Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 29 05:25:13 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Third parties and media censorship
Rugian
Member
Thu Aug 13 13:40:16
I don't know about you, but I feel really great that we have a media establishment that can completely blackout any coverage of third party presidential candidates.

Seriously, why is it that we've seen NO coverage of the Libs or Greens so far? Oh right, its because the media doesnt want to run the risk of having people vote for anyone other than Biden. They learned their lesson in 2016 and have no intention of repeating that mistake.

Anyway, $5 to anyone on here who can even say who the Green candidate is without googling.
Paramount
Member
Thu Aug 13 13:58:12
” why is it that we've seen NO coverage of the Libs or Greens so far?”


Maybe their leaders haven’t sworn the oath to AIPAC yet, like the dems and the reps has? Why do you care about the Greens and Libs anyways? Aren’t they communists?
Average Ameriacn
Member
Thu Aug 13 13:58:49
Why would I want to know the green candidate?
Paramount
Member
Thu Aug 13 13:59:27
” Anyway, $5 to anyone on here who can even say who the Green candidate is without googling.”

I had to google.
TJ
Member
Thu Aug 13 14:03:35
Keep your five bucks, it might come in handy. :)
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 13 14:32:32
Is it Jill Stein?
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 13 14:36:34
Paramount, If I'm not mistaken " "libs" in this sense refers to Libertarians.

Generally a very conservative bunch.

Refuting crazy Clinton's claims that third party candidates are agents of Russia because they take votes away from the Democrats since most Libertarians would caucus with the Republicans and they tend to be the largest 3rd party.

That said the last libertarian I remember running for office was harry Browne.
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Thu Aug 13 14:57:31
First
Its not the "media" job to promote candidates except Foxnews

Second

This sounds more like a Foxnews talking point from Sean Tucker than an actual observation.
Rugian
Member
Thu Aug 13 15:04:02
"Its not the "media" job to promote candidates"

Rofl. Look at how much the MSM is slobbering over Kamala right now and tell they're not promoting a certain ticket.

An objective media would give some (if marginal) coverage to at least thr largest third parties. But you seem to think the job of media is to instead serve as a propaganda arm for the Democratic Party.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Thu Aug 13 15:14:39
This is my favorite example of non-promotion of candidates from this week:

http://twitter.com/DavidRutz/status/1293894896777146372
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Thu Aug 13 16:09:00
-Rugian do YOU actually watch msnbc or CNN. Plus it's 2020 people don't really watch cable anymore.
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 13 16:13:20
Well, IBTY is right about that. I get my news usually from the internet. If I watch the news I occasionally watch PBS which has NHK/DW/BBC a d the pbs newshour.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Aug 13 16:59:08
What is a ”green party” candidate?

Also, you guys want this 2 party shamocracy. Nah everyone can fit in the two big tents you say. Yea, by either regressing to the mean or attempting a hostile take over. This system is wired to please no one and thus eventually implode.
Habebe
Member
Thu Aug 13 17:03:00
Well, for a long while we used to comprimise. However, since. Thats out the window the 2 party system we have is falling apart.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Aug 13 17:49:25
Make sure to keep getting your news from infowars, Rugian. I'm sure it's helping your fragile mental state.
kargen
Member
Thu Aug 13 18:43:47
"First
Its not the "media" job to promote candidates except Foxnews"

It is their job to cover them though and give us factual details. Then again they can't even (or won't) give us facts on the two parties they do cover.

You can bet though if Jo Jorgensen or Howie Hawkins makes a huge gaff the mainstream cheerleaders will cover it for a few days.

Renzo it is amazing how aware and articulate eight year olds are.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Aug 14 00:15:30
"Its not the "media" job to promote candidates except Foxnews"

This is one of the most retarded sentences tw has ever uttered.
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Fri Aug 14 00:32:09
-Kargen Again it's 21st century anyone interested in third party candidates can easily google them. Most actually benefit from the lack of attention.


-Forwyn
This is one of the most retarded sentences tw has ever uttered.

You mispelled IBTY and I didn't "uttered" I typed.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Aug 14 01:23:57
Apologies to tw.
kargen
Member
Fri Aug 14 03:01:13
"Kargen Again it's 21st century anyone interested in third party candidates can easily google them. Most actually benefit from the lack of attention."

Yes they can. That doesn't excuse the press from doing its job though. They don't need to give the third party candidates equal coverage but they should at least give a mention from time to time. Maybe invite them on for the middle block of a Sunday morning talk show.
Cherub Cow
Member
Fri Aug 14 07:40:07
It reminds me of that Hitchhiker's Guide scene..

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'”

..
"Anyway, $5 to anyone on here who can even say who the Green candidate is without googling."

That's what's so fucked up. I didn't find out that Jill Stein wasn't running until I Googled it myself a couple of months ago. It was nowhere on the news and nowhere (notable) on social media. I had never heard of Howie Hawkins before June (the 2020 Green Party candidate), and I had to look up his name again to even post it here. Jo Jorgensen has at least gotten *some* coverage in fucking *memes*, but it was to demonize her.

The U.S. has been rapidly polarized this election. Last time it was DNC's smug self-assurance, so the DNC wasn't worried about a little 3rd party distraction, but after 2016 they don't want to take any chances, so Fox and CNN have been extra-polarizing to make sure that GOP/DNC get all the votes. Lots of digging in of heels... between Tucker Carlson outright calling for GOP votes in his broadcasts and CNN scolding anyone who looks too closely at Biden...

Social media has been pretty rabidly regurgitating anti-third party talking points:
- It's a "waste" of a vote (And all sorts of variations on this point: it's apathy, it's non-participation, etc.)
- Third party people should vote for a marginal change [that might be kind of similar to the vaporous, dissipating odor of what they *actually* want]
- It's bad "math" [so don't bother?]

Lots of gambler's logic, like people think that voting is like picking winners at a race track. They think that third party voters have no power while simultaneously asking them to turn over their power to GOP/DNC... almost like that's a contradiction. Almost like they want to condition people to believe that their votes act like bets: only worth anything if placed upon the most mathematically favorable outcomes.. never mind that that "math" happens to be induced social psychology manipulations and that a vote has the same power regardless of whether or not someone "successfully" picks an electoral college winner.

And it's hilarious when people pretend that their voter advocacy is just a general support for civic duty, when really, their expectation is that if they send you to vote.org that you'll end up a registered member of *their* party. There's an audacity there that's part of the U.S. polarization: these people believe that they *deserve* third party votes in *their* party, regardless of whether or not their party does anything to attract those votes. They think that "defensive voting" or avoiding the "spoiler effect" should be a platform in itself, and they actually *blame* third parties when they don't do well — again, under the assumption that those were *their* votes.

Then you have people like CNN's Erin Burnett who even scoff at the idea of using ranked choice voting to de-incentivize social psychology vote manipulation:
(At 1:50, Burnett does a "look at this joker" face when Jill Stein said in this January 2019 interview that the U.S. has nearly 2 years to implement ranked choice voting through a practical call for reform among states)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQKzkMkc1xI

DNC's CNN machine and the GOP's Fox News machine have not been taking any chances. They want to absolutely demonize any third party voters way ahead of schedule so that people don't even look at their full options.

/endrant
Habebe
Member
Fri Aug 14 08:31:08
Honestly. I think our best chance of real 3rd/4th parties in the US has to start at the state level.
kargen
Member
Fri Aug 14 19:09:14
Yeah I have been telling people for at least thirty years they need to start at the base. Get some independents and third party people in at the local and state level. Once you have a somewhat decent foundation then start trying to send a few to Washington. We are a long ways from a viable third candidate choice for president but it isn't a waste of a vote to vote for who you think best represents your own views.
A good goal for now would be getting enough independent and third party candidates in congress so no party has an outright majority.
chuck
Member
Sat Aug 15 00:45:49
Witness the charge of the promise-we're-not-for-Trump brigade, fighting the good fight once again. "Gee golly, we're awful concerned some people out there might not be able to read coverage of ALL the candidates in the New York Times."

What you say you want: responsible journalism to yield an electorate fully informed about the entire field of candidates.

What you actually, transparently want: to publicize an alternative to Biden, hoping for a Hail Mary split of the anti-Trump voters for his political advantage. It's just manipulative bullshit, dressed up as fake concern.

Go on though, act all concerned that societal norms are breaking down. Know how we got here?

It was this exact pattern of behavior right here, which you are each taking part in, that's how.

You expect everybody else to stick to the norms of a polite, well-run society while cheering on your own goons as they erode those norms year after year. Your only real concern is whether your team wins. 57 Benghazi panels? Justified! Years of race-based attacks on the President? Justified! I can't even find an NYT profile of the 2020 Green Party nominee?!? *Justified pearl clutching ensues*

If you actually gave a damn about the norms, you wouldn't have spent years laughing your asses off while they were destroyed. It's an awful convenient junction at which to find religion. How many of you snickered over that Merrick Garland bullshit? Loved the birth certificate trolling? Are down with pardons for anybody who tows the line? Are willing to admit that vote-by-mail will not cause historic fraud but that you're still cool with Republicans blocking it solely because it's likely to hurt them at the polls? Found it hilarious when the NC legislature stripped powers from the governorship when they lost it to a Democrat?

I don't know what the road to hell is paved with, but I'm quite clear who paved it. The norms are trashed because you and your's trashed them, you entitled, country ruining assholes.
Habebe
Member
Sat Aug 15 00:59:44
"Republicans blocking it solely because it's likely to hurt them at the polls? "

That's debatable. If they make it so people can just sign there name and vote anywhere , yes that would probably hurt Trump.

But its more that they think it will hurt them ans the Dems think it will help them.

Now as for voter fraud its a fake argument to say " people have voted in the past by mail , ts the same"

No, its not. It may very well turn out to be fine, or it.could be a train wreck ala Murphy's law.

Truth be told neither side really knows as this is uncharted waters. So Pelosi is full of as much shit as Trump on this one.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Aug 15 02:01:40
But what we do know is that there is not any evidence of significant voter fraud linked to what mail in balloting has been done up to this point. So it's not quite "we have no idea," but rather that we do have some idea, just not on the scale being suggested.

The idea that it's some kind of 50/50 gamble because we "just don't know" is utter bullshit and fucking retarded. Of course, instead of actually working to setup a mail in balloting system that meets their "concerns," they just say, "Fuck no, it won't work."

Why do they do that? Because it suits their agendas.

Same old bullshit - and you just keep lapping it up with a shit eating grin.
kargen
Member
Sat Aug 15 03:17:47
"What you actually, transparently want: to publicize an alternative to Biden, hoping for a Hail Mary split of the anti-Trump voters for his political advantage. It's just manipulative bullshit, dressed up as fake concern."

Your post is bullshit. Last election the Libertarian candidate got many more votes than the Green Party candidate. Common sense tells you those voters either would not have shown up or would have voted Trump if no Libertarian candidate ran.
Same will be true this cycle. Unfortunately independent and third party votes have no impact on the outcome despite what Hillary says. I hope that changes.
The rest of your dribble is exactly that. A meandering and aimless rant with no point. The norm is a two party system and by suggesting we feel/think other options should get coverage we are obviously going against the norm.
To bad you can't or won't see that.

Looking at the mail in voting it is inevitable but likely going to be a major fuck-up. I hope not but probably that is where we are headed. The states that do allow mail in voting have put several years into getting it somewhat right. They implemented it over a few election cycles and still had some problems. States trying to develop a system in a couple of months stand a really good chance of fucking things up.
That being said it will take some strain off the system if people will get their ballots in early instead of waiting until near the deadline. And I would really like if President trump would start including in his rant against mail in voting a comment about if that is the process decided on everybody needs to participate even if there might be problems. I think his rhetoric may alienate some voters and that isn't a good thing no matter who they might want to vote for.
chuck
Member
Sat Aug 15 08:58:03
> Your post is bullshit. Last election the Libertarian candidate got many more votes than the Green Party candidate. Common sense tells you those voters either would not have shown up or would have voted Trump if no Libertarian candidate ran.

Those voters would not have voted for Trump you putz. He's the reason they voted third party at all. Unless you think it's a coincidence that Gary Johnson got 4.4 million votes in 2016 vs 1.2 million in 2012? A banner year for libertarian ideals maybe? Lol, Christ.

A vote for a candidate who in a banner year only manages 2.5% of the vote total is nothing more than "I want to be able to say I participated without having to help choose who governs." If a voter does not think Trump is fit to govern, voting for anybody except an opponent who might actually beat him is just a way to say "look, I'm not a Trump supporter, see?"

> The norm is a two party system and by suggesting we feel/think other options should get coverage we are obviously going against the norm.
To bad you can't or won't see that.

Jesus, you are dense. The norms I'm talking about are the norms of a functional society and an effective government. I don't give a shit that you are "not really for Trump, I voted third party," if you're even bothering with that fig leaf any more. I've watched you spend his entire presidency justifying nearly everything he does. You might as well get "Look, I don't support Trump but I have to say, he's right in this case" tattooed on your forehead for as often as you break it out.

If you want to vote for a candidate who will get <2.5% of the vote, nobody is stopping you. IMO they are receiving the amount of media coverage their relevance merits.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Aug 15 11:20:36
Lots of whining from chuck.

I guess it's impossible to simultaneously think Trump, Biden, and Clinton are unfit to govern. Votes for Johnson/Stein/Jorgensen/Hawkins are just crypto-Trump votes.
Habebe
Member
Sat Aug 15 11:47:31
Chuck, For starters the Libs did have a decent ticket last round comprising of two former Republican Governors. Compared to this round for example they Vermin supreme IIRC.

But anyway, Yes the Libertarians who voted last round didn't like Trump, just as those who voted for Stein didnt like HRC.

But in general its fair to say Libertarians caucus with Republicams and greens with the Democrats.

This just sounds more like Hillary whining about how 3rd parties lost her the election when in reality 3rd parties is the reason she almost won.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sun Aug 16 01:17:37
Chuck's straw man post (Sat Aug 15 00:45:49) was a nice example of what I was talking about. It's more of that fallacious assumption that third party votes "belong" to the other two parties — when they don't. Nothing thoughtful there.

And this..
[chuck]: "If a voter does not think Trump is fit to govern, voting for anybody except an opponent who might actually beat him is just a way to say "look, I'm not a Trump supporter, see?""

It's textbook "Blue no matter who" social media logic. That "best chance to beat Trump" line. "Defensive voting" again. You could pull this same quotation from any under-educated Twitter feed. That's what they're re-Tweeting en masse because they saturate themselves with it. It's a meme argument.

For chuck, it's predicated on the assumption that all of those third party votes intrinsically belong to Biden and that anyone who entertains the thought of voting for anyone else must be sabotaging his particular race horse. It's the argument of a pre-election polarization success story. And, of course, in polarization fashion, he believes it's only the *other* major party doing it; protecting his cognitive dissonance from seeing his own party's complicity ([chuck]: "Your only real concern is whether your team wins").

In reality, the DNC and GOP do it every election: tell you that all of your enemies must be of the *other* (major) party, tell you that every ill of the nation is their fault, tell you that only they speak the truth. When third parties appear, it challenges that narrative, inflaming the cognitive dissonance. Or in Sartre terms: people are confronted with the reality of their ever-present ability to choose, it terrifies them, and so they make anguished choices — they choose for things that they feel that *circumstance* demands that they choose (they act as objects, incapable of choice) rather than for things that they actually would choose to support from a self-aware free will. It's John Proctor being asked to lie so that everyone can share in tyranny together.

Like I've been saying for too long: it's the claim of a false equivalency designed to shield from the fallacy of relative privation. That is, they claim a false equivalency ("[Trump is *clearly* worse! Just because the DNC does it too doesn't mean the GOP is better!]"), but it's based on a faulty conclusion (fallacy of relative privation): that the lesser of two evils is by extension now worth supporting. It's the same social psychology method of culling voters away from their full choices.

..
[Wrath of Orion]: "Of course, instead of actually working to setup a mail in balloting system that meets their "concerns," they just say, "Fuck no, it won't work.""

That seems to be part of Trump's self-fulfilling prophecy. By saying that it would take too long to implement, he delays any action in implementation. So, it takes longer for positive results to manifest, which makes it come true; delaying action at this stage will itself result in a mail vote system that will have more errors than one started a week ago. If he tried to fix it at the federal level starting today, it might work, but every day that no action is taken, it becomes more and more impossible.

It's similar to his COVID-19 response. Early action would have had great results, but instead, here the U.S. is: fucked. But I guess national mail-in votes will be ready for the *next* election, just like a coordinated pandemic response will be ready the *next* time there's a pandemic?

..
Speaking of self-fulfilling prophesies:
[chuck]: "If you want to vote for a candidate who will get <2.5% of the vote, nobody is stopping you. IMO they are receiving the amount of media coverage their relevance merits."

Hmm.. I wonder if third parties would have more "relevance" and more of a percentage of votes if they had their own FoxNews/CNN channel dedicated to their voice. It's almost like the amount that a corporate media company can saturate the market with its voice has a correlation of some kind with party votership. It's almost like corporate interests have an incentive to keep FoxNews/CNN reporting on the positions of its elected political backers (its loyal politicians)...

There's that "deserve" logic again. The DNC and GOP "deserve" those third party votes, so they don't want to risk having that "<2.5%" grow suddenly by educating their viewers about how those parties might actually be better options.
jergul
large member
Sun Aug 16 03:26:07
The US system is not really a two party one. Its two grand coalitions where various wings within have power that ebbs and flows.

Case in point - Who could the election of Donald Trump be viewed as anything other than a groundshaking shift in favour of a pretty radical wing of the GOP coalition?

The only role for third parties in a presidential race is to play reverse kingmaker. They get to chose that the coalition they share the least with is more likely to win.

Independents in Congress are entirely possible, particularly with the incumbent advantage. But that is always linked to individuals, not to whatever third party they might claim to favour.

This is not the result of media malfeance, but rather how the US Federal system has been designed.

Its like LBJ said. Better for everyone that interests are inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.
jergul
large member
Sun Aug 16 03:29:46
The Lincoln project acknowleges this explicitly. To Republicans there, it is entirely worth it to lose a presidential election cycle or two to marginalize teaparty and maga regime elements within the GOP.
chuck
Member
Sun Aug 16 12:57:42
> Chuck's straw man post (Sat Aug 15 00:45:49) was a nice example of what I was talking about. It's more of that fallacious assumption that third party votes "belong" to the other two parties — when they don't. Nothing thoughtful there.

Errrm, how now brown cow?

First, what do you even intend when you say I believe votes "belong" to Reps or Dems? I make no claims as to who deserves votes. That you came away from my post with that peculiar interpretation says much more about your ideological hobby horses than me or my argument. Third party fanboy much?

The jumping off point for your whole post is a la la land where all candidates for President are plausible alternatives today, IF ONLY they received a fair amount of media coverage. It's a lovely place, albeit devoid of probabilities and likelihoods. And in this formulation I'm somehow a stand-in both for unthinking partisans and villainous smoky backroomers?

Over here in the world as it actually exists, I'm looking at the Presidential election solely as society's way of answering the question "who will be elected President in 2020?" It's such a foregone conclusion that it will be either Biden or Trump (or their respective replacements should they kick the bucket) that I'd be willing to bet my entire 401k on the prospect if that were an option. I don't say that because I have some vested interest in third parties not winning. I say it because it's an honest reflection of ground truth. The Green Party candidate just came out and told the media, "it would be a really big victory if we got 5% of the vote," so apparently he feels the same way.

Taking into account silly things like likelihood, it's plain to see that the third party candidates in 2020 are patently irrelevant when trying to answer the question "Who will be elected President in 2020?"

So people voting for someone other than Trump or Biden in 2020 - to the extent that they are capable of admitting the quixotic nature of their preferred candidates - are doing so with the intent of answering some question other than "Who will be elected President in 2020?" Maybe the question they are trying to answer is "Do I approve of the choice being offered to me?" Maybe it is "Do I want a third party candidate to do 'well' so that third parties are that much more likely to be relevant contenders next election?" Whichever it is, it is also an opting out from answering the question "Who will be elected President in 2020?"

So, taking into account pesky things like reality, ballot punchers have three choices in 2020:

- I want Trump to be President
- I want Biden to be President
- I choose not to decide (but I still have made a choice)

Whether you like it or not, the reducibility of US presidental voting to these three options is an property of our political system today, not some false Twitter narrative I am allegedly pushing because I hate third parties.

You can say, "well, if the NYT paid attention to Howie Hawkins, maybe he wouldn't be irrelevant. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy." To which I would reply, "Michael Bloomberg had stratospheric funds available, huge advantages in terms of experience and recognizability, and the media paid him tons of attention yet he still only managed to win American Samoa." Do you honestly believe, given that, that Howie and Jo just need a bit more attention to get over the hump?


So forgive me for being pessimistic when I see a bunch of Trump supporters suddenly arguing that the media needs to be promoting the option for voters to choose not to decide. Maybe you in particular really do want to see viable alternatives. Fine, that seems plausible to me. You get a skepticism hall pass. In general though, when I see a bunch of Trump supporters who really wish the media would pay more attention to Howie and Jo (and what of Blankenship or the kid from The Mighty Ducks, are they just chum???), I ask myself "are they doing so because they think someone in that third category might win?" and that's clearly not the case. So in the short term, in a tactical sense, it strikes me as just a cynical way of asking people not to vote against their man.

---

PS - step back and consider the meta of UP arguments. I voted for Badnarik in 2004, think the seasteading movement is a pretty neat idea, etc. I'm a 1%'er (by income fairly recently, not yet by wealth :-(, so I live my life at the unfair maxima of ALL THE TAXATION in place on successful people who still have to actually work for a living), I don't use social media or carry a smart phone because I think we're tumbling down the hill towards being a surveillance state. Yet *I'm* considered to be part of the liberal contingent these days. The board may as well be subtitled "If you're not with us, you're against us!" Despite my various kooky ideological idiosyncracies and the fact that I very, very much am a political independent, I'm a liberal because I stridently believe that a conman and fraudster should not be our President? What?
Habebe
Member
Sun Aug 16 13:51:08
"Case in point - Who could the election of Donald Trump be viewed as anything other than a groundshaking shift in favour of a pretty radical wing of the GOP coalition?"

Jergul, Radical left wing? Other than immigration Trump is bery much a centrist. Probably has more union support than any recent Republican potus.
chuck
Member
Sun Aug 16 14:04:55
^ Lol, no. There is a difference between holding centrists positions and just not holding positions. His lack of interest in policy or governance doesn't make him a centrist any more than an athiest's lack of interest in the differences between denominations makes them a non-denominational Protestant.
jergul
large member
Sun Aug 16 14:19:32
habebe
What chuck said. But my point was directed at the wing of the party. It has successfully leveraged Trump to dominate all levels of federally elected offices.
Rugian
Member
Sun Aug 16 14:24:29
"Other than immigration Trump is bery much a centrist."

Trump's immigration stances line up best with those of the trade unions wing of the Democratic Party in the 1990s.

In many ways, Trump is a centrist who had the bad luck of getting fucked by Overton Window movement.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Sun Aug 16 14:53:04
chuck
Member Sun Aug 16 12:57:42
"Yet *I'm* considered to be part of the liberal contingent these days."

Probably because you're a faggot.
Habebe
Member
Sun Aug 16 15:27:16
Chuck/Jergul, Are either of you are claiming Trump is an extreme right winger?

By US standards.
jergul
large member
Sun Aug 16 15:35:09
Habebe
How could he be? He is a single interest group.

I am claiming that his election represents "a houndshaking shift in favour of a pretty radical wing of the GOP coalition".

The shift completely dominates all federal election prospects. GOP candidates have to cater to Trump's base to be electable (with a few exceptions).

Trump's base is definitely radically right wing.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Sun Aug 16 16:43:36
jergul
large member Sun Aug 16 15:35:09
"Trump's base is definitely radically right wing."

No. "Lincoln Project" types are much more radical.
Habebe
Member
Sun Aug 16 16:54:24
Jergul , In what way are they radical? Because again other than Immigration issues they seem pretty central politically.

Again by US standards, not Euro.
Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Aug 25 02:29:24
I let this thread slip away, but to return to it...

..
[chuck]: "First, what do you even intend when you say I believe votes "belong" to Reps or Dems?"

Do you remember your words? Here they are:
[chuck]: "What you actually, transparently want: to publicize an alternative to Biden, hoping for a Hail Mary split of the anti-Trump voters for his political advantage. It's just manipulative bullshit, dressed up as fake concern."

Right there: "an alternative to Biden" / "split of the anti-Trump voters for his political advantage"

Written into those words is the assumption that voters who are against Trump must therefore be in favor of Biden. You also assume that the advantage goes to Trump, meaning that third party voters would have voted for Biden. Those are assumptions that those third party votes *belong* to Biden if not to Trump — they do not. Those third party votes belong to the third parties; a vote belongs to the voter, the college, and the candidate who receives the votes — no one else. Unless, of course, you're advocating for a ranked choice election, which I would support. Even then, you would see that third party voters have varying 2nd choices.

E.g., someone who voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 may have contributed a vote to Jill Stein for a 2nd choice, Evan McMullin for a third choice, and Vermin Supreme for a fourth choice. Even in a ranked choice election, that means that more than four rounds of elections would need to take place before Trump or Clinton received that vote. Polarized DNC/GOP voters would erroneously conclude that that vote "belonged" to them, even after being so far down the list. "[Oh! But I was your *5th* choice! You sabotaged the election by not just resigning to have me as your first choice!]" Such people cannot see outside of the system that they build through their choices.

You make similar statements throughout that post and recycle them again. For instance:
[chuck]: "The norms are trashed because you and your's trashed them, you entitled, country ruining assholes."

You blame third parties for a DNC 2016 loss (the common anti-third-party DNC meme-based complaint: that third party voters caused Trump's victory). That is a commoner error based again on the assumption that the DNC "would have" gotten those votes — that they and no one else deserved them and that third party voters are to blame. It's a way for the DNC to avoid responsibility, and they sold it on their media machines (e.g., CNN and MSNBC; see my Erin Burnett link above). It's an error because it neglects the multitude of the DNC and GOP's failures in the 2016 election (e.g., Clinton's identity politics and severe unpopularity, the alternate GOP candidates dropping out early, a 20-year low in voter turnout). It's a scapegoat argument.

And again:
[chuck]: "I ask myself "are they doing so because they think someone in that third category might win?" and that's clearly not the case. So in the short term, in a tactical sense, it strikes me as just a cynical way of asking people not to vote against their man."

More "deserve" logic again. You assume that "their man" must be Trump and that they're trying specifically to convince DNC voters to vote third party. Incorrect. "Their man" is whoever they vote for, and the advocacy is for a full range of choices, not *just* the two for which people have been cowed into voting. Your own policies may well align with the DNC candidate. That's fine. Do that, then.

..
[chuck]: "Taking into account silly things like likelihood, it's plain to see that the third party candidates in 2020 are patently irrelevant when trying to answer the question "Who will be elected President in 2020?""

Asked and answered. That is the gambler's fallacy approach to voting. It is a self-sustaining delusion; it's a forfeiture of choice; voters themselves create the probability by disbelieving that they themselves influence the likelihood of a victory. Would-be-DNC-Voters made this same error in 2016 when they thought that their party had a statistical advantage and thus did not bother voting. It turned out that that "statistical advantage" only exists when voters actually *make* a choice. If more people stood in front of their choices, they would produce their own outcomes.

..
[chuck]: "The jumping off point for your whole post is a la la land where all candidates for President are plausible alternatives today, IF ONLY they received a fair amount of media coverage."

False. Yours was the "Error of Imaginary Causes". Specifically, I was talking *correlation*, not causation. And that was not even the jumping off point of my post: it was buried at the end. That leads into your subsequent error:

[chuck]: "You can say, "well, if the NYT paid attention to Howie Hawkins, maybe he wouldn't be irrelevant. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy." To which I would reply, "Michael Bloomberg had stratospheric funds available, huge advantages in terms of experience and recognizability, and the media paid him tons of attention yet he still only managed to win American Samoa." Do you honestly believe, given that, that Howie and Jo just need a bit more attention to get over the hump?"

You also disregarded my point in your response to it. The point was that the media itself has decided who to cover based on their pre-determined "deserve" argument (their inherent bias). It's not a matter of funding.

And Bloomberg makes a terrible case example for you: he was wildly unpopular before he attempted to run. NYC-DNC voters did not want him strong-arming his way into the election. He used pure money, not policy or even general likeability, and I never made the argument that money alone would solve the issue.

..
[chuck]: "Despite my various kooky ideological idiosyncracies and the fact that I very, very much am a political independent, I'm a liberal because I stridently believe that a conman and fraudster should not be our President? What?"

If you talk all day about how independent you are but then when it comes down to it you vote for the DNC/GOP, you are not an independent in practice. That would again be John Proctor taking the ignoble path: knowing that the Salem trial logic is flawed to the core, yet signing his confession of witchcraft. As they say, "Actions speak louder than words." People should make choices that represent their signed name — choices that they would be willing to repeat into infinity if their lives repeated in eternal recurrence. Your inner life means nothing if it attempts no manifestations of itself or if you make no attempt to see your will realized.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share