the first place.[/QUOTE] Your argument assumes that there's someone in this election to vote for besides Trump or Hillary. There is not. As much as I dislike the state of our political system, this is how it works. Third parties have only ever been useful for splitting up the base of the party they are closest to. A classic case might be George Wallace, whose 1968 run took the electoral votes of much of the south (which was the Democratic "solid south" up to 1976) and took a portion of the popular vote from Humphrey in the north. Academic debate continues on the matter, but the Greens may have already been guilty of this once during the 2000 election. Given the rather large portion of the popular vote Nader got, being able to have some of Nader's votes could have strengthened Gore's lead and netted him important electoral college votes in Florida and Ohio where the popular vote was very close. If you care about the country, you endorse whoever hurts Trump - unfortunately, unless things change radically in the next few months, that may have to be Hillary Clinton. I'd hope that instead of voting for random candidates out of spite (as much as I like Jill Stein, and I did support her in 2012) that we can at least save ourselves from 4-8 years of climate change denial, nativism, and racism in the White House. I should stipulate that I don't hate the Green Party. I want people to keep organizing and building its popularity. If you're not in a swing state, you might as well follow Chomsky's advice and vote for whoever you feel, which for him was the Green Party. However, if you're in a swing state (Ohio, Florida, Nevada, perhaps New Mexico, North Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin and others given the unpredictable nature of this election), it's wildly irresponsible to not hold your nose and vote Clinton.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50487076]And here you are advocating for continuing the cycle despite knowing that it's detrimental long-term in exchange for a short-term feel-good effect of having "your" party win, even though it's blatantly obvious that they don't give a damn about their constituents unless they have millions of dollars. Why don't you get out there and try to get election reform? Instead of pissing and moaning about how useless it all is and to just take it up the rear.[/QUOTE] Praytell, what is "my" party? Spoilers: I've only been registered for one party, and it wasn't Democrat! The plot thickens! Also I pretty much laid out how you can achieve election reform in a way that will actually see results rather than waiting until 8 months before the general and trying to fearmonger people into supporting your niche candidate in the hopes that after several successive elections where your values and ideals get absolutely bulldozed by the opposition you will finally break 51%. I'm not pissing and moaning about how useless it is and to describe my response as such shows your own level of maturity. [QUOTE=Reshy;50487076]That's what I'm going to do, if the Democrats don't put up a progressive I'll vote green, assuming they have a progressive.[/QUOTE] Terrific! That's great news! Bit of advice though, if you are going to endorse a party, maybe look at what their platform is. Small details, I know, policy, how boring. But it is good to know. [QUOTE=Reshy;50487495]This is just more fear mongering.[/QUOTE] Facts are scary. [QUOTE=Reshy;50487076]Every damn election the other party is demonized as the coming Apocalypse.[/QUOTE] This is just you being lazy and taking the negative points of either candidate and not actually looking into them yourself. It's been made abundantly clear by your post history that you don't really care about the issues and, when you do pay lip service to them, further the conspiracy theory that Clinton is going to get into the White House and suddenly become a conservative, turning againts issues she has supported and voted for for decades. There are elements of a Trump presidency that would be worse than a Clinton presidency if your goal is progressivism and you seriously need to take those into consideration. Anything less is hurting the progressive cause. [QUOTE=Reshy;50487076]They say those things, but it's rare to see them deliver. Why? Because unless their donors sign off on it they're afraid to lose their funding. Their job is less about legislation than getting elected/reelected. [/QUOTE] Because Clinton has voted for these things and they are keystone Democratic policies that pass under Democratic senates and Democratic presidents. If your retort to this is to say "Well she is lying because money in politics" then it's literally impossible to argue and you are basing your entire view on her presidency on nothing more than blind faith. [QUOTE=Reshy;50487076]Have you looked at their fiscal policies? Have you looked at what they actually do rather than what they say? Obama said he wanted transparency, but he was working to kill transparency.[/QUOTE] It's really easy to talk a big game when all you have to do is sell yourself. When you get into power you actually have to start compromising and literally every president has done this. If you think Sanders would have been able to achieve a fraction of his sweeping domestic policy without having to give in certain areas then you absolutely kidding yourself. That said, I've been show no demonstrable reason for why either candidate is lying about what they want to do. I don't see Clinton suddenly making gay marriage illegal and relaxing on gun rights, nor do I see Trump relaxing on border security. [QUOTE=Reshy;50487076]Then perhaps we should go for election reform? But wait, who wants election form when it would threaten the main parties? It'll [B]never ever[/B] come from the democrats or republicans, they are heavily invested in the status quo. You want to remove the spoiler effect? Then we need to actually get that legislation through, and that will involve electing people that aren't from the status quo. Get it?[/QUOTE] What legislation? [QUOTE=Reshy;50487076]And this shitty attitude of yours just ensures that it will never ever happen, because you advocate giving up. [/QUOTE] I specifically advocated not giving up and pursuing ways of gaining more progressive representation in Congress, where the vast majority of domestic policy comes from anyway. If anyone here has a shitty attitude it's you, attributing nastiness to anyone who disagrees with your personal route to progressive/liberal ideals. It would be ironic coming from a Sanders supporter, if it weren't so sad. [QUOTE=soulharvester;50489208]Voting for Hillary is by far the furthest thing from voting for my own interests. [/QUOTE] I'd say that depends on your interest. If your interest is guns, probably not. If it's health insurance or a decent education then yeah, I could see supporting Clinton over Trump. [QUOTE=soulharvester;50488737]It is though, Nuclear energy is the cleanest, most renewable energy source we have available. It also kills the least amount of people and pollutes the least for per watt of energy produced. It will be the future of energy as our demands for electrical energy increase, especially as we begin to rely on it for charging an increasing electrically powered market and labor force (Electric cars and increased automation being two of the big ones). I'm pretty certain that it's mostly demonized and expansion of it's usage has been blocked by lobbyists who's primary backers are fossil fuel companies who would lose the vast portion of their demand if we took significant strides with nuclear.[/QUOTE] Fun Fact: Clinton was the only one of Sanders, Trump, and herself to back nuclear energy and propose researching and developing advancements in nuclear technology. Of course entirely unrelated to the above, you don't seem to care about nuclear that much. [QUOTE=No Party Hats;50489725]The founding fathers are rolling in their graves over the people who literally are so ignorant they shovel the bipartisan system into their mouths, grinning a big shit filled grin and saying 'THERES NO OTHER OPTION '[/QUOTE] You know that the founding fathers pretty much immediately split into two camps, Federalist and Anti-Federalist (both with wildly different views of America) directly after winning their independence, right? [QUOTE=ElectricSquid;50487655]You assume that someone voting for Stein gives a shit about either Trump or Hillary. One of the two is going to win, and either result is just one flavor of a shitty future. Neither side is better than the other, so why contribute to a win for either when you can use your vote to show support for something that [I]isn't[/I] a part of the shit-show?[/QUOTE] They both might have shitty personalities (still say Trump is worse but its subjective w/e) but they have fairly stark policy differences and saying "neither side is better than the other" really isn't accurate unless you are actually a nihilist. [QUOTE=Octavius;50487717]How about you abandon your crusade for mediocrity and dump the Democratic Party? Since apparently Hillary isn't capable of defeating Trump without the support of the people voting for Stein, all Hillary supporters should now vote for Stein too, right? It's the lesser of two evils! You can either continue your Hillary support or have Trump become president![/QUOTE] Show me the polls that have Stein winning over Trump and I'll gladly join your crusade over my crusade of winning 90% of what I want instead of losing 100%.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;50483761]Does America do [b]anything[/b] better than other first world countries? Besides imprisonment per capita[/QUOTE] Our restaurants serve bigger portions for lower prices. This is why lot of us are chubby or fat. TLDR Big Macs, Fuck Yeah!

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50492691]You know that the founding fathers pretty much immediately split into two camps, Federalist and Anti-Federalist (both with wildly different views of America) directly after winning their independence, right?[/QUOTE] Washington was actually opposed to political parties and didn't like the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists, but there wasn't anything he could do about it. It was inevitable.