The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

And apparently you are in fact, loose on your principles as you continue to vote for people who do little to nothing to address issues you've been advocating on this site for years.

And apparently you are, in fact, loose on your principles as you are unwilling to cast a vote to stop the election of a person who believes that the solution to our energy problems is to have our army take over a couple of Iraqi oil fields as payment for services rendered over the past decade.

 

Spins both ways, sir.

[StrangeSox]

I reject the framing of voting for a candidate you prefer as wasteful, meaningless, petulant, etc. I reject having the discussion on the grounds that the two major parties are entitled to all votes and anything other than a vote for them is done in protest and not simply voting for your preferred candidate and policies.

[Balta1701]

I reject the framing of voting for a candidate you prefer as wasteful, meaningless, petulant, etc. I reject having the discussion on the grounds that the two major parties are entitled to all votes and anything other than a vote for them is done in protest and not simply voting for your preferred candidate and policies.

You're perfectly free to believe that, but it's still a textbook definition of a protest vote. You just don't like the way you interpret the context.

 

Voting for a candidate with no shot at winning because you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates is a protest vote. Regardless of how you justify it.

[StrangeSox]

And apparently you are, in fact, loose on your principles as you are unwilling to cast a vote to stop the election of a person who believes that the solution to our energy problems is to have our army take over a couple of Iraqi oil fields as payment for services rendered over the past decade.

 

Spins both ways, sir.

 

Not really, since Obama and the supermajority dems neglected to do a single god-damned meaningful thing about the problem. A vote for Obama was no different for a vote for McCain if you wanted strong climate change initiatives, or closing down Gitmo/ending a decade of civil and human rights abuses, meaningful financial reform, etc.

 

The party you keep supporting doesn't have any different of a solution to our energy problems than the party you hate.

[BigSqwert]

You're perfectly free to believe that, but it's still a textbook definition of a protest vote. You just don't like the way you interpret the context.

 

Voting for a candidate with no shot at winning because you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates is a protest vote. Regardless of how you justify it.

So what is the definition of voting for the candidate that you best align with?

[BigSqwert]

Not really, since Obama and the supermajority dems neglected to do a single god-damned meaningful thing about the problem. A vote for Obama was no different for a vote for McCain if you wanted strong climate change initiatives, or closing down Gitmo/ending a decade of civil and human rights abuses, meaningful financial reform, etc.

 

The party you keep supporting doesn't have any different of a solution to our energy problems than the party you hate.

[StrangeSox]

You're perfectly free to believe that, but it's still a textbook definition of a protest vote. You just don't like the way you interpret the context.

 

Voting for a candidate with no shot at winning because you're unhappy with the 2 other candidates is a protest vote. Regardless of how you justify it.

 

It's a textbook definition and it requires buying into the "Democrats and Republicans deserve all of the votes" narrative, which I reject. I do not have to justify voting for the candidate who most closely matches my politics. My vote is no more of a "protest" than you voting for a Democrat is a "protest" against all other candidates.

[Balta1701]

Not really, since Obama and the supermajority dems neglected to do a single god-damned meaningful thing about the problem. A vote for Obama was no different for a vote for McCain if you wanted strong climate change initiatives, or closing down Gitmo/ending a decade of civil and human rights abuses, meaningful financial reform, etc.

 

The party you keep supporting doesn't have any different of a solution to our energy problems than the party you hate.

Wait wait wait.

 

You do realize that:

 

1. The Congress passed legislation in a budget that forbade the President from spending funds on closing Gitmo or on trying the people in the U.S. legal system, and that's the only reason why Holder has gone back to the military commissions? How do you blame the President for an act of Congress?

 

2. The people who would benefit from your votes, if they are elected, will actively work in the wrong direction on clean energy and financial reform? That if the people who would benefit most from your protest votes were elected, the limited government support for clean energy would evaporate, and things like the Consumer Financial Products Bureau will vanish?

 

I can give you a great example. Wind energy in this country should be 5 years ahead of where it is right now, but when the people who would benefit most from a protest vote were actively in charge, the regulatory scheme see-sawed. One year, there would be a budget passed including funds to support wind energy development, and new factories would open. The next year, that subsidy would vanish, and those factories that opened the previous year would close. This happened at least 3 times during the Bush administration. The lack of a stable regulatory environment put wind energy development behind by 5 years. And you question why I wouldn't oppose people who actively scoff at the notion of renewable energy? People who, if elected, would dismantle 4 years of work instantly?

[StrangeSox]

Wait wait wait.

 

You do realize that:

 

1. The Congress passed legislation in a budget that forbade the President from spending funds on closing Gitmo or on trying the people in the U.S. legal system, and that's the only reason why Holder has gone back to the military commissions? How do you blame the President for an act of Congress?

 

 

Wait wait wait, what happened between 2009 and 2011? When the dems had supermajorities? Why is Obama continuing to be just as bad as Bush with all of this detainees bulls***?

 

I'm not solely blaming Obama here, that's pretty clear.

 

2. The people who would benefit from your votes, if they are elected, will actively work in the wrong direction on clean energy and financial reform? That if the people who would benefit most from your protest votes were elected, the limited government support for clean energy would evaporate, and things like the Consumer Financial Products Bureau will vanish?

 

The people who benefit from my votes is the person I voted for. If the Democrats want my vote, they need to nominate someone who deserves it. I am not a de facto Democrat vote just because they're not quite as bad as the Republicans.

 

I can give you a great example. Wind energy in this country should be 5 years ahead of where it is right now, but when the people who would benefit most from a protest vote were actively in charge, the regulatory scheme see-sawed. One year, there would be a budget passed including funds to support wind energy development, and new factories would open. The next year, that subsidy would vanish, and those factories that opened the previous year would close. This happened at least 3 times during the Bush administration. The lack of a stable regulatory environment put wind energy development behind by 5 years. And you question why I wouldn't oppose people who actively scoff at the notion of renewable energy?

 

Why did the Democrats fail to enact substantial climate change initiatives in 2009-2011? Why should I vote for them again, so that they can do nothing again?

 

The people who benefit from your Democrat votes are bought-and-paid-for Democrats and the corporations who own them. People who are opposed to any real progressive policies benefit. Center-right Democrats benefit. People who won't really do anything about climate change benefit because there's zero pressure to actually take some political risk because they've got enough hand-wringing *better support the Dems, lest the Republicans get in and enact more or less the same policies!* liberals buying into the idea that they deserve the liberal vote simply because they're a little left of the Republicans on the whole.

 

If we keep voting for Democrats and HOPE that they'll CHANGE from being a centrist-at-best corporate party with no desire to enact progressive policies, we'll never get progressive policies.

 

[Balta1701]

So what is the definition of voting for the candidate that you best align with?

Balta's storytime.

 

You're talking to a person who cast a protest vote in the 2004 Democratic primaries, because I wasn't voting for anyone who voted in favor of Bush's stupid war. In the fall, you're damn right I came home and voted for Kerry, like him or not, because I was just as motivated to vote against W's war then as I was in the spring.

 

I voted for the candidate I preferred, even though he'd already dropped out of the race. It was a vote for a candidate with no shot at winning, but it was still the right vote for me. It was a protest vote.

 

"I don't like the connotation I believe that word has!" is not an argument here.

[Balta1701]

The people who benefit from your Democrat votes are bought-and-paid-for Democrats and the corporations who own them. People who are opposed to any real progressive policies benefit. Center-right Democrats benefit. People who won't really do anything about climate change benefit because there's zero pressure to actually take some political risk because they've got enough hand-wringing *better support the Dems, lest the Republicans get in and enact more or less the same policies!* liberals buying into the idea that they deserve the liberal vote simply because they're a little left of the Republicans on the whole.

 

If we keep voting for Democrats and HOPE that they'll CHANGE from being a centrist-at-best corporate party with no desire to enact progressive policies, we'll never get progressive policies.

And the people who benefit most from failing to vote for the Democrat are the oil companies, coal industry, and chamber of commerce.

 

You criticize me because people who are opposed to progressive policies benefit if I vote for Obama...then you use that as an argument as to why I should cast a vote that more openly benefits people who oppose progressive policies? That's completely backwards. You flat out have zero grounds to criticize me on that.

[StrangeSox]

Balta's storytime.

 

You're talking to a person who cast a protest vote in the 2004 Democratic primaries, because I wasn't voting for anyone who voted in favor of Bush's stupid war. In the fall, you're damn right I came home and voted for Kerry, like him or not, because I was just as motivated to vote against W's war then as I was in the spring.

 

I voted for the candidate I preferred, even though he'd already dropped out of the race. It was a vote for a candidate with no shot at winning, but it was still the right vote for me. It was a protest vote.

 

"I don't like the connotation I believe that word has!" is not an argument here.

 

"I reject the idea that any vote not for (D) or ® is somehow a less legitimate vote" is an argument.

 

Protest voting does exist. Voting Mickie Mouse, voting for Kerry simply as a protest against Bush. Voting Nader because I'd rather have him as President than Gore? That's not a protest vote, that's democracy.

[Balta1701]

Why did the Democrats fail to enact substantial climate change initiatives in 2009-2011? Why should I vote for them again, so that they can do nothing again?

Because:

 

1. The institutional structure of our government.

 

2. The fact that you're not counting the stimulus measure and budgets, which were the biggest clean energy programs this country has yet passed.

 

The fact that it wasn't enough doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

[Balta1701]

"I reject the idea that any vote not for (D) or ® is somehow a less legitimate vote" is an argument.

 

Protest voting does exist. Voting Mickie Mouse, voting for Kerry simply as a protest against Bush. Voting Nader because I'd rather have him as President than Gore? That's not a protest vote, that's democracy.

So, you're protesting against Al Gore.

 

(And anyway...if you're going to use that as an argument, seriously, I've already won. You want to tell me how Al Gore would have been no better than W? Really? That makes my point entirely.)

[StrangeSox]

And the people who benefit most from failing to vote for the Democrat are the oil companies, coal industry, and chamber of commerce.

 

Yeah, they really took it on the chin with that carbon tax....er, wait, OBama was playing lovey-dovey with the CoC and letting them frame the issue. Again.

 

You criticize me because people who are opposed to progressive policies benefit if I vote for Obama...then you use that as an argument as to why I should cast a vote that more openly benefits people who oppose progressive policies? That's completely backwards. You flat out have zero grounds to criticize me on that.

 

You're right, the Democrats deserve my vote simply because they're a little less terrible than the Republicans. My mistake!

 

You know what benefits people who oppose progressive policies? When both parties nominate people who oppose progressive policies (or lack any ability to get them enacted even with large majorities) and convince enough progressives that they still are entitled to their votes.

 

[StrangeSox]

So, you're protesting against Al Gore.

 

(And anyway...if you're going to use that as an argument, seriously, I've already won. You want to tell me how Al Gore would have been no better than W? Really? That makes my point entirely.)

 

Thank you, you've illustrated my point: by that definition, that any vote not for a candidate is a protest against that candidate, all votes are protest votes and thus the term becomes meaningless.

[Balta1701]

Thank you, you've illustrated my point: by that definition, that any vote not for a candidate is a protest against that candidate, all votes are protest votes and thus the term becomes meaningless.

And thank you for illustrating my point...no matter how unhappy you were with the candidates in the 2000 election, you can't bring yourself to say that Al Gore would have been just as bad as W.

[StrangeSox]

And thank you for illustrating my point...no matter how unhappy you were with the candidates in the 2000 election, you can't bring yourself to say that Al Gore would have been just as bad as W.

 

That's funny, that's not my argument and never has been.

 

Why do the Democrats deserve my support, Balta? Is it simply because they're less bad than the Republicans?

[StrangeSox]

If my main issue is doing something ASAP about AGW, why should I vote Democrat? They showed me that they were incapable of or unwilling to enact legislation to significantly address the issue.

[Balta1701]

Is it simply because they're less bad than the Republicans?

Frankly, yes.

 

If you want your ideal candidate elected, go out and support him or her during the primaries. Work hard. You might darn well get my vote.

 

In the general, you better damn well be voting for the less bad option. If you live in a non-swing state, ok, fine, I won't complain about a protest vote, but until you can say that if you were a Florida voter in 2000 who voted for Ralph Nader and yo can come out and say you support the Iraq war, the building of Gitmo in the first place, the torture regime itself, and the number of mining claims close to Grand Canyon National Park going up by a factor of 9 during the next 8 years, then yes, you better be voting for the less bad person.

[Balta1701]

If my main issue is doing something ASAP about AGW, why should I vote Democrat? They showed me that they were incapable of or unwilling to enact legislation to significantly address the issue.

Do you or do you not support the nation's sole energy policy being "Drill baby drill"?

[StrangeSox]

Do you or do you not support the nation's sole energy policy being "Drill baby drill"?

 

no, and I also don't support the Democrats' plan to do basically nothing, so I won't vote in support of it.

[StrangeSox]

Frankly, yes.

 

If you want your ideal candidate elected, go out and support him or her during the primaries. Work hard. You might darn well get my vote.

 

In the general, you better damn well be voting for the less bad option. If you live in a non-swing state, ok, fine, I won't complain about a protest vote, but until you can say that if you were a Florida voter in 2000 who voted for Ralph Nader and yo can come out and say you support the Iraq war, the building of Gitmo in the first place, the torture regime itself, and the number of mining claims close to Grand Canyon National Park going up by a factor of 9 during the next 8 years, then yes, you better be voting for the less bad person.

 

This method of voting against Republican policies ensures that no progressive policies will be enacted.

[StrangeSox]

If you choices for major party candidates were Bachmann or Buchanon, would you vote for Bachmann because she's slightly less terrible than Buchanon?

[Balta1701]

If you choices for major party candidates were Bachmann or Buchanon, would you vote for Bachmann because she's slightly less terrible than Buchanon?

So, you believe that Al Gore and George W. Bush both would have done this: