Here is a political morality debate for Democrats for your consideration:

[Moonbeam]

Democrats should give up dirty-trick politics

Letter

www.centralmaine.com

Dirty tricks beneath a liberal's dignity or justified payback time?

 

[Thump553]

To call voting in a primary-AS ALLOWED BY APPLICABLE STATE LAW-is a dirty trick is absurd. Neither one of your alternatives apply. It is an exercise of your rights as a voter.

If the GOP views that as a problem then they can push to change state law to only allow closed primaries (ie only GOP registered voters can vote in GOP primaries). Many states (mine included) have only closed primaries. Until then these whiners need to STFU.

 

[Leymenaide]

In my state of North Carolina we already elect some incredible whack jobs. Encouraging more is not a good idea.

 

[Moonbeam]

To call voting in a primary-AS ALLOWED BY APPLICABLE STATE LAW-is a dirty trick is absurd. Neither one of your alternatives apply. It is an exercise of your rights as a voter.

If the GOP views that as a problem then they can push to change state law to only allow closed primaries (ie only GOP registered voters can vote in GOP primaries). Many states (mine included) have only closed primaries. Until then these whiners need to STFU.

I could be wrong but I think it is a liberal who wrote the opinion piece against Democrats trying to get the worst of the GOP offerings elected. I feel rather confident this would not be an issue for Republicans were the rolls reversed. Where I live, California, we have closed primaries so I can't myself vote for even the better much less the worst GOP candidate.

 

[nickqt]

I could be wrong but I think it is a liberal who wrote the opinion piece against Democrats trying to get the worst of the GOP offerings elected. I feel rather confident this would not be an issue for Republicans were the rolls reversed. Where I live, California, we have closed primaries so I can't myself vote for even the better much less the worst GOP candidate.

You don't think Republicans would have an issue with it if the roles were reversed.

Operation Chaos. 2008.

Limbaugh seeks to sow chaos in Democrats' race

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's crucial Pennsylvania primary victory last week...

www.sfgate.com

South Carolina 2020

Operation Chaos

Upstate Representative files "Closed Primary" legislation in Columbia.

www.audacy.com

By the way, this tactic is called "Ratfucking", and is as old as time, and 100% legal. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Amol S.]

I could be wrong but I think it is a liberal who wrote the opinion piece against Democrats trying to get the worst of the GOP offerings elected. I feel rather confident this would not be an issue for Republicans were the rolls reversed. Where I live, California, we have closed primaries so I can't myself vote for even the better much less the worst GOP candidate.

You do realise what party one signs up for may never be the party they vote for in the end? A person with a Democrat mind-set could just sign up as a Republican to vote for the worst offerings of the Republicans in a closed primary. Then in the general just vote for the Democrat.

 

[Moonbeam]

You don't think Republicans would have an issue with it if the roles were reversed.

Operation Chaos. 2008.

Limbaugh seeks to sow chaos in Democrats' race

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's crucial Pennsylvania primary victory last week...

www.sfgate.com

South Carolina 2020

Operation Chaos

Upstate Representative files "Closed Primary" legislation in Columbia.

www.audacy.com

By the way, this tactic is called "Ratfucking", and is as old as time, and 100% legal. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I am nor sure why you started your post with that particular question as the post to which you refer was intended to address the fact that the moral reprimand came from a liberal, I believe, and not a Republican. And also in the thread title I addressed the question only to Democrats. Also I wasn't interested in what is legal. My question was is it moral by your personal standards. Should Democrats try to get the worst must Trumpish candidate elected in the hope it gives a Democrat running against them a better chance? Perhaps it is called Ratfucking for a reason.

 

[Moonbeam]

You do realise what party one signs up for may never be the party they vote for in the end? A person with a Democrat mind-set could just sign up as a Republican to vote for the worst offerings of the Republicans in a closed primary. Then in the general just vote for the Democrat.

I know that. That's the whole question, would you do that? What if the Republican still wins?

 

[ivwshane]

I always find that it’s better to play fair and continuously lose then stoop to your opponents level and fight dirty. After all, democracy will prevail even when the system that maintains it has been rigged against it. I’m sure, eventually, the democrats will gain enough power to correct and safeguard the system from such abuses, we just have to be patient and put up with our country turning to shit in the meantime.


You know what they say, when you are left with shit or hope, hope leads to results and is totally not imaginary…or something like that.



I heard when then nazis started firing up the ovens, the Jews only died because the rest of the Germans gave up hope…if only they had more hope!


/S


This isn’t about some local election or some one off event, our democracy is being threatened before our very eyes, if you think playing nice is the smart move then you aren’t paying attention.

And to be clear, what the author is complaining about isn’t like the rule of law is being broken so…

 

[nickqt]

I am nor sure why you started your post with that particular question as the post to which you refer was intended to address the fact that the moral reprimand came from a liberal, I believe, and not a Republican. And also in the thread title I addressed the question only to Democrats. Also I wasn't interested in what is legal. My question was is it moral by your personal standards. Should Democrats try to get the worst must Trumpish candidate elected in the hope it gives a Democrat running against them a better chance? Perhaps it is called Ratfucking for a reason.

Let me try to clear up your confusion.

First, I quoted your statement of opinion, emphasis mine:

... I feel rather confident this would not be an issue for Republicans were the rolls reversed...

I started my response by paraphrasing what you said. Note well there is not a question mark after it. I simply repeated what you yourself stated, and did not ask you anything at all.

You don't think Republicans would have an issue with it if the roles were reversed...

So I wasn't asking you anything.

Next, I provided context to when Republicans did the exact same thing to Democrats, because I was giving context to what you yourself said, and my paraphrasing of that. Context in this case being some links to when...roles were reversed...

And then I defined the political tactic that is being employed, namely Ratfucking, because using the correct words and phrases for things is better than using vague and arbitrary phrases, or entire op-ed pieces, that you linked to. While Ratfucking may be a slang term, it cuts to the chase of an already-defined political tactic, and doesn't require an 800+ word op-ed hemming and hawing about an old-as-democracy political tactic.

I then concluded by saying that sometimes it works - a candidate for office will ratfuck the other side, get an opponent they'd prefer to run against, and it "works out" by them winning... whereas other times a candidate will get their chosen opponent and lose. I didn't offer a judgment on whether I think it is "right" or "moral" because as it turns out, politics is a battle of ideas, and sometimes it's better to run on your ideas, and other times it's better to run against your opponents ideas...fuck, I'm pretty sure 90% of Americans actually vote on that very principle - that they're voting against one side rather than voting for one side. Is that "right" or "moral"? Turns out, it's irrelevant to the reality on the ground. Most candidates would love to choose their opponent, but just because they can doesn't mean that it will turn out their way.

Which should make obvious my opinion - I think that the tactic can be used successfully and it can be used catastrophically. It sure would be a massive own-goal to ratfuck a primary to get the inherently-worst opponent possible and then lose to them. I find it similar to the own-goal of Democrats continuing to scream hysterically about how every semi-automatic firearm in America is lurking in a dark place ready to mind control otherwise sane people into murdering dozens of toddlers at any moment.

But, ratfucking can also be successfully used to get some shit-tier opponent into the General election - if and when the electorate is semi-sane and decides that no, maybe the guy who wants to kick Chicago out of the state of Illinois shouldn't be governor, giving the non-fascist candidate an "easier" opponent...whereas the relatively sane slightly-less-shitty Republican might have had a chance at winning against the non-fascist.

I myself voted in the Republican Georgia Primary this year, even though I believe the only good fascist is a dead fascist. I did vote for the sane(r) Republicans because I want the super right-wing authoritarians in Georgia to either stay at home, or actively vote for someone other than Kemp and Raffensperger, because both are obvious Deep-State Democrats or whatever super right-wing authoritarian lunatics believe.

As the Republican Party becomes permanently outright fascist, it won't matter much as any legitimate Republican candidate will have to be an outright fascist, see: Cheney, Liz., for what is actually happening on the ground, and not on paper. Liz Cheney isn't an outright fascist because she still believes that the democratic vote should matter, and has made her all but a pariah in the Republican Party that is fully authoritarian. Yet her actual political views are still abhorrent to any semi-decent human being.

 

[coldmeat]

After all, democracy will prevail even when the system that maintains it has been rigged against it

You really think so? Maybe I'm just not so optimistic

 

[ch33zw1z]

You really think so? Maybe I'm just not so optimistic

I think he’s being sarcastic.

WRTOP, seems like BAU and a very successful tactic for R’s. I suspect voters are the biggest variable in the mix. My take is that R voters really don’t care about this stuff and it’s a stronger tribalistic attachment to party. d voters seem to care a bit more.

I certainly don’t like the fact money is flowing from D campaign committee to Magatarian candidates.

 

[Jaskalas]

Imagine if some Democrats had voted in the 2016 primary, for that big fat orange loser. He could never be elected so all is fair in love and war?
It would appear a similar notion is present today. Underestimating the depths people will go if you simply put an R in front of a pile of !@#$.

I do not know if this tactic is wise in the first place.

 

[dlerious]

There's an article in the Washington Examiner about this:

Here’s when Democratic meddling in GOP primaries worked best and when it backfired - Washington Examiner

Democrats have been awfully active in the 2022 Republican primaries. That’s right, GOP nominating contests, which are usually decided by the party’s most faithful, fervent, and consistent voters. Democrats see a batch of political opportunities in the 2022 midterm elections in helping to choose...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Scroll down to the bottom for an example of a failure - hint 1966 CA governor.

 

[hal2kilo]

You really think so? Maybe I'm just not so optimistic

You need to up your sarcasm detector.

 

[HomerJS]

Democrats should give up dirty-trick politics

Letter

www.centralmaine.com

Dirty tricks beneath a liberal's dignity or justified payback time?

I would answer the question this way...

You are going into a boxing match where 10oz gloves are required but you know your opponent is shaving his gloves down to 5oz, do you continue the fight under those conditions or shave yours down as well? Your appeals to the ref have gone unheeded.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I would answer the question this way...

You are going into a boxing match where 10oz gloves are required but you know your opponent is shaving his gloves down to 5oz, do you continue the fight under those conditions or shave yours down as well? Your appeals to the ref have gone unheeded.

oh, and your opponent brags about it full time.

 

[APU_Fusion]

This strategy worked well for Chamberlin …

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I would answer the question this way...

You are going into a boxing match where 10oz gloves are required but you know your opponent is shaving his gloves down to 5oz, do you continue the fight under those conditions or shave yours down as well? Your appeals to the ref have gone unheeded.

Neither, pay whoever handles his wardrobe to sprinkle capsaicin into his gloves (fun once he starts sweating) and shave some butter inside his shoes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let me try to clear up your confusion.

First, I quoted your statement of opinion, emphasis mine:



I started my response by paraphrasing what you said. Note well there is not a question mark after it. I simply repeated what you yourself stated, and did not ask you anything at all.

Let me try to clear up your confusion.

First, I quoted your statement of opinion, emphasis mine:



I started my response by paraphrasing what you said. Note well there is not a question mark after it. I simply repeated what you yourself stated, and did not ask you anything at all.



So I wasn't asking you anything.

Next, I provided context to when Republicans did the exact same thing to Democrats, because I was giving context to what you yourself said, and my paraphrasing of that. Context in this case being some links to when...roles were reversed...

And then I defined the political tactic that is being employed, namely Ratfucking, because using the correct words and phrases for things is better than using vague and arbitrary phrases, or entire op-ed pieces, that you linked to. While Ratfucking may be a slang term, it cuts to the chase of an already-defined political tactic, and doesn't require an 800+ word op-ed hemming and hawing about an old-as-democracy political tactic.

I then concluded by saying that sometimes it works - a candidate for office will ratfuck the other side, get an opponent they'd prefer to run against, and it "works out" by them winning... whereas other times a candidate will get their chosen opponent and lose. I didn't offer a judgment on whether I think it is "right" or "moral" because as it turns out, politics is a battle of ideas, and sometimes it's better to run on your ideas, and other times it's better to run against your opponents ideas...fuck, I'm pretty sure 90% of Americans actually vote on that very principle - that they're voting against one side rather than voting for one side. Is that "right" or "moral"? Turns out, it's irrelevant to the reality on the ground. Most candidates would love to choose their opponent, but just because they can doesn't mean that it will turn out their way.

Which should make obvious my opinion - I think that the tactic can be used successfully and it can be used catastrophically. It sure would be a massive own-goal to ratfuck a primary to get the inherently-worst opponent possible and then lose to them. I find it similar to the own-goal of Democrats continuing to scream hysterically about how every semi-automatic firearm in America is lurking in a dark place ready to mind control otherwise sane people into murdering dozens of toddlers at any moment.

But, ratfucking can also be successfully used to get some shit-tier opponent into the General election - if and when the electorate is semi-sane and decides that no, maybe the guy who wants to kick Chicago out of the state of Illinois shouldn't be governor, giving the non-fascist candidate an "easier" opponent...whereas the relatively sane slightly-less-shitty Republican might have had a chance at winning against the non-fascist.

I myself voted in the Republican Georgia Primary this year, even though I believe the only good fascist is a dead fascist. I did vote for the sane(r) Republicans because I want the super right-wing authoritarians in Georgia to either stay at home, or actively vote for someone other than Kemp and Raffensperger, because both are obvious Deep-State Democrats or whatever super right-wing authoritarian lunatics believe.

As the Republican Party becomes permanently outright fascist, it won't matter much as any legitimate Republican candidate will have to be an outright fascist, see: Cheney, Liz., for what is actually happening on the ground, and not on paper. Liz Cheney isn't an outright fascist because she still believes that the democratic vote should matter, and has made her all but a pariah in the Republican Party that is fully authoritarian. Yet her actual political views are still abhorrent to any semi-decent human being.

Thank you for your clarification. I have seen many examples of people who don't punctuate questions correctly including myself, ending one with a period instead of a question mark. I noticed the absence of a question mark but you followed up with examples that would support an argument that I would cast doubt on anyone who doubted Republicans are not guilty of just such games.

I think what you have done is make a utilitarian argument that skirts a personal statement on whether you think what I asked about specifically.

For example it is your opinion it does not require hemming and hawing but the author of the opinion piece I linked thinks it does. I find his position challenging. It also does not matter that it words, or that any choice would be bad and in the personal example you gave you voted for the best of the Republican choices not the worst. The moral question I asked about involves intentionally voting for the worst with the possibility that choice could help the worst win. Is it moral to do that?

Utility, of course, can be considered as a moral position if one is so inclined.

I understand your argument though. I used to vote third party when it made no difference who I voted for and I once voted against Senator Feinstein voting Republican for the first and last time ever, because she voted for the war in Iraq. No Democrat who did that deserves to be in office, in my opinion. She might as well have been a Republican. Voting to go into that war was immoral. There was, however, zero chance that she would lose.

 

[dank69]

Thank you for your clarification. I have seen many examples of people who don't punctuate questions correctly including myself, ending one with a period instead of a question mark. I noticed the absence of a question mark but you followed up with examples that would support an argument that I would cast doubt on anyone who doubted Republicans are not guilty of just such games.

I think what you have done is make a utilitarian argument that skirts a personal statement on whether you think what I asked about specifically.

For example it is your opinion it does not require hemming and hawing but the author of the opinion piece I linked thinks it does. I find his position challenging. It also does not matter that it words, or that any choice would be bad and in the personal example you gave you voted for the best of the Republican choices not the worst. The moral question I asked about involves intentionally voting for the worst with the possibility that choice could help the worst win. Is it moral to do that?

Utility, of course, can be considered as a moral position if one is so inclined.

I understand your argument though. I used to vote third party when it made no difference who I voted for and I once voted against Senator Feinstein voting Republican for the first and last time ever, because she voted for the war in Iraq. No Democrat who did that deserves to be in office, in my opinion. She might as well have been a Republican. Voting to go into that war was immoral. There was, however, zero chance that she would lose.

It isn't any more immoral than any other choice one must make where the true results of either/both choices are unknowable at the time of choosing.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would answer the question this way...

You are going into a boxing match where 10oz gloves are required but you know your opponent is shaving his gloves down to 5oz, do you continue the fight under those conditions or shave yours down as well? Your appeals to the ref have gone unheeded.

I suppose I would have to choose between likely losing the fight or definitely losing my self respect. Of course self respect isn't bragging but.....I was only in a boxing match one time in High School PE. I was absolutely terrified and the guy I had to fight was beefy. I was so full of adrenaline when I punched him his head nearly flew off his head, snot flew out of his nose and he started flailing away, harmlessly at me. That was a minute I will never forget. Later on in life , I made a bar full of Hells Angles run and while sick with the flu.

 

[Moonbeam]

It isn't any more immoral than any other choice one must make where the true results of either/both choices are unknowable at the time of choosing.

I believe that what God calls moral evolves over time. I think it's only fair that if you want Him to evolve you have also to. Morality has to change with more information. It is the choices you make with what you know at the time, I think, that matter.

How many of the 20 commandments still apply?

 

[nickqt]

Thank you for your clarification. I have seen many examples of people who don't punctuate questions correctly including myself, ending one with a period instead of a question mark. I noticed the absence of a question mark but you followed up with examples that would support an argument that I would cast doubt on anyone who doubted Republicans are not guilty of just such games.

I think what you have done is make a utilitarian argument that skirts a personal statement on whether you think what I asked about specifically.

For example it is your opinion it does not require hemming and hawing but the author of the opinion piece I linked thinks it does. I find his position challenging. It also does not matter that it words, or that any choice would be bad and in the personal example you gave you voted for the best of the Republican choices not the worst. The moral question I asked about involves intentionally voting for the worst with the possibility that choice could help the worst win. Is it moral to do that?

Utility, of course, can be considered as a moral position if one is so inclined.

I understand your argument though. I used to vote third party when it made no difference who I voted for and I once voted against Senator Feinstein voting Republican for the first and last time ever, because she voted for the war in Iraq. No Democrat who did that deserves to be in office, in my opinion. She might as well have been a Republican. Voting to go into that war was immoral. There was, however, zero chance that she would lose.

I think it's a gamble attempting to ratfuck the worst candidate into being your opponent. That worst candidate could end up winning and doing more harm than the lesser worst candidate if that candidate won. And at the same time, it's possible that by ratfucking the worst candidate into being your opponent, it could result in you winning and there being even less harm done. It becomes a sliding scale.

Morality is irrelevant. It's a subjective idea. If morality mattered Donald Trump would have lost every single district in 2016, and yet he was able to legitimately win the election (is the Electoral College moral? It's irrelevant).

Should the best possible candidates be the only candidates that can win? Yes. Is that how politics in general and US politics specifically works? Nope. Morality is irrelevant in politics. Being Jesus Christ or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and losing to Donald Trump means your policy agenda is meaningless while an outright fascist sets about destroying anything he can't personally take possession of. Morality is irrelevant.

 

[HomerJS]

I suppose I would have to choose between likely losing the fight or definitely losing my self respect. Of course self respect isn't bragging but.....I was only in a boxing match one time in High School PE. I was absolutely terrified and the guy I had to fight was beefy. I was so full of adrenaline when I punched him his head nearly flew off his head, snot flew out of his nose and he started flailing away, harmlessly at me. That was a minute I will never forget. Later on in life , I made a bar full of Hells Angles run and while sick with the flu.

One thing I can tell you as somewhat of a fact…

“When they go low we go high” isn’t working for Dems. A modified version of that is needed. Something like

“We are going to punch you in your fucking face and then we will go high”