3 ms·

I substitute "lesser of two evils" with "neither of two evils" but it ends at the same place. I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have

I substitute "lesser of two evils" with "neither of two evils" but it ends at the same place. I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. For this reason I can't justify voting for a third party candidate, either, because I still believe they'd act similarly, and with less inherent power, they'd be more easily swayed into acting irrationally (being president helps a great deal in working within your respective national committee, and an independent wouldn't have that support). The only conclusion I'm forced to face is the undeniable statistical fact that, individually, it doesn't matter if I vote at all.

coldtea 13y ago
>I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. Citations needed. Politicians have had widely varying behavior in the past. It depends on what the climate created by the citizenry is.
- diminoten 13y ago
  I need to cite my beliefs now?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    In a discussion, yes, you need to support them --either with citations and references or with your own argumentation. Else it's just a random statement. I believe X. Why would anyone care about my belief?
    - diminoten 13y ago
      My supporting argument is that every president, every leader of every nation in the entire world from as long as nations have existed have behaved, in this specific regard, exactly the same. There is never, in the history of humanity, an example of a leader who did not have a clandestine intelligence-gathering arm of his or her government. Furthermore, there has never been a leader of the US who has been able to avoid killing people through military action. Every president in the history of the US has blood on his hands. Arguably, every leader of every country does as well. From Nelson Mandella to Stalin, to Churchill to Sulla, from Nefertiti to William Wallace - all leaders kill people, spy on people, and break their country's laws. What reason would I have to believe a third party candidate could buck literally thousands of years of corruption, privacy violations and death? It's in the damned job description - leading is immoral, regardless of what party affiliation the leader carries. So would literally every action taken by Bush or Obama be repeated? No. But you can be damn sure that the things we all have huge problems with would be, by any human being on the planet put into the positions they were put into. They're acting rationally, given the information they've got.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        That's too generic and blanket a statement. And historically false -- not "every leader" has done those things. But even if he did, not "every leader" has done those things to the same extent, to the same kind of people, and for the same reasons.
        diminoten 13y ago
        You're not presenting much of a counter argument. "Nuh uh!" isn't really addressable. You asked for an explanation, I gave you one. I'm uninterested in talking with you specifically any further, so that's basically as far as we're going to go.
      - grandalf 13y ago
        This is true, and it's the argument I used to predict that Obama would carry on all of Bush's worst policies (which he has). However, I still think it makes sense to vote for third party candidates, if only to force mainstream parties to realize that some of their positions will lose them significant numbers of votes. In fact, I'd argue that your argument actually supports voting for 3rd party candidates as long as the expectation is that those votes will impact which issues get focus, and not the expectation that the 3rd party candidate will actually win an election. It is quite likely that if Obama didn't have so many blind loyalists in his pocket that he'd actually worry about being impeached over his recently revealed abuses. Voting 3rd party tells the major parties that issues matter more than loyalty and that we're not serfs.
        diminoten 13y ago
        I extend what I'm saying to the point where I'd be upset if Obama, or any leader, were hindered during their time in office. These people pass our rigorous vetting processes, they put up with our shit for the entire campaign, and they prove themselves to be worthy of leading this country. Our nation puts them into power with the expectation that, after their term is complete, we can judge them for their performance and either re-elect them (or people who think/say things like them) or not. Impeachment is a violent disruption of that contract, and it makes zero sense to impeach a man who, as I just said, is doing the exact same things every other leader does/has done since the dawn of history. Voting 3rd party pretends like that 3rd party candidate wouldn't be guilty of exactly the same violations if, by some miracle, the person were to be elected. It's a lie voters tell themselves, and it's worse than voting for a DNC/RNC candidate because it demonstrates either a depressing and dangerous naivety, or a malicious and malignant sense of superiority over others. Voting for a single issue (to get attention, or to get your view imposed on others) is the act of a fanatic. No single issue is that important. Period. Furthermore, voting is the very last thing that happens in a campaign. Your 3rd party selection will be completely and entirely ignored once the results come in. No cause saw a significant change in public awareness because of a 3rd party candidate.

coldtea 13y ago

>I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. Citations needed. Politicians have had widely varying behavior in the past. It depends on what the climate created by the citizenry is.

diminoten 13y ago
I need to cite my beliefs now?
- coldtea 13y ago
  In a discussion, yes, you need to support them --either with citations and references or with your own argumentation. Else it's just a random statement. I believe X. Why would anyone care about my belief?
  - diminoten 13y ago
    My supporting argument is that every president, every leader of every nation in the entire world from as long as nations have existed have behaved, in this specific regard, exactly the same. There is never, in the history of humanity, an example of a leader who did not have a clandestine intelligence-gathering arm of his or her government. Furthermore, there has never been a leader of the US who has been able to avoid killing people through military action. Every president in the history of the US has blood on his hands. Arguably, every leader of every country does as well. From Nelson Mandella to Stalin, to Churchill to Sulla, from Nefertiti to William Wallace - all leaders kill people, spy on people, and break their country's laws. What reason would I have to believe a third party candidate could buck literally thousands of years of corruption, privacy violations and death? It's in the damned job description - leading is immoral, regardless of what party affiliation the leader carries. So would literally every action taken by Bush or Obama be repeated? No. But you can be damn sure that the things we all have huge problems with would be, by any human being on the planet put into the positions they were put into. They're acting rationally, given the information they've got.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      That's too generic and blanket a statement. And historically false -- not "every leader" has done those things. But even if he did, not "every leader" has done those things to the same extent, to the same kind of people, and for the same reasons.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        You're not presenting much of a counter argument. "Nuh uh!" isn't really addressable. You asked for an explanation, I gave you one. I'm uninterested in talking with you specifically any further, so that's basically as far as we're going to go.
    - grandalf 13y ago
      This is true, and it's the argument I used to predict that Obama would carry on all of Bush's worst policies (which he has). However, I still think it makes sense to vote for third party candidates, if only to force mainstream parties to realize that some of their positions will lose them significant numbers of votes. In fact, I'd argue that your argument actually supports voting for 3rd party candidates as long as the expectation is that those votes will impact which issues get focus, and not the expectation that the 3rd party candidate will actually win an election. It is quite likely that if Obama didn't have so many blind loyalists in his pocket that he'd actually worry about being impeached over his recently revealed abuses. Voting 3rd party tells the major parties that issues matter more than loyalty and that we're not serfs.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        I extend what I'm saying to the point where I'd be upset if Obama, or any leader, were hindered during their time in office. These people pass our rigorous vetting processes, they put up with our shit for the entire campaign, and they prove themselves to be worthy of leading this country. Our nation puts them into power with the expectation that, after their term is complete, we can judge them for their performance and either re-elect them (or people who think/say things like them) or not. Impeachment is a violent disruption of that contract, and it makes zero sense to impeach a man who, as I just said, is doing the exact same things every other leader does/has done since the dawn of history. Voting 3rd party pretends like that 3rd party candidate wouldn't be guilty of exactly the same violations if, by some miracle, the person were to be elected. It's a lie voters tell themselves, and it's worse than voting for a DNC/RNC candidate because it demonstrates either a depressing and dangerous naivety, or a malicious and malignant sense of superiority over others. Voting for a single issue (to get attention, or to get your view imposed on others) is the act of a fanatic. No single issue is that important. Period. Furthermore, voting is the very last thing that happens in a campaign. Your 3rd party selection will be completely and entirely ignored once the results come in. No cause saw a significant change in public awareness because of a 3rd party candidate.