Voting matters; except for when it doesn't?

[Fugus]

I'm sorry that you felt insulted by Shultz's personal emails.

And I am sorry you are so intellectually challenged you can’t answer the questions.

8^)

[Elegiac]

most of the nazis got chased off this forum, now someone new needs to play the victim.

It's just wild to me how these people constantly insist they were in the ethical right by abstaining but feel the need to spill an obscene amount of digital ink trying to justify their decision and to fish for validation from their political peers.

At the end of the day there's not actually that much difference between that crowd and shitlibs. Both claim to be in favor of liberal to left wing political positions but aren't actually willing to back it up if they have to compromise something. For shitlibs, it's their socioeconomic privileges, and for this lot its a compromise of their aesthetic.

[Cthulhu 2020]

If someone's answer to

"Why shouldn't women be allowed to have bodily autonomy, why shouldn't minorities have rights, why shouldn't workers have better pay?"

is

"Because some DNC worker who pushed forward incredibly progressive policy during her time holding public office, shared private emails about her preference for the DNC candidate and Hillary hired her!"

Then congrats. You're a cosplay socialist. You put on the clothes and hat and pretended when Bernie was the "hip" thing and took it off promptly thereafter.

I'm glad yall at least took off the mask of "We just want to have an honest conversation about this" to reveal that it was "WE HATE HILLARY AND WE'RE GOING TO BERATE YOU FOR VOTING FOR HER" all along.

[Elegiac]

And I am sorry you are so intellectually challenged you can’t answer the questions.

Here's a question: why do you think the answers to those questions matter?

Because, fun fact, they don't. Unless you can provide evidence that the things you were griping about would have produced different political outcomes if Clinton got into office then you being butthurt about Wasserman-Shultz or Clinton 'acting entitled' doesn't absolve you of the consequences of your decision.

You made the decision to value your philosophical aesthetic over actual outcomes for demographics you ostensibly care about. Just take the L and don't do it again.

[Milchshake]

Here's a question: why do you think the answers to those questions matter?

Because, fun fact, they don't. Unless you can provide evidence that the things you were griping about would have produced different political outcomes if Clinton got into office then you being butthurt about Wasserman-Shultz or Clinton 'acting entitled' doesn't absolve you of the consequences of your decision.

You made the decision to value your philosophical aesthetic over actual outcomes for demographics you ostensibly care about. Just take the L and don't do it again.

Everytime I read one of their screeds. I hear a tick-mark going off on Eco's Ur Fascism Chart. They're mad the Democrats arent being run they want it to be run, it's not authoritarian enough for them.

In their mind they've created a forever-conflict with the: DeeNCeee, Hillary, Wasserman-Schultz.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This thread...but in a single panel comic:

[Fugus]

Here's a question: why do you think the answers to those questions matter?

Because, fun fact, they don't. Unless you can provide evidence that the things you were griping about would have produced different political outcomes if Clinton got into office then you being butthurt about Wasserman-Shultz or Clinton 'acting entitled' doesn't absolve you of the consequences of your decision.

Wrong at every point.

I think the answer to those questions matter because they actually matter from a political perspective. That is why he is running from them for dear life, because the logical endpoint of them is something he doesn't want to admit.

Since you are willing to give an actual response as it took him days literally to answer other questions and even pulled a Steve Maniuchin what does "Shall" mean moment asking what I meant by "Odds" when I asked what the odds of something were I will give you as clear an answer as I can at the moment.

1) Debbie Shutlz, she was hated and seen as corrupt by a good portion of Clinton's base, correct?
I don't care about if you think it is earned or not or your feelings, just if her base saw Shultz as corrupt.

The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what I personally believe on this or you personally believe of this or even him. It is proven that, to a large portion of her base Shutlz was seen as corrupt.

Whether you agree that she was or disagree that she wasn't is completely irrelevant to this and at best is window dressing trying to make it look better for whatever side you want to root for. The fact of the matter is, she was seen as corrupt to a significant portion of her own voters.

2) When Mrs. Shutlz was forced to step down from the DNC, did Clinton admit her into her campaign?
Again, I don't care about your feelings on if you think she did or did not deserve it. Did Clinton do this?

With this one, pretty damn obvious that she did as well.

Both of those questions could not be answered in any way that told him what he wanted to hear so he tried to avoid answering them.


But.
A: She was seen as corrupt by her base and
B: As soon as the person her base saw as corrupt was forced to step down from the DNC, Clinton snatched her up and appointed her into her campaign.

Cthulhu 2020 doesn't even want to acknowledge these facts.

The reason behind that is that together the show an actual event of Clinton crapping on her own voters and effectively flipping them the bird in this action. So he tries to fall back "But her emails" even though nothing I said in this even referenced those emails. I have referenced this singular event and Clinton saying she didn't need to give his voters anything because she was winning. Those were the only 2 events I ever actually referenced in this and even dropped the part about Clinton saying that because I couldn't find a link after so long about it and really wasn't the more important of the two to me as the first one was the one that crossed the line for me.

So, you get back to this....

You have millions of voters that Clinton crapped on with that act, whether you want to bring up or ignore any others or whether they even exist or not, this specific one does and is very concrete in that fact.

Asking millions of voters to hold their nose for someone who isn't what they really want, is fine, and I was willing to do that too.

Asking millions of voters to hold their nose for someone who actively crapped on them (Not up for debate unless you can somehow prove that event never happened) is a MUCH harder sell.

Asking a politician not to crap on their own voters though is a trivially simple thing they shouldn't even need to be told. Clinton failed this and created a trivial to avoid self inflicted wound in the process.

As far as proving that it had a tangible impact, scientifically I don't think you can prove any outcome short of one of them dropping or dying but given that her margins were less than I think 120k total between all the states she needed to flip to win. Her not shooting herself in the foot like that could have very well been enough to swing them the other way.

As I told another, Trump had massive help to still lose the popular vote by the largest margin in US history for the EC to bail them out.
He had Clinton already being massively unliked.
He had Russia helping him
He had Comey helping him.
He had Clinton helping to elevate him in the primaries
He had Clinton sabotaging herself with the event I listed above.

Anyone one of them changing would have likely been enough to change the margins enough to swing it.

You made the decision to value your philosophical aesthetic over actual outcomes for demographics you ostensibly care about. Just take the L and don't do it again.

And while we all took a loss over what Clinton did, if I ended up in another situation where they pulled what Clinton did, I will not lie, I will withhold my vote from them as well.

If a politician treats their voters like crap, don't be surprised when they cease to be their voters.

Edit: AFK and off to bed.

You might get annoyed that I would repeat my actions if they repeated theirs but my actions are directly related to both their positions and their actions and quite literally asking them not to crap on their voters like that isn't exactly a high bar to clear.

You can get as mad at me as you want but, if you are being honest, you know that millions of other voters feel the same way and it is unrealistically optimistic to imagine such a huge number willing to overlook that crap.

[masterhorus8]

Wrong at every point.

I think the answer to those questions matter because they actually matter from a political perspective. That is why he is running from them for dear life, because the logical endpoint of them is something he doesn't want to admit.

Since you are willing to give an actual response as it took him days literally to answer other questions and even pulled a Steve Maniuchin what does "Shall" mean moment asking what I meant by "Odds" when I asked what the odds of something were I will give you as clear an answer as I can at the moment.



The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what I personally believe on this or you personally believe of this or even him. It is proven that, to a large portion of her base Shutlz was seen as corrupt.

Whether you agree that she was or disagree that she wasn't is completely irrelevant to this and at best is window dressing trying to make it look better for whatever side you want to root for. The fact of the matter is, she was seen as corrupt to a significant portion of her own voters.



With this one, pretty damn obvious that she did as well.

Both of those questions could not be answered in any way that told him what he wanted to hear so he tried to avoid answering them.


But.
A: She was seen as corrupt by her base and
B: As soon as the person her base saw as corrupt was forced to step down from the DNC, Clinton snatched her up and appointed her into her campaign.

Cthulhu 2020 doesn't even want to acknowledge these facts.

The reason behind that is that together the show an actual event of Clinton crapping on her own voters and effectively flipping them the bird in this action. So he tries to fall back "But her emails" even though nothing I said in this even referenced those emails. I have referenced this singular event and Clinton saying she didn't need to give his voters anything because she was winning. Those were the only 2 events I ever actually referenced in this and even dropped the part about Clinton saying that because I couldn't find a link after so long about it and really wasn't the more important of the two to me as the first one was the one that crossed the line for me.

So, you get back to this....

You have millions of voters that Clinton crapped on with that act, whether you want to bring up or ignore any others or whether they even exist or not, this specific one does and is very concrete in that fact.

Asking millions of voters to hold their nose for someone who isn't what they really want, is fine, and I was willing to do that too.

Asking millions of voters to hold their nose for someone who actively crapped on them (Not up for debate unless you can somehow prove that event never happened) is a MUCH harder sell.

Asking a politician not to crap on their own voters though is a trivially simple thing they shouldn't even need to be told. Clinton failed this and created a trivial to avoid self inflicted wound in the process.

As far as proving that it had a tangible impact, scientifically I don't think you can prove any outcome short of one of them dropping or dying but given that her margins were less than I think 120k total between all the states she needed to flip to win. Her not shooting herself in the foot like that could have very well been enough to swing them the other way.

As I told another, Trump had massive help to still lose the popular vote by the largest margin in US history for the EC to bail them out.
He had Clinton already being massively unliked.
He had Russia helping him
He had Comey helping him.
He had Clinton helping to elevate him in the primaries
He had Clinton sabotaging herself with the event I listed above.

Anyone one of them changing would have likely been enough to change the margins enough to swing it.



And while we all took a loss over what Clinton did, if I ended up in another situation where they pulled what Clinton did, I will not lie, I will withhold my vote from them as well.

If a politician treats their voters like crap, don't be surprised when they cease to be their voters.

Edit: AFK and off to bed.

You might get annoyed that I would repeat my actions if they repeated theirs but my actions are directly related to both their positions and their actions and quite literally asking them not to crap on their voters like that isn't exactly a high bar to clear.

You can get as mad at me as you want but, if you are being honest, you know that millions of other voters feel the same way and it is unrealistically optimistic to imagine such a huge number willing to overlook that crap.

Yeah, that's called being selfish. You put your feelings ahead of the potential and, as it turns out, actual consequences. Congrats on being proud that you helped put Trump in office.

[Elegiac]

Wrong at every point.

I think the answer to those questions matter because they actually matter from a political perspective.

Again, unless you can provide evidence that they would have impacted the political outcomes of a Clinton administration then they don't actually matter. This is a democratic system and the buck stops at the voters.

And while we all took a loss over what Clinton did, if I ended up in another situation where they pulled what Clinton did, I will not lie, I will withhold my vote from them as well.

Which is why your leftism is ultimately as performative as a corporate liberal. QED.

[Fugus]

Again, unless you can provide evidence that they would have impacted the political outcomes of a Clinton administration then they don't actually matter. This is a democratic system and the buck stops at the voters.

That is a bit excessive of a bar for me to have to try and get the exact numbers and district break downs that she lost and then the demographic information of them and then trying to figure out how many of them were Sanders voters who didn't vote because of her actions versus how many were "Never Hillary" types and so on.

And NONE of that changes a thing about what I said or the questions I posed.

Which is why your leftism is ultimately as performative as a corporate liberal. QED.

Boom, you have hypothetically convinced me.I should vote for the lesser evil to save myself, screw my convictions I just sold my vote to them at a loss to prevent a bigger loss even if they told me I could go fuck myself because they were winning regardless.

Now, what are the odds of getting millions of other voters to do the same thing? Not too good I would think.

Now, what are the odds that someone running for office and actually wanting to win should know that if they want people to vote for them, they shouldn't treat those voters like crap or that they are entitled to their votes because the other guy is even worse?

Now, lets say we have a repeat of Clinton and this new politician comes in and starts feeling entitled because his opponent is a pure monster and so he starts pulling crap that are outright insults to a good portion of his voter base and actually goes on TV telling him he isn't giving them anything because he is winning.

After this new guy loses, do you blame him for his entitlement complex and treatment of his voters? Or do you blame the millions of voters who couldn't look the other way on what he did?


But seriously, your approach here is counter productive and actually will cost more votes than you ever hope to gain with that if you act like this towards causal people in real life or anything like that.

There is nothing performative about what I did, I don't regret what I did and if I was stuck in the situation I would do it again.

Why is it so hard for you to understand the simple concept of "If you need someones support, don't screw them over or treat them like they are unwanted/unneeded by crapping on them".

When you are dealing with a "Big Tent" party, actively snubbing one of your parties tent poles can damage the whole tent in the process.

Still find it weird how you hold Clinton and the Democratic party to a LOWER standard then we hold the Republicans. We actively mock Republicans when they do something that actively insults their base because we know it will run a portion of those voters off and cost them but then blame our own voters when the politician does the same.

Alright, I am off to bed again, had to get up to rotate laundry and decided to check this before I laid back down.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, that's called being selfish. You put your feelings ahead of the potential and, as it turns out, actual consequences. Congrats on being proud that you helped put Trump in office.

It was Clinton being selfish, I just refused to reward it. Who would have thought that Clinton's actions would have this level of consequences, she actively helped get Trump in office (Funny enough, her actions not only ran off her voters but she worked in the primary to elevate Trump so quite literally she helped him into office even during the primaries).

I hated the fact that Clinton ran my vote off, fortunately Biden was a more stand up person and even though I voted against him in the primaries, I voted for him in the general and he has actually proven better than I thought he would be given the situation he inherited.

[Elegiac]

That is a bit excessive of a bar for me

It really isn't, you're just deliberately not understanding the question.

The question I asked is whether or not the things which ostensibly put you off voting for Clinton would have actually impacted the political outcomes of her being in office. As in would any of the DNC, Wasserman-Schultz, "she was entitled" stuff have changed who she would have nominated for the judiciary, who she would have put in cabinet, which legislation she would have supported, etc to an extent where the possibility of a Republican alternative would have been a preferable outcome.

If the answer is 'no', then your questions aren't relevant and you're just throwing them out to obfuscate.

Boom, you have hypothetically convinced me.I should vote for the lesser evil to save myself, screw my convictions I just sold my vote to them at a loss to prevent a bigger loss even if they told me I could go fuck myself because they were winning regardless.

Yep. It's called "acting like an adult".

Now, what are the odds of getting millions of other voters to do the same thing? Not too good I would think.

After this new guy loses, do you blame him for his entitlement complex and treatment of his voters? Or do you blame the millions of voters who couldn't look the other way on what he did?

This is an appeal to popularity fallacy. "Millions of people are irresponsible with their votes" is not an argument in support of voting irresponsibly.

Why is it so hard for you to understand the simple concept of "If you need someones support, don't screw them over or treat them like they are unwanted/unneeded by crapping on them".

Dunno, why is it so hard for you lot to understand that the system is zero sum and voting irresponsibly has a manifestly negative impact on the demographics you claim to care about?

Again, your leftism is performative. You care more about acting in the "right" way even if it comes at a cost of actual progress rather than compromising your ideological aesthetic in order to get concrete results.

Still find it weird how you hold Clinton and the Democratic party to a LOWER standard then we hold the Republicans. We actively mock Republicans when they do something that actively insults their base because we know it will run a portion of those voters off and cost them but then blame our own voters when the politician does the same.

It's almost as if there's a difference in actual political outcomes when Democrats lose elections versus when Republicans do so, or something.

[Muzjhath]

I never fucking understood the Shultz drama.
She was a DNC official.

Of course a person voted to represent the democratic party would support someone who was an actually (more or less lifelong) democratic party member! Not the person, who while pretty much always voting with them on big things, wasn't a member. Why would anyone of the Democratic National Committee be on the side of Sanders in the 2016 primary?

It's almost as the DNC is for the party, and Sanders wasn't of it...
/the biggest facepalm.

[Malkiah]

You do realise this is still an admission that you made the thread with absolutely no intention of seriously countenancing any viewpoint that challenges your own, yeah?

no?
i gave an answer on page 6 out of 8 because i was getting fed up with the heaping pile of useless dogshit that is every single post in this thread by endus, cthulhu, and unified.
it was just a hypothetical answer, not one they seem to endorse, and i gave it as an example of formatting so they would know what an answer to a question looks like, since clearly none of them know.

It's been explained to you that the premise of your question is fundamentally flawed because voting cannot be viewed through an individualist lens

see that... i can't really believe anyone with two functioning neurons and a piece of lint to rub together can read this thread and draw that conclusion from it.
my question is framed from a collective perspective from the start, it's got nothing to do with individualism and it never has.

so repeatedly whinging about your district being uncontested doesn't actually support your position.

the only way you could possibly make that statement is if you have literally no clue what my position is, because that statement is so bafflingly unrelated to anything i have said in this thread it defies description.

My question is this: if you feel your position is so unassailable then why are you begging for scraps of validation on MMO-C?

two reasons:
1. because it was someone on MMO-C who posted one of the most blisteringly retarded things i've ever read a supposedly functioning human brain piss out into the ether and so this is where the whole thought originated.
2. because i have my perspectives on things based on what i believe to be sound data, and there is nothing i love more in life than being given a compelling argument to show that i'm wrong, so that i can correct my interpretation of the world.
i care far more about being accurate than i do about being right.

i'm not seeking validation here, i'm well aware of the fact that there is a teeming mass of hysterically indoctrinated slogan-droids who are mentally incapable of doing anything except spewing out an unconsidered fountain of talking points.
i was hoping maybe in the effluvia of nonsensical bullshit that endus and cthulhu and unified and others spew with every single word they type in this thread that some tiny scrap of usefulness might be discerned.
sadly, i was incredibly mistaken.

- - - Updated - - -

This thread...but in a single panel comic:

i am curious if that's an intentionally disingenuous shit-post in the middle of a topic that has no relation to the cartoon, or if you actually think that's either true or accurate (generally speaking *or* in relation to this thread).

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing that's been proven is you don't like the answers.

man it's fucking wild you people think an answer has been given.

You were preferring to lead us to some realization that DEMOCRATS BAD, DEMOCRATS MEAN, DEMOCRATS DESTROY AMERICA, DEMOCRATS INSULT BERNIE, when the reality is that you guys can barely call yourself socialists or social democrats.

i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here that you're confusing me with other people, because otherwise this sentence makes it look like you're having a stroke.
this is superfluous but let me be clear on that front just so to make it easier for your to separate me from others (i assume fugus) in your mind:
i have never once said the democrats are bad, or mean. in fact, i have stated i'm very keen on the democrats from the perspective of them being a truly awesome and healthy conservative political party.
i'm pretty disenchanted with the DNC when looked at as the "left" party in this country, but that's really more about politics in the US than it is about the DNC specifically, and that's also neither here nor there.
and finally, i'm not a bernie supporter. in fact, i don't give a shit about bernie either way. hell, i argued extensively on this very forum back in 2016 that hillary was a perfectly fine democratic candidate and anyone who had gripes about her vis a vis being the nominee was being naive and childish.

so again i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you've gotten yourself all muddled and you're confusing me and fugus.
i know that can happen sometimes, but do take note for any future replies you may have.

I'm in it for the greater good, to preserve rights and freedoms for the most people.

and i'm even more left/progressive than you are, so we're on the same page there.

You've literally got a fashie on your side in this thread now, cheering you on against us.

well neither they nor you nor it seems anyone else who has posted for 8 pages in this thread except for @Chonogo actually understands what this topic is about, so... who gives a shit? (shout out to chonogo, thank you for being literally the only person besides me who has posted a coherent recognizably human thought).
none of you are even reading this thread as near as i can tell, this seem to be a depository for your little talking point pellets more than anything else.

That's how far gone you are. The cosplay socialists were crying about Hillary long before the election even happened, and you guys have only further demonstrated that you don't really care about people, you just have some weird fetish vendetta.

this entire reply has been predicated on what seems to be mistaken or conflated identity, to the point where your whole post kind of needs to be disregarded because it's so unrelated it's irredeemable.
if you'd care to try again and actually reply to me instead of whatever amalgam seems to exist in your mind, i'd be happy to engage with that.

let me repeat it just in case you try to pull an endus and decide that reality doesn't matter, only what exists in your head matters:
i do not give a single greasy shit about clinton, or bernie, or socialists, or socialism for that matter.
i'm weakly pro-democrat, unilaterally anti-conservative, and have zero thoughts on the 2016 election other than historical trends made me think that trump was going to win back in 2015 and it turns out that i interpreted the data correctly.

- - - Updated - - -

hey folks who are kind of digressing on this clinton/bernie thing? can we make a new thread for that?
this thread was intended to be about the logical connection between the statement that non-voters are responsible for trump being elected and their need to accept the consequences of their actions, and how that assertion doesn't square with certain demographic realities of how voting works in the US and so has some holes in it.

the clinton/bernie thing is great and all but it's not what i'd like this thread to be about and respectfully request that it move elsewhere.

[Elegiac]

no?i gave an answer on page 6 out of 8 because i was getting fed up with the heaping pile of useless dogshit that is every single post in this thread by endus, cthulhu, and unified.
it was just a hypothetical answer, not one they seem to endorse, and i gave it as an example of formatting so they would know what an answer to a question looks like, since clearly none of them know.

And, again, it's an admission your goal with this thread was to fish for validation regarding your beliefs about voting and pillory people with alternative viewpoints. Their answers are more than clear.

see that... i can't really believe anyone with two functioning neurons and a piece of lint to rub together can read this thread and draw that conclusion from it.
my question is framed from a collective perspective from the start, it's got nothing to do with individualism and it never has.

the only way you could possibly make that statement is if you have literally no clue what my position is, because that statement is so bafflingly unrelated to anything i have said in this thread it defies description.

The viewpoint you've expressed has been consistently rooted in the premise that your individual vote doesn't matter by virtue of you not living in a swing district - so no, it has not "been framed from a collective perspective" because the collective perspective is not one where individual voting power is brought into the calculus.

two reasons:
1. because it was someone on MMO-C who posted one of the most blisteringly retarded things i've ever read a supposedly functioning human brain piss out into the ether and so this is where the whole thought originated.
2. because i have my perspectives on things based on what i believe to be sound data, and there is nothing i love more in life than being given a compelling argument to show that i'm wrong, so that i can correct my interpretation of the world.
i care far more about being accurate than i do about being right.

Which is why you've spent this entire thread repeating the same opinion and insisting anyone who doesn't validate it must be mentally deficient.

Really conducive to a compelling dialogue. :thumbsup:

[unfilteredJW]

One of my favorite parts of this whole victim parade these unaffected white dudes are taking part in is watching them use the same debate and misinformation tactics of the red caps. In particular, attacking posters nationality and using that as an easy out.

Fucking horseshoes.

[Malkiah]

And, again, it's an admission your goal with this thread was to fish for validation regarding your beliefs about voting and pillory people with alternative viewpoints. Their answers are more than clear.

ok well you go ahead and have fun with that.

The viewpoint you've expressed has been consistently rooted in the premise that your individual vote doesn't matter by virtue of you not living in a swing district

well that is preposterously not remotely what i've been *intending to convey*, and i'm reasonably certain that in the 5+ times i've gone over this i've been so clear that it's impossible to misunderstand my position unless you're doing it intentionally.
you seem to WANT me to be saying that because it makes it easier for you feel morally righteous about attacking me for having a position you don't like, and why you feel the need to attack people in the first place and why you need to justify it to yourself are both beyond me.

so no, it has not "been framed from a collective perspective"

yes actually it has been. from the OP of this thread. read it again. keep reading it until you get it.

because the collective perspective is not one where individual voting power is brought into the calculus.

true generally but irrelevant specifically to this conversation.

Really conducive to a compelling dialogue.

once you or any of the others sniveling your mantras at me can actually respond to the actual details of my posts, we'll get back to that.
until then, congratulations - you've joined an illustrious cabal of shit-posters who act like they don't know how to read, because nothing you're typing is in response to the text you're quoting.

[Elegiac]

well that is preposterously not remotely what i've been *intending to convey*

Then maybe don't make an argument that is entirely different from what you believe you are conveying and get upset when people respond to the words you used. Novel concept.

why you feel the need to attack people

Alexa, play the Thomas the Tank Engine theme.

sniveling

illustrious cabal of shit-posters who act like they don't know how to read

heaping pile of useless dogshit

two functioning neurons and a piece of lint to rub together

blisteringly retarded

effluvia of nonsensical bullshit

none of them can handle the process required to do the bare minimum mental lifting necessary.

or they're all either stupid or the specific kind of lazy that makes them keep posting here but not bothering to think.

you kept doing the mental equivalent of rubbing the outside of a girl's left labia for 2 minutes and then getting mad if she didn't cum from it.

[Muzjhath]

well neither they nor you nor it seems anyone else who has posted for 8 pages in this thread except for Chonogo actually understands what this topic is about, so... who gives a shit? (shout out to chonogo, thank you for being literally the only person besides me who has posted a coherent recognizably human thought).
none of you are even reading this thread as near as i can tell, this seem to be a depository for your little talking point pellets more than anything else.

So, to reply to this.

You're in a district with a heavy lean, either because gerrymandered or because there's lean.
I've said how you can change things. You get involved in the political process and make things more to your liking within the party.
Or you get involved outside of it in grassroots movement.
Most politics are local.

You've seen all of those replies as That's not what I'm asking about!
Except it's what you can do in those situations!
You and your vote still matter!

Just that instead of fighting against the fascist you're privileged enough to get actual results if you put work in!

Same as if you want more left-policies starting on a local level is always easier etc.

[Malkiah]

Then maybe don't make an argument that is entirely different from what you believe you are conveying and get upset when people respond to the words you used. Novel concept.

i'm not getting upset, ya'll just keep proving you don't know how to read a thought you disagree with and engage with it honestly without resorting to spouting slogans that don't address the point being made.
i've gotten frustrated because of how boring this conversation is, because i wanted a back and forth and thus far all i've gotten is a forth.
talking to you people is tragically trying to discuss religion with a roman catholic - you don't seem to have anything except to interpret everything as being something from the bible, and everything you say is only something from the bible. it's profoundly annoying, when you're trying to test the validity of your thought process.

Alexa, play the Thomas the Tank Engine theme.

yeah, endus gets away with posting personal attacks in nerly every post they make on this forum, and i have a deep personality flaw of tending to easily allow myself to devolve into muck-slinging when that's all i'm getting from the other person.
point conceded there!

- - - Updated - - -

You've seen all of those replies as That's not what I'm asking about!

well yeah, because that's not what i'm asking about.
this isn't complicated, i cannot fathom why all you folks persist in posting in reply to me when you don't get what i'm saying.

"people who didn't vote in 2016 are responsible for electing donald trump and need to accept that" - that is the statement that endus made.
i find that the assertion endus made is factually inaccurate. and all the details of my county are just supporting context, it's not the *point* it's just there to provide the background for why i think it's inaccurate.

the question i've been asking is "what chain of logical reasoning connects what endus said to the situation that i'm in so that his assertion can be made to be logically and consistently applicable to me"

the question isn't "durr hurr why vote" - i said in the opening god damn post of this thread that voting matters and that voter participation in contested areas is important.
the question is "if you live in a state that assigns its electoral votes based on the outcome of the county votes, and you live in a county where the voting polls for the last 30 years show a pattern that conclusively indicates that every single person who didn't vote (but could have) in the county is an insufficient number of people to change the outcome of the vote from your county being for biden, by what logical reasoning are you as a non-voter responsible for trump being elected"

can i possibly make this any clearer?

[Elegiac]

i'm not getting upset, ya'll just keep proving you don't know how to read a thought you disagree with and engage with it honestly without resorting to spouting slogans that don't address the point being made.

Your OP is literally an assertion that you living in a heavily Democratic district means you don't share the same culpability for poor electoral outcomes stemming from non-voters in other districts.

People have responded to that and told you why that isn't the case on multiple levels ranging from basic Kantian ethics to Muzjhath pointing out more specific local level strategies for actualizing political outcomes within static electoral districts. Your only rebuttal to them has been a rehash of the original argument or insisting other people "just aren't getting it". Which, again, is indicative of this not in fact being a desire for genuine discussion but instead fishing for validation of your existing viewpoints and getting cranky when people contradict it.

That's entirely a you problem.