Not for presidential primaries; it is against national party rules. Even for local partisan elections in the 2 or 3 states which have experimented with it, there are all kind of special conditions to ensure that parties don’t have to support candidates over whose selection they do not control, and they are back and forth in the courts. I think we are very very far from the kind of national primary you envision.
Except that for a 12th century Catholic, the choices were to believe in the Catholic doctrine entirely or be executed as a heretic.
1 Like
There you go.
1 Like
I know you’re exaggerating for effect, but it’s not really too far off the truth. How many more people of color (especially African-Americans), recent immigrants (card-carrying or not), women, Muslim-LOOKING, LGBTQ, homeless, etc. will be tortured and/or die if one of the three top Republican picks gets elected? And remember, we’re talking at the very minimum one Supreme Court seat too…a crucial one.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. When the country starts getting back to modern civilization, a broader range of worthwhile candidates will be a great next step forward. Right now, though, we’re in crisis mode. We need to get out of the burning building first, and only then start thinking about rebuilding.
1 Like
What people don’t get is that on other issues that matter, many people think Clinton is just as bad as the GOP or maybe even worse since she’ll slip in things under the radar, just like Obama was worse on citizen rights than Bush in many regards.
I don’t think Clinton is “good” in any respect.
When are we not at war with Oceania?
We were in “crisis” mode for every election in this century, from what I see and I remember similar arguments in 1992…
6 Likes
You’re right in one way, but you’re missing what the crisis is.
Business as usual is not sane, sustainable or survivable.
2 Likes
So, 0 bananas. Got it.
Yeah, the election in 2000 was completely like that: a hypothetical choice between two imaginary candidates.
When you have Bush and Gore on the ticket, those are your two choices. When you vote for Nader, you’re splitting the vote and effectively voting for Bush. It cant be this difficult, almost 2 decades later, to understand. Luckily, Sanders won’t be quite so deluded/egotistical as Nader to run as an Independent.
And when you think both choices are shit and/or corrupt?
And folks wonder why so many people stay home and don’t vote at all.
2 Likes
It’s not. Your candidate lost because your candidate sucked. He ran an incredibly inept and tone deaf campaign and threw the presidency away. And Gore voters are bitter about it so they’re looking for a scapegoat. Not difficult at all…
I’m going to put you down for 0 bananas, too.
isn’t that spelled 9u11ani?
1 Like
eventually, yes. 
Incidentally, one of the most interesting findings of those “monkey banana” studies is that non-human primates do have a sense of justice/fairness, and will sometimes act to protest injustice even when there is sacrifice involved in doing so.
Short-term costs are not the only factor.
1 Like
There’s a difference between “being cheated” (your grape-cucumber experiment) and “not getting everything you want” (my 0/1/2 banana experiment).
***“More bananas for us!”***
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
