Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 1237 of 4573 (821133)
10-02-2017 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1231 by Stile
10-02-2017 3:34 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile writes:
I would bet a lunch tab that if half the people who voted for third party candidates in those precincts had instead voted for Hillary that she would have won.
Sure.
And if more voted for Trump he would have won by more.
Well, no, not in any way. This isn't true whether you're talking about people votes or electoral college votes. I don't know if you're sidestepping the point on purpose or by accident, but fundamental to what Taq is saying is that the outcome was filtered through the electoral college. Trump won by more electoral college votes, not more people votes. Many more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. If more people had voted for Trump then all that would have happened is that he would have lost the popular vote by less. The additional Trump votes would be very unlikely to have affected the electoral college.
And now the Democrats get a message that Hillary (and any other "not good enough" candidate they personally prefer) won't cut it.
The Democrats get a message that they need to listen to their voters.
Isn't that the point of voting?
The Democrats do have a serious problem, but you're again missing the key point, though a different one this time.
The point to be taken away from our current predicament isn't that Clinton wasn't good enough - she most certainly was, especially given the fiasco we've been witness to over the past seven months. The point is that we have a system that produced the worst president in the history of presidents, and who, not incidentally, is a loathsome human being.
"Liberals" who stuck their nose in the air and voted for a third party candidate are like a snotty 10 year old first baseman who starts arguing with the umpire about a call while kids are still rounding the bases and scoring. When the first baseman sees what has happened, he can only blame the umpire again. That's how I view the "Feel the Bern, but not the Blame" crowd.
And what if they didn't stick their nose in the air?
What if they simply didn't like Hillary and liked someone else like Jill or Bernie better?
This time you're sort of orthogonal to the key point. In this case Taq's point was a "cut off your nose to spite your face" kind of point. If there were people who made a statement by not voting it could only be because they didn't grasp the scale of the catastrophe were Trump elected.
Then, if they did vote for Hillary... and Hillary won... wouldn't that be incredibly stupid? Wouldn't they then have helped put someone in office they didn't want there,...
To the extent that this happened, how does that make any sense since by not voting for Clinton they made possible the election of Trump? However much anyone might have preferred Stein or Sanders to Clinton, Trump would not have been their second, third or even fourth choice. He would have been more like their googolplex choice.
That is a terrible use of a vote.
It's short-sighted...
Given that it's a possibility that could have kept Trump out of office, it's a wonderful use of a vote.
And coming at your "short-sighted" comment from a different angle, this is far too simplistic a view, ignoring the known drawbacks of popular elections. That's not to say it's a bad system, it's not, but it does have drawbacks. One of the more obvious drawbacks is apropos to your comments, that when there are more than two candidates (or in the main election more than two parties), the additional candidates can act as spoilers that cause outcomes opposed by the majority of the voters.
Gee, just like with Trump.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1231 by Stile, posted 10-02-2017 3:34 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1246 by Stile, posted 10-03-2017 11:15 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1267 of 4573 (821232)
10-04-2017 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1246 by Stile
10-03-2017 11:15 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile writes:
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
And if more voted for Trump he would have won by more.
Well, no, not in any way.
Of course in "a way." Perhaps just not the way you're thinking, though.
...
And if the additional "more" Trump votes did affect the electoral college? Then Trump would have won by more, no?
You seem to have lost the original context, that the election outcome hinged on a small number of votes in key regions, so if you think Trump winning by larger margins in those districts would have increased his electoral college votes then your thinking is seriously out of wack.
I didn't miss that point.
You not only missed that point, you've now missed it twice. The original point was that a few shifts in voting would have led to Clinton's victory, and responding that the message of the election is that Hillary wasn't good enough is to precisely miss the point. Clinton was plenty good enough. She got tons more votes than Trump, just distributed in an unfortunate way given how the electoral college is structured.
My point is saying something like "If you didn't vote for Hillary, then you helped Trump win!" is childish, immature, and short-sighted.
Those adjectives apply better to anyone thinking this an intelligent point.
For one, Trump did win. Everyone (whether they voted or not) "helped Trump win." They either voted with him, or they didn't group together enough to vote against him.
Well, now you're just being absurd. By your logic the converse, "Everyone helped Clinton lose," is also true, and you're left with a useless tautology.
The fact that Hillary have the majority of votes against him (but not enough to beat him) is an indication that Hillary was a poor choice to go against him...
You're logic is still off, and you're repeating your zany claim that Clinton's loss means she wasn't good enough. Obviously she was far more than good enough, and certainly better than Trump - even many people who voted for Trump acknowledge this now. Clinton beat Trump by the largest margin of a loser in the history of the nation, and it isn't even close.
The lesson of the election isn't that Clinton wasn't good enough but that the Democrats in general have a serious problem.
...not that more should have voted for Hillary because that would have beaten Trump. If more voted for Jill or Bernie or your second cousin... they all would have beaten Trump.
Another tautology. Yes, we know, whoever gets enough votes in the right places wins the electoral college. This is a self-evident truth, not an argument.
It's quite possible to not vote Hillary, help Trump win, and do it for a good, valid reason that shouldn't be looked down upon.
A valid reason for voting for Trump? What would that be? Because one is Republican? Because one identifies with racist, misogynistic, freedom-hating, climate-destroying, vindictive liars? Because one is so gullible one can be talked into voting against one's own best interests? It's a safe bet that most Trump supporters really believe the tax cuts aren't going to benefit the rich far more than any other group, just like they believed the health bill wasn't going to take their health insurance away.
I understand what Taq's message was. I think it's a childish, shortsighted, limited view of the possible reasons why someone might not have voted for Hillary and voted for someone else who wasn't Trump.
It's lumping all non-Hillary votes into one barrel to make things easy-to-digest... which is just wrong.
No, you evidently *don't* know "what Taq's message was." Reread what Taq actually said. He was drawing an analogy to those who didn't vote because they preferred Sanders. He definitely was not "lumping all non-Hillary votes into one barrel."
Blaming the voters for the outcome of the vote is like blaming the waiter for your food not being cooked right.
Sure, the waiter could go and cook the food... but he's not supposed to do that, the cook is responsible for that.
There you are, back to the "no one can be blamed but Clinton and no other possibilities can be considered" game. You keep ignoring the key fact that Clinton got more popular votes by far (5 times more) than any other loser in the history of the country. The lesson from that fact isn't that Clinton wasn't good enough.
Could the Democrats have run a better candidate? I suppose it's possible, though it's an argument that would never be settled. But could the Republicans have run a better candidate? Undeniably, but populist appeals combined with lack of education (Trump is strongest in the states with the least educated populations) can lead to nonsensical results.
If Hillary as an option wasn't able to get enough votes to beat Trump... that's not the voter's fault (although it's possible they could have fixed it). It's the people-who-put-Hillary-up-as-the-competition's fault. They're the one your angst should be let out on.
And...we're back to the "Clinton wasn't good enough" argument. Your argument has already been falsified multiple times. Clinton got far more votes than Trump, and it was only the unpredictable vagaries of the electoral college that cost her the election.
One way to let angst out on those people is to vote for whoever-you-think-is-best to show them how wrong they were putting Hillary up.
You're a broken record.
All I'm saying is to lay your blame where it deserves to be laid... at the feet of those who put Hillary up as the "other option." Obviously it wasn't good enough.
Repeating wrong statements doesn't make them any less wrong.
To the extent that this happened, how does that make any sense since by not voting for Clinton they made possible the election of Trump?
It doesn't.
If it doesn't make any sense, why did you say it?
What I'm saying is that this can be seen as a secondary priority.
If your argument is that this issue is a secondary priority, why is this the first message in which you've used the phrase secondary priority?
Just because "fixing those who choose candidates for the democrats" isn't your highest priority... doesn't mean it's objectively a worse priority.
Well now you're just changing horses - that isn't what you were arguing. Naturally any political party works hard to select its strongest candidate, but the Democrats *did* field a very strong candidate. It's evidently necessary to repeat one more time that Clinton trounced Trump. Far more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. It's where those votes happened that is the issue, and for some reason you can't see that.
Given that it's a possibility that could have kept Trump out of office, it's a wonderful use of a vote.
Your personal judgment is worth nothing more (or less) than anyone else's.
Except that I wasn't given a personal opinion shared by no one else. I was voicing an opinion shared by literally millions.
One of the more obvious drawbacks is apropos to your comments, that when there are more than two candidates (or in the main election more than two parties), the additional candidates can act as spoilers that cause outcomes opposed by the majority of the voters.
Of course.
Which is exactly why not-voting for Hillary can be so powerful. Which it was. I'm sure the Democrats-who-choose-their-candidates will take this latest result into their thinking when they pick a candidate for next election, no?
That would be like fighting the last war. The next election isn't going to come down to that same handful of precincts, and picking a candidate because they can win those precincts would be a serious mistake. Both parties will field the strongest candidates they can, and then they'll strategize to get the most votes in the right places.
All you seem to be saying is: "It is my personal, subjective, highest priority that Trump should not be in office! And everyone else should have this as their personal, subjective, highest priority too!!"
I'm not sure what my "personal, subjective highest priorities" actually are, but obviously Trump has already proven many times over that he isn't fit for office and that he's taking the country down a path that can only lead to bad outcomes.
I don't see why doing what you can to send a message about fixing deep-rooted issues with the Democratic party and a 2-party system in general is such a terrible alternative.
Do it all you like. I agree with the former and the latter has extremely serious deleterious side-effects.
I understand it's not your priority (or Taq's.) But why can't looking to the future for long-term benefits be someone else's priority?
Do what you like, knock yourself out. But if you're going to argue that Clinton lost the election because she "wasn't good enough" then the discrepancy this claim has with the facts will naturally bring corrective responses.
My reasons for voting for Clinton are very similar to what others have already said, that she was the better of two candidates I didn't like, but it wasn't a close comparison in my mind. In fact, Trump is about the worst candidate one could imagine, as he has proved.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1246 by Stile, posted 10-03-2017 11:15 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1268 by Stile, posted 10-04-2017 10:48 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1269 of 4573 (821250)
10-04-2017 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1268 by Stile
10-04-2017 10:48 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile writes:
But that's not what I'm thinking, and that wasn't the original context anyway.
Well, as I said when this exchange began, you're missing the point, and that the election outcome hinged on a small number of votes in key regions *was* fundamental to the original context, so you're just going to have to deal with it.
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.
The way I've got you is that you're not making any sense.
Without that... then it's quite possible that Trump could have won by more if "more people voted for him."
You are again jumping outside the original context.
I never narrowly focused anything on the general election, or non-electoral-college-votes... only you are doing that.
Well now you're just making things up, and to say that you "never narrowly focused on anything in the general election, or non-electoral-college-votes" (actually, not even sure what you mean here since it's not a decipherable reference to anything anyone is saying) is to just concede that you're refusing to address Taq's comments in the context he made them.
I jumped in at your reply to Taq's Message 1227 where I noted that you were not responding to his points, nor in the context of his comments, and then in subsequent posts you've become more determined to ignore that context. Like now.
The original point was that a few shifts in voting would have led to Clinton's victory, and responding that the message of the election is that Hillary wasn't good enough is to precisely miss the point. Clinton was plenty good enough. She got tons more votes than Trump, just distributed in an unfortunate way given how the electoral college is structured.
No.
Yes.
This is some point you've created that you're clinging to.
To me, this is totally irrelevant and entirely useless information.
Again, the point is fundamental to what Taq was saying. I guess you think you can make stronger arguments if you just ignore what people actually mean, but the actual result is nonsense.
The original point (the only point) I've ever brought up...
I think I see the reason for our differences here. You seem to think that your "original points" are the only ones that count, and that your free to reinterpret points introduced by other people.
...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.
Of course there's more going on here, but that doesn't make the fact disappear that the way some people voted (or didn't vote) caused a result counter to their own best interests.
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."
Yes, I know you said that, and it's as wrong-headed now as it was before. If more people had voted for Trump in those few districts he would not have won more electoral votes. We all understand your mind-numbingly obvious point that if you instead consider the entire country that more votes for Trump could have led to more electoral college votes, but it ignores the context of the discussion. You know what that context is, you just for some strange reason refuse to consider it.
Any additional narrow focusing on that point is all your own doing, and you're own clinging to totally irrelevant facts anyway.
Now you're making rules about what people are allowed to focus on? How well do you think that will work?
It is *not* an irrelevant fact that Trump won because of very narrow margins in a small number of districts, nor that Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin. It is therefore wrong to conclude that Clinton's loss means she wasn't good enough.
As I said before, the Democrats do have serious problems. They don't control either the executive or legislative branches of the Federal government, and they control many fewer governorships. But if there's a pattern and a lesson in this it's that Trump won by winning more electoral votes in states with the least educated populaces. The lesson isn't that Clinton wasn't good enough but something else. I'm not sure what that something else is. Trump supporters are a lot like fundamentalists: "Trump said it, I believe it, that settles it."
By your logic the converse, "Everyone helped Clinton lose," is also true, and you're left with a useless tautology.
Exactly.
My entire point is that saying "you helped Trump win!" is useless to say.
It's entirely obvious, and entirely irrelevant.
You seem to be confused here. It's your caricature of an argument that's a tautology. No one else is arguing in this way. And calling it irrelevant is very strange. There are many adjectives I could apply to the election outcome, like repugnance and anguish and so forth, but irrelevant is not one I would ever consider.
Of course anyone voting 3rd party helped Trump win.
The answer to this is... who cares?
Obviously a great many people care, including the ones discussing this with you now. Or if by "who cares" you're actually saying something more like, "What does it matter," the answer is obvious since it's what got Trump elected.
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?
You continue to repeat this without any valid response to the counterarguments that have been offered several times. We understand you think the message to the Democrats should be that they should pick better candidates, but that's the exact wrong message because Clinton proved she was an excellent candidate, for all the reasons you've been trying to ignore.
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.
If there's a point in there then you had better try again, because it reads like nonsense.
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 think I could agree that your logic is impenetrable, with the result that not much of your argument makes any sense. And you seem to have forgotten that your position is that Clinton's loss means the Democrats didn't pick a good enough candidate. They picked the best candidate they had.
Take the analogy of a sports team, say the New England Patriots. You put Tom Brady out there as quarterback and you lose the game. Does that mean Tom Brady is not the best quarterback on the roster? What kind of stupid logic would that be? Well, it would be fairly similar to the logic you're using now.
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.
Yes, I meant to say "helped Trump win" instead of "voted for Trump".
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.
Still wrong for all the same reasons. The Democrats have problems for other reasons. They used to be known as the party of the people, but they have changed (and not just perceptually) to become the party of the educated and culturally elite. The common people don't identify with the Democrats anymore. That's why they lost, not because Clinton wasn't the strongest candidate they could have offered.
There you are, back to the "no one can be blamed but Clinton and no other possibilities can be considered" game. You keep ignoring the key fact that Clinton got more popular votes by far (5 times more) than any other loser in the history of the country. The lesson from that fact isn't that Clinton wasn't good enough.
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.
No, they're not irrelevant to your point, which is wrongheaded anyway, and ignoring them by calling them irrelevant is no way to promote an argument.
3rd party votes can be reasonable and "good" even if they help Trump win.
We'll never agree on this. Anything that helped Trump win is bad. Trump proves just how bad every single day, sometimes every single hour. It isn't possible to focus enough attention on any single misdeed because he piles them on too fast.
Saying something like "If you didn't vote for Hillary, you helped Trump win!" is immature and shortsighted.
Declaring the same opinion over and over again lends it no more credence than it ever had, which is none.
Because it's quite possible to want to vote 3rd party regardless of helping Trump win or not.
Sure, it's possible. But it's far more likely that polls showing Clinton with a considerable lead convinced many that it was safe to make a protest vote or no vote. And they were wrong, because it led to their worst nightmare.
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.
I know exactly what you're trying to say, it's wrong, I've explained why it's wrong, you've ignored why it's wrong by calling it irrelevant and moving on without further comment, and I *do* care who is wrong.
So I have to do my best, and adjust and rephrase things based on the feedback I get.
You're most significant reaction to feedback seems to be to call it "irrelevant".
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
Your personal judgment is worth nothing more (or less) than anyone else's.
Except that I wasn't given a personal opinion shared by no one else. I was voicing an opinion shared by literally millions.
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.
Boy, way to miss a point, something you do a lot. Again, I wasn't giving my personal judgment. I was voicing an opinion shared by millions because it has strong rational and evidential support. That opinion is that any vote keeping Trump out of office would have been a wonderful use of a vote. Your replies have been to say things that are, to use your favorite word, irrelevant.
Obviously, Hillary wasn't a strong enough candidate to get into office.
Debunked too many times to count.
Do you think the Democrats don't understand the voting process and the electoral college?
We're playing the "ask rhetorical questions" game now?
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.
You keep saying the same thing in different ways, and it's still wrong. Clinton was the strongest candidate the Democrats had, and the lesson of her loss is not that there was some stronger candidate out there somewhere.
They very well may have tried to do that. But whatever they did, obviously, wasn't "good enough."
Well now you've finally said something I can agree with. Obviously what the Democrats have been doing hasn't been "good enough", but in the 2016 election they most certainly did put their strongest candidate on the ballot.
If people misunderstand what I'm trying to convey, I can clarify and re-phrase until they do.
Could I suggest that calling people's arguments "irrelevant" over and over is not exactly consistent with this declaration of willingness to "clarify and re-phrase".
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.
Yes, I see that happening now.
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.
Well, since you're repeating this yet again I'll rebut it yet again. Yes, most certainly there can be "valid, reasonable support" for voting 3rd party, but no one's arguing that isn't so. The actual argument being made is that many who thought Hillary a sure thing voted 3rd party or did not vote at all, much to the regret of us all.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1268 by Stile, posted 10-04-2017 10:48 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1271 by Stile, posted 10-04-2017 2:30 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1273 of 4573 (821273)
10-04-2017 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1271 by Stile
10-04-2017 2:30 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Percy writes:
Now, do you have anything to say to me about the point I'm actually trying to make?
I've responded to your point multiple times, including in the very message you're replying to. Making your point seems to be of much less interest to you than being purposefully confusing, which I get to later when you mention your special definitions for certain words.
Or do you only want to talk about some point that only you want to talk about?
Since I've responded to all your points, not only their substance but also describing why they don't fit the context of what Taq said when I joined this subdiscussion, obviously you are complaining just to complain.
I fully understand that the point I'm talking about is not the only point in existence.
So you say, but not so you act.
It's not even the only point Taq references.
It may not even be a point Taq attempted to reference.
Are you nuts? Taq comes right out and says it in Message 1227:
Taq in Message 1227 writes:
When you boil it down, the election was won/lost on just a handful of votes per precinct in a few states (PA, MI). I would bet a lunch tab that if half the people who voted for third party candidates in those precincts had instead voted for Hillary that she would have won.
You don't want to be the kind of guy that says whatever's expedient for the paragraph he happens to be responding to at just that moment, pretending that the rest of the history and context of the discussion never happened and depending upon the fact that most people don't go back and check what was actually said.
But it's the point I understood from Taq's posts after a fair and reasonable reading.
Well, there's what Taq actually said, staring you in the face just a few lines above. Does it really look to you like he's not talking about (quoting my words now that you're responding to so you can compare them directly), "a small number of votes in key regions." Did I not capture Taq's meaning fairly precisely? Are you not engaging in a kind of Orwellian duckspeak?
It's the only thing I'm attempting to talk about.
You said something like this before, and I'm beginning to believe that you really do think only your own points are important and worth addressing. You're certainly not talking about what Taq said, which to repeat once again is where I joined the discussion, the reason being that I thought you were missing his point. Now it seems that you either don't understand Taq's point or misinterpreted Taq's point or it's just too many posts ago for you to remember Taq's point.
If you want to talk to me, you'll talk about my point.
Oh my goodness, more rules. Get over yourself.
I responded to your reply to Taq's Message 1227, I had a specific point, plus I addressed all your other points. You, on the other hand, you've called Taq's point irrelevant and childish and immature and not about your point, meaning I guess that you don't have to talk about it anymore after your initial response.
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.
Well, there's one good example of an unprincipled way to address an argument, just declare you won't talk about it and call it a fiction. You're beginning to sound like Faith.
A 3rd party vote can be made validly, and with reasonable justification regardless of the fact that it helped Trump win.
This is a repeat of an argument you've made several times, and I've already answered it. The answer was that no one is denying this is true.
Saying "voting for a 3rd party only helped Trump win!" is wrong. It didn't only do that, it can do other things.
Again, no one is disputing this.
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.
Well now you've completely lost me. I never said anything like this, and Taq didn't say anything like this in his Message 1227. What I did say is that 3rd parties can play a spoiler role that can result in outcomes opposed by the majority. Is that what you were thinking of? If that was it then surely that's just plain obvious and not something anyone could reasonably object to. And if that wasn't it then you're going to have to clue me in.
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.
It appears to me that Taq did understand your point, and I certainly understand your point, and we don't have any "other interpretations" of your point. Where you went wrong was to go on to suggest that Clinton's loss was tantamount to her being an inadequate candidate, and when that was countered you started calling the arguments names like the ones I mentioned before: irrelevant, childish and immature. Great rebuttals by the way, Trumpian one might say.
I am extremely determined to ignore any and all contexts that are not relevant to the point I'm making (see above).
Geez, shades of Faith again. Are you going to hold your breath, too?
That's only efficient and practical.
Other adjectives also apply, such as selfish, egotistical, arrogant, self-centered, autocratic, etc.
If you have an issue with that... it's more to do with yourself than with me.
It's not just me that has an issue with your last few sentences, it's everyone who should have an issue with them, including you. Make a note to yourself to come back in month and read what you just wrote and see how it sounds to you. I'm betting not so good.
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.
That's a very interesting rant. Does it not seem to you that when it comes to reality you don't get to decide what's irrelevant? Does it not also seem to you that carrying on online discussions that don't spiral out of control requires a modicum of give-and-take rather than declarations of take it or leave it?
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
Because it's quite possible to want to vote 3rd party regardless of helping Trump win or not.
Sure, it's possible. But it's far more likely that polls showing Clinton with a considerable lead convinced many that it was safe to make a protest vote or no vote. And they were wrong, because it led to their worst nightmare.
Excellent. You entirely agree with me again.
Say what? Unless you're being Talmudic in your interpretations, I only repeated in my own words what Taq basically said. And now you agree with it? It's no longer immature, shortsighted and irrelevant? There must be some mighty fine distinctions of interpretation going on on your side that you're not telling us about.
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?
And...we're back to nonsense sentences again.
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.
Really? Never said anything to the contrary, huh? Endorsed statements like this, huh? You never said, "Saying something like 'If you didn't vote for Hillary, you helped Trump win!' is immature and shortsighted." (see your Message 1268 for one)
Saying that Clinton wasn't good enough (as a fact.. because she lost) doesn't necessarily imply that there was a stronger available candidate.
Hey, I'm just trying to fill in the blanks left behind by someone who's already declaring he's only talking about his own points while being glib and incredibly brief in explanation. Just saying Clinton wasn't "good enough" because she lost is to redefine "not good enough." Losing an election is not synonymous with "not good enough." She's better than Trump (not saying much since almost anyone could be better than Trump - heck, the bust of Ben Franklin in the Oval Office would be better than Trump just by not doing anything), she was the best Democratic candidate, so I think it's that the term "not good enough" is just not the right term.
Could I suggest that calling people's arguments "irrelevant" over and over is not exactly consistent with this declaration of willingness to "clarify and re-phrase".
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.
Well now you're dropping into Humpty Dumpty mode, declaring your words to mean precisely what you choose them to mean. Losing an election means "not good enough, "irrelevant" means "interpreted incorrectly." Any other special definitions you want to tell us about?
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?
Why do I get the feeling I'm reading some lost passage from The Owl and the Pussycat. If someone misinterprets what you say then you respond with something like, "No, no, what I meant was..." You certainly don't do what you've been doing.
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?
Not only can I not I read your mind, it's gotten to the point where I can barely read your words. If you have a point, one that hasn't already been rebutted, then make it.
Me saying your ideas are irrelevant is not saying they don't have "a point."
Could I suggest (not that you responded well to my last suggestion) that calling a point "irrelevant" strongly suggests that I haven't rebutted your point, when I most certainly have. You're just dancing around saying everything you can think of except clearly expressing this point that has somehow been lost, or so you say. If you actually had a point I think you'd be eager to make it instead of writing all this other nonsense
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.
Still nothing about your point.
You can either try to correct that issue, or continue to go off on a tangent.
Still nothing about your point. The tangent is all your own.
If you continue to talk to me, I expect you to attempt to correct the issue.
My gosh, more rules and conditions. If you respond it would be nice if you could explain this lost point clearly.
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 sound like someone desperate to escape a corner he's painted himself into.
I never replied to anyone who said "those who thought Hillary was a sure thing, but voted 3rd party... is a silly idea."
Ah, so you *are* being Talmudic in your interpretations of what people write in their messages. Why does this no longer lead to your conclusion that Clinton wasn't "good enough"? How was what Taq wrote in Message 1227 so different?
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.
Well, you're going to have to amend that, because if you actually go back to what Taq said in Message 1227, that's not what he said.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1271 by Stile, posted 10-04-2017 2:30 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1274 by Stile, posted 10-05-2017 8:43 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1275 of 4573 (821293)
10-05-2017 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1274 by Stile
10-05-2017 8:43 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Thanks for agreeing with me again.
Good talk.
Your eagerness to escape this discussion is understandable, because it isn't possible to resolve the inherent contradiction in your position. You cannot agree with me in Message 1273 while disagreeing with Taq in Message 1227, because we both said the exact same thing. Taq said it his way, I said it mine, but we both said the same thing. Without explanation you have contradictorily both agreed and disagreed with the same position. I still have no idea what you really think, other than that you think you'd rather not be having this discussion anymore.
Everything else in your entire post is about trying to win some made-up scoreboard in your mind.
I'm not playing that game.
I don't know that I have a scoreboard in my head, but simple memory tells me that you have one unexplained contradiction (see above) and one opinion that makes no sense, the one where (sic) "Clinton wasn't good enough".
You somehow felt that a legitimate conclusion from having won the popular vote by a spectacular margin but having lost the election due to the vagaries of the way the electoral college played out in a small number of districts.
My own view, which I think makes a lot more sense than "Clinton wasn't good enough", was that the Democrats have a serious problem because the common people no longer identity with them. The Democrats have somehow become the party of the elite. This feels like quite a dilemma for the Democrats, and for me, because I actually like very much where the Democrats are right now (I'm an independent and have voted for for candidates in both parties). Supporting the climate and healthcare and and gun control and LBGT and the arts and so forth seems wonderful to me, so given the Republican platform (which boils down to, "We hate everyone who's not us, and we might shoot you too, or at least rough you up a bit") I of course voted for a Democrat.
The wonderful thing is that even though the Democrats have become the party of the elite there are enough people like me to win the popular vote by a good margin, but the electoral college makes things much more dicey for the Democrats.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1274 by Stile, posted 10-05-2017 8:43 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1276 by Stile, posted 10-05-2017 9:44 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1280 of 4573 (821311)
10-05-2017 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1276 by Stile
10-05-2017 9:44 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile writes:
"Clinton wasn't good enough" can mean multiple things.
Well, now we've back to, "My words mean whatever I want them to mean."
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.
Yes, we know, you've said this many times, and the rebuttal remains the same, the exact same, that Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin and the loss came down to the vagaries of the electoral college in a small number of districts. Repeating yourself as a response to the rebuttal isn't a real response.
I know you feel we're not interpreting you in the manner you intended, but we think we are and that your position is still wrong, and that the rebuttal covers precisely why we feel this way. Merely repeating your position is insufficient, and I think that if you begin trying to address the rebuttal that you might discover the facets of your position that don't hold up to scrutiny. Or maybe you'll carry the day, you'll never know until you try.
Like when the Falcons lost the Superbowl last year.
The Falcons weren't good enough to win the Superbowl.
Except that the Falcons were plenty good enough to win the Superbowl.
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.
That they didn't win the Superbowl *is* a historical fact. That they were good enough to win the Superbowl is *not* a historical fact. It went to overtime, for Christ's sakes, and no matter how many times I watch that winning touchdown I'm still not convinced that James White got the ball across the goal line before his knee touched the ground. Without that touchdown the Patriots might have eventually had to settle for a field goal, and then the Falcons would have had the ball, and they could have scored a touchdown. It was a very, very close thing. The Falcons were plenty good enough to win the Superbowl.
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.
No, I am right. What you say on a debate board doesn't stand just because you said it. You can't just throw stuff out there and say, (sic) "I don't need to be specific or detailed or give any when, where, what, why or how. It's just true because I say so, and if you disagree then you don't understand what I'm saying, so I'm going to repeat it again word for word over and over again so that you understand it, and this repetition is going to be my sole rebuttal, and if you don't like it then that's your problem." Did I get that about right?
Your general position of, "You lost so you're not good enough," makes no sense, whether it's about an election or sports or a job or whatever. Many other factors are involved. Like I'm sure you don't believe that Jared Kushner got his job because he was good enough. He got it because he's Trump's son-in-law. That means that for the guys that didn't get Jared Kushner's job, it wasn't because they weren't good enough. It's because they weren't Trump's son-in-law.
And Trump certainly didn't get elected because he's good enough. Well, let me qualify that. He's plenty good enough in front of crowds to get them to vote for him, but he has none of the qualifications of government or statesmanship that would make him anywhere close to good enough to be president. By any measure he is not good enough to be president, and he proves it everyday, nearly every hour.
So when you say Clinton wasn't elected because she wasn't good enough, it not only ignores what really happened, it's the wrong message to take when strategizing for the "Dump the Donald" campaign of 2020.
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.
I'm not really forcing a view onto you so much as I'm saying you're wrong.
And the contradiction has nothing to do with what you said about Clinton. It has to do with your two opposite responses to what I said (you agree) and to what Taq said (you disagree) when we said pretty much the same thing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1276 by Stile, posted 10-05-2017 9:44 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1281 by Stile, posted 10-05-2017 11:35 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1282 of 4573 (821315)
10-05-2017 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1281 by Stile
10-05-2017 11:35 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile writes:
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.
Does the irony really escape you that you've been pretty much saying what Humpty Dumpty said:
quote:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less."
Anyway, the rebuttal is out there if you ever want to get around to it.
You have created your own prison.
Well, another misuse of language. You're deeming that you're refusal to respond in any meaningful way puts me in a prison? I do admit to regret that apparently there's not going to be an intelligent, informed discussion leading to a resolution, but regret isn't a prison, except perhaps poetically or metaphorically.
Good day.
I hope you have a good day, also. This isn't personal, I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em. If I'm shown wrong then so be it, but that's never going to happen if you're done talking.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1281 by Stile, posted 10-05-2017 11:35 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1303 of 4573 (821485)
10-08-2017 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1296 by New Cat's Eye
10-07-2017 12:09 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
New Cat's Eye writes:
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 think you've misread Taq's comment. When Taq said that Bush disagrees with you it wasn't intended to be taken literally. 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].").
Even though your reply wasn't relevant I'd like to comment anyway. I think you're wrong about Bush being a moron. As our current Secretary of State has made clear, Trump is a moron. Bush is far smarter than Trump and therefore couldn't be a moron. How about boob?
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?
Since Taq's message was just one of a number he posted on a subthread titled, "People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it," obviously he's not "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.
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.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1296 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-07-2017 12:09 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1306 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2017 8:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1305 of 4573 (821519)
10-08-2017 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1304 by anglagard
10-08-2017 6:14 PM


Re: Time for Civics and History Lessons
That was one of the longer "not getting the point" posts I've ever read. It's a safe bet Rrhain understands everything you decided to lecture him on, and it's a safe bet you know he understands it, so what a waste of time.
Concerning your relevant points, I don't think upping their game is bad advice for the Democrats, but I think it misses the most important point. The Democrats used to be the party of the common man, but now they're the party of the elite. That 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. For people worried about employment and American culture and living standards the Democrats are the exact wrong party, and that has to change.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1304 by anglagard, posted 10-08-2017 6:14 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1307 by anglagard, posted 10-08-2017 11:32 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1313 by NoNukes, posted 10-09-2017 2:48 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1308 of 4573 (821536)
10-09-2017 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1307 by anglagard
10-08-2017 11:32 PM


Re: First Time for Everything aka Defending Myself Against People I Admire
anglagard writes:
Rrhain treated me as an idiot...
Join the club. 'Nuf said.
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.
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.
Also, some worries about "American culture" such as blatant racism is negative and it is incumbent on anyone who cares to change those parts.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1307 by anglagard, posted 10-08-2017 11:32 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1309 of 4573 (821543)
10-09-2017 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1306 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2017 8:58 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
New Cat's Eye writes:
...so I get why you're looking for blame...
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:
People who didn't want Trump, and didn't want Hillary, are not to blame for voting honestly and according to their conscience.
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 only way that you can blame their strategy is in hindsight. And they didn't have that when they voted.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2017 8:58 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1321 of 4573 (821718)
10-11-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1319 by Stile
10-11-2017 9:14 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile writes:
Taq writes:
Therefore, the party that appeals to rural America will have an inherent edge when it comes to the electoral college.
Sounds about right.
Doesn't seem to change the point that Clinton wasn't good enough.
Continuing to mangle the English language, I see. You're restating this falsehood as if it hadn't been thoroughly rebutted several times. You were unable to justify your claim that Clinton wasn't "good enough" except by inventing your own private definition of "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.
This is not Taq's terminology. Taq objected to your characterization of "not good enough" just like I did. Plus you ignored Taq's correction of your assertion that the electoral college is "even" with respect to not advantaging either party.
Perhaps. The phrase is still true as stated, though.
...
Perhaps. The phrase is still true as stated, obviously.
...
Perhaps. The phrase is still true as stated, again.
By "phrase" you mean "good enough"? If so then it has been rebutted nine ways from Sunday.
It seems you have made your conclusion without any (offered) reasoning/support.
Really? Then how is it that my Message 1282 to you has no reply? How is it that there were no responses to my repeated invitations to you for rebuttal? It's beginning to look like you broke off that subthread merely so that you could repeat your unsubstantiated claims on another subthread.
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.
Is the temporary cost of having Trump in office worth it? How bad are we talking here, and what makes you think the cost is temporary? Climate change may be at a tipping point. Nuclear fallout affects the entire world and lasts for centuries. The coal industry has already committed permanent (mountain top removal) and centuries-long (slag pools) insults to the ecology of states like West Virginia, we don't need more. And how long is "temporary?" We still feel the effects of Roosevelt (love him or hate him) nearly 3/4 of a century after he died. Trump is committing egregious insults to our democratic institutions every day - how long can they endure these assaults?
Since the gain you propose is that the Democrats would remedy foibles that you made up or that are no more severe than those of any other political party, such as, say, the Republicans, who can't seem to call a knave a knave without having first declared their retirement, who couldn't even keep their party from being taken over and then steadfastly and inexorably dismantled by an outsider), the obvious answer is no, it is not worth it.
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.
Trump's fatal defect is seeing himself as President of just some of the people, namely his base, the people who still tell pollsters they approve of his performance in office no matter what he does. And Trump's overt racism tells us that he's purposefully appealing to that part of the makeup of the "white Christian male" that is racist in character, desiring that whatever necessary be done to ensure that the future citizens of this country are white like them and dominate both culture and government.
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.
Basing your argument on the proposition that things happen, and that therefore no President can avoid hurting "immediately and badly," is a fatal flaw. The "immediately and badly" part is obviously wildly exaggerated unless you're referring to members of the previous administration losing their jobs. And the huge factor that you're avoiding, the elephant in the room that can't be ignored, is that Trump is relentlessly and savagely malevolent.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1319 by Stile, posted 10-11-2017 9:14 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1322 by Stile, posted 10-11-2017 2:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1323 of 4573 (821721)
10-11-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1320 by Stile
10-11-2017 9:28 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile writes:
Rrhain writes:
When it results in the exact opposite of your goals getting put into power, then it is anything but "acceptable."
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%.
Rrhain and I have different views about the "goal," but you manage to state neither one. I would state the goal of 3rd party voters this way: "Given that Clinton will be elected anyway, I shall register my displeasure with the Democratic party by voting for a 3rd party candidate." I cover what I think is Rrhain's view of the goal further on in this message.
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.
Trump's failings are on a pace to exceed the failings of all previous Presidents combined. You cannot seriously compare Trump's obvious failings with some hypothetical Clinton failings when she already has a record in both elected and appointed office as competent, serious, informed and constructive.
And you're continuing to harp on this fabricated issue that the Democrats needed to be sent a message. This has been rebutted already. Clinton won the popular vote and only lost the election because of the vagaries of the electoral college in a few closely contested precincts. Respond to the rebuttal to your assertions by all means, but don't ignore the rebuttals and just keep repeating the assertion.
You seem to think that only your opinion is worth anything.
You might have a point if your rebuttals consisted of more than just repeating the same disproved statements over and over.
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.
You quote so little that it's hard to be sure what Rrhain said that this is a response to, but I feel very safe in saying that Rrhain at no point implied that voting 3rd party to send a message to the Democrats meant you were not a good, loving, caring person. What he is mostly arguing is that you display no comprehension of the degree of damage Trump is committing, and consequently are seriously and gravely underestimating how critically those considering a 3rd party candidate should have treated their vote.
When you understand this, perhaps you can try to focus your arguments on the actual point: By voting in such a way that the Republican won, you directly, consciously, and deliberately voted to make things worse and you don't get to say that you were being "pure" and expect the dead people to accept that.
For it is unacceptable.
This isn't true.
Those who voted 3rd party couldn't read the future anymore than you can.
I think it would be closer to Rhrain's view of what should have been the goal of 3rd party voters to state it this way: "Clinton is not my preferred candidate, but a Trump victory would be such an obvious and extreme disaster for both the country and the world that I shall not risk contributing to his election and shall therefore vote for Clinton."
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.
Risking WW-III and climate change and mutilation of the environment for posterity is far too severe, far too great a price, for some mythical "helping things be better in the future."
This isn't a Democrats versus Republicans thing (well, it might be for Rrhain, not so much for me). This is a "Trump is insane and terrifying" thing. If Trump were a Democrat I would still be saying all the same things about him, and I think Rrhain would, too. Remember, Trump wasn't always a Republican. One could even argue that he was never a Republican - the Republican party was only a vehicle of convenience as a means to get elected.
I also think that thinking for the future is also a valid opinion, while accepting the temporary pain Trump is causing right now.
I'm going to rebut this as often as you say it. The Trump pain is not temporary, nor is it in any way similar to the pain felt when the party you don't like is in power. I can't keep finding new words to describe him so I'll have to fall back on words I've already used: Trump is malevolent, vicious and vile.
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.
That's your point? Well, it's a damn poor one. What if pigs could fly? As was said before, Clinton has a record in both elected and appointed office. She would have been the same person as President as she was before the election.
It should also be pointed out that before he was elected Trump also had a record, and it wasn't the one he used on the campaign trail or the one he uses in speeches to his base, because Trump lies. No one knows why he tells obvious lies, that's just the way he is. He'll tell the lies and then he'll argue them. But the important point is that Trump is the same person in office as he was before the election, and his performance is just as bad or worse as his history indicated it would be. People in closely contested states who voted 3rd party just have no excuse.
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.
You're stating this in a nonsense way. People have a right to think as they like, but whether there's any validity to what they think is another matter. For example, the validity of your position is measured by the quality of the arguments you're able to muster in their defense, which is pretty poor so far. Arguing that, in effect, "If I think it then it's valid," is about the worst argument you've offered so far.
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.
I think Rrhain was venting his frustration at the repetitions of an already failed argument.
My life is now at risk because some people decided to "send a message."
And if the message was not sent, other people's lives would be at risk.
You're talking nonsense again. This is not a case of, "If Trump is elected then the LGBT community is at greater risk, while if Clinton is elected then some other community is at greater risk." Trump actually encourages violence against groups he does not like. I encourage Rrhain to be specific about why he feels his life is at risk. Such a strong statement should be demonstrated to have objective rather than just emotional support.
I'm simply valuing everyone equally.
You're valuing yourself above everyone else.
No, you are not valuing everyone equally. You're drawing a false equivalence between a real threat and some hypothetical undescribed threat.
I admit that your view is valid - for you.
I'm just also saying that other people's views are also valid - for them.
You just said this a few lines before, and repeating it a second time doesn't make it any less false than it was the first time.
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.
Unable to make a case? Are you serious? I won't say whether Rrhain has actually made the case or not because I'd have to go back and reread his posts to be sure, and they tend to be lengthy, so I'm not going to do that. But the case has definitely been made, you're just pretending it didn't happen.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1320 by Stile, posted 10-11-2017 9:28 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1324 by Stile, posted 10-11-2017 3:38 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1325 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2017 3:56 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1326 of 4573 (821735)
10-11-2017 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1322 by Stile
10-11-2017 2:26 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile writes:
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...etc...etc...etc...
You said that the message the Democrats should take from the election is that Clinton wasn't "good enough," and then you defined "good enough" as "not good enough to win the election." But she obviously *was* good enough to win the election. She won the popular vote by a substantial margin and only lost due to the vagaries of the electoral college in a small number of closely contested districts. To continue calling Clinton "not good enough" while ignoring what truly happened is to be incredibly misleading and careless with the English language. And it would be the wrong message to take from the election.
So you're just wrong.
I will admit that my definition "irks you" because it doesn't mean "good enough" in the same way you want it to mean.
No, I mean you're using the phrase "good enough" in ways that make your statements untrue.
Your insistence that I can't use words the way everyone uses them is becoming laughable.
But you're not using words the way everyone uses them. You're using words in ways that make you wrong.
Some of your posts have no reply by me for the reason I gave you - you do not present a reasonable or rational position.
Boy, you are becoming more and more Faith-like - don't engage the point and explain its errors in logic or judgment, just declare them not "reasonable or rational" and be done with it.
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.
You're imitation of Faith is uncanny. Sorry to keep focusing on this Faith comparison, but it really is remarkable and so I can't help, well, remarking. No one asserted that only their view is valid. Pointing out the errors and flaws in other people's arguments is not tantamount to closemindedness.
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.
Oh, me, glorious day, Stile is going to deign to reply to me!
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.
You're making arguments orthogonal to the main point. The argument is that given the critical nature of a negative outcome (Trump's election), this was the wrong election to be voting to send a message.
It had the point of sending a message to the Democrats.
On this we agree, but the message to the Democrats wasn't about Clinton. It was about issues regarding how to appeal to voters and how to better manage the way votes map onto the electoral college.
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?
Is this some kind of weird hypothetical? Not understanding what you're getting at.
And their candidate for the next election will be different than if Hillary won (or even went 2 terms).
The names are different in every election, but this is always true. Can't make out if there's a point in there.
nd 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.
Well, that's a pretty weird comment to make about climate change. You don't feel any urgency about it?
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.
Again, Clinton has a record in both elected and appointed office. That you claim this capacity for making up fictional horror stories is not an argument.
This is the second time you've mentioned corruption in the Democratic party. You're starting to sound partisan and decidedly not like a Canadian looking dispassionately at the United States from the outside. What's the story here?
But you get to make up possible negative futures if Trump is in office?
Yep, you're definitely sounding partisan now. Nobody's making anything up. If you think I made something up about something Trump did then call me out on it.
Again... your scare tactics do nothing for the argument you are trying to make.
Describing what Trump is doing is not "scare tactics" - it's reality. If you find my descriptions of what Trump is doing scary then you have Trump to blame, not me.
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).
Your syntax is giving me some trouble, but what I think this says is that Trump's unfitness for office should be a lower priority than fixing the future of the US. If I've got that right then I'm having trouble seeing how this point fits into the discussion, but my reaction is that both minimizing Trump's damage and reconciling our polarized politics must be priorities.
Basing your argument on the proposition that things happen, and that therefore no President can avoid hurting "immediately and badly," is a fatal flaw.
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.
I've spent a few minutes now trying to divine your meaning, but I'm afraid it escapes me. No one is making claims that something is objectively absolute. Can you clarify what you're talking about?
The risk of Trump in office (visible problems) vs. the risk of a corrupt democratic party (invisible - behind the scenes - problems).
Hmmm, yet another reference to "a corrupt Democratic party." Okay, come on, out with it. You're far too opinionated about US politics for a Canadian. What's going on?
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.
And...yet another reference to "a corrupt Democratic party." Interestinger and interestinger.
You seem to be taking the stance that "Trump is sooooo bad... how could any corruption in any party possibly be worse?"
And another corruption reference.
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.
I don't actually know what's going on here, but I'm getting a vibe like I'm being played. Like I said, I don't know what's really going on, but if you're aware of Trump's performance in office so far then you're remarkably, uh, blas about it compared to the rest of the world. And as a Canadian you're remarkably informed about the existence of some fairly severe corruption in our Democratic party that has somehow escaped the attention of even Fox News (which is basically the Republican news channel - I just typed "corruption democratic party" into their website's search box and got zero results).
In other words: I fully agree and understand that Trump's a terrible president doing horrible things.
Given the other things you've said in your message, this isn't credible.
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).
Once more we have harsh criticism of the Democratic party. Yes, the Democrats are sane, so are the Republicans, only Trump is a lunatic, and he's got the nuclear codes and...well, I've said that stuff already. You need to explain your harsh judgment of the Democratic party.
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?
And...once more with the corruption.
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.
You're again rebutting an argument not made. The argument is that the 2016 election was special because of the nature of the Republican candidate, and the option to vote 3rd party carried with it risks unprecedented in the history of the country.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1322 by Stile, posted 10-11-2017 2:26 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1333 by Stile, posted 10-12-2017 8:57 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1327 of 4573 (821739)
10-11-2017 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1325 by New Cat's Eye
10-11-2017 3:56 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
If you go to this Wikipedia webpage:
On the right side near the top is an electoral college map of the United States.
If you click on the map on the states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania you'll be taken to webpages with maps broken down into districts, with the intensity of color indicating margin of victory. Unfortunately I couldn't find actual numbers for districts.
But the margin of Trump's victory for each of these states was:
  • Michigan: 10,704
  • Pennsylvania: 44,292
  • Wisconsin: 22,748
I know there are websites out there that list precincts where Clinton could have made up the differences, but I couldn't find them today.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1325 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2017 3:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1330 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2017 12:04 AM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024