Summations Only

I don't know much about Nafta, but in my country lots of people working in the coal industry lost their jobs. Coal mining just can't compete with other forms of energy. The easy coal reserves have been mined out. Coal mining is too expensive nowadays. Other forms of sources of energy are cheaper.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

My hypothetical Democrat isn't blaming NAFTA on the Democrats. You said it yourself... it was bipartisan. Which means the Democrats were for it. Which means the Democrats were for a policy that caused the destruction of my hypothetical Democrat's ability to provide for their family.My hypothetical Democrat is blaming the Democrats for not being against it... for not helping them out... for not supporting the job they require.Hypothetica-Democrat also isn't voting for Trump because Trump was for the same policy (as well as being Trump). Again... "bipartisan." He can't vote for Trump for the same reason he can't vote for the Democrats... both were for the policy that destroyed their ability to provide for their family. Seems logical, valid and reasonable at this point to vote 3rd party.Thank-you for providing more evidence to support my position.
I was unaware that support for the NAFTA policy in question was bipartisan, that makes the factual support perfect for my position. It's phrases like that that really make no sense.Your first sentence agrees with me... that some people will be hurt by the political decisions of the Democrats.
Then your second sentence says it "makes no sense" that these people hurt-by-the-Democrats might not want to vote for the Democrats (my hypothetical scenarios).Those two sentences don't jive.Either some people are hurt by the political decisions of the Democrats, and therefore it makes sense that they won't vote for the Democrats... and if they also don't like the Republicans it makes valid sense that they will vote 3rd party.Or no one is hurt by the political decisions of the Democrats... then it would make sense that no one has a valid reason to vote 3rd party.What's confusing and doesn't make sense is agreeing that some people are hurt, but then disagreeing that this pain isn't enough to cause them to have a valid reason to not vote for the Democrats.That's making up other people's minds for them.
That's making subjective judgments for other people.
That's saying your opinion (when you're not affected) has more value that their opinion (when they are affected) about the situation they find themselves in!You're not able to do that, logically or realistically or morally. Actually, those are multiple things you've smooshed together.1 - I've argued that "Clinton wasn't good enough to win the election" is a valid phrase on it's own. Simply because she lost the election.2 - I've argued that some 3rd party votes are perfectly valid. One example is someone who normally votes Democratic, but is hurt by the policies/direction of the Democrats and wants to send a message to the Democrats that their current policies/direction are not acceptable to them while also not voting for Trump.I apologize if my phrasing has led you elsewhere, but that is another summary of my positions for your reference.
Please accept that any other interpretation you think might apply does not actually apply.
Please accept corrections and clarifications when I present them.
Please allow me to describe my own arguments.Do you agree that Clinton was supporting some Democratic policies/directions that hurt some people?
Isn't is possible that those hurt by such things might want to send the Democrats a message that they are not happy being hurt by such policies/directions?One example is someone who has lost their job and lost their ability to provide for their family.
Another could be someone who had family killed by the recent Democratic politics/direction.
I'm sure there are others, but even only 1 is sufficient to show the validity of my position.If you agree that such things are possible, then the only other thing required is that they don't want to vote for Trump.
I don't think I need to provide much support for that idea, it seems obvious.If we have someone who doesn't want to vote for the Democrats for valid reasons.
And they also don't want to vote for the Republicans for valid reasons.
Why can't they have "valid reasons" to vote 3rd party?If you agree that such people probably do exist, then you agree with me that sweeping statements like "Everyone who voted for Jill S was tricked!" are nave, childish and immature statements because they're clearly wrong if you put the slightest effort into thinking about it.

But they did "thereby lose their jobs," no? Wouldn't that make the claim accurate? I agree with your statement.
However, I disagree that your statement makes a difference in the claim being made.The claim isn't that the NAFTA agreement was the only thing causing them to lose their jobs. Or even that their jobs were not eventually going to be lost anyway.Hint: All jobs are eventually going to be lost sooner or later.The claim is that these jobs were lost directly related to the NAFTA policy that was supported by the Democrats.
The claim is that those in such jobs would have held those jobs for longer (maybe 1 year? Maybe 5 years? Maybe 10?) if the NAFTA policy didn't go through, and that those with such jobs would want those-they-vote-for to not support something that will be ending their jobs sooner rather than later.Those who hold such jobs are the ones who get to decide if an extra year, or 5, or 10 is "worth it" to them depending on each of their own specific circumstances and experiences and future opportunities.And they get to decide whether or not they care if the Democrats support a policy that goes against their plans for providing for their family.

Yes, it was bipartisan, which means both the Democrats and the Republicans were for it. More Republicans than Democrats, as it turns out. But... Instead of blaming the Republicans who supported it most strongly, he blames the Democrats. And he wants to send a message to the Democrats about NAFTA, which was passed in 1993 around a quarter century ago (so how clear do you think that message is going to be), and which is generally recognized as being beneficial for all country signatories, which makes sense since that's what free trade generally does. Uh, no. As I already told you in the very message you're responding to, Trump is hostile toward NAFTA. Well, traditionally Republicans have been for free trade, but not Trump, so it sounds like Trump's the right guy for this hypothetical Democrat. Again, did it somehow escape your attention that NAFTA was passed in 1993? Trump wasn't in government in 1993 and had nothing to do with the passing of NAFTA. But Trump repeatedly expressed hostility toward NAFTA during the 2016 campaign. Canada is a signatory to NAFTA, so this affects you, too. Here's a recent article from a Canadian source about the recent NAFTA negotiations: What is Donald Trump's NAFTA plan? Canadian experts take their best guessHow does it make sense to follow several paragraphs of error, ignorance, nonsense and contradiction with a declaration that I've somehow provided evidence for your "position". Another declaration that makes no sense. I'm not even going to try to unpack this. You can't take half of what I said, leave out the other half, and then declare us in agreement. I don't agree with you. You mostly speak nonsense and/or error and/or contradiction and/or ignorance, so it is unlikely that I would ever find myself in agreement with you. My second sentence says nothing of the sort. It's about how ridiculous your hypothetical scenarios are, and how absurd your declarations of agreement are. Gee, finally a paragraph that makes sense. Yes, people adversely affected by Democratic policies are unlikely to vote Democratic. And if they feel uncomfortable voting Republican then they might vote 3rd party or write someone in. Gee, and you were doing so well, too. As I already said and you quoted it, no one thinks that policies implemented by any political party help everyone and hurt no one. This is not what you said that I disagree with. No wonder you're confused. Uh, no. When your hypothetical scenarios are nonsensical or erroneous then all I can do is point out the nonsense or the errors. Since you haven't expressed anything coherent my responses cannot be interpreted as taking any particular position or expressing any particular opinion, such as your list above, which is ridiculous anyway. Calling one of your scenarios absurd is not to make up other people's minds for them, or any of that other stuff you list. It's an assessment of how poorly thought out what you're trying to express is. Okay, I'll stop smooshing them together. This has been rebutted nine ways from Sunday, I won't bother doing it again. This sounds fine to me. Since you quoted me saying, "No one thinks that policies implemented by any political party help everyone and hurt no one," why are you asking? Where have you ever said this that I questioned it? This isn't one of your ridiculous scenarios that I've called nonsense. Where have you ever said this that I objected to it? I never said anything like that about voters for Stein.What I've said is that this was the wrong election to vote 3rd party or do write-ins, because no reason could justify risking the disastrous outcome.--Percy

Exactly. It could easily be described as a "valid reason to vote 3rd party." Fantastic.
We both agree that there are valid reasons for people to vote 3rd party. I agree that you've never said anything like that about voters for Stein.
I never claimed you did.This was simply a throw-back to the reason why I came into this thread to state my position - that there are valid reasons to vote 3rd party in this past election. I see.So, you accept that people can have valid reasons for voting 3rd party in general (like losing their ability to provide for their family, or having a family member killed via a military action supported by the Democrats).But, you don't think such pain is large enough to risk the pain we're experiencing right now with Trump as president.I agree that it's valid for you to hold this opinion for yourself, personally.I simply think it's equally valid for someone who's been negatively-affected by democratic policies/decisions to hold the opinion that voting 3rd party was worth the risk in the Trump vs. Clinton election.I allow for those 3rd party voters to judge for themselves the difference in pain between:No longer having the ability to provide for your family.
or
No longer having certain family members around because they are dead.VS.The position we find ourselves in today with Trump in office.I think it's reasonable, and valid for someone to judge that Trump is too much (and therefore, voting 3rd party would be silly for them).
I think it's reasonable, and valid for someone to judge that Trump isn't too much (and therefore, voting 3rd party is valid in this past election).What makes you think you have the right to say that someone's personal opinion of their own massive loss isn't worth the risk of having Trump in office?Even if Trump causes nuclear war and we're all dead a month from now....
...that's a few more months someone could have had with their family that they never got due to losing the ability to provide for them or loss of life due to certain Democratic policies/direction.Seems very reasonable to me that someone could have extremely valid reasons to vote 3rd party even in the face of "risking the disastrous outcome," even in this past Clinton vs. Trump election.In fact, if you intend for your statement to go beyond your own, personal opinion... I find your rejection of letting someone else decide such things for themselves in a "valid" manner to be disgusting.
If that's the case - I think you should change your mind.If that's not the case, if your statement is simply representing your own, personal opinion. And you agree with me that it's easily possible and perfectly valid for others to vote 3rd party in the Clinton vs. Trump election... then I suppose I have nothing more to defend, as that is all I ever attempted to say.

We'd been talking NAFTA, which is more than two decades old, so I was thinking generally. As I've said repeatedly, 2016 was a special year, the wrong year to cast a protest vote. Same answer. In general, sure. In 2016, no. You say even if Trump starts a nuclear war? You are seriously nuts. Putting a madman's finger on the nuclear button is precisely why 2016 was the wrong year to cast a protest vote.--Percy

Interesting Taq.The part of my message that referred to the disregarded dark-skinned Iraqis, who continue to suffer silently and invisibly in the corporate media from Hillary’s criminal actions, . . . you specifically disregarded.Interesting.And I am so sorry to irritate you with my harping (I tire of it too). I sincerely wish there wasn’t someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read every post in the thread. Gosh, it has to be a million times more annoying then those dark-skinned Iraqis who continue to suffer silently and invisibly in the corporate media from Hillary’s criminal actions.Am I right Taq? Yeah, you know it, high fives!Lastly, as distraught (virtually emotionally destroyed) as I am about keeping on about it, it does seem apparent, evidenced by the forum’s on-going threads and amerika’s authors and book buying consumers, that some unfortunates may have missed my supposedly "dead-horse" message:

quote:

---

Hillary Clinton's 'What Happened' sees big sales in its first week
Hillary Clinton's 'What Happened' sees big sales in its first week

---

Edited by dronestar, : clarity

Absolutely.I'm saying that the risk of Trump starting a nuclear war is not easily shown to be greater than the immediate pain to a massive family loss for the purposes of having a valid reason to vote 3rd party in this past election.Therefore it's quite reasonable to say that someone who suffered massive family loss due to Democratic policies/direction would have a valid reason to vote 3rd party in the 2016 election, even in the face of putting a madman's finger on the nuclear button.And, of course, this doesn't touch on the other side of things at all either.What if there is no nuclear war?
Is that sort of hindsight required for you to accept the validity of other people weighing judgments differently than you?
Is there anything anyone could say that might make you accept the validity of a 3rd party vote in the 2016 election?This isn't about being right or wrong in reading the future... this is about weighing risk according to your own experiences and opinions.
Everyone has different experiences and opinions, so it's not difficult to understand that many will weigh risk differently.I agree that it's possible for some risk judgments to be labeled as "invalid."
However, you have yet to show how voting 3rd party in 2016 was not valid other than your personal decision not to go that route.Describing the horrors of nuclear war doesn't change anything. That's included in the risk analysis, weighed against the possibility that it won't happen at all.
Describing the horrors that come with Trump doesn't change anything. That's included in the risk analysis, weighed against the possibility that it's not as bad for some people as it is for others.I don't see anything here that "obviously" overcomes the idea of someone experiencing massive, personal loss.We don't have a person who wants to eat and choosing between a plate of dirt and a plate of vegetables.
I would agree that someone's "opinion" to choose the plate of dirt in this situation is not valid, dirt is objectively not going to help you eat.I do not agree that someone's "opinion" to vote 3rd party in the 2016 election has such an objectively obvious issue with it.I assure you that if you are able to objectively show that a 3rd party vote in the 2016 election is not valid, then I will agree with you.So far, however, you have only been able to offer your subjective opinion that Trump is worse than what Clinton would be.
Contrary to that, I'm offering up the subjective opinion that massive family loss is worse then Trump is for some people.This seems to show that 3rd party votes in the 2016 election can still have perfectly valid reasons behind them.
And that your "rebuttals" aren't really rebuttals.. there's just your subjective opinion that Trump is worse than what Clinton would be.

You're right Percy!Putting Trump's finger on the button MIGHT easily be a million times more worse than what ACTUALLY happenED to a million dark-skinned Iraqis from Hillary's finger on the button.Looking at the pictures below, the comparison to what you envision Trump MAY do, . . . well there is no comparison, even the kids below would be dancing for a Hillary victory, . . . if they had legs. So yes, you sold me Percy, . . .Given the choice between Stein, Hitler, and somebody worse than Hitler, . . . I would enthusiastically choose Hitler.Kudos Percy.Edited by Admin, : Downsize images.

I think you need to go back on your meds.--Percy

We're 1400 posts in and we haven't begun to cover it - so yeah, brevity was a saving grace I feel Fair enough - but i'd say that a Republican legislature probably has a bigger negative effect on these things. The executive isn't negligible - but I think 4 years of not changing all that much and 4 years of changing in the wrong direction isn't as big a difference as you might think, in my opinion.My long term view is 50-100 years, not 10-20 if that helps understand my perspective. Well I treat all moves towards the right seriously. Which is why I wouldn't have voted for either of the main candidates. The point I was making was to counter the point that

quote:

---

Clinton earned Democratic votes by winning the Democratic primaries.

---

By saying she didn't. Which I also responded to in Message 1360. Glad to hear it. As can voting for one of the two main parties.Since I am not going to vote *for* either of the two parties, having already explained I will only vote for someone I want to be President (in that hypothetical world where I'm in the electorate) my only other choice is to not vote at all. The effect is the same for Clinton's chances - but at least voting for a more left wing candidate will inform people why Clinton didn't get my vote... the Party moved towards the right and maybe the strategy there was to keep those in the middle and pick up some voters from the right. But it looks like Clinton lost more votes to the right than she gained AND lost votes on the left. So that strategy - if consciously executed, kind of blew up. I didn't think Clinton was a shoe-in. The idea of 3 or 4 Democratic Presidencies in a row is itself unlikely - she was disliked by both by the right and many on the left etc. I thought she'd still manage to win, but I didn't expect it to be by a safe margin.Nevertheless you keep missing the point - my intention (hypothetical world) was to not give my vote to Clinton, and over time, push the voting landscape leftwards. It was to give voice to how I think the country should be governed. I may be ignored, but I'll say it anyway. The only people responsible for Trump's victory are those that voted for him. If the Democrats want to overcome those votes they need to pick a candidate that will accrue enough {in the right places} to overcome this. My suggestion is to not ignore your potential supporters on the left wing. I wouldn't have voted for the Republicans either - but I expect that my vote's influence has less power to send that message. This message should have been what the centre-right people delivered by shifting their votes to Clinton. That they didn't is not so much a function of the Republican nominee as it is the Democrat nominee. Either way, these votes are likely as or more impactful than the dropped votes on the left. So again, the Republican voters remain the most blameworthy for Trump's victory. Then the Democrats can safely ignore it, business as usual. This won't earn my vote but if they don't care that's their concern. I voiced my perspective in any case. Well here's hoping the Republicans aren't gripped by the insane 'it's not simply about voting for him, its about voting against the Democrats' nominee that you are reverse-arguing for here. I not only addressed one of the main points to that effect but you replied to it. Also Sanders was a social democrat, not a democratic socialist.

quote:

---

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions. Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europeparticularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countriesduring the latter half of the 20th century.

---

Social democracy - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system.

​

Democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership. Ultimately, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only cause more problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy, that capitalism can never be sufficiently "humanized" and that it must therefore ultimately be replaced with socialism.

​

Democratic socialism is distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and from social democracy, where "social democracy" refers to support for political democracy; the nationalization and public ownership of key industries but otherwise preserving and strongly regulating, private ownership of the means of production

---

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia Well that's your opinion, and maybe it would have. But if more Democrat voters would prefer Trump to Sanders than Democrats who declined to vote for Clinton - I hope you have more disdain for the former at least. I don't think the reason is obvious, and I'm happy to keep him on the list thank you. As I have already said - I'd be surprised if Clinton was the best option, but if she really was then the Democrat party is in big trouble. No, I meant that it is your opinion that Clinton is not evil or an evil or whatever. A) Why?
B) How?Without votes, without the campaign, without the opposition what can we say about anyone? As I said - let's see who the next nominee is. Then tell me that this individual could not possibly have been a superior option to Clinton in 2016.It might be the case, but I was countering your position certainty by showing a reason to doubt. I don't need specifics to do this. Again, if the Democrats can't field someone with a better chance than Clinton (someone who can get say, a 5% margin rather than a 2% margin of the popular vote) the Democrats, and by extension America, is screwed. It's both, but more the former. And that's because the Democratic party is the one that actually chooses the system its going to use to pick the nominee - and if that system is an inferior one then its their fault. Sure, the people in the Primaries could vote smarter - but their information is restricted because the selection method provides limited information so their blame is less. I am saying I vote *for* candidates, not *against* candidates. If you can find someone who voted another way just because they thought it was safe, and not because of their political opinions then argue these kinds of points with them. I know there were plenty who refused to give their vote to Clinton not because they thought it safe, but because they did not want to give their vote to Clinton. I don't have any numbers to back up which group is larger, but you seem certain - can you provide any research? I thought I'd expressed that I am not happy with 'right wing' vs 'even more right wing' as options. Indeed. And that system doesn't necessarily produce the person most likely to win the Presidency, as I said. And I'm not OK with that. If we are stuck with a two party system, I'd prefer if the major party closest to my views could more accurately pick the most likely to win nominee. There's a difference between ignoring reality and being dissatisfied with it. A) I am not OK with a two party system
B) This isn't about preferring a different nominee. It's about not wanting to contribute to any mandate to the nominee put forward. It's not the only way. We still end up with the Executive being one of two parties. Alternate style voting is a better method for getting multiple parties or running more than one candidate per party - especially when we're talking about a single winner like a Presidential election. They wouldn't be 'my party'. I wouldn't be a Democrat any more than you are one. To me, my vote is one of my tools to express my political opinion. Sensible parties analyze votes after an election to see where they dropped votes. Oh, the Green Party is getting lots of votes, perhaps we should make Green issues more important. OH UKIP are getting lots of votes, we should make Europe a campaign issue. That way they can take votes away from those parties by better representing the changing views of the country.I'll vote for a major party candidate if the Party chooses to move towards my perspective. I hope this encourages them to stay there or even continue moving my way. This would need others who agree with me, of course, but that's democracy.. I understand you are big proponent of engaging in tactical voting. I'm sorry that you don't understand that I'm not and why. I'm not sure if I can find a way to explain it any other way. Using the vagaries of the electoral college as one reason as to why Clinton is not President is what I meant by blame. You did after all say:

quote:

---

I think you've identified the wrong problem. It isn't that Clinton didn't appeal to enough people, it's the way their votes mapped onto the electoral college that caused the loss.

---

If you don't like 'blame' substitute 'attributed'. I wasn't talking about what will happen, I was suggesting what should happen to avoid the scenario of a candidate with a better chance in the actual election not being selected as nominee. Given the dire consequences of this happening when a Trump like candidate runs, I would have thought you'd be inclined to at least agree on this. Quite right. So you can expect the same things will keep happening. No point talking about how to move the glacier towards a better place, right? The glacier will just magically move towards a better solution without anyone arguing, persuading and uniting people to move it that way. No, it's not moot. It's exactly on target. If right wing policies are becoming popular I'm not going to contribute to that by voting for right wing person just because the alternative is a very right wing person. I am not arguing you aren't screwed. I'm just suggesting your next political focus should be the legislature. But the nationwide popular vote does not convert into electoral college votes in any way whatsoever. As far as who is President, that's true. But I'm not only focussed on which votes ultimately matter. The local popular votes contribute to the electoral votes. I have also discussed how better to distribute the votes that matter to reduce the 'bumpiness' the electoral college currently results in, I have also discussed better primary nominations...The popular vote however, is not important. There is a correlation for obvious reasons, but the Mandate for President is given by the States, not the People. 25% of the People's votes can result in 50.x% of the State's votes. Probably. But then I *have* been talking about how picking a candidate who wouldn't drop individual voters votes is important for the Democratic Party so I'm certainly mentioning this particular point. Right - as we've been talking about. The 3 million popular votes Trump trailed by weren't in one State after all. Yes, I was subverting your analogy to use it to reinforce my point. That's really the only option open as a response to an analogy that isn't dismissive in some way. I'm not suggesting they fight a campaign that would win 2016. I'm suggesting they look at the general problems that lead to that loss and try to learn lessons from them.If those problems are that people on the left of the democrat leaners declined to vote Democrat this time, they should try to ensure they don't alienate them with their candidate choice. If it is that fielding a candidate disliked by the centre right is no way to counter a far right candidate, then they should give up the fight for the centre right and focus elsewhere. If it was poor management of swing states, then they should rethink their swing state strategies. More personal level campaigning? Focus on the working class more and the middle class less? Whatever it is. You don't need to convince all of them, of course. You're only recourse is to expose the oil as ineffective and show them a more persuasive argument as to why actual medicine will be better. You don't bother. Targeting a candidates base is usually a futile effort. Clinton was seen as the 'business as usual' candidate during an election where people were angry with business as usual. Might work for an incumbent, but it's a hurdle for someone trying to get their party in for a third term. It's safe, but rarely actually works. I doubt the Republicans are going to change their party to appease Sanders supporters. That message needs to be sent by the Republican voters - like those that voted Obama who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton. Seems pointless to keep bringing it up in a discussion about factors that contributed to Clinton's loss then. Also strange that you would characterise it as 'the problem' and the cause of Clinton's loss earlier. But OK, moving on... Why? I'm arguing for nudging things in my political direction over the course of my lifetime - not arguing that significant changes to that effect are likely to occur in the next 3 years. Your obsession with what has a chance is peculiar. It's absolutely not a good reason to not argue in favour of them. It's not even a good reason to not talk about them. Not discussing them only reinforces the likelihood of them never being adopted rather than eventually.After all, the idea that black people would get the vote didn't have a chance of implementation once.It took arguing, and a little bloodshed to get there. And the consequences of the turmoil had a deleterious effect on the country for years, decades after the changes were implemented. But long term, it was for the better.I've consistently voted for the party that is in favour of gay marriage. Eventually - decades after I started - that party and that issue got enough power that the right wing leader of the UK put it in front of parliament - and while his party voted it down, my elected party universally voted it up and the second biggest party mostly voted it up and it passed.In the meantime, the highly improbable Brexit happened, and the unlikely to pass but did surprisingly well AV referendum happened. Not the perfect alternate voting system, but we finally showed a 1/3 of the country is in favour of it. Progress towards my political ends, with some political losses thrown in too. Such is democracy.Also - you are arguing this was not the election for a protest vote. The chances of you ridding the US elections of protest votes that impact results is also next to nil. So let's not discount discussion on the grounds of short term probability of implementation. Then don't.Personally - I think getting the candidate with the best possible chance of winning an election should be a goal of a party, and I hope the Democrats find ways to do better at it than the Republican Party. But if things are fine the way they are according to you, then we're good. Clinton lost, she was the best candidate they could realistically find but statistical noise scuppered her victory. End of story. I have not given any probabilities of adoption. As with all political actors, I am arguing in favour of my preferred outcomes. If enough people join me, it will become an issue. If enough people get behind the issue, it will motivate change. Right - and my point was about how one might go about minimising the number of people unhappy with a candidate, minimising the number of vote withholders by using a method of selection that can provide a measure of this information. Thus avoiding any situation, this one included if it happens to be such, where withholders had an impact on who wins the election.I think this has a better chance of working, once adopted it will continue to do the job, and given how procedures become 'sticky' over time, can become a long term solution to this particular problem.The alternative, pointing out that withholders are a problem, but offering no solution as it is unrealistic, gets you nowhere faster than mine. No - I raised the issue to highlight them in an attempt to inhibit the regrettable downslide into this becoming personal - which sometimes occurs in forum debates. I assume you are susceptible to a gentle reminder of the boundaries and the ease in which starting to gnaw at them can result in in-kind retorts and then debate hell. Says the person from the nation that actually elected Trump. See? That could be friendly joshing but it can escalate right?A less personal rejoinder would be to say I am reasonable confident I'm as informed or moreso than many of your countrymen whose vote actually counts about the US political system. I was a (metaphorical) coin toss away from becoming a citizen myself like 2/3 of my brothers and 3/3 of my father. Well the argument went thusly: You have now conceded you can't be certain whether there were alternative candidates that would have done better. And that was rather my point. I added to this further information about how a primary winner might not be the one with the best chance of winning an election.Am I not being specific? Is my specificity nonsense? Since my point to this part of the discussion is
1) Clinton might not have been the best candidate who could have been nominated
2) Other ways of selecting a candidate may do better at finding such a candidate
3) If Trump stands for a second term, we'd better hope a candidate with better chances both exists and gets nominated
4) I'm not merely arguing Clinton was not 'good enough'.Here is the original point you were arguing against:

quote:

---

We could also blame the system, looking at it another way. The idea that people vote for the presidential candidate the way they do {one vote, winner takes all simple majority style} is fraught with possible problems.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Of course it's not easy to gauge "the risk of Trump starting a nuclear war". He's a madman. How does one predict the actions of a madman? You seem to think the inability to quantify the probability of Trump starting a nuclear war means that casting a protest vote contributing to his election is justified. You are seriously nuts.News about the US *does* make it up into Canada, doesn't it? You are aware of Trump's speech to the United Nations and of his Twitter-war with the leader of North Korea and their nuclear threats, aren't you? And you are aware of all his other immature, unstable, chaotic behavior exhibited on a daily, nearly hourly, basis, right? Then how can you say this? You repeat this nonsense again? You're crazy. For this sort of thing one should deal in probabilities. Playing Russian Roulette and surviving does not in hindsight make it a good idea. I've never called a 3rd party vote invalid. I've described it as voting against one's own best interests. Obviously. A great many people voted for Trump, not realizing that they, too, were voting against their own best interests. Trump lies. For instance, he lied about healthcare during the election, and he's lying about healthcare now. What he wants to do will hurt many of the people who voted for him. The sad part is that many of these Trump voters didn't understand that then, and the sadder part is that significant numbers still don't understand it now. It seems that many will only grasp the magnitude of the malevolence being directed at them only after the fact, after their health insurance is gone. And, given their obvious deficiencies in seeing where their own best interests lie, will they even understand that Trump did it, or will they kneejerkedly blame the Democrats?I don't know if this has made it up to Canada or not, but the Alexander/Murray proposal would continue the funding necessary to make healthcare insurance available to the poor. First Trump endorsed it, then he was against it, then he got into a feud with Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell over it, then he patched it up, and that's just as of this morning. Who knows what will happen next.There is no way to justify casting a vote for Trump because he is contrary to almost everyone's best interests on issues great and small. Trump is in the best interests of almost no one. The Republican 1%-ers are winners under a Trump presidency, but few others. It is obvious that putting crazy people in charge of things does not make things better. Again, I did not call it invalid. You seem to have trouble accurately paraphrasing what people say. Really? You've gone through a risk analysis on the possibilities of what a madman will do? What are the details of that analysis, pray tell? The field of psychology not to mention law enforcement would be fascinated with this breakthrough in predicting human behavior. No one was arguing against this possibility. Hurricanes just ripped through Texas and Puerto Rico causing "massive, personal loss." But Democrats causing "massive, personal loss"? The best you've been able to come up with is NAFTA, passed in bipartisan fashion a quarter century ago. The only "massive, personal loss" on the horizon is the loss of affordable healthcare by millions of Americans, and that's a Republican thing, both now and during the election. There are people eating dirt because of the Democrats? Where, pray tell? Yes, we know you do not agree, but you have not stated any rational, consistent arguments supporting your position. Well, I guess if you're going to say it yet again then I'll rebut it yet again. I have never called a 3rd party vote invalid. My position is that Trump was the last choice of those who wanted Sanders or Stein or Johnson, and that casting a protest vote (or no vote as a way of protest) in the 2016 election was in effect voting against their own best interests. All your attempts to recast my position into your own words have been met with failure.And you're calling the opinion that Trump is worse than Clinton subjective? Are you living in a cave? Were you lying before when you claimed to understand just how bad Trump is? Are you a closet Trump supporter just playing with us? While failing to support your opinion in any way. See above about you living in a cave and so forth.--Percy

I'm not advocating that it could be within someone's best interests to vote for Trump.
Although, I do think it could be possible to be in someone's best interests... not someone I would like very much... but I'm sure some piece of garbage would actually want Trump in office for their own best interests.I'm advocating that some people certainly can make a 3rd party vote that works in their best interests. Are you again claiming that no one has lost their job or lost a family member due to Democratic policies?
I thought you agreed already that it's quite reasonable and understandable that some people have experienced massive personal loss due to Democratic policies or direction "in general." Is this no longer true?Where a few possible examples of "massive personal loss" can include losing the ability to provide for themselves or their family or even losing a family member due to military decisions.NAFTA may have been implemented a long time ago, but it was supported by the most recent Democratic party and continues to be supported by them today. This results in people losing their jobs very recently, in the millions as the article quote I gave claims. 1. People do not want to vote Trump because he's dumb.
2. People have experienced massive personal loss due to the current support/direction of the current Democratic party.Therefore, it's quite reasonable and rational to see why such affected people could vote 3rd party in their own best interests.
Those "best interests" could be:
-Not wanting to vote republican
-Not wanting to support a party that caused them massive, personal lost
-Still wanting to be active in voting for the leaders of their country and working towards a better future Again, this is the one thing you have yet to answer:What give you the right to decide what someone else's "best interests" are?
Isn't that what being an adult in a free country is all about? Being able to decide, for yourself, what your own best interests are depending on your own experiences and own desires for the future?This is the fatal flaw in your position.The only way your position makes sense is if you take out "their own best interests" and put in "my best interests."It comes down to the simple, equal declaration that you don't get to decide such things for other people.You get to disagree with them all you'd like.
You get to vote how you want to vote all you'd like.
You get to attempt to persuade others to agree with you all you'd like.
You can explain what your own best interests are, and why they should be the best interests of other people all you'd like.What you don't get to do is state what "the best interests actually are" for other people.That's a step too far.
That's too close to controlling other people.
That's the exact opposite of what a "free country" is all about.And I'll continue to explain this to you for as long as you'd like.

*Chuckle*Sayth the man who is mortified to be exposed as a person who supports a war criminal who horrifically targeted dark-skinned children, and now needs to desperately evade from further debate via a cheap ad hominem attack.In addition to the war crime of using phosphorus weapons on civilians, Hillary should also be charged with torture, the use of cluster bombs, unproportional use of military power against a civilian presence and the collective punishment of civilians, especially in Fulujah, and using depleted uranium weapons that continues to cause birth defects in Iraq.ALL of these crimes are contained within the SUPREME crime of aggression: the invasion of Iraq which Hillary authorized . . .According to the Nueremberg laws:

quote:

---

In the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal, aggression is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole all the evil in the tortured land of Iraq that flowed from the US-UK invasion, for example.

​

https://chomsky.info/20060509/

---

Hillary’s authorization for the criminal invasion of Iraq, championing and recruiting other senators to join her, and repeatingly funding the illegal and immoral invasion AFTER it had been confirmed there were NEVER any WMD shows she is CLEARLY responsible for ALL the evil that followed from her authorizing the criminal invasion of Iraq.In Falujah . . .

quote:

---

US military destroyed 36,000 homes, 9,000 shops, 65 mosques, 60 schools, both train stations, one of the two bridges, two power stations, three water treatment plants and the city’s entire sanitation and telephone systems.
Home | Paramount

---

quote:

---

The IRC estimates that at least 60% of the people killed in the assault of Fallujah are women, children and elderly.
Home | Paramount

---

quote:

---

The U.S. government has now admitted its troops used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against Iraqis during the assault on Fallujah a year ago. Chemical weapons experts say such attacks are in violation of international law banning the use of chemical weapons.
Pentagon Reverses Position and Admits U.S. Troops Used White Phosphorus Against Iraqis in Fallujah | Democracy Now!

---

quote:

---

Phosphorus weapons

​

On November 9, 2005 the Italian state-run broadcaster Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A. aired a documentary titled Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, alleging that the United States used white phosphorus as a weapon in Fallujah causing insurgents and civilians to be killed or injured by chemical burns. The filmmakers further claimed that the United States used incendiary MK-77 bombs in violation of Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, quoted in the documentary, white phosphorus is permitted for use as an illumination device and as a weapon with regard to heat energy, but not permitted as an offensive weapon with regard to its toxic chemical properties.[14][15] The documentary also included footage which purported to be of white phosphorus being fired from helicopters over Fallujah. It also quoted journalist Giuliana Sgrena, who had been in Fallujah, as a testimony.[16]

​

On November 15, 2005, U.S. Department of Defense spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable confirmed to the BBC that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary anti-personnel weapon in Fallujah. Venable stated "When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives."[17][18]

​

On November 16, 2005, BBC News reported that an article published in the March—April 2005 issue of Field Artillery, a U.S. Army magazine, noted that white phosphorus had been used during the battle. According to the article written by a captain, a first lieutenant, and a sergeant, "WP [White Phosphorus] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosives]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."[14] BBC News noted that the article had been discovered by bloggers after the US ambassador in London, Robert Holmes Tuttle, stated that US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons.[14]

​

White phosphorus munitions - Wikipedia

---

Hillary Clinton is not only unqualified to be president of the use, but as an unconvicted war criminal (like Hitler) she is also unqualified to be a human being.As I wrote:Given the three voting choices of Stein, Hitler Hillary, and something possably worse than Hitler Hillary, Percy has repeatedly argued that the second option, the war criminal that horrifically targeted dark-skinned children Hitler Hillary, was the BEST choice.Percy, unlike the children in Iraq, I trust you sleep well at night.Edited by Admin, : Downsize images.

I remember when I first read Percy saying that Hillary was not evil (she is) and I thought: "Time for some dead baby pics to show up!"You did not disappoint. Carry on.