quick US politics poll #1: If both parties likely to win supported slavery, would u support 1?

dude this isn't 1856 or 1860

if obama supported slavery I would vote for him just because he would be a man willing to take a bold stance even if it affected him personally, anyway great thread

what's your objection to it?

what a way for Obama to piss off his base

who would be enslaved? student loan debtors? NHL goalies?

likely to win what? what kind of support?

eagerly await your future US politics threads, zvookster!

african-americans

elections, principally prez election; vote of support. thx!

do both parties overwhelmingly support it?

to the same extent.

and what year is the election, for reference

some hypothetical year.

and there are major diffs between the parties elsewhere, for instance one could be cool on reproductive rights for all women, or free women, and the other not at all.

or one could have plans for a bloody imperial war for treasure, while the other minimally defends its own shores only.

could u, should u, vote for one?

sorry dawg you have to pick a year

if i could push a button and remove one from the ballot, would i

is the Free Soil Party involved in the election y/n?

i will not be crucified on the cross of this poll

http://carlanthonyonlinedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/mckinley-campaign-poster-1900.jpg?w=350&h=260

what if both candidates were made of tofu?

Since a revival of slavery is not, in fact, at stake in how I cast my vote, how is this question relevant to anything I must actually consider while casting my vote? And if it has no relevance to any reality I must live in, why is thinking about this question anything but a waste of my time and effort?

dude, questioning the original poster's intent simply isn't *done*

is the Free Soil Party involved in the election y/n?

― searching for sug woman (JoeStork), Friday, 19 October 2012

there are cool third party options but they are no-hopers.

i will not be crucified on the cross of this poll

― mookieproof, Friday, 19 October 2012

Since a revival of slavery is not, in fact, at stake in how I cast my vote, how is this question relevant to anything I must actually consider while casting my vote? And if it has no relevance to any reality I must live in, why is thinking about this question anything but a waste of my time and effort?

― Aimless, Friday, 19 October 2012

yeah well i am struggling with the more IRL lesser-evilism, like could i live with being "objectively pro-romney" in a swing state this year (which is also a hypothetical in my case). but on the other thread, i think it's fair to say almost everyone is like lesser-evilism is a no-brainer. dems just have to stay probably better than whatever the other option is, and u must vote for them. hence this particularly ugly and painful and not particularly plausible two-party example to examine that. it seems like the logic should hold up; does it?

sorry dawg you have to pick a year

― iatee, Friday, 19 October 2012

well i can't see how it helps but i appreciate the attempt to engage.

it seems like the logic should hold up; does it?

no

u need a better imaginary scenario

I would move to Reddit island

hard to believe we've never had a third party called Lesser Evilism.

welllll about that

it's in one of my future polls

I would move to Reddit island

Would support slavery if reddit users were the slaves.

Since a revival of slavery is not, in fact, at stake

WAKE UP, SHEEPLE

Would support slavery if reddit users were the slaves.

would you support hockey players being cattle tho

damn Cap'n Zvook is really hellbent on makin' sure his second tenure on ilx isn't as forgettable as his first

I would zestily vote for any candidate who endorsed slavery

I honestly thought you wrote "malkin sure" and thought that was v. funny. xp

well the rap threads are p bad now xxp

some really "amazing" threads lately

all the threads are p bad now tbh

thanks for not breaking up the flow

np. glad we buried that hatchet way back when also

mom! dad! uncle morbs! don't fight!

i'll be nice if you promise to redirect all jvc burrito zings to zvookster

I'm sure we all know that the largest party that supported integration in the US in the '20s and '30s was the Communist Party.

damn Cap'n Zvook is really hellbent on makin' sure his second tenure on ilx isn't as forgettable as his first

― some dude, Friday, October 19, 2012 8:52 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wait was zvookster a different horrible poster before this?

I'm sure we all know that the largest party that supported integration in the US in the '20s and '30s was the Communist Party.

― cancer, kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:08 AM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

most of us on the politics threads know that, yeah

zvookster has always been zvookster afaik, but he posted steadily in 2010/2011 then went quiet for a good while until recently

I'm am still pondering the hockey players as cattle question. No doubt someone has written fanfic about this issue on the interwebs.

zvook was a good poster ftr

the zvookster used to be a p good poster idk what happened

posted mainly about rap, dude is irish(?) iirc so maybs some irish shit

if hockey players wish to be seen as other than cattle, they should act unlike cattle.

haha tbf no one locks out cattle

do not think zvooks is now a "horrible" poster by any stretch or that this is a bad thread in theory but maybs this is not the kind of discussion ilx feels like having

Slavery owns

ppl :/

http://thesituation.co.uk/gstr.jpg

Not a perfect analogy, I know, but every year until this one I've voted for presidential candidates who either explicitly or implicitly favored hugely discriminatory anti-gay policies. So has everyone else who's ever voted for a major U.S. party.

http://rookery.s3.amazonaws.com/939500/939569_ba74_625x1000.jpg

Matt i wish u were religious so u could go to hell

is that how it works?

(Actually Nader was on board for gay marriage in 2000, so that's the first pro-gay-rights guy I voted for. But Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry, Obama the first time -- all against gay rights, and I voted for them. So, yeah, I'm a lesser-evilist.)

^^^take that creature over chris osgood

Cruel but fair.

Osgood from what year, tho

If they both supported slavery to the rhythm, I'd have to think about it.

osbad

fuck no, is my answer

You wouldn't take that creature over Osgood?

would've voted for TJ over adams in 1800, no question.

well i can't see how it helps but i appreciate the attempt to engage.

― zvookster, Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:15 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

New board description IMHO

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/President_Elect_Coverart.png

do they merely tolerate slavery or does one want to expand it or do they both or

i mean no i guess i would not vote for a party that supported slavery, slavery is p terrible

do they just want to enslave POWs from other countries in the expectation that other countries would in fairness do the same or have they invented a psychotic biological rationalization for mass kidnapping and one-way exportation

not gonna act like there's nothing wrong w the first version but we can prob agree it got worse

update: i have decided i would not vote for either of the slavery parties but this is not necc an endorsement of jill stein

would've voted for TJ over adams in 1800, no question.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:42 AM (

haha -- I honestly don't know who I'd have voted for in this scenario.

Not a perfect analogy, I know, but every year until this one I've voted for presidential candidates who either explicitly or implicitly favored hugely discriminatory anti-gay policies. So has everyone else who's ever voted for a major U.S. party.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Friday, 19 October 2012

(Actually Nader was on board for gay marriage in 2000, so that's the first pro-gay-rights guy I voted for. But Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry, Obama the first time -- all against gay rights, and I voted for them. So, yeah, I'm a lesser-evilist.)

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Friday, 19 October 2012

thanks for this. yes the analogy is not perfect, but it is a decent one, and important.

you voted third party when u had a fairly high profile option to do so. if both parties seemed equally homophobic, am i correct to assume u would have voted third party more often? or would u have looked at the other issues and held your nose & voted mainstream?

i have seen commentators like glenn greenwald put lbgt victories in this term down to a policy of antagonism rather than being fellow travellers (likewise on immigration). "activists for gay and lesbian equality ... repeatedly protested at Obama events and even at the White House, complained loudly about Obama’s broken promises, and even threatened to boycott Obama’s re-election campaign by withholding donations." do u or others feel this analysis is correct?

dlh: that's interesting because iirc you made i felt perhaps the strongest & most genuine argument for lesser-evilism on the other thread

i have seen commentators like glenn greenwald put lbgt victories in this term down to a policy of antagonism rather than being fellow travellers (likewise on immigration). "activists for gay and lesbian equality ... repeatedly protested at Obama events and even at the White House, complained loudly about Obama’s broken promises, and even threatened to boycott Obama’s re-election campaign by withholding donations." do u or others feel this analysis is correct?

Constant pressure from gay rights groups played a part, yes.

I worked in journalism for 20 years, and I've now worked in government for one year, and from both perspectives I can say that outside agitation is an important part of changing things (in any direction -- agitation can come from Christian conservatives, environmentalists, civil rights activists, etc). People on the outside screaming and yelling can drive people on the inside crazy, and there's this constant tension and frustration on both sides, but people on the inside who want to change things need the pressure created by people on the outside. Of course it's a delicate thing and sometimes outside activism can backfire if it's poorly planned or executed or timed. But in general, I think well organized and persistent activism makes a lot more difference -- at levels from local to national -- than people tend to believe.

This thread is a squicky reiteration of the Milgram experiment imo. Not interested, except to vote no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWv1U14XCc

Not sure why everyone's so freaked out by the premise, given that there was no real "anti-slavery" candidate for the first 18 presidential elections.

OK, not 18 -- the Liberty Party ran candidates 1840-48. But the first dozen or so elections, anyway.

right that's why the dumb premise only makes sense if mr zvook tells us if we are being transported to the 18th century and voting in an election, if we are pretending we were people who lived back then, or if two pro-slavery people were running in 2012, which would require the overwhelming % of voting americans to actually support/not care about african american slavery in 2012. in that world I think there are some bigger problems than 'who should I vote for'.

I assume he's just making an obvious point about the kinds of moral trade-offs inherent to politics. Some of us are voting major-party this year despite knowing full well the very-bad things that both parties have done and will probably continue doing. OK. It's fair to challenge that. Like I said above, I don't think working from inside or fighting from outside is really an either/or choice -- you need both.

if both parties failed to address global warming in 1860, would u support 1

dlh: that's interesting because iirc you made i felt perhaps the strongest & most genuine argument for lesser-evilism on the other thread

ha thanks! but this was an argument for pragmatic admiration of obama's foreign policy specifically, in direct contrast to the specific policy of some of his predecessors (including a predecessor who is one of my favorite presidents, even if a tragic failure and possible psychopath -- well, not "even if"); also i guess i think slavery as a mass institution is Worse than drone warfare? not partic useful to try and hash out why, or the degrees, or anything, though i'm sure the stoner math appears somewhere in rising up and rising down. also as iatee etc are saying and as i hinted in semijokey questions it is p impossible to make this decision (or any serious moral decision, tho i dunno if i have many philosophers on my side here) bereft of historical context. actually i am an Undecided Voter, tho not an undecided rooter. where's my salon interview.

ya that's the thing it's someone who thinks he's 'making an obvious point' but is actually just being dumb

the inside/outside thing is a false dichotomy. the vast majority of politics happens outside of the party system but w/ people who have party ties. that's as true w/ the oil lobby as it is w/ gay rights.

xp

sheeple emancipation

I can't completely dislike this poll/thread because it introduced the concept of hockey cattle.

do i own slaves

Some of us are voting major-party this year despite knowing full well the very-bad things that both parties have done and will probably continue doing. OK. It's fair to challenge that. [...]

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 20 October 2012

actually like the OP says this is more about if it is morally right, or even defensible, to vote your conscience on a single issue or discreete set of issues. on the main threads, people seem to think it is not defensible, because of the short-term real world consequences of a worse guy getting in, whereas in this one, ppl either think it is or are fudging the issue.

i'm also interested in idea that the lbgt and immigration stances come not just "pressure" which could mean anything, but from, in the former case, "threaten[ing] to boycott Obama’s re-election campaign by withholding donations" which is the big-money base version of withholding yr vote, and the latter from latinos walking away from obama in the polls, signalling electoral consequences.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

The vote-withholding dance is tricky, but definitely can be effective. The flipside is you have to be able to deliver votes if you say you will.

ya the thing about vote-withholding in our system is that every activist-who-won't-vote is exactly half as important as any swing vote who would vote for your opponent instead

so if you really want to maximize your vote-withholding in this election you should vote for romney

iatee i know this is difficult for u to understand but the idea in question concerns pragmatic outcomes of actually voting your conscience on issues that almost everyone on the main threads regularly decries as anathema.

btw speaking of the main thread, i didn't see an answer on whether u do work for the obama campaign. possibly i missed it.

well I was gonna get doxxed eventually I guess so ill just come out and say it: I'm david plouffe

i would vote for an independent anti-slavery party because even if i couldn't morally support either major party i'd want to be on record as part of a liberal mandate. that said, if there are still clear distinctions between the parties in this magical reality, i probably have an opinion on which is the lesser of the two evils.

i would also do my part to fight slavery by posting smug bon mots on ilx

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.