6 ms·

I don't know how you expect me to take you seriously with "lolwut." But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt once. > The Republicans shamelessly flaunt thei

I don't know how you expect me to take you seriously with "lolwut." But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt once. > The Republicans shamelessly flaunt their positions and policies. What is the point of this statement? Do you mean to say that Democrats don't do that? Or is it okay that they do, because you agree with them? In which case it's entirely hypocritical to say that, criticizing your opponents for doing exactly what you do, and a form of intellectual dishonesty. > Dishonesty and deception? Again, lolwut. Parties are collections of people, they do not stand for specific ideas. Anyone that gets on the Republican membership list is, by definition, a Republican. Example A: Trump. If I, as a citizen, register as a member of Party A, and vote in their primaries for candidates that lean toward my preferences--and then, come election time, go to the polls and vote for the candidate of Party B, as I intended to from the beginning--am I participating honestly in the political process? Or am I pretending to be a member of Party A so I can influence Party A to reduce the difference between the parties? If a government sends an operative to another nation, to secretly work for another nation's government, and influence them to lean toward the policies they prefer, is that "getting on the membership list" of that "collection of people"? Is it honestly participating in the diplomatic process? Or is it infiltration, a form of espionage? If a corporation sends an employee to get a job at a competitor and send back copies of plans for the competitor's competing products, is that merely "getting on the membership list" of that "collection of people" at that company? Or is it industrial espionage? > Signing up to a different party sounds exactly like what you're describing. Open the door to intellectual conversations with people from different social spheres, force confrontations between real person with real beliefs instead of strawmen. Either you misunderstand the point and we are talking past each other, or you are the one tearing down strawmen.

mygo 9y ago
> If I, as a citizen, register as a member of Party A, and vote in their primaries for candidates that lean toward my preferences--and then, come election time, go to the polls and vote for the candidate of Party B, as I intended to from the beginning--am I participating honestly in the political process? Or am I pretending to be a member of Party A so I can influence Party A to reduce the difference between the parties? Seriously? There were many registered Republicans who voted in their primaries and then ended up voting for Hillary over Trump. Were they being dishonest? Or did they just look at the two options given and make the choice that they feel best reflects their values?
- IanCal 9y ago
  Did they fully intend to vote democrat before they voted in the republican primaries? The key point here is that the description has someone voting in party A's primaries for the sole reason of limiting or altering the choice others get to make. "As I intended to do from the beginning" is a key part of the description. You however are describing I think people voting in the primaries to try and get the candidate they want to vote for into power. When that fails they take a different approach.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    > for the sole reason of limiting or altering the choice others get to make. Isn't that the only reason to vote in a primary? The whole point of a primary election is to choose who becomes your party's official candidate on the ballot for the general election, and the only reason to do that is because it limits or alters the choice that voters get to make. If John Doe is running, and I want him to win, and I only care about my choice, I'd skip the primary and vote for him in the general. If he doesn't make it onto the ballot, I could write him in. If I vote for John Doe in the primary, it's because I want to affect other voters.
    - alphapapa 9y ago
      I think there's a crucial distinction between a) participating in a party's primary as a member of that party, generally intending to support that party's candidate, and b) participating in a party's primary, pretending to be a member of that party while actually a member of the opposing party, and having no intention of voting for that party's candidate in the actual election. The latter is dishonest manipulation of the political process, tantamount to sabotage.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        I tend to agree, but that's not the same as the bit I quoted. The problem is not that you are trying to affect what other people can or will choose (because that's the whole point of a primary), the problem is that you are subverting the intent of the process, which is to allow members of that particular group to collectively limit their own choices.
DiThi 9y ago
> What is the point of this statement? I think he means that it's not spying or infiltration when the data is already there for everyone to see. It's about influence on one area that will affect the whole human species, not just one country, and people (esp politicians) are still very misinformed about the issue. It's about informing everyone, just the opposite of spying. > am I participating honestly in the political process? You make it sound bad, but it's a much better proposition than what it is actually happening: People don't discuss politics, they fight it. It's not treated as a complex set of opinions that have to be reasoned over, but as a sport teams [0]. Furthermore, the way the voting system is designed, there won't be true parties in a specific position, but they're always reduced to two catch-all options with a very wide and overlapping set of opinions among their members, basically resulting in everybody be unsatisfied with the result [1]. And the point of the parent is that, since politics are broken, one can contribute to work around it from within. In fact parties evolve this way. The party of Obama was white supremacist related to KKK, and the party of Trump was Lincoln's which freed the slaves of the south. That sounds backwards, doesn't it? It's as if politics wasn't made of two opposing opinions, but of hundreds. (edit: snowwrestler above said it better, parties are not elected, are not part of the constitution and there's nothing inherently wrong or dishonest in trying to change them from within) Climate change is not inherently anti-republican or anti-capitalist. The debate is whether to believe it or not, and it is absurd because there is a lot of evidence that it is happening. Humans heavily relied on a stable climate for ~15,000 years to create civilization and still relies on it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pS4x8hXQ5c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pS4x8hXQ5c [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
- alphapapa 9y ago
  > I think he means that it's not spying or infiltration when the data is already there for everyone to see. You're not thinking clearly. It is infiltration because the person in question is pretending to be a member of Party A while actually being a supporter of Party B. The person is intending to deny members of Party A the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice in the actual election, forcing them to nominate a candidate that is closer to Party B's platform. The scientific "data" you're talking about is completely beside the point. > It's about influence on one area that will affect the whole human species, not just one country, and people (esp politicians) are still very misinformed about the issue. It's about informing everyone, just the opposite of spying. Again, you're not thinking clearly. Informing people entails honestly discussing your views with them, presenting them with evidence and attempting to rationally convince them of the superiority of your position. In the context of a party primary, that could entail picketing with signs, having a non-violent protest outside, handing out pamphlets to those entering, etc. But that is not what the OP advocated. The OP effectively advocated abandoning that approach and instead opting to deceptively manipulate the political process, undermining the ability of others to honestly participate in it. You seem to be letting your presuppositions cloud your judgment. You seem to be convinced that those who disagree with you are simply "still very misinformed," and so you're justified to "inform" them by whatever means necessary. (Apologies if this is mischaracterizing your view; please correct me.) > You make it sound bad, but it's a much better proposition than what it is actually happening: People don't discuss politics, they fight it. It's not treated as a complex set of opinions that have to be reasoned over, but as a sport teams. You seem to be missing my point. The OP is advocating exactly fighting over discussing. He's saying that, since enough people can't be convinced of his opinion, that those who agree with him should infiltrate the opposition's parties and deny them the use of candidates that disagree with him on this issue by voting down those candidates before they have a chance to be nominated. That's underhanded and dishonest, even a tactic used in espionage. > Furthermore, the way the voting system is designed, there won't be true parties in a specific position, but they're always reduced to two catch-all options with a very wide and overlapping set of opinions among their members, basically resulting in everybody be unsatisfied with the result. This is true. So what? > And the point of the parent is that, since politics are broken, one can contribute to work around it from within. There are two different ways to work "from within." See below. > In fact parties evolve this way. The party of Obama was white supremacist related to KKK, and the party of Trump was Lincoln's which freed the slaves of the south. That sounds backwards, doesn't it? No, it's not backwards, it's the historical reality. And, in fact, many people, including prominent blacks, consider the Democrats' policies to be against the black community's interests today. Of course, such people are derided as "Uncle Toms," rather than engaging seriously with their views. > (edit: snowwrestler above said it better, parties are not elected, are not part of the constitution and there's nothing inherently wrong or dishonest in trying to change them from within) Again, there are two ways to work from within. One is to recognize that a party is closest to your own political views, to join it, and then work to convince its members to advocate views closer to your own. Another way is to recognize that a party is closest to your own political views, join it, and then go to the opposing party's primaries, pretend to be one of them, and vote against candidates that are farthest from your own political views. This is the crux of the argument. > Climate change is not inherently anti-republican or anti-capitalist. The debate is whether to believe it or not, and it is absurd because there is a lot of evidence that it is happening. Humans heavily relied on a stable climate for ~15,000 years to create civilization and still relies on it. You seem to be missing the point. This thread is not about climate change. If you still think it is, that suggests that you're advocating an ends-justify-the-means approach, which is, again, the whole point: that one side is advocating participating dishonestly, because they think it's justified.
snowwrestler 9y ago
> If I, as a citizen, register as a member of Party A, and vote in their primaries for candidates that lean toward my preferences--and then, come election time, go to the polls and vote for the candidate of Party B, as I intended to from the beginning--am I participating honestly in the political process? Or am I pretending to be a member of Party A so I can influence Party A to reduce the difference between the parties? Political parties do not exist in the governing structure of the U.S. As proof, I'll ask you to please go read the Constitution, then come back and point out the parts about political parties. No rush; I'll wait. Back? Ok, so now hopefully you realize that in the U.S., we elect people, not parties. Partisan primaries, as elections funded by the government, should not even exist at all--they are a corruption of the system. So hand-wringing about how people vote in primaries and interact with political parties is silly. Political parties can't be corrupted. There is nothing pure to preserve.
- alphapapa 9y ago
  I'll see your condescending lesson on the Constitution and raise you a trip to the Capitol, where you'll see the very real, tangible divisions between the two major parties. You seem to be confused about the argument. It's not about what should be, it's about what is. > So hand-wringing about how people vote in primaries and interact with political parties is silly. It's not silly, it's an observation about how the game of politics is changing with the change in the scale of our social interactions. It's so much easier to coordinate large groups of people to infiltrate and manipulate intra-party matters than it was a few decades ago. That's exactly what the OP was advocating: not rational engagement with the members of a party, convincing them to adopt a better view, but pretending to be one of them so as to vote in their primaries, to deny them use of candidates which are most threatening to one's own political goals. It's like a Sybil attack on the political process.

mygo 9y ago

IanCal 9y ago
Did they fully intend to vote democrat before they voted in the republican primaries? The key point here is that the description has someone voting in party A's primaries for the sole reason of limiting or altering the choice others get to make. "As I intended to do from the beginning" is a key part of the description. You however are describing I think people voting in the primaries to try and get the candidate they want to vote for into power. When that fails they take a different approach.
- mikeash 9y ago
  > for the sole reason of limiting or altering the choice others get to make. Isn't that the only reason to vote in a primary? The whole point of a primary election is to choose who becomes your party's official candidate on the ballot for the general election, and the only reason to do that is because it limits or alters the choice that voters get to make. If John Doe is running, and I want him to win, and I only care about my choice, I'd skip the primary and vote for him in the general. If he doesn't make it onto the ballot, I could write him in. If I vote for John Doe in the primary, it's because I want to affect other voters.
  - alphapapa 9y ago
    I think there's a crucial distinction between a) participating in a party's primary as a member of that party, generally intending to support that party's candidate, and b) participating in a party's primary, pretending to be a member of that party while actually a member of the opposing party, and having no intention of voting for that party's candidate in the actual election. The latter is dishonest manipulation of the political process, tantamount to sabotage.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I tend to agree, but that's not the same as the bit I quoted. The problem is not that you are trying to affect what other people can or will choose (because that's the whole point of a primary), the problem is that you are subverting the intent of the process, which is to allow members of that particular group to collectively limit their own choices.

DiThi 9y ago

> What is the point of this statement? I think he means that it's not spying or infiltration when the data is already there for everyone to see. It's about influence on one area that will affect the whole human species, not just one country, and people (esp politicians) are still very misinformed about the issue. It's about informing everyone, just the opposite of spying. > am I participating honestly in the political process? You make it sound bad, but it's a much better proposition than what it is actually happening: People don't discuss politics, they fight it. It's not treated as a complex set of opinions that have to be reasoned over, but as a sport teams [0]. Furthermore, the way the voting system is designed, there won't be true parties in a specific position, but they're always reduced to two catch-all options with a very wide and overlapping set of opinions among their members, basically resulting in everybody be unsatisfied with the result [1]. And the point of the parent is that, since politics are broken, one can contribute to work around it from within. In fact parties evolve this way. The party of Obama was white supremacist related to KKK, and the party of Trump was Lincoln's which freed the slaves of the south. That sounds backwards, doesn't it? It's as if politics wasn't made of two opposing opinions, but of hundreds. (edit: snowwrestler above said it better, parties are not elected, are not part of the constitution and there's nothing inherently wrong or dishonest in trying to change them from within) Climate change is not inherently anti-republican or anti-capitalist. The debate is whether to believe it or not, and it is absurd because there is a lot of evidence that it is happening. Humans heavily relied on a stable climate for ~15,000 years to create civilization and still relies on it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pS4x8hXQ5c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pS4x8hXQ5c [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

alphapapa 9y ago
> I think he means that it's not spying or infiltration when the data is already there for everyone to see. You're not thinking clearly. It is infiltration because the person in question is pretending to be a member of Party A while actually being a supporter of Party B. The person is intending to deny members of Party A the ability to vote for the candidate of their choice in the actual election, forcing them to nominate a candidate that is closer to Party B's platform. The scientific "data" you're talking about is completely beside the point. > It's about influence on one area that will affect the whole human species, not just one country, and people (esp politicians) are still very misinformed about the issue. It's about informing everyone, just the opposite of spying. Again, you're not thinking clearly. Informing people entails honestly discussing your views with them, presenting them with evidence and attempting to rationally convince them of the superiority of your position. In the context of a party primary, that could entail picketing with signs, having a non-violent protest outside, handing out pamphlets to those entering, etc. But that is not what the OP advocated. The OP effectively advocated abandoning that approach and instead opting to deceptively manipulate the political process, undermining the ability of others to honestly participate in it. You seem to be letting your presuppositions cloud your judgment. You seem to be convinced that those who disagree with you are simply "still very misinformed," and so you're justified to "inform" them by whatever means necessary. (Apologies if this is mischaracterizing your view; please correct me.) > You make it sound bad, but it's a much better proposition than what it is actually happening: People don't discuss politics, they fight it. It's not treated as a complex set of opinions that have to be reasoned over, but as a sport teams. You seem to be missing my point. The OP is advocating exactly fighting over discussing. He's saying that, since enough people can't be convinced of his opinion, that those who agree with him should infiltrate the opposition's parties and deny them the use of candidates that disagree with him on this issue by voting down those candidates before they have a chance to be nominated. That's underhanded and dishonest, even a tactic used in espionage. > Furthermore, the way the voting system is designed, there won't be true parties in a specific position, but they're always reduced to two catch-all options with a very wide and overlapping set of opinions among their members, basically resulting in everybody be unsatisfied with the result. This is true. So what? > And the point of the parent is that, since politics are broken, one can contribute to work around it from within. There are two different ways to work "from within." See below. > In fact parties evolve this way. The party of Obama was white supremacist related to KKK, and the party of Trump was Lincoln's which freed the slaves of the south. That sounds backwards, doesn't it? No, it's not backwards, it's the historical reality. And, in fact, many people, including prominent blacks, consider the Democrats' policies to be against the black community's interests today. Of course, such people are derided as "Uncle Toms," rather than engaging seriously with their views. > (edit: snowwrestler above said it better, parties are not elected, are not part of the constitution and there's nothing inherently wrong or dishonest in trying to change them from within) Again, there are two ways to work from within. One is to recognize that a party is closest to your own political views, to join it, and then work to convince its members to advocate views closer to your own. Another way is to recognize that a party is closest to your own political views, join it, and then go to the opposing party's primaries, pretend to be one of them, and vote against candidates that are farthest from your own political views. This is the crux of the argument. > Climate change is not inherently anti-republican or anti-capitalist. The debate is whether to believe it or not, and it is absurd because there is a lot of evidence that it is happening. Humans heavily relied on a stable climate for ~15,000 years to create civilization and still relies on it. You seem to be missing the point. This thread is not about climate change. If you still think it is, that suggests that you're advocating an ends-justify-the-means approach, which is, again, the whole point: that one side is advocating participating dishonestly, because they think it's justified.

snowwrestler 9y ago

> If I, as a citizen, register as a member of Party A, and vote in their primaries for candidates that lean toward my preferences--and then, come election time, go to the polls and vote for the candidate of Party B, as I intended to from the beginning--am I participating honestly in the political process? Or am I pretending to be a member of Party A so I can influence Party A to reduce the difference between the parties? Political parties do not exist in the governing structure of the U.S. As proof, I'll ask you to please go read the Constitution, then come back and point out the parts about political parties. No rush; I'll wait. Back? Ok, so now hopefully you realize that in the U.S., we elect people, not parties. Partisan primaries, as elections funded by the government, should not even exist at all--they are a corruption of the system. So hand-wringing about how people vote in primaries and interact with political parties is silly. Political parties can't be corrupted. There is nothing pure to preserve.

alphapapa 9y ago
I'll see your condescending lesson on the Constitution and raise you a trip to the Capitol, where you'll see the very real, tangible divisions between the two major parties. You seem to be confused about the argument. It's not about what should be, it's about what is. > So hand-wringing about how people vote in primaries and interact with political parties is silly. It's not silly, it's an observation about how the game of politics is changing with the change in the scale of our social interactions. It's so much easier to coordinate large groups of people to infiltrate and manipulate intra-party matters than it was a few decades ago. That's exactly what the OP was advocating: not rational engagement with the members of a party, convincing them to adopt a better view, but pretending to be one of them so as to vote in their primaries, to deny them use of candidates which are most threatening to one's own political goals. It's like a Sybil attack on the political process.