Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Dalak]

One thing the new hard left is unquestionably right about: we need to take a chainsaw to the Dark Moneytree until it's nothing but Dark Money Splinters.

Agreed, money is what keeps the swamp murky.

[ed2962]

I personally suggest that those who are truly progressive fight for their cause as fervently as they can, and that they don't sit out the process if they don't happen to get exactly what they wanted. That does more harm to their professed goals than any 'establishment corporatist' ever could.

Sure. But it depends on what those goals are though. I don't consider myself a leftist, but it's not hard to see someone who is, thinking a couple of the democratic frontrunners are little better than mainstream republicans. That person is going to argue that more people should see his point of view that voting for establishment corporatists keep moving the party to the right and does hurt the country.

[Dalak]

Sure. But it depends on what those goals are though. I don't consider myself a leftist, but it's not hard to see someone who is, thinking a couple of the democratic frontrunners are little better than mainstream republicans. That person is going to argue that more people should see his point of view that voting for establishment corporatists keep moving the party to the right and does hurt the country.

I would ask that person to explain to me how we'd be as bad as we are now or worse if Clinton had been elected. We've seen the results of 2016 in the legislation passed, unfit Judges appointed, families torn apart, and the rise in terrorist attacks on our own soil. As I said: Fight fervently for what you believe in, but don't undermine your own goals and the progress the nation has made by sitting out the process if you don't get your way.

[ed2962]

I would ask that person to explain to me how we'd be as bad as we are now or worse if Clinton had been elected. We've seen the results of 2016 in the legislation passed, unfit Judges appointed, families torn apart, and the rise in terrorist attacks on our own soil. As I said: Fight fervently for what you believe in, but don't undermine your own goals and the progress the nation has made by sitting out the process if you don't get your way.

What if what they wanted was the workers to control the means of production? Voting for corporate Hilary would have undermined that goal. I'm joking, I'm joking! I'm just being silly!

But more seriously, a lot republicans didn't get what they wanted in Trump but voted for him anyway and that's what the problem is in my opinion. Had more of those republicans had more integrity, he wouldn't have even won the primary let alone the general election.

[Dalak]

What if what they wanted was the workers to control the means of production? Voting for corporate Hilary would have undermined that goal. I'm joking, I'm joking! I'm just being silly!

But more seriously, a lot republicans didn't get what they wanted in Trump but voted for him anyway and that's what the problem is in my opinion. Had more of those republicans had more integrity, he wouldn't have even won the primary let alone the general election.

Controversial Opinion: Any Republicans with actual integrity were driven from the party before I could vote. Kiddy Diddler Roy Moore is the favorite in the upcoming election FFS.

It's not integrity to abstain and allow the opposition to win. Rather than someone who will simply not work for your interests, you get someone who will actively tear them down and piss on you for the trouble.

[ed2962]

Controversial Opinion: Any Republicans with actual integrity were driven from the party before I could vote. Kiddy Diddler Roy Moore is the favorite in the upcoming election FFS.

It's not integrity to abstain and allow the opposition to win. Rather than someone who will simply not work for your interests, you get someone who will actively tear them down and piss on you for the trouble.

I'm thinking of say, take for example Ted Cruz. Trump personally insults his wife and father, Cruz makes a big show of telling other republicans to "vote your conscience." Yet Cruz ultimately went out and stumped for Trump for "the good of the party/country." At the same time, many conservatives who took their social values seriously, did not vote Trump knowing that he was a liar. Who had more integrity? Who actually hurt the country. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the importance the next election. I'm just wondering if we can motivate people in a different way than "stop being so pure."

[The Darknight Detective]

I'm thinking of say, take for example Ted Cruz. Trump personally insults his wife and father, Cruz makes a big show of telling other republicans to "vote your conscience." Yet Cruz ultimately went out and stumped for Trump for "the good of the party/country." At the same time, many conservatives who took their social values seriously, did not vote Trump knowing that he was a liar. Who had more integrity? Who actually hurt the country. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the importance the next election. I'm just wondering if we can motivate people in a different way than "stop being so pure."

The hard fact for both parties is that voters will go for the lesser of the two evils. There are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who could't stomach either Trump or any of the Clintons as the standard bearer for their particular party, yet still voted for them regardless because they felt the alternative was far worse. I don't see that changing anytime soon, other than us maybe doing a better job of choosing candidates of a higher moral caliber in the primaries in the future (which is where I make my purity stand).

[Dalak]

I'm thinking of say, take for example Ted Cruz. Trump personally insults his wife and father, Cruz makes a big show of telling other republicans to "vote your conscience." Yet Cruz ultimately went out and stumped for Trump for "the good of the party/country." At the same time, many conservatives who took their social values seriously, did not vote Trump knowing that he was a liar. Who had more integrity? Who actually hurt the country. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the importance the next election. I'm just wondering if we can motivate people in a different way than "stop being so pure."

If there are numbers on how many R voters actively didn't vote for Trump I'd like to see em, and I'd much rather see them proving their morals by speaking out against what he's been doing than clutching the pearls of 'Didn't vote Trump, but voted for the same party that enables, defends, and covers up for him'.

Again, this isn't about purity but about actual support for the goals of progress in this country. If you feel that minority rights, economic justice, and climate change are important you shouldn't sit out the process because someone that will support 1-2 out of 3 won the primary and allow the one who will actively attack those things and more to win the election. It's just understanding the system of government we're living under, and realizing that 'None of the Above' isn't a valid choice as someone will be elected regardless.

[Tuck]

I would ask that person to explain to me how we'd be as bad as we are now or worse if Clinton had been elected. We've seen the results of 2016 in the legislation passed, unfit Judges appointed, families torn apart, and the rise in terrorist attacks on our own soil. As I said: Fight fervently for what you believe in, but don't undermine your own goals and the progress the nation has made by sitting out the process if you don't get your way.

You're assuming that person is working in the same parameters and with the same goals as you. The argument would likely be that you have two possible timelines:

One is markedly better now, but because we continue with half-measures and moderation in a time when moderation is suicide, we are much worse off 20 or 30 years from now.

The other is much much worse now, but leads to great and necessary political changes in reaction to the much much worse now, but we are much better off 20 to 30 years from now.

It's all guessing at the end of the day. But if we're going to criticize corporate behavior that puts short-term goals ahead of long-term stability, if at least has to be considered in the political realm.

[Dalak]

You're assuming that person is working in the same parameters and with the same goals as you. The argument would likely be that you have two possible timelines:

One is markedly better now, but because we continue with half-measures and moderation in a time when moderation is suicide, we are much worse off 20 or 30 years from now.

The other is much much worse now, but leads to great and necessary political changes in reaction to the much much worse now, but we are much better off 20 to 30 years from now.

It's all guessing at the end of the day. But if we're going to criticize corporate behavior that puts short-term goals ahead of long-term stability, if at least has to be considered in the political realm.

I disagree with your analysis. With the upswing in progressive movements and the clear issues exposed by Bernie's run Clinton would have been forced to tack more to the left, and with more voters not sitting out some of the near wins by R's might have been flipped at the same time. We wouldn't be down 2 lifetime SCOTUS appointments, and hundreds of thousands of lives would be arguably better (Puerto Rico, Family Separation, Climate Change Addressed, etc). The racists that have been encouraged and emboldened by Trump's victory would be more discouraged and MAGA wouldn't have spread to become such a global phenomenon of hate championed by bigots everywhere.

Those things are going to linger for more than a few years, and will bring down our progress as a country (And as a Species IMO) at least as far as the worst-case slower progress encouraged under Clinton.

[Tuck]

I disagree with your analysis.

I was pointing out how someone could take an "or bust" approach, even after two+ years of Trump.

With the upswing in progressive movements and the clear issues exposed by Bernie's run Clinton would have been forced to tack more to the left,

While I agree that Sanders's candidacy moving the discussion left is what is/was needed, and that I can't see him working as President, the only thing you can be sure of from Clinton is constant adjustments to the most recent polls. Once the conservative media began its propaganda push against a Clinton presidency and public opinion began to sway rightward, she'd begin to capitulate inch-by-inch.

But again, it's all speculation. Counterfactual arguments are kind of useless I think.

[ed2962]

If there are numbers on how many R voters actively didn't vote for Trump I'd like to see em, and I'd much rather see them proving their morals by speaking out against what he's been doing than clutching the pearls of 'Didn't vote Trump, but voted for the same party that enables, defends, and covers up for him'.

Again, this isn't about purity but about actual support for the goals of progress in this country. If you feel that minority rights, economic justice, and climate change are important you shouldn't sit out the process because someone that will support 1-2 out of 3 won the primary and allow the one who will actively attack those things and more to win the election. It's just understanding the system of government we're living under, and realizing that 'None of the Above' isn't a valid choice as someone will be elected regardless.

But if someone believes in those issues but thinks the nominee of his party will capitulate to those who will attack those things then isn't that person voting against their goals?

[ed2962]

The hard fact for both parties is that voters will go for the lesser of the two evils. There are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who could't stomach either Trump or any of the Clintons as the standard bearer for their particular party, yet still voted for them regardless because they felt the alternative was far worse. I don't see that changing anytime soon, other than us maybe doing a better job of choosing candidates of a higher moral caliber in the primaries in the future (which is where I make my purity stand).

That's why I think we need stronger third party alternatives.

[Dalak]

But if someone believes in those issues but thinks the nominee of his party will capitulate to those who will attack those things then isn't that person voting against their goals?

I'd ask them: In what way do you think DEM CANDIDATE would capitulate and allow those who would attack ISSUE to screw it as badly as REP CANDIDATE would? Then I'd debate them to see if their minds could be changed if their response didn't convince me they were right. All too often it devolves into a stalemate where each side believes they are right, but it's worth the effort to try and change a few minds as far as I'm concerned.

[Tuck]

But if someone believes in those issues but thinks the nominee of his party will capitulate to those who will attack those things then isn't that person voting against their goals?

There's also the argument - which in this case I do agree with - that economic, social, and climate justice are intertwined in a way that if you don't address them in tandem, you are only treating symptoms. And this could have a deleterious effect by giving a false sense of progress showing a salve closing a wound, but ignoring that the infection is already in the blood.