Summations Only

"The "such a terrible idea?" part is in response to the implication that the only motivation for a 3rd party vote is to get that candidate to win."I understand your motivation. I don't understand that you don't accept that your vote has ramifications. You knew why someone would consider it a terrible idea before you asked.

Trump tweets how ‘proud’ he is of the US amid tragedies ...
I was more impressed back when presidents could actually give a substantive speech rather than a series of tweets. Communication is increasing exponentially in quantity while decreasing severely in quality.

The President's task during a natural disaster?Be the Carer in Chief. Visit, not right away, but make an appearance while spreading hope and talking about the future. Get in lots of photos with smiling local politicians.I doubt that Trump really cares all that much about a bunch of democratically leaning folks who don't have either an electoral vote, or a voting Congressman, but I would have thought anyone could fake it.Trump instead tells the folks that Katrina was much worse and that only 16 Puerto Ricans are confirmed to be killed. He calls them lazy and insists that they don't want to help themselves.

quote:

---

Trump called Katrina "a real catastrophe" given its "hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that died," before asking a Puerto Rican official for their "death count."

---

Trump was actually tossing rolls of paper towels to residents. Symbolizing what exactly?Did I forget to say thanks?Thank you.

I think that what we are seeing is someone who has never had to worry about money a day in his life, and lacks the empathy required to understand how it would be if he had to worry about money or the basic necessities of life. IOW, he doesn't give a shit and has never had to.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Stile responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Question: What made Clinton "not good enough"?

---

I don't know the specifics, that's why I put it in quotations.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?We've already seen this attempt to avoid responsibility from RAZD. He literally has no idea what Clinton's positions were, but he's sure they weren't what he wanted.Even though they were.And yet he complains about Clinton not having "earned" his vote. Every single criterion he has put forward has had Clinton on his side, and yet she's still not "good enough."Don't you think you should determine what a candidate actually stands for before you start claiming they aren't "good enough"?Especially when your vote will result in the election of a candidate who will guarantee you get nothing? The general election is too late for you to "send a message." At that point, people are going to literally die as a result of how you vote. For you to say that you refuse to "compromise" means you are actively working to kill people.And no, that is not hyperbole.

quote:

---

As much as everyone else is.

---

Yep. You act like the fact that other people voted in such a way as to result in Trump getting elected somehow absolves you of any responsibility for your vote that resulted in Trump getting elected.

quote:

---

quote:

---

For people who lived in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, that ability to "send a message" doesn't exist.

---

This is false.

---

So I guess the message is, "We're OK with you dying. We stayed 'pure.'" There's a reason they are called "swing states."If you decide to "send a message" that directly results in people dying, then you are responsible.

quote:

---

And it only makes sense if there will never be another election.

​

Is the voting over forever?

---

For the people who are going to die because of your vote, yes. The voting is over forever. I'm sure the people in Puerto Rico are proud to be martyrs for your precious "message."

quote:

---

I don't understand your questions.

---

And that is why you fail. There is a direct connection between who you vote for and public policy that gets enacted by those who won the election. The Justice Department right now is arguing before the courts about anti-discrimination laws, saying that they do not protect gay people.The Fifth Circuit just denied a stay on Mississippi's right-to-discriminate law which means it goes into effect on Friday. Gay people can be denied services by anybody, both government and private parties. And that's because people voted for Republicans who put those justices on the court.Would Clinton be doing the same thing as Trump? Would Clinton's Justice Department be arguing that gay people have no right to be free from discrimination? Would Clinton's Justice Department be fighting to enact Mississippi's law? When they wind up kicked out of their houses, have the police and rescue workers refuse to help them, have their children taken away, should the take solace that those people who voted to allow the conservatives who enacted those policies and set up those judges remained true to their convictions?

quote:

---

I'm just saying it's possible to want to think about the next election instead of this one.

---

Except you weren't paying attention to the previous one. If you don't like the candidates you have now, where were you a dozen years ago when the current candidates were starting their run? Because for many people, there is no "next election." That's why you grab for everything you can now *and*then* work for the next election. You don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You understand that ensuring that you lose everything you hold dear is a stupid plan when you can get some of it.When gay people were looking for marriage equality, the states tried to buy them off with "civil unions." They were taken...but that never stopped the fight for full equality. Why? Because some people were never going to live to see full equality and they needed all the benefits they could get *NOW.* To vote in such a way that you get NOTHING out of some benighted sense of purity is to condemn people to misery.If you in your privileged state are capable of surviving until the next election, good on ya.Not everybody has that luxury.

quote:

---

It's possible to want to send a message so that the candidates are better for the next election instead of choosing the lesser-of-two-evils this election.

---

Yeah. It's called a "primary." You've heard of it, haven't you? It's called "writing your Congressman" between elections. You've heard of that, too, haven't you? It's called "getting involved." Surely you've heard of that, haven't you?Waiting until the general election to "send a message" is foolish.

quote:

---

Are you trying to say that such a position is impossible and unreasonable for anyone to hold?

---

At the general election? Yes.The time for sending messages is before people lives are on the line.

quote:

---

I agree that your statement accurately describes a wasted vote.

---

So why are you defending it? People who voted such that Trump won are responsible for it. To say that they "shouldn't have to choose," that they are noble for "sending a message," etc. is to deny responsibility for their actions. People are literally going to die because of it. For them, there is no "next election." They don't have the privilege of being able to absorb the disastrous policies being enacted.But hey...you didn't "sell out," so they should be proud to be martyred for your message, right?

quote:

---

I'm talking about voting such that you send a message to the democrats that Hillary wasn't a good enough option.

---

Why wasn't she good enough?If you can't articulate why, then you don't get to say that she wasn't. Which means you don't have any justification for "sending a message."Not that there is any justification for that. The time to send a message was back in the primaries. It was back in 2000 when she first ran for Congress.

quote:

---

Hillary lost. Trump won.

---

Except she didn't lose. She won. By about 3M votes. The second largest take in history. The only reason she wasn't seated was due to the peculiarities of the Electoral College.But she won the election.

quote:

---

But this is irrelevant to my point about future elections.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?What do you think is the point of talking to your elected officials between the time they are elected in this cycle and the time of the next election? That's right...it's to get them to change their ways before the next election comes around so that you can have more people to elect who are on your side. There will still be differences among candidates, but wouldn't it be nice if the people you were voting for in the primary were 93% in agreement?You know...like Clinton and Sanders were? If Sanders was amazing and Clinton was the devil, then that means that 7% is exceedingly important...which means you're a single-issue voter.Or, more likely as RAZD's example shows us, you don't actually know what the positions of the candidates are but are going off media hype that needs to have a horse race.

quote:

---

I think it's quite obvious that "a message" can be sent at the primary or the general.

---

Indeed...if you decide to send that message in the general, the message is that you don't give a fuck about your fellow citizens. You're privileged enough to survive until the next election and anybody else who can't make it is just SOL. The message is that you'd rather get nothing than something simply because you're unhappy that you can't get everything.

quote:

---

But I also must admit that it is louder at the general.

---

When the next election is now sabotaged because of what you did in this election, your message may be loud, but it's a death rattle, not a rallying cry. For someone who went on and on about "next election," you are extremely short-sighted.Or do you not understand how things like districting and voter rights work in the US? Remember: Wisconsin's voter suppression was more than 200,000 votes. Do you really think the Republicans that were elected are going to do something about that?

quote:

---

You send a message that "Hillary is not good enough, we want a better candidate."

---

That's what the primary is for.And she trounced Sanders even harder than she trounced Trump. So clearly, she was "good enough."Unless you can explain why she wasn't.

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that no gay person would ever have another issue ever again if Hillary beat Trump.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!I'm saying that gays wouldn't have to be starting over from scratch if Clinton were elected. I'm saying gays wouldn't be actively losing ground. I'm saying that if Gore had been elected instead of Bush, if Clinton had been elected instead of Trump, we wouldn't have Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch on the court.For someone who talks about the "next election," you seem to be awfully short-sighted.

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that no hurricane will ever hit Puerto Rico again if Hillary beat Trump.

---

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!I'm saying that Clinton would not have waited to waive the Jones Act just because the victims weren't white or didn't vote for her. I'm saying Clinton would have one-third of FEMA's leadership positions unfilled. I'm saying Clinton's budget wouldn't slash FEMA.The disaster is going to happen. The question is how are you going to respond. Do you really think Trump's response was "good enough"?

quote:

---

Therefore, a message to the Democrats to "get better candidates" has reasonable value.

---

That's not the message that was sent, though.Instead, the message was, "I got mine, fuck you."How Libertarian of you.

Rrhain, I'm from Canada.I didn't vote in the US election because I can't vote in the US election.My point isn't that voting 3rd party is the "better" thing to do.
My point is that voting 3rd party is an "acceptable" thing to do.When you understand this, perhaps you can try focus your arguments on something relevant. Your point only makes sense against my argument if you can show that all gays will never lose ground in the future, at any time, if Hillary was elected this past election.Even if you could show that, you'd also have to show that Hillary being in office wouldn't have caused anyone else any harm at all during her entire tenure.Since you can't read the future, or alternative realities... you have no point against my argument. This only makes sense if you can show that no one would ever die because Hillary was in office. Or, at least, less.
Since people have always died, and always some at the fault at whoever's-been-in-office... your point doesn't carry much weight.You may very well have a point that less gay people or less Puerto Ricans would be dead.
But every president screws up something. Hillary would have had her own deaths on her hands.
It is impossible for you to show that, in general, there would be "less dead people" if Hillary would be in office unless you can read the future or alternative realities.You believe that there will be less dead with Hillary in office.
This is a fine point, and a great reason for you to vote Hillary.It's quite possible (and reasonable) for someone to believe there will be less dead in the future if they get the Democrats to be less corrupt and better and choosing candidates.
That is also a fine point, and a great reason to vote for 3rd party. Again, try to address my argument.
I'm talking about "the future" not *only* "the next election." You are the only one who keeps narrowing the focus so that it's something you can digest. Broaden your horizons. Wrong again.
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to define the message of someone else.
That is simple, factual reality.This may be what you, personally, hear. But, well, your posts to me show that you're not very good at personally hearing what people are actually trying to say anyway... so that's not really a big deal.You're so wrong about what you're trying to argue against, and what you think I'm saying... I hope this message corrects some of your errors.

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. 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. Those adjectives apply better to anyone thinking this an intelligent point. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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. You're a broken record. Repeating wrong statements doesn't make them any less wrong. If it doesn't make any sense, why did you say it? 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? 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. Except that I wasn't given a personal opinion shared by no one else. I was voicing an opinion shared by literally millions. 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. 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. Do it all you like. I agree with the former and the latter has extremely serious deleterious side-effects. 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

But that's not what I'm thinking, and that wasn't the original context anyway.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.
Without that... then it's quite possible that Trump could have won by more if "more people voted for him."I never narrowly focused anything on the general election, or non-electoral-college-votes... only you are doing that. No.This is some point you've created that you're clinging to.
To me, this is totally irrelevant and entirely useless information.The original point (the only point) I've ever brought up 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.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."Any additional narrow focusing on that point is all your own doing, and you're own clinging to totally irrelevant facts anyway. Exactly.
My entire point is that saying "you helped Trump win!" is useless to say.
It's entirely obvious, and entirely irrelevant.Of course anyone voting 3rd party helped Trump win.
The answer to this is... who cares?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?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. 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 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.
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. 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.My point is simple:3rd party votes can be reasonable and "good" even if they help Trump win.
Saying something like "If you didn't vote for Hillary, you helped Trump win!" is immature and shortsighted.
It's true... but irrelevantly so.
Because it's quite possible to want to vote 3rd party regardless of helping Trump win or not.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. Because I didn't think it was a difficult idea to grasp.
It only dawned on me that some people couldn't see this possibility at this point.If I knew saying a phrase would communicate my point immediately... I would have used it immediately.
Unfortunately, I can't read your mind, or the mind of anyone else.
So I have to do my best, and adjust and rephrase things based on the feedback I get.It's almost like I'm trying to debate on a debate board... go figure. 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. Obviously, Hillary wasn't a strong enough candidate to get into office.
Do you think the Democrats don't understand the voting process and the electoral college?
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.
Or they can successfully lobby and get the system changed... that's a valid option as well.They didn't do that.
They very well may have tried to do that. But whatever they did, obviously, wasn't "good enough." I completely agree with you here. On both your points. Thank-you. That's all the respect I wanted. If people misunderstand what I'm trying to convey, I can clarify and re-phrase until they do.
This is not surprising.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. Again, with this, I completely agree.
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, 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 way I've got you is that you're not making any sense. You are again jumping outside the original context. 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. Yes. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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. 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. If there's a point in there then you had better try again, because it reads like nonsense. 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. Yes, I meant to say "helped Trump win" instead of "voted for Trump". 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. 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. 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. Declaring the same opinion over and over again lends it no more credence than it ever had, which is none. 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. 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. You're most significant reaction to feedback seems to be to call it "irrelevant". 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. Debunked too many times to count. We're playing the "ask rhetorical questions" game now? 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. 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. 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". Yes, I see that happening now. 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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Not that we needed Tillerson to tell us...

quote:

---

Discord between President Donald Trump and his chief diplomat is at an all-time high, spilling into public view in recent days, peaking with a NBC News report Wednesday that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a "moron" in a Pentagon meeting.

---

When asked directly whether he called Trump a moron, Tillerson said the following

quote:

---

"I'm not going to deal with petty stuff like that, this is what I do not understand about Washington

---

Now, do you have anything to say to me about the point I'm actually trying to make? Or do you only want to talk about some point that only you want to talk about?I fully understand that the point I'm talking about is not the only point in existence.
It's not even the only point Taq references.
It may not even be a point Taq attempted to reference.But it's the point I understood from Taq's posts after a fair and reasonable reading.
It's the only thing I'm attempting to talk about.If you want to talk to me, you'll talk about my point.
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.Again, my point:A 3rd party vote can be made validly, and with reasonable justification regardless of the fact that it helped Trump win.
Saying "voting for a 3rd party only helped Trump win!" is wrong. It didn't only do that, it can do other things.
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.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.
That may be my fault, it may be yours... but that doesn't matter, it's wrong. I am extremely determined to ignore any and all contexts that are not relevant to the point I'm making (see above).
That's only efficient and practical.
If you have an issue with that... it's more to do with yourself than with me. 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. Excellent. You entirely agree with me again.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?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.All I've ever said is that it's possible for a 3rd party vote to be made in good conscience, and that it could have a valid and reasonable point to it.
I've given a specific example: That it could be for indicating to the Democrats that they should be offering up better candidates.But, since we agree, this should be the end of it. Saying that Clinton wasn't good enough (as a fact.. because she lost) doesn't necessarily imply that there was a stronger available candidate. And I certainly have never implied such a thing.
Perhaps this is your issue. 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. 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?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?Me saying your ideas are irrelevant is not saying they don't have "a point."
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.You can either try to correct that issue, or continue to go off on a tangent.
If you continue to talk to me, I expect you to attempt to correct the issue.
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 rebutted me by agreeing with me again?
Okay.Check back to my original posts.I never replied to anyone who said "those who thought Hillary was a sure thing, but voted 3rd party... is a silly idea."
I would agree with such a phrase.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.Check again what I replied to, and you'll see the distinction.

Nice to know his staff understands him ...

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. 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. So you say, but not so you act. Are you nuts? Taq comes right out and says it in Message 1227: 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. Again, no one is disputing this. 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. 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. Geez, shades of Faith again. Are you going to hold your breath, too? Other adjectives also apply, such as selfish, egotistical, arrogant, self-centered, autocratic, etc. 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. 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? 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. And...we're back to nonsense sentences again. 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) 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. 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? 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. 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. 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 Still nothing about your point. Still nothing about your point. The tangent is all your own. My gosh, more rules and conditions. If you respond it would be nice if you could explain this lost point clearly. You sound like someone desperate to escape a corner he's painted himself into. 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? 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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Thanks for agreeing with me again.Good talk.Everything else in your entire post is about trying to win some made-up scoreboard in your mind.
I'm not playing that game.

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. 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