Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted January 22 Paid Members Share Posted January 22 4 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said: It is an interesting one, as by and large I actually agree with @Devon Malcolm and think that voting against yourself is against the spirit of democracy. I also think it's against its spirit to be voting for a party whose selling point, from a lot of its current activists, is "Well, vote us in and then once we're in there THEN you'll get all the stuff you want!" So, you want me to vote for a party that lied to get into power and believe that they'll lie in my favour once there? I mean, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 11 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said: But Sunak, as bad a politician as he may be, is broadly a cut and paste politician. I do think Trump uniquely poses specific threats to human life en masses, and our collective way of life. Wouldn’t that also be down to the office? One is a super power, possibly the only one if you don’t count China, and the other isn’t even on the top table. And of course, there’s their style of government. If you want to vote Trump, you can vote Trump. You can only vote Sunak if you live in his constituency. I do wonder how that would look over here, I’m of the thinking if we had a presidential election, it would likely be a choice between Blair and Johnson, and the pair of them can get to fuck. edit - @Dead Mike yep, totally agree. I’ve said before that pragmatically thinking, my politics are and always will be a fringe / outsider position. Edited January 22 by Keith Houchen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted January 22 Moderators Share Posted January 22 9 minutes ago, Dead Mike said: The biggest myth people tell themselves is that there's an appetite for radical change (in Britain at least). People really don't like big change, it's scary and unsettling. People want to be made to feel comfortable. I believe the change that I'd like to see (and likely you too) will be a forced reaction to job erosion by technology. Discussions around UBI, social housing etc that wouldn't occur without external factors forcing them. Its when this happens that we'll need a left-leaning Government rather than an 'every man for himself" approach we'd get under the current regime. As well as this I just wouldn't trust our government to manage big swelling change particularly well as it's not set up for it and no-one who works there has ever done it. So you'd need an awful lot of willingness to overcome that. (See: shifts that happened during covid and subsequent backslides) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: When it comes to voting, I’m a firm believer of voting for what you want, not voting to stop what you don’t. I think it depends on what's more important to you - what the outcome of an election is, or how you feel about your vote. Under a 2 horse race, particularly in the US but this also applies here a lot of the time, if you don't vote for X you will end up with Y. You're not "responsible for it" or any of that bollocks, but it's the result you have to live with for the next 4/5 years. You can vote entirely with your conscience and retain your own personal moral integrity, and then suffer with the rest of us under a Republican President. Or vote for someone marginally geographically closer to you and suffer under a Democratic President. If you absolutely, genuinely believe life will be NO better under the Dem than the Rep, then fair enough - but that's certainly not true in the US and arguably not true here at any point in my lifetime. Yes, voting for "little bit less shit" doesn't fill you with a warm glow, but it's something many people around the world do in an attempt to make things incrementally better, and in the long sweep of history making things incrementally better is usually how things change in a permanent way. A lot of people I know voted for Corbyn's Labour through gritted teeth the first time. And then didn't the next time. And in between those elections the PLP certainly fucked him over. But he got one proper shot at winning an election, and didn't. I hope that Starmer gets the same courtesy of at least ONE shot at a united Labour vote, even if it's through similarly gritted teeth. Edit: tried to turn it back to US politics but failed. Trump though, eh? What a bastard. Edited January 22 by Loki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 On Trump, I do think it's different than Boris Johnson. Johnson lacks any of the personal characteristics you'd want to see in a leader, but by and large he too was a fairly cut and paste politician. Right now we can point to individual times he pushed boundaries and acted the cunt and it seems terrible, but in the broad sweep of history his political obituary will be something like 'pretty pedestrian for the times, sold his soul for Brexit. Bit of a shagger.' Trump, however, if he's not just a bullshit merchant, will look to imprison political opponents, remove basic human rights from the most vulnerable in society and could well retreat from all international defence accords. The US nuclear umbrella has kept Europe safe for 75 years, and acted as a guarantor for NATO. If Trump genuinely signals he's leaving NATO, or won't intervene if NATO countries are attacked, then there are vast swathes of Eastern Europe who will become immediately in danger of invasion. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia could go first, but Finland and Sweden could easily be pulled in. That for me is different, and does mean this election deserves to be looked at through a slightly different lens to usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted January 22 Paid Members Share Posted January 22 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Loki said: Yes, voting for "little bit less shit" doesn't fill you with a warm glow, but it's something many people around the world do in an attempt to make things incrementally better, and in the long sweep of history making things incrementally better is usually how things change in a permanent way. Can't speak for Keith, but I don't vote close to my beliefs for "a warm glow" - I do it because it's my attempt, however futile, to try and help inch politics in a direction that I believe will benefit people. I also vote closer to my politics because I no longer agree with the idea that voting for "a bit less shit" leads to any meaningful change from a governmental perspective, incremental or no. It just leads to a cycle of the same shit over and over again, from my own assessment of the long sweep of history. 20 minutes ago, Loki said: A lot of people I know voted for Corbyn's Labour through gritted teeth the first time. And then didn't the next time. And in between those elections the PLP certainly fucked him over. But he got one proper shot at winning an election, and didn't. I hope that Starmer gets the same courtesy of at least ONE shot at a united Labour vote, even if it's through similarly gritted teeth. See, I'm of the opposite perspective. I know a few people who did vote Corbyn through gritted teeth, and I also know quite a few who didn't, and switched to the Lib Dems. There also seemed to be quite a lot of them vocal on social media. And I don't think he got a proper shot, given how the PLP behaved and how the media went after him, supported by PLP figures. So I see it more as "Corbyn didn't get that courtesy, so why should Starmer? Especially when Blair did". EDIT: Anyway, I'm aware this is a US politics thread, so, as regards Trump, I agree that he's abhorrent and a threat to people in general, but I do often wonder why so many people are so sure he'll get back in - what is so different about the American electorate now, that what caused them to vote him out four years ago will fail to prevent him being elected again? Sure, Biden is uninspiring, but he was uninspiring before. And they're both older now than they were - and Trump doesn't really appear to be any different or less of an outrage-merchant than he was four years ago. Edited January 22 by Carbomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Carbomb said: t's my attempt, however futile, to try and help inch politics in a direction that I believe will benefit people. If anyone knows about futile inches, Carbomb it's you Edited January 22 by Loki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted January 22 Paid Members Share Posted January 22 Just now, Loki said: If anyone knows about futile inches, Carbomb it's you Silver lining: I'm now dynamite at cunnilingus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 17 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Can't speak for Keith, but I don't vote close to my beliefs for "a warm glow" - I do it because it's my attempt, however futile, to try and help inch politics in a direction that I believe will benefit people. Yep, and without playing poverty top trumps (see what I did there) if I’m being selfish, my voting is often about keeping loved ones alive. Who will realistically help a disabled couple who can’t work and rely on state welfare to survive. This isn’t a parlour game or dinner party discussion to some people, and I’m well aware that everybody’s concerns are equally valid and important, but holding your nose to vote for the least terrible option isn’t going to make a lick of difference if none of them will realistically improve your circumstances or quality (or lack of) of life. You’re still one step away from homelessness and destitution, and a quicker death, but at least the other ones didn’t win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: Yep, and without playing poverty top trumps (see what I did there) if I’m being selfish, my voting is often about keeping loved ones alive. Who will realistically help a disabled couple who can’t work and rely on state welfare to survive. This isn’t a parlour game or dinner party discussion to some people, and I’m well aware that everybody’s concerns are equally valid and important, but holding your nose to vote for the least terrible option isn’t going to make a lick of difference if none of them will realistically improve your circumstances or quality (or lack of) of life. You’re still one step away from homelessness and destitution, and a quicker death, but at least the other ones didn’t win. Playing devil's advocate though, isn't the answer to that question Labour? Other alternatives on the Left aren't getting into power, and if the Tories get in they're going to prove a bigger danger to vulnerable people who rely on the state for support? I guess Brighton is an outlier here as a vote for Green is the more logical Left vote if adequate support can be delivered at a local level. Edited January 22 by d-d-d-dAz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 minute ago, d-d-d-dAz said: Playing devil's advocate though, isn't the answer to that question Labour? No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fog Dude Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said: And of course, there’s their style of government. If you want to vote Trump, you can vote Trump. You can only vote Sunak if you live in his constituency. The name of Trump and his running mate will be on the ballot paper, but in fact under the US system nobody can vote for him directly - they're just voting for delegates to the Electoral College who are pledged to vote for him, even if they live in his designated 'home' state (currently Florida). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 7 minutes ago, Fog Dude said: The name of Trump and his running mate will be on the ballot paper, but in fact under the US system nobody can vote for him directly - they're just voting for delegates to the Electoral College who are pledged to vote for him, even if they live in his designated 'home' state (currently Florida). Of course! Thanks for the clarification! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted January 22 Paid Members Share Posted January 22 2 hours ago, Carbomb said: Silver lining: I'm now dynamite at cunnilingus. Short fuse, volatile, makes a mess everywhere, deadly in the wrong hands. Certainly sounds like you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted January 22 Paid Members Share Posted January 22 9 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said: Short fuse, volatile, makes a mess everywhere, deadly in the wrong hands. Certainly sounds like you I'll take that, it's better than what my exes say about me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.