or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Hillary will be the next POTUS - Page 107

post #1591 of 3374
Where to kop tunic? ^
post #1592 of 3374
Thread Starter 
I am getting some of what G is getting. I don't plan to vote as I cannot pull the lever for either of those two frightmares. Apparently, if Trump should win, it's my fault. It's nice to know my single vote holds so much power. smile.gif
post #1593 of 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post
 


NMWA

post #1594 of 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I am getting some of what G is getting. I don't plan to vote as I cannot pull the lever for either of those two frightmares. Apparently, if Trump should win, it's my fault. It's nice to know my single vote holds so much power. smile.gif

You know we don't actually count the "votes" of pretend "citizens" who weren't born here, right? It's like the employment and graduate salary figures advertised by the for-profit college folks. Just shit we make up for recruiting purposes.
post #1595 of 3374
Because of the absolute majority requirement of the electoral college, the two party system is essentially ingrained in the Constitution. That's the problem, and why no third party will succeed with a top-down approach. Even if we had three equally popular presidential candidates, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, who would very likely vote along partisan lines and choose one of the major party candidates.
post #1596 of 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I never said "voters like you" are to blame. It's a democracy, more or less. We all vote how we choose, based on whatever values we have and results we're seeking. We're all responsible for whatever incremental effect our vote has in the real world.

As for butthurt, that's pretty much what I meant. The post you responded to didn't "blame" you and didn't accuse you of "wasting" your vote. (Admittedly, a later post did.) And a system that excludes you intentionally such that you have no "culpability" here? Sorry, my friend, that's total fucking butthurt (no pun intended). I think "culpability" is an unhelpful word, but each of us has responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of how we act in the world. I don't think that's a particularly controversial notion. It's not about culpability, it's about causation. Arguments (for example) about whether it's Nader's "fault" that GWB beat Gore or if it's Gore's "fault" are stupid. Gore lost because (ignoring the Florida vote-counting controversy) Bush got the number of votes he needed and Gore didn't. If a certain number of people voted for Gore rather than Nader, Gore would have won. If more people who leaned Gore had turned out and voted, Gore would have won. if Gore had persuaded more voters than he was a better choice than Bush, he would have won. All of those statements are true, despite the fact that to this day there are shitheads all over the internet arguing about which one of those is "the" explanation for Bush's victory.

I didn't say "blame" or "wasting" in the post you're referencing, so I'm not sure why you went in that direction.

Holding me, or people like me, responsible for someone like Trump winning is only legitimate if we all previously agreed that voting against is a necessary part of responsible participation in our electoral system. I don't recall making that concession, and I don't remember it being a major part of popular discourse on politics until someone realized this year's Republicans really are That Stupid.

There's more to the question of voting than defeating an enemy. If your position is that voting against people like Trump trumps (SWIDT) all other considerations, that's fine, but that's not an objective starting point. That being the case, using it to critique my position as if you're arguing from some pre-agreed-upon truth leaves out a critical step in the process.
Quote:
It's easy to demonize "the major parties". You realize those are not actual, sentient entities, right? The place where we are in history is the product of all of our collective choices, actions, and lazy inaction. I get the temptation to say "everyone else sucks and they're not as morally pure or smart as me", but that's ultimately lame. Maybe the major parties are dominant because of how those asshole framers set shit up. Or maybe they're dominant because in nobody has ever gotten their shit together enough to form a viable third party that didn't crater because it let itself become defined by its most destructive, batshit crazy members. Or some combination thereof.

The "sentient beings" statement is pretty weak. Referring to organizations in the manner I did isn't something I just invented; we do it all the time. They're not sentient beings, but they're entities with goals, means, inclinations to self-preservation, and so forth. Referring to them the way I do/did isn't inappropriate, and it's not a departure from the way we typically address these things.

I've never presented myself as morally pure or smart. This isn't about purity or intelligence; it's about how far we're willing to depart from the core of our principles. I'm not under the delusion that there's some perfect candidate out there for me, but that isn't the same as saying both of the major party's candidates are too far off the mark for me to hold my nose and vote for one of them.
Quote:
Can you really not see that a post that ends in "Maybe next time they'll listen" is pretty much the textbook definition of petulant butthurt?
What you really seem to be saying at points is that (for example) you're cool with having a Trump Presidency because you think that whatever the immediate costs are will be offset by some long-term benefit. Fine, that's totally legit (even if I think it's wrong). But just own that, rather than saying "I'm going to vote in a way that is likely to contribute to Result X but if Result X happens don't blame me". The former, unlike the latter, is a completely rational position. But "I'll show you all for not listening to me" is not; it's butthurt.

No, I don't see it, at least not in that context, given it was a statement intended to complete my analogy and illustrate a point. I'm not looking to punish partisans with my vote, but you'll have to forgive me if I'm not terribly sympathetic to their complaining about how bad things could get.

And, no, I'm not "cool with a Trump presidency," but the cost-benefit equation you present is exactly what I'm saying. I actually haven't decided for whom I'll vote in November (another benefit of not being a party automaton), but, yeah, the short-term pain/long-term goal is precisely what I was driving at. It's certainly something I could see as an ethical approach to deciding for whom I'll cast my vote.
post #1597 of 3374
Dude, what? Haven't read your whole post because I'm on my phone, but re-read the second sentence of your post. If you're not sure which sentence I mean, it's the one with the word "blame" in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I didn't say "blame" or "wasting" in the post you're referencing, so I'm not sure why you went in that direction.

Holding me, or people like me, responsible for someone like Trump winning is only legitimate if we all previously agreed that voting against is a necessary part of responsible participation in our electoral system. I don't recall making that concession, and I don't remember it being a major part of popular discourse on politics until someone realized this year's Republicans really are That Stupid.

There's more to the question of voting than defeating an enemy. If your position is that voting against people like Trump trumps (SWIDT) all other considerations, that's fine, but that's not an objective starting point. That being the case, using it to critique my position as if you're arguing from some pre-agreed-upon truth leaves out a critical step in the process.
The "sentient beings" statement is pretty weak. Referring to organizations in the manner I did isn't something I just invented; we do it all the time. They're not sentient beings, but they're entities with goals, means, inclinations to self-preservation, and so forth. Referring to them the way I do/did isn't inappropriate, and it's not a departure from the way we typically address these things.

I've never presented myself as morally pure or smart. This isn't about purity or intelligence; it's about how far we're willing to depart from the core of our principles. I'm not under the delusion that there's some perfect candidate out there for me, but that isn't the same as saying both of the major party's candidates are too far off the mark for me to hold my nose and vote for one of them.
No, I don't see it, at least not in that context, given it was a statement intended to complete my analogy and illustrate a point. I'm not looking to punish partisans with my vote, but you'll have to forgive me if I'm not terribly sympathetic to their complaining about how bad things could get.

And, no, I'm not "cool with a Trump presidency," but the cost-benefit equation you present is exactly what I'm saying. I actually haven't decided for whom I'll vote in November (another benefit of not being a party automaton), but, yeah, the short-term pain/long-term goal is precisely what I was driving at. It's certainly something I could see as an ethical approach to deciding for whom I'll cast my vote.
post #1598 of 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I cannot pull the lever for either of those two frightmares.

 

 

"You don't have to."

post #1599 of 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirReveller View Post

Tempting to vote libertarian if it weren't so dangerous (now, anyway) to *not* vote Hillary. I guess better than abstaining provided you knew H-> was a lock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Yes, because it's now independents' job to vote against their conscience and rescue the system from the calamity the Democrats were active participants in creating.

Just vote for them this time, and next time will totally be the one where they decide to deign to let people outside the "mainstream" colluders' parties have a voice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

...

As for butthurt, that's pretty much what I meant. The post you responded to didn't "blame" you and didn't accuse you of "wasting" your vote. (Admittedly, a later post did.)

...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I didn't say "blame" or "wasting" in the post you're referencing, so I'm not sure why you went in that direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Dude, what? Haven't read your whole post because I'm on my phone, but re-read the second sentence of your post. If you're not sure which sentence I mean, it's the one with the word "blame" in it.

Perhaps you were referencing a different post and messed up the order of my posts, but the context of that statement points to this exchange, since "blame" and all that wasn't referenced until after the "wasting" comment, which you referred to as "a later post."
post #1600 of 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post





Perhaps you were referencing a different post and messed up the order of my posts, but the context of that statement points to this exchange, since "blame" and all that wasn't referenced until after the "wasting" comment, which you referred to as "a later post."
Fair enough, since we've also touched on this in the real world (aka Facebook) I may have conflated some of your posts or simply read farther down before ppsting and gotten the sequence scrambled.
post #1601 of 3374
I'd vote libertarian unless I was at the booth in the last hour and it was a credible dead heat. Then I'd have to go with Frumpton. I get G's thing about principles but I do *not* think dying on that hill is worth even an abridged impeached couple years of Trump. The guy's an unhinged emotionally-insecure and intellectually-vapid opportunist outta some old short story. Hillary's first act towards universal healthcare and free BAs for everyone (aka the Chavez model) could suck too, and that's a frightening worst case scenario, but even then she's still not "dangerous" like Trump is.

Anyway "if I were a janqui" that is. Up here all we got to deal with is a handsome liberal nitwit larding on the debt and undoing all the fiscal rectitude in the budget the last guy (a boring old conservative) achieved. No possible end of days shit, lol
post #1602 of 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Yes, because it's now independents' job to vote against their conscience and rescue the system from the calamity the Democrats were active participants in creating.

Just vote for them this time, and next time will totally be the one where they decide to deign to let people outside the "mainstream" colluders' parties have a voice.

I appreciate your consistency. You said the same exact thing last election and suggested I vote for who I want not I who I would rather win. I definitely lean libertarian but don't like Gary Johnson's proposals for policy
post #1603 of 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

...
Maybe it's because I'm in Illinois, but I never understood these arguments. I don't have to choose the lesser of two evils: my choice is made for me by the +1m Democrats in Chicago. Is it any different in the other ~40 states that happen to NOT be swing states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I'm openly voting for Gary Johnson.  Even if he loses and even if Hillary/Trump/Zorp wins, perhaps it will push one of the parties to go "look there was 10% out there that could have swung the election.  Perhaps we should look at modifying our platform to get that group."

This is the exact advice my old man gave me before I was even old enough to vote. He also said the Libertarians would have a better chance if more Republicans voted with their conscience, but they're too afraid of losing the election to a D. For what it's worth, I don't think he's ever voted for anything but a Republican.
post #1604 of 3374
Speaking of Gary Johnson, he gave an interview to Russian state media and apparently does not understand the difference between a territory and a sovereign nation.
post #1605 of 3374
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post



Holding me, or people like me, responsible for someone like Trump winning is only legitimate if we all previously agreed that voting against is a necessary part of responsible participation in our electoral system.
Why? I don't think that's a necessary assumption at all. I'm not saying that responsibility lies solely with you. Of course it doesn't. But there will be an outcome, and we all share responsibility for however our actions or inactions may contribute to the eventual outcome. It's not about "voting against". It's about voting in the way that you believe will lead to the outcome you prefer. Whether you're voting "against" one candidate or voting "for" one of the others is semantics. Your vote counts (or doesn't, in the case of Canadians or Chicago Republicans) exactly the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post



There's more to the question of voting than defeating an enemy. If your position is that voting against people like Trump trumps (SWIDT) all other considerations, that's fine, but that's not an objective starting point. That being the case, using it to critique my position as if you're arguing from some pre-agreed-upon truth leaves out a critical step in the process.
The "sentient beings" statement is pretty weak. Referring to organizations in the manner I did isn't something I just invented; we do it all the time. They're not sentient beings, but they're entities with goals, means, inclinations to self-preservation, and so forth. Referring to them the way I do/did isn't inappropriate, and it's not a departure from the way we typically address these things.

I'm not entirely sure what "objective starting point" is, but since you've said what isn't one, can you identify what the actual objective starting point is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post



I've never presented myself as morally pure or smart. This isn't about purity or intelligence; it's about how far we're willing to depart from the core of our principles.

And, no, I'm not "cool with a Trump presidency," but the cost-benefit equation you present is exactly what I'm saying. I actually haven't decided for whom I'll vote in November (another benefit of not being a party automaton), but, yeah, the short-term pain/long-term goal is precisely what I was driving at. It's certainly something I could see as an ethical approach to deciding for whom I'll cast my vote.

Fair enough, I didn't mean to get into a semantic quibble over terms like "moral purity". But I think a fair reading of what you've said is that, because of the sins committed by various other people, you have no "culpability" for potential outcomes to which your voting choices may be one of many contributing factors, whereas pretty much everyone who doesn't think and vote the way you do does have such "culpability". The world doesn't work that way. Call that by whatever label you want, it comes out in the same place. You'll vote however your core principles dictate. And guess what? That's what most of the people you're criticizing and purporting to distinguish yourself from are going to do, too. The fact that that very individualized analysis leads them to a different point than it does you doesn't mean that somehow they are "culpable" and you are not. You're all "culpable", or responsible, for the consequences in equal measure.

I think a lot of the disconnect here is that the fact that a refuting a crappy argument that X always = A is not the same thing as proving that X can never = A.

Anybody who says "if you don't vote for Clinton it's all your fault that Trump will win" is an idiot.
But that doesn't mean that "if Trump wins everyone except me is culpable" any less illogical.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Why Hillary will be the next POTUS