Summations Only

Let's try another line altogether.Why do you think you get to decide what someone else's "best interests" are?In other words, do you think it's impossible for someone to exist that:1) Is not immediately negatively affected by Trump's positions and actions2) Is immediately negatively affected by Democratic positions and actions, but would very much like them to adjust their current way of doing things and get back to focusing on traditional Democratic positions and actions.In general, I'm arguing that such a person can exist.
And that if such a person exists, then their choice to vote 3rd party is valid.I understand you think the threat of global warming and nuclear war are very large.
I understand you think such things outweigh any possible "immediately negative affects" possibly caused by the Democratic position.And, personally, I agree with you (which is another reason I don't rebut your arguments along these lines).However, your opinion (and mine) that such things are weighed in the favour of voting for Clinton and not a 3rd party does not eliminate the possibility of someone weighing them another way.Do you think it's impossible for current Democratic positions and actions to cause any few number of people (and possibly therefore their families) to lose their income?I am basically defending the position that such a person could exist based on the practicality and real-world workings of politics.
There are always victims to political decisions. I'm calling this "corruption" because many times it is and I thought such a term would draw your attention to this possibility. But perhaps another word would be better as it wouldn't point in so many other directions.People lose their jobs.
Some recover just fine.
Others are not as lucky (or 'prepared' perhaps)I know that if the Democrats made some decisions (corruption-based or otherwise) that caused me to lose my job, and lose my financial ability to provide for my family that depends on me, and that Clinton wasn't doing anything to change such a direction, or possibly even supporting it... my plan would be to vote 3rd party.Because I couldn't vote for Trump (he's dumb).
And I couldn't vote for Clinton (she's supporting destroying my ability to provide for my family).I would consider a 3rd party vote in such a situation to be valid.
I don't think many would fall into this category (as part of the US population on the whole).
But I do think "some" would.How many voted 3rd party?
Obviously it was a significant number of people... significant in the sense that it could have swung the election.
But, in the sense of the US population on the whole, how many was it? Could it be labeled as "few" or some very minor amount of the US population on the whole?If so, I am fairly confident that a lot of those 3rd party voters did so for very good, very valid reasons. Likely something that would fall into the general description of possibility I've described above.

Again, this is (basically) the core of what I'm saying.
The only thing I'm saying.Anything and everything else you think I'm saying that goes above or beyond this is just that... something going above or beyond the point I intended to speak about.I pretty much agree with you about all the things you've brought up that is above or beyond this point.
However, as I've noted, they are all irrelevant to making this one, particular, specific point.I'm just pointing out, in general, that there are perfectly valid and rational reasons for people to vote 3rd party. I think you're trying to have some sort of political discussion with me that I'm simply not capable of.
The reason I'm not specific about issues within the US Democratic party is because I'm completely ignorant about them... mostly because I'm not a US citizen and I don't care (for my day-to-day life, anyway).I'm also trying not to be specific about issues in the Democratic party because it's not required to make my point... the point that there are valid reasons to make 3rd party votes. You keep rebutting ideas along the lines of "the democratic party isn't very good."But I'm not attempting to make that point.
I agree with you that "the democratic party isn't very good" is a bad point... the democratic party seems pretty decent to me, as you suggest with all your "rebuttals."Why do you think the Democratic party being pretty good is a reason why someone can't vote 3rd party in order to try to make them better?You accept the Democratic party isn't perfect?
You accept there is room for improvement?I assume the answer is yes to both of those questions... or else you're simply lying to yourself.Therefore, if someone had some massive pressure on them as well not to vote Democratic (say... current Democratic policies are destroying their ability to provide for their family).... why is that not a valid reason to vote 3rd party?If you agree with this point (which you seem to in your above reply) then we are in total agreement.We completely agree that there can be valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
We completely agree that, personally, we would both vote for Clinton.
We completely agree that, personally, we do not want others to vote 3rd party, but would rather that they voted for Clinton.
We completely agree that the Democratic party is massively better than the Republican party.
We completely agree that the Democratic party is pretty decent in it's own right.
We completely agree that the Democratic party could still be better.
We completely agree that the Democratic party supports some policies that destroys the ability for some people to provide for their family.
We completely agree that such people would have a perfectly valid reason to vote 3rd party.
We completely agree that the people who fall into this category are extremely small.
We completely agree that the number of people who voted 3rd party is extremely small.
We completely agree that some people voted 3rd party for silly, irrational reasons.

It's bullshit that someone exists that the current policies/direction of the Democratic party caused the destruction of their ability to provide for their family?I wondered if maybe you could be right.
So I took a few seconds to Google "democratic policies lost jobs"
The second link contains this quote:

quote:

---

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing (for) millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs (and) means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

---

(words in brackets added by me to parse the phrase as I expect it was meant).Do you think this claim is false?
I'm not saying that there's some huge group of people who lost jobs due to democratic policies/direction... we've already established that 3rd party votes were less than 5% of all votes.I am, however, claiming that some small group exists (even less than "less than 5% of all votes") that easily could have had their ability to provide for their family destroyed by democratic policies/direction.This quote and article seem to support my idea.I don't see how any of these facts add up to "bullshit" just because you, personally, were not affected in such a way.This isn't saying that Trump will make their lives better.
This is only saying that their lives were massively, immediately, negatively impacted by Democratic policies/direction.From there, it's not hard to imagine that some of these people might regularly vote Democratic... because they don't like the Republicans and perhaps especially Trump.
It's not hard to understand that they also refuse to vote Democratic this past election because the policies/direction of the Democratic party is responsible for destroying their ability to provide for their family.That's all that's required in order to have a normally-voting-Democrat person possess a valid reason to vote 3rd party in this past election.

I can't comment on the specifics, just as I can't comment on other specifics... I'm ignorant on what actually happens with the US political parties, mostly because I don't care because I'm Canadian. But partly because (like most people) I'm focused on my own family, which doesn't allow time for my attention to be everywhere else I'd like it to.However, I fully agree that "some political decisions regarding war" have definitely been made by the Democratic party that have resulted in the deaths of some families' members. (Regardless of them being made for the right or wrong reasons.)And, yes, that as well would make for an extremely valid reason to vote 3rd party in this election.
I didn't intend to supply "the only reason" just "a reason."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Of course not.You or I don't get to assume what any adult's "best interests" are.Haven't you ever heard of those people who would rather die in their home, happy... instead of leaving for better healthcare, jobs or food?
Who are you to say that a long, unhappy life is in "their best interests" over a short, happy life?
You don't get to make such decisions for other people.
(This isn't to say that's what happened in this election... just to show that some people can judge their own best interests differently than what you are declaring they "should be.")Again, you can try to persuade them why you think your ideas are better.
You can talk about "anything can happen in the future, so I think it's best if you do what you can to live longer..."But you don't get to say that such things are obviously in their best interests.
That's up for them to decide. Unless you value your 3rd party vote over starving.
Perhaps you value the future of your children over your own, personal current situation and hope to improve things for them.
Why do you think you get to make such a decision for someone else? Unless you value your 3rd party vote over being poor.
Perhaps you value the future of the country over your own, personal current situation.
Why do you think you get to make such a decision for someone else? Unless you value your 3rd party vote over Trump being in office.
Perhaps you value the memory of your husband over voting for Trump or the Democrats.
Why do you think you get to make such a decision for someone else? Unless he doesn't make them worse, of course, according to their own decisions about their own "best interests." Not Percy's decision about what their "best interests" should be.
Perhaps someone values following Trump over anything else, even their own life.
Why do you think you get to make such a decision for someone else? This only makes sense if "having affordable health insurance" is one of the highest priorities for someone.
Some people make higher priorities. Sometimes to the detriment of their health. They accept such things, and wouldn't have it any other way.
Why do you think you get to make such a decision for someone else?
Can you think of something you might want above your own health? (I'm going to assume you can, because most people certainly can.)
Why can't someone else make a similar decision for themselves? Only Percy can decide when their health is the most important and when it isn't? No, I'm not confusing what you're doing at all.I'm asking you why you think you get to decide what someone else's best interests are.Just because you think healthcare, jobs, food, safety and a clean environment need to be everyone else's top priorities?
Can't they be high priorities but they hold one or two other things slightly higher?
Can't they decide if they want to risk something very large in order to stand for something else they find very important?
Can't they do something you think is silly?
Can't they decide that these things are the highest priorities... but losing some in the short-term is worth correcting the path to have such values stronger in the long-term?If they think any one of those, or anything else along such lines... why can't it be in their best interests to vote 3rd party just because it's not what you've decided are your own best interests?I would agree with you that some people voted against the interests of their health care, or possibly some other specifics...
But I cannot agree with you that all 3rd party voters voted against their own best interests just because you disagree what those "best interests" should be.
I'm sure some did.. but all? That's declaring that no one who can think could possibly think differently from Percy. And that's just arrogant.

Ah, I see.
It's starting to sound like we agree again, you were just confused over some of my phrasing.You didn't mean "best interests" along the lines of "top priorities..." you just meant "best interests" along the lines of ... "interests."Then I agree with you.
I was arguing against this: I've already agreed that "some people" cast votes that were contrary to their best interests.
I'm sure some voted for Jill Stein and were tricked.My point is that not all 3rd party votes were duped or tricked.
What I'm saying is that some people did vote 3rd party, and they did not cast a vote that was contrary to their best interests.They may have casted a vote that was contrary to some of their interests.
Just like pretty much everyone who's ever voted in the history of all elections has. Does anyone agree, 100%, with everything that any one party or platform stands for?But since you agree that others can have top priorities or "best interests" different than yours, then I suppose you also now agree that:It certainly can be rational, reasonable, valid, and in someone's best interests to vote 3rd party in the 2016 election.Here, I mean "best interests" to mean their most highest of priorities.
Not just "something that is of interest to them, and is also a very high priority for most people."Priorities that they get to decide for themselves.

What are you describing as a "democrat?"Someone who agrees with all democratic policies/directions/actions? That would be a self-fulfilling statement you've made, then.
Someone who always votes democratic? Again, self-fulfilling.I'm talking about someone who self-identifies as a democrat.... and has voted democratic in previous elections... and didn't agree with the current democratic party's policies/directions/actions on something(s) they hold particularly important. Sounds good to me.So we're basically saying that jobs, healthcare and environment are all among their best interests.
But that LGBT issue is their #1 best interest.I am also saying that such an example... even though they agree "jobs, healthcare, the environment and LGBT issues" are in their best interests... they may not agree that the current policies/direction of the democratic party for such issues is aligning with their own vision of the future for those issues. Although both visions would fit under the large umbrella of being considered "democratic."I can see a few meanings for best interests:1 - Time during the Trump presidency.
-I agree that this time-frame is not in the best interests of example-Modulous2a - 2020 election and beyond - democrats possibly regaining power
-If it's possible for the democrats to reclaim power in the future, and also align their policies/direction closer to what example-Modulous might want... then this would be "in their best interests."
-with this in mind, it is in example-Modulous' best interests to vote 3rd party2b - 2020 election and beyond, but Trump actually lost to Clinton and she became the president in 2016
-In this scenario, the democrats may very well take "winning the 2016 election" as an indication that they are going in the right direction with their vision of jobs, healthcare, the environment and LGBT issues. It is not unreasonable to assume that they will continue in this direction... a direction that is not in line with example-Modulous' vision of the future. This, in fact, would be going against Modulous' best interests.Therefore, for someone to have voting-3rd party in the 2016 election to be in their best interests they require:
-to have (generally) a democratic vision for the future
-that vision for the future is not aligned completely with the vision of the pre-2016-election democratic party
-a strong aversion to the vision of the pre-2016-election democratic party
-the belief that if the democrats win the 2016 election, they will not change their vision of the future and will even solidify more into it
-the hope that the democrats will change their vision to something closer to the 3rd-party-voter's vision in the future
-the hope that the democrats will regain power (2020?) even if they don't win the 2016 election
-the hope that even if Trump wins the 2016 election, his actions will not be irreversible in the long-runIf someone (maybe Modulous? I'm not really reading all those long posts between you and him) such as that exists... I don't see how it's acceptable to say that a 3rd party vote will be contrary to their best interests. It seems to me that they would have voted exactly in line with their best interests. Regardless of whether or not "best interests" includes LGBT issues or not.The judgment call is about how much damage Trump can do and whether or not it's reversible vs. possibly having the democratic party move farther and farther away from your democratic vision of the future and re-aligning them sooner rather than later.I think, for many people, such a judgment call falls to voting for Clinton anyway.
I also think, though, that for some few people, such a judgment call falls for voting 3rd party. For these few people, it would be "in their best interests" to vote 3rd party.I simply don't think the issue is objective. I think it includes quite a few subjective judgments.

My guess would lean on the "stress" side of things.Although cognitive decline certainly can't be ruled out.A few (weak) defenses I can think of:In the past, Trump's always been able to hire only "yes man" people to help him prepare/deal with interviews and public speaking.
Now, (I'm assuming?) there's at least some people he's forced to have around him that are not specifically paid by him who influence his public speaking.In general, televised interviews are not as pre-planned or strict or polished as they were 20 years ago.
I think things (in pop-media... where Trump wishes he was) have moved more along the lines of admiring 'off the cuff' statements from celebrities (which Trump thinks he is).I'm willing to entertain the idea of cognitive decline. It's only natural, really.
But this article seems a bit more along the lines of sensationalism than evidential.
I completely agree with the article that Trump's writing/speaking has declined.
I just don't see any evidence for saying this decline is due to cognitive decline rather than something like stress.We KNOW Trump is under stress. He's not built for this sort of thing. He's feeble-minded.
It's POSSIBLE for Trump to be undergoing some sort of cognitive decline... because he's old.To move cognitive decline up the list and say that's affecting him more than the other factors (or more than normal... aren't most congress-related-people old?) would take some more evidence than this article seems to provide.

I don't think I understand quite what's going on.Why do any of the memo's need to be "approved" before being released?Can't any politician tell their people what they think at any time?
Can't any group of politicians (say 'the Republicans') put together a "memo-ish" type of collection-of-ideas and tell the public it represents what they think at any time?
Can't any other group (say 'the Democrats') put together a rebuttal of any idea and tell the public what they think at any time?What's so special about the memo going through this approval process?
Is that supposed to lend some sort of credibility to it?

Ah, this makes more sense.I think I was confused by who was putting out the memo.I thought it was from The Republican Party (in general).
But it's actually from The House Intelligence Committee - who "just so happens" to have a bunch of republicans in it.Do I have that right?If that's right, then I understand that "level of credibility" they're hoping to gain from this memo stating whatever-it-says.