There are criminals that come from everywhere. That's beside the point. Trump is known far and wide as anti-Latino. Like, that's not even remotely questionable, lol!
Seriously, the idea that Hillary, or anyone, would need to TELL people that Trump is hispanophobic (yes, that IS a word, google it) is hilarious!!
Trump embraced blatant racism with the use of the word "assume".
Also the judge in the Trump University case, that Trump felt couldn't be impartial, because he was Mexican. Except he wasn't Mexican. He was American, born in Indiana.
Because that's something someone has to *refuse to do*. It's expected of people. Demanded of them.
It's not a good vibe to send. People get to vote for who they want to. Simply demanding they vote for someone because the other side is awful is a weak argument.
I don't honestly see any "demanding" here. The cartoon is merely pointing out (in an exaggerated way, because that's the nature of humor) that if Trump gets elected, bad things will happen.
Certainly people get to vote for who they want to vote for. Absolutely. But the point of the cartoon is that actions and choices have consequences. Some of us, including this cartoonist, see the likely consequences of a Trump presidency as truly dire and stopping him as absolutely imperative. Unless one doesn't see him as that much of a menace (which I know some don't), putting one's vote where it might actually help stop him just seems logical to me.
I'm all for people making their own choices, etc., but I believe that Trump is highly dangerous and a Trump presidency would be a disaster of epic proportions, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
Who cares whether you think it's a "good vibe to send"? You've already made clear there's nothing that would persuade you to vote for Hillary. So why should anyone be concerned that you don't like the "vibe"?
"The other side is awful" is a compelling argument, when you're one of the ones who'll get the short end of a very sharp stick under a Trump presidency. But you're white, male, straight. What do you have to worry about? You'll blend in with the rest of the straightbros and ride it out.
"You've already made clear there's nothing that would persuade you to vote for Hillary"
you're wearing blinders again.
You really misunderstood my post where I included the comic that had a bumper sticker:
"Ok. Fine. Hillary, I guess."
How the FUCK do you take that to mean that nothing would persuade me to vote for HRC? For fucks sake, it's almost like you try to behave like a stupid person would.
You don't get to "vote for who you want to". That's utterly not the point of a republic democracy. In a RD, you select the people who best represent your interests. Period. If there is the guy who is for throwing old folks into a wood chipper and the other who is for feeding them to lions... it mostly falls to how you feel about lions.
Why do you think that the option to write in a candidates name exists?
People act like write-in candidates are some absurdity that shouldn't exist. And yet, we put it on the ballot, so that if a voter wants to write a candidates name in, because that candidate best represents my interests, I am able to do so.
I can write in Peter Pan, if I so choose. And that option is an important part of democracy.
Fuck, in North Korea they have elections. Voters there decide which member of The Party gets elected to their respective positions. That's not democratic, when you cannot decide outside of narrow confines. The write-in option is essential for a free democracy (along with Secret Ballot, and other protections for voters/citizens)
But this false binary is, well, false. And pushing a false binary is unlikely to win over thoughtful people, as they see for themselves, that the binary is false, and stop trusting people who tell them to believe in the false binary.
"False Binary"? Nonsense. I'm all for third parties. But you are utterly missing my point. You vote for the best choice of the slate given to you.
Think of it like a cheese plate. The guy comes by and there is some cheddar and swiss and blue and brie. And you can whine and bitch all you want about how you really wanted some camembert, and it doesn't matter, because the choices you have is cheddar, swiss, blue and brie.
Voting for Peter Pan is not an important part of democracy. Even if your vanity candidate does get in, then what would we do if Peter Pan was elected?
You vote for your best option, It is not a secret that there is no perfect option, unless everyone votes for themselves, and that's pretty much anarchy. So you go for the people who best fit your needs and wants, even if the fit isn't that great.
"People act like write-in candidates are some absurdity that shouldn't exist"
It is under a FPTP voting system.
If you have a 'everyone votes for one candidate, candidate with the most votes wins' system then your final vote must come down to and either/or choice or the voting system breaks. 60% of people can prefer candidate B to Candidate A, but if 25% of people prefer Candidate C to Candidate B then Candidate A wins... even though Candidate B is preferred by a majority of voters.
To fix that you need to either use a better voting method (preference voting) or you have other votes before the final one to establish the two most popular options (and then vote on only those two options).
Either way, that's not democratic. Yes, everyone should be involved in deciding who the final two candidates are... but everyone should also get a say over which the final two candidates wins.
The bit in the US system where people get to be involved with who the final two candidates ended when Sanders endorsed Hilary... now you get the bit where you decide whether you prefer Hillary or Trump. I don't think it's sensible to opt-out of the latter choice because you didn't like the result of the former.
What possible basis for saying this can you say that you have? The fact that Hillary seems more hawkish in some respects doesn't mean she has any eagerness to prompt a nuke confrontation with any country.
Here's what I think is true about Hillary: She will continue to support NATO, including bolstering it in the face of recent Russian aggression against sovereign states on its periphery. That might inspire more Russian overflights and brinkmanship with submarines and ships, and it might prompt Russia to update its nuclear arsenal, but it's not going to lead to a "nuke confrontation," which no one on either side wants.
Trump, on the other hand, will intentionally and unilaterally undermine NATO and nascent alliances being built in Southeast Asia, essentially conceding the Russian periphery and South China Sea to Russia and China, respectively. That won't lead to a cessation of antagonism with those countries. Quite to the contrary; it'll just move the line which we're disputing. We'll concede Estonia and then start talking about Poland; we'll give up Vietnam and Hong Kong and then start wondering whether Japan and South Korea are safe. Absent strong American support, both South Korea and Japan will militarize and adopt nuclear weapons, while the UK and France will modernize their own arsenals. Instead of forward batteries financed by the Americans, eastern European countries will develop their own armies and alliances. Meanwhile Trump's master plan will make a mess of the balances we've struck on Iran and North Korea; Russia and Turkey will align as Turkey implements its "Kurd solution"; and all bets are off in the Middle East.
Hillary is a hawk, but she's a hawk firmly aligned with an existing international order that, despite its military conflagrations, generally maintains enough global peace that many national economies can thrive and support their populations. Undermine that order - as Trump has promised - and you'll see an increase in military aggression, and with it a massive increase in economic uncertainty and recession, leading to widespread civil unrest and strife. There's just no equivalence between the two.
I realize that you're committed to your apocalyptic predictions and you're perversely interested in having your worldview vindicated by a sequence of events you've spuriously concluded is inevitable. But taking that attitude to our real-world politics - to not just predict this disorder but to help bring it about - is simply sociopathic. These are real people's lives. To vote for "the deluge" is to vote for death and suffering.
"I do love the implication that Clinton is clearly a better option overall, as if they aren't both completely unacceptable on a basic level."
I had a vote on which of two Apocalypse scenarios were to happen (knowing that the non-apocalypse candidates would not win), then I would still vote for the least undesirable of the two apocalypse scenarios.
From a public FB post I wrote a while back:
You live on an island with a population of fifteen people, including yourself. You live a meagre existence of gathering and hunting for food, but you never seem to have quite enough food to keep everyone happy. Popular opinion is that it's all your friend Jake’s fault. In reality, Jake doesn't eat any more of the food than anyone else and he works hard, but everyone insists on using him as a scapegoat and they won’t listen to you when you try to correct them.
There’s going to be a vote on what to do with Jake. Three options are provided. Whichever option has the most votes will be enacted.
1) Punish Jake by execution 2) Punish Jake by public whipping 3) Don’t punish Jake
Before the vote, people talk about how they intend to vote.
• Seven people say that they intend to vote to execute Jake • Six people say that they intend to vote to whip Jake
You and Jake agree to vote together for the same option. How should you and Jake vote?
The only correct and moral option provided is ‘Don’t punish Jake’, but voting that way results in Jake being executed.
You could alternatively vote ‘Punish Jake by public whipping’ and thus save Jake’s life, but doing so tacitly supports Jake being whipped for a crime he did not commit.
The crux of the issue is ‘Is it worth supporting a bad policy that you don’t agree with in order to keep a worse policy out?’
This is more like "Jake can be punished by losing his right leg, punished by losing his left leg, or not punished at all." Neither is especially worse than the other, but both are pretty terrible.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 04:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 05:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 05:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 06:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 07:14 am (UTC)Seriously, the idea that Hillary, or anyone, would need to TELL people that Trump is hispanophobic (yes, that IS a word, google it) is hilarious!!
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 07:33 am (UTC)Trump embraced blatant racism with the use of the word "assume".
Also the judge in the Trump University case, that Trump felt couldn't be impartial, because he was Mexican. Except he wasn't Mexican. He was American, born in Indiana.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 03:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 07:36 am (UTC)Because that's something someone has to *refuse to do*. It's expected of people. Demanded of them.
It's not a good vibe to send. People get to vote for who they want to. Simply demanding they vote for someone because the other side is awful is a weak argument.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 08:14 am (UTC)Certainly people get to vote for who they want to vote for. Absolutely. But the point of the cartoon is that actions and choices have consequences. Some of us, including this cartoonist, see the likely consequences of a Trump presidency as truly dire and stopping him as absolutely imperative. Unless one doesn't see him as that much of a menace (which I know some don't), putting one's vote where it might actually help stop him just seems logical to me.
I'm all for people making their own choices, etc., but I believe that Trump is highly dangerous and a Trump presidency would be a disaster of epic proportions, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 06:03 pm (UTC)"The other side is awful" is a compelling argument, when you're one of the ones who'll get the short end of a very sharp stick under a Trump presidency. But you're white, male, straight. What do you have to worry about? You'll blend in with the rest of the straightbros and ride it out.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-22 07:13 pm (UTC)you're wearing blinders again.
You really misunderstood my post where I included the comic that had a bumper sticker:
"Ok. Fine. Hillary, I guess."
How the FUCK do you take that to mean that nothing would persuade me to vote for HRC? For fucks sake, it's almost like you try to behave like a stupid person would.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-22 07:04 pm (UTC)You don't get to "vote for who you want to". That's utterly not the point of a republic democracy. In a RD, you select the people who best represent your interests. Period. If there is the guy who is for throwing old folks into a wood chipper and the other who is for feeding them to lions... it mostly falls to how you feel about lions.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-22 07:11 pm (UTC)People act like write-in candidates are some absurdity that shouldn't exist. And yet, we put it on the ballot, so that if a voter wants to write a candidates name in, because that candidate best represents my interests, I am able to do so.
I can write in Peter Pan, if I so choose. And that option is an important part of democracy.
Fuck, in North Korea they have elections. Voters there decide which member of The Party gets elected to their respective positions. That's not democratic, when you cannot decide outside of narrow confines. The write-in option is essential for a free democracy (along with Secret Ballot, and other protections for voters/citizens)
But this false binary is, well, false. And pushing a false binary is unlikely to win over thoughtful people, as they see for themselves, that the binary is false, and stop trusting people who tell them to believe in the false binary.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-23 07:17 pm (UTC)You vote for the best choice of the slate given to you.
Think of it like a cheese plate. The guy comes by and there is some cheddar and swiss and blue and brie. And you can whine and bitch all you want about how you really wanted some camembert, and it doesn't matter, because the choices you have is cheddar, swiss, blue and brie.
Voting for Peter Pan is not an important part of democracy. Even if your vanity candidate does get in, then what would we do if Peter Pan was elected?
You vote for your best option, It is not a secret that there is no perfect option, unless everyone votes for themselves, and that's pretty much anarchy. So you go for the people who best fit your needs and wants, even if the fit isn't that great.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2016-07-24 02:28 pm (UTC)It is under a FPTP voting system.
If you have a 'everyone votes for one candidate, candidate with the most votes wins' system then your final vote must come down to and either/or choice or the voting system breaks. 60% of people can prefer candidate B to Candidate A, but if 25% of people prefer Candidate C to Candidate B then Candidate A wins... even though Candidate B is preferred by a majority of voters.
To fix that you need to either use a better voting method (preference voting) or you have other votes before the final one to establish the two most popular options (and then vote on only those two options).
Either way, that's not democratic. Yes, everyone should be involved in deciding who the final two candidates are... but everyone should also get a say over which the final two candidates wins.
The bit in the US system where people get to be involved with who the final two candidates ended when Sanders endorsed Hilary... now you get the bit where you decide whether you prefer Hillary or Trump. I don't think it's sensible to opt-out of the latter choice because you didn't like the result of the former.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2016-07-24 02:22 pm (UTC)Arguing that people should vote for the side that is stronger / least weak seems like a pretty standard decision-making method for voting.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 10:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 12:32 pm (UTC)I'm so glad I live in a state that doesn't matter this year.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-22 01:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-22 01:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-07-22 10:06 am (UTC)Here's what I think is true about Hillary: She will continue to support NATO, including bolstering it in the face of recent Russian aggression against sovereign states on its periphery. That might inspire more Russian overflights and brinkmanship with submarines and ships, and it might prompt Russia to update its nuclear arsenal, but it's not going to lead to a "nuke confrontation," which no one on either side wants.
Trump, on the other hand, will intentionally and unilaterally undermine NATO and nascent alliances being built in Southeast Asia, essentially conceding the Russian periphery and South China Sea to Russia and China, respectively. That won't lead to a cessation of antagonism with those countries. Quite to the contrary; it'll just move the line which we're disputing. We'll concede Estonia and then start talking about Poland; we'll give up Vietnam and Hong Kong and then start wondering whether Japan and South Korea are safe. Absent strong American support, both South Korea and Japan will militarize and adopt nuclear weapons, while the UK and France will modernize their own arsenals. Instead of forward batteries financed by the Americans, eastern European countries will develop their own armies and alliances. Meanwhile Trump's master plan will make a mess of the balances we've struck on Iran and North Korea; Russia and Turkey will align as Turkey implements its "Kurd solution"; and all bets are off in the Middle East.
Hillary is a hawk, but she's a hawk firmly aligned with an existing international order that, despite its military conflagrations, generally maintains enough global peace that many national economies can thrive and support their populations. Undermine that order - as Trump has promised - and you'll see an increase in military aggression, and with it a massive increase in economic uncertainty and recession, leading to widespread civil unrest and strife. There's just no equivalence between the two.
I realize that you're committed to your apocalyptic predictions and you're perversely interested in having your worldview vindicated by a sequence of events you've spuriously concluded is inevitable. But taking that attitude to our real-world politics - to not just predict this disorder but to help bring it about - is simply sociopathic. These are real people's lives. To vote for "the deluge" is to vote for death and suffering.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2016-07-24 02:41 pm (UTC)I had a vote on which of two Apocalypse scenarios were to happen (knowing that the non-apocalypse candidates would not win), then I would still vote for the least undesirable of the two apocalypse scenarios.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-24 02:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2016-07-24 03:40 pm (UTC)Actually, only at the very local level does my vote ever seem like it matters.
no subject
Date: 2016-07-21 03:37 pm (UTC)You take what you can get. You have to fight one battle at a time.