I believe Zyphlin is describing the action of the voter and JoG is describing the consequence of the action of the voter. Both posters are correct.It's simply not true.
First, to choose someone requires you to actually CHOOSE them for one.
Second, this assumes that if one was not to vote 3rd party that they would automatically vote for the person that didn't win.
Third, if you're going with the literalistic premise that every vote not for [x] is a vote for [y], then it's just as viable to go the literalistic route and say that if [x] won by more votes than [y] than the lack of a persons vote for [y] had zero direct impact on "electing" person [x].
It's an ignorant and logically incorrect notion paraded around by adherents to both parties to trump up their own candidates and to make them feel good about their personal decision to vote for someone they don't feel comfortable supporting at times.
I have nothing against those that wish to flush away their principles, or feel that the ends justifies the means, or feels confident in giving their vote of confidence and support to the lesser of two evils. However, they are no more correct in their tactics than those who don't wish to do those things, and the hollier than thou attitude in an attempt to belittle and demean other peoples choice in order to intimidate, guilt, or shame them into voting in their way is inherently abhorrent to my sensibilities as an American and actually make me less likely to vote for that persons chosen candidate every. single. time.
First time I've ever agreed with Cardinal. I'm breaking out the champagne.It's a glass half full, glass half empty situation: both are true. If you vote for candidate C, you are choosing that person. If voting for candidate C risks taking votes away from candidate B, then you are giving candidate A a greater chance of winning. Both statements are true.
I'm surprisingly not put off by his desires and goals, but I fear the devil is in the details, and we would not like the results.I'm not a Bernie supporter, I was a Rubio girl. But if I leaned further left, I would enthusiastically support him. As it is, I really like the man. He practices what he preaches. He's a middle class man who made it but still lives middle class. He is very genuine. He is basically everything Hillary Clinton is not.
I'm not a fan of Bernie's ideas because I'm clearly a capitalist and not a socialist. But I "get" where he's coming from. I think some of his ideas have merit, they just aren't feasible.
My issue is his angst with the large corporations. As someone who works for one, and as someone heavily invested in them (portfolio), I love to see them make big profits.
My issue is his angst with the large corporations. As someone who works for one, and as someone heavily invested in them (portfolio), I love to see them make big profits.
No, I'm gonna vote 3rd-Party.
To elect someone is to choose them. To vote for someone other than that person is inherently NOT choosing them. She would not be electing Clinton, nor would she be electing Trump. Only those who actually cast a vote for those people would be the individuals who "elected" them.
While I understand and appreciate the importance of choice, your argument demands having ignorance of the greater circumstances as well as possible negative outcomes of such a choice. If you want to make the "principle" argument, that's absolutely fine, but insisting on ignoring very obvious repercussions is breathtakingly naive.
I support Bernie because, for the most part, I like his voting record and the policies he pushes. He has always stood for what he believed even when it wasn't popular. In hindsight he was usually right.
Hillary was never going to have my vote. I voted Green party in the last election and would have this time around if Bernie hadn't thrown in his hat. And if he doesn't get the nomination I will likely vote Green again. I voted for Bernie despite him running as a Democrat.
My issue is his angst with the large corporations. As someone who works for one, and as someone heavily invested in them (portfolio), I love to see them make big profits.
Big profits are fine, big corporations are fine, wanting to see your investment portfolio do well is fine (I myself am invested in a number of mutual and index funds that track the domestic, international, large and small markets, and bonds). It's when a)their behavior gets toxic that I take issue with, and b)when that behavior isn't even very good for your investment portfolio anyway.
Some examples of A). Nestle colluding with local governments in South America to prevent locals from collecting rainwater so that they must buy their water from Nestle. Or internet providers lobbying state legislatures to prevent local municipalities from providing their own isps so as not to compete the giant providers. And if you're conservative I know you'll agree with me on this one: health insurance companies essentially writing the ACA so as to prevent UHC. Capitalism wasn't the issue in these cases, nor even big corporations. It was big corporations acting like megalithic James Bond villains and colluding with lawmakers in order to exclude the needs of the nonwealthy or just behaving in the most hilariously insidious ways possible.
A really easy example of B). When researching etf's that went beyond simply tracking the market, I was keenly interested in biotechs. How could biotechs go wrong? People will need biotechs until the human race advances to the next stage of evolution and turns into beings of pure energy and light. In other words, as long as we're organic, we'll need biotech technology. One etf in particular got my interest: IBB, whose performance was in a near 90 degree trajectory. Two things I didn't consider, and why I'm glad I didn't get into IBB. 1)Part of the reason for the trajectory was a spate of mergers, which by the way is never good for the consumer. 2)Another reason for the trajectory of biotech in general is a little company run by a nice man named Martin Shkreli, whose claim to fame was raising AIDS drugs by 5000%. All of these created an inflated perception of biotech's value, and as with all bubbles, all it takes to pop one is for just one person to say "It's all a lie!" and the whole thing comes crashing down. Hillary Clinton said to the press that the price of drugs were too damn high (duh) and IBB's price was 400 in August, is now sitting at ~250, and shows no signs of recovering.
It's these types of things that Bernie Sanders' angst revolves around. Sanders is neither a communist nor does he want to see us returning to an agrarian bartering economy where we all sew our own clothes.
The problem isn't you making money. It's a question of how the money is made, and what the long term ramifications are for making money that way. On one extreme, you can make money by working very hard, selling yourself on your product. On the other extreme, you can make money, for instance, selling people into slavery. So there are immoral and moral ways to make money, and corporations have increasingly moved or are moving over to extremely unethical sources of income.
Yes I agree with this. I was making a general statement but even general statements have massive exceptions. I probably should have said it differently. I don't agree with his (and most on the left) having serious anger over executive compensation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?