Sanders gets first Senate endorsement

[Bye 3,947]

I'm not American but about voting for a minor part being a throwaway vote: This is the reason in the US and many other countries there are always 2 main parties with (basically) a monopoly over politics. People should not be afraid because no vote is a throwaway vote. Your vote is your will. If you're not satisfied with a candidate do not vote for them because you want to prevent another from taking the win. Vote for whomever you want and according to your conscience. Stop giving parties power because in their eyes they can do whatever they want because their supporters will vote for them no matter what.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

30 minutes ago, Biotic said:

I'm not American but about voting for a minor part being a throwaway vote: This is the reason in the US and many other countries there are always 2 main parties with (basically) a monopoly over politics. People should not be afraid because no vote is a throwaway vote. Your vote is your will. If you're not satisfied with a candidate do not vote for them because you want to prevent another from taking the win. Vote for whomever you want and according to your conscience. Stop giving parties power because in their eyes they can do whatever they want because their supporters will vote for them no matter what.

Sorry but this line of thinking is flawed.

It's little different than saying it's better to let problems resolve themselves because you had no part in it, except this time you did have a part in it but chose to abstain from fixing it.

It's an incredibly selfish and arguably irresponsible point of view that only serves to reinforce the idea of individual over social benefit

Side note: IRONICALLY, that's exactly what Sanders is standing against. That his supporters would do the opposite is downright hilarious and goes to show how little they understand what their candidate stands for.

Your vote matters, and you should always vote for the person you believe will benefit the nation the most while simultaneously benefiting you as much as possible. It's all about the bigger picture.

White votes do nothing but send a message, one that may feel good for a few days but pales in comparison to the potential impact a particular candidate may have, for good or ill, over the course of years.

[Bye 3,947]

18 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Sorry but this line of thinking is flawed.

It's little different than saying it's better to let problems resolve themselves because you had no part in it, except this time you did have a part in it but chose to abstain from fixing it.

It's an incredibly selfish and arguably irresponsible point of view that only serves to reinforce the idea of individual over social benefit

Side note: IRONICALLY, that's exactly what Sanders is standing against. That his supporters would do the opposite is downright hilarious and goes to show how little they understand what their candidate stands for.

Your vote matters, and you should always vote for the person you believe will benefit the nation the most while simultaneously benefiting you as much as possible. It's all about the bigger picture.

White votes do nothing but send a message, one that may feel good for a few days but pales in comparison to the potential impact a particular candidate may have, for good or ill, over the course of years.

That's basically what I believe in. However, there is nothing wrong and it is not selfish to vote for another party like a green party or whatever if you believe in their message. Voting for the lesser evil only succeeds in maintaining the status quo.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

9 minutes ago, Biotic said:

That's basically what I believe in. However, there is nothing wrong and it is not selfish to vote for another party like a green party or whatever if you believe in their message. Voting for the lesser evil only succeeds in maintaining the status quo.

Oh I see.

Well it depends. If you vote for someone belonging to a certain party that is not gaining momentum or having any sort of tangible impact, then that can be seen as being no different than writing down "Lady Gaga" at the ballot. 

It's good to believe in something, but ultimately one should be realistic with what one can achieve. You can settle for something while you work on promoting the other until change can be plausible. Even Bernie is doing it by settling for the Democratic party in order to get things done, as opposed to running as an independent.

Also I think the word "status quo" is being thrown around a lot. It's not an inherently bad thing. Too much change can cause more instability than anything. "Democrat" and "Republican" are only labels really. In the end you are voting for the candidate, not the party. 

[Whispering 18,865]

41 minutes ago, Biotic said:

That's basically what I believe in. However, there is nothing wrong and it is not selfish to vote for another party like a green party or whatever if you believe in their message. Voting for the lesser evil only succeeds in maintaining the status quo.

You might feel differently if some basic human rights that you currently have could be taken away or you were worried about retaining ownership of your own body. Voting for a party makes more sense when you are worried that the other party will set back much of the human rights progressions that have happened in the last eight years, and even some that have been around for decades. 

However, people are free to vote for who they want to. No one is in that booth with you and you have every right to keep your vote to yourself or announce it to the world. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

You might feel differently if some basic human rights that you currently have could be taken away or you were worried about retaining ownership of your own body. Voting for a party makes more sense when you are worried that the other party will set back much of the human rights progressions that have happened in the last eight years, and even some that have been around for decades. 

However, people are free to vote for who they want to. No one is in that booth with you and you have every right to keep your vote to yourself or announce it to the world. 

THIS!  👍🏾👍

[Adakam 2]

9 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Oh I see.

Well it depends. If you vote for someone belonging to a certain party that is not gaining momentum or having any sort of tangible impact, then that can be seen as being no different than writing down "Lady Gaga" at the ballot. 

It's good to believe in something, but ultimately one should be realistic with what one can achieve. You can settle for something while you work on promoting the other until change can be plausible. Even Bernie is doing it by settling for the Democratic party in order to get things done, as opposed to running as an independent.

Also I think the word "status quo" is being thrown around a lot. It's not an inherently bad thing. Too much change can cause more instability than anything. "Democrat" and "Republican" are only labels really. In the end you are voting for the candidate, not the party. 

I agree, the future of the country and the world is at stake here, we have to be realistic, we cant just lay down holding on to our ideals and dreams of a perfect world, if its Hillary vs trump, then who do you want to win? Hillary, or Trump, anything else is a wasted vote.

Bernie might be the best one, but if it comes down to it, either you vote for Hillary or you are letting trump win.