Harris v. Trump Debate Thread | Harris challenges Trump to 2nd Debate on 10/23 on CNN.

EyeballKid said:
You’re complicit regardless.

To steal a line from a Rush song, “if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Throwing a vote away on a third party—or choosing not to vote at all—is still complicity in a 2-party system.
Click to expand...
Is it really “throwing a vote away”? And is it “complicit” or “trapped”? Complicit in what, specifically?
 
Last edited:
haroldminer said:
Why vote at all?
Click to expand...
Because I am an eligible voter and I get to use my vote to vote for whoever I choose. And I am choosing to vote for President and Governor of NC the people I want have those offices which is neither the Republican or Democratic nominee for those two races. I'll also go Mo Green. Morrow is nuts.
 
EyeballKid said:
You’re complicit regardless.

To steal a line from a Rush song, “if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Throwing a vote away on a third party—or choosing not to vote at all—is still complicity in a 2-party system.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I have always disagreed with the notion that a vote against the two major party candidates is thrown away.
 
EhringhausSouth said:
Because I am an eligible voter and I get to use my vote to vote for whoever I choose. And I am choosing to vote for President and Governor of NC the people I want have those offices which is neither the Republican or Democratic nominee for those two races. I'll also go Mo Green. Morrow is nuts.
Click to expand...
There is no President of NC.

If you’re voting for Mickey Mouse then you aren’t voting.
 
ColdBlueSteel said:
Is it really “throwing a vote away”? And is it “complicit” or “trapped”?
Click to expand...
You’re not trapped—you’re free to emigrate to a country that better fits your political beliefs, if you choose. In the COVID and post-COVID era, moving abroad is easier than it’s been in some time.

If you want to stay here and effectuate change, then recognize that it’s gonna take time. Vote for the candidates of whichever of the 2 parties most closely matches what you want. And then work toward pushing that party to change to better suit your vision.

But you don’t get to feel superior by opting out of the process or tossing a vote to a candidate that’ll get 1-2% of the vote.
 
EhringhausSouth said:
Correct. I'm Writing in Nikki Haley.
Click to expand...
That is weak. We aren't in Europe, and there is no ranked choice voting. In America, there are two and only two choices for President. If you don't like either candidate, your patriotic obligation is to vote for the least bad candidate. If you think that is Trump, then vote for Trump. If you think it is Harris, then vote for Harris. No one should throw his/her vote away on a third-party candidate (unless they live in a non-swing state). If you could potentially impact the result, then you have an obligation to choose the lesser of two evils -- even if you dislike both.
 
CFordUNC said:
At this point I have to just assume that anyone voting for Trump is only doing so out of malice, hatred for liberals, and small minded insecure pettiness. The guy literally stood up there on a debate stage for two hours last night and did not mention one single solo policy proposal, but instead talked about crazy shit like transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison, people eating cats and dogs, how much Vladimir Putin and Victor Orban like to give him handjobs, etc. it was all just completely that shit fucking, and even that is the understatement of the century. Nobody voting for Donald Trump in 2024 is voting for policy. Nobody. Not one single person. Because Donald Trump in 2024 does not have any policy ideas. He was given multiple opportunities last night to articulate policy positions on immigration, healthcare reform, foreign policy, etc. and every single solitary time, he completely ignored it. So nobody is voting for Donald Trump because of policy. They are voting for Donald Trump out of one (or both) of genuine spite or genuine stupidity.
Click to expand...
I disagree slightly. The Christian right is certainly voting for his policies because they know the Heritage Foundation would set the policy and try to get young useful idiots on the SCOTUS.
 
EyeballKid said:
You’re not trapped—you’re free to emigrate to a country that better fits your political beliefs, if you choose. In the COVID and post-COVID era, moving abroad is easier than it’s been in some time.

If you want to stay here and effectuate change, then recognize that it’s gonna take time. Vote for the candidates of whichever of the 2 parties most closely matches what you want. And then work toward pushing that party to change to better suit your vision.

But you don’t get to feel superior by opting out of the process or tossing a vote to a candidate that’ll get 1-2% of the vote.
Click to expand...

I don't feel superior at all. First time I've done this.
 
Calheel said:
That is weak. We aren't in Europe, and there is no ranked choice voting. In America, there are two and only two choices for President. If you don't like either candidate, your patriotic obligation is to vote for the least bad candidate. If you think that is Trump, then vote for Trump. If you think it is Harris, then vote for Harris. No one should throw his/her vote away on a third-party candidate (unless they live in a non-swing state). If you could potentially impact the result, then you have an obligation to choose the lesser of two evils -- even if you dislike both.
Click to expand...
If Ehaus thinks both candidates are unacceptable and terrible, maybe his higher obligation is to signal the need for better candidates.
 
Scientific Mapp said:
If Ehaus thinks both candidates are unacceptable and terrible, maybe his higher obligation is to signal the need for better candidates.
Click to expand...
No message is sent and nothing is changed by voting third-party or write in. People who think that are naive and politically immature.

There are two and only two candidates to vote for. Anything else is the civic equivalent of a temper tantrum.

You vote for the least bad candidate. That is very important civic behavior.
 
Scientific Mapp said:
If Ehaus thinks both candidates are unacceptable and terrible, maybe his higher obligation is to signal the need for better candidates.
Click to expand...
That would be a great thing to signal if you were unhappy with both candidates, but you can signal that without letting Trump back in the White House. Throwing your vote away on a third party candidate does nothing other than completely give up the bare minimum influence a voter can have.
 
Scientific Mapp said:
If Ehaus thinks both candidates are unacceptable and terrible, maybe his higher obligation is to signal the need for better candidates.
Click to expand...
Has the Green Party, for example, really influenced political discourse?

Third parties historically get around the same level of support. That 1-3% doesn’t drive change for the 2 dominant parties.

The only way to effectuate change is to vote for whichever of the 2 parties most aligns with your vision and push for local candidates who better suit your visions, so that they will rise through the ranks.
 
aGDevil2k said:
BTW he said 168 countries are sending their criminals to the USA.

There are only 193-195 countries in the world.
Click to expand...
That is far better than his usual outlandish claims. At least this one is technically feasible or possible. Most are so outlandish they are theoretically impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top