Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1216 of 4573 (820998)
09-30-2017 5:06 AM


People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Pretty much a bare link, but I'm not up to doing much more at the moment.
People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
quote:
Donald Trump won the 2016 election with 306 votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 votes. That is a spread of 74 votes.
Clinton was likely to win in several states in which she lost, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, maybe Ohio, etc. In three states that could have gone either way, Jill Stein’s vote count was larger than the difference between Clinton and Trump. In Michigan, Trump won by 10,704 votes, Stein got 51,463 votes. In Pennsylvania, Trump won by 46,765 votes, Stein got 49,678 votes. In Wisconsin, Trump won by 22,177 votes, Stein got 31,006 votes.
If every Jill Stein vote would have been a Clinton Vote, it is likely that Clinton would have had 49 electoral votes more than she did have.
and
quote:
I told people this many times. I said, again and again, the logic that you can vote safely in a general election for a third party candidate in certain states is flawed for several reasons. One of those reasons, I said, is that you might only think the state is safe, and perhaps it is not.
I also wonder how many people did some sort of protest vote for Trump, because they felt "he couldn't possible win". Don't do joke votes.
Back in a pre-election topic, I advocated voting for Hillary as "the lesser of two evils". In hindsight, I wish I had phrased that "the lesser of two undesirables". Anyway, when given that reality of two real choices, I think one needs to vote for the "(considerably) lesser of two undesirables", least you get the "greater of two undesirables".
Going third party (or for the guy who couldn't possible win) is like saying "Hillary or Donald - It really doesn't matter".
I know if I hadn't voted Hillary in Minnesota, and Trump had won the state, I would be feeling pretty stupid.
Not so bare after all.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : I'm calling it a typo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1220 by nwr, posted 09-30-2017 2:36 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1221 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2017 3:26 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1226 by Stile, posted 10-02-2017 11:37 AM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 1290 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-06-2017 2:14 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 1217 of 4573 (820999)
09-30-2017 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1215 by nwr
09-27-2017 4:38 PM


Re: The Proposed Tax Cuts Make No Fiscal Sense
Back here I posted:
paisano replied in the following message:
Well, vote for the candidate of your choice. But, until Democrats stop dealing in caricatures such as depicted in the cartoon, and start to seriously address why Republican policies are seen by a majority of participating voters as the better alternative (not perfect; better), and offer serious alternatives, they will continue to lose elections.
And Chiroptera replied to that with:
This is true, the cartoon is a caricature. Most polls show that most Americans, and most voting Americans, do not support the Republican tax cuts. Or almost any Republican issue, for that matter. What decided the last two elections was "values"; most of the respondents could not quite explain what they meant by "values".
I still think that promising tax cuts is a powerful tool for Republicans to get votes. There are a lot of drooling Homers out there.
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 1215 by nwr, posted 09-27-2017 4:38 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1218 by dwise1, posted 09-30-2017 11:38 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 1218 of 4573 (821010)
09-30-2017 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1217 by Minnemooseus
09-30-2017 5:25 AM


Re: The Proposed Tax Cuts Make No Fiscal Sense
I still think that promising tax cuts is a powerful tool for Republicans to get votes. There are a lot of drooling Homers out there.
True enough, though it doesn't help that the Republicans don't explain that the tax cuts are only for the rich and will be made up for by raising taxes on the poor and middle class. Like the current scam that raises the tax rate on the bottom bracket. Or one of Reagan's big tax cuts which resulted in my own lower-middle-class taxes doubling, an experience shared with many of my co-workers.
Interestingly, the US economy is the strongest when the top bracket's rates are high, like from 1949 to 1963 when that top rate was 91%. And the economy is the weakest and least stable when that top rate is low.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1217 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-30-2017 5:25 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1295 by ramoss, posted 10-06-2017 9:35 PM dwise1 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1219 of 4573 (821018)
09-30-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1208 by Phat
09-27-2017 7:48 AM


Re: The Proposed Tax Cuts Make No Fiscal Sense
The important issue that determines if the plan makes fiscal sense is a matter of whose taxes get cut. If it is YOUR taxes that get cut then it makes sense. If it THEIR taxes that gets cut it makes no sense.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1208 by Phat, posted 09-27-2017 7:48 AM Phat has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 1220 of 4573 (821023)
09-30-2017 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1216 by Minnemooseus
09-30-2017 5:06 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
I would word that:
"People who voted for Jill Stein were damned fools, and we are all paying for it."
But then the people who voted for Donald J. Satan were even worse fools. And they are still fools, because many of them still support him.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1216 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-30-2017 5:06 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 1221 of 4573 (821025)
09-30-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1216 by Minnemooseus
09-30-2017 5:06 AM


Re: People who voted for Hillary were tricked, and we are all paying for it
People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
One could also say that people who voted in the primaries for Hillary were tricked (hoodwinked), and we are all paying for it. She was selected, nominated and elected by the corporate controlled DNC, not by people.
Curiously I predicted in July that if the DNC picked Hillary that she would lose to Trump. The reason I did so was because of the independent vote, the vote of people not hog-tied to either party and which have been the deciding votes in the last several elections. The independent voters were cut out of most primaries, and so we did not get their voices in selecting a candidate.
Back in a pre-election topic, I advocated voting for Hillary as "the lesser of two evils". In hindsight, I wish I had phrased that "the lesser of two undesirables". Anyway, when given that reality of two real choices, I think one needs to vote for the "(considerably) lesser of two undesirables", least you get the "greater of two undesirables".
Strongly disagree.
That is precisely the process that has given us Trump. If not this cycle then the next, because US politics has been circling the drain for decades now.
Nobody is entitled to my vote just because the other candidate is worse. The person that is entitled to my vote is the one who earns it.
Do you vote to die by mass conflagration or slow starvation? Neither candidate saw climate change as a challenge, neither candidate saw income inequality as a major problem, neither candidate saw a minimum living wage as critical, neither candidate would commit to universal healthcare for everyone. People were underwater and neither party cared.
Going third party (or for the guy who couldn't possible win) is like saying "Hillary or Donald - It really doesn't matter".
In the long run it doesn't -- burn or starve.
I know if I hadn't voted Hillary in Minnesota, and Trump had won the state, I would be feeling pretty stupid.
And yet it did not make any difference, did it?
Not because people voted for Jill Stein, but because people did not vote for Hillary ... because she did not earn their votes. Blaming anyone else is a fool's game and it doesn't help to reform the democrat party -- they think they are doing a swell job.
You don't get change voting for the lesser evil, you just get evil or lesser (slower) evil (but still evil), and eventually you end up in the same place.
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 1216 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-30-2017 5:06 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1223 by Phat, posted 10-01-2017 10:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1225 by Rrhain, posted 10-02-2017 6:15 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1291 by dronestar, posted 10-06-2017 4:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1222 of 4573 (821028)
10-01-2017 9:58 AM


Who Is The Responsible Party?
  • Who Is Responsible for the future of the United States?
  • Who is mature enough to tackle the tough issues?
    Talk is cheap. Reality is about more than tweets and sound bites. What have we done? We have left one of the 1% in charge of the 99%. We have believed the rhetoric. We continue to remain silent except to joke about who was elected.
    Yet we cannot blame them. They cannot blame us. There is no us and them. There is only we the people. We are responsible for the mess we created.

    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
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

  •   
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 1223 of 4573 (821029)
    10-01-2017 10:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 1221 by RAZD
    09-30-2017 3:26 PM


    Re: People who voted for Hillary were tricked, and we are all paying for it
    That is precisely the process that has given us Trump. If not this cycle then the next, because US politics has been circling the drain for decades now.
    You can't drain a swamp when the drain is clogged up.

    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
    An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1221 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2017 3:26 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 1224 by JonF, posted 10-01-2017 12:33 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    JonF
    Member (Idle past 168 days)
    Posts: 6174
    Joined: 06-23-2003


    (1)
    Message 1224 of 4573 (821033)
    10-01-2017 12:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 1223 by Phat
    10-01-2017 10:01 AM


    Re: People who voted for Hillary were tricked, and we are all paying for it
    And you can't drain a swamp by stocking it with alligators and snakes.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1223 by Phat, posted 10-01-2017 10:01 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6351
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    (3)
    Message 1225 of 4573 (821067)
    10-02-2017 6:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 1221 by RAZD
    09-30-2017 3:26 PM


    Re: People who voted for Hillary were tricked, and we are all paying for it
    RAZD writes:
    quote:
    She was selected, nominated and elected by the corporate controlled DNC, not by people.
    BWAHAHAHAHA! You're still plying that nonsense here, too.
    No, Clinton won by winning more votes than Sanders did. In fact, she trounced Sanders more than she trounced Trump. In raw numbers, Clinton got 4M more votes than Sanders...she beat Trump by 3M. In a smaller race populated mostly by those who would consider themselves "liberal," she beat her competition by a wider margin both percentage-wise and raw numbers-wise.
    So I take it all those people who voted for her are shills, right? Elizabeth Warren was a shill for the DNC and a stooge to Wall Street, right?
    quote:
    Curiously I predicted in July that if the DNC picked Hillary that she would lose to Trump.
    Curiously, you were wrong. She beat Trump. She got the second largest number of votes in history.
    quote:
    The reason I did so was because of the independent vote
    Which, as I explained in the other thread, is meaningless. "Independent" simply means, "I vote liberal/conservative, I just don't want to join the party." People like me. I am certainly not a Democrat, but I have never voted for a Republican. This idea that independents routinely switch back and forth between parties is a myth. It's part of the media obsession with horse races.
    When you break down the vote based upon political ideology, Clinton won both liberals and moderates.
    And that's why she won the vote.
    quote:
    The independent voters were cut out of most primaries, and so we did not get their voices in selecting a candidate.
    Your cognitive dissonance is showing again, RAZD. That is simply factually incorrect.
    Clinton won more of the open contests than Sanders did: 14 to 10. Here's the breakdown:
    Four open caucuses of which Bernie won all 4.
    Two semi-open caucuses of which Bernie won 1 and Clinton won 1.
    Seventeen open primaries of which Bernie won 5 and Clinton won 12.
    One semi-open primary which Clinton won.
    Eleven closed caucuses of which Bernie won 6 and Clinton won 5.
    One semi-closed caucus which Bernie won.
    Fourteen closed primaries of which Bernie won 2 and Clinton won 12.
    Nine semi-closed primaries of which Bernie won 4 and Clinton won 5.
    She beat Sanders plain and simple, fair and square. During the middle of the election season when you still had a lot of states left to go, people were making the claim that Sanders was beating Clinton in certain types of elections. But after all was said and done, Clinton trounced him. Sanders only beat Clinton in caucuses. In primaries, both open and closed, she kicked his ass, 30 to 11.
    But wait, those votes don't count, right? I mean, if you don't count California and New York, Trump won the popular vote, right? You do understand that that is the argument you're making, yes? If you don't count the people who voted for Clinton, then Sanders won.
    And if it's cognitive dissonance when Trumpers try to pull that bullshit, what does that make it when you try to pull it, RAZD?
    quote:
    Nobody is entitled to my vote just because the other candidate is worse. The person that is entitled to my vote is the one who earns it.
    True.
    But as we've seen in the other thread (and this one), you seem to be infected with a severe case of Clinton Derangement Syndrome caused by the cognitive dissonance you have regarding Clinton and "neolibs."
    Is Elizabeth Warren a "neolib"? Is she a shill for Wall Street? Because she signed off on Clinton's Wall Street plan. Was Sanders a "neolib"? He and Clinton had a 93% concordance in the Senate.
    quote:
    In the long run it doesn't -- burn or starve.
    Do you really think Gorsuch would be on the Supreme Court if Clinton had been elected?
    Would Puerto Rico be begging the government for aid if Clinton had been elected?
    Would we be on the verge of war with North Korea if Clinton had been elected?
    Would there be a travel ban if Clinton had been elected?
    Would DACA be on the verge of repeal?
    Would we be trying to withdraw from the Paris agreement?
    Would we have had the standards for investigating rape on college campuses changed?
    Your "they're the same" attitude would be precious if it weren't so dangerous. Your cognitive dissonance is massive in this matter, RAZD.
    Would we have a serious possibility of throwing 32 million people off of health insurance?
    You really think Keystone would have been vetoed by McCain or Romney?
    Simply looking at the economy, the lower and middle classes always do better under Democratic administrations and Congresses than under Republican ones.
    Your cognitive dissonance really has you on this matter.
    quote:
    Neither candidate saw climate change as a challenge, neither candidate saw income inequality as a major problem, neither candidate saw a minimum living wage as critical, neither candidate would commit to universal healthcare for everyone.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
    You really believe that, don't you?
    On the contrary, Clinton had proposals for all of those things. Climate change, income inequality, minimum wage, *and* universal health care. Or did you forget that Clinton tried to get universal coverage back in 1993? You remember...that was the same year Sanders was first elected to the House. Now, he was trying for single-payer while she was trying for a managed insurance plan, but they were both insistent upon universal coverage.
    Wait...don't tell me you've confused "universal coverage" with "single-payer," have you? Single-payer is one way to do it, but it isn't the only way. Germany, Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Greece, South Korea, and Switzerland all have insurance mandates like what we tried to do with the ACA (though they do it better). New Zealand, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Australia, Ireland, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Israel have a "two tier" setup where the government provides a basic catastrophic plan and you pay for supplemental coverage.
    And recall, France has the best health care outcomes in the world and yet still spends half of what we do. Would you be willing to have the French system even though it isn't single-payer? It's universal coverage, but it isn't single-payer. Is that OK?
    Because that's the "difference" between Clinton and Sanders: They both want the same result of universal coverage. They just have different ideas about how to go about it. And as Clinton has recently said, Medicare for All is fine...so long as you can explain how you're going to do it. This would affect not only the people being covered but also the people employed by the insurance companies (what sort of work are they going to do now?) as well as the medical providers. You do understand how Medicare reimburses doctors, don't you? I went over it here in another post. There are some practitioners who don't accept Medicare. What will happen to them? What will happen to their patients?
    There are answers to these questions. But to be honest, Sanders hasn't bothered to address many of them. There's a reason the ACA took a year-and-a-half to finally get to a vote with dozens of hearings. By all means, let's discuss Medicare for All (that was the original plan before the Republicans blocked it)...it's probably going to take a year-and-a-half to do it if not more given that we have to manage the transition off of private insurance and move toward co-insurance (because a lot of people are going to need Part B and Part D co-insurance.)
    quote:
    And yet it did not make any difference, did it?
    Except it did. The voter suppression in Wisconsin was over 200,000. And how many votes did Clinton lose that state by? What about Pennsylvania? Michigan?
    quote:
    people did not vote for Hillary ... because she did not earn their votes.
    Except they did. She got the second largest number of votes in history and beat Trump by 3 million votes.
    Except she did. Every single thing you have claimed she didn't care about, she actually had a detailed plan for. She was pretty much spot on the candidate you would have wanted...if only your cognitive dissonance didn't stand in the way.
    Blaming others for your failure to get past your dissonance is a fool's game and it doesn't help to achieve anything you want.
    And by the way: It's DemocratIC Party. There is no such thing as the "Democrat Party." But, that's just more of your dissonance, so we can't really blame you too much.
    You don't get change voting in such a way that the guaranteed enemy wins. When you have a choice between the guaranteed enemy and the unreliable friend, it is obvious which one to choose.
    Back in the 90s, you may have heard of a bit of legislation called "DOMA." The Defense of Marriage Act. It was passed overwhelmingly in both houses of Congress and signed by a Democrat. However, it wouldn't have passed if it hadn't been for the majority of Democrats voting for it.
    But here's the thing: The only people who voted against it were Democrats, Sanders, and a lone Republican...Steve Gunderson, who's gay. So while the Democrats were certainly not our friends, they were not the guaranteed enemy. Flash forward to the current state of affairs regarding marriage equality:
    The Republicans are still overwhelmingly against it. But the Democrats have figured it out and are now overwhelmingly for it. We didn't get there by abandoning the unreliable friend. For crying out loud, Obama went back to "let the states decide." He was for marriage equality when he was still just a politico in Chicago. But when he ran for President, he pulled back and said that he was against it, wanted "states to decide," though he opposed a national amendment. But then he flopped back from his flip after Biden forced his hand.
    Should gay people have dumped him because of that? Should they have voted for McCain or Romney? Do you honestly think it didn't matter? Remember, that was a 5-4 decision. Would it really have happened if Kagan and Sotomayor had not been on that court?
    I think I can speak for gay people regarding this: Fuck you, RAZD. Fuck you and your privileged, straight, white ass for this "it's all the same," bullshit.
    And yes, I'm making it personal. I get the feeling that you'll do OK, RAZD. Your privilege will keep you around until the next election cycle comes. But there are many people who aren't so privileged. Suppose the ACA goes away. Exactly how many people are then going to die because they didn't have health insurance? Before the ACA, it was tens of thousands per month. More than 30,000 people died every month because they didn't have health insurance and thus couldn't pay for the medical treatment they needed to stay alive.
    So for you to come along and say that it "doesn't make any difference," well, fuck you, RAZD.
    I will not be a martyr for your temper tantrum. I am not going to die because you can't handle not getting everything you want. This is not hyperbole. People are literally going to die because of Trump. We're already seeing it happen in Puerto Rico.
    I'm sure they'll understand that their deaths are for a greater cause so that you can be proud that you didn't "sell out."

    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

    Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1221 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2017 3:26 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    (1)
    Message 1226 of 4573 (821091)
    10-02-2017 11:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 1216 by Minnemooseus
    09-30-2017 5:06 AM


    Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
    Minnemooseus writes:
    I know if I hadn't voted Hillary in Minnesota, and Trump had won the state, I would be feeling pretty stupid.
    I think this is a very short-sighted and nave way to think about voting.
    I really think you should vote for who you want. Not "the lesser of two (anythings.)"
    Hillary didn't lose because a few people voted for Jill or Bernie or anyone else.
    Hillary lost because she's not worthy of getting enough votes.
    Voting for Jill or Bernie or someone else doesn't mean you voted in Trump.
    Trump got voted in because of all the people who voted for him.
    Voting for Jill or Bernie or someone else means you're trying to tell the Democrats "Hey! Hillary isn't good enough! Choose someone better... like Jill or Bernie or someone else!"
    ...and that is an extremely important message to get across with your vote, if you so choose.
    Being short-sighted and voting for Hillary when you really like Jill or Bernie or someone else better only tells the Democrats-in-charge "Hey, you guys are doing great, keep going just like this!"
    If you're good with that... then vote that way.
    If not, then you very well should vote for Jill or Bernie or someone else and absolutely no one has justified grounds to claim "this is why we have Trump!" Such an idea is just simply childish whining.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1216 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-30-2017 5:06 AM Minnemooseus has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 1227 by Taq, posted 10-02-2017 1:17 PM Stile has replied
     Message 1238 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-02-2017 9:19 PM Stile has replied

      
    Taq
    Member
    Posts: 9973
    Joined: 03-06-2009
    Member Rating: 5.7


    (2)
    Message 1227 of 4573 (821104)
    10-02-2017 1:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 1226 by Stile
    10-02-2017 11:37 AM


    Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
    Stile writes:
    Hillary didn't lose because a few people voted for Jill or Bernie or anyone else.
    Hillary lost because she's not worthy of getting enough votes.
    Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump did. In every single election prior to this one, that would have been enough.
    When you boil it down, the election was won/lost on just a handful of votes per precinct in a few states (PA, MI). I would bet a lunch tab that if half the people who voted for third party candidates in those precincts had instead voted for Hillary that she would have won.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1226 by Stile, posted 10-02-2017 11:37 AM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 1228 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2017 2:43 PM Taq has replied
     Message 1231 by Stile, posted 10-02-2017 3:34 PM Taq has replied
     Message 1235 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2017 4:20 PM Taq has replied

      
    NoNukes
    Inactive Member


    Message 1228 of 4573 (821110)
    10-02-2017 2:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 1227 by Taq
    10-02-2017 1:17 PM


    Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
    I would bet a lunch tab that if half the people who voted for third party candidates in those precincts had instead voted for Hillary that she would have won
    Maybe.
    But what does seem to be true is that many of those voters are holding anybody except themselves responsible for the outcome of their votes. That's what this portion of the thread, and the similar conversation in another thread, is about.

    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 1227 by Taq, posted 10-02-2017 1:17 PM Taq has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 1229 by Taq, posted 10-02-2017 3:14 PM NoNukes has replied

      
    Taq
    Member
    Posts: 9973
    Joined: 03-06-2009
    Member Rating: 5.7


    Message 1229 of 4573 (821113)
    10-02-2017 3:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 1228 by NoNukes
    10-02-2017 2:43 PM


    Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
    NoNukes writes:
    But what does seem to be true is that many of those voters are holding anybody except themselves responsible for the outcome of their votes. That's what this portion of the thread, and the similar conversation in another thread, is about.
    This is probably one of the poorest analogies I have come up with, but here it goes . . .
    "Liberals" who stuck their nose in the air and voted for a third party candidate are like a snotty 10 year old first baseman who starts arguing with the umpire about a call while kids are still rounding the bases and scoring. When the first baseman sees what has happened, he can only blame the umpire again. That's how I view the "Feel the Bern, but not the Blame" crowd.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1228 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2017 2:43 PM NoNukes has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 1230 by jar, posted 10-02-2017 3:34 PM Taq has not replied
     Message 1232 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2017 3:48 PM Taq has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 394 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    (2)
    Message 1230 of 4573 (821114)
    10-02-2017 3:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 1229 by Taq
    10-02-2017 3:14 PM


    Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
    There is little to differentiate the Feel the Bern crowd from il Donald. As with il Donald, it is always "their" fault.

    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1229 by Taq, posted 10-02-2017 3:14 PM Taq has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024