Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,373 Year: 4,630/9,624 Month: 405/1,096 Week: 0/110 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


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
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(3)
Message 1088 of 4573 (816946)
08-14-2017 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1087 by 14174dm
08-13-2017 3:51 PM


Re: Trump's accomplishments
14174dm writes:
Trump is going to look weak unless he can actually do something rather than just rant.
"Going" to?
Ha ha
That's funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1087 by 14174dm, posted 08-13-2017 3:51 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1166 of 4573 (818570)
08-30-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1165 by DrJones*
08-30-2017 12:00 PM


Re: Radical Cleric Threatens Violence
Ha ha... what a loon.
"...Christians will rise from the shadows..."
What, all 6 of them?
I don't think what this guy calls "a Christain" and what everyone else calls "a Christian" are the same things.
Pretty sure he'll be soundly disappointed in the turnout to his rally-call for taking over the country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1165 by DrJones*, posted 08-30-2017 12:00 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1167 by riVeRraT, posted 08-30-2017 11:37 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1170 of 4573 (818608)
08-31-2017 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1167 by riVeRraT
08-30-2017 11:37 PM


Re: Radical Cleric Threatens Violence
riVeRraT writes:
144,000
Nope. 6.
I've seen them

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1167 by riVeRraT, posted 08-30-2017 11:37 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
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

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 1231 of 4573 (821115)
10-02-2017 3:34 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
When you boil it down, the election was won/lost on just a handful of votes per precinct in a few states (PA, MI).
Such is a fact, yes.
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.
Sure.
And if more voted for Trump he would have won by more.
And now the Democrats get a message that Hillary (and any other "not good enough" candidate they personally prefer) won't cut it.
The Democrats get a message that they need to listen to their voters.
Isn't that the point of voting?
"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.
And what if they didn't stick their nose in the air?
What if they simply didn't like Hillary and liked someone else like Jill or Bernie better?
Then, if they did vote for Hillary... and Hillary won... wouldn't that be incredibly stupid? Wouldn't they then have helped put someone in office they didn't want there, and (much worse) indicate to the Democrat leaders that they're doing a wonderful job and should keep heading in the same direction when they think the exact opposite?
That is a terrible use of a vote.
It's short-sighted and can easily be seen as "a waste" (since your actual views got washed away and presumed to be something they're not).
But, voting for someone you want in office out of the available candidates is never a childish vote.
It's exactly the kind of vote it's supposed to be.
Regardless of whether it wins or loses.
Regardless of whether or not someone else wins or loses because of it (if you could ever actually show such a thing).
It sends a message about what you, as a voter, want to see in office.

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 1233 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2017 3:51 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1234 by Taq, posted 10-02-2017 4:07 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1237 by Percy, posted 10-02-2017 8:50 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1239 by Rrhain, posted 10-03-2017 12:08 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1243 of 4573 (821151)
10-03-2017 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1233 by NoNukes
10-02-2017 3:51 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
NoNukes writes:
Yeah, from the 1 percent of folks that voted for Jill, that is a heck of a message...
Seems like a better message than the alternative.
Meanwhile, the message seems to be that if you don't like the Hilary, then we might just as well have Trump. So thank you from the rest of us...
If you want to read something into it that doesn't exist... then you're being part of the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1233 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2017 3:51 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1245 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 11:11 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1244 of 4573 (821153)
10-03-2017 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1234 by Taq
10-02-2017 4:07 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Taq writes:
The point of voting is whatever the voter decides it is. If they want to use their vote as punitive punishment for a perceived slight, then that is their right. If they want to use their vote to help get Trump elected, then that is their right.
What if they want to use their vote to vote for who they think the best candidate is?
Why is that not an option?
However, they can't come back and act as if they had nothing to do with Trump winning
I agree.
In the sense that this applies equally to everyone who voted and not voted. Nothing more, nothing less.
...or that they truly thought Jill Stein or Gary "What's Aleppo?" Johnson were a better option than Clinton.
Are you better at reading someone elses mind than they are themselves?
I'm not saying Hillary was or was not a better option.
I'm in Canada, I didn't even vote for your election.
I'm saying that it's not right to say that those who voted for Jill helped Trump win.
I mean, it's technically correct.
But it's also technically correct that Hillary running helped Trump win (because Hillary didn't get enough votes).
It's meaningless drivel meant to get others to do what you want.
If Hillary didn't get enough votes to win, it's because she didn't appeal to enough people.
There can be many reasons someone doesn't appeal to enough people.
And if your reason is "I don't want a two party system" and/or "I want someone like Jill to be a leader instead of someone like Hillary"...
Then a vote for Jill is exactly what you should do.
And no whining about "Votes for Jill mean Hillary didn't win!" mean anything against that.
The vote wasn't about trying to get Hillary, or the Democrats, or "not-Trump" to win.
The vote was about saying "I like Jill better than any of the other candidates... choose people more like her rather than Hillary."
Did they think that Stein or Johnson were a better option than Trump? If so, their vote was worse than a waste. Their vote resulted in someone even worse than Clinton, Stein, or Johnson being elected.
This is the short-sightedness I'm talking about.
Yes, the vote was a waste for this election (and you only know that after the election).
However, the vote was not a waste for saying "I don't like Hillary, give me better options and maybe I'll vote for you next time."
If that's the point, then the vote was not only wasted... it succeeded with a resounding thunder that they have to notice or else the Democrats will lose again.
What better voice for a vote could there be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1234 by Taq, posted 10-02-2017 4:07 PM Taq has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1246 of 4573 (821158)
10-03-2017 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1237 by Percy
10-02-2017 8:50 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
And if more voted for Trump he would have won by more.
Well, no, not in any way.
Of course in "a way." Perhaps just not the way you're thinking, though.
Percy writes:
If more people had voted for Trump then all that would have happened is that he would have lost the popular vote by less. The additional Trump votes would be very unlikely to have affected the electoral college.
And if the additional "more" Trump votes did affect the electoral college? Then Trump would have won by more, no?
The Democrats do have a serious problem, but you're again missing the key point, though a different one this time.
The point to be taken away from our current predicament isn't that Clinton wasn't good enough - she most certainly was, especially given the fiasco we've been witness to over the past seven months. The point is that we have a system that produced the worst president in the history of presidents, and who, not incidentally, is a loathsome human being.
I didn't miss that point.
My point is saying something like "If you didn't vote for Hillary, then you helped Trump win!" is childish, immature, and short-sighted.
For one, Trump did win. Everyone (whether they voted or not) "helped Trump win." They either voted with him, or they didn't group together enough to vote against him. The fact that Hillary have the majority of votes against him (but not enough to beat him) is an indication that Hillary was a poor choice to go against him... not that more should have voted for Hillary because that would have beaten Trump. If more voted for Jill or Bernie or your second cousin... they all would have beaten Trump.
It's quite possible to not vote Hillary, help Trump win, and do it for a good, valid reason that shouldn't be looked down upon.
This time you're sort of orthogonal to the key point. In this case Taq's point was a "cut off your nose to spite your face" kind of point. If there were people who made a statement by not voting it could only be because they didn't grasp the scale of the catastrophe were Trump elected.
I understand what Taq's message was. I think it's a childish, shortsighted, limited view of the possible reasons why someone might not have voted for Hillary and voted for someone else who wasn't Trump.
It's lumping all non-Hillary votes into one barrel to make things easy-to-digest... which is just wrong.
Blaming the voters for the outcome of the vote is like blaming the waiter for your food not being cooked right.
Sure, the waiter could go and cook the food... but he's not supposed to do that, the cook is responsible for that.
If Hillary as an option wasn't able to get enough votes to beat Trump... that's not the voter's fault (although it's possible they could have fixed it). It's the people-who-put-Hillary-up-as-the-competition's fault. They're the one your angst should be let out on.
One way to let angst out on those people is to vote for whoever-you-think-is-best to show them how wrong they were putting Hillary up.
All I'm saying is to lay your blame where it deserves to be laid... at the feet of those who put Hillary up as the "other option." Obviously it wasn't good enough.
Don't blame voters, even if they "could" have fixed the real problem... It's not using proper focus, and those votes could very well have been used for a very valid, reasonable, good thing.
To the extent that this happened, how does that make any sense since by not voting for Clinton they made possible the election of Trump?
It doesn't.
What I'm saying is that this can be seen as a secondary priority.
Just because "fixing those who choose candidates for the democrats" isn't your highest priority... doesn't mean it's objectively a worse priority.
And it doesn't mean it's a bad or wrong priority.
Given that it's a possibility that could have kept Trump out of office, it's a wonderful use of a vote.
Your personal judgment is worth nothing more (or less) than anyone else's.
One of the more obvious drawbacks is apropos to your comments, that when there are more than two candidates (or in the main election more than two parties), the additional candidates can act as spoilers that cause outcomes opposed by the majority of the voters.
Of course.
Which is exactly why not-voting for Hillary can be so powerful. Which it was. I'm sure the Democrats-who-choose-their-candidates will take this latest result into their thinking when they pick a candidate for next election, no?
All you seem to be saying is: "It is my personal, subjective, highest priority that Trump should not be in office! And everyone else should have this as their personal, subjective, highest priority too!!"
Well, wah, wah... I don't see why.
I don't see why doing what you can to send a message about fixing deep-rooted issues with the Democratic party and a 2-party system in general is such a terrible alternative.
I understand it's not your priority (or Taq's.) But why can't looking to the future for long-term benefits be someone else's priority?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1237 by Percy, posted 10-02-2017 8:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1267 by Percy, posted 10-04-2017 9:37 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1247 of 4573 (821159)
10-03-2017 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1238 by Minnemooseus
10-02-2017 9:19 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Minnemooseus writes:
What if the election had come down to Bernie vs Donald, with Jill as a third party. And that Jill still managed to tip the results to Donald?
I don't know.
Maybe Bernie would have won.
Maybe Trump would still have won.
Maybe Jill would have won.
Giving an objective, conclusive result for a made-up alternative reality is hard.
The "liberal" side needs to unite to defeat the Republican candidate. Period.
With this, I completely agree.
What I don't agree with is that "voting for whoever-the-democrats-put-up" is the best way to go about this.
I think it's a very reasonable idea to go about it by indicating to the democrats that the people will unite around them whenever they get around to putting up a good candidate. Why is that such a terrible idea?
Until we have some sort of runoff vote system, not voting for "the lesser of two evils" may result in getting "the greater of two evils". Voting a third party candidate is functionally not voting at all. You are not voting in support of either of the two viable candidates, nor are you voting against the least desirable candidate.
This only make sense if you take on the short-sighted view that this one election is the only election that will ever happen.
Take into account that there will be future elections... and more choosen candidates... and that it's quite possible to be taken advantage of if they know you "will all vote for whoever they put up anyway.." and you wind up with a very reasonable, very valid justification for voting for a third-party candidate in order to make sure that the democrat-candidate is a good one.
I agree it is a waste in "voting against Trump."
I do not agree it is a waste in general. Those indicating that it is a waste in general are being short-sighted, and part of the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1238 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-02-2017 9:19 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1250 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 11:59 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1248 of 4573 (821163)
10-03-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1239 by Rrhain
10-03-2017 12:08 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Rrhain writes:
Question: What made Clinton "not good enough"?
I don't know the specifics, that's why I put it in quotations.
I just meant "whatever resulted in her not appealing to enough people to get enough votes to beat Trump" in a general way.
If their vote is partly responsible for why Trump carried their state, then they are responsible for Trump winning their state.
Of course.
As much as everyone else is.
Everyone who voted for Trump is responsible for Trump winning their state.
Everyone who voted for not-Trump is responsible for not banding together so that Trump won their state.
Everyone who didn't vote is responsible for Trump winning their state.
For people who lived in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, that ability to "send a message" doesn't exist.
This is false.
"Because I can't get everything I want, I'll vote such that I get nothing." OK. And who do you think is responsible for you getting nothing of what you want?
This isn't something I'm saying.
And it only makes sense if there will never be another election.
Is the voting over forever?
Do you really think Clinton would have the Justice Department make that argument? Should gay people who voted in such a way that they helped Trump win be happy that they didn't "sell out"?
Or, more accurately, should the gay person who is under threat of being evicted from their homes, losing their jobs, being denied services from both the government and the public square, be OK with someone who didn't "sell out" their vote?
Should the people dying in Puerto Rico right now be proud to be martyrs for your cause to "send a message" to Democrats?
I don't understand your questions.
I'm just saying it's possible to want to think about the next election instead of this one.
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.
Are you trying to say that such a position is impossible and unreasonable for anyone to hold?
That is completely backwards. To vote such that the person you least wanted winning is the one to win is clearly a waste precisely because your actual views are now washed away and presumed to be something they're not.
I agree that your statement accurately describes a wasted vote.
However, your statement does not accurately describe the reason for voting I'm talking about.
I'm talking about voting such that you send a message to the democrats that Hillary wasn't a good enough option.
Hillary lost. Trump won.
Now the Democrats are forced to look at why Hillary didn't get enough votes to win... and update their process for choosing a candidate.
If that's what a not-for-Hillary-vote wanted... then it 100% succeeded.
That is not a waste.
You think Trump is going to listen to people who didn't vote for him?
No. But this is irrelevant to my point about future elections.
Do you not understand the point behind a primary? That's where you "send the message." To do it at the general is to shoot yourself.
I think it's quite obvious that "a message" can be sent at the primary or the general.
I agree that it would be better to send this message at the primary.
But I also must admit that it is louder at the general.
It sends a message that you'll shoot yourself and take everybody down with you if you don't get everything you want.
It sends a message that you don't care about the consequences of your actions or how many peoples' lives are hurt so long as you get to remain pure.
This is the message that is sent if you are short-sighted and only thinking of the current election.
If you look to future elections, these messages are not sent. You send a message that "Hillary is not good enough, we want a better candidate."
You seem to be saying that no gay person would ever have another issue ever again if Hillary beat Trump.
If that was true, I would agree with you.
However, I think this is rather obviously not true. Therefore, a message to the Democrats to "get better candidates" has reasonable value.
You seem to be saying that no hurricane will ever hit Puerto Rico again if Hillary beat Trump.
If that was true, I would agree with you.
However, I think this is rather obviously not true. Therefore, a message to the Democrats to "get better candidates" has reasonable value.
Edited by Stile, : Fixing quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1239 by Rrhain, posted 10-03-2017 12:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1265 by Rrhain, posted 10-03-2017 11:12 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1249 of 4573 (821164)
10-03-2017 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1245 by NoNukes
10-03-2017 11:11 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
NoNukes writes:
Stile writes:
And now the Democrats get a message that Hillary (and any other "not good enough" candidate they personally prefer) won't cut it.
The Democrats get a message that they need to listen to their voters.
Isn't that the point of voting?
Yeah, from the 1 percent of folks that voted for Jill, that is a heck of a message...
Stile writes:
Seems like a better message than the alternative.
You mean better than the message that Trump is unfit to lead this country?
Yes.
I mean to say that it is not unreasonable or wrong to value "getting the Democrats to put up better candidates" better than having Trump in office for 4 years.
Do you (or Percy, or Taq, or Rrhain or anyone else) have anything more than personal opinion to the contrary?
If not, then I don't see why someone else's personal opinion that getting the Democrats to put up better candidates isn't reasonable or valid.
I think our reality reflects the results of a people voting against Hilary to send a message. We all got the message loud and clear. "We want Bernie, or screw all y'all." Those folks were certainly part of my problem.
I agree that you, personally, hold "not letting Trump win" to be a higher priority than "getting the Democrats to get better candidates" this past election.
I don't think that's ever been in question.
What's in question is why someone can't reasonably hold the other priority as higher.
You (and everyone else) seem to just keep talking about why you subjectively hold the opinion you hold.
This is easily countered with any subjective reason for anyone to hold the other priority higher.
Edited by Stile, : Fixing quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1245 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 11:11 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1251 of 4573 (821167)
10-03-2017 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1250 by NoNukes
10-03-2017 11:59 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
While you may well disagree on the weight of the choices, you know very well the downside of your proposed action. It is a terrible idea because the anticipated income is someone we all agree is a worse choice than Hilary.
You seem to be weighing "Trump in office" (known) vs. "Hillary in office" (unknown - but likely not as bad as Trump).
I agree with your assessment of these choices.
What I do not agree with is that this is the proper judgment to be making.
I think the proper judgment is this:
"Trump in office for a limited time" vs. "Democrats becoming even more corrupt and thinking even less that they have to respect the voter by putting up a good candidate for next election"
I don't see how you can say choosing to keep the Democrats in check is a "terrible" option at this point.
There seems to be too much unknown-future-potential-problems to accurately judge.
I'm not saying that everyone should vote to keep the Democrats in line.
I think it's fine to vote for Hillary just to keep Trump out of office... if that's what you wanted.
I'm just saying that it's equally-fine to vote for a 3rd party to keep the Democrats in check.
Those who don't agree seem to list a bunch of terrible things Trump is doing.
Well, yeah... Trump is terrible. This was easily foreseeable.
What is not easily foreseeable is how much damage the Democratic party could possibly do if they were continually given the "A-Okay, keep going!" signal.
Maybe everything would be better and even future elections would be better - then voting for 3rd party would have been the wrong option.
Maybe everything would be better with Hillary in office, but worse in the future because the Democratic party became "more corrupt" - tough to judge because the possibly issues are so far in the future, but has a decent chance with the issues visible with the pre-Hillary Democratic party - then voting for the 3rd party was better.
Maybe everything would be worse with Hillary in office (just less obviously-so) and worse in the future beyond this election as well - I will concede that this is unlikely, but it is still realistically possible - then voting for the 3rd party was better.
I'm saying there's not enough information to say, objectively and in general, that voting for a 3rd party was a bad idea.
Edited by Stile, : Correcting confusing mistake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1250 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 11:59 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1252 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 12:29 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1255 of 4573 (821174)
10-03-2017 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1252 by NoNukes
10-03-2017 12:29 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
NoNukes writes:
I understand that folks do not want to be judged that way. That does not make such judgments improper.
I agree, I think (it's unclear specifically what you're referencing).
For the record... I don't think it's bad to vote Hillary just because you don't want Trump to win.
I don't even thing it's bad to try to persuade others to do the same.
I only think it's wrong to say "it's bad/wrong to vote 3rd party because Trump will win" in some sort of objective/general/overall sense.
I think that is a short-sighted, lopsided argument.
It may very well be true... but you cannot assign motivation to other people like that.
If someone did not want Trump in office at all, and they voted 3rd party... then I fully agree with the argument. This is wrong/bad and doesn't make sense.
However, if someone votes for 3rd party for another reason, another motivation... say they want to send a message to the Democrats about the kind of candidates they're providing... then it's wrong to say "it's bad/wrong to vote 3rd party because Trump will win" to them.
It doesn't even make sense to say this to them.
They're not voting 3rd party because Trump may or may not win... they don't care.
They care about their own motivation.
And if it's "to send a message to the Democrat party on who they provide as a candidate" then they fully succeeded this past election.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1252 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 12:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1257 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 1:07 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1256 of 4573 (821175)
10-03-2017 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1252 by NoNukes
10-03-2017 12:29 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
NoNukes writes:
That message has already helped guarantee that the Supreme Court likely won't get set to anything remotely balanced in my lifetime in addition to resulting in the election of a narcissistic idiot. Thanks again.
Wow.
Not everyone holds your personal priorities as their own high priorities.
Big surprise?
Are you serious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1252 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 12:29 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1258 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 1:09 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1259 of 4573 (821180)
10-03-2017 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1257 by NoNukes
10-03-2017 1:07 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
NoNukes writes:
But whether or not Trump is a bad outcome really is not something I think you and I are debating.
True.
I agree Trump as President = poops.
There may be an issue of whether that is ultimately sufficient judgment...
That's all I'm saying.
And anyone thinking "a 3rd party vote is wasted because it only helped Trump win" is making this ultimate judgment when it's clearly not possible to do so.
1. A 3rd party vote isn't wasted if it was made to indicate to the democrats what sort of candidate you would accept so that you can unite. In such a case, it would have been absolutely, thunderously successful.
2. Helping Trump win isn't the only thing a 3rd party vote does. Case in point, #1 above. I'm sure there are others as well.
...but asking me what the downside of an action is when you know full well what the downside is, does not seem honest.
I think you just misunderstood me. At least, you misunderstood who I was asking (it was Minnemooseus). Here's what was said:
Stile writes:
Minnemooseus writes:
What if the election had come down to Bernie vs Donald, with Jill as a third party. And that Jill still managed to tip the results to Donald?
The "liberal" side needs to unite to defeat the Republican candidate. Period.
...
I think it's a very reasonable idea to go about (uniting Democrats) by indicating to the democrats that the people will unite around them whenever they get around to putting up a good candidate. Why is that such a terrible idea?
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 didn't mean for it to imply anything about Trump specifically. I'm sorry if you got that impression. Or maybe I'm getting confused on your chain-of-thought?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1257 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 1:07 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1261 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2017 2:25 PM Stile has seen this message but 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