Bernie Sanders: ‘This is not the time for a protest vote’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51062888]this mindset makes no fucking sense.[/QUOTE] How? She did nearly every dirty trick in the book to prevent Sanders from winning, as well as lie about a fuck lot. I will never vote for someone who stoops to those tactics, if I found out Jill or Gary was ever found guilty of doing these things I'd sit this election out. [editline]17th September 2016[/editline] I do not believe in voting for abuser of the political system, even if they followed every single thing I believe in and had 90% chance of winning.

Do people just ignore the parts of these threads where it is repeatedly explained very clearly what causes America to be a two-party state? Because every single one of these threads has someone barge in and bitch about people voting for candidates they don't like as if the only thing that's preventing us from beating the system is a lack of collective willpower.

[QUOTE=lavacano;51063333]Sanders is acting totally out of character, and I don't believe he's saying this entirely of his own free will. Pardon the tweet from Stein, but I can't find this quote anywhere else: [media]https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/752946922500096000[/media] The fact that he's saying "don't vote third party" now tells me one of two things: he really is a backstabbing traitor and politician after all, or someone's preparing all his speeches for him now. I'd really rather not believe the former.[/QUOTE] Do you really not see how having a candidate who is completely incompetent at policy-making, who goes against Sander's most important policy positions would lead him to think that during this election cycle voting against Trump is more important than supporting a third party? Anyway, simply voting third party is not the route to a viable third party in the long term, and it can heavily work against one's best interests in the short term. Time and time again we've seen that the overarching systems of US government do not allow for a viable third party. Any time a third party has gained significant popularity, it hasn't remained there and coexisted with the other two parties, it has either a. Split the vote, ironically helping the party on the opposite side of the spectrum or b. Replaced one of the parties altogether, leading to, you guessed it, the same two-party system You have to change the whole damn system in order for three parties to be viable at once. Now [I]that[/I] is not easy to do. You need enormous changes to the political process and maybe even a constitutional amendment. That's an enormous political shift that's going to have to come from at least one of the two political parties in power, probably both. Maybe a new party could take over and become one of the two top dogs, and spearhead a movement to make three parties viable at once. But that would require enormous political power that Sanders knows no party other than the dems and repubs are anywhere near close enough to having. So since we aren't anywhere near scenario b., the only outcome of voting third party this election is scenario a., which means throwing the vote and giving the election to [I]Donald Trump[/I]. Sanders knows that whatever benefits a democratic socialist party might gain from extra votes this election, it will be outweighed by giving this election to a candidate who would do so much to go against their actual policy.

[QUOTE=Megadave;51062747]Sorry Bernie, but I will not vote for your abuser.[/QUOTE] Not voting is an option, just don't vote against your or your country's interests for the sake of 'sticking it to the man' that's all

[QUOTE=1legmidget;51062918] Americans deserve better than two bottom of the barrel candidates.[/QUOTE] To be brutally honest, this is exactly what (uneducated) Americans deserve. And the worst part, is that these people will always be as clueless as lemmings running off a cliff.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;51063291]You know, if everyone just like you actually voted for him, he'd win. We have a third of the millennial vote, we are very popular with the military, etc. We have a chance, but no, we should vote for either a crook who belongs in federal prison, or a billionaire who is pure scum. Luckily millions of Americans are disagreeing with that and actually are prepared to vote for better.[/QUOTE] That's not how politics works. Even if Johnson got a huge popular vote, not enough people in Congress like him enough to cast their vote. This entire third party reasoning of "well if you keep saying he won't win then he never will!" is fucking stupid. You can't elect a third party candidate, hell, ANY candidate with votes from normal citizens. This is a literal fact.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51063606]I wasn't even arguing that higher taxes = better economy, I was saying that of the two Trump is markedly more beneficial to corporations than Clinton based purely on what they have announced as their platform.[/QUOTE] The US already taxes businesses almost twice what the worst offenders do in Europe, so can we really afford any more governmental programs? Do you not see how this is a problem?

[QUOTE=lavacano;51063333]Sanders is acting totally out of character, and I don't believe he's saying this entirely of his own free will. Pardon the tweet from Stein, but I can't find this quote anywhere else: [media]https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/752946922500096000[/media] The fact that he's saying "don't vote third party" now tells me one of two things: he really is a backstabbing traitor and politician after all, or someone's preparing all his speeches for him now. I'd really rather not believe the former.[/QUOTE] he sees the danger that Trump presents as a candidate, he's not being held captive you loon. considering that he outright competed with Hillary and majorly affected the democratic platform in spite of her I seriously doubt that the DNC is going to have any sort of control over what he says

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51062855]Which is why it's so goddamned frustrating that Democrats didn't run Sanders. Looking back I feel like I should have done more personally than just voted. It seemed like none of the left-leaning people I know even knew who Sanders was.[/QUOTE] Hillary had the nomination from the day she announced she was running.

if(!now){when?}

[QUOTE=space1;51065975]The US already taxes businesses almost twice what the worst offenders do in Europe, so can we really afford any more governmental programs? Do you not see how this is a problem?[/QUOTE] They're effective tax rate is in the negatives. It says it on paper. They're not actually paying it.

[QUOTE=space1;51065975]The US already taxes businesses almost twice what the worst offenders do in Europe, so can we really afford any more governmental programs? Do you not see how this is a problem?[/QUOTE] You need to read Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and StickY ou with the Bill)

[QUOTE=Swilly;51066413]They're effective tax rate is in the negatives. It says it on paper. They're not actually paying it.[/QUOTE] Maybe if we got rid of these embezzling government agencies that allow this to continue and put forth a reasonable tax code, nobody would be incentivized to dodge taxes, nor would there be any legal way to do so.

[QUOTE=lavacano;51063333]Sanders is acting totally out of character, and I don't believe he's saying this entirely of his own free will. Pardon the tweet from Stein, but I can't find this quote anywhere else: [media]https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/752946922500096000[/media] The fact that he's saying "don't vote third party" now tells me [B]one of two things: he really is a backstabbing traitor and politician after all, or someone's preparing all his speeches for him now. I'd really rather not believe the former.[/B][/QUOTE] Or the third alternative: This election isn't a time to be fucking about with some pipe-dream. Yes, a third party would be nice, but throwing your vote at it when all that will do is feed Trump is an awful idea.

We're in for a rough four years

[QUOTE=srobins;51063011]I can't be bothered to try responding to someone so enraged by the concept of somebody abstaining from voting for someone they detest. [B]Why don't you take a breather and wipe the hot fog off your glasses and try talking like a big boy if you want to convince somebody of something.[/B][/QUOTE] What an incredibly rude and hypocritical thing to say. People can choose not to vote, but do not pretend you're supporting Sanders vision by doing so.

[QUOTE=bitches;51062427]the presidential election is not about voting for the person you want to be president; it is about voting for who you think, [I]among the only possible choices of success[/I], will do the job better protest votes accomplish nothing, seriously, nobody cares about changing their platform just because a minority decides to protest in a manner that [I]doesn't affect whether or not they get elected[/I] you won't harm hillary's campaign, or trump's campaign, by voting for a third/fourth candidate; they will NOT care if you do not harm their campaigns by voting for the other two-party candidate the time for changing the system for alternative candidates is [B]during the primaries[/B], not after the only reason I can see for voting alternative is if you TRULY have zero preference between the two primary candidates[/QUOTE] Uuuh... Maybe it's because I'm not familiar with the tactics that the retarded FPTP system spawns, but this is contradictory. You're saying that neither candidates care whether you vote third party because it doesn't harm their campaign, yet you're saying that it's a worse choice than voting for your preferred mainstream candidate. If it didn't harm the campaign of the least worst candidate then surely voting third party wouldn't be a big deal and you wouldn't have people calling others who decide to switch from democrats to third-party insane? Either switching to third party is an efficient form of protest in that it lessens the chances of winning of the candidate you would have voted for otherwise, but is risky because it could lead to them actually not winning, OR it accomplishes nothing, and doesn't harm either campaign in any way which means people like Sanders who tell people they shouldn't switch to third party are being needlessly alarmists. It's one or the other, which is it?

[QUOTE=lavacano;51063400]I'm not particularly scared of Trump because I don't reckon he's going to win. - [url=http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-millennials-pose-challenges-trump-clinton-n649046]Millenials fucking hate the guy.[/url] Last I heard, he was even in fourth place in the polls among voters under 35. You can't win an election when you're polling that badly among young people. Clinton isn't doing so well either, but... - ...even as fractured as the political landscape is nowadays, Clinton still has more solid support than Trump. Sanders supporters (especially older ones) are at least willing to vote for Clinton, if begrudgingly, and I even admit that if Stein was conveniently removed from the race somehow before election day, I'd probably vote Clinton. - Meanwhile, establishment Repubs aren't quite so happy with their candidate. [url=http://www.smobserved.com/story/2016/08/10/news/romney-mccain-bush-other-major-republicans-set-to-endorse-libertarian-gary-johnson-for-president/1713.html]Many of them, including Romney and both President Bushes are ready to endorse Gary Johnson over Trump.[/url] Combined with the fact that Johnson made it onto the ballot nationwide, and the fact that he's probably going to make it into the debates if he keeps his current momentum, and I imagine the Republicans will be a third party again soon. The possibility exists that Sanders is just not fully aware of all this, but he's a smart man, so I doubt it. [editline]16th September 2016[/editline] I feel like this is a giant scoff at the "Sanders is a traitor" thing. And honestly, I want to scoff right along with you. But this is a very real and growing sentiment among his former supporters, and something that has to be taken into consideration - people that Sanders brought into politics are now absolutely certain that Sanders is just as corrupt and corporate as Clinton, or he would not have endorsed her, never mind that whole "I'll just endorse the winner" promise he made in 2015.[/QUOTE] This is nonsense. Please do some reevaluation.

[QUOTE=adamsz;51064782]To be brutally honest, this is exactly what (uneducated) Americans deserve. And the worst part, is that these people will always be as clueless as lemmings running off a cliff.[/QUOTE] Human abyss said this years ago concerning another issue. Due all the shenanigans this election year has taught me I really cant influence the out come. Too many turds in this sea of piss trying to get their way and succeeding. Im just one dude. Ill make the best I can whatever the future may be.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51062439]Poor Bernie, a sane man with fucking insane supporters trying to explain to them why you can't just rabidly oppose the establishment like a teenager throwing a tantrum.[/QUOTE] Yes, that defines literally all Bernie supporters. :suicide:

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51063440]Putting aside the fact that Trump's economic plan is far friendly to corporations and banks than Clintons.[/QUOTE] Friendly up until the point he causes another great depression. That's bad even for the ultra-rich.

[QUOTE=space1;51066742]Maybe if we got rid of these embezzling government agencies that allow this to continue and put forth a reasonable tax code, nobody would be incentivized to dodge taxes, nor would there be any legal way to do so.[/QUOTE] Do you really think if we reduced taxes then the rich and corporations would stop dodging them out of the kindness of their own hearts? Just because they were reduced? If you really think that, you live in a fantasy world. The issue is that the people you support because they want to lower taxes are the same people that refuse to close loopholes that make it so that the rich and corporations pay barely any taxes to begin with.

[QUOTE=space1;51066742]Maybe if we got rid of these embezzling government agencies that allow this to continue and put forth a reasonable tax code, nobody would be incentivized to dodge taxes, nor would there be any legal way to do so.[/QUOTE] As long as it costs less to dodge than to pay the tax, it makes sense to dodge tax. The costs of dodging taxes probably doesn't scale linearly with the size of your corporation, so the big ones could easily justify spending, well, millions and tens of millions of dollars or however much it takes if it saves them 5% on their bill. You'd have to have absurdly low taxes for corporations to not care about trying to dodge them.

[QUOTE=lavacano;51063333]Sanders is acting totally out of character, and I don't believe he's saying this entirely of his own free will. Pardon the tweet from Stein, but I can't find this quote anywhere else: [media]https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/752946922500096000[/media] The fact that he's saying "don't vote third party" now tells me one of two things: he really is a backstabbing traitor and politician after all, or someone's preparing all his speeches for him now. I'd really rather not believe the former.[/QUOTE] Listen, if we're dealing with a standard election decision of voting for Steven Johnson or John Stevenson, I'm all for voting third party. I'm entirely in support of dismantling the system and bringing about a revolution. But when there's a candidate that seriously wants to wall off the country, use nuclear warheads, and enforce religious policing, you can not take chances like that.

[QUOTE=plunger435;51066790]What an incredibly rude and hypocritical thing to say. People can choose not to vote, but do not pretend you're supporting Sanders vision by doing so.[/QUOTE] It's incredibly rude and hypocritical for me to tell somebody who is calling me "fucking retarded" in multiple posts to calm down? Come off it. [editline]18th September 2016[/editline] Would the polite response have been "thank you sir, may I please have another"?

[QUOTE=Paramud;51070052]Listen, if we're dealing with a standard election decision of voting for Steven Johnson or John Stevenson, I'm all for voting third party. I'm entirely in support of dismantling the system and bringing about a revolution. But when there's a candidate that seriously wants to wall off the country, use nuclear warheads, and enforce religious policing, you can not take chances like that.[/QUOTE] Yeah this is pretty much my feeling on the subject. I'm idealistic by the standards of most people and absolutely despise the idea that you should vote tactically - Bernie Sanders would have been my first choice were I an american citizen- but I would definitely just vote for Clinton at this point because seriously fuck a Donald Trump presidency. I can't imagine a worse outcome tbh.

[QUOTE=srobins;51070404]It's incredibly rude and hypocritical for me to tell somebody who is calling me "fucking retarded" in multiple posts to calm down? Come off it. [editline]18th September 2016[/editline] Would the polite response have been "thank you sir, may I please have another"?[/QUOTE] You're calling out someone on using an insulting tone by using an insulting tone, that's why I called you a hypocrite.

I don't think I'm going to vote just because I don't want to support the party that systematically pummeled Sanders into the ground nor do I want to vote for Trump's recklessness. And on top of that, I think the government is so fundamentally flawed that no one will fix the government's problems. To be in politics is to want politics to serve oneself. That's the name of the game. No politician is going to want to undo what keeps them in power and paid, and even with Bernie in office that will not change.

For anyone who doesn't live in a battleground state, the pragmatic logic against a protest vote is self-defeating. My state is almost certainly going to Hillary, regardless of who I personally vote for, making a vote for Hillary every bit as pointless as a vote for third-party or even a vote for Trump. Why is it morally irresponsible to vote for a third-party candidate who certainly won't win, but a moral imperative to vote for the candidate who will almost certainly win the state regardless?