Summations Only

I didn't really know what he meant - but it seemed smartassish and I returned in kind. 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. 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?

Rrhain treated me as an idiot and stated a falsehood in doing so,
doing so knowingly just makes it worse. Was pointing out that obvious falsehood wrong? In who's book? To me that is part of what I meant by upping one's game. I agree and have done so with my posting history, but in my words, not yours. Also, some worries about "American culture" such as blatant racism is negative and it is incumbent on anyone who cares to change those parts. As to the rest, well, that is what I'm doing instead of desperately trying to score brownie points against me by impugning my person.By the way I actually admire Rrhain and I don't know what I did to make him feel I am somehow an enemy or a dolt. But that seems to be what he wants to do and I obviously disagree.

Join the club. 'Nuf said. Yeah, I know what you mean. I admire Rrhain too right up until he gets a bee up his ass about something I said. It comes out of the blue with no seeming rhyme or reason and no way to anticipate it. He's not alone in this - there are several people here who seem fine most of the time, but every once in a while "go postal" in a discussion board sense. There used to be someone here named Crashfrog who when someone pissed him off would follow them from thread to thread trying to be as annoying and obnoxious as possible while still sticking to the topic.When faced with one of these situations the central question becomes one of how to respond. Over the years I've tried a number of strategies, and only one strategy has worked, in my mind the worst one. Polite objections, perhaps because they seem wimpy and makes them think they're "winning", just makes them more aggressive. Addressing their points in a neutral manner and ignoring all the derogatory comments seems to have the same effect. Ceasing to reply to their messages I've found to be effective from time to time, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of removing you from a conversation you were interested in. Overtly objecting to the offensive behavior usually brings responses that the behavior isn't offensive at all and that someone is being too sensitive.The only strategy I've found that works is to give as good as you get while still paying close attention to the topic. I hate the "give as good as you get" part of this strategy, it feels Trumpian and makes me feel like less of a good person, but in its defense there was a tweet example just yesterday from someone I greatly respect, Republican Bob Corker from Tennessee. Trump tweeted:

quote:

---

Senator Bob Corker "begged" me to endorse him for re-election in Tennessee. I said "NO" and he dropped out (said he could not win without my endorsement). He also wanted to be Secretary of State, I said "NO THANKS." He is also largely responsible for the horrendous Iran Deal! Hence, I would fully expect Corker to be a negative voice and stand in the way of our great agenda. Didn't have the guts to run!

---

Most of Trump's tweet is either highly misleading or simply a lie, but I'll skip those details. Corker responded:

quote:

---

It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.

---

Sometimes there's nothing you can do but respond in kind. Yeah, I agree, but it feels like there's a fine line between feeling like your way of life is threatened versus plain old red-blooded American racism.--Percy

No, not blame, understanding, and I think you've captured the thinking of 3rd party voters pretty well. Many 3rd party voters thought that Clinton had a substantial enough lead, if not in their states at least in enough other states, that their 3rd party vote was merely a way to register their feelings and not something that could have any real effect. How wrong they were.I voted in a state where the margin between Trump and Clinton was super thin, so of course I couldn't risk voting 3rd party, but even had I lived in California I would not have voted 3rd party because I believed a Trump presidency would be so disastrous in magnitude (a judgment that is borne out daily) that it wasn't worth the very, very tiny risk.Let me emphasize that my refusal to consider voting 3rd party had solely to do with Trump. He is the first presidential candidate I believed would be calamitous. So when you go on to say: This isn't a blame game, but it's safe to say that most who didn't want Trump or Clinton felt very differently about the two candidates. Most probably viewed Trump with abhorrence, a president who would be a buffoon and a national embarrassment, and most probably viewed Clinton as someone who, although they preferred someone else, would still bring credit to the office. Obviously people who voted 3rd party didn't understand the risks they were taking. The foresight was pretty much crystal clear that Trump would be a disaster of a president. 3rd party voters didn't have to wait for hindsight to know that. When the downside risk is catastrophe, you don't take chances.--Percy

No, the protest vote people were also to blame.Permit me to go out on a limb and invoke godwin's law to make my point bleedingly obvious.The nazis were obviously evil. But the british had laws against homosexuality. And the Americans had that segregation thing. So, in an act of protest, I'll support the side that has absolutely no chance of winning, mainly the penguins of Antarctica.Do you not see the obvious fallacy in protest voting?Look, I get it. A lot of people don't like Clinton. I happen to love her, but I get that years of the right caricaturizing her has taken its toll. So, you people would rather let someone like Trump ruin the country?

So I've been reading this ongoing issue with the NFL players choosing to kneel during the recitation of the pledge of allegiance. NPR showed VP Pence leaving a football game and that the request (command?) to do so came from Trump. Personally, I think that kneeling for a cause is one of the very displays of the freedom which we enjoy. Suggesting that everyone has to stand seems more authoritarian than I like. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

In hindsight... No. I don't. A realistic example might help tho. Over Hillary ruining the country? Sure, its whatever - it's not actually going to get ruined.

"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.

But it wasn't a protest vote. So you admit a losing argument. Interesting.Let me go out on a limb and compare all the democrats who feel the need to insult people who didn't "fall in line" and vote for their candidate to sheep herders and thinking people are sheep to be herded. That isn't freedom.The whole point of a free election is to be able to vote for the person of your choice, and if you throw that away, then what do you have left? It ain't democracy.People who blame Jill Stein are trying to find an excuse for losing, rather than trying to fix the problems, and that only leads to having the same problems in the next election.The problems revolve around issues and the way they are presented to people, not just in glossy ads but in actions. There were pictures of Bernie on the lines marching for $15/hr minimum wage. Clinton wanted $12/hr in the first debate. Democrats don't seem to have any idea how big this issue is to working people of all political persuasion, or they just don't care. You have to be seen out in front on the issues not dragged along by others. Leaders lead.The problems also revolve around candidates being beholden to rich donors rather than to voters. Bernie proved there is an alternative, and democrats should listen, because people don't want corporate owned candidates on either side. They don't want Wall Street running the country.People voted for Trump because they had their homes and life savings taken away by the bank crash, and have had to sit by and watch everyone else get bailed out, and the democrats ignored the issue.Don't blame Jill Stein, blame the democrats, the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz and Clinton for waging a losing myopic self-centered campaign.Don't blame people for voting their conscience, rather than look at why the campaign failed. Blaming others (and there is quite a list, not just Jill Stein voters) for you loss while failing to look in the mirror is another failure in the making. It certainly does not unite the party.You can't fix a problem until you define what the problem is and then look into how to change that.Democrats have yet to take that step, and so the campaigns for 2018 will be insipid, shortsighted and prone to failure.Enjoy

There's been a few messages chain responding to Taq's message. None seem to have noticed the "H" before the "W".IIRC, the Ross Perot third party candidacy may have tilted things from George the Greater to Bill the Bubba (George HW Bush to Bill Clinton).Moose

Four ways Bob Corker skewered Donald TrumpCertainly that's true, he was doing it in the campaign, and before If this is what Trump is like when he's "contained" imagine how bad it would be if he was just allowed to have his own way all the time.

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.

I'm just disappointed that the whole stadium didn't yell, "And stay out!"

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.