The Clueless About Politics Thread

[Revoltingest]

You could always choose to amputate neither.

Not under the scenario I created.
You're just avoiding the discomfort of answering.

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

In the last election, only 2 candidates had any chance of winning.
It was Hillary or Donald.
To throw one's opposition behind one has the effect of benefitting the other.
To vote 3rd party would be to benefit the one who had the lead.
By your rationale, this would be support.
You chose Hillary.

Obviously, none of that is true.

Obvious, you supported everything Hillary did & proposed to do.

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

Seeking to evade your responsibility behind tortured nuance, eh.

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

I'll agree that you're confused.
You aren't even aware that you support every one of Hillary's actions & intentions.

Face it....
If you apply a particular rationale to call me a Trump
supporter, then it's fair to apply the same to you, BTU, the
Canuckistanian, & ant other such mischievous scamp.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not under the scenario I created.

But you could in the actual scenario in reality - i.e, a democratic election.

You're just avoiding the discomfort of answering.

Not much point in answering a metaphor that has no relation to reality.

In the last election, only 2 candidates had any chance of winning.
It was Hillary or Donald.
To throw one's opposition behind one has the effect of benefitting the other.
To vote 3rd party would be to benefit the one who had the lead.
By your rationale, this would be support.
You chose Hillary.

Nope, because you can refuse to vote for anyone. You needn't support anyone in the race.

Obvious, you supported everything Hillary did & proposed to do.

Nope.

Seeking to evade your responsibility behind tortured nuance, eh.

Another sneaky trick to avoid the subject actually being discussed by shifting it elsewhere.

Fact is, you voted for a sexist, racist oligarch.

I'll agree that you're confused.
You aren't even aware that you support every one of Hillary's actions & intentions.

Except I don't.

Face it....
If you apply a particular rationale to call me a Trump
supporter, then it's fair to apply the same to you, BTU, the
Canuckistanian, & ant other such mischievous scamp.

Except that's not the rationale. Perhaps it's too nuanced for you to follow, so you ascribe a lot of things to it that were never even implied. Since you obviously really like having your questions answered, perhaps you could answer this one:

Where have I ever stated that voting for a candidate necessarily indicates support for all of their policies?

In reality, the claim is simple: by voting for an individual, you show support for that individual. Not necessarily support or approval of that individual and everything that they have said and done, but you have essentially said "This is the person I personally wish to see in power". That is support. That you showed. To a clearly unfit person to hold power.

That's the culpability. That's where the responsibility lies.

And this desperate back-peddling of "Well, I only voted for him as the lesser of two evils" is just a cowardly way of avoiding sticking by the actual position you took in the election and avoid any responsibility for your decision to elect an obviously incompetent, racist, sexist oligarch.

"But it's not my fault - the Hillary made me do it!"

 

[Revoltingest]

But you could in the actual scenario in reality - i.e, a democratic election.

But not in the last election.

Not much point in answering a metaphor that has no relation to reality.

Afraid to answer, eh.
No Hillary supporter has yet done so.
Their political house of cards would collapse if they did.

Nope, because you can refuse to vote for anyone. You needn't support anyone in the race.

To refuse to vote is to ensure the win of the candidate who leads.
This too is a kind of support.
Thus, you are a Hillary supporter, even if you didn't vote for her.

Another sneaky trick to avoid the subject actually being discussed by shifting it elsewhere.

It's a sneaky trick designed to illuminate your sneaky trick.

Fact is, you voted for a sexist, racist oligarch.

And you supported a corrupt, sexist, murderous, hawkish, rape enabler to win.

Except I don't.

If I support Trump & all his actions, then by your rationale,
you support Hillary & all her actions.

Except that's not the rationale. Perhaps it's too nuanced for you to follow....

Actually, you cannot face being hoist with your own petard,
so you apply a double standard which exculpates you.

....so you ascribe a lot of things to it that were never even implied.

The pot calling the kettle black syndrome.

The only difference between us is that you're sincere in your
mischievously irrational rationale. While I only employ your
methods to show how disingenuous & wrong they are.

Since you obviously really like having your questions answered, perhaps you could answer this one:

You want to pose one....after refusing to answer mine?
No, I can't reward such behavior.
You answer the challenge I posed first.
And after a genuine answer, you may pose your question again.

....you have essentially said "This is the person I personally wish to see in power". That is support. That you showed. To a clearly unfit person to hold power.

That is a dishonest rephrasing of what I've said about my vote.

And this desperate back-peddling of "Well, I only voted for him as the lesser of two evils" is just a cowardly way of avoiding sticking by the actual position you took in the election and avoid any responsibility for your decision to elect an obviously incompetent, racist, sexist oligarch.

Again, you're being dishonest.
This is because even before I voted, I described him as the lesser of 2 evils.
It appears that you're now trying to spin history out of shame for your
supporting corruption, wrongful war, incompetence, rape enabling, & crony capitalism.
Your not owning up to your support is (as some here would say) cowardice.

Notice:
I'm just applying your rationale.
It's not that I actually find it cromulent.

 

[Stevicus]

To vote 3rd party would be to benefit the one who had the lead.

That's been a common belief often expressed in US politics, but it's because of beliefs like this that third party candidates never have a chance.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People don't really vote for a candidate in an election. Their voting choices seem to be based on voting against a candidate.

I remember someone trying to indirectly blame me for Evan Mecham getting elected - all because I voted for an independent candidate instead of the Democratic nominee. In 2004, when I expressed support for Nader, I was told that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

This is part of why I'm so cynical about elections.

But in any case, I don't think that simply voting for a candidate would necessarily entail "support," or at least not a blank check of support for everything and anything the individual does. Sometimes it might just be one or two key issues.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's been a common belief often expressed in US politics, but it's because of beliefs like this that third party candidates never have a chance.

The last election was very close.
If you voted 3rd party, you let others pick the winner.
And even if you disliked the result, you enabled that win.

This is something many of us wrestle with.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People don't really vote for a candidate in an election. Their voting choices seem to be based on voting against a candidate.

Testify, brother!

I remember someone trying to indirectly blame me for Evan Mecham getting elected - all because I voted for an independent candidate instead of the Democratic nominee. In 2004, when I expressed support for Nader, I was told that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

This is part of why I'm so cynical about elections.

But in any case, I don't think that simply voting for a candidate would necessarily entail "support," or at least not a blank check of support for everything and anything the individual does. Sometimes it might just be one or two key issues.

What you say is too reasonable to sell to many people.

 

[Curious George]

That's your personal definition.

No that is pretty much the only 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?

You assume i remove all distinction. (I do not.) What is 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?

One does not get to vote for the loss of a toe or a finger. You want to create a choice of two evils to rationalize your choice, but the reality is that you did have another choice. People on both sides of the aisle had another choice.

 

[Curious George]

The last election was very close.
If you voted 3rd party, you let others pick the winner.
And even if you disliked the result, you enabled that win.

This is tenuous. I would actually suggest that the people who dutifully vote for one of the two main parties candidates even when they don't want to "support" that candidate are the enablers.

You are suggesting that someone who has done nothing to help a person attain office has enabled them to attain office. This is a desperate rationalization that condemns someone for an act they did not do.

While you can spin it in such a manner we can chase but for causes until we reach original sin. Such exercises are pointless. Our system allows us to give our support to a candidate in the form of a vote. You can lend your voice to that candidate, you can give your money to that candidate; yo can even agree and disagree with that candidate but if you are giving your voice, your money or your vote you are, in fact, giving that candidate support.

 

[Revoltingest]

No that is pretty much the only definition.

You assume i remove all distinction. (I do not.) What is your reason for doing this?

One does not get to vote for the loss of a toe or a finger. You want to create a choice of two evils to rationalize your choice, but the reality is that you did have another choice. People on both sides of the aisle had another choice.

This is tenuous. I would actually suggest that the people who dutifully vote for one of the two main parties candidates even when they don't want to "support" that candidate are the enablers.

You are suggesting that someone who has done nothing to help a person attain office has enabled them to attain office. This is a desperate rationalization that condemns someone for an act they did not do.

While you can spin it in such a manner we can chase but for causes until we reach original sin. Such exercises are pointless. Our system allows us to give our support to a candidate in the form of a vote. You can lend your voice to that candidate, you can give your money to that candidate; yo can even agree and disagree with that candidate but if you are giving your voice, your money or your vote you are, in fact, giving that candidate support.

Gainsaying & refusal to answer the challenge, eh.
There's nothing left for me to address.
But this might help you understand....
Lesser of two evils principle - Wikipedia

 

[Curious George]

Gainsaying & refusal to answer the challenge, eh.
There's nothing left for me to address.
But this might help you understand....
Lesser of two evils principle - Wikipedia

Lol, no. There was no "gainsaying."

I am not sure why you keep pretending you had "no other choice." It is a little funny. You were not under duress, you were not restricted to two choices, there was no necessity for you to support the candidate you did.

I understand you really, really want to rationalize or justify your actions as "not actually supporting," but there is no such justification.

 

[Revoltingest]

There was no "gainsaying."

You're doing it again.