The Clueless About Politics Thread

[Revoltingest]

A vote is support.

In your mind.
But there are other views.

 

[fantome profane]

In your mind.
But there are other views.

Some people think the world is flat.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some people think the world is flat.

I know why your ilk does this (especially common with Canuckistanians,
who are oddly the biggest Hillary boosters). I see it in your thought bubble.

By denying the existence of voting for the lesser of 2 evils without supporting
the choice, it further divides the Hillary v Trump tribes...enlarging the latter...
making the differences more extreme...providing more people to demonize.
There's also the hatred over differences of opinion. Instead of trying to understand
the other side....y'all seek out differences...real, imagined, & even invented.
It's all exacerbated by the TDS.

 

[Curious George]

In your mind.
But there are other views.

A vote is by definition support.

 

[Revoltingest]

A vote is by definition support.

That's your personal definition.
You remove all distinction between those who support Trump,
& those who found him simply less evil than Hillary.
What's your reason for doing this?

I'd like an answer to my analogy.
Suppose you get to choose between having a finger or a toe amputated.
They're both good digits. You like them. But you've no other choice.
One of those options will happen?
The question....
Do you support amputating good toes?
Or do you support amputating good fingers?
Or....do you support neither, but pick the less objectionable evil?

 

[fantome profane]

especially common with Canuckistanians,

That’s racist!







(kidding, in case you couldn’t tell)

 

[Revoltingest]

(kidding, in case you couldn’t tell)

I grokked that.
It's not like you're Australiastanian.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Some people think the world is flat.

Those sorts also think tЯump is doing "a good job".... coincidence?

 

[Stevicus]

Suppose you get to choose between having a finder or a toe amputated.

Whatever would I do without my finder?

 

[Revoltingest]

Whatever would I do without my finder?

Try "finger" instead.
It should work better.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those sorts also think tЯump is doing "a good job".... coincidence?

This exemplifies why those wags who say that all who voted for
Trump support him. They'd call me a supporter, despite my view
that he's done some things well (USSC justice nominations), &
even more things poorly, eg, risking war with Iran.
This clumsy lumping & grouping is either dumb or dishonest.
I'll allow each perpetrator to select their enabling factor/motive.

 

[osgart]

Politics is about appealing to the masses to obtain power. If they buy into your message then you can do a lot of supposed good. I think the elected officials expect the voters that supported them to turn a blind eye after being elected.

Politics is about implementing policy. Most politicians are poor at implementing policy. The government only does a few things well, and is mostly inefficient. With power gridlock, and all the sweeping changes in power in the government that leaves very little time for political effective action.

Its only when everybody agrees does anything get done and that is a rare bird to see any agreeance.

America is a split country with split powers. The government is a reflection of the divide. To be politically effective you got to have majority support for a long period of time. When does that happen!

Conservatives do a lot of tearing down of policies in government and desire to let the unrestrained free market decide the winners and losers.

Liberals are, imo, are very experimental, and have conviction that the government is an effective institution if backed properly. They want to regulate everything. They seem to care about human rights, and protecting the disadvantaged moreso than conservatives.

So politics is an endless cycle of building up and tearing down.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This exemplifies why those wags who say that all who voted for
Trump support him. They'd call me a supporter, despite my view
that he's done some things well (USSC justice nominations), &
even more things poorly, eg, risking war with Iran.
This clumsy lumping & grouping is either dumb or dishonest.
I'll allow each perpetrator to select their enabling factor/motive.

You fail to condemn him and his evil actions. He put in a rapist in the Supreme Court-- and you think that's ... good?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some people (typically lefties) are blind to the idea that
one can vote for a candidate one doesn't support.
Even analogies fail to evince the concept.
Suppose one is forced to choose:
Have a good finger or toe amputated.
If one picks a toe, is one a supporter
of amputating perfectly good toes?
A practical person picks the lesser
of 2 evils in order to minimize it.
This is not to support evil.

Or, why I very rarely every actually feel good about casting a ballot for a candidate. I did the doomed Libertarian candidate for governor of Indiana that I once voted for, but he was very involved with community projects and actually doing things for the people he'd be stepping up his servitude to. I very definitely sighed a grunt of displeasure when I voted for Joseph Donelley, who was still an anti-gay marriage Dem when he was elected to the Senate. Bit my tongue the second time for Obama. And wept as I dutifully voted for Hillary to vote against Pence.
Ain't our system great!?

 

[Milton Platt]

Today's offering.....
State. Sen. Sandoval Apologizes For Mock Trump Assassination Photos At Fundraiser
CHICAGO (CBS) — An Illinois state senator apologized Sunday night after controversial photos surfaced from a local fundraiser.

The photos, posted online on Friday night, show someone in a mask depicting President Donald Trump, wearing traditional Mexican clothes, and taking part in a mock assassination.

Another photo shows state Sen. Martin Sanodval (D-Chicago) smiling for a picture at the fundraiser.

I'm not pro-trump by any stretch, but that was poor judgement and poor taste on somebody's part.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's your personal definition.
You remove all distinction between those who support Trump,
& those who found him simply less evil than Hillary.

Well, no. That's what them voting for Trump does.

See, a vote for Trump because he is the lesser of two evils = 1 vote.
Meanwhile, a vote for Trump because you actually support their policies and want to see them enacted = 1 vote.

There's no difference - a vote is a vote, and a vote is receipt of support. If you suddenly want to embrace nuance just because people are calling you out for voting a racist, misogynistic oligarch into power, it just comes across as an attempt to avoid responsibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

You fail to condemn him and his evil actions.

Applying your line of thought....
You fail to condemn Hillary for corruption or hawkery,
therefore you approve of crony capitalism, Clinton
Foundation corruption, & the wars she voted to start
& continue.

He put in a rapist in the Supreme Court-- and you think that's ... good?

This is just your speculation being treated as fact.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or, why I very rarely every actually feel good about casting a ballot for a candidate. I did the doomed Libertarian candidate for governor of Indiana that I once voted for, but he was very involved with community projects and actually doing things for the people he'd be stepping up his servitude to. I very definitely sighed a grunt of displeasure when I voted for Joseph Donelley, who was still an anti-gay marriage Dem when he was elected to the Senate. Bit my tongue the second time for Obama. And wept as I dutifully voted for Hillary to vote against Pence.
Ain't our system great!?

I understand & sympathize.
Terrible choices we often face.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, no. That's what them voting for Trump does.

See, a vote for Trump because he is the lesser of two evils = 1 vote.
Meanwhile, a vote for Trump because you actually support their policies and want to see them enacted = 1 vote.

This is a horrendous over-simplification.
Such mis-thinking might be overcome by answering the challenge from post #85.

I'd like an answer to my analogy.
Suppose you get to choose between having a finger or a toe amputated.
They're both good digits. You like them. But you've no other choice.
One of those options will happen?
The question....
Do you support amputating good toes?
Or do you support amputating good fingers?
Or....do you support neither, but pick the less objectionable evil?

There's no difference - a vote is a vote, and a vote is receipt of support. If you suddenly want to embrace nuance just because people are calling you out for voting a racist, misogynistic oligarch into power, it just comes across as an attempt to avoid responsibility.

This would mean that your opposition to Trump results in support
for Hillary, who was the only other candidate capable of winning.
By your own reasoning....
You support her actions & agendas, which means....
You're a war mongering, corrupt, sexist, crony capitalist.
You cannot hide behind nuance to avoid the responsibility
for wasting trillions of dollars & many thousands of lives
pursuing this evil. And to top off this heinous agenda,
you support her attacking the women who accused Bill
of sexual assault.
Have you no shame man!

Hey, don't get angry at me...I merely applied your
rationale to your own posts .just to see where it went.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a horrendous over-simplification.
Such mis-thinking might be overcome by answering the challenge from post #85.

I'd like an answer to my analogy.
Suppose you get to choose between having a finger or a toe amputated.
They're both good digits. You like them. But you've no other choice.
One of those options will happen?
The question....
Do you support amputating good toes?
Or do you support amputating good fingers?
Or....do you support neither, but pick the less objectionable evil?

You could always choose to amputate neither.

See, the analogy fails because a vote is defined as endorsement or support. If an action would harm you, and you don't want it to happen, you can always choose not to endorse or support that action, even if ultimately one or the other would happen. This isn't a case of someone offering you the choice of amputating your toe or a finger and forcing you to choose between the two; it's a case of somebody asking you whether you support the cutting off of toes or the cutting off of fingers and you making a conscious decision to support one of those options.

This would mean that your opposition to Trump results in support
for Hillary, who was the only other candidate capable of winning.

Nope. You could always not support either, even if the only realistic option were that one or the other would come into power anyway.

By your own reasoning....
You support her actions & agendas, which means....
You're a war mongering, corrupt, sexist, crony capitalist.
You cannot hide behind nuance to avoid the responsibility
for wasting trillions of dollars & many thousands of lives
pursuing this evil. And to top off this heinous agenda,
you support her attacking the women who accused Bill
of sexual assault.
Have you no shame man!

Obviously, none of that is true.

Hey, don't get angry at me...I merely applied your
rationale to your own posts .just to see where it went.

Except my rationale was regarding offering an actual vote, not withholding one.

So, I'm not mad. Just confused. Did you read my post correctly?