Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

A fascinating look at turning the so-called "moderate" argument against Sanders against moderates in general.

[delphonso]

Respectfully disagree, but I didn't really explain my thought sufficiently.  Yeah 3rd party votes can't win the final election (in presidential elections, or the vast majority of congressional elections) but I say that's a self fulfilling prophecy.  People vote for the two parties when they really care, because third parties have no chance and the party they hate is horrible.  And people who would be third party voters don't vote, because they think it's pointless.

But whenever one of those jaded later people *does* vote for a third party?  It weakens the idea that only the two parties can win. 

Abstainers are dismissed as uninterested.  People who vote third party are seen as *particularly* interested, in that they're willing to take the effort to vote for hopeless causes.  They represent icebergs of opinion within the mainline pragmatic voters.

I'm probably going to vote within the two-party framework, but I might not.  Democratic primary isn't over yet.  They don't own me.
But not voting at all is just a missed opportunity.  It could be seen as a vote of no confidence, but a vote for a third party does that far better.  So I truly want people who wouldn't vote, to vote against this BS false dichotomy, as an act of demonstration which will show up on *every result statistic*.

Edit: A vote for Batman is a bigger middle finger to the corrupt state of affairs than staying home is.

On a more pragmatic level, funding for future elections (not small donations but Big Funding) is based on number of votes. If there's a third party person you like, voting for them may help them a lot in future campaigns.

I do understand the original point though, and am guilty of apatheticly not voting as well. It'd be cool if anyone saw that like 60% of Americans don't vote and thought that was a problem.

[TamerVirus]

If there's a third party person you like, voting for them may help them a lot in future campaigns.

It's Gary Johnson's time to shine!

[Max™]

it was pathos

You thought Patho-tho was your reply...

But it was me, Dio!

[Iduno]

On a more pragmatic level, funding for future elections (not small donations but Big Funding) is based on number of votes. If there's a third party person you like, voting for them may help them a lot in future campaigns.

I do understand the original point though, and am guilty of apatheticly not voting as well. It'd be cool if anyone saw that like 60% of Americans don't vote and thought that was a problem.

I don't usually vote, because almost none of the candidates at any level run on platforms that I don't hate. Not even that I think are okay, it's always stuff like "we should quit allowing the city to fund street repairs the black part of town, that also is the black part of town because we allow landlords to refuse them service in other parts of town." That's an actual example.

I have, however, submitted a ballot that had no votes for anyone running unopposed, because I cared about some of the ballot measures. I'd like to see what percentage of the vote some people who are running unopposed get.

[Quarque]

The Assange trial begins today.Here's a good brush-up on the facts of it.

Definitely deserves much more attention. I wanted to say it's not directly related to the elections, but apparently Joe Biden called him a 'high-tech terrorist'.

[Naturegirl1999]

What has Julian Assange done that America doesn’t like?

[Quarque]

It's a long story. He founded wikileaks, a site that allowed whistleblowers to publish documents online with a strong garantuee to protect their anonimity. A famous example of one such document is a movie where an American helicopter kills civilians in Iraq (easy to find now - hard on the stomach.)

Now, wikileaks published a really large number of documents, some of them classified. America claims this amounts to espionage, while Assange says it was journalism. My personal take is that, even if there may be a valid case that the publication of some of those documents may have been questionable, Assange is a hero. Governments should be transparent and respect the privacy of the citizens, not the other way around.

[Naturegirl1999]

I agree with you on this, if the government needs to hide stuff and dislikes it’s citizens knowing what it’s doing, there is a problem. We should know what our government does so we can protest things like killing civilians. If the government represents the citizens, it should be transparent with them

[Lord Shonus]

I agree with you on this, if the government needs to hide stuff and dislikes it’s citizens knowing what it’s doing, there is a problem. We should know what our government does so we can protest things like killing civilians. If the government represents the citizens, it should be transparent with them

There are -must be- limits to transparency for a government to function - to even exist. Any government is going to have spies in other nations (even mostly friendly ones), and revealing the wrong documents can reveal those spies. In more liberal countries, this could be handled quietly enough (Britain knows the US has spies in Britain, and vice versa - the worst that will happen is a quid-pro-quo deal) unless it leaks to the press - at which time it creates a public scandal that can bring down politicians or entire governments. In less liberal countries, spies that are revealed are likely to face summary execution after thorough interrogation by torture.

Any government is going to have military forces operating covertly - for missions ranging from counter-terrorism operations, surveilance, all the way through "since you don't know where our troops are in this country, you can't attack ANYWHERE without risking killing our guys and starting a war with us!" tripwire forces. Leaking the wrong documents into the wild, and you get Benghazi.

Any government is going to have technologies that they don't want distributed for very good reasons. Leak the wrong documents, and you could wind up with a megalomaniac dictator able to produce nuclear warheads and sophisticated missile systems.


More to the point, Assange is NOT a "all goverments must be transparent" saint. He's only revealed American and NATO secrets. Russia? He doesn't make any attempt to crack open Putin's wall of secrecy - he praises Putin and uses him for shelter. This is the real danger - even if we assume that every single Wikileaks document is 100% accurate, they are being released under the direction of an open lackey to an outright dictator that is hostile to the United States. Not only that, there's records of the organization offering to aid the Trump campaign directly, and to publish "evidence" of pro-Clinton voter fraud should Trump lose. There's a near-certainty among the global intelligence community that the DNC papers that Wikileaks released came straight from Russian intelligence as part of the (proven) Russian plan to interfere in the 2016 election. The organization has even gone so far as to produce baseless claims that the Syrian nerve gas attack of April 2017 that killed dozens of civilians and injured hundreds more was a "false flag".


Assange isn't a hero, and Wikilieaks is not the chaps in white hats. They're part of the propaganda wing of a dictator who uses them as a cheap way to harm his greatest rival.

[SalmonGod]

More to the point, Assange is NOT a "all goverments must be transparent" saint. He's only revealed American and NATO secrets. Russia? He doesn't make any attempt to crack open Putin's wall of secrecy - he praises Putin and uses him for shelter. This is the real danger - even if we assume that every single Wikileaks document is 100% accurate, they are being released under the direction of an open lackey to an outright dictator that is hostile to the United States. Not only that, there's records of the organization offering to aid the Trump campaign directly, and to publish "evidence" of pro-Clinton voter fraud should Trump lose. There's a near-certainty among the global intelligence community that the DNC papers that Wikileaks released came straight from Russian intelligence as part of the (proven) Russian plan to interfere in the 2016 election. The organization has even gone so far as to produce baseless claims that the Syrian nerve gas attack of April 2017 that killed dozens of civilians and injured hundreds more was a "false flag".


Assange isn't a hero, and Wikilieaks is not the chaps in white hats. They're part of the propaganda wing of a dictator who uses them as a cheap way to harm his greatest rival.

Have you ever actually looked at Wikileak's content, or are you just blindly repeating post-2016 corporate narrative?

Wikileaks Category: Russia
Wikileaks Spy Files Russia (a major publication of info regarding Russia's domestic surveillance released in 2017)

And please point me to these instances of Assange praising Putin, or explain how he's used him for shelter. 

Why the fuck would he intend to push for a Trump victory, when Trump is an authoritarian who hates the type of work that Assange does and very quickly ramped up efforts to extradite and prosecute Assange after taking office.  Makes no sense.

[Cheesy Honkers]

If the most vile of propaganda outlets of Russia is a site that leaks American documents then perhaps the problem isn't in Russia. As for why Assange won't release Russian documents in an effort to slander them, why bother? It's not like accusations towards China, Russia or any non-NATO country need any basis in reality. Just make shit up lol

[Lord Shonus]

And please point me to these instances of Assange praising Putin, or explain how he's used him for shelter. 

Why the fuck would he intend to push for a Trump victory, when Trump is an authoritarian who hates the type of work that Assange does and very quickly ramped up efforts to extradite and prosecute Assange after taking office.  Makes no sense.

Did you miss the part where he hosted a show on RUSSIA TIMES (Russia's main propaganda network)? Where he condemned the Panama Papers leak as "Putin Bashing"? Or the part where his escape plan from Equador was a permanent diplomatic post in Russia.


Did you miss the fact that Wikileaks just coincidentally released new "damning" information on Clinton every single time she was polling well, and never published a thing on Trump? 


"Why would he support Trump when he's an anti-authoritarian?" has a simple question - HE IS NOT AN ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN AT ALL AND IS LYING TO YOU.

[delphonso]

Cool, so the US is well within their rights to kill him, yeah?

[Lord Shonus]

Not necessarily. He did reveal some information that should not have been hidden, and thus might deserve clemency. I'm just sick and tired of hearing about St. Assange, the noble defender of Truth who can do no wrong.