Summations Only

How so? I'd like to correct any conflict if it actually exists.Here's what I just said to you, though: I see that as me indicating that I accept others to have their own priorities.I just don't see how the mere existence of varying priorities make certain ones objectively higher simply because the individual happens to hold them.Priority A: 3rd party votes are wasted because Trump is a terrible president.
Priority B: 3rd party votes can still be valid because they indicated to the Democrats that they need to select better candidates.I'm not saying B is better then A.
I think A is perfectly valid in it's own right.I'm only arguing against those who think that B is not a valid choice for some people to make, if they feel so inclined.

Rrhain, I'm from Canada.I didn't vote in the US election because I can't vote in the US election.My point isn't that voting 3rd party is the "better" thing to do.
My point is that voting 3rd party is an "acceptable" thing to do.When you understand this, perhaps you can try focus your arguments on something relevant. Your point only makes sense against my argument if you can show that all gays will never lose ground in the future, at any time, if Hillary was elected this past election.Even if you could show that, you'd also have to show that Hillary being in office wouldn't have caused anyone else any harm at all during her entire tenure.Since you can't read the future, or alternative realities... you have no point against my argument. This only makes sense if you can show that no one would ever die because Hillary was in office. Or, at least, less.
Since people have always died, and always some at the fault at whoever's-been-in-office... your point doesn't carry much weight.You may very well have a point that less gay people or less Puerto Ricans would be dead.
But every president screws up something. Hillary would have had her own deaths on her hands.
It is impossible for you to show that, in general, there would be "less dead people" if Hillary would be in office unless you can read the future or alternative realities.You believe that there will be less dead with Hillary in office.
This is a fine point, and a great reason for you to vote Hillary.It's quite possible (and reasonable) for someone to believe there will be less dead in the future if they get the Democrats to be less corrupt and better and choosing candidates.
That is also a fine point, and a great reason to vote for 3rd party. Again, try to address my argument.
I'm talking about "the future" not *only* "the next election." You are the only one who keeps narrowing the focus so that it's something you can digest. Broaden your horizons. Wrong again.
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to define the message of someone else.
That is simple, factual reality.This may be what you, personally, hear. But, well, your posts to me show that you're not very good at personally hearing what people are actually trying to say anyway... so that's not really a big deal.You're so wrong about what you're trying to argue against, and what you think I'm saying... I hope this message corrects some of your errors.

But that's not what I'm thinking, and that wasn't the original context anyway.The only way you have a point here is if the electoral college votes are not decided by voting in any way. Then you've got me.
Without that... then it's quite possible that Trump could have won by more if "more people voted for him."I never narrowly focused anything on the general election, or non-electoral-college-votes... only you are doing that. No.This is some point you've created that you're clinging to.
To me, this is totally irrelevant and entirely useless information.The original point (the only point) I've ever brought up is that considering 3rd party votes to be wasted just because they helped Trump get elected is short-sighted and wrong. There's more going on there that's being ignored by a simple statement like that.You (or someone) thought it was pertinent to bring up the close-margin of win/loss as well as the popular vote vs. electoral college vote.
These were all irrelevant then, and they're all irrelevant now.
I attempted to dismiss them as irrelevant by replying to "Hillary would have won if more voted to her" with a simple "and Trump would have won by more if more voted for him."Any additional narrow focusing on that point is all your own doing, and you're own clinging to totally irrelevant facts anyway. Exactly.
My entire point is that saying "you helped Trump win!" is useless to say.
It's entirely obvious, and entirely irrelevant.Of course anyone voting 3rd party helped Trump win.
The answer to this is... who cares?Just because you helped Trump win doesn't mean there can't be some other motivation for voting 3rd party that is still valid and reasonable... say "indicating to the Democrats that they need to pick better candidates."How does "helping Trump win" affect the motivating of wanting to indicated to the Democrats that they need to pick better candidates?It doesn't, because it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter that Trump wins, and it doesn't matter by how much (or how little) he won by.That's the point. I'm not saying Hillary wasn't good enough in some sort of credential means.
I'm saying Hillary wasn't good enough in the sense that it's obvious... she lost. It's a fact, it's history.
Hillary wasn't good enough to win the election. Maybe it's because people are stupid, maybe it's because votes were tampered with, maybe it's for a multitude of various reasons... but all I'm doing is indicating the factual history that Hillary wasn't good enough to win the election.That's a historical fact that's simply impenetrable. I never said it was a valid reason for voting for Trump.
I said there's a valid reason for voting 3rd party, even though it helps Trump win.
That reason is (or can be): to indicate to the Democrats that you want them to choose better candidates before you're willing to unite with them. Why do you keep assigning motivations to me?
I don't care about Hillary or Trump or any specifics... they are all irrelevant to my point.My point is simple:3rd party votes can be reasonable and "good" even if they help Trump win.
Saying something like "If you didn't vote for Hillary, you helped Trump win!" is immature and shortsighted.
It's true... but irrelevantly so.
Because it's quite possible to want to vote 3rd party regardless of helping Trump win or not.If you think I'm trying to say anything else, about anything else... you are mistaken.
That mistake could be my fault, it could be yours... I don't care. Because I didn't think it was a difficult idea to grasp.
It only dawned on me that some people couldn't see this possibility at this point.If I knew saying a phrase would communicate my point immediately... I would have used it immediately.
Unfortunately, I can't read your mind, or the mind of anyone else.
So I have to do my best, and adjust and rephrase things based on the feedback I get.It's almost like I'm trying to debate on a debate board... go figure. I don't see why you responded with this.
My statement is talking about the worth of your personal judgment. It's equal to everyone else's personal judgment.
I didn't mention how popular it was or wasn't.I don't think popularity makes personal opinions worth more in the sense of being correct. Obviously, Hillary wasn't a strong enough candidate to get into office.
Do you think the Democrats don't understand the voting process and the electoral college?
They don't need to get a candidate that is popular-where-popularity-is-worthless-for-winning.
They need to get a candidate that can win, within the existing system.
They need to get a candidate that will unite those who might otherwise vote 3rd party.
Or they can successfully lobby and get the system changed... that's a valid option as well.They didn't do that.
They very well may have tried to do that. But whatever they did, obviously, wasn't "good enough." I completely agree with you here. On both your points. Thank-you. That's all the respect I wanted. If people misunderstand what I'm trying to convey, I can clarify and re-phrase until they do.
This is not surprising.It is also not surprising that during the process many will cling to "wanting to be right" about some small, irrelevant point just so they can "save face" for some imaginary scoreboard that only exists in their own imagination. Again, with this, I completely agree.
My point has only been to show that voting 3rd party, even though you may disagree with it's affect on the outcome of this past election, can have valid, reasonable support that is as equally justified as your reasons for voting for Clinton.

Now, do you have anything to say to me about the point I'm actually trying to make? Or do you only want to talk about some point that only you want to talk about?I fully understand that the point I'm talking about is not the only point in existence.
It's not even the only point Taq references.
It may not even be a point Taq attempted to reference.But it's the point I understood from Taq's posts after a fair and reasonable reading.
It's the only thing I'm attempting to talk about.If you want to talk to me, you'll talk about my point.
If you want to talk to me about some other point you (or Taq, or anyone, or everyone) thinks is important, you're going to go home unhappy because I'm not talking about things you've made up in your head.Again, my point:A 3rd party vote can be made validly, and with reasonable justification regardless of the fact that it helped Trump win.
Saying "voting for a 3rd party only helped Trump win!" is wrong. It didn't only do that, it can do other things.
Saying "voting for a 3rd party is useless for the democratic side!" is wrong. It can be useful to help democrats, just not to help the democrats with this last election.If you go back and see what I originally responded to, it was to some point that fell into this category.
Any other interpretation of what my point is, is wrong.
That may be my fault, it may be yours... but that doesn't matter, it's wrong. I am extremely determined to ignore any and all contexts that are not relevant to the point I'm making (see above).
That's only efficient and practical.
If you have an issue with that... it's more to do with yourself than with me. It may not be irrelevant to you..
But you're not talking to you.
You're talking to me.
I'm not a part of you.
I'm not in your head.
I'm not your imagination.
I get to define what I'm talking about, not you.
You are wrong about what you keep assigning to me.
Get over it. Excellent. You entirely agree with me again.How long are you going to agree with me, but insist on arguing to me that something-I'm-not-saying-didn't-happen actually happened?I entirely agree that anyone who made a protest vote, or a no vote, or an "ironic vote" led themselves into their worst nightmare.
I've never said anything to the contrary.All I've ever said is that it's possible for a 3rd party vote to be made in good conscience, and that it could have a valid and reasonable point to it.
I've given a specific example: That it could be for indicating to the Democrats that they should be offering up better candidates.But, since we agree, this should be the end of it. Saying that Clinton wasn't good enough (as a fact.. because she lost) doesn't necessarily imply that there was a stronger available candidate. And I certainly have never implied such a thing.
Perhaps this is your issue. You can, but it would be silly.
Me calling something irrelevant, when you're trying to talk to me, is an indication that you've interpreted something (or I explained something) incorrectly. It means you think you're talking about what I want to talk about... but you aren't.
That means you should try to talk about something else, and I should try to get you to talk about something else. Hopefully that "something else" will be closer to what I originally intended.
How can we talk about "something else" if you insist in staying on the same, not-what-I'm-talking-about idea?Again... I am not replying to something you said... you are replying to something I said.
This means that I get to let you know what it is I actually meant.
You do not get to claim what it is I actually meant. How could you possibly read my mind?Me saying your ideas are irrelevant is not saying they don't have "a point."
I'm sure you have a multitude of wonderful points.
It's just saying that you're not talking about the point I'm talking about... and that you seem to be replying to me about.You can either try to correct that issue, or continue to go off on a tangent.
If you continue to talk to me, I expect you to attempt to correct the issue.
If you want to go off on a tangent... feel free, but then... there's no real connection to be replying back to me, is there? You rebutted me by agreeing with me again?
Okay.Check back to my original posts.I never replied to anyone who said "those who thought Hillary was a sure thing, but voted 3rd party... is a silly idea."
I would agree with such a phrase.I only replied to people who said something more general. People who stepped further into sweeping generalizations into "If you voted 3rd party, your vote was wasted!" territory.Check again what I replied to, and you'll see the distinction.

Thanks for agreeing with me again.Good talk.Everything else in your entire post is about trying to win some made-up scoreboard in your mind.
I'm not playing that game.

"Clinton wasn't good enough" can mean multiple things.I meant it in a general sense to indicate that Clinton didn't win the election.
Something about her wasn't good enough to win the election... because she didn't win.
This is a historical, undeniable fact. I've said this many times.Like when the Falcons lost the Superbowl last year.
The Falcons weren't good enough to win the Superbowl.You can take "the Falcons weren't good enough" to mean something else and start arguing that they are professional NFL players, and a certain amount of luck exists in any sporting event at that level, and they were up by more than 3 TDs at one point... so they certainly are "good enough"... they just didn't win.But that's all avoiding the general point. The general point is that the Falcons didn't win. The Falcons were not good enough to win the Superbowl in that game.That's how I mean "Clinton wasn't good enough." In general, Clinton wasn't good enough to become the President in that election.You seem to have taken "Clinton wasn't good enough" to imply that I meant something specific about Clinton that needs to be specified and detailed, and shown who could have done better, when and why.
You are wrong.Just as the Falcons can be a very good team, they might be able to beat New England 9 times out of 10 (doubt it, but just saying...) they still were not good enough to win the Superbowl in that game. Historical fact.Clinton can be a very good candidate, she could be the best available candidate, she might be able to beat Trump again right now by a landslide... it all doesn't change the historical fact that Clinton wasn't good enough to beat Trump to become President in the last election.You're talking about potential, I'm just talking in general about the historical fact of what happened.In forcing such a specific view onto me, you've created these contradictions you claim I hold.
I agree that IF I meant what you understand "Clinton wasn't good enough" to mean... THEN it creates contradictions in what you think my ideas are.However, since you are wrong about what I mean by "Clinton wasn't good enough," you are also wrong about the contradictions that require your interpretation of that phrase in order to exist.Your idea of what I mean by "Clinton wasn't good enough" and your following ideas about my contradictions that rely on that interpretation only exist in your head.

Very true. This may be a good analogy to show how it feels.But I think this is straining things to show how things are.Unless you're suggesting that it's impossible for the reverse situation to occur?
Is it impossible for people to vote in such a way that the Republicans get the majority of votes, but they don't win because the Democrats were elected due to the Electoral College? I am assuming that this is possible, and in this sense the election process is still "even." Exactly.
Also, it's completely tangential to the point that it's possible for a 3rd party vote to have valid meaning, even if it helped Trump win.
Someone who wanted Trump to lose may not feel that way.
However, it's certainly possible that the one who made the vote does feel that way.And, the two feelings are of equal weight in the order of the value of personal opinion.One is placing the results of this election as a priority.
The other is placing something else as a priority (perhaps future elections, or the system of the election in general).

If you're going to insist that my words to not mean what I intend them to mean, then I have no avenue in which to pursue clarification with you.You have created your own prison.Good day.

Sounds about right.
Doesn't seem to change the point that Clinton wasn't good enough.
Or, using your terminology: Clinton wasn't good enough to stand for her Democratic values and also appeal to enough of rural America to win the election.Is such a thing impossible for a mortal?
Perhaps. The phrase is still true as stated, though.Are there things Clinton could have done differently?
Perhaps. The phrase is still true as stated, obviously.Are there things no one knows about (currently) that could solve this conundrum for the Democrats?
Perhaps. The phrase is still true as stated, again. I agree. It seems you have made your conclusion without any (offered) reasoning/support.My conclusion is the following:A) Concluding that this is not worth it is a valid opinion for an individual to hold. (I won't list support for this, because you seem to agree with it).
B) Concluding that this is worth it is a valid opinion for an individual to hold.Support:
1 - The temporary cost of having Trump in office could easily be worth it for the potential long-term gain of forcing the Democrats to learn how to stick to their values, reduce corruption in their politics and also appeal more to rural America.
Such a risk would vary from person to person, of course.
Say... a gay, Islamic woman may be not think this risk is worth it as she is more "in the cross-hairs" of Trump immediately.
However... a white, Christian male may think the risk is worth is as they could be more interested in protecting the future of their family and friends as opposed to the next 4 years of those affected by Trumps immediate holding of office.2 - Just because some people are going to be hurt, immediately and badly, by Trump being in office for the next 4 years does not mean that no one would be hurt, immediately or badly, by Clinton being in office for these 4 years. In fact, thinking so is terribly nave.
Obviously some people will be hurt, immediately and badly, by Clinton being in office... there is always something that happens during any 4-year tenure that is the fault of the president that hurts people immediately and badly.
I think it is up to the individual to take stock of their own situation, and their own best-guess of the future to weigh such risks.

But the results were not opposite to the goals of voting 3rd party.If the goal was to send a message to the democrats.. then that goal was successful 100%. I agree that this is the question.
I find your narrow focus on Trumps failings to be inadequate to also judge the possibility of Clinton's failings as well as the possible future failings of the Democrats if no message was sent.You do not find such a judgment inadequate.It is my position that your position is valid.
It is my position that my position is also valid.You seem to think that only your opinion is worth anything.
Not all people are in your situation, or have your goals for the future.I think it's quite possible to be a good, loving, caring person and also vote 3rd party in order to send a message to the democrats. This isn't true.Those who voted 3rd party couldn't read the future anymore than you can.The judgment was against making this worse now, vs. helping things be better in the future.You seem to think that making things worse now is unacceptable.
I think such a view is valid... and you should vote accordingly.I also think that thinking for the future is also a valid opinion, while accepting the temporary pain Trump is causing right now.What if the Clinton got into power and more "behind the scenes" corruption occurred that caused more pain, death and suffering than Trump has ever done?That's the point.I understand you don't think it's a possibility, or worthy of consideration.
My point is that others do, and they have just as much validity to think so then you do to think otherwise. Again, no matter how vehemently you adhere to your opinion... it doesn't make your life and your future any more important than anyone else's life and future. And if the message was not sent, other people's lives would be at risk.I'm simply valuing everyone equally.
You're valuing yourself above everyone else.I admit that your view is valid - for you.
I'm just also saying that other people's views are also valid - for them. That is quite possible, yes.
I regularly make mistakes. I'm just a person.
But, so far, you have been unable to make such a case.

If you think my usage of the term "good enough" is my own private definition... I cannot begin to resolve your misunderstanding of my posts. I've explained it many, many times (and, really, it didn't need an explanation in the first place).I will admit that my definition "irks you" because it doesn't mean "good enough" in the same way you want it to mean.
But to say that it is not a normal definition? To say it's not widely used in this manner? You're just laughable.I mean "not good enough" in the sense that Hillary (and the Democratic team) couldn't do what was required in order to win this past election.
This is historical fact since... they didn't win the election.
This does not indicate one way or the other that Hillary was the best possible choice for them.
This does not indicate that Hillary was incapable of doing the Presidential Duties if she had won.
This does not indicate that Hillary was fatally flawed.It is quite reasonable, normal, and expected to use the phrase "not good enough" to indicate the preceding notion.I fully admit that the term "not good enough" could be used to narrowly reference that Hillary wasn't the best possible choice, or that she wasn't capable of performing the Presidential Duties if she won, or that she was somehow fatally flawed.But I'm not using the term that way.
I'm using it the way I've clarified over and over again that I'm using it.Your insistence that I can't use words the way everyone uses them is becoming laughable. Some of your posts have no reply by me for the reason I gave you - you do not present a reasonable or rational position. I have no interest in discussing things with anyone who refuses to be open to the possibility that their personal view may not be the only valid one.I do, however, sometimes feel bored or like rambling or taking another shot at clarifying what I'm actually saying for anyone with a willingness to attempt to understand... and I'll respond to you, like this post. That's the question, isn't it?Maybe the future will show that voting 3rd party leads to the end of the world.
I still wouldn't admit that voting 3rd party had no point.
It had the point of sending a message to the Democrats. That point may be moot if there are no Democrats because the world ended, but many things exist moot-ly.
Besides, if the alternative is a corrupt world where only the rich Democrats get to do what they want... what's so wrong with taking a stand against such a thing?But maybe you're wrong and the world won't end.
And the Democrats got the message.
And their candidate for the next election will be different than if Hillary won (or even went 2 terms). And maybe that tipping point was years ago.
Or maybe that tipping point is years in the future.Your scare tactics do nothing to change the facts. I see.I can't make up possible negative futures if Hillary was put in and the Democrats didn't have to think about correcting corruption in their ranks or appealing to more people.But you get to make up possible negative futures if Trump is in office? Even if some of those could still very well be possible if Hillary was in office?Again... your scare tactics do nothing for the argument you are trying to make. Again, I agree with you that Trump is not fit for office.What I disagree with, is that this is reason that should be taken as a priority over fixing the future of the US (or, in general, any nation that incorporates 3rd party voting). I understand this is what you're trying to say.
What I don't understand, and what you (and everyone else) has failed to show so far... is why you think it is objectively absolute.You all seem to understand what's being judged:The risk of Trump in office (visible problems) vs. the risk of a corrupt democratic party (invisible - behind the scenes - problems).You can't show that Trump in office is worse by only showing all the horrible things Trump does.
You would also have to show how it's impossible for a corrupt democratic party to do worse things.You seem to be taking the stance that "Trump is sooooo bad... how could any corruption in any party possibly be worse?"Although I admit the argument isn't void, I'm saying I don't find it persuasive.In other words: I fully agree and understand that Trump's a terrible president doing horrible things.
What I don't find persuasive is that the Democrats would be wonderful and not do horrible things. Because every Democratic party that's always been in office prior has done some "horrible things." Perhaps the things they do wouldn't be so transparent or easy to identify (since Trump is a lunatic, and the Democrats are at least sane).But this raises the next question: Must one accept sane-corruption in place of an obvious lunatic?
And the next issue on top of that: How much corruption is "allowed" in the Democratic party until one is unable to vote for them? Must everyone always vote Democratic no matter how much corruption gets into the party as long as they stay off Twitter?I'm not saying those lines are absolutely crossed and everyone must vote 3rd party.
I'm only saying that those lines are not as clear as you're hoping, and a 3rd party vote has just as much validity as a Democratic vote if one votes in an attempt to send a message along the lines of those reasons.

I understand that.The point of my reply to Rrhain was to indicate that his statement of "getting the exact opposite of your goals" is unacceptable was incorrect.
I understand that Rrhain (and you, for slightly different reasons) think voting 3rd party is unacceptable.My point of stating the goal (sending a message to the Democrats) isn't to say that you or Rrhain say that's the goal.
My point is to say that this is a possible goal, and if someone has this goal, then they succeeded 100%.If that's someone's goal, and that goal is met... then they did not get the exact opposite of their goal. They got exactly what they intended with their goal. And therefore, their reason for voting is acceptable.I am not saying that this is the only possible goal to have, but that it is a possible goal to have. And IF someone has this goal... then it was met.Do you see what I'm saying here?
Do you understand that in wanting to say this that it is irrelevant that I state what you or Rrhain or anyone else might think the goal of a 3rd party voter might be? I am seriously comparing the two.
I have been quite open about comparing the two since my first clarification.
All you've done is express personal disgust at the idea. You have yet to provide any actual substance against seriously comparing the two things. The fact that Clinton won the popular vote means nothing to the idea that someone can think the Democrats need to be sent a message about the candidates they put up. I'm pretty sure I've said this before and you're continuing to ignore it. But here's further clarification again:Winning the popular vote doesn't mean no one could possibly want to send your party a message about getting better candidates.
How could it possibly indicate such a thing?People are individual units.
Each with their own thoughts, ideas, dreams, lives...
Even if 1 person was against Hillary in the popular vote... they could easily want to send a message to the Democrats about getting better candidates. At this point, it wouldn't be a very loud message... but it would still be *a* message.
The message only get louder and stronger if more vote 3rd party.. even if the candidate wins the popular vote.This argument only makes sense if Hillary won the popular vote by 100%... which I'm pretty sure didn't happen. I understand that this is close to Rrhain's view.My point is to say that Rrhain doesn't get to say what "should" have been the goal of any voter. Let alone 3rd party voters.
Such a thing is up to any and every individual that votes.Anything less is... disgusting... to what fair voting is all about.I understand that the goal I'm professing for 3rd party voters may not be to the liking of Rrhain or you or many... but if someone deems it worthy... then that's all it takes in a fair voting system. And again, I agree with you that Trump is malevolent, vicious and vile.
I just don't agree with you that it's impossible for someone to think that the problems in the Democratic party could be worse if left unchecked.And, if someone does think such a thing... then I think their choice to vote 3rd party to send a message to the Democratic party is a perfectly valid and acceptable way to use a vote.I am, basically, defending the ability of people to vote the way they want.
You seem to be saying that everyone must vote the way Percy wants or else the system isn't right. I'm not saying I have a reason to personally vote 3rd party. I'm pretty sure I would have voted for Hillary... for all the reasons you state.
I'm saying I think it's possible that someone could.Your insistence that someone can't doesn't persuade me otherwise.
Perhaps if you gave reasons why Clinton is immune to scandal and corruption that would work?Perhaps you can't do that because you understand that Clinton (as a modern politician) is involved in at least some level of corruption?
Perhaps the people affected by that corruption are a small percentage of the population... some small percent that you don't deal with on a daily basis so you don't think it's a big deal. But, to them, it's their entire life and family and kids' future that's being ruined.
Perhaps the people affected by that corruption voted 3rd party in order to send a message to the Democrats.That's all I'm saying.
Anything else is either made up by you (or Rrhain).I'm saying that such a line of thought is reasonable and possible and rational.If you don't think so... I'm waiting on your proof that Clinton is immune to all aspects of corruption and scandal. What do you mean nonsense?
Of course it's exactly the case of LGBT vs. some-unnamed, un-organized group of people.Until you prove that Clinton (and the Democratic party) is immune to corruption or scandal or ruining anyone's life... you have to be open to the possibility that such things can exist.
If such things can exist, you can't be all that surprised if they don't vote for Hillary and the Democratic party.It's not really a difficult idea.
It's simply a not-very-popular one. It's not false.
It's quite true, and valid.A real threat (Trump and antics) vs a not-described threat due to corruption in the Democratic party.If you don't think corruption in Democratic party is worth voting 3rd party... tell me how it's impossible for corruption in the Democratic party to affect anyone's life.If it's possible... then why are you arguing that such people might want to vote 3rd party? Why would anyone vote for a party who's corruption is destroying their life?
If it isn't possible... then it should be easy for you to show such a thing.I'm willing to fully admit that those affected by Democratic corruption may be less in number than those affected by Trump's corruption.
What I'm not willing to admit is that those affected by Democratic corruption should vote Democratic because you don't like Trump's corruption.That just seems silly.Edited by Stile, : No reason given.

I beg to differ.I know how to settle this, let's see how the election turned out.
Oh, look... she lost.The facts are against you, Percy. Hillary was not good enough to win the election. The only support required to have this statement be valid is the fact that Hillary lost the election.You're arguing against factual history for some narrow-definition game that only you are playing. And I'm saying that this isn't true for all people. I'm saying it's quite possible, for some people, that this is exactly the election they should vote to send a message in. The message sent could be about pretty much any disagreement with the Democrats.
The message received may be this, or may not... I'm not one of the Democrats who received the message, so I can't say for sure. What I mean here is that if Hillary won, the next Democratic candidate (after Hillary) would be person X... because they would continue in their direction of "people like Hillary" who seem to win.But, now that Hillary lost, they will not choose person X, they will now choose person Y as their candidate (or, at least, heavily consider altering their course)... because "people like Hillary" lost. Almost.My point is that it is a valid position to hold if one so deems that Trump's unfitness for office should be a lower priority than fixing the future of the US.This fits in the argument, because (if it's true) then it's a perfectly valid reason to vote 3rd party.That's my argument... that there are perfectly valid reasons to vote 3rd party. In this election, likely in any and all elections. What?That isn't a rebuttal.
That's my argument.You've been rebutting me against that in every single post of yours.
Or, really, you've been claiming that I'm not saying this, and that I'm saying something else, and then insisting that I defend the position you've made up about me in your head.Every single post of mine has been clarifying that my only argument is:There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this pas election, even if it helped Trump win.What I've been doing is repeating myself that this is my only argument.
I've been repeating myself that all the side-issues you've brought up are irrelevant to this point, and not something I'm trying to say.Now you've moved on from that deeper down your rabbit hole. You used to insist that I'm saying something-I-constantly-deny-I'm-saying... Now you've moved into saying that the original point I'm trying to make is actually a rebuttal for something else... and it's not required??I understand that my original (and only) point is not a rebuttal for the imaginary positions you've created for me in your head.This is the only point I'm making:

quote:

---

There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election, even if it helped Trump win.

---

You've actually agreed with it 3 times now.Yet you continue to hammer on and on about how I'm not debating in good faith with you about a bunch of political issues you've brought up that have nothing to do with this point... that you agree with (?)... that is the only point I'm actually trying to make. I only bring up corruption because it helps me make my point.Again, my point is this:

quote:

---

There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election, even if it helped Trump win.

---

Corruption in politics can be valid reason why someone votes 3rd party even if it helped Trump win.I do not actually know much at all about corruption in the US Democratic party.
However, simply the fact that the US is a large country with a large population with a deep (enough) history is enough to know that corruption exists within it's largest political parties.Even in Canada we have corruption in our major political parties.
Money is misappropriated and deals are made behind the scenes all the time.
We recently spent billions on a power plant (and other related aspects)... then spent more billions on shutting down the same power plant (and other related aspects)... all part of corruption within a major political party.There will be families that were affected by such money-exchanges. Some of those families will be devastated. Their lives will be forever changed for the worse. Some will definitely vote 3rd party due to that corruption.I'm basically assuming that since such things happen in Canada, then they definitely also happen in the US.. probably on a larger scale.Such things are all the motivation that's required for:

quote:

---

There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election, even if it helped Trump win.

---

Look at this subtitle of our posts, Percy:"People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it"That's, basically, what got me started posting in this thread.
That this statement isn't absolutely true.I will admit that some people could have been tricked.
But this sense that "all 3rd party votes were duped" or "all 3rd party votes are invalid because they helped Trump win" or anything like that at all is silly... and that's all I'm arguing against.Perhaps I worded a few things in a non-optimal way (sorry, I'm only human).
Perhaps you've taken those non-optimal wordings to think I'm trying to say something else.
Then I've been attempting to clarify, and re-focus myself on my single, original point ever since:

quote:

---

There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election, even if it helped Trump win.

---

...and you seem to want to refuse that I'm saying what I want to say?
You want to insist that I'm actually saying something that you've interpreted incorrectly? (Perhaps due to my poor communication skills, perhaps due to your own poor communication skills).No.
Debate doesn't work like that.I get to say what I'm talking about.
I get to clarify what I mean.
I get correct errors on my communication, or errors on your reception of that communication.Again, this is why I entered this thread:

quote:

---

People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it

---

...the sentiment that "all 3rd party votes" are for some bogus reason.My point is:

quote:

---

There are valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
There were valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election, even if it helped Trump win.

---

If you want to say I'm saying something more... you're wrong.
If you want to say I'm missing "the bigger picture" then you're right... but I'm missing it completely on purpose because it's not why I entered the thread.Try again.

Maybe, maybe not.
But, I wouldn't try to argue that Sanders would have received those votes.Of course, this doesn't change the fact that "Clinton wasn't good enough to stand for her Democratic values and also appeal to enough of rural America to win the election." Or, to shorten that up a bit... that "Clinton wasn't good enough."(I fully understand that this shortened phrase can easily be mis-interpreted to imply things about Clinton that are not true... I only say it again to show how I meant it originally and that the issue is only that... a mis-interpretation based on poor communication from me and poor reception of communication from others.) I completely agree, even with personally preferring the second option.
The only point I was trying to make is that it "comes down to which you prefer."Which tells us that even 3rd party votes can be just as valid as Hillary votes, regardless of how much anyone may or may not despise the idea of helping Trump win.

Since there's only one part of this longwinded post that actually responds to what I'm trying to say, I'll only respond to that part: Thanks again, Percy, for agreeing with the only point I've been trying to make this entire time.
Pretty sure you've agreed with me 4 times now, so hopefully we're good.I'm sorry that I allowed myself to get pulled into tangents which, in itself, perhaps validated those tangents in your mind as being my actual arguments.