What did Democrats do wrong?

[Ziggurat]

Here's you arguing quite passionately that trans issues were an important reason why Harris lost:

And? Do you think this contradicts what I said here? Because it doesn't. First off, I never said how important it was, just that it was a contributing factor (as in, it cost her more votes than it gained her). Second and more important, not everyone who voted for or against her did so because of her position on trans issues. In fact, that's sort of the whole point: it's only a deciding factor for some voters. And that's true of basically any issue you want to look at: it's not going to be the deciding factor for everyone. You're the one, not me, trying to ascribe single issue positions to all voters. And that's just stupid.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You keep repeating the same refuted argument. It does not matter if you support the policy positions of the candidate you voted for, because if you voted for that candidate, you voted for those policy positions. Your disagreement with them is immaterial to fact that you participated in their facilitation.

If I can try putting it a different way: if you vote for a candidate who campaigns on a, b, and c, then either you wanted a, b, and c, or you didn't, yet considered them a small price to pay for the other stuff you did want. Either way, you've signaled your willingness to accept delivery of a, b, and c and consider those acceptable if not desirable outcomes.

 

[ahhell]

If I can try putting it a different way: if you vote for a candidate who campaigns on a, b, and c, then either you wanted a, b, and c, or you didn't, yet considered them a small price to pay for the other stuff you did want. Either way, you've signaled your willingness to accept delivery of a, b, and c and consider those acceptable if not desirable outcomes.

To expand on your analogy, I can vote for candidate who believes a, b, and c or candidate who believes a, d, and e. I actually support e but nothing else, some folks think that means I've given my support to a and d too. I think that silly. The only way to keep johny from saying I supported "a" would be not to vote.

And its all like just opinion man, nothing has been refuted its silly to say otherwise. And this time I mean, I quit this.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Thank you for acknowledging there can be no factual rebuttal of my prior statement on democratic subversion and voter disenfranchisement. You'd be hard pressed to find personal insult in any of my posts on the forum. I tend to communicate with facts rather than insult and emotion.

You’re 100% wrong.

Also: “tend to.” Snort.

 

[bruto]

To expand on your analogy, I can vote for candidate who believes a, b, and c or candidate who believes a, d, and e. I actually support e but nothing else, some folks think that means I've given my support to a and d too. I think that silly. The only way to keep johny from saying I supported "a" would be not to vote.

And its all like just opinion man, nothing has been refuted its silly to say otherwise. And this time I mean, I quit this.

I think that's true up to a point. It's mostly true if a,b,c,d and e are approximately equal, and the harm from the options not supported is within a certain range. But it's truest when most of the issues are trivial or temporary, or morally insignificant. In reality, there are likely more than three issues per candidate, and not all issues are equal. To pick a reductio ad absurdum, if one candidate says "I'll do this nice thing and that nice thing, but I support abortion," your opposition to abortion might well tip the balance, but that stand might not be enough to motivate a vote for someone who says "I'm against abortion, and I also intend to murder my opponents and commit genocide." Supporting any candidate is, if not supporting, at least discounting, the issues outside your chosen one, even if you pretend it is not.

You might well feel, and might well be right in feeling, that the current instance is one in which such dire choices do not apply, and others may well be wrong to believe, as some do, that it is. But the idea itself is not so trivial or so easily dismissed. It's no sin to want autobahns or trains that run on time, but we ought to have learned by now that sometimes the price is too high.

 

[johnny karate]

And? Do you think this contradicts what I said here? Because it doesn't. First off, I never said how important it was, just that it was a contributing factor (as in, it cost her more votes than it gained her). Second and more important, not everyone who voted for or against her did so because of her position on trans issues. In fact, that's sort of the whole point: it's only a deciding factor for some voters. And that's true of basically any issue you want to look at: it's not going to be the deciding factor for everyone. You're the one, not me, trying to ascribe single issue positions to all voters. And that's just stupid.

That does sound stupid. I guess it's a good thing I didn't actually do that.

If you vote for a candidate who says "I'm going to do this specific thing", and then they get elected and proceed to do that specific thing, you facilitated that specific thing happening with your vote.

That does not mean you necessarily care about or support that specific thing. It simply means that regardless of how you feel about that specific thing, your vote facilitated its implementation.

If you vote for the anti-vaxxer guy, and we get anti-vaxxerism as a result, you can protest all you want that you don't support anti-vaxxersim, but you cannot deny that you facilitated it.

 

[johnny karate]

To expand on your analogy, I can vote for candidate who believes a, b, and c or candidate who believes a, d, and e. I actually support e but nothing else, some folks think that means I've given my support to a and d too. I think that silly. The only way to keep johny from saying I supported "a" would be not to vote.

And its all like just opinion man, nothing has been refuted its silly to say otherwise. And this time I mean, I quit this.

For like the 100th time, no one said that a vote for a, b, and c means you support a, b, and c. The argument is and always has been that a vote for a, b, and c means that you facilitated the implementation of a, b, and c.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Exactly. Women facilitated implementation of a national abortion ban when they voted for Trump, even though most of them don't want that and even voted to protect abortion rights.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

For like the 100th time, no one said that a vote for a, b, and c means you support a, b, and c. The argument is and always has been that a vote for a, b, and c means that you facilitated the implementation of a, b, and c.

This is an even better point than the one I initially thought you were making. If a, b, and c are foreseeable consequences of doing a thing, and you do that thing, then you are complicit in a, b, and c, period. It doesn't matter why you did the thing or how you feel about a, b, and c.

 

[dirtywick]

That does sound stupid. I guess it's a good thing I didn't actually do that.

If you vote for a candidate who says "I'm going to do this specific thing", and then they get elected and proceed to do that specific thing, you facilitated that specific thing happening with your vote.

That does not mean you necessarily care about or support that specific thing. It simply means that regardless of how you feel about that specific thing, your vote facilitated its implementation.

If you vote for the anti-vaxxer guy, and we get anti-vaxxerism as a result, you can protest all you want that you don't support anti-vaxxersim, but you cannot deny that you facilitated it.

if you had a really good reason i could see justifying it. i don't know what that good reason is, they say it's his non-specific policies i guess. if it's inflation, all his economic policies are inflationary so that's stupid. is it getting rid of mexicans? well he's the same guy that killed the bipartisan border bill, so that's stupid too. are you that concerned about dei and trans prison surgery? yeah, pretty sure it's the culture war stuff.

i don't have to respect this stuff, it's absurd to me that they're trying to high horse this

 

[ahhell]

For like the 100th time, no one said that a vote for a, b, and c means you support a, b, and c. The argument is and always has been that a vote for a, b, and c means that you facilitated the implementation of a, b, and c.

That is not what I thought you were saying, my response to that is, so what. It will always be the case that my vote for any candidate will facilitate something I don't support.

 

[Thermal]

That is not what I thought you were saying, my response to that is, so what. It will always be the case that my vote for any candidate will facilitate something I don't support.

I think.the argument would be just how bad a, b, and c could be if implemented, and is it worth the trade off for what you voted in favor of. That's my problem with Trump voters (not you, obv). They say they were voting for a, and don't seem to acknowledge that b & c are going to be really bad news.

 

[johnny karate]

That is not what I thought you were saying, my response to that is, so what. It will always be the case that my vote for any candidate will facilitate something I don't support.

Great, then we agree that people who voted for Trump voted for an anti-vaxxer to be put in charge of public health. You may say "so what" to that, but those of us who aren't fans of children dying from preventable diseases see it as problematic.

 

[ahhell]

I think that's true up to a point. It's mostly true if a,b,c,d and e are approximately equal, and the harm from the options not supported is within a certain range. But it's truest when most of the issues are trivial or temporary, or morally insignificant. In reality, there are likely more than three issues per candidate, and not all issues are equal. To pick a reductio ad absurdum, if one candidate says "I'll do this nice thing and that nice thing, but I support abortion," your opposition to abortion might well tip the balance, but that stand might not be enough to motivate a vote for someone who says "I'm against abortion, and I also intend to murder my opponents and commit genocide." Supporting any candidate is, if not supporting, at least discounting, the issues outside your chosen one, even if you pretend it is not.

You might well feel, and might well be right in feeling, that the current instance is one in which such dire choices do not apply, and others may well be wrong to believe, as some do, that it is. But the idea itself is not so trivial or so easily dismissed. It's no sin to want autobahns or trains that run on time, but we ought to have learned by now that sometimes the price is too high.

I think this is a very good post, but, as you say there's not 1 or even just 3 issues. Supporting a candidate doesn't just require discounting some issues they support, it also means counting the issues the other candidate supports. There are lots of issues and folks weigh some more heavily than others. So, sure a vote for Harris I guess means I've facilitated, IDK, more student debt forgiveness. So, what, what does that say about me that I'm willing to vote for a candidate who supports a policy I hate with a burning passion, because I rate other issues more highly.

 

[johnny karate]

I think this is a very good post, but, as you say there's not 1 or even just 3 issues. Supporting a candidate doesn't just require discounting some issues they support, it also means counting the issues the other candidate supports. There are lots of issues and folks weigh some more heavily than others. So, sure a vote for Harris I guess means I've facilitated, IDK, more student debt forgiveness. So, what, what does that say about me that I'm willing to vote for a candidate who supports a policy I hate with a burning passion, because I rate other issues more highly.

It depends on the consequences. If your choice results in no material harm to society as a whole, you're a pragmatist. If your choice results in mass death and chaos, you're a sociopath.

 

[ahhell]

It depends on the consequences. If your choice results in no material harm to society as a whole, you're a pragmatist. If your choice results in mass death and chaos, you're a sociopath.

I guess that's the thing then, I do not think that Trump or RFK are going to cause mass Deaths, at least not more than most presidents. RFK is not going to end vaccinations in the US. I suppose if I thought he was, I might understand your position.

 

[Thermal]

Great, then we agree that people who voted for Trump voted for an anti-vaxxer to be put in charge of public health. You may say "so what" to that, but those of us who aren't fans of children dying from preventable diseases see it as problematic.

Total sidebar: I'm terrified of RFKJR being at that particular helm. There aren't too many people on the public stage that literally eat roadkill and aspire to being in the realm of public health. It's like a freaking dark comedy skit.

 

[dirtywick]

I guess that's the thing then, I do not think that Trump or RFK are going to cause mass Deaths, at least not more than most presidents. RFK is not going to end vaccinations in the US. I suppose if I thought he was, I might understand your position.

he doesn't have to end vaccination. simply reducing vaccination rates due to bad public health advice from his office is enough. but even if that were the case, what's to stop him? trump's cabinet is already a bunch of corrupt lunatics, christian extremists, and conspiracy theorists, along with half of congress and the supreme court. rfk is maybe one of the more reasonable ones at this point.

i don't really agree with the idea that no matter who is in charge everything is just going to work out.

 

[theprestige]

Exactly. Women facilitated implementation of a national abortion ban when they voted for Trump, even though most of them don't want that and even voted to protect abortion rights.

"National abortion ban" is a weird way to describe returning the abortion decision to the states. Literally the opposite of a national ban.

 

[johnny karate]

I guess that's the thing then, I do not think that Trump or RFK are going to cause mass Deaths, at least not more than most presidents. RFK is not going to end vaccinations in the US. I suppose if I thought he was, I might understand your position.

Your optimism is admirable, if misplaced. I personally think it’s a dangerous idea to put a drunk behind the wheel of a car and just hope everything turns out okay.