Bolded the key word for you. Nobody expects Republicans to actually cross party lines and vote for a Democrat; neutering their contribution to the election is basically the best result we can expect from them.

Dumbass libertarians sitting out the election of Trump don't get that excuse.

I did address suzzer's hypothetical. I pointed out that it was deeply flawed to the point where it wasn't even relevant to the discussion and he agreed.

Anyway that last post wasn't an argument in favor of my beliefs, it was an indictment against the crowd who insists it's somehow irresponsible to do anything other than vote for one of the major candidates. That made up probably half of the arguments against my HRC position. I'm not trying to bring that whole discussion back up but it should be noted that everyone arguing that position was doing so in bad faith because that's never what they actually believed. Let's not ever pretend we're mad at 3rd party/non-voters for anything other than not supporting our preferred candidate because that's all it is.

No you didn't. You waved at one piece of it then slanked away. It's all still there in the Hillary - re-litigate thread - which you not only ignore but ignore any mention of the thread. Because you are a very disingenuous poster and I think on some level you know you're effed on this issue.

Feel free to address the actual crux of the hypothetical - which is whether or not there's somewhere you would have drawn the line and voted HRC.

And since I know you won't answer - I'll tell you that it doesn't really matter which side you pick. If you say you still would have voted 3rd party if Trump was vowing to round up Muslims into camps - well that makes you a terrible person.

If you say that would have been enough for you to vote HRC - well then we know where your line is. Racist nationalist vitriol directed at groups you are not a part of is not quite enough for you.

No, you didn't. You ignored the question multiple times and then cowered away with one of the lamest excuses I've ever seen on this forum.

Here's the question again:

"Would you have voted HRC if - on the campaign trail - Trump openly advocated rounding up US Muslims into camps?"

Cite where you replied to this and I will apologize. Otherwise, why don't you give it a shot?

Well now we've guaranteed this will get moved to the re-litiigate thread where d10 can ignore it.

Amazing (read: not at all amazing) how goofy et al think that comment was about "libertarians". Just total brainlock.

I connected a few dots for you:
- the crowd you referenced, the "YOU'RE WASTING YOUR VOTE" people who were previously more vocal whose presence you were wondering about, were last seen blasting...libertarians who voted 3rd party
- you consistently catch a sad for that group when they're attacked on 2+2 and stick up for them

But hey, if you were actually talking about OTHER groups of people, whoever they are, that stuck up their noses and voted 3rd party at some point in time and were attacked by a vocal group on 2+2 - apologies! Did not mean to impugn the good name of principled Ron Paul voters. But then you should probably tell us what your actual point was, because it clearly fell flat.

lol goofy. Our resident Libertarian cheerleader makes a snarky hot take about a common critique of Libertarians and you just leap to these ridiculous conclusions. He could have been referencing the Green Party.

Making a case that voting for some candidate is morally obligated given just how bad their opponent in runs into difficulty pretty quick.

Not when the other candidate is Donald Trump

Look at the last year. We all saw this coming.

Even when the candidate is Donald Trump. You can't point at any individual who didn't vote who's vote would have made a difference and if someone is a consequentialist they are going to justifiably ask what difference would it have made had they.

So let's assume that the risks of a Trump presidency are so high that voting is mandated on probabilistic grounds and that the small chance that a single vote matters is a decisive reason to vote against Trump, then there is no reasonable moral obligation that is executed by only voting and you should be doing much more than voting given how unlikely that it makes any difference.

Yes, a single vote matters.

If every dumb ass that voted 3rd party, or didn't vote at all, voted against Trump, we would have avoided this disaster.

Just stop with the "oh i live in a blue state, or I live in a state trump won by 10000000 votes"


If you voted for Trump, 3rd party, or not at all, this is on you

If a single voter voting differently doesn't impact the outcome then no that vote doesn't matter.

I voted for HRC in California I guess as a symbolic act or maybe felt it as a duty for some irrational reason, but your point is irrational nonsense. My vote absolutely didn't matter and going in it was impossible that it could have.

This.

There are literally zero scenarios where Clinton loses California and doesn't get clobbered nationally.

I get that people feel strongly about voting and I don't want to go full vhawk here but it's really difficult to conceive of a coherent moral framework that mandates voting but then discharges your moral obligations when you vote.

How about, "Act only on that maxim that you can will to be a universal law?"

Coherence is overrated imo

Most people would reject Kant's maxim to never lie regardless of the consequences without much thought. In any case if there is a duty to vote it is one among many duties and so your obligations are hardly discharged when you do. Even then a duty to vote is not a duty to vote for X.

Booo

Not voting makes a hell of a lot more sense than voting for a write-in.

I voted in all the downballot races with the knowledge that my single vote may affect things. I had no such feelings with the presidential race. My vote from Vermont literally meant nothing.

How about not? It's a dumb process to wonder how to act, look around the world, observe, think and then divine some maxims that you can will to be universal laws, and then obey them even when you think they are wrong. If that ends up happening your maxim was wrong.

Very much so.

Why? Just because you save some effort? What if you vote by mail?

microbet are you good with a moral framework that's incoherent?

not if you're a politician