|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It was not the situation in Charlottesville of Unite the Right protestors mixing in to a larger group protesting statue removal. Sure, but it is safe to presume that some of the people there were not FUCKING NAZIS. It is wrong to assume that everyone there was a FUCKING NAZI. It is doubly wrong to think that everyone on the "wrong" side deserves to be punched. Those are the points I've been trying to make.
This is a long video, but just watch the first minute. I watched the whole thing a couple days ago. I remember thinking: "Wow, those are some shitty assholes." IIRC, I was surprised that they didn't care about color that much and were mostly just concerned with the Jews. But I've watched a few other videos on the subject so I may be misremembering. When I can again, if it matters, I'll re-watch it and better reply to the content of the video.
We're talking about Charlottesville and what happened there, not some scenario you're making up Excuse me: I didn't make up the 10+1 scenario, I responded to it.
If you have a group of white supremacists, white nationalists, Nazis, KKK and militia chanting, "The Jews will not replace us" and "Whose streets? Our streets!" and so forth, and you join them, guess what it means? You're one of them. Sure, but if you're not one of those and they join you, that does not make you one of them.
You're like Trump, trying to provide cover for groups with messages of hate, division and exclusion. Ha! That's so stupid I don't think you're even reading my posts. Don't troll me bro.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't care what you think as long as you're not advocating punching people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But I am not happy to see you try and pretend that the people happily and knowingly marching with Nazis - Well, I'm talking about people who are not "happily and knowingly marching with Nazis"...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Good, but reread your Message 1114 that I was replying to. Across several paragraphs it was about bad guys showing up to make good guys look bad. Right, and as I've explicitly said: that is a point of principle. I'm not going to get into the specifics of Charlottesville until we can establish the principle first. Your side is prejudging individuals on an unverified perception of being members of a group and that is wrong. If we can't agree on that first, then there isn't much I can say about Charlottesville that wouldn't just be repeating obvious truths - and I'd rather debate than circlejerk. The sentiment from your side is still that if I'm not talking about FUCKING NAZIS then I cannot be talking about anyone that protested the statue removal at Charlottesville - I can't agree to that. Yes, all of the white supremacists are stupid assholes that we should all oppose and tell to fuck off. I'm just not willing to assume that every single person who wanted to protest the removal of the statue was a white supremacists. And apparently I cannot be opposed to prejudice without being lumped in as supporting the bad guys. That's why I have to establish the principle first, otherwise y'all are gonna start calling me a FUCKING NAZI too. Which seems to be all a part of the trick - lump all of them together into one evil group and then throw anyone who doesn't immediately join your side into that group as well. That way, everyone is either with you or against you and then you can fight everyone who doesn't join your side - there are no innocent bystanders, there are no third parties, it is purely the good guys versus the bad guys Apparently, I can't even question that mentality without being accused of supporting the bad guys. No, that is dangerous and evil - maybe even more so than those stupid white supremacists. Considering this grouping, though, I have a question: What, exactly, is a "white nationalist"? Like, if there is a white guy, and he loves his country, does that make him a white nationalist? 'Cause that isn't a big deal, why would they be being lumped in as well?
You just agreed that Charlottesville wasn't a case of bad guys showing up to make good guys look bad, and now you're going back on yourself. I'm not going back on myself, I'm just talking about two different things. It's really not difficult
How you look to others isn't for you to say. If you believe the message of Charlottesville is that messages of hate and exclusion should be called out for what they are then be clear about it. What I see is a nod toward opposing Nazis, then a lot of argument about bad guys making good guys look bad. You *are* pretty much communicating the same message as Trump. If you don't want to look like him, don't join him. Well if that's how you want to play: you're coming off as being just as bigoted as antifa. You'd rather presume that everyone that you think might be in a group is definitely a bad person that we all should hate, and I'm not willing to be an asshole like that. I can't believe that it has to be said that prejudice is wrong. Also, I never said that the people that I am unwilling to assume are bad are actually good guys - I'm just not prejudging them at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What we are arguing is: 1. Is the cost of making the point worth it. How would you know except in hindsight?
2. Is it a good point to begin with. It is.
As Percy said earlier, it is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Because you know what the outcome was. Otherwise, that is a risk, yes. Whether or not the point is worth the risk is up to the individual, and they should decide how they cast their vote - given the information they have at the time. You shouldn't apply your hindsight to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
There was always a non-zero probability that voting for a 3rd party candidate would get Trump elected. Spending 5 seconds thinking about the situation would tell you that voting for Jill Stein was increasing Trump's chances of winning. Yes, as I said: there's risk. But still, whether or not the point is worth the risk is up to the individual, and they should decide how they cast their vote.
It isn't. Boy, that was easy. Yup, sharing your opinion is easy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
IOW, they knew the risk and they did it anyway. Sure, but there was no way that Trump could win, so they might as well send a message with their vote.
Instead of voting for a flawed Democrat they contributed to electing an incompetent Republican by voting for a candidate they really didn't want anyway. You contribute to an election by voting for a candidate. Voting for Candidate 3 does not contribute to the election of Candidate 1. It can have the effect of Candidate 2 not receiving enough votes to be elected, but I wouldn't call that contributing to Candidate 1 because they didn't vote for them. And you're making assumptions about what they want anyway - so that's beside the point. Saying it's 3rd party voters' fault for Trump being elected just looks like blame-shifting to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
George HW Bush would disagree. Good, he's a moron. So I must be right. Was he right about anything? And you're agreeing with Bush, so good job.
I highly doubt that a significant portion of Bernie supporters would truly prefer Trump over Hillary, but I could be wrong. Are you trying to imply that only Bernie supporters voted 3rd party? Third party voters that I know voted that way because they were anti-Hillary and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Trump. But anything other than Hillary - so we're good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
What we are arguing is:1. Is the cost of making the point worth it. Your response doesn't make sense - seems you've missed the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think you've misread Taq's comment. When Taq said that Bush disagrees with you it wasn't intended to be taking literally. I didn't really know what he meant - but it seemed smartassish and I returned in kind.
It was a reference to Nader taking enough votes from Gore to lose him Florida, precisely what you said could not happen (you said, "Voting for Candidate 3 [Nader] does not contribute to the election of Candidate 1 [Bush]."). It could have the result of Candidate 1 winning, but your vote is contributed to Candidate 3. Maybe we're just splitting hairs tho. Am I reading too literally again? I get it: in hindsight you can say that the vote for #3 ended up helping #1 win, but you don't know that when you're voting. In this election in particular, as I remember it; there was no way Trump could win and Hillary was a shoe-in. So, this seems like the best time for a Democrat to vote 3rd party to send a message. Sure, there's risk in that, and y'all really hate Trump - so I get why you're looking for blame and, in hindsight, feel like that blame goes to the 3rd party voters. But when you're voting you don't have that hindsight. And if the message you want to send is important enough to you, then not strategically voting for someone that you do not want would have been a good choice for this election given the information you had at the time of the vote. That is: Hillary is a shoe-in and Trump cant win. So this was a good time to tell the Dems that their candidate sucks. That Trump did end up winning may have made a lot of 3rd party voters regret their decision, but the blame for the outcome does not lay on them. The blame lays on the people who voted for Trump, and also the Hillary campaign for not appealing broadly enough to win the electoral votes while claiming victory too early. People who didn't want Trump, and didn't want Hillary, are not to blame for voting honestly and according to their conscience. The only way that you can blame their strategy is in hindsight. And they didn't have that when they voted.
You must know some very unusual third party voters. Very few Stein or Sanders supporters would have preferred Trump to Hillary. Were voting for Stein or Sanders not possible for some reason, then some of those voters would have voted for Clinton, some wouldn't have voted (but many under the misconception that Clinton's lead in the polls made her winning a safe bet), and some very tiny minority would have voted for Trump. There were 3 times as many Johnson voters as there were Stein voters (4.5 to 1.5 million). How many of them do you think would vote for a Democrat but not Hillary? Did he get many votes from the key areas in question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, the protest vote people were also to blame. In hindsight...
Permit me to go out on a limb and invoke godwin's law to make my point bleedingly obvious. No.
Do you not see the obvious fallacy in protest voting? I don't. A realistic example might help tho.
So, you people would rather let someone like Trump ruin the country? Over Hillary ruining the country? Sure, its whatever - it's not actually going to get ruined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Clinton won the popular vote and only lost the election because of the vagaries of the electoral college in a few closely contested precincts. Pardon my ignorance: Which precincts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania Thanks! So:
These three states were close races and if they had gone to Hillary instead of Trump then she would've won. She would've been at 273 while he was at 258. The claim is:
quote: Here's elections results by county in those states:
They look pretty damned red to me... Here's the whole country:
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? I honestly am not really sure. Here's the state I live in:
That's a blue state, by the way ಠ_ಠ It kinda sucks because Chicago takes charge and makes stupid rules for the rest of us. I think I get why the electoral college is there. Here it is by state:
Let's also look at the light blue states, since you mentioned:
But the margin of Trump's victory for each of these states was:
But the margin of Hillary's victory for each of these states was:
Your scenario requires all three states going to Hillary, which would require changing 77,744 votes. There's smaller margin charges than that on the other side that would allow for Trump to still win even if your three states switched. I was gonna say more, but I'm tired. Goodnight. Edited by New Cat's Eye, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's because of population density. Right, that's why I asked:
quote: I guess I should say a point instead of the point of it, but anyways...
Most of the state is rural, something that is true of most states. This means that most of the counties are rural, and that most of the area of the map of the state is rural. Urban areas will represent a very tiny proportion of the total area of the map. Right, and it makes sense to me that the smaller urban areas shouldn't have total control over the larger rural areas just because they're densely populated. I was looking through the wiki page on the electoral college and I saw this:
quote: This was insteresting too:
quote: .
Your scenario requires all three states going to Hillary, which would require changing 77,744 votes. There's smaller margin charges than that on the other side that would allow for Trump to still win even if your three states switched. This stuff has already been broken down for us, I think I was getting towards this point: saying that Hillary "only lost the election because of the vagaries of the electoral college" is a little off, as that's how it works by design. Too, if you're considering how counties could be flip-flopped to change the results then looking at it one-sidedly doesn't really paint an accurate picture. Sure, a few precincts changed in the right way could have changed the result, but it goes the same both ways - change a few others and the result is the same. It was a very close race but it wasn't, like, an electoral college anomaly or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I remember when I first read Percy saying that Hillary was not evil (she is) and I thought: "Time for some dead baby pics to show up!"
You did not disappoint. Carry on.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024