US 2024 Presidential Election

[Silvanus]

It is almost a zero percent chance that Stein will win the presidency (although there is a very real chance they could finally hit the 5% mark for the Federal Funding thingy, which that alone makes it worth shooting my shot on as both parties are doing their very best to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory).

Which still has nothing to do with my stance about voting for Harris so I have no idea why you keep harping on about voting for Harris at me when I talk about voting for Jill Stein. Harris has crossed my Red Line. She can either get on the right side of it and then I'll vote for her or she can stay on the wrong side of it and not get my vote. If you magically removed everyone off the ballot and I was told my vote would have to go to Harris or to Trump, I would just stay home because neither of them are against sending a FUCK TON of my tax dollars to fund a Genocide.

As I've stated far too many times in this thread to count because for some reason it keeps coming up, voting for Harris means you can look past genocide to vote for her. I am unwilling to do that. It's up to you and other voters to decide if genocide is a deal breaker for them or not. If it is not, feel free to vote Harris. You can pretty up your reasons all you want with LESSER EVIL or Trolley Problem or whatever else you want to do for mental gymnastics to justify it but ultimately, a vote for Harris doesn't make you Pro-Genocide but a vote for Harris shows that Genocide is not a deal breaker for you and I'm getting real sick of having to repeat myself on this.

You don't need to repeat yourself on it, because this is all just reiterating principles everyone already acknowledges and understands that you hold.

Fact remains: if murder is a red line, our observer sees no difference between 5 and 100. They will refuse to engage with the switch, in favour of a no-hope prayer that the train vanishes (the no-victim route). As I've said multiple times, I may disagree with it, but it's a principled and internally-rational position to refuse to touch the switch. I just want some acknowledgement that 5 and 100 aren't the same, and that refusal to interact with the switch has consequences for those on the track.

 

[Silvanus]

But yet it is somehow gauche to point out that Harris supporters are supporting genocide since this is the logic applied. Nobody likes being told they're voting for genocide when they condescend to third party voters, for some reason.

It's not gauche, just hypocritical to throw the accusation in the same breath as complaining that people are being mean about your own voting preferences.

Of course, a Harris vote and a Stein vote have exactly the same practical impact on whether a genocide occurs, so it's also moralising horseshit.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's not gauche, just hypocritical to throw the accusation in the same breath as complaining that people are being mean about your own voting preferences.

Of course, a Harris vote and a Stein vote have exactly the same practical impact on whether a genocide occurs, so it's also moralising horseshit.

Hey, I didn't actually start the moralizing, it's other people that came in and tried to say who I was actually supporting by voting for Stein. You people started it. If anyone is being hypocritical here, it's people moralizing at 3rd party voters. Man up and say you don't hate genocide that much.

I just want some acknowledgement that 5 and 100 aren't the same, and that refusal to interact with the switch has consequences for those on the track.

I'm still baffled by this reflex. It's a genocide, something we have collectively agreed is one of if not the worst crimes against humanity you can commit, but suddenly there's degrees of genocide? Trump is going to kill everyone in a different way, so it's bad? No, you're not going to convince anyone who thinks genocide is bad that there are degrees of genocide worth considering, it's a very binary position.

 

[tippy2k2]

Hey, I didn't actually start the moralizing, it's other people that came in and tried to say who I was actually supporting by voting for Stein. You people started it. If anyone is being hypocritical here, it's people moralizing at 3rd party voters. Man up and say you don't hate genocide that much.



I'm still baffled by this reflex. It's a genocide, something we have collectively agreed is one of if not the worst crimes against humanity you can commit, but suddenly there's degrees of genocide? Trump is going to kill everyone in a different way, so it's bad? No, you're not going to convince anyone who thinks genocide is bad that there are degrees of genocide worth considering, it's a very binary position.

 

[Silvanus]

Hey, I didn't actually start the moralizing, it's other people that came in and tried to say who I was actually supporting by voting for Stein. You people started it.

"You people" again, OK. Except I actually didn't. I said they were being principled and rational. You and Tippy then insinuated I was a genocidal maniac, because I... have a similar voting preference to some other people who were mean to you, IDEK, it just seems like tribal nonsense.

I'm still baffled by this reflex. It's a genocide, something we have collectively agreed is one of if not the worst crimes against humanity you can commit, but suddenly there's degrees of genocide? Trump is going to kill everyone in a different way, so it's bad? No, you're not going to convince anyone who thinks genocide is bad that there are degrees of genocide worth considering, it's a very binary position.

OK. I mean there's always been differences of scale, ever since the concept was formulated. It seems utterly bizarre to me to reject that.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

"You people" again, OK. Except I actually didn't. I said they were being principled and rational. You and Tippy then insinuated I was a genocidal maniac, because I... have a similar voting preference to some other people who were mean to you, IDEK, it just seems like tribal nonsense.

Tippy was excruciatingly clear that he wasn't talking about you if you weren't taking the position, it just really throws a wrench in your moralizing to acknowledge that, which is why you never do so.

But you constantly argue along the same lines as them so I'm going to ask you how much genocide you like in a candidate.

OK. I mean there's always been differences of scale, ever since the concept was formulated. It seems utterly bizarre to me to reject that.

How much genocide do you like voting for? What timetable for the extinction of a people tickles your fancy?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

OK, so why do you think the UK's Supreme Court hasn't re-legalised slavery?

I was talking about SCOTUS, I don't know about the UK enough nor do I really care about the UK.

My track absolutely does exist. Just everyone wants to pretend like that track can't ever win because no one ever votes for that track so they don't vote for that track so that track never wins. It's one giant self fulfilling prophecy. Everybody says they're sick of The Duopoly but then continues to vote for it because Third Party "can't win" but if everyone who claimed they were sick of The Duopoly actually voted against it, we'd likely have 4+ parties as Leftists would break from Democrats and MAGA would break from RINOs or whatever they call normal Republicans nowadays.

But instead people keep voting for The Duopoly and then sit back scratching their heads wondering why nothing ever changes...

One of my friends got mad at me when talking politics and saying "I don't participate!!!" when we are in a state, Indiana, that Trump is gonna win. Voting for Harris in Indiana isn't participating either. She went on a rant about abortion and how woman that don't have babies are ignored by the system and I'm just like Harris can't legalize abortion and what do women with babies get (outside of help for the children) that you do not? At least my vote has a smidgen of a chance of doing something if my candidate gets the 5% vote to get funding next time.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Can we not just let this go? Neither the lesser EVIL nor the LESSER evil side are going to convince the other to change sides.

 

[BrawlMan]

Can we not just let this go? Neither the lesser EVIL nor the LESSER evil side are going to convince the other to change sides.

Yeah it's getting ridiculous. As far as i'm concerned, the Republican party is actual pure evil trying to overthrow democracy and become a facist country. They could not give a shit about anyone but themselves. And even among themselves, they'll screw each other over at the slightest (in)convenience or pettiness. Sucking up to the biggest bïtch in a boxstand possible. I have my problems with the Democrats but I use what I know and can do to make things better. Instead of mindless pettiness and fighting, nor high horse scorn and self righteousness.

 

[Schadrach]

A huge amount of documents about Trump resorting to treason after losing has been released.

They're heavily redacted and the vast majority of what remains readable has already been public knowledge for a long time, so it makes for a weak October Surprise.

The ONLY thing the government should be allowed to do is set up regulations. And then they can fuck off

Except abortion is the only medical procedure and abortifacients the only class of drugs where the argument is that they can't/shouldn't be subject to whatever regulations the government invents. After all, a lot of abortion regulations before Roe was overturned were shit like mandating standards about the facility, or that the doctor involved have admitting privileges at the nearest hospital in case something goes wrong or something else that's very much setting up regulations and were widely attacked for being used as a way to functionally restrict abortion without directly doing so.

The ONLY medical procedure that isn't covered by privacy is abortion. It needs to be restored

How is an abortion not private in a way that any other prescription or medical procedure is? That the government can ban it being performed or regulate conditions under which it is? Because they have that authority for other procedures (see FGM for the obvious example where it is outright banned). I doubt most would make a medical privacy argument for why we can't ban circumcision, either.

Related: I don't see anyone arguing that the government doesn't have the full authority and power to restrict or ban other drugs, devices (and by extension procedures that require those devices), etc.

and women could not own property, vote,

That was up to the individual states and thus (like almost anything up to the individual states) varied wildly depending on which state. For example, in 1798 women in New Jersey had exactly the same voting rights as men (and there are examples of women exercising that right). They later lost the right to vote when NJ passed it's version of Jacksonian Democracy and suffrage was extended to all adult males instead of merely wealthy adults regardless of sex.

 

[Silvanus]

so I'm going to ask you how much genocide you like in a candidate.

How much genocide do you like voting for? What timetable for the extinction of a people tickles your fancy?

OK, well this is just infantile now. Happy to continue discussing if you want to talk like an adult.

 

[Silvanus]

I was talking about SCOTUS, I don't know about the UK enough nor do I really care about the UK.

You don't know or seem to care to learn about the US system either, but it hasn't stopped you.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

OK, well this is just infantile now. Happy to continue discussing if you want to talk like an adult.

I'd prefer you just not pop your head up at all and tell Stein voters how they're still actually voting for genocide or whatever. You're not helping the people who are because your argument looks ridiculous, literally.

 

[Silvanus]

I'd prefer you just not pop your head up at all and tell Stein voters how they're still actually voting for genocide or whatever. You're not helping the people who are because your argument looks ridiculous, literally.

I literally didn't tell them they were wrong, and reiterated that over and over again. You're the only one of the two of us slinging shit at people for voting a certain way.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

The best and most practical solution.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I literally didn't tell them they were wrong, and reiterated that over and over again. You're the only one of the two of us slinging shit at people for voting a certain way.

Yet you constantly come in to moralize at us just like the others. You walk like a duck, quack like a duck...

And don't give me that you aren't slinging shit,

Ditto, an observer who genuinely sees no difference between the trolley track with 100 people tied to it, and the other track with 5 people. Their absolute non-negotiable "red line" is murder so they refuse to touch the switch. If that person's equivalence between the two options was genuine, then their inaction did not increase the risk of 100 people dying.

This comparison was not plucked from nowhere, especially considering how you use it later. This is why you aren't persuasive in the slightest, people see straight through you. Your arguments are ridiculous.

 

[Silvanus]

Yet you constantly come in to moralize at us just like the others.

This after the incessant moralising and denigrating you've been throwing about for the last half dozen posts?! It's too much.

This comparison was not plucked from nowhere, especially considering how you use it later. This is why you aren't persuasive in the slightest, people see straight through you. Your arguments are ridiculous.

If you see that as insulting, that's a shame, but it's not really on me. The trolley problem continues to be a useful analogy, a genuinely difficult moral question concerning personal responsibility versus the impact of inaction. I even specifically said in a subsequent post that choosing inaction is a valid choice.

Of course, this still comes after you'd already been happily denigrating others for their voting choices. So, uhrm, you can cope with some basic frankness in return. It's some pretty damn mild chili compared to what you've already been happy to dish out.

 

[Kwak]

 

[crimson5pheonix]

This after the incessant moralising and denigrating you've been throwing about for the last half dozen posts?! It's too much.

>After

You were moralizing at me before I was at you.

If you see that as insulting, that's a shame, but it's not really on me. The trolley problem continues to be a useful analogy, a genuinely difficult moral question concerning personal responsibility versus the impact of inaction. I even specifically said in a subsequent post that choosing inaction is a valid choice.

Of course, this still comes after you'd already been happily denigrating others for their voting choices. So, uhrm, you can cope with some basic frankness in return. It's some pretty damn mild chili compared to what you've already been happy to dish out.

Once again, an interesting use of "after". But in any case, you can play your rhetorical games all you want and pretend that you're acting civilized, but you're nakedly transparent and unpersuasive. It doesn't help that you're effectively equating a Stein vote with inaction. It tells us everything we need to know about how you think, and why you should be dismissed.

So again, if you're starting all the infantile talk, maybe you should just not start moralizing at people? You injected yourself here, don't be surprised when people share their opinions with you.

 

[Silvanus]

You were moralizing at me before I was at you.

K. You remain the only one of the two of us telling others their voting preferences are wrong (and they support genocide to boot), so ya got some intriguing standards there.