3 ms·

That’s such a weird thing to not vote for someone for. I mean, I get it - it’s a principled stance and all. But you should never vote on principal. You should v

That’s such a weird thing to not vote for someone for. I mean, I get it - it’s a principled stance and all. But you should never vote on principal. You should vote to win so that the real issues you care about are reified. Principal could make you feel good but you still lost. Winning is the only thing that matters.

armada651 4y ago
That kind of cynical thinking is exactly what broke US democracy. Winning at any cost even to the detriment of society as a whole.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It’s from the book “Rules for Radicals” and has been a major part of progressive activists strategy for over 60 years. It works.
  - armada651 4y ago
    I didn't say that it doesn't work. It has been a major part of the anti-abortion and pro-gun movements as well and it has been very effective there. However your quality of life in society is much more important than any single issue. Knowingly voting for a candidate who is not competent just because you agree with them on a single issue will not solve any of the larger issues in society.
    - trinsic2 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      It comes down to pragmatism, not ideology. Consider you have to 2 groups, A and B, and a set of issues. Each issue has different importance to me and each group has a generally opposing stance on each issue. One group may have a stance on a subset of issues I generally prefer but more importantly the other group could have a stance on issues that terrify me. Their stance would lead to negative outcomes much worse than negative outcomes from the other group. It could even be that I disagree with many of the stances of the group I vote for but I’m not terrified of the outcomes associated with those stances. So it is therefore more important to win to stop the opposition group from producing undesirable outcomes.
      - Terretta 4y ago
        You're misunderstanding issues versus the mechanism of issue management. You're saying ability to manage issues is less important than any issue being managed, which makes no sense. Unless, of course, you don't believe in democracy and an election process.
        nemo44x 4y ago
        I believe in winning so the issues I care about most are either acted on or prevented from being acted on. Without winning it’s pointless. You need to win to take power so winning is the most important thing before anything else. Everything else has winning as a prerequisite.
LadyCailin 4y ago
If you vote for me, I’ll work to enact everything you want, but then I’ll also ensure I become dictator so that later I can repeal everything I don’t like, including most of the things I passed for you. Good news is, you won!
namuol 4y ago
> Winning is the only thing that matters. …assuming you trust the system to enact policies you care about. Punishing the act of disingenuously eroding trust in the system for political gain isn’t just a matter of principal but a clear long term strategy. Believe it or not there’s another election cycle after this one.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Next election cycle? Who cares, it will be forgotten by the next news cycle. Keep winning to keep getting your desired outcomes.
macNchz 4y ago
Many people consider not having election deniers in government to be a “real issue” in and of itself. Having people in office who sow discord and continue to promulgate a fantasy about election integrity actively takes focus away from more important things. The winning at-all-costs attitude is what got us here in the first place: people so concerned with winning and having their people in office they don’t care if they actually won the election, and tell themselves increasingly nonsensical things to justify it.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It’s about outcomes. If that’s an outcome you care greatly about then that’s your decision to make. For me it ranks low on the set of outcomes I desire, especially when compared to the outcomes the opposition desires. The book “Rules for Radicals” talks about this and it has been a tool of left wing activists for 60+ years. You see it today for instance with various activists groups that plea for “our democracy” on one hand while destroying things and disrupting society until they get their way outside the democratic process.
  - trinsic2 4y ago
    The outcome is not in your control. Its like going to a rigged casino and expected to win big. This ideology is really out of touch with reality.
  - Terretta 4y ago
    Having elections transition smoothly according to the vote is low on the set of outcomes you desire? That seems like a meta issue, that if not supported, all other issues are moot. So I'd certainly vote against party on any given platform plank in order to maintain the meta process that applies to both present and all future parties regardless of platform planks.

armada651 4y ago

That kind of cynical thinking is exactly what broke US democracy. Winning at any cost even to the detriment of society as a whole.

nemo44x 4y ago
It’s from the book “Rules for Radicals” and has been a major part of progressive activists strategy for over 60 years. It works.
- armada651 4y ago
  I didn't say that it doesn't work. It has been a major part of the anti-abortion and pro-gun movements as well and it has been very effective there. However your quality of life in society is much more important than any single issue. Knowingly voting for a candidate who is not competent just because you agree with them on a single issue will not solve any of the larger issues in society.
  - trinsic2 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    It comes down to pragmatism, not ideology. Consider you have to 2 groups, A and B, and a set of issues. Each issue has different importance to me and each group has a generally opposing stance on each issue. One group may have a stance on a subset of issues I generally prefer but more importantly the other group could have a stance on issues that terrify me. Their stance would lead to negative outcomes much worse than negative outcomes from the other group. It could even be that I disagree with many of the stances of the group I vote for but I’m not terrified of the outcomes associated with those stances. So it is therefore more important to win to stop the opposition group from producing undesirable outcomes.
    - Terretta 4y ago
      You're misunderstanding issues versus the mechanism of issue management. You're saying ability to manage issues is less important than any issue being managed, which makes no sense. Unless, of course, you don't believe in democracy and an election process.
      - nemo44x 4y ago
        I believe in winning so the issues I care about most are either acted on or prevented from being acted on. Without winning it’s pointless. You need to win to take power so winning is the most important thing before anything else. Everything else has winning as a prerequisite.

LadyCailin 4y ago

If you vote for me, I’ll work to enact everything you want, but then I’ll also ensure I become dictator so that later I can repeal everything I don’t like, including most of the things I passed for you. Good news is, you won!

namuol 4y ago

> Winning is the only thing that matters. …assuming you trust the system to enact policies you care about. Punishing the act of disingenuously eroding trust in the system for political gain isn’t just a matter of principal but a clear long term strategy. Believe it or not there’s another election cycle after this one.

nemo44x 4y ago
Next election cycle? Who cares, it will be forgotten by the next news cycle. Keep winning to keep getting your desired outcomes.

macNchz 4y ago

Many people consider not having election deniers in government to be a “real issue” in and of itself. Having people in office who sow discord and continue to promulgate a fantasy about election integrity actively takes focus away from more important things. The winning at-all-costs attitude is what got us here in the first place: people so concerned with winning and having their people in office they don’t care if they actually won the election, and tell themselves increasingly nonsensical things to justify it.

nemo44x 4y ago
It’s about outcomes. If that’s an outcome you care greatly about then that’s your decision to make. For me it ranks low on the set of outcomes I desire, especially when compared to the outcomes the opposition desires. The book “Rules for Radicals” talks about this and it has been a tool of left wing activists for 60+ years. You see it today for instance with various activists groups that plea for “our democracy” on one hand while destroying things and disrupting society until they get their way outside the democratic process.
- trinsic2 4y ago
  The outcome is not in your control. Its like going to a rigged casino and expected to win big. This ideology is really out of touch with reality.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Having elections transition smoothly according to the vote is low on the set of outcomes you desire? That seems like a meta issue, that if not supported, all other issues are moot. So I'd certainly vote against party on any given platform plank in order to maintain the meta process that applies to both present and all future parties regardless of platform planks.