Bernie's Down But Not Out

[Claireliontamer]

Silly me, I forgot how much of a peace lover Clinton is. 

[Davin]

It doesn't offend my sensibility, it's just wrong. And though your response here is brief, it contains an impressive amount of inaccuracies.

How is it wrong and inaccurate?

I would think that it would be fairly obvious, but here ya go:

Sorry that my plea to vote wise and spare the world offends your sensibility.

The plea wasn't to vote wise, it was to vote out of fear.

The president is not the only source of power in this country, the world will be sparred or not based on many other things. Congress for one thing can do a lot more than they are doing, but everyone is treating the president like the president solely runs the country. No, the world will not be destroyed if Trump is elected, it will be destroyed slowly by allowing the system that is doing the damage to continue unabated.

And one of the other errors is that the irrational plea has somehow offended my sensibility. I don't get offended by demonstrations of ignorance, we're all ignorant of far more than we are knowledgeable.

[Firebird]

I would think that it would be fairly obvious, but here ya go:

Right, because clearly I'm just an idiot and everything you think should be second-nature to everyone else. Carry on

The president is not the only source of power in this country, the world will be sparred or not based on many other things. Congress for one thing can do a lot more than they are doing,

Yeah, that worked real well when Bush decided to invade Iraq.

No, the world will not be destroyed if Trump is elected, it will be destroyed slowly by allowing the system that is doing the damage to continue unabated.

What does that even mean? Which system are you referring to, the world financial system, the US political system? Vague assertions don't add up to a coherent argument.

[Bad Penny II]

Fanciful nonsense, would you be doing this if Crow was still here?

[Davin]

I would think that it would be fairly obvious, but here ya go:

Right, because clearly I'm just an idiot and everything you think should be second-nature to everyone else. Carry on

While I can't prevent you from doing it, this would work better if you refrain from inserting things I didn't say into what I did actually say.

The president is not the only source of power in this country, the world will be sparred or not based on many other things. Congress for one thing can do a lot more than they are doing,

Yeah, that worked real well when Bush decided to invade Iraq.

Yes, the people that people elected to congress didn't do a good job, and yet most of them were voted in again. That congress allowed it to happen doesn't mean the president just gets to do whatever they want.

No, the world will not be destroyed if Trump is elected, it will be destroyed slowly by allowing the system that is doing the damage to continue unabated.

What does that even mean? Which system are you referring to, the world financial system, the US political system? Vague assertions don't add up to a coherent argument.

While my usage was abstract, it was not vague (except obviously by the necessity of abstraction). What we have in the US is a defacto two party system. Given the context of the discussion in the thread, I didn't think that I would need to elaborate. Even you yourself had mentioned voting for one out of two people, which makes me confused as to why you would think my usage was vague and not coherent.

I get it, you want to vote out of fear from a Trump presidency. You may not want to perpetuate the defacto two party system, but when you vote this way, that is what you are doing. You may have concluded that the risks are too great right now to not vote against Trump, I can understand that and I can empathize. That is your choice to make. But it is not the choice I make.

[Davin]

Fanciful nonsense, would you be doing this if Crow was still here?

I did the same things when Crow was still here, so I suppose the answer for me would be a yes.

Though I would like you support the accusation that what I said is "fanciful nonsense."

[Bad Penny II]

I would think that it would be fairly obvious, but here ya go:

Right, because clearly I'm just an idiot and everything you think should be second-nature to everyone else. Carry on

While I can't prevent you from doing it, this would work better if you refrain from inserting things I didn't say into what I did actually say.

The president is not the only source of power in this country, the world will be sparred or not based on many other things. Congress for one thing can do a lot more than they are doing,

Yeah, that worked real well when Bush decided to invade Iraq.

Yes, the people that people elected to congress didn't do a good job, and yet most of them were voted in again. That congress allowed it to happen doesn't mean the president just gets to do whatever they want.

No, the world will not be destroyed if Trump is elected, it will be destroyed slowly by allowing the system that is doing the damage to continue unabated.

What does that even mean? Which system are you referring to, the world financial system, the US political system? Vague assertions don't add up to a coherent argument.

While my usage was abstract, it was not vague (except obviously by the necessity of abstraction). What we have in the US is a defacto two party system. Given the context of the discussion in the thread, I didn't think that I would need to elaborate. Even you yourself had mentioned voting for one out of two people, which makes me confused as to why you would think my usage was vague and not coherent.

I get it, you want to vote out of fear from a Trump presidency. You may not want to perpetuate the defacto two party system, but when you vote this way, that is what you are doing. You may have concluded that the risks are too great right now to not vote against Trump, I can understand that and I can empathize. That is your choice to make. But it is not the choice I make.

I love you guys. 

[Firebird]

I would think that it would be fairly obvious, but here ya go:

Right, because clearly I'm just an idiot and everything you think should be second-nature to everyone else. Carry on

While I can't prevent you from doing it, this would work better if you refrain from inserting things I didn't say into what I did actually say.

Whether or not you intended to, it did come off that way. Yes, I know it's tougher to interpret meaning over the internet as opposed to face-to-face, but that was my initial reaction.

The president is not the only source of power in this country, the world will be sparred or not based on many other things. Congress for one thing can do a lot more than they are doing,

Yeah, that worked real well when Bush decided to invade Iraq.

Yes, the people that people elected to congress didn't do a good job, and yet most of them were voted in again. That congress allowed it to happen doesn't mean the president just gets to do whatever they want.

But it does mean the president has a significant amount of power and the ability to sway public opinion in a way that will influence Congress. That's exactly what Bush did by exploiting 9/11 in such a way that Congress was scared to vote against the way and seem unpatriotic or scared. And Trump's very good at swaying the public opinion of a large class of people.

No, the world will not be destroyed if Trump is elected, it will be destroyed slowly by allowing the system that is doing the damage to continue unabated.

What does that even mean? Which system are you referring to, the world financial system, the US political system? Vague assertions don't add up to a coherent argument.

While my usage was abstract, it was not vague (except obviously by the necessity of abstraction). What we have in the US is a defacto two party system. Given the context of the discussion in the thread, I didn't think that I would need to elaborate. Even you yourself had mentioned voting for one out of two people, which makes me confused as to why you would think my usage was vague and not coherent.

I get it, you want to vote out of fear from a Trump presidency. You may not want to perpetuate the defacto two party system, but when you vote this way, that is what you are doing. You may have concluded that the risks are too great right now to not vote against Trump, I can understand that and I can empathize. That is your choice to make. But it is not the choice I make.

It wasn't clear which "system" you were referring to. But thank you for clarifying. And you're not wrong about that. But the reasons for the de facto two-party system need to be fixed at a lower level than the presidential election, ie convincing states to do primaries instead of caucuses and allowing for things like instant-runoff voting. That all starts at the state level and below.

[Magdalena]

... would you be doing this if Crow was still here?

I'm sorry.
I can't stop crying.

Carry on.

[Davin]

I would think that it would be fairly obvious, but here ya go:

Right, because clearly I'm just an idiot and everything you think should be second-nature to everyone else. Carry on

While I can't prevent you from doing it, this would work better if you refrain from inserting things I didn't say into what I did actually say.

Whether or not you intended to, it did come off that way. Yes, I know it's tougher to interpret meaning over the internet as opposed to face-to-face, but that was my initial reaction.

Which is why I always recommend not doing that. Though you are free to do so, don't expect me to defend things I didn't actually say.

The president is not the only source of power in this country, the world will be sparred or not based on many other things. Congress for one thing can do a lot more than they are doing,

Yeah, that worked real well when Bush decided to invade Iraq.

Yes, the people that people elected to congress didn't do a good job, and yet most of them were voted in again. That congress allowed it to happen doesn't mean the president just gets to do whatever they want.

But it does mean the president has a significant amount of power and the ability to sway public opinion in a way that will influence Congress. That's exactly what Bush did by exploiting 9/11 in such a way that Congress was scared to vote against the way and seem unpatriotic or scared. And Trump's very good at swaying the public opinion of a large class of people.

It means that a political party had a lot of sway, and because the president was of a particular party, the members of that party in Congress supported their party. While that is not always a bad thing, I think it has ended up doing more harm than good. That is the defacto two party system that you are supporting.

No, the world will not be destroyed if Trump is elected, it will be destroyed slowly by allowing the system that is doing the damage to continue unabated.

What does that even mean? Which system are you referring to, the world financial system, the US political system? Vague assertions don't add up to a coherent argument.

While my usage was abstract, it was not vague (except obviously by the necessity of abstraction). What we have in the US is a defacto two party system. Given the context of the discussion in the thread, I didn't think that I would need to elaborate. Even you yourself had mentioned voting for one out of two people, which makes me confused as to why you would think my usage was vague and not coherent.

I get it, you want to vote out of fear from a Trump presidency. You may not want to perpetuate the defacto two party system, but when you vote this way, that is what you are doing. You may have concluded that the risks are too great right now to not vote against Trump, I can understand that and I can empathize. That is your choice to make. But it is not the choice I make.

It wasn't clear which "system" you were referring to. But thank you for clarifying.

Not a problem, I don't mind clarifying even when I don't understand how there could be confusion.

And you're not wrong about that. But the reasons for the de facto two-party system need to be fixed at a lower level than the presidential election, ie convincing states to do primaries instead of caucuses and allowing for things like instant-runoff voting. That all starts at the state level and below.

I don't see why the only solution is to start at the bottom and work the way up. I guess my question is why can't we vote the way we want to on all levels at the same time? Keep in mind that I am not prone let fear sidestep my rationality.

[Recusant]

No, the world will not be destroyed if Trump is elected . . .

I hope that you're right. There is a very real chance that he could be elected.

[Davin]

No, the world will not be destroyed if Trump is elected . . .

I hope that you're right. There is a very real chance that he could be elected.

I spoke incorrectly there, I should have said that the world will not be destroyed because Trump is the president if he is elected. I don't think that Hillary offers a much better offer. At least with Trump I can assume that he is incompetent, but I know that Hillary is very smart, strong, and capable, but still has made many false claims herself.

From politifact:



I'm not so sure that it will be much better with Hillary, but if those are the two most likely options, it might be better with someone who is not as well equipped. I don't know.

[Icarus]

And the underlying question is: Why do either of the candidates aspire to become president?  Neither of them need the financial security of a presidential pension, free health care, or have any of the insecurities that concern ordinary citizens. Should we presume that either of them have an honest sense of compassion for the average citizen or the overwhelming desire to guide the nation toward "greatness again"?  I can not conceive either of them as genuinely unselfish altruists. Please help me understand that the candidates are motivated by anything other than an incredibly demanding ego. 

I reckon that this is a Psych question with no verifiable answers until it is too late.  One thing, for which I have reason to believe, is that the American voter is neither sufficiently informed nor suitably intelligent to sort out the details that would best qualify our potential national leader.

[Magdalena]

And the underlying question is: Why do either of the candidates aspire to become president?  Neither of them need the financial security of a presidential pension, free health care, or have any of the insecurities that concern ordinary citizens. Should we presume that either of them have an honest sense of compassion for the average citizen or the overwhelming desire to guide the nation toward "greatness again"?  I can not conceive either of them as genuinely unselfish altruists. Please help me understand that the candidates are motivated by anything other than an incredibly demanding ego. 
...

Excellent observation, Icarus.

[Tank]

And the underlying question is: Why do either of the candidates aspire to become president?  Neither of them need the financial security of a presidential pension, free health care, or have any of the insecurities that concern ordinary citizens. Should we presume that either of them have an honest sense of compassion for the average citizen or the overwhelming desire to guide the nation toward "greatness again"?  I can not conceive either of them as genuinely unselfish altruists. Please help me understand that the candidates are motivated by anything other than an incredibly demanding ego. 
...

"Anyone with the desire to become a politician should automatically be barred from ever being one!"
Billy Connelly etc.