Bernie's Down But Not Out

[Firebird]

But more importantly, I don't understand your logic of putting someone who's more incompetent into the top position as a good strategy. Here's a list of some of the stuff Trump can do without Congress stopping him.  And that's before he uses his proven ability to rile up a crowd, possibly influence public opinion, and scare Congress into doing something stupid like bomb Iran. You know, like Bush did.

First, read what I wrote, and make sure you're responding to what I said, and not this straw man you seem to be talking to. I never offered that as a strategy, nor is that my logic.

You can't engage with what I actually said, instead you went off to crazy town and expect me to answer for the things that popped in your imagination. That's not not reasonable.

No. You said this:

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.

And I'm explaining to you why I think that's a terrible idea. If you think my reasoning is suspect, then address that, but there's no straw man here.

This is an example of what I dislike about trying to talk to people about these things. You have one kind of person trying to downplay a thing to insignificance, another person trying to tell how that very same thing will murder your entire family, and almost no one talking about these things like they're real. I'm not saying that Trump won't cause any damage, and I'm not saying the Hillary is the worst thing since volcanoes, what I'm saying, is that if they are the only two options, I honestly don't see much difference in terms of how much they will harm the country and me personally.

I gave very concrete, realistic examples of how Trump would cause many more problems than Hillary would. How am I not talking about things like "they're real"? Then you say you don't understand how having Trump will harm the country and you personally any more than Hillary. Again, after I gave concrete examples of how they would. All you point to is vague assertions of how Hillary's in the "pocket of corporations".

I'm trying to construct a cohesive argument to rebut your claims, and you simply dismiss all of them and say I don't know what I'm talking about without any evidence besides something that will fit onto a bumper sticker. Ok, suit yourself, stick to your guns at any cost if you must.

[Recusant]

I think building a third party means just that. Get the party established in local and statewide elections: create a genuine party structure that offers an alternative to the present choices. Splashing into the presidential elections without doing that work like Perot and Nader did isn't giving a genuine choice--it's being a spoiler, plain and simple.

That is true. It's a good thing no one here is advocating that. Again, talking in these weird extremes instead of reality doesn't really help discussion.

What weird extreme did I talk about? We've seen the results accomplished by voting for a third party candidate in presidential elections when there isn't any genuine party presence on a local level. Is it unrealistic to look at those results and relate them to the current election?

[Davin]

But more importantly, I don't understand your logic of putting someone who's more incompetent into the top position as a good strategy. Here's a list of some of the stuff Trump can do without Congress stopping him.  And that's before he uses his proven ability to rile up a crowd, possibly influence public opinion, and scare Congress into doing something stupid like bomb Iran. You know, like Bush did.

First, read what I wrote, and make sure you're responding to what I said, and not this straw man you seem to be talking to. I never offered that as a strategy, nor is that my logic.

You can't engage with what I actually said, instead you went off to crazy town and expect me to answer for the things that popped in your imagination. That's not not reasonable.

No. You said this:

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.

And I'm explaining to you why I think that's a terrible idea. If you think my reasoning is suspect, then address that, but there's no straw man here.

I know what I said, but you still seem to not be able to comprehend it. How is it a terrible idea to not be sure about something? How is it a terrible idea to admit to not knowing something? How is saying that I'm not sure of something is in any way a strategy? How is questioning something and being open to discussing my lack of knowledge and my uncertainty not good logic? Really, you are so far off in crazy land that I am having a difficult time trying to determine what what you said has anything to do with what I said.

This is an example of what I dislike about trying to talk to people about these things. You have one kind of person trying to downplay a thing to insignificance, another person trying to tell how that very same thing will murder your entire family, and almost no one talking about these things like they're real. I'm not saying that Trump won't cause any damage, and I'm not saying the Hillary is the worst thing since volcanoes, what I'm saying, is that if they are the only two options, I honestly don't see much difference in terms of how much they will harm the country and me personally.

I gave very concrete, realistic examples of how Trump would cause many more problems than Hillary would. How am I not talking about things like "they're real"? Then you say you don't understand how having Trump will harm the country and you personally any more than Hillary. Again, after I gave concrete examples of how they would. All you point to is vague assertions of how Hillary's in the "pocket of corporations".

I explained that a few times already, do you have a difficult time with reading? I'm honestly asking because it doesn't look like you're talking to me because you're not responding to what I'm saying. I don't know what you think you're responding to, but I'm willing to help you out when you need it.

I'm trying to construct a cohesive argument to rebut your claims, and you simply dismiss all of them and say I don't know what I'm talking about without any evidence besides something that will fit onto a bumper sticker. Ok, suit yourself, stick to your guns at any cost if you must.

Try reading what I wrote and understanding what I wrote first. That will help you construct a cohesive argument.

[Davin]

I think building a third party means just that. Get the party established in local and statewide elections: create a genuine party structure that offers an alternative to the present choices. Splashing into the presidential elections without doing that work like Perot and Nader did isn't giving a genuine choice--it's being a spoiler, plain and simple.

That is true. It's a good thing no one here is advocating that. Again, talking in these weird extremes instead of reality doesn't really help discussion.

What weird extreme did I talk about? We've seen the results accomplished by voting for a third party candidate in presidential elections when there isn't any genuine party presence on a local level. Is it unrealistic to look at those results and relate them to the current election?

We went from talking about third party candidates, to you leaping to "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing that work like Perot and Nader did isn't giving a genuine choice[...]" That's a weird extreme. It's like I'm talking about how I like the taste of Cheetohs, and you jumping in and saying that people shouldn't be talking about replacing all food with Cheetohs. Like just the mention of something leads you and a few other people apparently to avoid rational discussion by leaping to barely related extremes. There are already a few third parties that are doing well in many city and state governments, but you acted like those don't exist and that any third party is just going to be jumping in randomly. It's so weird. Why can't you guys just listen to the other people and have a reasonable discussion based on what they say and not jump to insane conclusions? Is it really that difficult?

[Firebird]

I explained that a few times already, do you have a difficult time with reading? I'm honestly asking because it doesn't look like you're talking to me because you're responding to what I'm saying. I don't know what you think you're responding to, but I'm willing to help you out when you need it.

No you didn't. Hiding behind passive-aggressive insults of my supposed lack of intelligence doesn't mask your lack of substance either.

I'm trying to construct a cohesive argument to rebut your claims, and you simply dismiss all of them and say I don't know what I'm talking about without any evidence besides something that will fit onto a bumper sticker. Ok, suit yourself, stick to your guns at any cost if you must.

Try reading what I wrote and understanding what I wrote first. That will help you construct a cohesive argument.

I did read what you wrote and responded. Clearly you didn't like what I had to say or couldn't come up with a way to rebut it, so your only recourse was to insult me and pretend I just don't understand your vapid arguments.

I see you responded to Recusant just now too in similar way. It seems like you have these vague opinions of how things should work, and then when we give you real-world examples of why they don't work, you accuse people of either misrepresenting you, not comprehending you, or going to "extremes" because they violate your personal worldview. Word of advice, it's tiresome and it doesn't work.

[Davin]

I explained that a few times already, do you have a difficult time with reading? I'm honestly asking because it doesn't look like you're talking to me because you're responding to what I'm saying. I don't know what you think you're responding to, but I'm willing to help you out when you need it.

No you didn't. Hiding behind passive-aggressive insults of my supposed lack of intelligence doesn't mask your lack of substance either.

I didn't say anything about your intelligence. I've been trying to get you to read what I actually wrote for a while now. What conclusion am I left with when you have repeatedly failed to respond to what I wrote?

I'm trying to construct a cohesive argument to rebut your claims, and you simply dismiss all of them and say I don't know what I'm talking about without any evidence besides something that will fit onto a bumper sticker. Ok, suit yourself, stick to your guns at any cost if you must.

Try reading what I wrote and understanding what I wrote first. That will help you construct a cohesive argument.

I did read what you wrote and responded. Clearly you didn't like what I had to say or couldn't come up with a way to rebut it, so your only recourse was to insult me and pretend I just don't understand your vapid arguments.

There is no need to rebut when you're not addressing what I wrote. If you can manage to do that, then I will respond. I asked you some very clear questions in my last post, and you have answered none of them. If you could answer those questions then I might be able to see where the communication errors lie.

I see you responded to Recusant just now too in similar way. It seems like you have these vague opinions of how things should work, and then when we give you real-world examples of why they don't work, you accuse people of either misrepresenting you, not comprehending you, or going to "extremes" because they violate your personal worldview. Word of advice, it's tiresome and it doesn't work.

They are not vague. I simply want to have a rational conversation about this. If that is too vague for you, then don't worry about it, just move along.

[Firebird]

What questions?

[Davin]

What questions?

I don't mean to further insult you, but a good way to determine which things are questions, are the sentences with question marks like "?" at the end of them.

[Firebird]

I don't mean to further insult you...

Yeah, I don't really believe you there.

I know what I said, but you still seem to not be able to comprehend it. How is it a terrible idea to not be sure about something? How is it a terrible idea to admit to not knowing something? How is saying that I'm not sure of something is in any way a strategy?

Very nice, lead off with more passive-aggressiveness. Like I said, I gave very concrete examples to enlighten you a little bit and help you know better about why putting someone in who's "not as well equipped" (as you put it) is a bad idea. Focus on that perhaps. Or just ignore it and continue acting the way you do. At this point I really don't care, as you seem to prefer petty insults to actually engaging in debate.

[Davin]

I don't mean to further insult you...

Yeah, I don't really believe you there.

You don't have to, reality doesn't bend around your beliefs.

I know what I said, but you still seem to not be able to comprehend it. How is it a terrible idea to not be sure about something? How is it a terrible idea to admit to not knowing something? How is saying that I'm not sure of something is in any way a strategy?

Very nice, lead off with more passive-aggressiveness. Like I said, I gave very concrete examples to enlighten you a little bit and help you know better about why putting someone in who's "not as well equipped" (as you put it) is a bad idea. Focus on that perhaps. Or just ignore it and continue acting the way you do. At this point I really don't care, as you seem to prefer petty insults to actually engaging in debate.

It's not passive aggressive, I mean exactly what I said. You do not seem to be comprehending what I wrote. You didn't give any concrete examples, it doesn't matter how much you call what you present "concrete" and what I present as "vague" because your words don't change reality. I mean, if it makes you feel better about yourself to do that, then go right ahead.

I would love to debate with you, but you have to show that you can respond to what I actually wrote first. There's no point in me trying to talk you when you want me to defend things I've never said. So take things out of context all you want, I can't help that, but if you want to have a debate about this, then actually address what I wrote. Otherwise I will assume that you're incapable of having a rational discussion about this. It's not a problem for me, so have fun.

[Firebird]

You didn't give any concrete examples, it doesn't matter how much you call what you present "concrete" and what I present as "vague" because your words don't change reality.

If you're so confident in your idea of "reality", prove that you're so much smarter than the writer of that article I included about what Trump can and can't do as president. Show how the specific examples are not "concrete" or "based in reality", or how it doesn't actually show how much more damage Trump can do vs. Hillary, since one of your main assertions was that she can do just as much damage as him and possibly more. And don't accuse me of "not comprehending" you there, because you very clearly said that earlier. So prove your point if you're so confident. Otherwise I have to assume there's nothing behind your facade of smugness.

[Davin]

You didn't give any concrete examples, it doesn't matter how much you call what you present "concrete" and what I present as "vague" because your words don't change reality.

If you're so confident in your idea of "reality", prove that you're so much smarter than the writer of that article I included about what Trump can and can't do as president.

Well, a few problems here. I already addressed the article. It has nothing to do with smartness. And that doesn't address my concerns as I presented them.

Show how the specific examples are not "concrete" or "based in reality", or how it doesn't actually show how much more damage Trump can do vs. Hillary, since one of your main assertions was that she can do just as much damage as him and possibly more.

It only mentions Trump. There was no comparison. But let's say someone is trying to kill you, would you rather have someone who knows what they are doing to try and kill you or some bumbling idiot?

If you read what I wrote, I said I understand that Trump can do damage. I never said he wouldn't. I'm just not sure it would be much worse than the damage Hillary can do. You never addressed that, it's like what I'm writing is not getting across to you. I have no idea how to fix it, since even when I ask clear and simple questions addressing the communication problems, you answer questions I've not asked. There is a barrier in communication here, and I'm willing to admit that I am at least partly to blame and at most the entire problem. But I can't determine what the problem is if you continue to be unwilling to help.

And don't accuse me of "not comprehending" you there, because you very clearly said that earlier.

Are you sure that's what I said, because I can't tell that you're even responding to me. I mean you quote me, but then go off on something unrelated. When I tried to find out how your seemingly random statements applied to what I said, you do it again.

So prove your point if you're so confident.

I don't know where you get this idea of confidence. Here is a quote of mine that you've quoted several times:

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.

So I used terminology to clearly indicate my uncertainty, things like "I'm not so sure[...]," "[...]might[...]," and "I don't know." And you interpret that as confidence... I'm honestly at a loss. How is that in any way showing confidence? Where do you get this confidence from? It makes no sense.

Otherwise I have to assume there's nothing behind your facade of smugness.

There is no smugness. I am comfortable accepting my ignorance on this issue and I clearly expressed my concerns and I clearly told you what things don't convince me. There is no facade of smugness. Just because I don't accept what you say doesn't make me smug. Just because I object to your methods doesn't make me smug. I wanted to discuss my concerns and the areas of which I am ignorant, but instead of talking about those things, you talked about other things and injected things I didn't say into my statements. Honestly, if you're not going to make the attempt to have a reasonable discussion with me, why do you keep replying?

[Recusant]

What weird extreme did I talk about? We've seen the results accomplished by voting for a third party candidate in presidential elections when there isn't any genuine party presence on a local level. Is it unrealistic to look at those results and relate them to the current election?

We went from talking about third party candidates, to you leaping to "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing that work like Perot and Nader did isn't giving a genuine choice[...]" That's a weird extreme. It's like I'm talking about how I like the taste of Cheetohs, and you jumping in and saying that people shouldn't be talking about replacing all food with Cheetohs. Like just the mention of something leads you and a few other people apparently to avoid rational discussion by leaping to barely related extremes. There are already a few third parties that are doing well in many city and state governments, but you acted like those don't exist and that any third party is just going to be jumping in randomly. It's so weird. Why can't you guys just listen to the other people and have a reasonable discussion based on what they say and not jump to insane conclusions? Is it really that difficult?

Thanks for the "avoid rational discussion" and "insane conclusions" quips. They're very good illustrations of some of what's happening in this thread. Whether you realise it or not, you decrease the value and relevance of your posts by engaging in that sort of rhetoric.

This thread is about the presidential elections in the United States. Therefore, discussion of third parties in the United States in this thread takes place within the context of presidential elections, your hyperbole notwithstanding.

[Davin]

What weird extreme did I talk about? We've seen the results accomplished by voting for a third party candidate in presidential elections when there isn't any genuine party presence on a local level. Is it unrealistic to look at those results and relate them to the current election?

We went from talking about third party candidates, to you leaping to "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing that work like Perot and Nader did isn't giving a genuine choice[...]" That's a weird extreme. It's like I'm talking about how I like the taste of Cheetohs, and you jumping in and saying that people shouldn't be talking about replacing all food with Cheetohs. Like just the mention of something leads you and a few other people apparently to avoid rational discussion by leaping to barely related extremes. There are already a few third parties that are doing well in many city and state governments, but you acted like those don't exist and that any third party is just going to be jumping in randomly. It's so weird. Why can't you guys just listen to the other people and have a reasonable discussion based on what they say and not jump to insane conclusions? Is it really that difficult?

Thanks for the "avoid rational discussion" and "insane conclusions" quips. They're very good illustrations of some of what's happening in this thread. Whether you realise it or not, you decrease the value and relevance of your posts by engaging in that sort of rhetoric.

You are welcome. I hope it somehow helps with the problem of people being unable to have reasonable discussions about this. I am doubtful, but it might still help.

This thread is about the presidential elections in the United States. Therefore, discussion of third parties in the United States in this thread takes place within the context of presidential elections, your hyperbole notwithstanding.

I can't tell what your statement here is supposed to address in what I said. Did I say that discussion of third parties should not be in the context of the presidential election? I don't see where I said anything like that. Or is this just another random statement under the pretense of responding to me?

[Firebird]

This thread is about the presidential elections in the United States. Therefore, discussion of third parties in the United States in this thread takes place within the context of presidential elections, your hyperbole notwithstanding.

I can't tell what your statement here is supposed to address in what I said. Did I say that discussion of third parties should not be in the context of the presidential election? I don't see where I said anything like that. Or is this just another random statement under the pretense of responding to me?

Umm...here, remember?

What weird extreme did I talk about? We've seen the results accomplished by voting for a third party candidate in presidential elections when there isn't any genuine party presence on a local level. Is it unrealistic to look at those results and relate them to the current election?

We went from talking about third party candidates, to you leaping to "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing that work like Perot and Nader did isn't giving a genuine choice[...]" That's a weird extreme.

That is not a "weird extreme". It's a solid example of why voting for a third-party candidate in a presidential election with the way the current system is set up is self-defeating. Which was the earlier part of the discussion.
Davin, I  don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me or Recusant or anyone else if you're debating substance, but that's not what you're doing. As soon as we try to compare your arguments with what happens in the real world, you just put everything down as "weird", "extreme", "unreasonably", irrational", or whatever other hyperbole you come up with on the spot. At some point you have to consider why you're the only one who feels this way.