4 ms·

Also, that's just plain old sedition because you don't like who won the democratic election.

by ed312 7y ago

einhverfr 7y ago
It is protected discussion under the US Constitution since Yates v. United States hamstrung sedition prosecutions over the government going after dissidents, particularly Communists. Mind you I sat the last election out because I was so thoroughly disgusted with Hillary's anti-immigrant record and Trump's promise to try to be even worse (and while he is trying, I am not sure he is succeeding as bad as it is, and it is very bad). I have no love for either. But it is protected speech.
- wilg 7y ago
  Why would you sit out the election instead of voting for the option you know is better?
  - einhverfr 7y ago
    Because to vote for someone defending PRWORA would be a betrayal of what my family went through. It was at that point vote third party or stay home. I think if I had it to do over again I would vote third party.
    - wilg 7y ago
      How is it a betrayal of anything or anyone to vote for the better of two viable options (according to your own opinion)?
      - einhverfr 7y ago
        > How is it a betrayal of anything or anyone to vote for the better of two viable options (according to your own opinion)? How do you weigh two options when one has a record of imposing very long-term harms (PRWORA has now been on the books for almost 30 years and if you remember her response to Sanders' accusation she helped round up the votes for PRWORA, it was to defend the law) vs a more acute set of insecurities? That's the choice between measles (orange, fast-spreading, kill you or you recover) and polio (not orange, slower spreading, you might not ever fully recover). So I am not entirely sure from the perspective of being married to a non-American who was the lesser evil except to say they were both genuinely horrifying. Theres a second very important point here as well. If the issues that matter to my family (for example, full inclusion in the protections of the working classes -- even we knowledge workers are working class) are not on the table, withholding my vote may be the only way to get them on the table at all, and voting for someone who has actively worked against those interests is a betrayal of that.
        wilg 7y ago
        On the issue you originally mentioned – immigration – surely it's clear which where each of these two people stood. Look at their policy proposals, their party's policy proposals, their party's policy history, and their rhetoric. Then you vote for the one that's better. No matter how slight the difference (though in this case the difference is huge). I'm not sure what issue you're referring to getting on the table. (I suspect it actually already is on the table.) But how does not voting get that issue on the table? It's too late to change the candidates' positions on election day. Are you hoping that years later a different set of candidates will try to address your concern by examining who didn't vote in the previous election? That seems unlikely. Candidates do what voters want, not non-voters. Opinion polls often throw out non-voters, too. And most people care about multiple issues, so even if your main issue isn't addressed by anyone, you've lost the opportunity to try to make some progress on all of those "less important" issues. The winning strategy for improving the world is not hard. Vote for the "lesser of two evils". Every single time. This will cause evil to decline. Maybe slowly, hopefully quickly. Don't get stuck in analysis paralysis. The main two U.S. parties have a lot of differences. It should be pretty easy to figure out which closer aligns with your views.
        einhverfr 7y ago
        But what of those other issues? Health care reform that specifically singles out my family for additional burdens if I lose my job because I am married to an immigrant (back to the same issue)? What I am doing is trying to help a third party organize so that if not this year, if not next year, if not in four years, we can eventually make an impact. Basic point is: If my family is not to be fully included with the same rights, then you don't need my vote. This willingness to throw elections made the Democrats come around on gay rights. It ought to be used by those of us in mixed-nationality families to make them come around on immigrant rights. (In addition to organizational efforts, I am in the running for volunteering for various positions in the American Solidarity Party, primarily because they do include families like mine in their agenda.)
        wilg 7y ago
    - fortran77 7y ago
      Did you sit out the entire election, or did you vote for state and local candidates for whom you could show support?
pazimzadeh 7y ago
How long will it be until everyone's vote is weighed equally in the US?

Also, that's just plain old sedition because you don't like who won the democratic election.

by ed312 7y ago

Also, that's just plain old sedition because you don't like who won the democratic election.

It is protected discussion under the US Constitution since Yates v. United States hamstrung sedition prosecutions over the government going after dissidents, particularly Communists. Mind you I sat the last election out because I was so thoroughly disgusted with Hillary's anti-immigrant record and Trump's promise to try to be even worse (and while he is trying, I am not sure he is succeeding as bad as it is, and it is very bad). I have no love for either. But it is protected speech.

wilg 7y ago
Why would you sit out the election instead of voting for the option you know is better?
- einhverfr 7y ago
  Because to vote for someone defending PRWORA would be a betrayal of what my family went through. It was at that point vote third party or stay home. I think if I had it to do over again I would vote third party.
  - wilg 7y ago
    How is it a betrayal of anything or anyone to vote for the better of two viable options (according to your own opinion)?
    - einhverfr 7y ago
      > How is it a betrayal of anything or anyone to vote for the better of two viable options (according to your own opinion)? How do you weigh two options when one has a record of imposing very long-term harms (PRWORA has now been on the books for almost 30 years and if you remember her response to Sanders' accusation she helped round up the votes for PRWORA, it was to defend the law) vs a more acute set of insecurities? That's the choice between measles (orange, fast-spreading, kill you or you recover) and polio (not orange, slower spreading, you might not ever fully recover). So I am not entirely sure from the perspective of being married to a non-American who was the lesser evil except to say they were both genuinely horrifying. Theres a second very important point here as well. If the issues that matter to my family (for example, full inclusion in the protections of the working classes -- even we knowledge workers are working class) are not on the table, withholding my vote may be the only way to get them on the table at all, and voting for someone who has actively worked against those interests is a betrayal of that.
      - wilg 7y ago
        On the issue you originally mentioned – immigration – surely it's clear which where each of these two people stood. Look at their policy proposals, their party's policy proposals, their party's policy history, and their rhetoric. Then you vote for the one that's better. No matter how slight the difference (though in this case the difference is huge). I'm not sure what issue you're referring to getting on the table. (I suspect it actually already is on the table.) But how does not voting get that issue on the table? It's too late to change the candidates' positions on election day. Are you hoping that years later a different set of candidates will try to address your concern by examining who didn't vote in the previous election? That seems unlikely. Candidates do what voters want, not non-voters. Opinion polls often throw out non-voters, too. And most people care about multiple issues, so even if your main issue isn't addressed by anyone, you've lost the opportunity to try to make some progress on all of those "less important" issues. The winning strategy for improving the world is not hard. Vote for the "lesser of two evils". Every single time. This will cause evil to decline. Maybe slowly, hopefully quickly. Don't get stuck in analysis paralysis. The main two U.S. parties have a lot of differences. It should be pretty easy to figure out which closer aligns with your views.
        einhverfr 7y ago
        But what of those other issues? Health care reform that specifically singles out my family for additional burdens if I lose my job because I am married to an immigrant (back to the same issue)? What I am doing is trying to help a third party organize so that if not this year, if not next year, if not in four years, we can eventually make an impact. Basic point is: If my family is not to be fully included with the same rights, then you don't need my vote. This willingness to throw elections made the Democrats come around on gay rights. It ought to be used by those of us in mixed-nationality families to make them come around on immigrant rights. (In addition to organizational efforts, I am in the running for volunteering for various positions in the American Solidarity Party, primarily because they do include families like mine in their agenda.)
        wilg 7y ago
  - fortran77 7y ago
    Did you sit out the entire election, or did you vote for state and local candidates for whom you could show support?

pazimzadeh 7y ago

How long will it be until everyone's vote is weighed equally in the US?