Running Subtheme (Cross)Post: Standing Rock
La Principessa's anti-gentrification activist pal makes a trip to North Dakota:
Indigenous Nations unified: ‘No to pipelines! Yes to sovereignty’
And while I'm here, statements by the Workers World Party presidential ticket,
And there is nothing new-fangled, innovative, or seismic in HRC's candidacy. So, not only are we doomed to repeat history, we're doomed to be bored with the process.If your primary concern is having government be "new-fangled, innovative, or seismic", then I suggest you do support Trump.
"May you live in interesting times"
I'd love some "boring". Peace and prosperity are boring. Wars and economic disasters are interesting.
. . . .
You certainly have a knack for picking out whatever easily-denigrated elements are present in any given post, thejeff.
So, for the sake of making myself clear, let me at least attempt to qualify "new-fangled, innovative, or seismic" in plainer terms.
1) I find HRC's documented record of "service" to be unsatisfactory on multiple levels. And I believe we're both quite sure that you (or any other) would be unable to persuade me otherwise.
2) The explicated policies of HRC with which I do agree are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to move me to support her in light of those policies/actions of hers that I find immoral/unethical.
3) Given that an evaluation of the candidate herself has not prompted my rallying to her "aid", the only remaining relevant litmus test is her opposition in this election cycle -- Donald Trump.
4) If the last remaining metric by which HRC may be measured, insofar as it pertains to meriting my vote, is to compare her to Trump, I can only say that a forced comparison of that kind does not make sterling of existing dross.
I will say this: it is, without doubt, entirely too bad that the best opponent that could be found for HRC's first campaign for the Presidency (with the party nomination) is none other than Donald Trump. This is the point at which "new-fangled, innovative, or seismic" firmly enter the frame for me. To stand in opposition to someone as heinous, bigoted, scattershot, and ignorant as Trump (as I esteem him, which could, in itself, be debated by someone, somewhere maybe) is to beg for no comparison at all. There isn't any appropriate comparison here. "Default" is an insufficient driver for me to act in any fashion beyond what I otherwise would; if I won't back HRC on her own "merits", backing her because "she's not Trump" would be of no virtue at all.
My times are quite "interesting". As they have been for decades. And they have been full of "peace", "prosperity", "wars", and "economic disasters" alike. And frequently simultaneously (Don't you find it interesting that there hasn't been a period of greater than two years since the 1960s where our nation wasn't militarily active somewhere in the world?). I would find "peace and prosperity" interesting; neither of the two likeliest winners in this contest seems a slam-dunk to bring either to me, beyond what little of each I already have.
Is this all a selfish perspective? Absolutely. When I vote, I vote for myself; neither HRC nor Trump represent the leadership, policies, or interests which I espouse to such an extent to garner my vote. If they each have disqualified themselves from my consideration, then there is no further argument necessary -- I won't vote for either of them, and such action is The suggestion that such action is "selfish, short-sighted, and stupid" is certifiably wrong on at least two counts.
EDIT: 'cause punctuation
If they each have disqualified themselves from my consideration, then there is no further argument necessary -- I won't vote for either of them, and such action is completely, legally, rationally justified.. The suggestion that such action is "selfish, short-sighted, and stupid" is certifiably wrong on at least two counts.
That was a whole lot of extended rambling to attempt to justify a fundamentally unjustifiable course of action. You have three meaningful choices in your vote: Clinton, Trump, or effectively casting no ballot. Those are the only options you have. It isn't rational to make that decision, then, based on who has "disqualified" themselves in your eye; you aren't whittling a list down, you're simply choosing between one of two viable options. So it never becomes a question of which is "qualified" by some arbitrary measure. It's just a question of which is more qualified than the other. I think you know the answer to that. I think all of this is just an exercise in you convincing yourself that the irrational approach you've taken is somehow okay.
Betts --
Exactly how do you, of all people, propose to coerce my vote?
EDIT: Furthermore -- let's get basic. A turd is a thing I find unappealing. You would have me choose one turd over another at no benefit to myself? Good luck.
The conviction that the vote is somehow mandatory between either of two likeliest winners is ludicrous. The fact that to do otherwise would only impact the current election in a "negative" fashion (but from whose perspective?) in no way dictates that I must choose the green turd over the brown turd.
Betts --
Exactly how do you, of all people, propose to coerce my vote?
I'm not sure what "of all people" means, here, but I'm not in the habit of coercing anyone. Maybe try rephrasing the question?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If given the choice between a person who pushed to remove their jobs and factories, and someone telling them they are going to bring the factories back, who do you think they will pick? Is anyone really surprised?Since Trump is a poster boy for the lassiez-faire capitalist class -- you know, the people who actually shipped the jobs away -- yes, I'm surprised. Anyone paying any attention at should know that Trump is part of the problem, not the solution.Actually, I would say that Trump is the poster-boy for the Crony Capitalist class. (I think the lassiez-faire stuff doesn't really exist.) The problem is, Hillary is even more so. NAFTA and similar trade arrangements are the Clinton's legacy, and the people who were negatively affected know this. Despite your bolded statement, Trump isn't the guy responsible for factories closing, but the Clintons are responsible. (Trumps main misdeeds are related to racism and real estate, mostly in the Northeast.)
I don't believe for a moment that either Trump or Hillary have the interests of the poor/middle class in mind, but Trump acknowledges a problem, and says he is going to fix it. That is going to appeal to many people. The Dems just heap scorn on those economically left behind. I'm not asking anyone to buy into either candidate, just trying to give you a window into the thinking of people who are often derided as stupid here and in the media, for not picking the candidate who screwed them over economically.
Have you actually looked at the difference between say... how Trump runs his charity versus how Clinton runs hers? Based on your statements, I would have to say no.
You've bought into complete falsehoods about Clinton, while ignoring verifiable facts about Trump.
It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.
He wasn't winning the black vote in those states. And he really did not make much of an effort to reach out. He focused heavily on the overall blue collar population, but even adding a token staffer from Black Lives Matter, didn't raise him much in the black vote vs. Clinton.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what "of all people" means, here, but I'm not in the habit of coercing anyone. Maybe try rephrasing the question?Betts --
Exactly how do you, of all people, propose to coerce my vote?
"Of all people" --
Don't you agree that the majority of opinions represented here are of the "If you don't vote for HRC you're just as rotten as Trump is!" variety? Given that you have described my earlier post as "irrational" "rambling", and that the position I have declared is one that prompts action that is not "viable", I would suggest that it falls to you (or others, for that matter) to persuade me otherwise.
Whether to withhold, vote green turd, vote brown turd, or vote for some snowball in the infernal realms, is mine to choose, correct? And you're saying it is not a justifiable action for me to exercise that choice!
to attempt to justify a fundamentally unjustifiable course of action
I was simply hoping that you had some silver bullet that would put me out of your collective misery.
The Raven Black --
You have noticed how the Electoral College works, right? I assure you, I am not an elected Representative or Senator. My vote won't count for much in any given direction, no matter how purple the US may be, demographically. It is unlikely that anyone for whom I would not find it morally objectionable to vote will gain more than one thousandth of a percentage of the total vote count come Election Day 2016. That's just the way it works. But I'm not okay with it, per se. :)
EDIT: Furthermore -- let's get basic. A turd is a thing I find unappealing. You would have me choose one turd over another at no benefit to myself? Good luck.
Even if you believe they're both "turds", all turds are not created equal. You will have one of those two "turds" as your next President. You can either have a say in which of the two you get, or you can forfeit that say and gain nothing in return. In the latter case, the rest of us will be happy to make the decision for you.
The conviction that the vote is somehow mandatory between either of two likeliest winners is ludicrous.
No one is calling anything mandatory. You're not going to be forced to vote. But don't pretend that your course of action is somehow rational. It isn't.
"Of all people" --
Don't you agree that the majority of opinions represented here are of the "If you don't vote for HRC you're just as rotten as Trump is!" variety?
I think that's exaggerating the sentiment, but you've got the fundamentals. The opportunity cost of deciding not to vote for one of the two major party candidates is a single net vote in favor of the major party candidate you like the least.
Given that you have described my earlier post as "irrational" "rambling", and that the position I have declared is one that prompts action that is not "viable", I would suggest that it falls to you (or others, for that matter) to persuade me otherwise.
Okay, but "persuade" and "coerce" are not interchangeable words. Coercion is a particular sort of persuasion where violence or threats are employed.
Whether to withhold, vote green turd, vote brown turd, or vote for some snowball in the infernal realms, is mine to choose, correct?
Yes. The fact that you are literally capable of doing something does not make that course of action defensible. You are literally capable of choosing to jump in the Pacific and try to swim to Hawaii, but you'd be hard-pressed to defend it as a sound course of action.
And you're saying it is not a justifiable action for me to exercise that choice!
Out of the options available to you, a subset of those options is defensible. The remainder are not. That holds true for nearly every meaningful choice you make as an adult. It's a little worrying that you believe otherwise. Having the ability to choose doesn't make all possible choices equally valid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that a third-party vote or abstention (arguably the same thing) is either pointless or irrational. If Clinton is elected, but receives only, say, 5% of the popular vote instead of 50% because of low turnout and/or write-ins for Cthulhu, don't you think some bright political strategist will look at that and say, "Hey, we can clinch the win next time by taking this into account?"
Saying "vote major-party candidate, no matter how bad, or you're a traitor!" sounds like the voice of someone who is desperate to see that the economic and foreign policies of Bush, Obama, et al. not be questioned, and be continued at all costs.
Yeah, I know, the primaries, blah blah blah. Who gets into the primaries? Sure, the ones with the money, but the donors aren't going to eager to back a sure loser if there's a potential winner out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that a third-party vote or abstention (arguably the same thing) is either pointless or irrational. If Trump or Clinton is elected, but receives only, say, 5% of the popular vote instead of 50%, don't you think some bright political strategist will look at that and say, "Hey, we can clinch the win next time by taking this into account?"
Because our elections cannot work that way. It isn't possible for a major party candidate to win with that kind of a gap in the popular vote, and in the handful of recent cases where a third party has received a significant share of the vote, it hasn't resulted in that party becoming a long-term threat to one of the major parties. (Arguably, it hasn't even resulted in the major party cannibalizing the third party's base by co-opting its policy positions.)
Simply put, history doesn't back your theory.
Saying "vote major-party candidate, no matter how bad, or you're a traitor!" sounds like the voice of someone who is desperate to see that the economic and foreign policies of Bush, Obama, et al. not be questioned, and be continued at all costs.
And that sounds like the voice of someone engaged in arguing with a strawman. No one has accused anyone of being a traitor for refusing to vote for a major party candidate. Why do you feel the need to cast the rest of us in that light?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether to withhold, vote green turd, vote brown turd, or vote for some snowball in the infernal realms, is mine to choose, correct? And you're saying it is not a justifiable action for me to exercise that choice!
I was reading a case study in a medical ethics book once. Someone had come into the hospital with all of his fingers severed, and the surgical team had worked miracles to reattach them. When he came out of the operation, the medics told him, in as strong terms as they dared, that he was going to have to give up smoking. Nicotine, you see, is a vasoconstrictor, so it makes the arteries all over your body narrower, restricting blood flow to the extremities. And, of course, you need lots and lots of blood flow to newly attached fingers, because so much of the normal flow has been disrupted. Smoking even a single cigarette can cause gangrene to set in. If that happens, and you're lucky, you'll simply lose the fingers. If the gangrene spreads, they might have to amputate further up the arm, or you could even die. Gangrene is not your friend.
As I'm sure you've already figured out, the docs came in one day for a routine checkup on him, and his fingers were turning black. And under his pillow, they found a (contraband) pack of cigs. The guy admitted he had been smoking on the sly, and begged them to save his fingers (a second time).....
Was the decision to smoke or not "his to choose"? Absolutely. But that doesn't meant that his decision was justifiable. It was, in fact, stupid, short-sighted, and arguably selfish (because his family now had an unnecessary disability to deal with, with all the financial, emotional, and social problems that brings). But it was his decision to make.
The question that the ethics case study posed was, basically, what could and should the doctors have done differently.
As you pointed out, it would be difficult for me to "coerce" you to take an action, even one that most observers would agree is in your best interests. And it would probably be unethical for me to do so. But that doesn't prevent me, first, from presenting arguments in favor of that action, secondly, showing the flaws in the rationalizations you are presenting as spurious justifications against that action, and third, doing so publicly in the hopes that others reading this thread will realize that it is also their choice whether or not to keep their fingers in the same general area code as their hands.
I think that's exaggerating the sentiment, but you've got the fundamentals. The opportunity cost of deciding not to vote for one of the two major party candidates is a single net vote in favor of the major party candidate you like the least."Of all people" --
Don't you agree that the majority of opinions represented here are of the "If you don't vote for HRC you're just as rotten as Trump is!" variety?
Which is to say that the vote for some other "entity" (since Kirth so well reintroduced Cthulhu to this catastrophe -- +1, by the way, Kirth!) is irrelevant. Which is to ascribe, by extension, to the notion that the ends justify the means. An untenable logical position, and certainly so from a moral/ethical standpoint, whether hardcore atheist or rock-ribbed Christian.
Given that you have described my earlier post as "irrational" "rambling", and that the position I have declared is one that prompts action that is not "viable", I would suggest that it falls to you (or others, for that matter) to persuade me otherwise.Okay, but "persuade" and "coerce" are not interchangeable words. Coercion is a particular sort of persuasion where violence or threats are employed.
I am more than willing to float the suggestion that my being characterized as "stupid" or "irrational" or otherwise is very much like violence. "Abuse" is the more specific term which applies.
I reject those notions outright; I decry any such aspersions against anyone here.
Whether to withhold, vote green turd, vote brown turd, or vote for some snowball in the infernal realms, is mine to choose, correct?Yes. The fact that you are literally capable of doing something does not make that course of action defensible. You are literally capable of choosing to jump in the Pacific and try to swim to Hawaii, but you'd be hard-pressed to defend it as a sound course of action.
And you're saying it is not a justifiable action for me to exercise that choice!Out of the options available to you, a subset of those options is defensible. The remainder are not. That holds true for nearly every meaningful choice you make as an adult. It's a little worrying that you believe otherwise. Having the ability to choose doesn't make all possible choices equally valid.
So the Electoral College distribution/popular vote percentage represents the only metric of "validity" in regard to this matter? To say so is to recommend that violating my own conscience is the only "rational" course; voting for either HRC or Trump would have just such a result. I've got enough issues with myself already: trying to persuade myself that voting for any evil at all is the only right thing to do is of a moral reprehensibility even I won't encourage.
It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.He wasn't winning the black vote in those states. And he really did not make much of an effort to reach out. He focused heavily on the overall blue collar population, but even adding a token staffer from Black Lives Matter, didn't raise him much in the black vote vs. Clinton.
Why do you consider the black vote the only ethnic minority?
|
Said another way - you're driving down the road when you notice another car is stalled. You have to swerve either to the left or to the right to avoid it. To your left is a lake. To your right is a farmer's market, filled with people. As you swerve, you lose control of the car, and your ability to steer it is minimal at best.
If you steer to the left, your car will be totaled, and you might die, but the damage will be minimized to yourself.
If you drive to the right, then the same applies, but there will be others harmed by it.
If you choose neither, then the car will end up listing to one way or the other. You will either crash into the lake or the farmer's market, but you will have no agency over that decision, and it will affect you and the other people.
The car is crashing no matter which way you attempt to steer it. Do you steer for the lake, the farmer's market, or let the car decide where it wants to go?
Which is to say that the vote for some other "entity" (since Kirth so well reintroduced Cthulhu to this catastrophe -- +1, by the way, Kirth!) is irrelevant.
That's right. It is.
Which is to ascribe, by extension, to the notion that the ends justify the means. An untenable logical position, and certainly so from a moral/ethical standpoint, whether hardcore atheist or rock-ribbed Christian.
Okay, dude, a bit of a tangent, but maybe tone down the SAT-fodder vocabulary? Not only is it unnecessary (when you're talking with people, it's usually best to use the simplest, most straightforward language possible), but you're getting a good chunk of it wrong - "coerce" earlier, and now "ascribe".
I am more than willing to float the suggestion that my being characterized as "stupid" or "irrational" or otherwise is very much like violence. "Abuse" is the more specific term which applies.
You believe that having your voting strategy called irrational on an internet message board is abuse? Seriously?
I reject those notions outright; I decry any such aspersions against anyone here.
Dude. Come on. Word choice.
So the Electoral College distribution/popular vote percentage represents the only metric of "validity" in regard to this matter?
The scope of plausible outcomes determines what choices are valid (read: meaningful).
To say so is to recommend that violating my own conscience is the only "rational" course
You've hit upon it! Your conscience is encouraging you to act against reason.
I've got enough issues with myself already: trying to persuade myself that voting for any evil at all is the only right thing to do is of a moral reprehensibility even I won't encourage.
Then, like I said, the rest of us will be more than happy to decide for you. Giving up your own agency so that strangers can make the choice for you isn't exactly a model of moral courage.
Orfamay Quest --
I certainly hope that any and all readers of the dialogue here over the last two days have been helped in clarifying their own thoughts about what is, or is not, advisable in regard to this election.
In keeping with your ethics case study, as cited, let me say a few things:
1) The process of quitting cigarettes is an ongoing (and difficult) process for me. I can relate to a limited extent just how driven the patient in question would be to smoke anyway.
2) The attempt to parallel Trump's election to the Presidency with willfully self-destructive health choices is far afield. Neither he nor HRC represent a direct threat to my person, way of life, ideals, values, hobbies, etc. Both certainly represent a "necessary" endorsement of one evil or another. If a choice of Winning Evil One, Winning Evil Two, or Losing Good X is before me, I will not choose either evil.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going to consider candidates in simplistic moral terms like good and evil, you probably won't be very happy voting for any candidate ever.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) The attempt to parallel Trump's election to the Presidency with willfully self-destructive health choices is far afield. Neither he nor HRC represent a direct threat to my person, way of life, ideals, values, hobbies, etc. Both certainly represent a "necessary" endorsement of one evil or another. If a choice of Winning Evil One, Winning Evil Two, or Losing Good X is before me, I will not choose either evil.
To many people, one candidate or the other does represent a threat to their livelihood - for some, even an existential one. Even if you are so privileged that you cannot imagine one of the two candidate's policies threatening you (a misjudgment, I think, on your part), you must at least be willing to acknowledge that there are others who will predictably suffer for one outcome or another. You don't believe you have an ethical obligation to make a responsible choice for their sake?
Why do you consider the black vote the only ethnic minority?It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.He wasn't winning the black vote in those states. And he really did not make much of an effort to reach out. He focused heavily on the overall blue collar population, but even adding a token staffer from Black Lives Matter, didn't raise him much in the black vote vs. Clinton.
I don't. It's a damm important bloc however. I don't know if he was doing well with the Hispanic sector, there wasn't however a Hispanic Lives Matter group protesting Sander's speeches though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In keeping with your ethics case study, as cited, let me say a few things:1) The process of quitting cigarettes is an ongoing (and difficult) process for me. I can relate to a limited extent just how driven the patient in question would be to smoke anyway.
I'm glad you sympathize. Your sympathy does not permit him to keep his fingers.
2) The attempt to parallel Trump's election to the Presidency with willfully self-destructive health choices is far afield. Neither he nor HRC represent a direct threat to my person, way of life, ideals, values, hobbies, etc.
To YOUR person, way of life, et cetera.
Thank you for so eloquently proving the "selfish" part of my claim. "Short-sighted" is equally easily demonstrated by considering second-order effects; for example, how much would the US economy as a whole be damaged by the worse set of policy choices among the two?
And "stupid" follows immediately from that.
I feel like I'm about to channel a messageboard sparring partner from some months back . . . .
Betts --
You would have me act in accord with reason (particularly in accord with your own) despite wronging my own conscience? Motion denied.
You would have me place value upon certain reasons above and beyond others? Motion denied.
If by such persuasive efforts you would have me do these things because you, quite clearly, it seems, "ascribe" to the idea that the ends justify the means, then you would be saying that such a "coercion" of my exercise of legal privilege is justified. I recommend re-reading the material just a little bit -- we're both well aware of the differences between the bases of your motivations and whatever "coercion/persuasion" you would execute, in the general sense, if not the specific.
My conscience is driving me to support ideas and actions that run counter to those advocated by both candidates. The fact that such drive runs against your reason for backing one candidate over the other has nothing to do with what I require of myself. I'm sorry that the quotes didn't make that as clear in the initial context. Your expectation of "rational" conduct in this case is insufficient for me to justify violating myself.
Don't worry -- I haven't yielded agency to anyone. The fact that I'm not going to vote for either of the likeliest winners in this election doesn't mean that it won't be exercised.
In keeping with your ethics case study, as cited, let me say a few things:1) The process of quitting cigarettes is an ongoing (and difficult) process for me. I can relate to a limited extent just how driven the patient in question would be to smoke anyway.
I'm glad you sympathize. Your sympathy does not permit him to keep his fingers.
2) The attempt to parallel Trump's election to the Presidency with willfully self-destructive health choices is far afield. Neither he nor HRC represent a direct threat to my person, way of life, ideals, values, hobbies, etc.To YOUR person, way of life, et cetera.
Thank you for so eloquently proving the "selfish" part of my claim. "Short-sighted" is equally easily demonstrated by considering second-order effects; for example, how much would the US economy as a whole be damaged by the worse set of policy choices among the two?
And "stupid" follows immediately from that.
Wow. Why are you so scared of Trump? That's rhetorical, by the way.
You would have me act in accord with reason (particularly in accord with your own) despite wronging my own conscience? Motion denied.
I don't think you're acting in accord with your conscience. I don't think you've examined it deeply enough. Just a guess, though.
You would have me place value upon certain reasons above and beyond others? Motion denied.
I mean, yes, of course. That's how the world works. You think all reasons are equally valuable?
If by such persuasive efforts you would have me do these things because you, quite clearly, it seems, "ascribe" to the idea that the ends justify the means, then you would be saying that such a "coercion" of my exercise of legal privilege is justified. I recommend re-reading the material just a little bit -- we're both well aware of the differences between the bases of your motivations and whatever "coercion/persuasion" you would execute, in the general sense, if not the specific.
I'm really not interested in trying to parse this.
My conscience is driving me to support ideas and actions that run counter to those advocated by both candidates.
Your conscience may be driving you to do that, but you don't have that choice.
The fact that such drive runs against your reason for backing one candidate over the other has nothing to do with what I require of myself.
In this case, what you require of yourself doesn't matter. Your choices are limited, and there are none that will make you perfectly happy or fully satisfy your conscience. Adults run across these situations all the time. It's part of life. The responsible thing is to accept that sometimes there are no great options, and to make a rational choice as to which of the remaining options is best.
I'm sorry that the quotes didn't make that as clear in the initial context. Your expectation of "rational" conduct in this case is insufficient for me to justify violating myself.
Jesus.
Don't worry -- I haven't yielded agency to anyone.
You don't have to acknowledge that you've yielded agency to have yielded agency.
The fact that I'm not going to vote for either of the likeliest winners in this election doesn't mean that it won't be exercised.
Not "likeliest". "Only possible".
I don't. It's a damm important bloc however. I don't know if he was doing well with the Hispanic sector, there wasn't however a Hispanic Lives Matter group protesting Sander's speeches though.Why do you consider the black vote the only ethnic minority?It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.He wasn't winning the black vote in those states. And he really did not make much of an effort to reach out. He focused heavily on the overall blue collar population, but even adding a token staffer from Black Lives Matter, didn't raise him much in the black vote vs. Clinton.
That's one thing I don't really get. Sanders was the first candidate to put forth a platform addressing issues of BLM. He openly invited them to meetings, but somehow people criticize him for not reaching out African American community.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we still having this debate?
The next president is going to be Clinton or Trump. Period. You can abstain, or vote third-party, but make no mistake: Doing either is in no way noble or heroic. It is simply you taking your ball and going home because your game didn't get picked.
Of course, because silencing any dissent is the only good thing to do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, because silencing any dissent is the only good thing to do.
...said no one in this thread. But we've been having the same argument for pages and page.
Your dislike of the choice we face -- Clinton vs. Trump -- is irrelevant. On November 8th, one or the other of these people will be elected president. That may suck, but that's how it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of us maybe just aren't that resigned to the fate our corporate masters have decreed. I KNOW I'm stuck with Clinton or Trump this time. It's next time, and the time after, that I'm looking at. And in my estimation action needs to start before the 2020 primaries. It needs to start now, with unprecedented numbers of people saying, "Look, give us someone we can vote for, mkay?" And you don't do that by agreeably voting for whomever you're given.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of us maybe just aren't that resigned to the fate our corporate masters have decreed.
If you have a viable alternative, I'm all ears.
And for the record, I'm probably the last person that would be accused of being pro-corporation. I'm just tired of people who somehow want to not vote, but then refuse to accept responsibility for the outcome. You don't vote, you have no credibility if you don't like what you get.
You know what happens to countries that have a voter turnout so low as to be meaningless? The elections are considered a scam, and the rest of the world takes notice.
I KNOW I'm stuck with Clinton or Trump this time. It's next time, and the time after, that I'm looking at. And in my estimation action needs to start before the 2020 primaries. It needs to start now, with unprecedented numbers of people saying, "Look, give us someone we can vote for, mkay?" And you don't do that by agreeably voting for whomever you're given.
Wonderful! Have at it! I'm even willing to help. I'm just tired of people who somehow want to not vote, but then refuse to accept responsibility for the outcome. You don't vote, you have no credibility if you don't like what you get.
I'm just tired of people who somehow want to not vote, but then refuse to accept responsibility for the outcome. You don't vote, you have no credibility if you don't like what you get.
And again, I accept I'm stuck with someone I won't like -- this time. My hope is that enough people abstain this time that one or both parties realize they have a golden opportunity in 2020 -- to rally voters to an actual candidate, instead of an "at least I'm not Satan" one.
I feel like it's getting a bit heated in here, so... here's more news.
He also claimed the tax return is about 12,000 pages. I have no reference for the normal size of tax returns for people involved in as many businesses as Trump, so I'm not sure what to think of that bit.
Some people, of course, would disagree with this - they want to know about financial conflicts of interest, see proof somebody can manage their money well, and so on.
You know what happens to countries that have a voter turnout so low as to be meaningless? The elections are considered a scam, and the rest of the world takes notice.
And what, pray tell, does the rest of the world DO about it, besides noticing? And do we really want to find ourselves in that position?
I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that abstaining from voting in the hope that we'll end up with sham elections is a viable strategy?
they want to know about financial conflicts of interest, see proof somebody can manage their money well, and so on.
We already KNOW that Trump can't manage money to save his life, to the point where additional proof of that is sort of not needed.
I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that abstaining from voting in the hope that we'll end up with sham elections is a viable strategy?
If it's that one the one hand, or vote for an increasing wealth gap, more foreign wars, more mass imprisonment domestically on the other? Yes, it would be preferable. If our elections are shams anyway, we might as well be honest about it.