Philosophical Vegan Forum

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:53 pm

EquALLity wrote:You disagree, but that's just an opinion.

If this is true, then what would stop PsYcHo from saying the same in response?

Because in this context, both his and my opinion are irrelevant. We are talking about whether or not Bernie Sanders violated his own principles. Bernie Sanders doesn't necessarily have the same opinions as PsYcHo, so him violating PsYcHo's principles doesn't prove that Bernie Sanders violated his own principles.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:55 am As I've said, I don't like the two party system, but it's the system we have, and third party candidates have never had a chance in national elections. Do you disagree?

Of course I don't disagree with this point, third party candidates have never had a chance in national elections.

But why is that? Is it because they are so removed from conventional logic that their ideas are abhorrent? (Some yes, but not all)

The point I'm trying to get you(and others) to see is.....it doesn't have to be this way.

You say you don't like the two party system. I believe you. Know that I loathe it with every fiber of my being. There are too many intelligent people in this country who cling to the two-party illusion because of fear (of the new) and because once they are taught something over and over, they will accept it as truth. It took me a long time to realize the intellectuals among us are often as vain as the person who relies on their superficial "beauty". Instead of two mean girls fighting over who is the prettiest, we have two mean parties fighting over who is the smartest, but they are all mean people. Many of us side with one, because it is better to be part of a group than an outsider.

The only way the two party system is going to change is if enough like minded people (who may disagree on many points, but strive to actually find a common ground and work to better our society as a whole) decide that they have had enough of voting for evil/evil-lite, and start listening to outsider candidates with "no chance of winning."

The generation older than me is set in their ways. My generation has fallen into the "Bash Hillary/Trump with memes! That will alienate people who disagree, and help me obtain the perfect echo chamber!!" there is no puking emoji here, I would insert one at this point. I only hope a younger generation won't follow the same folly as their parents.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:55 am If there was an election where a third party candidate got into national debates, and/or they were getting a lot of support in polls, then I would consider voting for them. But I wouldn't vote for a candidate who I knew wasn't going to win.

There is never going to be a time in history where a third party candidate can win, until at some point people follow their own morality and vote for someone who can't win.

For heaven's sake, the DNC said Bernie couldn't win. Despite the poling, which was the exact opposite of what they said.( Bernie would have beaten Trump; both you and I know it.) They put all their money on Hillary; not because she was the best candidate, but because she was the most well-connected. The party chose a "cash cow" (Hillary) instead of a likely winner with differing ideals from the mainstream. Do you disagree?

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:56 am

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:53 pm

EquALLity wrote:You disagree, but that's just an opinion.

If this is true, then what would stop PsYcHo from saying the same in response?

Because in this context, both his and my opinion are irrelevant. We are talking about whether or not Bernie Sanders violated his own principles. Bernie Sanders doesn't necessarily have the same opinions as PsYcHo, so him violating PsYcHo's principles doesn't prove that Bernie Sanders violated his own principles.

Just to address this, I agree than principles are fluid, and I can only surmise as to Bernie's. (still lost a lot of respect for him once he backed the very person who was so corrupt she used her considerable political influence to ruin his campaign. ) He was the one person who in the last presidential race I didn't think was inherently evil. (Just misguided and wrong, until the endorsement; Once he supported her, it made all of his points against her null.)

PsYcHo wrote:Of course I don't disagree with this point, third party candidates have never had a chance in national elections.

But why is that? Is it because they are so removed from conventional logic that their ideas are abhorrent? (Some yes, but not all)

The point I'm trying to get you(and others) to see is.....it doesn't have to be this way.

You say you don't like the two party system. I believe you. Know that I loathe it with every fiber of my being. There are too many intelligent people in this country who cling to the two-party illusion because of fear (of the new) and because once they are taught something over and over, they will accept it as truth. It took me a long time to realize the intellectuals among us are often as vain as the person who relies on their superficial "beauty". Instead of two mean girls fighting over who is the prettiest, we have two mean parties fighting over who is the smartest, but they are all mean people. Many of us side with one, because it is better to be part of a group than an outsider.

The only way the two party system is going to change is if enough like minded people (who may disagree on many points, but strive to actually find a common ground and work to better our society as a whole) decide that they have had enough of voting for evil/evil-lite, and start listening to outsider candidates with "no chance of winning."

The generation older than me is set in their ways. My generation has fallen into the "Bash Hillary/Trump with memes! That will alienate people who disagree, and help me obtain the perfect echo chamber!!" there is no puking emoji here, I would insert one at this point. I only hope a younger generation won't follow the same folly as their parents.

In terms of how I should vote in a national election, it's irrelevant why a third party candidate won't win. I know that it's unfair, but that's the situation. In terms of how I should act, it doesn't matter why I'm in the situation that I'm already in; it matters that I'm in that situation and the consequences of my actions given that situation.

There is never going to be a time in history where a third party candidate can win, until at some point people follow their own morality and vote for someone who can't win.

For heaven's sake, the DNC said Bernie couldn't win. Despite the poling, which was the exact opposite of what they said.( Bernie would have beaten Trump; both you and I know it.) They put all their money on Hillary; not because she was the best candidate, but because she was the most well-connected. The party chose a "cash cow" (Hillary) instead of a likely winner with differing ideals from the mainstream. Do you disagree?

The difference is that people said Bernie win, but he actually could based on polling. Third party candidates can't win based on polling; they rarely get high enough percentage points in polls to have a plausible chance of winning.

As I mentioned, if a third party candidate gets enough support to get into national debates and is gaining momentum up to the point where it is plausible that they will win, then I will consider voting for them in the general election, and I may try to help them get to that point. But if they don't get to that point, as they never have, then I'm not going to vote for them in the general election when I know they won't win.

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:59 pm

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:56 am

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:53 pm
If this is true, then what would stop PsYcHo from saying the same in response?

Because in this context, both his and my opinion are irrelevant. We are talking about whether or not Bernie Sanders violated his own principles. Bernie Sanders doesn't necessarily have the same opinions as PsYcHo, so him violating PsYcHo's principles doesn't prove that Bernie Sanders violated his own principles.

Just to address this, I agree than principles are fluid, and I can only surmise as to Bernie's. (still lost a lot of respect for him once he backed the very person who was so corrupt she used her considerable political influence to ruin his campaign. ) He was the one person who in the last presidential race I didn't think was inherently evil. (Just misguided and wrong, until the endorsement; Once he supported her, it made all of his points against her null.)

I still don't think you've provided a reasonable argument for this...

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:59 pm

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:56 am

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:53 pm
If this is true, then what would stop PsYcHo from saying the same in response?

Because in this context, both his and my opinion are irrelevant. We are talking about whether or not Bernie Sanders violated his own principles. Bernie Sanders doesn't necessarily have the same opinions as PsYcHo, so him violating PsYcHo's principles doesn't prove that Bernie Sanders violated his own principles.

Just to address this, I agree than principles are fluid, and I can only surmise as to Bernie's. (still lost a lot of respect for him once he backed the very person who was so corrupt she used her considerable political influence to ruin his campaign. ) He was the one person who in the last presidential race I didn't think was inherently evil. (Just misguided and wrong, until the endorsement; Once he supported her, it made all of his points against her null.)

I still don't think you've provided a reasonable argument for this...

EquALLity wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:01 pm Third party candidates can't win based on polling; they rarely get high enough percentage points in polls to have a plausible chance of winning.

I'm sure you followed the poling before the election.

Didn't someone with no chance of winning, win? If that could happen, maybe, just maybe, there is a chance for someone who is neither a Democrat or a Republican to be given a chance at being president. (Or even a larger majority in Congress and the Senate)

EquALLity wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:11 pm

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:59 pm

EquALLity wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:56 am
Because in this context, both his and my opinion are irrelevant. We are talking about whether or not Bernie Sanders violated his own principles. Bernie Sanders doesn't necessarily have the same opinions as PsYcHo, so him violating PsYcHo's principles doesn't prove that Bernie Sanders violated his own principles.

Just to address this, I agree than principles are fluid, and I can only surmise as to Bernie's. (still lost a lot of respect for him once he backed the very person who was so corrupt she used her considerable political influence to ruin his campaign. ) He was the one person who in the last presidential race I didn't think was inherently evil. (Just misguided and wrong, until the endorsement; Once he supported her, it made all of his points against her null.)

I still don't think you've provided a reasonable argument for this...

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh towards him, as it is normal for all politicians in the 2 (cough-corrupt-cough) parties to endorse the candidate that is chosen by the party elite people.

PsYcHo wrote:I'm sure you followed the poling before the election.

Didn't someone with no chance of winning, win? If that could happen, maybe, just maybe, there is a chance for someone who is neither a Democrat or a Republican to be given a chance at being president. (Or even a larger majority in Congress and the Senate)

Are you saying that Trump, who was nearly tied with Hillary Clinton in national polling, had the same chance of winning as a third party candidate with less than 5% of the vote?

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh towards him, as it is normal for all politicians in the 2 (cough-corrupt-cough) parties to endorse the candidate that is chosen by the party elite people.

I still don't know what your argument is, though.

EquALLity wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:51 pm Are you saying that Trump, who was nearly tied with Hillary Clinton in national polling, had the same chance of winning as a third party candidate with less than 5% of the vote?

I wrote a really good counterpoint to this. Using a series of points, I made the case that it was better to follow morality.....but..... (dammit, I hate admitting I may be wrong ) it conflicted with my belief that the reduction of harm is better than an all/none mentality.

sigh I'll cede the point to you. But...............

What should we (as a society and individuals) do to enlighten others that there is another path?