Edited to add: This attitude is very peculiar and seems to be specific to whiny liberals. You almost never see conservatives make such statements. They’ll complain about how RINOs aren’t what they want but would never even consider voting for the other party as a result.
Your “other options” are not mutually exclusive with “voting for the least bad option”.
I think this is why the older republicans win over young democrats. They realize that they need to compromise and pick something that is less “bad” to them. The kids in the democrat party whine and protest - but don’t vote.
You’ve done it here, you’re doing it in others threads.
Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.
It’s an entire extra sentence that takes less time than calling them whiny.
You’re boiling the options down to a suck ass, “eat your dinner” message and if you want to prevent rightward movement, I think calls to action are better.
We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn’t working. Then voting for what we got when we must.
Edit: it is NOT the most effective thing to do. Getting additional people to vote is more effective than standing in line individually like a dumb ass and saying, “this is the best I can do.” You can do more than that.
> You’ve done it here, you’re doing it in others threads.
No - it’s what you want me to be doing because that’s what you have arguments against. But it’s not what I’m doing.
> Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.
So… You’re saying they should vote for somebody on the ballot even if they barely agree with them?
> We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn’t working. Then voting for what we got when we must.
So you ARE saying they should vote for a candidate they barely support.
> Edit: it is NOT the most effective thing to do. Getting additional people to vote is more effective than standing in line individually like a dumb ass and saying, “this is the best I can do.” You can do more than that.
So voting is the most effective thing people can do?
Do you fucking realize that you don’t disagree with me and that I don’t disagree with you?
EDIT: Here’s the thing internet - if I say “eating broccoli is healthy!” I’m not saying “eat only broccoli!” or “eating other vegetables is NOT healthy!” So if I say “voting is the most important thing you can do” I’m NOT saying “only go to the polls and do nothing else!”
I provided a cogent reply explaining that getting more people to vote is more effective than simply voting alone.
All I was asking is why you’re telling people they have to vote for “x” when it’s clear they want options.
Tell them how to find/create them but, yes, like you I want their support in a general.
They could do other things:
organize
get out the vote
run for office (even low/local helps)
protest
Example: sometimes protest moves things further than voting. What I have above gives them a way to be involved and help move things in a positive direction.
If they cause 9 more people to vote, but miss the date themselves. Are we worse off?
Telling them that voting for someone they barely agree with is the most important thing… it’s not the packaging that I think most find compelling.
Telling them that voting for someone they barely agree with is the most important thing… it’s not the packaging that I think most find compelling.
Remember that this entire thread began because I was replying to somebody who literally said they would NOT vote for Biden because they were mad about his Union support.
They then doubled down and said they’d be fine if that supported Trump as a result.
From your replies I would infer that you would also support my position of “just go vote anyway”. You can do all the other things if you want. Fine - I don’t see why you’re even arguing with me.
There are two options.
Option 1: You get 60% of the things you want.
Option 2: You get nothing.
You pick… Option 2?
Edited to add: This attitude is very peculiar and seems to be specific to whiny liberals. You almost never see conservatives make such statements. They’ll complain about how RINOs aren’t what they want but would never even consider voting for the other party as a result.
There are other options. The Constitution affords us numerous rights, including protest, among others.
They said they’re mad that nothing changes for the better and you said, why not spend an hour a year doing something.
I think they’re open to more. I’d like to see more doing more. THAT’s how things change.
Your “other options” are not mutually exclusive with “voting for the least bad option”.
I think this is why the older republicans win over young democrats. They realize that they need to compromise and pick something that is less “bad” to them. The kids in the democrat party whine and protest - but don’t vote.
I’m not saying to do something other than voting. I’m saying you keep framing this like that’s the only thing when they could do more.
Voting is not the only option. It’s a good one, but we have more/additonal.
You made all that up. I never said nor implied it was the only thing you can do. But you should do it as it’s the most effective thing you can do.
You’ve done it here, you’re doing it in others threads.
Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.
It’s an entire extra sentence that takes less time than calling them whiny.
You’re boiling the options down to a suck ass, “eat your dinner” message and if you want to prevent rightward movement, I think calls to action are better.
We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn’t working. Then voting for what we got when we must.
Edit: it is NOT the most effective thing to do. Getting additional people to vote is more effective than standing in line individually like a dumb ass and saying, “this is the best I can do.” You can do more than that.
> You’ve done it here, you’re doing it in others threads.
No - it’s what you want me to be doing because that’s what you have arguments against. But it’s not what I’m doing.
> Instead of telling them to vote for a candidate they barely believe in, why not recommend they find candidates they like, locally, state, etc and help them. But then in general elections, vote for someone who can win.
So… You’re saying they should vote for somebody on the ballot even if they barely agree with them?
> We move things to the correct position by having candidates that make a compelling case for why this (waves around) isn’t working. Then voting for what we got when we must.
So you ARE saying they should vote for a candidate they barely support.
> Edit: it is NOT the most effective thing to do. Getting additional people to vote is more effective than standing in line individually like a dumb ass and saying, “this is the best I can do.” You can do more than that.
So voting is the most effective thing people can do?
Do you fucking realize that you don’t disagree with me and that I don’t disagree with you?
EDIT: Here’s the thing internet - if I say “eating broccoli is healthy!” I’m not saying “eat only broccoli!” or “eating other vegetables is NOT healthy!” So if I say “voting is the most important thing you can do” I’m NOT saying “only go to the polls and do nothing else!”
I provided a cogent reply explaining that getting more people to vote is more effective than simply voting alone.
All I was asking is why you’re telling people they have to vote for “x” when it’s clear they want options.
Tell them how to find/create them but, yes, like you I want their support in a general.
They could do other things:
Example: sometimes protest moves things further than voting. What I have above gives them a way to be involved and help move things in a positive direction.
If they cause 9 more people to vote, but miss the date themselves. Are we worse off?
Telling them that voting for someone they barely agree with is the most important thing… it’s not the packaging that I think most find compelling.
Remember that this entire thread began because I was replying to somebody who literally said they would NOT vote for Biden because they were mad about his Union support.
They then doubled down and said they’d be fine if that supported Trump as a result.
From your replies I would infer that you would also support my position of “just go vote anyway”. You can do all the other things if you want. Fine - I don’t see why you’re even arguing with me.