Summations Only

Yeah, from the 1 percent of folks that voted for Jill, that is a heck of a message...Meanwhile, the message seems to be that if you don't like the Hilary, then we might just as well have Trump. So thank you from the rest of us...

"Seems like a better message than the alternative."You mean better than the message that Trump is unfit to lead this country? Sure, if you say so."If you want to read something into it that doesn't exist... then you're being part of the problem."I think our reality reflects the results of a people voting against Hilary to send a message. We all got the message loud and clear. "We want Bernie, or screw all y'all." Those folks were certainly part of my problem.

"Why is that such a terrible idea?"This question is disingenuous. While you may well disagree on the weight of the choices, you know very well the downside of your proposed action. It is a terrible idea because the anticipated income is someone we all agree is a worse choice than Hilary.Yes, you are free to vote as you will, but when you ask this question, why should we respect you?

I understand that folks do not want to be judged that way. That does not make such judgments improper. Those folks may well have meant for us to get a different message, but they cannot change reality.That message has already helped guarantee that the Supreme Court likely won't get set to anything remotely balanced in my lifetime in addition to resulting in the election of a narcissistic idiot. Thanks again.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think in the current climate, such a thing is very difficult. Not everybody believes in inclusiveness. In fact, nationalism is about almost exactly the opposite. I think Democrats are in for a rough time.

"I only think it's wrong to say "it's bad/wrong to vote 3rd party because Trump will win" in some sort of objective/general/overall sense."Trump winning is bad. Objectively. There may be an issue of whether that is ultimately sufficient judgment, but asking me what the downside of an action is when you know full well what the downside is, does not seem honest.You want to insist that my weighing is subjective. So be it. But whether or not Trump is a bad outcome really is not something I think you and I are debating.

"Not everyone holds your personal priorities as their own high priorities."I see, Mr. Kettle.

"The "such a terrible idea?" part is in response to the implication that the only motivation for a 3rd party vote is to get that candidate to win."I understand your motivation. I don't understand that you don't accept that your vote has ramifications. You knew why someone would consider it a terrible idea before you asked.

The President's task during a natural disaster?Be the Carer in Chief. Visit, not right away, but make an appearance while spreading hope and talking about the future. Get in lots of photos with smiling local politicians.I doubt that Trump really cares all that much about a bunch of democratically leaning folks who don't have either an electoral vote, or a voting Congressman, but I would have thought anyone could fake it.Trump instead tells the folks that Katrina was much worse and that only 16 Puerto Ricans are confirmed to be killed. He calls them lazy and insists that they don't want to help themselves.

quote:

---

Trump called Katrina "a real catastrophe" given its "hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that died," before asking a Puerto Rican official for their "death count."

---

Trump was actually tossing rolls of paper towels to residents. Symbolizing what exactly?Did I forget to say thanks?Thank you.

Not that we needed Tillerson to tell us...

quote:

---

Discord between President Donald Trump and his chief diplomat is at an all-time high, spilling into public view in recent days, peaking with a NBC News report Wednesday that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a "moron" in a Pentagon meeting.

---

When asked directly whether he called Trump a moron, Tillerson said the following

quote:

---

"I'm not going to deal with petty stuff like that, this is what I do not understand about Washington

---

Of course, the individual should decide. The individual can assess the risks too.That does not mean that all decisions are rational or that all risk-taking is beyond critique. Exercise your freedom. Heck, you can march with Nazi's if you want. But not every choice demands respect.

True. But nonetheless, despite your attempts to downplay it. If Nader alone had not run, Gore wins Florida and does not lose any of the states Gore did win. This stuff about a "straight" race is a dodge.I agree that this is not a persuasive argument that Nader should not have run. But Nader's candidacy did create a scenario for Gore losing. One which actually occurred.

"hat they own certain important issues is helpful, like clean environment and climate and LGBT and diversity and so forth, but these are elite issues, not "your average guy" issues."Where "average guy" means "white, male, heterosexual". (Not putting words in your mouth. That's my take.) The could probably win by taking minorities, immigrants, gay people more for granted. But they would catch hell for it.The Democrats platform is way more inclusive than I think you are giving them credit for. One problem is that folks reject the Democrats solutions. Healthcare should be an easy issue for Dems. So should living wages, and job retraining. But a large group of folks are completely turned off by what they perceive as coddling to diversity and LGBT issues."or people worried about .... American culture"Sigh. Yeah, you are right. Democrats cannot attract many of those folks. Whether or not that should change is something folks might disagree on.

In a move that only his base could love, Trump gets around to responding to Rex Tillerson calling him a moron."I think it's fake news, but if he did that, I guess we'll have to compare IQ tests," Trump said. "And I can tell you who is going to win."Let's continue to blame this crap on Hillary.

"Isn't the point of the electoral college to prevent those densely populated islands of blue from taking charge of the huge sea of red that is out there?"No. The intent was to use the same formula applied to the House and Senate to balance the slave-holding states against the northern states. The reasoning had nothing at all to do with giving folks in Rhode Island more voting punch than a voter in California. In fact, the balance was obtained by partially counting black folks without actually allowing them to vote.Now, I would agree that the modern result is what you suggest, but no, that was not the intent of the framers.