Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 3:55 AM
316 online now:
Meddle, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 313 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,536 Year: 29,142/21,208 Month: 1,208/1,847 Week: 131/452 Day: 5/126 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8687
88
8990
...
105NextFF
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11858
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1306 of 1571 (821523)
10-08-2017 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1303 by Percy
10-08-2017 2:29 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
I think you've misread Taq's comment. When Taq said that Bush disagrees with you it wasn't intended to be taking literally.

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

It was a reference to Nader taking enough votes from Gore to lose him Florida, precisely what you said could not happen (you said, "Voting for Candidate 3 [Nader] does not contribute to the election of Candidate 1 [Bush].").

It could have the result of Candidate 1 winning, but your vote is contributed to Candidate 3. Maybe we're just splitting hairs tho. Am I reading too literally again?

I get it: in hindsight you can say that the vote for #3 ended up helping #1 win, but you don't know that when you're voting.

In this election in particular, as I remember it; there was no way Trump could win and Hillary was a shoe-in. So, this seems like the best time for a Democrat to vote 3rd party to send a message. Sure, there's risk in that, and y'all really hate Trump - so I get why you're looking for blame and, in hindsight, feel like that blame goes to the 3rd party voters.

But when you're voting you don't have that hindsight. And if the message you want to send is important enough to you, then not strategically voting for someone that you do not want would have been a good choice for this election given the information you had at the time of the vote. That is: Hillary is a shoe-in and Trump cant win. So this was a good time to tell the Dems that their candidate sucks.

That Trump did end up winning may have made a lot of 3rd party voters regret their decision, but the blame for the outcome does not lay on them.

The blame lays on the people who voted for Trump, and also the Hillary campaign for not appealing broadly enough to win the electoral votes while claiming victory too early.

People who didn't want Trump, and didn't want Hillary, are not to blame for voting honestly and according to their conscience.

The only way that you can blame their strategy is in hindsight. And they didn't have that when they voted.

You must know some very unusual third party voters. Very few Stein or Sanders supporters would have preferred Trump to Hillary. Were voting for Stein or Sanders not possible for some reason, then some of those voters would have voted for Clinton, some wouldn't have voted (but many under the misconception that Clinton's lead in the polls made her winning a safe bet), and some very tiny minority would have voted for Trump.

There were 3 times as many Johnson voters as there were Stein voters (4.5 to 1.5 million). How many of them do you think would vote for a Democrat but not Hillary? Did he get many votes from the key areas in question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1303 by Percy, posted 10-08-2017 2:29 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1309 by Percy, posted 10-09-2017 9:06 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1310 by Lammy, posted 10-09-2017 2:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2171
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 1307 of 1571 (821529)
10-08-2017 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1305 by Percy
10-08-2017 8:10 PM


First Time for Everything aka Defending Myself Against People I Admire
Percy writes:

That was one of the longer "not getting the point" posts I've ever read. It's a safe bet Rrhain understands everything you decided to lecture him on, and it's a safe bet you know he understands it, so what a waste of time.

Rrhain treated me as an idiot and stated a falsehood in doing so,
doing so knowingly just makes it worse. Was pointing out that obvious falsehood wrong? In who's book?

Concerning your relevant points, I don't think upping their game is bad advice for the Democrats, but I think it misses the most important point. The Democrats used to be the party of the common man, but now they're the party of the elite. That they own certain important issues is helpful, like clean environment and climate and LGBT and diversity and so forth, but these are elite issues, not "your average guy" issues. For people worried about employment and American culture and living standards the Democrats are the exact wrong party, and that has to change.

To me that is part of what I meant by upping one's game. I agree and have done so with my posting history, but in my words, not yours. Also, some worries about "American culture" such as blatant racism is negative and it is incumbent on anyone who cares to change those parts. As to the rest, well, that is what I'm doing instead of desperately trying to score brownie points against me by impugning my person.

By the way I actually admire Rrhain and I don't know what I did to make him feel I am somehow an enemy or a dolt. But that seems to be what he wants to do and I obviously disagree.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1305 by Percy, posted 10-08-2017 8:10 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1308 by Percy, posted 10-09-2017 8:03 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16343
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 1308 of 1571 (821536)
10-09-2017 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1307 by anglagard
10-08-2017 11:32 PM


Re: First Time for Everything aka Defending Myself Against People I Admire
anglagard writes:

Rrhain treated me as an idiot...

Join the club. 'Nuf said.

By the way I actually admire Rrhain and I don't know what I did to make him feel I am somehow an enemy or a dolt. But that seems to be what he wants to do and I obviously disagree.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I admire Rrhain too right up until he gets a bee up his ass about something I said. It comes out of the blue with no seeming rhyme or reason and no way to anticipate it. He's not alone in this - there are several people here who seem fine most of the time, but every once in a while "go postal" in a discussion board sense. There used to be someone here named Crashfrog who when someone pissed him off would follow them from thread to thread trying to be as annoying and obnoxious as possible while still sticking to the topic.

When faced with one of these situations the central question becomes one of how to respond. Over the years I've tried a number of strategies, and only one strategy has worked, in my mind the worst one. Polite objections, perhaps because they seem wimpy and makes them think they're "winning", just makes them more aggressive. Addressing their points in a neutral manner and ignoring all the derogatory comments seems to have the same effect. Ceasing to reply to their messages I've found to be effective from time to time, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of removing you from a conversation you were interested in. Overtly objecting to the offensive behavior usually brings responses that the behavior isn't offensive at all and that someone is being too sensitive.

The only strategy I've found that works is to give as good as you get while still paying close attention to the topic. I hate the "give as good as you get" part of this strategy, it feels Trumpian and makes me feel like less of a good person, but in its defense there was a tweet example just yesterday from someone I greatly respect, Republican Bob Corker from Tennessee. Trump tweeted:

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

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

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

Sometimes there's nothing you can do but respond in kind.

Also, some worries about "American culture" such as blatant racism is negative and it is incumbent on anyone who cares to change those parts.

Yeah, I agree, but it feels like there's a fine line between feeling like your way of life is threatened versus plain old red-blooded American racism.

--Percy


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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16343
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1309 of 1571 (821543)
10-09-2017 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1306 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2017 8:58 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
New Cat's Eye writes:

...so I get why you're looking for blame...

No, not blame, understanding, and I think you've captured the thinking of 3rd party voters pretty well. Many 3rd party voters thought that Clinton had a substantial enough lead, if not in their states at least in enough other states, that their 3rd party vote was merely a way to register their feelings and not something that could have any real effect. How wrong they were.

I voted in a state where the margin between Trump and Clinton was super thin, so of course I couldn't risk voting 3rd party, but even had I lived in California I would not have voted 3rd party because I believed a Trump presidency would be so disastrous in magnitude (a judgment that is borne out daily) that it wasn't worth the very, very tiny risk.

Let me emphasize that my refusal to consider voting 3rd party had solely to do with Trump. He is the first presidential candidate I believed would be calamitous. So when you go on to say:

People who didn't want Trump, and didn't want Hillary, are not to blame for voting honestly and according to their conscience.

This isn't a blame game, but it's safe to say that most who didn't want Trump or Clinton felt very differently about the two candidates. Most probably viewed Trump with abhorrence, a president who would be a buffoon and a national embarrassment, and most probably viewed Clinton as someone who, although they preferred someone else, would still bring credit to the office. Obviously people who voted 3rd party didn't understand the risks they were taking.

The only way that you can blame their strategy is in hindsight. And they didn't have that when they voted.

The foresight was pretty much crystal clear that Trump would be a disaster of a president. 3rd party voters didn't have to wait for hindsight to know that. When the downside risk is catastrophe, you don't take chances.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2017 8:58 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3577
From: Florida
Joined: 03-29-2004


(2)
Message 1310 of 1571 (821568)
10-09-2017 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1306 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2017 8:58 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
NCE writes:

The blame lays on the people who voted for Trump, and also the Hillary campaign for not appealing broadly enough to win the electoral votes while claiming victory too early.


No, the protest vote people were also to blame.

Permit me to go out on a limb and invoke godwin's law to make my point bleedingly obvious.

The nazis were obviously evil. But the british had laws against homosexuality. And the Americans had that segregation thing. So, in an act of protest, I'll support the side that has absolutely no chance of winning, mainly the penguins of Antarctica.

Do you not see the obvious fallacy in protest voting?

Look, I get it. A lot of people don't like Clinton. I happen to love her, but I get that years of the right caricaturizing her has taken its toll. So, you people would rather let someone like Trump ruin the country?


If you say the word "gullible" slowly, it sounds like oranges. Go ahead and try it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2017 8:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1312 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2017 2:46 PM Lammy has not yet responded
 Message 1314 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2017 3:39 PM Lammy has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


(4)
Message 1311 of 1571 (821569)
10-09-2017 2:10 PM


Every Knee Will Bow
So I've been reading this ongoing issue with the NFL players choosing to kneel during the recitation of the pledge of allegiance. NPR showed VP Pence leaving a football game and that the request (command?) to do so came from Trump.

Pence writes:

"I left today's Colts game because President Trump and I will not dignify any event that disrespects our soldiers, our Flag, or our National Anthem," Pence, a former governor of Indiana, said in a statement.

"While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I don't think it's too much to ask NFL players to respect the Flag and our National Anthem," the statement opposing the protest continued. "I stand with President Trump, I stand with our soldiers, and I will always stand for our Flag and our National Anthem."

Personally, I think that kneeling for a cause is one of the very displays of the freedom which we enjoy. Suggesting that everyone has to stand seems more authoritarian than I like.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

Replies to this message:
 Message 1318 by ringo, posted 10-10-2017 12:35 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11858
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1312 of 1571 (821571)
10-09-2017 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1310 by Lammy
10-09-2017 2:04 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it

No, the protest vote people were also to blame.

In hindsight...

Permit me to go out on a limb and invoke godwin's law to make my point bleedingly obvious.

No.

Do you not see the obvious fallacy in protest voting?

I don't. A realistic example might help tho.

So, you people would rather let someone like Trump ruin the country?

Over Hillary ruining the country? Sure, its whatever - it's not actually going to get ruined.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by Lammy, posted 10-09-2017 2:04 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10127
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1313 of 1571 (821573)
10-09-2017 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1305 by Percy
10-08-2017 8:10 PM


Re: Time for Civics and History Lessons
"hat they own certain important issues is helpful, like clean environment and climate and LGBT and diversity and so forth, but these are elite issues, not "your average guy" issues."

Where "average guy" means "white, male, heterosexual". (Not putting words in your mouth. That's my take.) The could probably win by taking minorities, immigrants, gay people more for granted. But they would catch hell for it.

The Democrats platform is way more inclusive than I think you are giving them credit for. One problem is that folks reject the Democrats solutions. Healthcare should be an easy issue for Dems. So should living wages, and job retraining. But a large group of folks are completely turned off by what they perceive as coddling to diversity and LGBT issues.

"or people worried about .... American culture"

Sigh. Yeah, you are right. Democrats cannot attract many of those folks. Whether or not that should change is something folks might disagree on.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1305 by Percy, posted 10-08-2017 8:10 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 1314 of 1571 (821577)
10-09-2017 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1310 by Lammy
10-09-2017 2:04 PM


People who voted for Jill Stein exercised their right to vote how they wanted
No, the protest vote people were also to blame.

But it wasn't a protest vote.

Permit me to go out on a limb and invoke godwin's law to make my point bleedingly obvious.

So you admit a losing argument. Interesting.

Let me go out on a limb and compare all the democrats who feel the need to insult people who didn't "fall in line" and vote for their candidate to sheep herders and thinking people are sheep to be herded. That isn't freedom.

The whole point of a free election is to be able to vote for the person of your choice, and if you throw that away, then what do you have left? It ain't democracy.

People who blame Jill Stein are trying to find an excuse for losing, rather than trying to fix the problems, and that only leads to having the same problems in the next election.

The problems revolve around issues and the way they are presented to people, not just in glossy ads but in actions. There were pictures of Bernie on the lines marching for $15/hr minimum wage. Clinton wanted $12/hr in the first debate. Democrats don't seem to have any idea how big this issue is to working people of all political persuasion, or they just don't care. You have to be seen out in front on the issues not dragged along by others. Leaders lead.

The problems also revolve around candidates being beholden to rich donors rather than to voters. Bernie proved there is an alternative, and democrats should listen, because people don't want corporate owned candidates on either side. They don't want Wall Street running the country.

People voted for Trump because they had their homes and life savings taken away by the bank crash, and have had to sit by and watch everyone else get bailed out, and the democrats ignored the issue.

Don't blame Jill Stein, blame the democrats, the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz and Clinton for waging a losing myopic self-centered campaign.

Don't blame people for voting their conscience, rather than look at why the campaign failed. Blaming others (and there is quite a list, not just Jill Stein voters) for you loss while failing to look in the mirror is another failure in the making. It certainly does not unite the party.

You can't fix a problem until you define what the problem is and then look into how to change that.

Democrats have yet to take that step, and so the campaigns for 2018 will be insipid, shortsighted and prone to failure.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1310 by Lammy, posted 10-09-2017 2:04 PM Lammy has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3586
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 1315 of 1571 (821600)
10-09-2017 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1292 by Taq
10-06-2017 4:43 PM


Talking the big Bush, not the Shrub
George HW Bush would disagree.

There's been a few messages chain responding to Taq's message. None seem to have noticed the "H" before the "W".

IIRC, the Ross Perot third party candidacy may have tilted things from George the Greater to Bill the Bubba (George HW Bush to Bill Clinton).

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1292 by Taq, posted 10-06-2017 4:43 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13391
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 1316 of 1571 (821657)
10-10-2017 3:25 AM


Corker tells it like it is
Four ways Bob Corker skewered Donald Trump


"I don't know why the president tweets out things that are not true. You know he does it, everyone knows he does it, but he does."

Certainly that's true, he was doing it in the campaign, and before


"I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it's a situation of trying to contain him."

If this is what Trump is like when he's "contained" imagine how bad it would be if he was just allowed to have his own way all the time.


    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10127
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1317 of 1571 (821676)
10-10-2017 12:33 PM


No slight left unanswered
In a move that only his base could love, Trump gets around to responding to Rex Tillerson calling him a moron.

"I think it's fake news, but if he did that, I guess we'll have to compare IQ tests," Trump said. "And I can tell you who is going to win."

Let's continue to blame this crap on Hillary.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14002
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(3)
Message 1318 of 1571 (821677)
10-10-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1311 by Phat
10-09-2017 2:10 PM


Re: Every Knee Will Bow
Phat writes:

NPR showed VP Pence leaving a football game....


I'm just disappointed that the whole stadium didn't yell, "And stay out!"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by Phat, posted 10-09-2017 2:10 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1319 of 1571 (821701)
10-11-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1283 by Taq
10-05-2017 4:30 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Taq writes:

Therefore, the party that appeals to rural America will have an inherent edge when it comes to the electoral college.

Sounds about right.
Doesn't seem to change the point that Clinton wasn't good enough.
Or, using your terminology: Clinton wasn't good enough to stand for her Democratic values and also appeal to enough of rural America to win the election.

Is such a thing impossible for a mortal?
Perhaps. The phrase is still true as stated, though.

Are there things Clinton could have done differently?
Perhaps. The phrase is still true as stated, obviously.

Are there things no one knows about (currently) that could solve this conundrum for the Democrats?
Perhaps. The phrase is still true as stated, again.

Taq writes:

What we are arguing is:

1. Is the cost of making the point worth it.
2. Is it a good point to begin with.

I agree.

As Percy said earlier, it is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It seems you have made your conclusion without any (offered) reasoning/support.

My conclusion is the following:

A) Concluding that this is not worth it is a valid opinion for an individual to hold. (I won't list support for this, because you seem to agree with it).
B) Concluding that this is worth it is a valid opinion for an individual to hold.

Support:
1 - The temporary cost of having Trump in office could easily be worth it for the potential long-term gain of forcing the Democrats to learn how to stick to their values, reduce corruption in their politics and also appeal more to rural America.
Such a risk would vary from person to person, of course.
Say... a gay, Islamic woman may be not think this risk is worth it as she is more "in the cross-hairs" of Trump immediately.
However... a white, Christian male may think the risk is worth is as they could be more interested in protecting the future of their family and friends as opposed to the next 4 years of those affected by Trumps immediate holding of office.

2 - Just because some people are going to be hurt, immediately and badly, by Trump being in office for the next 4 years does not mean that no one would be hurt, immediately or badly, by Clinton being in office for these 4 years. In fact, thinking so is terribly naïve.
Obviously some people will be hurt, immediately and badly, by Clinton being in office... there is always something that happens during any 4-year tenure that is the fault of the president that hurts people immediately and badly.
I think it is up to the individual to take stock of their own situation, and their own best-guess of the future to weigh such risks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1283 by Taq, posted 10-05-2017 4:30 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1321 by Percy, posted 10-11-2017 1:20 PM Stile has responded
 Message 1328 by Taq, posted 10-11-2017 5:44 PM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1320 of 1571 (821702)
10-11-2017 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1298 by Rrhain
10-08-2017 12:14 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Rrhain writes:

When it results in the exact opposite of your goals getting put into power, then it is anything but "acceptable."

But the results were not opposite to the goals of voting 3rd party.

If the goal was to send a message to the democrats.. then that goal was successful 100%.

Are things going to get worse or will they at least maintain the status quo if not get better?

I agree that this is the question.
I find your narrow focus on Trumps failings to be inadequate to also judge the possibility of Clinton's failings as well as the possible future failings of the Democrats if no message was sent.

You do not find such a judgment inadequate.

It is my position that your position is valid.
It is my position that my position is also valid.

You seem to think that only your opinion is worth anything.
Not all people are in your situation, or have your goals for the future.

I think it's quite possible to be a good, loving, caring person and also vote 3rd party in order to send a message to the democrats.

When you understand this, perhaps you can try to focus your arguments on the actual point: By voting in such a way that the Republican won, you directly, consciously, and deliberately voted to make things worse and you don't get to say that you were being "pure" and expect the dead people to accept that.

For it is unacceptable.

This isn't true.

Those who voted 3rd party couldn't read the future anymore than you can.

The judgment was against making this worse now, vs. helping things be better in the future.

You seem to think that making things worse now is unacceptable.
I think such a view is valid... and you should vote accordingly.

I also think that thinking for the future is also a valid opinion, while accepting the temporary pain Trump is causing right now.

What if the Clinton got into power and more "behind the scenes" corruption occurred that caused more pain, death and suffering than Trump has ever done?

That's the point.

I understand you don't think it's a possibility, or worthy of consideration.
My point is that others do, and they have just as much validity to think so then you do to think otherwise.

I'm one of those people who just might die because of Trump. And no, that is not hyperbole.

So let me say it again, Stile: Fuck you. Fuck you and your privileged ass and your "acceptable" claptrap. I will not be a martyr to your hissy fit. Anybody who seems to think that I should just accept the results of their vote because it allowed them to maintain their "purity" and "send a message" can take a flying leap off. This is not a game.

Again, no matter how vehemently you adhere to your opinion... it doesn't make your life and your future any more important than anyone else's life and future.

My life is now at risk because some people decided to "send a message."

And if the message was not sent, other people's lives would be at risk.

I'm simply valuing everyone equally.
You're valuing yourself above everyone else.

I admit that your view is valid - for you.
I'm just also saying that other people's views are also valid - for them.

You're so wrong about what you're trying to argue for and what the actual consequences of your actions are...I hope you finally pull your head out of your ass.

That is quite possible, yes.
I regularly make mistakes. I'm just a person.
But, so far, you have been unable to make such a case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1298 by Rrhain, posted 10-08-2017 12:14 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1323 by Percy, posted 10-11-2017 2:44 PM Stile has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8687
88
8990
...
105NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017