Remind me: when was the time when the left said "this guy is a fascist!", the right believed them, and then it turned out the left was wrong? Usually what happens is the left says "this guy is a fascist!", the right makes farting noises, and we wind up bombing some nation.

I've only really been following politics since Trump entered stage left. What I wrote is the impression I get from speaking with people I'd consider centre/moderate right in the US whom I personally know, would consider fairly or very intelligent, and who have been following politics a lot longer than I have. Just my impression based on anecdotal evidence.

Which is why it's so important to vote for the Democrats who aren't at all bombing people?

Like I said, farting noises from these guys.

If there's a suitable alternative candidate then voting for them is far better than abstaining. Some form of organisation beyond voting is really needed to advocate for the sort of policies we want but that has to be backed with our (non) vote or the politicians have ~no reason to care. It's democracy - the power is with the voters but we have to choose to exercise it.

Indeed. Polarisation is a catastrophie. I've been arguing that for years on this forum. It's so bad in the usa and so dangerous. Getting worse here as well

for big things like the presidency and what really matters, obviously your vote does not count.

The oligarchy will decide for us

Voting helps you decide small local things, like which candidate gets to steal money from your town.

JK local votes count but its too much of a hassle

Is that worth missing work for and not getting paid? not really

If those 500 extra R voters in Florida in 2000 felt this way, history textbooks might look very different today.

Only election I ever voted in, back when I was young and naive.

or surveilling the whole country, drone bombing American citizens, rounding up and deporting millions, torturing prisoners, and doing genocide.

Sounds like your idol Stalin, maybe without the drones. Always projection.

I vote out of some sense of democratic obligation rather than because I think my vote makes any actual difference. As such voting for whichever party/candiate (I’m British) I like the most seems to be the sensible thing to do. I don’t really see the point of tactical voting when my vote is never actually going to affect the outcome one way or the other.

Still some bipartisanship alive!

I think that depends a bit; there can be strategic reasons to vote for the lesser of two evils. I partially agree with you, but I don't believe this is an absolute rule.

Writing something in/spoiling the ballot, yes! Not voting leads to:



Not really, IMO. I think it's important that those who don't like either candidate make their voice heard separately from those who just don't care. Also, many elections have much more to vote on - IE other levels of government, initiatives, referendums, etc.

Exactly.

Not only do they count, they're important. For those who say they don't vote because the two parties are the same - I hope you go out for your local elections, because that often has the greatest impact on your day to day life at home, and it's pretty rare that every candidate would do the exact same thing at that level. If you sit those out as well, I suspect that the reason you don't vote in the bigger elections has little to do with the parties being the same.

That's sad, for a couple of reasons. First off, I think it's a disappointing attitude. But much more importantly, it demonstrates the need for something like this:

https://ehlaw.ca/voting-time-employe...-election-day/

At least the ice cream picture was good.

I think we pretty much agree on this topic and I agree there are exceptions- trump may well be one but it's a hell of a mess to have got into.

I dont think there are any rules/principles that dont have exceptions (including this one).

I believe it is the ethical thing to not vote


I also believe it is the ethical thing to move to swing states where your vote matters.

Taking your recommendation I just told my cousin to move to Iowa while there is still time to register.


https://www.uclahealth.org/providers/mark-sklansky

Wow, another genius idea from the same source that brought you "abolish bail and have cops follow defendants around 24 hours a day instead", "pay every Palestinian a million dollars to move to the US", "if anyone threatens or attacks you, immediately surrender if there is a chance of losing", and "solve the problem of your low ceilings by cutting off your head".

You truly are an "ideas" man. Please do ensure you fill out a donor card and leave your brain to science once you inevitably win the Darwin award, probably by figuring out that you can get free rail travel by lying down on the track and grabbing on to the undercarriage of a passing train. It really will be a marvel to study and you owe it to humanity to preserve the findings for posterity.

If you choose to vote, does it matter if you vote for the president in a state that always votes one color?

If you wanted your vote to count for as much as it could, you would want to live in a swing state. The 2000 election for the leader of the free world was decided by 400 votes. 4 billion people affected by 400 people


I don’t think you can do anything better for your party than live and vote in a swing state.

I wasn't referring to only presidential elections. And it doesn't matter who the candidates are, it's a general belief that it nothing in your life will meaningfully change because of an election. That belief might not be logical, but there are plenty of people that have it so, for them, not voting is logical.

That has to include then believing that either it won't meaningfully effect anybody else or that they don't care about those it will meaningfully effect.

Sure, many people justify their decision not to vote on a limited view like this. One can consider many decisions "logical" by framing them in a way that makes them so.

I think it's important to vote even in a non-swing state. When people of the minority party stay home, the final results indicate that a state is much more red or blue than it really is. States gradually shift from one party to the next. As results grow closer, the minority party may spend more resources in supporting their candidate, like upping the get out the vote effort. And eventually it becomes a purple state.

California is an interesting example. From the 1952 election until the 1992 election, CA voted republican in every election but one (1964). So for almost 40 years, CA was a lock red state. Then in 1992 it switched to blue with Clinton, and has now voted democrat in every election since.

I guess that would explain the mass exodus, crime, homelessness, massive deficits and corruption

Mass exodus!!111!!1!1!!

https://www.macrotrends.net/states/c...%20from%202019

Of course this is a complete departure from the thread topic, but never pass up a chance to repeat a right derposphere talking point, amirite?