Okay, so Bernie lost NY and now I'm seeing people proclaim he's sunk. Bullshit. He's down by about 200 delegates but there's still over 1600 up for grabs. I'll remain optimistic until such time as it become mathematically impossible for him to win.
Anyone ready to read his epitaph?
I want him to stay in the race more to keep the heat on Hillary than anything else. She's been forced to recalibrate his message thanks to him, which is important. So he should stay till the end. But he'd have to win at least 57% of the rest of the delegates to have a chance. Based on what's happened so far, there's virtually no shot of that.
So she's getting the nomination in in all likelihood, and I'm voting for her, even with all the issues I have with her. They pale in comparison to the disaster of a Republican presidency, especially Trump or Cruz.
Unless he can get in front of her on the pledged delegates the super delegates will mainly vote for Hillary. He would have to win states that he just isn't going to win to do that. I like him and hope he keeps up his message, but Hillary will be the nominee.
I like Bernie better than any of the other candidates. Unfortunately he is endorsing pie in the sky ideas that can never be brought into the realm of reality. Free college education? Universal health care? Wall street regulation? Not in this world. I do like the ideas but none of that will happen for a very long time if ever. Therefore, Bernie is just poking hot butter up our asses. I do believe that he knows that the prospect of making any of his announced aims come true is not realistic. I'd be apt to vote for him in spite of the snow job.
Quote from: Icarus on April 21, 2016, 04:30:31 AM
I like Bernie better than any of the other candidates. Unfortunately he is endorsing pie in the sky ideas that can never be brought into the realm of reality. Free college education? Universal health care? Wall street regulation? Not in this world. I do like the ideas but none of that will happen for a very long time if ever. Therefore, Bernie is just poking hot butter up our asses. I do believe that he knows that the prospect of making any of his announced aims come true is not realistic. I'd be apt to vote for him in spite of the snow job.
Other countries manage those things.
Quote from: Icarus on April 21, 2016, 04:30:31 AM
Free college education? Universal health care? Wall street regulation? Not in this world.
Most of Western world has these, it also manages to keep the private institutions as well for those that prefer them. Wall Street regulation existed until Clinton got rid of them, what is hard about making the bosses accountable rather than underlings and not being protected by the tax payer. It would put a huge safety net on the US economy and the rest of the worlds.
Investment bankers have practiced legal larceny for a hundred years. Clinton had little to do with the continued systematic fleecing of the American public.
The reality is that the Wall Street honchos are not only stock brokers but more importantly they are self serving power brokers who wield iron fisted influence over our congressional rule makers. Bernie's announced intent is only a pleasant pipe dream.
Okay, I admit it, Bernie's pretty much finished. :(
Damn.
He couldn't connect with blacks. Lived too long in Vermont, where at last count there were 2.5 blacks. Hillary had the black population in the bag, after losing out to Obama in 2008 but still supporting him as Sec. of State. The blacks felt they owed her and could trust her. Bernie never had a chance. He was just too white.
Quote from: MadBomr101 on April 27, 2016, 04:31:28 PM
Okay, I admit it, Bernie's pretty much finished. :(
Yeah, and he knows it too. But hey, now Hillary will morph into the biggest proponent of Wall Street reform...until that trend passes ;)
In all seriousness, his unexpected run does give me optimism for the millenial generation and how it will alter US politics going forward. I never in my wildest dreams thought a self-proclaimed socialist (as inaccurate as that term is for him) would get this far. Just a shame Elizabeth Warren didn't run, but I can't blame her if she didn't feel up for it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 27, 2016, 09:58:14 PM
He couldn't connect with blacks. Lived too long in Vermont, where at last count there were 2.5 blacks. Hillary had the black population in the bag, after losing out to Obama in 2008 but still supporting him as Sec. of State. The blacks felt they owed her and could trust her. Bernie never had a chance. He was just too white.
Isn't it odd though, considering the man was protesting civil rights in the 60's and even was at the "I have a dream" speech? Why did blacks feel like they owed her, considering Bernie's been championing their cause longer?
Quote from: Firebird on April 27, 2016, 09:59:49 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 27, 2016, 09:58:14 PM
He couldn't connect with blacks. Lived too long in Vermont, where at last count there were 2.5 blacks. Hillary had the black population in the bag, after losing out to Obama in 2008 but still supporting him as Sec. of State. The blacks felt they owed her and could trust her. Bernie never had a chance. He was just too white.
Isn't it odd though, considering the man was protesting civil rights in the 60's and even was at the "I have a dream" speech? Why did blacks feel like they owed her, considering Bernie's been championing their cause longer?
She's been a constant with them for the past few years. They also feel that she would be more likely to actually accomplish something in office. However, if she still has a GOP Congress, she won't be able to do much more than Obama did or that Bernie might have done.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 28, 2016, 12:09:36 PM. . . However, if she still has a GOP Congress, she won't be able to do much more than Obama did or that Bernie might have done.
With Trump as the Republican nominee the congressional elections will be affected, and there could be some marked changes for the 115th Congress.
Quote from: Recusant on April 28, 2016, 05:30:04 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 28, 2016, 12:09:36 PM. . . However, if she still has a GOP Congress, she won't be able to do much more than Obama did or that Bernie might have done.
With Trump as the Republican nominee the congressional elections will be affected, and there could be some marked changes for the 115th Congress.
Here's hoping.
Quote from: Recusant on May 01, 2016, 11:45:06 PM
That was awesome.
It's weird, I've never met anyone personally who was as blind as the reddit Bernie people are, even though we and many of our friends voted for him. I guess we're too old.
That video was great! Bernie's winning again!
Since Bernie didn't win the nomination, I'm gonna vote for Trump. Also, since the store didn't have my favorite beer, I'm gonna drink bleach instead.
I admire a man who's willing to stand up for his principles. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Bruno de la Pole on June 09, 2016, 03:03:45 AM
Since Bernie didn't win the nomination, I'm gonna vote for Trump. Also, since the store didn't have my favorite beer, I'm gonna drink bleach instead.
Honestly, by the time the election rolls around, I'm sure most of them will come over to Hillary, even if they bitch and moan about it the whole time. Same thing happened with Hillary's supporters in '08 with Obama. And anyone who says she and Trump are "the same" doesn't deserve to vote.
I'm clearly not American so don't get a vote anyway (Firebird maybe be relieved I don't ;) )
I wouldn't vote for Hillary. I don't think she's the same as Trump but I don't think she's progressive like she claims. If Bernie isn't on the ticket I'd vote for Dr Jill Stein (Green Party). Of course, there's a risk Trump would get in, but honestly that might actually shake the Democrats and America up enough for them to vote for actual change in the next election.
Quote from: Claireliontamer on June 09, 2016, 09:48:58 AM
I'm clearly not American so don't get a vote anyway (Firebird maybe be relieved I don't ;) )
I wouldn't vote for Hillary. I don't think she's the same as Trump but I don't think she's progressive like she claims. If Bernie isn't on the ticket I'd vote for Dr Jill Stein (Green Party). Of course, there's a risk Trump would get in, but honestly that might actually shake the Democrats and America up enough for them to vote for actual change in the next election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000
QuoteThe "spoiler" controversy
In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore's defeat. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[18] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.) When asked about claims of being a spoiler, Nader typically points to the controversial Supreme Court ruling that halted a Florida recount, Gore's loss in his home state of Tennessee, and the "quarter million Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida.
Principles can cost a lot to maintain, we got a couple of wars, out of that one.
Pragmatism may not be fashionable but gestures that lead to the worst possible outcome are apparently.
I don't see how a green vote in a US presidential election is anything but a gesture, there is only one winner. I don't have a problem with it in other electoral systems where a green candidate could be elected. One might accuse people who refuse to vote for the least worse of acting childish, abnegating their responsibility to their democracy.
Quote from: Claireliontamer on June 09, 2016, 09:48:58 AM
I'm clearly not American so don't get a vote anyway (Firebird maybe be relieved I don't ;) )
I wouldn't vote for Hillary. I don't think she's the same as Trump but I don't think she's progressive like she claims. If Bernie isn't on the ticket I'd vote for Dr Jill Stein (Green Party). Of course, there's a risk Trump would get in, but honestly that might actually shake the Democrats and America up enough for them to vote for actual change in the next election.
That's a little like Hitler teaching the Germans a lesson. And he didn't have nuclear weapons.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on June 09, 2016, 10:44:57 AM
Principles can cost a lot to maintain, we got a couple of wars, out of that one.
Pragmatism may not be fashionable but gestures that lead to the worst possible outcome are apparently.
I don't see how a green vote in a US presidential election is anything but a gesture, there is only one winner. I don't have a problem with it in other electoral systems where a green candidate could be elected. One might accuse people who refuse to vote for the least worse of acting childish, abnegating their responsibility to their democracy.
Yeah, very much this.
You're not wrong about Hillary, Claire, she's too right-of-center for me too. But I'm not going to risk "shaking things up" by putting that crazy racist in charge. Was W really worth the cost? Sure, maybe that helped get Obama elected, but imagine if he'd never been there in the first place and Gore had been there instead. The same ridiculous arguments about how they're "the same" happened then too. No sane person would consider Gore the same as Bush today. And Bush is considered too moderate for that party now.
With Hillary, at least I know the Supreme Court won't outlaw abortion, my in-laws won't be banned from entering this country, the Paris climate agreement won't be torn up, and a tactical nuke won't be dropped on Iran because the Ayatollah makes fun of her appearance.
Yes, I'd love to have a more progressive option too, but I prefer incremental progress to gambling on a Silvio Berlusconi wannabe.
So we're supposed to vote for Hillary just because we're "left with no other option," which will perpetuate the problem of being left with no good option?
No. I'd rather keep trying to correct the problem of only getting shitty options. I will vote, but I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary because I don't think that either of them will make good presidents. Hopefully more people will do the same and it will show in the data that more and more people are not voting for the two main options, that is better than not voting at all because one doesn't like either.
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 02:42:39 PM
So we're supposed to vote for Hillary just because we're "left with no other option," which will perpetuate the problem of being left with no good option?
No. I'd rather keep trying to correct the problem of only getting shitty options. I will vote, but I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary because I don't think that either of them will make good presidents. Hopefully more people will do the same and it will show in the data that more and more people are not voting for the two main options, that is better than not voting at all because one doesn't like either.
Sorry that my plea to vote wise and spare the world offends your sensibility.
There was a lot of Afghans but they had it coming,
Iraqis, no one likes them so they don't count.
Many Americans but it was for the cause.
Syria, that has nothing to do with anything.
Fuck the lives, they can be replaced but how many dollars?
An inconceivable amount of dollars.
What could have been done with those dollars?
lots
Quote from: Bad Penny II on June 09, 2016, 03:24:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 02:42:39 PM
So we're supposed to vote for Hillary just because we're "left with no other option," which will perpetuate the problem of being left with no good option?
No. I'd rather keep trying to correct the problem of only getting shitty options. I will vote, but I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary because I don't think that either of them will make good presidents. Hopefully more people will do the same and it will show in the data that more and more people are not voting for the two main options, that is better than not voting at all because one doesn't like either.
Sorry that my plea to vote wise and spare the world offends your sensibility.
It doesn't offend my sensibility, it's just wrong. And though your response here is brief, it contains an impressive amount of inaccuracies.
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 03:40:11 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II on June 09, 2016, 03:24:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 02:42:39 PM
So we're supposed to vote for Hillary just because we're "left with no other option," which will perpetuate the problem of being left with no good option?
No. I'd rather keep trying to correct the problem of only getting shitty options. I will vote, but I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary because I don't think that either of them will make good presidents. Hopefully more people will do the same and it will show in the data that more and more people are not voting for the two main options, that is better than not voting at all because one doesn't like either.
Sorry that my plea to vote wise and spare the world offends your sensibility.
It doesn't offend my sensibility, it's just wrong. And though your response here is brief, it contains an impressive amount of inaccuracies.
No it doesn't.
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 03:40:11 PM
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?
Silly me, I forgot how much of a peace lover Clinton is.
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2016, 03:54:25 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 03:40:11 PM
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:
Quote from: Bad Penny II on June 09, 2016, 03:24:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Fanciful nonsense, would you be doing this if Crow was still here?
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2016, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on June 09, 2016, 05:17:30 PM
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."
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2016, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2016, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on June 09, 2016, 05:17:30 PM
... would you be doing this if Crow was still here?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fyoursmiles.org%2Ftsmile%2Ftears%2Ft2329.gif&hash=17e13c902d7ae28d92e1dfc6a950b58244b8eafa)
I'm sorry.
I can't stop crying.Carry on.
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2016, 05:47:19 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: Firebird on June 09, 2016, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 05:30:28 PM
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdAnd 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.
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PMNo, 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.
Quote from: Recusant on June 09, 2016, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 04:51:06 PMNo, 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:
(https://i.imgur.com/QkFD4VS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FznNBqA.png)
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 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.
Quote from: Icarus on June 09, 2016, 11:42:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Icarus on June 09, 2016, 11:42:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 02:42:39 PM
So we're supposed to vote for Hillary just because we're "left with no other option," which will perpetuate the problem of being left with no good option?
No. I'd rather keep trying to correct the problem of only getting shitty options. I will vote, but I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary because I don't think that either of them will make good presidents. Hopefully more people will do the same and it will show in the data that more and more people are not voting for the two main options, that is better than not voting at all because one doesn't like either.
I'm dubious about this, Davins in increasing number don't vote democrat because party isn't left enough, anti Davins desert them because they're too mamby pamby. So the party stays in its centre spot.
There are other alternatives, self immolation can be quite effective, not you, cheese, we haven't got over Crow yet, but if a lesser Davin did it for the cause...
QuoteThe 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.
Fear, was it fear? Fear isn't necessarily a bad thing, there's things you should be fearful of.
I think most of the international forum members wouldn't be entirely ignorant of your system. I don't think it's a very good model, but it provided a guide to other would be democracies as to what works and what doesn't, I thank you all for that.
I was suggesting the compromise offends your sensibility, yet I know you to be an entirely rational thing, sorry.
Quote from: Bad Penny II on June 10, 2016, 01:42:06 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 02:42:39 PM
So we're supposed to vote for Hillary just because we're "left with no other option," which will perpetuate the problem of being left with no good option?
No. I'd rather keep trying to correct the problem of only getting shitty options. I will vote, but I'm not voting for Trump or Hillary because I don't think that either of them will make good presidents. Hopefully more people will do the same and it will show in the data that more and more people are not voting for the two main options, that is better than not voting at all because one doesn't like either.
I'm dubious about this, Davins in increasing number don't vote democrat because party isn't left enough, anti Davins desert them because they're too mamby pamby.
That is not how Davins vote.
Quote from: Bad Penny IISo the party stays in its centre spot.
There are other alternatives, self immolation can be quite effective, not you, cheese, we haven't got over Crow yet, but if a lesser Davin did it for the cause...
The party does not stay where it is, it's just a little behind the Republicans. If the Republicans fail at attaining another presidency, I will guarantee that many of the money backers of the Republicans will just switch over to the Democrats. Some will probably support the Tea Party. But the end result will be same, the elected representatives will end up very deep in the pockets of other people and will legislate accordingly.
Quote from: Bad Penny IIQuoteThe 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.
Fear, was it fear? Fear isn't necessarily a bad thing, there's things you should be fearful of.
I never said there was anything bad about fear. However, there is something bad about letting fear or any other emotion bypass ones rationality.
Quote from: Bad Penny III think most of the international forum members wouldn't be entirely ignorant of your system. I don't think it's a very good model, but it provided a guide to other would be democracies as to what works and what doesn't, I thank you all for that.
Most people are ignorant of my system, but my system is not what I propose, not too many people would agree with it. However, I do support George Washington's ideas about being anti-political party. You might have heard of him, he was the first president of the US.
Quote from: Bad Penny III was suggesting the compromise offends your sensibility, yet I know you to be an entirely rational thing, sorry.
Again, you can't offend my sensibilities, not even by continuing to try to imply that you somehow did. If you think I am entirely rational, then you don't know who I am and are still attacking your own men of straw.
Quote from: Davin on June 10, 2016, 02:55:26 PM
The party does not stay where it is, it's just a little behind the Republicans. If the Republicans fail at attaining another presidency, I will guarantee that many of the money backers of the Republicans will just switch over to the Democrats. Some will probably support the Tea Party. But the end result will be same, the elected representatives will end up very deep in the pockets of other people and will legislate accordingly.
I have a real problem with the blanket statement that "it's just a little behind the Republicans." Sure, the party isn't as far to the left as most of us would like, but the GOP has turned into a party of anarcho-capitalists, neocons, and religious wackos. There's a reason I would never consider moving to the South or most of the Midwest.
Going back to some of your previous statements:
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 07:06:10 PM
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/QkFD4VS.png)
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.
I have to say that diagram looks much better for Hillary than it does for Trump. 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 (http://nyti.ms/1X3t3Sh). 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.
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 06:21:03 PM
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.
Fair point, it shouldn't be that way. Hell, my vote counts less than someone in Ohio or Florida because they're swing states and Massachusetts isn't. But let's say for argument's sake you live in a swing state and you choose to vote for Jill Stein (Green Party) or some other third-party candidate who won't win. Sure, maybe you'll be able to stick to your pure principles and point to that. What does that really accomplish, though? Does it really change anything in the country in a way that will accomplish your goals? Ralph Nader clearly played a significant role in 2000. What did that accomplish besides possible getting the disastrous Bush elected? Sure, it got us Obama. But Obama's had to spend most of his presidency cleaning up that mess rather than focusing on a more progressive agenda.
Yes, fine, I'm appealing to fear and you claim that doesn't affect you. But if your goal is to nudge the country and system in a better direction, helping to get Trump elected does nothing for that goal, unless he ends up blowing up the whole damn thing like what happened in Germany post world war II. And that's not worth it, in my opinion (and most people's). Large changes, like making the political system fairer or other things like health care reform, gay marriage, etc usually bubble up from below, not from the top down. So if you want to change the system, starting locally is your better bet. By the time you get to the top, you're simply refusing to play the game and conceding to your opponent.
Quote from: Tank on June 09, 2016, 12:36:29 PM
Quote from: Claireliontamer on June 09, 2016, 09:48:58 AM
I'm clearly not American so don't get a vote anyway (Firebird maybe be relieved I don't ;) )
I wouldn't vote for Hillary. I don't think she's the same as Trump but I don't think she's progressive like she claims. If Bernie isn't on the ticket I'd vote for Dr Jill Stein (Green Party). Of course, there's a risk Trump would get in, but honestly that might actually shake the Democrats and America up enough for them to vote for actual change in the next election.
That's a little like Hitler teaching the Germans a lesson. And he didn't have nuclear weapons.
That's not the whole story regarding Hitler. It wasn't
just Hitler who's actions led to world war, it was a number of nations and individuals whose decisions to act, or not, in various situations led to the events following his election. Could Trump be considered a fascist? Under some definitions, yes, he certainly could. But that doesn't mean he'll be able to set events in motion on the same scale as the 1940s.
Trump doesn't have the organization that the Nazis did during the 1930s, lacks the same sort of driving political ambition (I mean really, who thinks Trump has spent the last decade or more putting together a plan to wrest control of the US from the political establishment? He strikes me as a buffoon who ran because he could and found that doing so stroked his ego.) and would be hard pressed to accomplish his more outrageous policy proposals.
Yes, a Trump presidency could send the world into chaos. Alternatively, so long as we're extrapolating from historical examples, a more principled stand against Hitler's aggression by the French and British could have nipped the last world war in the bud. A Trump presidency could be the worst possible outcome for everyone, so could a Clinton presidency or a Sander's presidency if public pressure were directed in the right way.
I consider Hillary Clinton to be the more sneaky of the two. As secretary of state, she played some very dangerous games. If she continues to annoy Russia and does nothing against ISIS then I rather have Trump as next president, for the safety of the world. Clinton + Merkel = Sum of all Evil ;).
Quote from: Tom62 on June 11, 2016, 07:25:39 AM
I consider Hillary Clinton to be the more sneaky of the two. As secretary of state, she played some very dangerous games. If she continues to annoy Russia and does nothing against ISIS then I rather have Trump as next president, for the safety of the world. Clinton + Merkel = Sum of all Evil ;).
What kind of damage do you really think she'd do that would be worse than Trump?
I know she's a flawed candidate, but I keep seeing these blanket statements about how sneaky, dangerous, and horrible she is compared to Trump and they have no basis in reality. Maybe part of it is that many of you are non-US, so all the damage he'd do domestically has no bearing on you. Well, it absolutely would with us. But fine, set that aside. Do you honestly think Trump's "incompetence" is a virtue when it comes to global affairs?
Do you guys care about global warming and the Paris Accord? Kiss that goodbye. Do you still think you need NATO? Because he basically wants to lay waste to that. He liked Putin, for fuck's sake. How will his "incompetence" stop him from ripping up the oil deal with Iran and bombing them on a whim?
Hillary may be flawed, but she is still smart and competent, and whether you agree with her or not, there isn't a risk she'll be goaded into doing something idiotic because someone insulted her. So please, get your heads out of your asses and stop acting like she's somehow worse than that incompetent bag of air. It's a ridiculous assertion to make.
Hillary has some experience and at least a modicum of success with diplomacy. I am not entirely comfortable with her, meanwhile Trump displays the same degree of diplomatic reasoning as a wounded Honey Badger. That is scary because it is not inconceivable that he could become the most powerful (spell that... d a n g e r o u s) head of state on earth.
Well, I currently see in the Western media a lot of anti-Russia sympathies going on, directed against Putin in particular. In the meanwhile NATO and the EU have expanded their interests more to the East than that is healthy for the Western - Russian relationship. One of the agreements that were made with Russia, to enable the German unification, was that NATO and the EU would NOT move further East. They didn't stick to that deal, which makes the Russians realize that the Western politicians cannot be trusted (surprise, surprise...).
Assuming that Clinton proceeds with the Obama politics, moving further to the east (like the Ukraine) could increase tensions even more and perhaps, lead to WW-III. Yes, Putin is a dictator but he seems to be a more benevolent one than most dictators who are "our friends" (like the creepy kings in Saudi Arabia). Putin is also the only one who is cleaning up the ISIS mess in the Middle East. We are better of with him as a friend than an enemy.
Regarding "Global Warming", I don't expect much from Clinton either. Perhaps a bit more than Trump, but certainly much less than Sanders. American (industry) interests will remain more important than world interests. You can already see that with the TTIP agreement between USA and EU, that they want to push through (in secret meetings). Here we'll also end up in a situation, where everyone will be worst off, with the exception of American companies and banks.
Quote from: Tom62 on June 12, 2016, 10:11:11 AM
Yes, Putin is a dictator but he seems to be a more benevolent one than most dictators who are "our friends" (like the creepy kings in Saudi Arabia). Putin is also the only one who is cleaning up the ISIS mess in the Middle East.
You have got to be kidding me. A "benevolent dictator" does not unilaterally annex part of the country next door. A "benevolent dictator" does not assassinate his rivals and media critics by gunning them down in the streets or poisoning them with radiation to ensure a slow, painful death. A "benevolent dictator" does not let of his lackeys (Ramazan Kadyrov in Chechnya) torture and murder whoever he likes to "keep the peace". A "benevolent dictator" does not unilaterally trash all regional governments and appoint whoever he likes instead. Calling Putin out on that is not a smear campaign, it's the cold, hard truth.
The US is hitting ISIS really hard too. Why isn't NATO? Why do you prefer to rely on the US and Russia instead of leaning more on NATO? Isn't this the kind of thing it's supposed to counter?
I thought Russia was hitting opponents of their guy Assad who is a total bastard, so Russia hit Isis and some some others opposed to a total bastard.
Quote from: Firebird link=topic=14407.msg332751#msg332751
You have got to be kidding me. A "benevolent dictator" does not unilaterally annex part of the country next door. A "benevolent dictator" does not assassinate his rivals and media critics by gunning them down in the streets or poisoning them with radiation to ensure a slow, painful death. A "benevolent dictator" does not let of his lackeys (Ramazan Kadyrov in Chechnya) torture and murder whoever he likes to "keep the peace". A "benevolent dictator" does not unilaterally trash all regional governments and appoint whoever he likes instead.
Some call such benevolent and are outraged by Angela Merkel, it's all a matter of perspective.
Quote from: Firebird on June 11, 2016, 12:42:21 AM
Quote from: Davin on June 10, 2016, 02:55:26 PM
The party does not stay where it is, it's just a little behind the Republicans. If the Republicans fail at attaining another presidency, I will guarantee that many of the money backers of the Republicans will just switch over to the Democrats. Some will probably support the Tea Party. But the end result will be same, the elected representatives will end up very deep in the pockets of other people and will legislate accordingly.
I have a real problem with the blanket statement that "it's just a little behind the Republicans."
Yu have a problem with it because it's not a blanket statement.
Quote from: FirebirdSure, the party isn't as far to the left as most of us would like, but the GOP has turned into a party of anarcho-capitalists, neocons, and religious wackos. There's a reason I would never consider moving to the South or most of the Midwest.
Not what mean in terms of distance. The distance I'm talking about, as can be seen from the context of my statements, is the distance the politicians are from the pockets of the corporations.
Quote from: FirebirdGoing back to some of your previous statements:
Quote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 07:06:10 PM
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/QkFD4VS.png)
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.
I have to say that diagram looks much better for Hillary than it does for Trump.
It does look better.
Quote from: FirebirdBut 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 (http://nyti.ms/1X3t3Sh). 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.
Undoing presidential orders and a president issuing orders is not as simple as just writing "take backsies" and signing it. There are lawyers involved because the courts are an option to prevent presidential powers. Though, Trump may be the one installing the next SCOTUS member, I'm not sure that Hillary will choose a better SCOTUS when she's so close to Wallstreet. That's a real concern. I'm not exaggerating. I don;t think that her Supreme Court selection will destroy all that we love, I'm just saying that I think that she might a choice that is better for Wallstreet and worse for the working people.
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 09, 2016, 06:21:03 PM
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.
Fair point, it shouldn't be that way. Hell, my vote counts less than someone in Ohio or Florida because they're swing states and Massachusetts isn't. But let's say for argument's sake you live in a swing state and you choose to vote for Jill Stein (Green Party) or some other third-party candidate who won't win. Sure, maybe you'll be able to stick to your pure principles and point to that. What does that really accomplish, though? Does it really change anything in the country in a way that will accomplish your goals? Ralph Nader clearly played a significant role in 2000. What did that accomplish besides possible getting the disastrous Bush elected? Sure, it got us Obama. But Obama's had to spend most of his presidency cleaning up that mess rather than focusing on a more progressive agenda.
Every time the amount of people that vote for a third party increases, it increases the chances that a third party will have a chance. So while it doesn't have any immediate changes, it does have some long term effects. There are more people now who would support the idea of a third party according to a gallop poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/185891/majority-maintain-need-third-major-party.aspx). So if that is my goal, then it is working. It will have worked if we get a good chance with a third party.
Quote from: FirebirdYes, fine, I'm appealing to fear and you claim that doesn't affect you. But if your goal is to nudge the country and system in a better direction, helping to get Trump elected does nothing for that goal, unless he ends up blowing up the whole damn thing like what happened in Germany post world war II. And that's not worth it, in my opinion (and most people's). Large changes, like making the political system fairer or other things like health care reform, gay marriage, etc usually bubble up from below, not from the top down. So if you want to change the system, starting locally is your better bet. By the time you get to the top, you're simply refusing to play the game and conceding to your opponent.
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. And you can't discuss that rationally, all you can do is try to appeal to fear by describing things in unrealistic extremes. If that works for you on other people, then go right ahead, but if that's all you have when talking to me, you're just wasting your time. Just preach your fear without the pretense of responding to me.
And yes, I disagree with appealing to fear. I disagree with most attempts at manipulation. I'm not a fan of the ends justifying the means, because there are so many unintended consequences behind those means that make things worse.
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.
Quote from: Recusant on June 13, 2016, 09:33:16 PMI 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.
I've voted for a third party the last two elections. Having tried it, I've begun to feel that I'm wasting my vote. So this time it will be Hillary as the lesser of two evils. But that will also, effectively, be a wasted vote, since I live in Texas. Texas will vote Republican and all its electoral votes will go for Trump. But at least I can say, if he wins, that I didn't enable him. I still think Hillary will win overall because the Electoral College is favorable to her at this time in history - it will be difficult for Trump to win the right states.
Quote from: Davin on June 13, 2016, 08:14:15 PM
Quote from: FirebirdBut 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 (http://nyti.ms/1X3t3Sh). 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:
Quote from: Davin on June 13, 2016, 08:14:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on June 13, 2016, 08:14:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on June 13, 2016, 10:34:07 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 13, 2016, 09:33:16 PMI 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?
Quote from: Firebird on June 14, 2016, 02:59:34 AM
Quote from: Davin on June 13, 2016, 08:14:15 PM
Quote from: FirebirdBut 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 (http://nyti.ms/1X3t3Sh). 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:
Quote from: Davin on June 13, 2016, 08:14:15 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 13, 2016, 08:14:15 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdI'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.
Quote from: Recusant on June 14, 2016, 03:49:30 AM
Quote from: Davin on June 13, 2016, 10:34:07 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 13, 2016, 09:33:16 PMI 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?
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 02:52:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 02:52:20 PM
Quote from: FirebirdI'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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 14, 2016, 03:03:01 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 02:52:20 PM
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?
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 02:52:20 PM
Quote from: FirebirdI'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.
Quote from: FirebirdI 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. :D
What questions?
Quote from: Firebird on June 14, 2016, 03:17:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 03:23:04 PM
I don't mean to further insult you...
Yeah, I don't really believe you there.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 14, 2016, 03:41:57 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 03:23:04 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdQuote
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. :)
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 03:52:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 14, 2016, 04:29:41 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 03:52:36 PM
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.
Quote from: FirebirdShow 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.
Quote from: FirebirdAnd 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.
Quote from: FirebirdSo 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:
QuoteI'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.
Quote from: FirebirdOtherwise 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?
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 02:58:16 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 14, 2016, 03:49:30 AMWhat 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.
Quote from: Recusant on June 14, 2016, 07:16:32 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 02:58:16 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 14, 2016, 03:49:30 AMWhat 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.
Quote from: RecusantThis 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?
Quote from: Davin
Quote from: RecusantThis 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?
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 02:58:16 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 14, 2016, 03:49:30 AMWhat 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.
Quote from: Firebird on June 14, 2016, 07:36:53 PM
Quote from: Davin
Quote from: RecusantThis 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?
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 02:58:16 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 14, 2016, 03:49:30 AMWhat 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.
Yeah, I do remember that. I didn't say that we shouldn't talk about third parties in the context of presidential elections. I was remarking on going from talking about third parties in the presidential elections, to being admonished for "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing work like Perot and Nader did[...]". I never said that we should consider a third party candidate that never put in the work like Perot and Nader did, and yet Recusant replied to me as if I had said something like that. That is what I'm talking about. Right there. You're both not addressing what I said. I'm not sure what you're addressing, but it's not what I said. that's not rational. Pointing out that in this case, you both can't seem to accomplish a rational conversation is not an attack, I'm trying to point out the problem with our "discussion."
Quote from: FirebirdThat 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.
Solid... I'm not sure I can trust your assessments of stability. Opinions are not solid things. Opinions are not reliable things. I agree that part of that was part of the earlier discussion, and there are traces in both your responses that look like we are having a discussion, but there is so much in there that I've never said that it looks like you're talking to someone else.
Quote from: FirebirdDavin, 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.
I know that's not what I'm doing. Look, I can't make you actually read what I wrote. I can't. I've tried over and over and over again, but you both refuse to actually address what I wrote. I was mentioning my doubts and my uncertainty, but that's not what you treated my statements as. You treated them like they were attacks or arguments against your deeply held political beliefs. You didn't address what I actually said and you expect me to defend things I've never said. That's not reasonable. My pointing it out is not an attack, it's a statement of fact.
Quote from: FirebirdAs 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.
That's not what you're doing. All you're doing is trying bring up the worst case scenarios, just like Fox News, just like Trump supporters, you're just the other side of the same over exaggerating coin. I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in reality. But that's not what you're presenting. Now I'm sure that you're convinced that that is what you're doing, but the opinion pieces you presented and your opinions, are still just opinions. Opinions are not reality.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 07:24:07 PMYou 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.
:lol: I am doubtful as well. Rhetoric such as that is not known for promoting reasonable discussions.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 07:24:07 PMQuote from: RecusantThis 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?
Perhaps I should have made a point of quoting you before, which might have prevented the apparent confusion. My post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14407.msg332815#msg332815) was mostly a response to this:
Quote from: Davin on June 13, 2016, 08:14:15 PMEvery time the amount of people that vote for a third party increases, it increases the chances that a third party will have a chance.
I do not agree that more people voting for a third party in presidential elections (and that appears to be what you were talking about) has, during the 20th and 21st centuries, increased the chances that a third party will succeed. I think that what would increase the chances of a third party would be a solid party structure and widespread success in local and state elections. Without that, voting for third party presidential candidates does not improve third party chances.
The most successful third party candidacy in US history was Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party run in the 1912 elections. He didn't increase third party chances, but only acted as a spoiler against Taft.
In the 19th century, it was the splitting of a previous major party that resulted in the birth of the Republican party. This split meant that the new party was able to take advantage of some of the machinery of its parent party, which brought about its success. Ideologues coming at the two party system in presidential elections (even when they have a respectable backing by those of like mind) have historically been shown in election after election to result not in improving the chances of a successful third party, but to merely act as spoilers.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 07:59:52 PM
Yeah, I do remember that. I didn't say that we shouldn't talk about third parties in the context of presidential elections. I was remarking on going from talking about third parties in the presidential elections, to being admonished for "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing work like Perot and Nader did[...]". I never said that we should consider a third party candidate that never put in the work like Perot and Nader did, and yet Recusant replied to me as if I had said something like that. That is what I'm talking about. Right there. You're both not addressing what I said. I'm not sure what you're addressing, but it's not what I said. that's not rational. Pointing out that in this case, you both can't seem to accomplish a rational conversation is not an attack, I'm trying to point out the problem with our "discussion."
Oh please, that was not an admonishment or an attack. If you think that was an admonishment, then you are way too sensitive. Apparently you were offended because Recusant brought up candidates that you feel didn't "put in the work"? Why didn't you just say that instead of getting offended?
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 07:59:52 PM
Solid... I'm not sure I can trust your assessments of stability. Opinions are not solid things. Opinions are not reliable things.
No, but opinions backed up with real-world evidence certainly resonate more. Hey, you're welcome to your opinion too. Just don't expect people to listen to it if there's nothing to back it up.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 07:59:52 PM
I've tried over and over and over again, but you both refuse to actually address what I wrote. I was mentioning my doubts and my uncertainty, but that's not what you treated my statements as. You treated them like they were attacks or arguments against your deeply held political beliefs.
Again, if that's your definition of an "attack", then you're pretty thin-skinned. I merely responded to your uncertainly and laid out a case for why I felt you should be less uncertain about how much more dangerous Trump was. Nothing more.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 07:59:52 PM
That's not what you're doing. All you're doing is trying bring up the worst case scenarios, just like Fox News, just like Trump supporters, you're just the other side of the same over exaggerating coin. I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in reality. But that's not what you're presenting. Now I'm sure that you're convinced that that is what you're doing, but the opinion pieces you presented and your opinions, are still just opinions. Opinions are not reality.
I can't figure out what your reality is if you just reject the real-world examples we showed you already. There's no doubt that the events we talked about occurred (Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, the laws on the books concerning the powers of the President, etc). Why not explain why you have a different opinion based on other examples, rather than throw mud on ours?
Whatever, at this point I'm bored and likely won't respond anymore.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ryanjpeters.com%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Femoticons%2F87.gif&hash=ad7b82254958b76e8424f924ef67f6ded6969267)
Politics...
Quote from: Recusant on June 14, 2016, 10:00:14 PM
Perhaps I should have made a point of quoting you before, which might have prevented the apparent confusion. My post (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14407.msg332815#msg332815) was mostly a response to this:
Quote from: Davin on June 13, 2016, 08:14:15 PMEvery time the amount of people that vote for a third party increases, it increases the chances that a third party will have a chance.
That does clear it up a bit, but still doesn't explain why you're response seems to assume that I'm talking about a candidate that hasn't put in work or is party-less.
Quote from: RecusantI do not agree that more people voting for a third party in presidential elections (and that appears to be what you were talking about) has, during the 20th and 21st centuries, increased the chances that a third party will succeed.
I don't understand the statement, more people voting for a third party candidate will never increase the chances of a third party candidate? I don't think that a third part candidate has a chance in this election, I would agree with that, but to say that as more people start voting for third parties, that it doesn't help to eventually lead to a successful third party, doesn't make sense to me.
Quote from: RecusantI think that what would increase the chances of a third party would be a solid party structure and widespread success in local and state elections. Without that, voting for third party presidential candidates does not improve third party chances.
There are third parties that are gaining solidarity in local and state elections. What might help them out, is for people to see that they are at least becoming more serious contenders. So while I doubt that a third party in this election is not likely to become president, I think that if enough people vote outside of the two parties, it will be successful in sending a message not only to the two parties that so many people are fed up with their shit, but will also show more people that maybe those two parties aren't the only options.
Quote from: RecusantThe most successful third party candidacy in US history was Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party run in the 1912 elections. He didn't increase third party chances, but only acted as a spoiler against Taft.
In the 19th century, it was the splitting of a previous major party that resulted in the birth of the Republican party. This split meant that the new party was able to take advantage of some of the machinery of its parent party, which brought about its success. Ideologues coming at the two party system in presidential elections (even when they have a respectable backing by those of like mind) have historically been shown in election after election to result not in improving the chances of a successful third party, but to merely act as spoilers.
Yes, things have played out that way in the past. Fortunately though for all of humanity, people continue to defy the way things things were. I'm not saying that things will change and I can point to those instances to retain my sanity from becoming optimistic, but just because things have only been a certain way, doesn't mean they will remain so or that the old ways are the only ways to do things.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 10:23:08 PMThat does clear it up a bit, but still doesn't explain why you're response seems to assume that I'm talking about a candidate that hasn't put in work or is party-less.
Right now, there is no possible third party that is even close to putting up a presidential candidate that will be anything more than a spoiler. I think the closest right now is the Libertarian party, and they don't appear to me to have a shining future, but maybe I'm letting my disaffection with their ideology color my perception. No other party is even really on the national radar right now, and that includes the Green party. This is an honest evaluation of the current political landscape, in which talk of third party presidential candidates seems unrealistic. I'm not particularly interested in pipe dreams of what might be, someday, if only. . . .
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 10:23:08 PMQuote from: RecusantI do not agree that more people voting for a third party in presidential elections (and that appears to be what you were talking about) has, during the 20th and 21st centuries, increased the chances that a third party will succeed.
I don't understand the statement, more people voting for a third party candidate will never increase the chances of a third party candidate?
More people voting for a third party
presidential candidate will never increase the chances for a successful third party. Not without serious groundwork and a nationwide presence on a more local level. I'm unaware of any potential third party that has either of those, nor any that show strong potential in that direction.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 10:23:08 PMI don't think that a third part candidate has a chance in this election, I would agree with that, but to say that as more people start voting for third parties, that it doesn't help to eventually lead to a successful third party, doesn't make sense to me.
Again, absent any other factor, more people voting for a third party
presidential candidate will not lead to a successful third party. That has been my position all along, and it was a response to your unqualified assertion that more people voting for a third party presidential candidate would improve the chances for a successful third party. History gives us examples of third party presidential candidates who gained a very respectable following. None of them have been responsible for increasing the chances of success for a third party. The most recent was Nader and the Green party. That was 16 years ago, and they seem not much nearer to having a genuine shot now than they did then. Not even one Green member of Congress.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 10:23:08 PMQuote from: RecusantI think that what would increase the chances of a third party would be a solid party structure and widespread success in local and state elections. Without that, voting for third party presidential candidates does not improve third party chances.
There are third parties that are gaining solidarity in local and state elections. What might help them out, is for people to see that they are at least becoming more serious contenders. So while I doubt that a third party in this election is not likely to become president, I think that if enough people vote outside of the two parties, it will be successful in sending a message not only to the two parties that so many people are fed up with their shit, but will also show more people that maybe those two parties aren't the only options.
Perhaps. In presidential elections the only immediate effect is to increase the vote of this or that spoiler.
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 10:23:08 PMYes, things have played out that way in the past. Fortunately though for all of humanity, people continue to defy the way things things were. I'm not saying that things will change and I can point to those instances to retain my sanity from becoming optimistic, but just because things have only been a certain way, doesn't mean they will remain so or that the old ways are the only ways to do things.
Presidential elections operate in a certain way, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. If you're dismissing that as "old ways" then it seems you're not being particularly realistic.
In any case, I'm not talking about "the old ways." I'm talking about lessons from history, including relatively recent history.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 14, 2016, 10:16:05 PM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ryanjpeters.com%2Fimages%2Femoticons%2Femoticons%2F87.gif&hash=ad7b82254958b76e8424f924ef67f6ded6969267)
Politics...
:lol:
Quote from: Firebird on June 14, 2016, 10:10:11 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 07:59:52 PM
Yeah, I do remember that. I didn't say that we shouldn't talk about third parties in the context of presidential elections. I was remarking on going from talking about third parties in the presidential elections, to being admonished for "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing work like Perot and Nader did[...]". I never said that we should consider a third party candidate that never put in the work like Perot and Nader did, and yet Recusant replied to me as if I had said something like that. That is what I'm talking about. Right there. You're both not addressing what I said. I'm not sure what you're addressing, but it's not what I said. that's not rational. Pointing out that in this case, you both can't seem to accomplish a rational conversation is not an attack, I'm trying to point out the problem with our "discussion."
Oh please, that was not an admonishment or an attack. If you think that was an admonishment, then you are way too sensitive. Apparently you were offended because Recusant brought up candidates that you feel didn't "put in the work"?
Oh please, I can recognize something as an admonishment and not be offended and not be sensitive. I just don't understand why I have to do all the hard work of correcting other people's irrational assumptions. Why do you hold me responsible for the errors made by other people?
Quote from: FirebirdWhy didn't you just say that instead of getting offended?
I didn't get offended. Why do you continue to assume incorrect things?
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 07:59:52 PM
Solid... I'm not sure I can trust your assessments of stability. Opinions are not solid things. Opinions are not reliable things.
No, but opinions backed up with real-world evidence certainly resonate more. Hey, you're welcome to your opinion too. Just don't expect people to listen to it if there's nothing to back it up.
If they had real world evidence to back it up, why was that not provided with the opinion?
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 07:59:52 PM
I've tried over and over and over again, but you both refuse to actually address what I wrote. I was mentioning my doubts and my uncertainty, but that's not what you treated my statements as. You treated them like they were attacks or arguments against your deeply held political beliefs.
Again, if that's your definition of an "attack", then you're pretty thin-skinned. I merely responded to your uncertainly and laid out a case for why I felt you should be less uncertain about how much more dangerous Trump was. Nothing more.
No, I'm not thin skinned at all, I doubt that anyone here has the ability to offend me in any way. You didn't lay out a case as you seem to think you have, you provided one opinion piece that mentioned only Trump. Now I can understand why you made the error, and I understand why you might think that what you presented was somehow a case for why Trump is worse than Hillary, but in reality the "case" you presented missed one major part of it. I'll let you see if you can figure it what major part was missing in what you pretended was a comparison, but you can go ahead and ask me if you're unable to do so.
Quote from: FirebirdQuote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 07:59:52 PM
That's not what you're doing. All you're doing is trying bring up the worst case scenarios, just like Fox News, just like Trump supporters, you're just the other side of the same over exaggerating coin. I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in reality. But that's not what you're presenting. Now I'm sure that you're convinced that that is what you're doing, but the opinion pieces you presented and your opinions, are still just opinions. Opinions are not reality.
I can't figure out what your reality is if you just reject the real-world examples we showed you already. There's no doubt that the events we talked about occurred (Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, the laws on the books concerning the powers of the President, etc). Why not explain why you have a different opinion based on other examples, rather than throw mud on ours?
Whatever, at this point I'm bored and likely won't respond anymore.
My reality is reality, I'm not sure what yours is because you can't even seem to understand what I write. I threw no "mud." Talk about "sensitive," you silly little thing.
Quote from: Recusant on June 14, 2016, 11:12:59 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 10:23:08 PMThat does clear it up a bit, but still doesn't explain why you're response seems to assume that I'm talking about a candidate that hasn't put in work or is party-less.
Right now, there is no possible third party that is even close to putting up a presidential candidate that will be anything more than a spoiler. I think the closest right now is the Libertarian party, and they don't appear to me to have a shining future, but maybe I'm letting my disaffection with their ideology color my perception. No other party is even really on the national radar right now, and that includes the Green party. This is an honest evaluation of the current political landscape, in which talk of third party presidential candidates seems unrealistic. I'm not particularly interested in pipe dreams of what might be, someday, if only. . . .
That is your opinion, and I'm quite familiar with the mentality, but I still don't think that either of those falls into doing no work and having no party. Except in extremist terms that exaggerate reality. And it's that kind of exaggeration that I'm not interested in.
Quote from: RecusantQuote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 10:23:08 PMQuote from: RecusantI do not agree that more people voting for a third party in presidential elections (and that appears to be what you were talking about) has, during the 20th and 21st centuries, increased the chances that a third party will succeed.
I don't understand the statement, more people voting for a third party candidate will never increase the chances of a third party candidate?
More people voting for a third party presidential candidate will never increase the chances for a successful third party. Not without serious groundwork and a nationwide presence on a more local level. I'm unaware of any potential third party that has either of those, nor any that show strong potential in that direction.
So if 60% of the country voted for a third party, that wouldn't affect the success of that third party? That doesn't make sense. And in an optimum case of an evenly split vote, they might need as little as 33%. The idea that no matter how many votes a third party gets, they will not be successful is quite bizarre to me.
Quote from: RecusantQuote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 10:23:08 PMI don't think that a third part candidate has a chance in this election, I would agree with that, but to say that as more people start voting for third parties, that it doesn't help to eventually lead to a successful third party, doesn't make sense to me.
Again, absent any other factor, more people voting for a third party presidential candidate will not lead to a successful third party. That has been my position all along, and it was a response to your unqualified assertion that more people voting for a third party presidential candidate would improve the chances for a successful third party. History gives us examples of third party presidential candidates who gained a very respectable following. None of them have been responsible for increasing the chances of success for a third party. The most recent was Nader and the Green party. That was 16 years ago, and they seem not much nearer to having a genuine shot now than they did then. Not even one Green member of Congress.
And yet the amount of people willing to support a third party and the amount of people voting for a third party keeps going up. I mean that the historic trend is upward (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html) even if it drops a few times, it also spikes a few times. Take into account that the last few elections without where voter turn out has only been around 50-60%. Not the lowest, but certainly not the highest. Also take into account that both Trump and Hillary are not the most liked candidates according to numerous polls. Also take into account that the want for a third party is higher than it's ever been. Also, look into the spike of voter turnout that occurred when Perot first ran.
Quote from: RecusantQuote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 10:23:08 PMQuote from: RecusantI think that what would increase the chances of a third party would be a solid party structure and widespread success in local and state elections. Without that, voting for third party presidential candidates does not improve third party chances.
There are third parties that are gaining solidarity in local and state elections. What might help them out, is for people to see that they are at least becoming more serious contenders. So while I doubt that a third party in this election is not likely to become president, I think that if enough people vote outside of the two parties, it will be successful in sending a message not only to the two parties that so many people are fed up with their shit, but will also show more people that maybe those two parties aren't the only options.
Perhaps. In presidential elections the only immediate effect is to increase the vote of this or that spoiler.
I wouldn't call it a spoiler, if that's how people vote. I'm sure that it feels like spoiling coming from some angles. I think it's people voting the way they want. There were some serious changes in both political parties when Perot ran, because both parties saw that people were not only upset with them, but willing to not vote for them to show it. I think it's weird that you think that nothing happened from the third party candidates at all.
Quote from: RecusantQuote from: Davin on June 14, 2016, 10:23:08 PMYes, things have played out that way in the past. Fortunately though for all of humanity, people continue to defy the way things things were. I'm not saying that things will change and I can point to those instances to retain my sanity from becoming optimistic, but just because things have only been a certain way, doesn't mean they will remain so or that the old ways are the only ways to do things.
Presidential elections operate in a certain way, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. If you're dismissing that as "old ways" then it seems you're not being particularly realistic.
In any case, I'm not talking about "the old ways." I'm talking about lessons from history, including relatively recent history.
I don't think you understood what I wrote. I'm far too exhausted with this whole thing to plead for another ten posts to get you to actually listen to me. But don't worry about it, have fun. :)
He's out.