jeff4justice3
+deathtokoalas Exactly. Not to mention what about all the 2 party system goons in the local statewide races. This seems unprincipled of Sanders.
deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice to me, the issue is how unelectable clinton is.
he doesn't want to pull a ralph nader - and let's realize that trump will be worse than bush. world war three probably already started. but, he's going to blow the whole thing to pieces. that part of it sits well with me. it would be irresponsible to get trump elected by running as a third party candidate; i agree.
the part that doesn't sit well with me is comparing hillary to gore. gore was actually relatively progressive. look at what clinton did in libya. she seems obsessed with imperial concepts of militarism; she's not really running for president, she's more running for empress. and, on that level clinton & trump are two sides of the same coin.
the democratic nominee has to be really, really, really bad for this kind of logic to work out, for us to fully conclude that it really doesn't matter. it's never been this bad. but, clinton really is this bad.
and, i supported her in 2008 based on what she did as first lady.
it's not the same person.
jeff4justice
+deathtokoalas Pull a Nader? So if you moved to my hometown where Republicans win by around 80% just so you could vote for the winner? If gay marriage was still un-ruled by SCOTUS and you lived in Alabama where it was likely to lose as the ballot would you vote for the antigay side just to be on the winning team?
Also, Nader (or Perot as the Republicans like to cite) were not around in the internet age.
It's time for people to stop staying in the abuser/victim game and move on past the failed 2 party system. otherwise unprincipled voters will keep electing unprincipled elected officials.
The right to vote for women, an end to legal racial segregation, gay marriage, a black President, marijuana becoming legal were all previously seemingly impossible.
The 2 party system will crumble as soon as people get the courage to stop indulging in self-defeating thinking.
deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice well, it's a bad example. i actually don't really support gay marriage; what i support is the abolition of marriage.
this is all culture war nonsense. i'm more concerned about serious issues: environment, foreign policy, health care, trade. and, when you lined the candidates up previously, there was an actual difference on the serious stuff. clinton actually reduced military spending to ensure more money was available for social security, for example. no republican would have done that. that's a concrete, real difference.
the problem, today, is that none of the mainstream democrats would do that, either - every single one of them, including the current president, would happily cut social security to increase military spending. and, so i do agree with you....now. i wouldn't have agreed with you twenty years ago, when the choice was bush v. gore. there was a clearly defined lesser evil there.
clinton v. trump isn't even a question of a lesser evil, it's a question of a lesser crazy - and there isn't one.
what the united states really needs is a three-party system to ensure that the democrats have some pressure from the left.
but, that doesn't make sanders' choice any easier. if he runs then the republicans will probably win. and he knows that. i'm convinced clinton is actually that bad. sanders may be a bit more optimistic about a clinton presidency.
but, if you end up with a potential four-way race, that whole calculus is out the window.
jeff4justice
+deathtokoalas Then don't get married but no need to force that on gays who decide they want to or should. Anyway, I won't be joining you on any votes for the failed 2 party system. Good luck.
deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice well, i wouldn't vote against it. but, i'm not going to go out of my way to vote for it, either. it's just not an actual issue of substance.
marriage is an inherently oppressive patriarchal system of enforced male dominance, and only truly makes sense in an implied system of religious fundamentalism. this is archaic and should be abolished in favour of more specific contracts about property. if two people want to buy a house together, that should not affect whether or not they want to buy a car together. nor anything about their kids - although those arrangements should be put down in writing beforehand.
i don't know why gay people want to get married. i don't know why they want to join the army, either.
i would, however, actively vote for the idea of abolishing all of the legal aspects of marriage, reducing it to a legally meaningless ceremony that religious people have total control over (and consequently abolishing all insurance benefits). but, that only makes sense in the context of a universal health care system - so you wouldn't need to get married to get your partner covered.
up here in canada, the issue was actually dealt with by a supreme court ruling. with the stroke of a pen, gay people could get married anywhere in the country. nobody really cared one way or another. it has not been a political issue here since 2004, if it ever was at all.
jeff4justice
+deathtokoalas "not an actual issue of substance" if you're loved was was in the hospital and you could not access them... or if you were unable to have social security benefits... or if your country tried to give you different tax assessment laws... or if you were unable to sponsor a partner from another country. Nonsense.
Statism altogether is an inherently oppressive patriarchal system of enforced male dominance. Nonetheless, while things are the way they are people should be treated with equal rights. We should not need government permission in these matters - but for now, government does impose itself on these matters.
Yeah, the military industrial complex sucks and is part of the evil empire. But that does not mean any self-preserving gay person would not want to see an end to DADT.
Also, marriage equality has been ruled to be legal by the Supreme Court here too since last year.
The anti-gays always care and always try ways to undermine court rulings pertaining to equality.
People cared enough to write things like "What Stephen Harper won’t tell you about same-sex marriage" as recent as 2015.
Anyway, gays can marry now so I don't have any further need to convince you to care about the issue now.
And you're mind seems made up about the 2 party system.
We've both made our points.
Peace be with you.
deathtokoalas
+jeff4justice well, no. my argument was not in favour of two-party systems, but in favour of three-party systems. i was, after all, asking him if he would run if the race opened up. i expanded on the point by explaining his argument, while disagreeing with him - the truth is that hillary clinton really ought to be running for the republicans.
i think you seem to be looking at voting as some kind of moral act, rather than a pragmatic means of achieving a goal - or, as it may be in the modern era, of minimizing damage. an intelligent person can not vote purely based on "principles". there needs to be a lot of compromise, or it's just a self-defeating waste of time.
so, if hillary does win and sanders does not run (and i was an american) i would have to support a third party, or perhaps not bother at all. which is what i was getting across in posing the question.
but, i think you're on to something about the gay marriage: if all the people that support gay marriage supported universal health care instead, you wouldn't even need to talk about gay marriage. and, conversely, reducing the issues to things like whether gay people can get married neutralizes large swaths of issues that threaten certain financial interests.