Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
11. I don't think it's heavy handed to point out that inaction is also a choice of action.
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 01:02 PM
Jul 2016

Last edited Wed Jul 27, 2016, 02:08 PM - Edit history (1)

But I understand about the delicate feelings. Even in the face of booing over Elijah Cummings.

I would think that Bernie making the decision to support Hillary, and asking his supporters to do the same would have been more effective in getting people to think in terms of the election. Perhaps in three weeks, as you say. I'm certainly not pushing any of the Bernie supporters I know to 'suck it up.' I was enraged at Bush being handed the election in 2000, and my mother could not forgive Gore for conceding after the SCOTUS decision, because it was so disheartening to his supporters. I kept from rolling my eyes, and saying that a futile effort helps no one, and we need to freaking roll up our sleeves and get to work, and it took her a year, and I tolerated the "how can you just give up??" being shoved down my throat for that year.

"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." - MLK

Don't vote for your own selfish interests. Keep the rest of the country in mind. randome Jul 2016 #1
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #2
I understand - but this makes the moral argument, not just the political one. ehrnst Jul 2016 #3
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #5
I don't think it's heavy handed to point out that inaction is also a choice of action. ehrnst Jul 2016 #11
The moral argument was lost before the race even started. Most of the Snotcicles Jul 2016 #17
Edit to add. By greater margins. nt Snotcicles Jul 2016 #19
So your moral obligation is moot. Got it. ehrnst Jul 2016 #21
Don't make an assumption about what I'll do with my vote. Snotcicles Jul 2016 #23
Right, you've been very enigmatic about that. ehrnst Jul 2016 #24
Ben Goldacre: “You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.” Snotcicles Jul 2016 #28
Don't believe everything you think. ehrnst Jul 2016 #39
Why would anybody vote for... yallerdawg Jul 2016 #4
Yeah, go straight for Cthulhu! csziggy Jul 2016 #44
This all depends on your time horizons anoNY42 Jul 2016 #6
If the long-term consequences are rendered void by Trump presidency ehrnst Jul 2016 #8
Long term goals like letting Right Wingers ruin the country? Democat Jul 2016 #27
Uh anoNY42 Jul 2016 #29
You could give Greens a free broadcast hour every week for a generation whatthehey Jul 2016 #32
Think of a true third party anoNY42 Jul 2016 #33
Depends what you mean by impact whatthehey Jul 2016 #36
When it comes to presidential elections, I'm an outcome-oriented voter. MineralMan Jul 2016 #7
The old adage of letting perfection be the enemy of done. (nt) ehrnst Jul 2016 #9
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #10
At what point does my obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils Snotcicles Jul 2016 #12
When did you NOT vote for the lesser of two evils? randome Jul 2016 #14
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2016 #15
Refusing to act when you can, to prevent the greater evil is also a moral problem. ehrnst Jul 2016 #16
See #17, nt Snotcicles Jul 2016 #18
See my response to #17, nt ehrnst Jul 2016 #22
You vote for the lesser of two evils because if you don't, THE MORE EVIL THING WINS. renie408 Jul 2016 #13
Or as Bill Maher put it, if you can't have the chicken have the fish. RonniePudding Jul 2016 #20
How about, the restaurant tells you that the menu consist of Chicken AND Fish..but we know insta8er Jul 2016 #25
So your implication is what? RonniePudding Jul 2016 #26
Universalization is a true, but limited, concern whatthehey Jul 2016 #30
I don't consider HRC an evil and neither should others. She is qualified, T is not. MichiganVote Jul 2016 #31
Mainly because Buzz cook Jul 2016 #34
So, hypothetically, one should vote for Darth Vader over Emperor Palpitine? Fiendish Thingy Jul 2016 #35
Remember how Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell said she would NEVER NEVER NEVER tblue37 Jul 2016 #37
At some point the shovelers of lesser evils need to help toward a better good TheKentuckian Jul 2016 #38
And sometimes you work with what you have. That's reality. ehrnst Jul 2016 #40
That starts by selecting the better good no? Also, tossing out adequate cause perfect isn't availabl uponit7771 Jul 2016 #42
+1, "Sometimes the desire for a clean conscience leads to immoral behavior" uponit7771 Jul 2016 #41
The argument here is unconvincing because it does not explain why, given that one vote will not Vattel Jul 2016 #43
Even the leader of the Bernie Delegates Network (the group leading some of the protests) democrattotheend Jul 2016 #45
No, you don't, and it's a disingenuous suggestion to begin with. Shandris Jul 2016 #46
I don't consider Clinton evil. n/t zappaman Jul 2016 #47
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Yes, you do have an oblig...»Reply #11