By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - I would still vote Democrat even if Hillary was the worst human being on earth...

sethnintendo on 01 November 2016
Super_Boom said:
This seems a popular theme honestly. Lots of people tend to put the party before the person, which is why so many traditional Republican voters will vote for Trump despite hating his guts. Same case with Hillary as well.

On a somewhat unrelated note, this might be the election with the fewest presidential lawn signs/bumper stickers I've ever seen. Usually they're everywhere in my area, but I've honestly only counted maybe three or four bumper stickers since the primaries, and not a single lawn sign. Crazy.

 

There is one single lawn sign in my neighborhood. It reads... They all suck with an USA flag background.

Around the Network
sethnintendo on 01 November 2016
TheLastStarFighter said:
vivster said:

Yeah, not voting for the people you want in office but voting for other people who may or may not vote in your favor sure sounds like democratic heaven.

Also making voting as hard as possible sure screams democratic spirit.

You vote individually for each office.  That's more democratic than most standard parlimentary systems.

 

Proportional representation is still far superior than winner takes all. I'd rather have a proportional system.

Torillian on 01 November 2016
Landguy said:
Lafiel said:

first you say "vote for a person not a party" now you say "the president is only a figure head"

so, what is it?

It's both.  The Presidential position itself is a figurehead for the whole country and their party.  If the person is a piece of garbage, then you are chooing to have that person personally reflect you to the rest of the world.  If you believe that every Democrat is a crooked liar who doesn't care about managing the information that is given to them, you are wrong.  

Sure, Hillary says that she is pro choice.  But what is pro choice going to matter as a president?  Not one thing.  The president doesn't get involved in that at all.  The president gets involved in international negotiations, minor military actions, and general perceptions to the outside world.  That's why choosing the person based on their actual personality and track record in those types of things matters.  Unfortunately, the mass media panders to the lowest common denominator.  They will talk about pro choice/black lives matter/ and social programs in regards to the presidential race even though they are the farthest from what the job really is.  

But the president does have veto powers so if you vote against your interests because of personality for president you leave the door open for the people that do actually make those laws to do so unopposed in a direction that you don't agree with.  Get in Trump and now congress can easily put through laws that would never make it through a democrat president unopposed.  

Sure, foreign diplomacy is what takes up most of the president's time, but they do have influence over social issues at home as well and that shouldn't be ignored.  



...

AZWification on 01 November 2016

You can always vote Gary Johnson or Jill Stein...



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Zkuq on 01 November 2016
vivster said:

Of course this is hypothetical since I live in a real democracy where we vote for parties and their policies first and then faces.

Out of curiosity: do a lot of other people over there think this way? I'm asking, because here in Finland a lot of people think they're voting for the party, and a lot of people also think they're voting for the person.



Around the Network
vivster on 01 November 2016
Landguy said:
vivster said:

So let's say Donald Trump is the nicest person ever and Hillary is a human garbage bag. I stand for pro choice, gay rights and social programs like healthcare and welfare.

Hillary and her party like the same things I like but Trump and his party would never ever vote for them.

Now it's your turn to tell me why I should vote for nice guy Trump who is nice but still against everything I want.

By voting Hillary in your scenario, your vote tells that party that it is OK for them to support a human garbage bag as their leader and that even if you are pro choice/gay rights/social programs believer, you want all of the other things that are also important thrown out the window to simply get 2-3 social issues that a president doesn't even have an impact on.  

In the US, the presidents job isn't to write laws or even approve of them if the legislature approves it overwhelmingly.  Even if a law is approved by the legislature and then the president, it must still be judically approved by the supreme court over time.  The presidents job is more a figurehead that has to manage the day to day operations or issues involving the government.  They can't declare war without approval.  They don't make any laws.  They can't have people thrown in jail.

I hope you realize that you just proved my point. It is absolutely irrelevant who becomes president, it's just important which party is in power because parties have the power and are the ones that fight for me in the legislature. And now you tell me again why I should vote against my and my chosen party's wishes?

There shouldn't even be such a thing as a president, especially not with the kind of power he has in the US. The parties and their members rule and each party has a certain set of convictions that you are voting for. So why should you not always vote for the party that always has the same convictions as you?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster on 01 November 2016
Zkuq said:
vivster said:

Of course this is hypothetical since I live in a real democracy where we vote for parties and their policies first and then faces.

Out of curiosity: do a lot of other people over there think this way? I'm asking, because here in Finland a lot of people think they're voting for the party, and a lot of people also think they're voting for the person.

People always vote for both in Germany. First for the guy in your specific district and second for the party you wish to rule the parliament. You never vote for the chancellor or the president because frankly, their positions are meaningless as they're mostly backed by the party.

In my opinion every politician is an empty shell. People join parties because the parties have the same ideologies or convictions as them. Therefore voting for a person means voting for the party. The person will always act by the will of the party because if they didn't agree with them, they wouldn't be in that party.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster on 01 November 2016
AZWification said:

You can always vote Gary Johnson or Jill Stein...

Too bad in the US that would be the exact same as not voting at all. The two party system there is stupid. Here in Germany no party is safe from elimination. You simply cannot rule the country if you do not have at least 50+% of the votes. And since nowadays even the biggest parties struggle to reach even 30% of the votes a single vote has a lot more power because even if there is one strongest party it cannot rule without building a succesful coalition.

Try to envision the same system for the US. Since people vote for 3rd parties and usually the winning party does not get 50% of the votes it would have to work together with one of the smaller parties. That would give people the power to make a difference by voting a 3rd party who now also has the chance to take part in the government.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

SanAndreasX on 01 November 2016

Things to consider:

The next President is likely to have the first opportunity for a single President to shape the Supreme Court since Nixon transformed the liberal Warren Court into the conservative Burger Court by appointing four justices. Scalia's seat remains unfilled, and several other justices are in their 80s and could die or retire at any time. Most estimates say at least 3 seats (including Scalia's) will be up for grabs in the next Presidential term.

In my eyes right now, Congress is the enemy, especially the House. Personally, I want a President and a Supreme Court that will work together to contain Congress until they get their shit together and get all the idiots and religious ideologues out of both the Senate and the House, and until they can get some Congressional reform together that eliminates gerrymandering. The President's role in this is to veto bad laws sent to his or her desk by Congress and to appoint Supreme Court Justices that will overturn unconstitutional legislation.



Landguy on 01 November 2016
vivster said:
Landguy said:

By voting Hillary in your scenario, your vote tells that party that it is OK for them to support a human garbage bag as their leader and that even if you are pro choice/gay rights/social programs believer, you want all of the other things that are also important thrown out the window to simply get 2-3 social issues that a president doesn't even have an impact on.  

In the US, the presidents job isn't to write laws or even approve of them if the legislature approves it overwhelmingly.  Even if a law is approved by the legislature and then the president, it must still be judically approved by the supreme court over time.  The presidents job is more a figurehead that has to manage the day to day operations or issues involving the government.  They can't declare war without approval.  They don't make any laws.  They can't have people thrown in jail.

I hope you realize that you just proved my point. It is absolutely irrelevant who becomes president, it's just important which party is in power because parties have the power and are the ones that fight for me in the legislature. And now you tell me again why I should vote against my and my chosen party's wishes?

There shouldn't even be such a thing as a president, especially not with the kind of power he has in the US. The parties and their members rule and each party has a certain set of convictions that you are voting for. So why should you not always vote for the party that always has the same convictions as you?

We were discussing the US presidential system.  IN the US, a politacal party doesn't control anything.  It usually ends up with one party that has a little more control than another.  To change fundamental laws in the US, it requires a Supermajority victory when a law is passed.  Seeing as how the system here is very balanced, the fundamental laws don't get changed after each election.  

I only proved that you reside in a defferent country with a different political system.



It is near the end of the end....