3 ms·
I still don't get it. It just seems silly to favor a candidate based on who rejects them. If policies on opposite sides of the political spectrum are interchang
by root_axis 6y ago
I still don't get it. It just seems silly to favor a candidate based on who rejects them. If policies on opposite sides of the political spectrum are interchangeable then why care at all who gets elected?
At least voting for a 3rd party one can be said to be contributing to a cause closest to one's ideal, but being favorable to anyone who the mainstream doesn't approve of just seems like flawed logic.
- datenarsch 6y agoThe establishment/mainstream is the real enemy of the people. It totally makes sense to support anyone who you think could realistically challenge and destroy the status quo.
- root_axis 6y agoWhat if the person that destroys the status quo is worse? Is your argument that nothing could be worse than the status quo?
- alisonatwork 6y agoA useful example might be to look at the fallout of the various protests during Arab Spring, and how it led to both more liberal and less liberal outcomes. Anti-establishmentarianism can bring together people of different political persuasions who all want to dismantle parts of the current system. What comes after that is a new battle, and that one may end up fought along more traditionally ideological lines.
- testrun 6y agoThis is not about the person. It is about alternative voices to be heard in policy making and policy execution.