Trumps Presidency 2025

[gehringer_2]

30 minutes ago, pfife said:

candidate a:  has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years.

candidate b:  has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years, but country would be better.

candidate c :   has no chance to win, but explicitly does not support policy that voter things would result in death of spouse within 2 years. 

 

your reasoning:  everyone owes their vote to candidate b.  and if you had the audacity to NOT vote for candidate B, you, not everyone who voted for Candiate A, are responsible for everything candidate A does.

 

Me: I'm not voting to kill my spouse.   

The weakness in your logic is that your vote still did nothing to help keep your spouse stay alive and if it helped elect candidate A instead of candidate B maybe you helped kill someone else's spouse.

In this hypothetical, your vote is going to make no difference to the policy that may kill your spouse regardless. You simply have to find other ways to work against that policy than your vote.

Edited 9 hours ago by gehringer_2

[pfife]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

you logic fails because your vote still did nothing to help keep your spouse stay alive.

But I didn't vote to kill my spouse.  That you would seemingly conclude someone do that is really something

And, your logic fails again because you again just waived your hand like a wizard and supplanted MY reasoning (not voting to kill my spouse) for MY vote with YOUR reasoning (keeping spouse alive) for MY vote.  

That was the second time.  The first time you did it was when I said the reasoning for the vote was b/c the pol supported policies that hurt someone I care about, and you just ignored that and supplanted it with "what's best for the country" in response.

 

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, pfife said:

But I didn't vote to kill my spouse.  That you would seemingly conclude someone do that is really something

And, your logic fails again because you again just waived your hand like a wizard and supplanted MY reasoning (not voting to kill my spouse) for MY vote with YOUR reasoning (keeping spouse alive) for MY vote.  

That was the second time.  The first time you did it was when I said the reasoning for the vote was b/c the pol supported policies that hurt someone I care about, and you just ignored that and supplanted it with "what's best for the country" in response.

 

No hand waving at all. Your vote did no good, it made no difference. That sucks when you want to believe voting is a chance to stand for what you want, but it's the reality of it. The reality of who may win an election and who can not is not a matter of my hand waving or yours it just is what it is. Not all change is in play in any given election, it may have to be worked at by other means. Which is why if there is no choice you can make that you can realistically believe is both useful and morally supportable, don't vote -- go work on the issue by other means.

Edited 9 hours ago by gehringer_2

[pfife]

cool dodge

I'm beyond fine with not voting to kill my spouse in that situation.    I'm also beyond fine with other people not voting to kill their spouses in that situation.   No one should be compelled to do that because a dude on a message board poorly reasoned it while ordaining themselves as the decider of other peoples votes 

Edited 9 hours ago by pfife

[gehringer_2]

Look - you engaged me in this thread - I was responding to @ewsieg. You asked me a question - I gave you an answer and you've got your panties all in a bunch. If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.

[pfife]

I'm fine with you giving an answer.  I just disagree with the one that you gave

sorry your panties got in a bunch because someone had the audacity to disagree with YOUR reasoning for THEIR  (not your) vote. 

Should folks just get their ballots mailed to you and MB?  It seems like MY opinion on MY vote is very inconvenient for YOU and I'm a solutions oriented person.  All voters' free agency with their vote is obviously secondary to your opinion and I hate that you are inconvenienced  

Proudly in the pro-not voting to kill spouse caucus.   LOL at you not being so

Edited 8 hours ago by pfife

[Sports_Freak]

The corruption never ends;

 

[Sports_Freak]

Doing the math for MAGA supporters;

 

 

[romad1]

I hope the a-la-cart voters who are looking for the dodecahedron shaped fit for their policy concerns can look up from their navels in time to realize that policy doesn't even matter right now.  We have got to vote on Democracy itself.  To support anyone who opposes this autocratic movement of the hyper corrupt slip streaming behind the religious zealots and racists. 

[romad1]

Just now, romad1 said:

I hope the a-la-cart voters who are looking for the dodecahedron shaped fit for their policy concerns can look up from their navels in time to realize that policy doesn't even matter right now.  We have got to vote on Democracy itself.  To support anyone who opposes this autocratic movement of the hyper corrupt slip streaming behind the religious zealots and racists. 

There are people in the left side of the political environment like Tulsi Gabbard who are allies of the autocrats.  So, anyone who distracts or takes common cause with the party of the Epstein Class must be ignored, voted out and rejected. 

[pfife]

In the hypothetical scenaio,   the voter isnt looking for the perfect candidate.   Theyre voting for the candidate that doesnt support killing their spouse.

That there no room for a non spouse killing candidate in your reasoning is a fault in your reasoning.  

[romad1]

55 minutes ago, pfife said:

In the hypothetical scenaio,   the voter isnt looking for the perfect candidate.   Theyre voting for the candidate that doesnt support killing their spouse.

That there no room for a non spouse killing candidate in your reasoning is a fault in your reasoning.  

Allow me to parody my own post to prove your point: 

"Are you saying that my spouse dying is a wedge issue?"

[pfife]

I was thinking similar to that as well.

[romad1]

28 minutes ago, pfife said:

I was thinking similar to that as well.

When we are at the point where our families might well be carted off to death camps because they upset dear leader...all issues are 'spouse death' level though. 

[Hongbit]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

I hope the a-la-cart voters who are looking for the dodecahedron shaped fit for their policy concerns can look up from their navels in time to realize that policy doesn't even matter right now.  We have got to vote on Democracy itself.  To support anyone who opposes this autocratic movement of the hyper corrupt slip streaming behind the religious zealots and racists. 

Great post.  I’ve been thinking this for some time.

Our democracy is in jeopardy, yet many people still let what’s happening in Israel determine who gets their vote.    

[pfife]

18 minutes ago, romad1 said:

When we are at the point where our families might well be carted off to death camps because they upset dear leader...all issues are 'spouse death' level though. 

There are matters of degrees though.   You infer this with the word 'might'.   

If i have agency over my vote and im weighing 2 policies that may kill my spouse, and one has a 90% chance of happening and the other is 10% chance of happening, those should be weighed equally in deciding the vote?

Or should they not be weighed at all in the voting decision?

Edited 1 hour ago by pfife

[pfife]

13 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Great post.  I’ve been thinking this for some time.

Our democracy is in jeopardy, yet many people still let what’s happening in Israel determine who gets their vote.    

Candidates of both parties ran in part on their middle east policies (and foreign policy in general). 

Should a voter disregard the  Candidates stated middle east policy positions that candidates are using presumably to garner more votes?

[oblong]

Is there a more appropriate example than the death of a spouse?

Voting for a candidate doesn't mean you endorse and support every single issue they propose. 

[ewsieg]

8 hours ago, pfife said:

candidate a:  has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years.

candidate b:  has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years, but country would be better.

candidate c :   has no chance to win, but explicitly does not support policy that voter things would result in death of spouse within 2 years. 

This is why you're ultimately right.  This also explains my Johnson vote.  He was the only one that I actually thought would be different AND while I knew he had no chance to win, my hope was enough people voted for him that it would force one or both parties to absorb some of those 'don't kill my wife' policies.  3rd parties never win, not because no one likes them, but because when they put out a message that resonates with people, 1 or both of the major parties take the idea as their own and undercut them.  

Part of the issue we have currently is too many people vote for the best of the 'viable' candidates.  Maybe candidates wouldn't only speak to and support their own base if they had to actually compete for votes.

Edited 1 hour ago by ewsieg

[pfife]

2 minutes ago, oblong said:

Is there a more appropriate example than the death of a spouse?

Voting for a candidate doesn't mean you endorse and support every single issue they propose. 

Voting for a candidate that supports policies that would kill your spouse does mean that you voted for a candidate that supports policies tbat would kill your spouse though.

[Hongbit]

8 minutes ago, pfife said:

Candidates of both parties ran in part on their middle east policies (and foreign policy in general). 

Should a voter disregard the  Candidates stated middle east policy positions that candidates are using presumably to garner more votes?

In the past I would have said no.  People can determine which issues are most important to them and vote accordingly.  It’s a very personal decision. 

These are unusual times.  Things are so different now that policy which impacts our country, our democracy, our constitution, and ultimately our freedom needs to be the main determinant in voting.     Whether you support Israel or Palestine really shouldn’t be a determining factor in the future of America.
 

 

 

[oblong]

You can say that but it's not true.

Voting for a candidate means you think that option is better than the other option.

I hate brocolli and I hate coconut.  If I am starving and I eat brocolli so that I don't starve that doesn't mean I like brocolli.

You could even change the words "starve" to simply "hungry"

 

 

[romad1]

8 minutes ago, pfife said:

Voting for a candidate that supports policies that would kill your spouse does mean that you voted for a candidate that supports policies tbat would kill your spouse though.

The 'might" of kill your spouse is 'assuredly' if they are cutting funding for cancer research in favor of tax breaks and deregulation for polluters.  

[pfife]

1 minute ago, oblong said:

You can say that but it's not true.

Voting for a candidate means you think that option is better than the other option.

I hate brocolli and I hate coconut.  If I am starving and I eat brocolli so that I don't starve that doesn't mean I like brocolli.

You could even change the words "starve" to simply "hungry"

But if you ate the brocolli you cant say you didnt eat the brocolli.    Well i guess you could.. but it would be a lie.   If one knowingly voted for a candidate that supports policies that would kill your spouse, you couldn't turn around and say you didnt vote for that. 

Now if the candidate was lying about the support for spuse killing policy thats a different  story 

[pfife]

16 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

In the past I would have said no.  People can determine which issues are most important to them and vote accordingly.  It’s a very personal decision. 

These are unusual times.  Things are so different now that policy which impacts our country, our democracy, our constitution, and ultimately our freedom needs to be the main determinant in voting.     Whether you support Israel or Palestine really shouldn’t be a determining factor in the future of America.
 

 

 

Appreciate this response. 

Does the politician in this scenario have any responsibility to support policies more amenable to a person not ready to vote for them because of those policies?