3 ms·

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 spec

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.
  - grandalf 13y ago
    You make some good points, consider my counter-argument: Voting is a formality, elections are a formality, etc. Democracy is also a formality. There have been many cases of kind autocrats who are loved by the people and who govern with their consent. Many in the US are biased by the allure of democratic formalities and lose sight of the larger principle which is consent. Whether you vote or not, if you do not dissent then you consent to whatever is happening. This is true in any kind of regime, democratic or not. I'd argue that it is the duty of all citizens to dissent aggressively when leaders act badly. This can take the form of voting behavior, public or private discourse, letter writing, fundraising, boycotting, civil disobedience, etc. The contract between the people and their leaders should be reevaluated every hour of every day, not just viewed in retrospect after the 4 year term is over. Impeachment is an extreme measure, and too much of it is bad for the stability of our institutions, but the threat of it should be very real. But just as stability is important for our institutions, so is trust. If the people cannot trust the president's words, that is just as large a threat to our stability as an impeachment proceeding. We have granted our leaders the privilege of keeping some state secrets. They have taken that trust and created a massive surveillance infrastructure that goes well beyond what anyone imagined and well beyond the intent of the law. Now it is time to reduce the level of trust and dial back the excesses. So far our leaders have shown no inclination to engage in a mutually respectful dialog with the public about the excesses (or about the crimes revealed by the leaks, for that matter). This conduct weakens our institutions more than most people realize. It is not only profoundly undemocratic, it is also profoundly disrespectful of the democracy that so many have fought to achieve.

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.
- grandalf 13y ago
  You make some good points, consider my counter-argument: Voting is a formality, elections are a formality, etc. Democracy is also a formality. There have been many cases of kind autocrats who are loved by the people and who govern with their consent. Many in the US are biased by the allure of democratic formalities and lose sight of the larger principle which is consent. Whether you vote or not, if you do not dissent then you consent to whatever is happening. This is true in any kind of regime, democratic or not. I'd argue that it is the duty of all citizens to dissent aggressively when leaders act badly. This can take the form of voting behavior, public or private discourse, letter writing, fundraising, boycotting, civil disobedience, etc. The contract between the people and their leaders should be reevaluated every hour of every day, not just viewed in retrospect after the 4 year term is over. Impeachment is an extreme measure, and too much of it is bad for the stability of our institutions, but the threat of it should be very real. But just as stability is important for our institutions, so is trust. If the people cannot trust the president's words, that is just as large a threat to our stability as an impeachment proceeding. We have granted our leaders the privilege of keeping some state secrets. They have taken that trust and created a massive surveillance infrastructure that goes well beyond what anyone imagined and well beyond the intent of the law. Now it is time to reduce the level of trust and dial back the excesses. So far our leaders have shown no inclination to engage in a mutually respectful dialog with the public about the excesses (or about the crimes revealed by the leaks, for that matter). This conduct weakens our institutions more than most people realize. It is not only profoundly undemocratic, it is also profoundly disrespectful of the democracy that so many have fought to achieve.