2012 US Presidential Election

[Eloi]

But what of the people harmed by the possible candidate that is elected in place of the one that would've been the most likely to be the least harmful? Non-action is still an action, ethically speaking. And if one comes to power who does more harm than another candidate, the people who didn't vote are still morally culpable.

 

[Minish]

Non-action is way, way less of an action. Who's saying that they don't still feel bad about things? Or that they don't do other things to prevent bad stuff from happening? There's no physically doing an action that you have to seriously and suddenly consider right then and there - so it's understandable. Philosophically and shit, yeah, we're ~all culpable and whatever, but I'm talking about real problems that affect you right then and there (such as forcing yourself to vote for someone repulsive to you) and why it makes sense.

No, I really disagree about them still being morally culpable. If it's going to affect their mental health they can do whatever makes them okay.

 

[Eloi]

Non-action is way, way less of an action.

Non-action is an action.

If you see a train barreling down a railroad track towards a doggy, and you chose to let it be run over, that was a choice you made, and is just as much of a choice as if you would've tried to call to it or move it out of the way.

Who's saying that they don't still feel bad about things? Or that they don't do other things to prevent bad stuff from happening? There's no physically doing an action that you have to seriously and suddenly consider right then and there - so it's understandable. Philosophically and shit, yeah, we're ~all culpable and whatever, but I'm talking about real problems that affect you right then and there (such as forcing yourself to vote for someone repulsive to you) and why it makes sense.

Philosophy is a rational analysis of everything, and can inform our choices. I don't see a difference between what is "philosophical" and what is "real"/"practical". They're one and the same.

No, I really disagree about them still being morally culpable. If it's going to affect their mental health they can do whatever makes them okay.

But it could affect a lot more people's mental health though. If a significant portion of people sit-out the vote, or vote for a third party candidate, then Romney could come into office, and make things worse for QUILTBAG people then they already are, which will definitely negatively affect a lot of people's mental health, to a wider and greater extent than the possible pain caused by voting for someone you don't agree with completely.

 

[ultraviolet]

Furthermore, I'd still vote for Barack, just because a couple of the ideas he proposes in his Obamacare

every time I see 'Obamacare' used in a sentence I automatically think it's like, Fox's word for the evil commie scheme Obama is plotting and death panels and etc. It just sounds like a media buzzword; why is it even called obamacare? o.o it's just public healthcare, isn't it? that thing that most other developed countries have?

 

[surskitty]

every time I see 'Obamacare' used in a sentence I automatically think it's like, Fox's word for the evil commie scheme Obama is plotting and death panels and etc. It just sounds like a media buzzword; why is it even called obamacare? o.o it's just public healthcare, isn't it? that thing that most other developed countries have?

it's called obamacare as a fox buzzword yes but it's moved into wider use i think

haha, no, it's not public healthcare; it's requiring everyone to get health insurance, which is something rather different, and it makes it slightly harder for insurance companies to screw people over though the us health industry is still a giant giant mess


this might be just me but if a terrible candidate gets into office, i'd rather blame the people who voted for them rathe than the people who refrained from voting

 

[Eloi]

Yeah, the proper term is the Affordable Care Act.

this might be just me but if a terrible candidate gets into office, i'd rather blame the people who voted for them rathe than the people who refrained from voting

It's both of their faults. And this isn't to establish blame, it's to convince those who do this to chose to make the decision that will benefit the most people.

 

[Minish]

Non-action is an action.

If you see a train barreling down a railroad track towards a doggy, and you chose to let it be run over, that was a choice you made, and is just as much of a choice as if you would've tried to call to it or move it out of the way.

That's a really bizarre comparison.

Voting says you like this person: you want them to be in power. You are told you are making them be in power, even if your one vote probably won't make much difference. Some people cannot live with feeling like they actively made that happen. Maybe they can live with inactively having something happen. They probably still don't like that, but they can at least process. They can still process and not have that decision looming over them all the time on their conscience! Because that one tiny vote makes way, way more of a difference to the mental health of this individual than it did on how many tens of thousands of votes those big powerful rich people will collect.

If it turns out their single vote caused someone really awful to get in, yeah, I'd be surprised if they didn't feel really bad about that? But they had no way of knowing that at the time. Especially when some states are basically guaranteed winners and you literally aren't doing anything but hurting yourself if you vote for Obama while fervently not wanting to vote at all.

Philosophy is a rational analysis of everything, and can inform our choices. I don't see a difference between what is "philosophical" and what is "real"/"practical". They're one and the same.

Because sometimes you have to have priorities? When you're really fucking poor for example, you often have to try not to worry about where your clothes came from, or whether the food you can afford came from great production. That's different because I wouldn't call it a philosophical issue, people/the planet/whatever still get hurt when you do those things. But your personal, current reality, and your mental health, when otherwise you're a pretty good person... should probably take precedence over the big picture. I consider this at least a better comparison than dog-on-a-railtrack.

But it could affect a lot more people's mental health though. If a significant portion of people sit-out the vote, or vote for a third party candidate, then Romney could come into office, and make things worse for QUILTBAG people then they already are, which will definitely negatively affect a lot of people's mental health, to a wider and greater extent than the possible pain caused by voting for someone you don't agree with completely.

Yeah, and executing a mass murderer will save more people, or whatever? But some people still can't have execution on their conscience.

I, personally, would vote! But there are a small handful of people shouldn't be judged for abstaining when their one tiny vote is in the long run not going to make a difference at all.

If it were a matter of either choosing Obama or Romney right now, or having a lighter mind, maybe it's a thing that should be definitely taken more seriously! But it's actually not like that.

 

[Eloi]

Yeah, and executing a mass murderer will save more people, or whatever? But some people still can't have execution on their conscience.

No, not really. The value of life is absolute, and the basis for all other value. Executing a mass murderer accomplishes nothing that imprisoning them wouldn't do.

And I see your point; if it causes them a lot of distress, then yes, it's not worth the relatively small impact their individual vote makes.

 

[Abwayax]

I'm not registered to vote. I'm not even sure if I should bother. Were I motivated enough to go out and vote, I'd be voting Green. Obama is a warmonger president just like his Republican predecessor. He is protecting Bush's torture buddies but prosecuting the whistleblower John Kiriakou who confirmed the existence of the torture program. His drone strikes go after civilians and rescuers, even children, effectively creating an atmosphere of terror. These are things the Democratic party now brags about.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that Obama's administration wants the power to detain people indefinitely and is even fighting in court to claim that power. Or the fact that he has asserted, and used, the power to assassinate American citizens. How about the fact that he approved of an extension to the Patriot Act?

Partisan politics is disgusting. In many cases its not about the policies themselves, it's about the who. If "our guy" does it its not so bad. When Bush started the war he was doing it under false pretenses, the war was being fought over oil, it was a senseless war. When Obama took over Bush's wars all of a sudden now the war is justified and he's protecting our freedom. When Bush signed the Patriot Act he was committing gross injustices and eroding civil liberties, but when Obama signed the extension the Patriot Act suddenly wasn't as bad anymore. If it were Bush or McCain or Romney doing any of the things I mentioned above Democrats would be all up in arms protesting it, but since it's their guy doing them, it's not so bad anymore.

You really can't blame me for not wanting 4 more years of war, secrecy, assassination, gradual loss of constitutional rights protecting our freedoms overseas. An Orwellian concept from an Orwellian administration.

Romney is far worse than him, of course, but really the thing Obama has over Romney is that Obama is not a bigot. The GOP platform is built on bigotry - the hate of women, the poor, minorities, QUILTBAGs, etc.

 

[nyuu]

I actually think it's been pretty interesting recently, what with the streak of fuck-ups that Romney has been making.

Right now I'm basically torn between Stein and Obama. I really like Stein but also our political system makes me sad. So I might vote for Obama. Don't know.

a thought: while plurality systems do tend to favor two-party systems, there are exceptions (canada, india, and if I understand correctly, the uk).

it'd take way-more-people not feeling like voting third party equals their voice being wasted, but: it's not hopeless forever.

 

[Tailsy]

the UK also has different systems depending on where you're voting and what for! scotland uses a mix of different electoral systems for its own parliament, which (USUALLY) avoids a one-party majority in government.

not that it matters since it is usually the tories or labour who get most control in the UK parliament anyway so it's basically a two-party system but whatevs.

 

[Cerberus87]

About political systems, we should try to change things. It's wrong that people in the US are forced to choose between right-wing and slightly less right-wing. The anti-system people should try to be more vocal and change the system, if not through negotiations, then by force.

The problem is that corporate media always shows rebellion in a bad light. :(

That's a really bizarre comparison.

Voting says you like this person: you want them to be in power. You are told you are making them be in power, even if your one vote probably won't make much difference. Some people cannot live with feeling like they actively made that happen. Maybe they can live with inactively having something happen. They probably still don't like that, but they can at least process. They can still process and not have that decision looming over them all the time on their conscience! Because that one tiny vote makes way, way more of a difference to the mental health of this individual than it did on how many tens of thousands of votes those big powerful rich people will collect.

If it turns out their single vote caused someone really awful to get in, yeah, I'd be surprised if they didn't feel really bad about that? But they had no way of knowing that at the time. Especially when some states are basically guaranteed winners and you literally aren't doing anything but hurting yourself if you vote for Obama while fervently not wanting to vote at all.

You'd be surprised to learn in some countries there are crimes that consist in someone not doing an action that the law enforces (like rescuing someone after a car accident you were involved in).

And then there also that Rush song that says "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

 

[ultraviolet]

AYou'd be surprised to learn in some countries there are crimes that consist in someone not doing an action that the law enforces (like rescuing someone after a car accident you were involved in).

And then there also that Rush song that says "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

uh I'm pretty sure that's a law in most countries, actually.
??? but the point cirrus is making is that one person not voting has a relatively tiny impact on the election in general, while meanwhile the person who didn't want to vote because of personal reasons or whatever doesn't have to feel shitty for ages because they had to vote. deciding not to rescue someone in a car accident has much more responsibility already placed on you, and you are already necessarily involved even if you don't help the person, because you were part of the accident. this is kind of a terrible comparison, sorry. It's the same reason why the 'train hurtling towards of people' doesn't work either; voting or not voting is a cumulative effect. It's not as though you voting or not is going to decide the election, because your vote is one of hundreds of thousands. Really, a more correct analogy would be if like, a million people were in the same car accident, and they *all* had to choose whether to help this one person or not.

Like yeah, non-action is an action, but it's a tiny tiny action the same way voting is a tiny tiny action. Helping someone in a car accident you were involved in has a much greater effect on the situation.

not even going to comment on the song because what even

 

[Cerberus87]

uh I'm pretty sure that's a law in most countries, actually.
??? but the point cirrus is making is that one person not voting has a relatively tiny impact on the election in general, while meanwhile the person who didn't want to vote because of personal reasons or whatever doesn't have to feel shitty for ages because they had to vote. deciding not to rescue someone in a car accident has much more responsibility already placed on you, and you are already necessarily involved even if you don't help the person, because you were part of the accident. this is kind of a terrible comparison, sorry. It's the same reason why the 'train hurtling towards of people' doesn't work either; voting or not voting is a cumulative effect. It's not as though you voting or not is going to decide the election, because your vote is one of hundreds of thousands. Really, a more correct analogy would be if like, a million people were in the same car accident, and they *all* had to choose whether to help this one person or not.

Like yeah, non-action is an action, but it's a tiny tiny action the same way voting is a tiny tiny action. Helping someone in a car accident you were involved in has a much greater effect on the situation.

Now that you explained it better I sort of agree.

 

[Lorem Ipsum]

Would probably vote Johnson in a safe seat, ignoring his stupid view on Obamacare, but in the swing states would wholeheartedly support Obama. There is no way I would vote for Romney, the fool.

Of course, I am British, so I don't have the vote over there. I get to choose between Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. Joy.

 

[Datura]

Would probably vote Johnson in a safe seat, ignoring his stupid view on Obamacare

. . . and just about everything else?

 

[Lorem Ipsum]

Budget cuts, equality of marriage, withdrawal from Afghanistan, other protections of civil liberties, ending the death penalty, support for the legalisation of marijuana... those are the primary reasons I think he's great.

 

[sovram]

Budget cuts, equality of marriage, withdrawal from Afghanistan, other protections of civil liberties, ending the death penalty, support for the legalisation of marijuana... those are the primary reasons I think he's great.

I'm like 90% sure Stein has all that (I don't know about "budget cuts" but probably) plus she's not a white (protestant?) male

eta: just listen to Datura he has said what I could not.

 

[Datura]

Budget cuts, equality of marriage, withdrawal from Afghanistan, other protections of civil liberties, ending the death penalty, support for the legalisation of marijuana... those are the primary reasons I think he's great.

Um, that all sounds nice (though none of these positions are unique to Johnson), but libertarians have lot of awful stances that outweigh everything you mentioned above: near-complete government deregulation, cutting of social safety nets, private school vouchers, abolishment of already-weak gun control policies, a "free market" approach to healthcare (lol) that includes repealing the Affordable Care Act, complete removal of government from energy investment/management, no protection from the predatory for-profit college industry, legalized private discrimination in the name of "civil liberties," anti-choice policies, etc. etc.

But of course the internet loves him, because WEEEEED LOL.

Oh, and he's the godfather of the U.S. for-profit prison system. Fuck that. I would rather have Romney as commander in chief. I'm serious. Libertarians are the worst, most delusional people in modern American politics.

 

[Lorem Ipsum]

Okay. I will concede. I've just read her platform, and unlike the Greens in this country, she is great, minus the bad bits of Johnson. Obviously a few reservations, but okay.