• @Linkerbaan
    link
    -110 months ago

    Because if the amount of voters for a different candidate increases then it will be noticed. It will do two things:

    • Force the Dems to move back more to the left actually to win back those votes

    • The next time around people will consider it a more viable option.

    Asking for them to win directly is basically a catch22.

    If you keep voting Democrat now you very explicitly endorse that you are content with their current policies.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      010 months ago

      That didn’t happen with Perot or Nader. I find it very hard to believe that would happen this time.

      Why can’t you just admit that you can’t give me a name?

      • @Linkerbaan
        link
        110 months ago

        If you don’t want to vote for someone who doens’t have a chance of winning then just stay home

        • Flying Squid
          link
          -110 months ago

          I didn’t say anyone should stay home.

          I said:

          If there is no candidate that has such a chance, why bother voting?

          You have not given me a good reason. Your reason so far is not supported by history. Neither Perot nor Nader changed a thing. Unless you can give me a good reason why that will be different this time around, you are grasping at straws.

          If you want to vote, fine. Go ahead. I just don’t see why you’re bothering when you can’t even give a good reason. Seems like a lot of effort for nothing.

    • @assassin_aragorn
      link
      -110 months ago

      Force the Dems to move back more to the left actually to win back those votes

      The opposite happens when Democrats lose. Republicans become emboldened and pull us right. Tea Party in 2010, Trump in 2016. The biggest right wing swings in modern US politics.

      If you don’t vote Democrat, you still endorse contentment with their policies. Not voting is a statement that you’re content with whoever wins – or, that you’re so privileged it doesn’t matter who wins.

      • @Linkerbaan
        link
        110 months ago

        Obama was probably the largest swing right, blatantly bailing out the big banks and going HAM on imperialism.

        The DNC are the ones that tried to promote Trump because they thought it’d be an easy score for Hillary so you can thank the Democrats for that one too. And for screwing over Bernie of course.

        Not voting is a statement that you’re content with whoever wins

        I don’t think that’s how it works.

        • @assassin_aragorn
          link
          010 months ago

          If you’re telling me that you think Obama was a larger swing the right than Trump was, I think we’ve once again exhausted all constructive discussion between us.

          • @Linkerbaan
            link
            -1
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Obama was not more right wing than Trump. But he was the largest swing to the right.

            He didn’t close Guantanamo. Terrorized Afghanistan, Massively increased CIA surveillance to the point he even lost a lawsuit for breaking the law. Lied about not surveilling journalists. Drone striked like a genocidal maniac. Overthrew regimes such as in Libya creating huge chaos.

            Obama was a maniac on the global stage.

            What did Trump do? He drone striked like crazy too, but not in new countries. But he actually withdrew from Afghanistan. He killed Suleimani and ruined the Iran nuclear deal but (luckily) didn’t start a new war. Screwed over relations with China.

            All in all Trump was mostly known for his insanely stupid domestic policies. But in foreign policies he was not actually worse than Obama.