Print

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

[DemonOfWrath]

I'm more looking at that you're demanding that the other faction compromise, yet being upset that they're demanding that your faction compromises. Especially when, well, there's been voting to determine that effective question (who has to compromise more) and your faction is losing it badly. It's harder to take the demands that the centrist faction compromise seriously when the left faction will rip apart their own if they try to compromise (case in point Warren). It's hypocritical.

Then again, as an Australian I don't see why having to vote for the lesser of two evils is such a horrible thing to have to do. But that's because that's fundamentally built into the voting system over here, where regardless of your first choice at some stage you have to pick which of the major parties you dislike the least (if you're like me and don't like any of the 3 major parties we have). Instead of "this is my ideal and anything else is some amount of horrible in comparison", "this is my worst case and anything else is some amount of good in comparison".

[Reelya]

I honestly have no idea whatsoever how your post is even supposed to refute my point in any substantial way, Reelya.  Refusing to vote lesser of two evils is bad because Republicans win elections sometimes?  And every time it's the far-left's fault?  Is that really it?

Your claim is that voting for the lesser of two evils always shifts things rightwards, but you don't actually have much to back that up. That graph is a "just so" graph, it's meaningless basically.

And yes, refusing to vote en masse does deliver the vote to the candidate that you least align with. You can't just claim that since you don't vote you're "outside the system" and therefore nothing is your fault. Everyone is a product of societal forces. You're going to get a roughly specific number of far-left, center-left, center-right and far-right individuals. If the far-left don't vote then they're not "outside the system" they're effectively leaving a hole where their votes should be, and that could demonstrably be shown to have handed the 2000 election to Bush with a bit of digging for the numbers (the razor-thin margin in Florida). This thing about the far-left refusing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" goes back to the 60s, so it definitely affected the result in 2000. Left-wing people voting third-party or just not voting for for the fucking presidency to "stick it to the man" is imbecilic. It delivered you Bush. Just don't do that stuff in a first-past-the-post election of that importance, please.

And that's also why I said this is the Trolley Problem. By refusing to pull the lever "to the left", you're not "outside" the decision-making process, you chose by inaction to shift the vote rightwards yourself. And if you didn't vote last time, you know what? The demographers put you in an "unlikely to vote" category, and they shift the messaging away from you next time. They don't make an extra-special effort to woo you. They've done the math on how much effort is needed to bring in an additional vote, and you've made their math easier: you matter less not more if you're in a "usually doesn't vote" category.

[dragdeler]

-

[SalmonGod]

I'm more looking at that you're demanding that the other faction compromise, yet being upset that they're demanding that your faction compromises. Especially when, well, there's been voting to determine that effective question (who has to compromise more) and your faction is losing it badly. It's harder to take the demands that the centrist faction compromise seriously when the left faction will rip apart their own if they try to compromise (case in point Warren). It's hypocritical.

Then again, as an Australian I don't see why having to vote for the lesser of two evils is such a horrible thing to have to do. But that's because that's fundamentally built into the voting system over here, where regardless of your first choice at some stage you have to pick which of the major parties you dislike the least (if you're like me and don't like any of the 3 major parties we have). Instead of "this is my ideal and anything else is some amount of horrible in comparison", "this is my worst case and anything else is some amount of good in comparison".

I'm demanding compromise in the sense that I am allowed to be represented at all.  Whatever Biden's platform is that he's campaigning on, his career has historically been the direct antithesis of every one of my political priorities.  As it has been with the majority of Democrat politics for the past 16 years.  (for what it's worth, I would have voted for Gore, but was only 17 then)

The left has been the faction that compromised every election for like 2 generations now.  And as a result, we have steadily slid further and further away from our politics the whole time.  There has not been a single Democrat candidate in my entire voting age life who has represented me on more than like 20% of my interests.  And I'm 36.

We're now at a point where I'm genuinely afraid for the safety of my diabetic child, as people die in this country every single day from inability to afford insulin.  And we have 10 years to take drastic action on global warming before it reaches a point that nothing can be done about it anymore, and the collapse of civilization as we know it is virtually guaranteed.

Is this not an ok time to finally say that we're done being taken for granted and getting absolutely zero in return?  Sorry, but I don't think it's hypocritical in the slightest to demand that we get a fair portion of our politics represented.  I'm not crying about getting everything my way.  I would vote for somebody who represents me even just 50%.  The boomer wing of the party can finally for once in their narcissistic lives put up with less than absolute domination.  They can meet me at that halfway point if they want to coalition.

And that's also why I said this is the Trolley Problem. By refusing to pull the lever "to the left", you're not "outside" the decision-making process, you chose by inaction to shift the vote rightwards yourself. And if you didn't vote last time, you know what? The demographers put you in an "unlikely to vote" category, and they shift the messaging away from you next time. They don't make an extra-special effort to woo special little you with your special little requirements. They've done the math on how much effort is needed to bring in an additional vote, and you've made their math easier: you matter less not more if you're in a "usually doesn't vote" category.

That trolley problem isn't some immutable law of nature.  It's a product of the corporate/establishment/centrist/boomer/whatever you want to call it wing of the party being obstinate.  They make it perfectly clear that they will install whatever candidate they want with zero respect for our interests.  If they would consider our interests in choosing their candidate, then there would be no trolley problem in the first place.  Therefor it's ridiculous to say that they shouldn't bear the greater burden of responsibility for whatever the outcome of that trolley problem is.

The demographers you describe are shit.  In one breath, you blame the left for causing Democrats to lose elections, but then turn around and tell me my actions are cause for demographers to see me as irrelevant.  Not really irrelevant if I'm losing them elections, am I?  Maybe the demographers are shit and need to learn.

[martinuzz]

We're now at a point where I'm genuinely afraid for the safety of my diabetic child, as people die in this country every single day from inability to afford insulin.

Do you not have a law that protects you, when you commit a crime (in this example, steal insulin / rob a pharmacy for insulin), where the sole motive is preservation of life (in this case of your child), so that you will be found guilty, but not sentenced?
Over here no judge in his right mind would sentence you any punishment if you were to steal insulin to save a life.
Not that that situation would ever happen here, because insulin is covered by basic insurance for everyone.
A government that allows it's citizens to die from not being able to afford insulin should be brought before a criminal court and charged with murder with financial motives.

[SalmonGod]

We're now at a point where I'm genuinely afraid for the safety of my diabetic child, as people die in this country every single day from inability to afford insulin.

Do you not have a law that protects you, when you commit a crime (in this example, steal insulin / rob a pharmacy for insulin), where the sole motive is preservation of life (of your child), so that you will be found guilty, but not sentenced?
Over here no judge in his right mind would sentence you any punishment if you were to steal insulin to save a child's life.
Not that that situation would ever happen here, because insulin is covered by insurance for everyone.

No?  Not that I've ever heard of.  The concept is actually mind-blowing to me.  Keep in mind that our prison system operates for profit.  In fact, we have a serious problem with people ending up in prison for minor non-violent offenses, and ending up there for life, much of the time in solitary confinement, because they get on the bad side of a prison guard or something.

Also, attempting to steal insulin would most likely get you shot.  You'd have to hold up a pharmacy or a cargo truck, which would almost certainly result in a confrontation with trigger-happy police.

A government that allows it's citizens to die from not being able to afford insulin should be brought before a criminal court and charged with murder with financial motives.

It happens here.  A lot.

One in four diabetes patients ration their insulin, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

I see mourning on my social media feeds nearly every day for people who died here while rationing insulin.

[martinuzz]

No?  Not that I've ever heard of.  The concept is actually mind-blowing to me.

The concept in itself shouldn't be too alien.
It's the same concept that allows you self-defence when you are attacked.
When you take out someone (within reasonable boundaries of proportionality) who is threatening your life, you are technically committing a crime, but you will not be sentenced for it, because, preservation of life.
In the insulin example it's just slightly extended.

[Frumple]

We're now at a point where I'm genuinely afraid for the safety of my diabetic child, as people die in this country every single day from inability to afford insulin.

Do you not have a law that protects you, when you commit a crime (in this example, steal insulin / rob a pharmacy for insulin), where the sole motive is preservation of life (in this case of your child), so that you will be found guilty, but not sentenced?

Nope. There's some good samaritan stuff that sometimes protects you if you fuck up trying to save someone's life, but it wouldn't help you much if you, say, busted in a store window and janked their medical supplies. Stuff that can help if you break a window or break down a door to save someone in distress, but as far as I'm aware there's no situation where something like stealing prescription meds (and note with insulin the shots are daily, so there'd be consistent theft going on, not just a one-off or emergency thing) would have any sort of protection except a judge's mercy.

And a judge's mercy in that case would probably be taking your child from you, since you're clearly unable to care for them, and then throwing you in jail both for theft and child abuse/negligence. At that point you're probably better off surrendering the kid to children's services voluntarily, and doing whatever your equivalent to prayer is that our jacked up foster care system won't fuck the kid up too hard or just get them killed anyway.

[DemonOfWrath]

I'm more looking at that you're demanding that the other faction compromise, yet being upset that they're demanding that your faction compromises. Especially when, well, there's been voting to determine that effective question (who has to compromise more) and your faction is losing it badly. It's harder to take the demands that the centrist faction compromise seriously when the left faction will rip apart their own if they try to compromise (case in point Warren). It's hypocritical.

Then again, as an Australian I don't see why having to vote for the lesser of two evils is such a horrible thing to have to do. But that's because that's fundamentally built into the voting system over here, where regardless of your first choice at some stage you have to pick which of the major parties you dislike the least (if you're like me and don't like any of the 3 major parties we have). Instead of "this is my ideal and anything else is some amount of horrible in comparison", "this is my worst case and anything else is some amount of good in comparison".

I'm demanding compromise in the sense that I am allowed to be represented at all.  Whatever Biden's platform is that he's campaigning on, his career has historically been the direct antithesis of every one of my political priorities.  As it has been with the majority of Democrat politics for the past 16 years.  (for what it's worth, I would have voted for Gore, but was only 17 then)

The left has been the faction that compromised every election for like 2 generations now.  And as a result, we have steadily slid further and further away from our politics the whole time.  There has not been a single Democrat candidate in my entire voting age life who has represented me on more than like 20% of my interests.  And I'm 36.

We're now at a point where I'm genuinely afraid for the safety of my diabetic child, as people die in this country every single day from inability to afford insulin.  And we have 10 years to take drastic action on global warming before it reaches a point that nothing can be done about it anymore, and the collapse of civilization as we know it is virtually guaranteed.

Is this not an ok time to finally say that we're done being taken for granted and getting absolutely zero in return?  Sorry, but I don't think it's hypocritical in the slightest to demand that we get a fair portion of our politics represented.  I'm not crying about getting everything my way.  I would vote for somebody who represents me even just 50%.  The boomer wing of the party can finally for once in their narcissistic lives put up with less than absolute domination.  They can meet me at that halfway point if they want to coalition.

When you are electing one single person for the entirety of a nation... no you can't expect them to represent your interests as much when you're significantly the minority faction, being bluntly realistic. Will there be a democratic nominee who mostly represents the left flank of the party? Not for a while, considering Bernie is currently getting crushed.

And yes there are very important differences between Biden and Trump even if you dislike both to a large degree. The next president is going to likely get 1-2 supreme court picks, and the prospect of a court with a flat-out majority of Kavanaugh's/Gosuch's may as well make anything you (or I, looking at your country) actually want to happen a pipe dream for several decades. That alone is a very worrying idea.

And as the wisdom tends to say, build local and go from the ground up. That's ignoring the fact that the left flank of the party has stronger representation than ever when it comes to congress. There's some very real progress there.

No, you aren't going to be looking at a presidential vote that's going to make you happy. You're much more likely to be able to find (and influence) a congresscritter who would make you happier, as an example. And if you're there to do one of those votes you may as well do all of them.

Just as here in Aus, I hate our lower house elections because short of tossing my vote at a random independent who may or may not be insane (made that mistake before, oops), I have no choice I like in the slightest. I'll still pick the one I dislike the least, and then in our senate election pick a party I actually do like as first choice (which has consistently failed to get a seat o.o). Might as well do the best with my vote as I can.

[SalmonGod]

No?  Not that I've ever heard of.  The concept is actually mind-blowing to me.

The concept in itself shouldn't be too alien.
It's the same concept that allows you self-defence when you are attacked.
When you take out someone (within reasonable boundaries of proportionality) who is threatening your life, you are technically committing a crime, but you will not be sentenced for it, because, preservation of life.
In the insulin example it's just slightly extended.

It's not that the concept isn't easy to understand.  It's that our justice system is so very far in spirit from the nature of what you described, that I had never even imagined it before.

Also, Medicaid currently covers children below a certain income level.  But as things are right now, assuming they don't get worse, we could be having to pay for his treatment out of pocket as soon as he hits 25.  That's currently $300 a vial for insulin, and $50 a box for test strips.  And those prices are always rising.  I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years it costs like $1200 a month to afford medicine as a diabetic without insurance.

[Frumple]

I mean, hell, we have good samaritan laws scattered around the country. It's not that far, it's just the specific stealing meds thing is pretty at-odds with how our shit's set up. But there's similar (if weaker, more specific, or watered down) protections literally already on the books.

[martinuzz]

Then again, I do suppose it would be kinda complicated and hard in the US, with every shop owner owning a gun.
Over here people are not allowed to use violence to protect property, out of the basic thought that a human life is infinitly more valuable than any and all property.
If a shop owner beats up a thief, the shop owner will get fined or go to jail (unless he can make a really strong case that he feared for his life and acted out of self defense).

[martinuzz]

Also, Medicaid currently covers children below a certain income level.  But as things are right now, assuming they don't get worse, we could be having to pay for his treatment out of pocket as soon as he hits 25.  That's currently $300 a vial for insulin, and $50 a box for test strips.  And those prices are always rising.  I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years it costs like $1200 a month to afford medicine as a diabetic without insurance.

Geesh, those prices are insane. Over here they cost, what, 1/5th or maybe even 1/10th of that.

[Frumple]

I mean, yeah. It would probably be a moral act to just go shoot the people setting prices in our health care industry at this point. I've said more than once in relation to the ACA, we probably would have seen as much improvement if we had just literally guillotined health care and insurance upper level administration across the country, and it's not even a joke. Like, Biden's thing would still be an improvement but it cannot be stressed enough a significant portion of that is due to just how massively fucked up the US healthcare industry is for patients.

[SalmonGod]

When you are electing one single person for the entirety of a nation... no you can't expect them to represent your interests as much when you're significantly the minority faction, being bluntly realistic. Will there be a democratic nominee who mostly represents the left flank of the party? Not for a while, considering Bernie is currently getting crushed.

If we were actually that much of a minority, then I'd be more sympathetic to your point.  But we're talking like 70-80% of voters under 40.  If that's not worth their respect, then they can lose... *shrug*.  We want to have a future, and they don't care.  We have nothing to lose at this point, because if nothing changes, we will not have a future.  It's that simple.

Nevermind that there's overwhelming evidence that 2016 was outright stolen from Bernie, and this cycle has been full of fuckery, too.  Besides the blatant shitshow that was Iowa, our exit polls in several states are so far off from the official results that they're 3-4x the UN threshold for declaring an election invalid in any other country.

It's not our fault if someone who doesn't represent us loses.  Representation = vote.  I'd think this should be damn near tautological.

Just as here in Aus, I hate our lower house elections because short of tossing my vote at a random independent who may or may not be insane (made that mistake before, oops), I have no choice I like in the slightest. I'll still pick the one I dislike the least, and then in our senate election pick a party I actually do like as first choice (which has consistently failed to get a seat o.o). Might as well do the best with my vote as I can.

I live in a very conservative state, and my senate & congress choices are often even worse than presidential.  And we don't get to rank our votes.

And you're admitting right here to voting for people who don't get seats.  So why would I be shamed for voting for a third party?