Joe Biden says you are not black if you vote for Trump,

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is a total cop out, because the underlying question is about how his strategy of disengagement is advancing his policy goals. His argument is that the most effective way to get policy concessions from a major party is to not engage with the party, and I want to see evidence of that.

I think the theory is, if your political party consistently loses and your political party is smart enough to research the voter base, the can see flight from party and reasons for flight from party.

And then adjust to recapture lost voters.

Is that not a concession from the party? They either adapt or go bust. IMO, the dems are going bust because they do not appear to be conceding and, instead, doubling down on the politics that got Trump elected.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If your thresh hold for preventing harmful actors from holding a position of power is genocide, then you are part of the problem.

Except Biden is almost just as harmful. Oh no wait only 2 accusations of sexual assault against him vs several against Trump facepalm

American Democracy will become a joke with your way of thinking. Oh wait....

Biden is a warmongerer and racist.

Biden is a bigger racist than Trump. He goes after kids as well as women.

Biden is Trump with the crappiness turned up to 11.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Except Biden is almost just as harmful. Oh no wait only 2 accusations of sexual assault against him vs several against Trump facepalm

American Democracy will become a joke with your way of thinking. Oh wait....

But not as harmful, right? So if your goal is to reduce harm, then the least harmful option is preferable. Harm-free is not even on the table, so do you want a little harm or a lot? Jesus Christ, this is not hard. Even children understand it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
But not as harmful, right? So if your goal is to reduce harm, then the least harmful option is preferable. Harm-free is not even on the table, so do you want a little harm or a lot? Jesus Christ, this is not hard. Even children understand it.

Your caustic approach to the topic will definitely convince people you're right (lol, actually "left'😉.

Meanwhile, the actual correct option is to choose a 3rd party that represents almost all of your positions instead of pretending you have to vote for two different piles of poop.

Originally posted by cdtm
Not voting is effectively a vote for the other guy.

Just saying. Totally support your right to abstain.

If you don't vote for anyone, who is the other guy?

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you don't vote for anyone, who is the other guy?

Exactly.

Way to force a two party system on everyone.

The guy who interviewed him is now saying dont vote for Joe😂

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you don't vote for anyone, who is the other guy?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Exactly.

Way to force a two party system on everyone.

That kind of voting only works in systems in which no one votes. If you refuse to vote, then you leave the decision up to the populace voters which invariably vote for the charlatan/mountebank populists.

That's literally the system we have, now. If all the registered voters who did not vote, voted in 2016 for someone other than Trump or Hillary, Jill Stein would be the president (or Gary Johnson). 61.4% voted in 2016. If all remaining 38% voters voted for just 1 third party in 2016, that person would have won.

We should make voting compulsory, available from mobile phones and the internet (with mail-in), and enable rank choice voting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your caustic approach to the topic will definitely convince people you're right (lol, actually "left'😉.

Anyone who thinks protest voting is a viable option is probably unreachable regardless of the approach.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Meanwhile, the actual correct option is to choose a 3rd party that represents almost all of your positions instead of pretending you have to vote for two different piles of poop.

No, that is the option for people who care more about ideological purity than results.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Anyone who thinks protest voting is a viable option is probably unreachable regardless of the approach.

This type of sweepingly condescending generalization is sure to convince people of your argument.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, that is the option for people who care more about ideological purity than results.

No, your position is for people who are too lazy/dogmatic to think for themselves so you get stuck voting on rails by a label instead of actual positions. It's easy to just vote for a label than actual positions: less thinking, more tribalism.

It's also why I think people should be required to pass a political proficiency test that tests:

1. Their knowledge of American Civics.

2. The positions and voting records of the politicians in the polls.

Watch as almost no one would qualify to vote. 🙂

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Anyone who thinks protest voting is a viable option is probably unreachable regardless of the approach.

No, that is the option for people who care more about ideological purity than results.

You're just making excuses to make yourself feel better. that is why you're so angry.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're just making excuses to make yourself feel better. that is why you're so angry.

Still waiting on you to answer my question.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I didn't vote 3rd party, I was a Bernie supporter.

Now, answer mine.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

[QUOTE=17175849]Originally posted by Artol

[QUOTE=17175673]Originally posted by Silent Master
I didn't vote 3rd party, I was a Bernie supporter.

Now, answer mine.

That's a bit of a cop out. Bernie didn't run in the general election and he didn't run for the house in the midterms either. So the question how you voted, and whether you are happy with the vote and feel the party or person you chose is representing you well, or if they lost, whether you are still happy with your vote is more relevant.[/QUOTE]

It is a total cop out, because the underlying question is about how his strategy of disengagement is advancing his policy goals. His argument is that the most effective way to get policy concessions from a major party is to not engage with the party, and I want to see evidence of that. [/QUOTE]

If you want me to answer a second question, you have to answer mine first.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[B]That's a bit of a cop out. Bernie didn't run in the general election and he didn't run for the house in the midterms either. So the question how you voted, and whether you are happy with the vote and feel the party or person you chose is representing you well, or if they lost, whether you are still happy with your vote is more relevant.

It is a total cop out, because the underlying question is about how his strategy of disengagement is advancing his policy goals. His argument is that the most effective way to get policy concessions from a major party is to not engage with the party, and I want to see evidence of that. [/QUOTE] [/B][/QUOTE]

Glorious.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
The guy who interviewed him is now saying dont vote for Joe😂

Charlamane is a joke. He’s probably only saying that because of the negative backlash Biden is receiving. He most likely thinks if he doesn’t remove himself from Biden, he’ll be targeted next.

He’s a lot of things, but genuine is not one them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you want me to answer a second question, you have to answer mine first.

It is not a second question. It is the same question you tried to dodge.

it's a second question.