When you give people two ****ty options, they are going to pick one ****ty option. It just might not be the one you think is ****tier.sycasey said:
Silly me, I always considered the Republicans more responsible for electing Trump since they, y'know, voted for him.
Professor Henry Higgins said:When you give people two ****ty options, they are going to pick one ****ty option. It just might not be the one you think is ****tier.sycasey said:
Silly me, I always considered the Republicans more responsible for electing Trump since they, y'know, voted for him.
I held my nose and voted for Hillary in 2016. This one is one you establishment Dems and you'll get no help from the progressives. Now you'll see just how truly minority your little centrist party is.
I'm sorry, we were given a bad choice and a REALLY bad choice. Only idiots chose the REALLY bad choice. Dems did not make it easy, but the candidacy of the REALLY bad choice is on R's. They too could have offered us a just a bad choice. (Sanders voter)Professor Henry Higgins said:When you give people two ****ty options, they are going to pick one ****ty option. It just might not be the one you think is ****tier.sycasey said:
Silly me, I always considered the Republicans more responsible for electing Trump since they, y'know, voted for him.
I held my nose and voted for Hillary in 2016. This one is one you establishment Dems and you'll get no help from the progressives. Now you'll see just how truly minority your little centrist party is.
You are being silly, because that's not what anybody was asserting. They are merely complicit in some of their actions.sycasey said:
Silly me, I always considered the Republicans more responsible for electing Trump since they, y'know, voted for him.
This is what the oligarchic, feudal two-party system banks on. Not criticizing you, it's sensible and tactful logic. But I think the anger Professor has is a rejection of this while the practical rationalists being pacified by this kind of practical short term logic is perpetuating the current system to continue and thrive.sycasey said:
I voted for Sanders in the primary both times and would consider myself a progressive. I also recognize that the "centrist" Dem would be much better for progressive interests than Trump and will vote as such in the general.
Hell has frozen over againGBear4Life said:This is what the oligarchic, feudal two-party system banks on. Not criticizing you, it's sensible and tactful logic. But I think the anger Professor has is a rejection of this while the practical rationalists being pacified by this kind of practical short term logic is perpetuating the current system to continue and thrive.sycasey said:
I voted for Sanders in the primary both times and would consider myself a progressive. I also recognize that the "centrist" Dem would be much better for progressive interests than Trump and will vote as such in the general.
I would argue that what the oligarchy wants EVEN MORE is for progressive people to sit out elections because they are angry about not getting their preferred candidate.GBear4Life said:This is what the oligarchic, feudal two-party system banks on. Not criticizing you, it's sensible and tactful logic. But I think the anger Professor has is a rejection of this while the practical rationalists being pacified by this kind of practical short term logic is perpetuating the current system to continue and thrive.sycasey said:
I voted for Sanders in the primary both times and would consider myself a progressive. I also recognize that the "centrist" Dem would be much better for progressive interests than Trump and will vote as such in the general.
It's not as if there weren't 17 Republicans running for the nomination. Republicans went out of their way to choose the worst candidate in history and then blame Democrats for their idiotic choice. Personal responsibility, indeed.Go!Bears said:I'm sorry, we were given a bad choice and a REALLY bad choice. Only idiots chose the REALLY bad choice. Dems did not make it easy, but the candidacy of the REALLY bad choice is on R's. They too could have offered us a just a bad choice. (Sanders voter)Professor Henry Higgins said:When you give people two ****ty options, they are going to pick one ****ty option. It just might not be the one you think is ****tier.sycasey said:
Silly me, I always considered the Republicans more responsible for electing Trump since they, y'know, voted for him.
I held my nose and voted for Hillary in 2016. This one is one you establishment Dems and you'll get no help from the progressives. Now you'll see just how truly minority your little centrist party is.
Sometimes the best choice you have is which group of entitled *******s you want to punish. And since regardless of which person wins the presidency, the oligarchy will win no matter what, I'm going with punishing the Democratic Party who desperate wants a centrist virtue signalling president like Obama in power and punishing Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate.sycasey said:I would argue that what the oligarchy wants EVEN MORE is for progressive people to sit out elections because they are angry about not getting their preferred candidate.GBear4Life said:This is what the oligarchic, feudal two-party system banks on. Not criticizing you, it's sensible and tactful logic. But I think the anger Professor has is a rejection of this while the practical rationalists being pacified by this kind of practical short term logic is perpetuating the current system to continue and thrive.sycasey said:
I voted for Sanders in the primary both times and would consider myself a progressive. I also recognize that the "centrist" Dem would be much better for progressive interests than Trump and will vote as such in the general.
I totally agree.sycasey said:I would argue that what the oligarchy wants EVEN MORE is for progressive people to sit out elections because they are angry about not getting their preferred candidate.GBear4Life said:This is what the oligarchic, feudal two-party system banks on. Not criticizing you, it's sensible and tactful logic. But I think the anger Professor has is a rejection of this while the practical rationalists being pacified by this kind of practical short term logic is perpetuating the current system to continue and thrive.sycasey said:
I voted for Sanders in the primary both times and would consider myself a progressive. I also recognize that the "centrist" Dem would be much better for progressive interests than Trump and will vote as such in the general.
Again, this is logical long term thinking, but it's not tactful. I don't know how we demolish the two-party system and eliminate the gatekeeping conflicts of interest in electoral politics. But I do know it needs to be destroyed.Professor Henry Higgins said:Sometimes the best choice you have is which group of entitled *******s you want to punish. And since regardless of which person wins the presidency, the oligarchy will win no matter what, I'm going with punishing the Democratic Party who desperate wants a centrist virtue signalling president like Obama in power and punishing Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate.sycasey said:I would argue that what the oligarchy wants EVEN MORE is for progressive people to sit out elections because they are angry about not getting their preferred candidate.GBear4Life said:This is what the oligarchic, feudal two-party system banks on. Not criticizing you, it's sensible and tactful logic. But I think the anger Professor has is a rejection of this while the practical rationalists being pacified by this kind of practical short term logic is perpetuating the current system to continue and thrive.sycasey said:
I voted for Sanders in the primary both times and would consider myself a progressive. I also recognize that the "centrist" Dem would be much better for progressive interests than Trump and will vote as such in the general.
And I think expecting that losing the Presidency will be good for Democrats downballot in the House and Senate is an absolute pipe dream. It flies in the face of decades of electoral history.Professor Henry Higgins said:Sometimes the best choice you have is which group of entitled *******s you want to punish. And since regardless of which person wins the presidency, the oligarchy will win no matter what, I'm going with punishing the Democratic Party who desperate wants a centrist virtue signalling president like Obama in power and punishing Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate.sycasey said:I would argue that what the oligarchy wants EVEN MORE is for progressive people to sit out elections because they are angry about not getting their preferred candidate.GBear4Life said:This is what the oligarchic, feudal two-party system banks on. Not criticizing you, it's sensible and tactful logic. But I think the anger Professor has is a rejection of this while the practical rationalists being pacified by this kind of practical short term logic is perpetuating the current system to continue and thrive.sycasey said:
I voted for Sanders in the primary both times and would consider myself a progressive. I also recognize that the "centrist" Dem would be much better for progressive interests than Trump and will vote as such in the general.
LOL, google "MSNBC lies"dajo9 said:
What MSNBC gives you is a prime time evening of center-left news and opinion, which is presented with factual accuracy...
...If you think Fox News and MSNBC are equivalent your critical thinking is broken
Why do you keep objecting to an argument nobody is making?Unit2Sucks said:It's not as if there weren't 17 Republicans running for the nomination. Republicans went out of their way to choose the worst candidate in history and then blame Democrats for their idiotic choice. Personal responsibility, indeed.Go!Bears said:
I'm sorry, we were given a bad choice and a REALLY bad choice. Only idiots chose the REALLY bad choice. Dems did not make it easy, but the candidacy of the REALLY bad choice is on R's. They too could have offered us a just a bad choice. (Sanders voter)
GBear4Life said:LOL, google "MSNBC lies"dajo9 said:
What MSNBC gives you is a prime time evening of center-left news and opinion, which is presented with factual accuracy...
...If you think Fox News and MSNBC are equivalent your critical thinking is broken
https://www.google.com/search?q=msnbc+lies&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS795US795&oq=msnbc+lies&aqs=chrome..69i57j46j0l5.2431j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
That's how you take all retorts to your partisan hyperbole. Everything is a vindication of your perspective.dajo9 said:GBear4Life said:LOL, google "MSNBC lies"dajo9 said:
What MSNBC gives you is a prime time evening of center-left news and opinion, which is presented with factual accuracy...
...If you think Fox News and MSNBC are equivalent your critical thinking is broken
https://www.google.com/search?q=msnbc+lies&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS795US795&oq=msnbc+lies&aqs=chrome..69i57j46j0l5.2431j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I'm going to go ahead and take the weakness of your link as vindication of my point
No, the link is weak. Is that really all you have? Half the hits are not even about lies MSNBC told. And then there is the whopper about Sanders speech. That is a BIG one... Seriously? LOL indeedGBear4Life said:That's how you take all retorts to your partisan hyperbole. Everything is a vindication of your perspective.dajo9 said:GBear4Life said:LOL, google "MSNBC lies"dajo9 said:
What MSNBC gives you is a prime time evening of center-left news and opinion, which is presented with factual accuracy...
...If you think Fox News and MSNBC are equivalent your critical thinking is broken
https://www.google.com/search?q=msnbc+lies&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS795US795&oq=msnbc+lies&aqs=chrome..69i57j46j0l5.2431j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I'm going to go ahead and take the weakness of your link as vindication of my point
Don't be sorry, Trump was the best choice, and you had a part in making it happen, congratulations.Go!Bears said:I'm sorry, we were given a bad choice and a REALLY bad choice. Only idiots chose the REALLY bad choice. Dems did not make it easy, but the candidacy of the REALLY bad choice is on R's. They too could have offered us a just a bad choice. (Sanders voter)Professor Henry Higgins said:When you give people two ****ty options, they are going to pick one ****ty option. It just might not be the one you think is ****tier.sycasey said:
Silly me, I always considered the Republicans more responsible for electing Trump since they, y'know, voted for him.
I held my nose and voted for Hillary in 2016. This one is one you establishment Dems and you'll get no help from the progressives. Now you'll see just how truly minority your little centrist party is.
Presidential endorsements are by and large meaningless. A lot of politicians endorse the presumptive nominee once victory is all but assured. It takes political courage to endorse someone who is not a household name early on.bearister said:
A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
If you mean it is logical to want to demolish the 2 party system and bring some sanity to our process of choosing our government, I agree. But I think the idea that you should chode who you want to punish is the big problem in this decision making process. Sanders supporters wanted to punish the centrist Hillary supporters for "stealing" the nomination. We don't know the exact factor that led to Trump's win. Let's assume that if all Sanders supporters in battleground states voted for Hillary, show would have won, but she didn't and so they achieved their aim of "punishing" the hillary supporters.GBear4Life said:Again, this is logical long term thinking, but it's not tactful. I don't know how we demolish the two-party system and eliminate the gatekeeping conflicts of interest in electoral politics. But I do know it needs to be destroyed.Professor Henry Higgins said:
Sometimes the best choice you have is which group of entitled *******s you want to punish. And since regardless of which person wins the presidency, the oligarchy will win no matter what, I'm going with punishing the Democratic Party who desperate wants a centrist virtue signalling president like Obama in power and punishing Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I posted that I agree. The voters are between a rock and a hard place. They have little control over who enters the processCalifornium said:If you mean it is logical to want to demolish the 2 party system and bring some sanity to our process of choosing our government, I agree. But I think the idea that you should chode who you want to punish is the big problem in this decision making process. Sanders supporters wanted to punish the centrist Hillary supporters for "stealing" the nomination. We don't know the exact factor that led to Trump's win. Let's assume that if all Sanders supporters in battleground states voted for Hillary, show would have won, but she didn't and so they achieved their aim of "punishing" the hillary supporters.GBear4Life said:Again, this is logical long term thinking, but it's not tactful. I don't know how we demolish the two-party system and eliminate the gatekeeping conflicts of interest in electoral politics. But I do know it needs to be destroyed.Professor Henry Higgins said:
Sometimes the best choice you have is which group of entitled *******s you want to punish. And since regardless of which person wins the presidency, the oligarchy will win no matter what, I'm going with punishing the Democratic Party who desperate wants a centrist virtue signalling president like Obama in power and punishing Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Give me a break. This identity politics game hurts the Left's ability to win elections more than anything else.Quote:
WHo really got punished? Women, minorities, working class people. All the groups the Trump administration doesn't care about that Sanders does (and supposedly his supporters do also).
Agreed. If you like a candidate like Bernie so much, presumably Trump is a bad candidate in that person's view and worse than any Dem nominee, so why sulk and stay home?Quote:
I think it is a mistake to want to punish people with your political choices. At each stage the choice should be the best (or the least crappy, when that's all there is) one available. If you are so pissed off that you end up hurting the people you are supposedly trying to help, then I don't think you are making good decisions, irrespective of whether or not you are "right"
Professor Henry Higgins said:When you give people two ****ty options, they are going to pick one ****ty option. It just might not be the one you think is ****tier.sycasey said:
Silly me, I always considered the Republicans more responsible for electing Trump since they, y'know, voted for him.
I held my nose and voted for Hillary in 2016. This one is one you establishment Dems and you'll get no help from the progressives. Now you'll see just how truly minority your little centrist party is.
I don't understand what somebody with your perspective attempts to accomplish by not voting in protest, ergo push the election in theoretical favor of the Republican party you detest so much.Professor Henry Higgins said:When you give people two ****ty options, they are going to pick one ****ty option. It just might not be the one you think is ****tier.sycasey said:
Silly me, I always considered the Republicans more responsible for electing Trump since they, y'know, voted for him.
I held my nose and voted for Hillary in 2016. This one is one you establishment Dems and you'll get no help from the progressives. Now you'll see just how truly minority your little centrist party is.
Tell that to Trump votersCalifornium said:
I think it is a mistake to want to punish people with your political choices. At each stage the choice should be the best (or the least crappy, when that's all there is) one available. If you are so pissed off that you end up hurting the people you are supposedly trying to help, then I don't think you are making good decisions, irrespective of whether or not you are "right"
Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.bearister said:
A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
2016 Election Results:LMK5 said:Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.bearister said:
A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
You need the votes where it counts as you very well know. The founders weren't stupid. Dig up the data on Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where lots of the Dems base of "working people" is supposed to be. Those are the voters that flipped on Obama.bobo808 said:2016 Election Results:LMK5 said:Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.bearister said:
A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Popular vote
Trump: 62,984,828
Clinton: 65,853,514
Percentage
Trump: 46.1%
Clinton: 48.2%
For some it seems that the electoral college wasn't a factor. "Repudiation" of the Obama years? "The only way she could've lost?"
I would have bet any amount of money that if Obama had been able to run against Trump he would have won. Those voters flipped because they didn't like Hillary.LMK5 said:You need the votes where it counts as you very well know. The founders weren't stupid. Dig up the data on Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where lots of the Dems base of "working people" is supposed to be. Those are the voters that flipped on Obama.bobo808 said:2016 Election Results:LMK5 said:Turn it inside out. Clinton lost the election because of the endorsements of people like Obama, etc. It might be hard to accept, but as the "most qualified candidate in presidential election history," who campaigned on continuing the Obama policies, her loss was a repudiation of the Obama years. Many, many people who voted for Obama voted for Trump--it's the only way she could have lost. There simply are not nearly enough Republicans and Robert E. Lee statue huggers in America to elect a Republican candidate on their own.bearister said:
A lot of people I respect thought HRC was a good choice for POTUS (Obama, Leon Panetta, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and many others on the list below).
Please list people you respect that supported tRump's bid for POTUS in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Popular vote
Trump: 62,984,828
Clinton: 65,853,514
Percentage
Trump: 46.1%
Clinton: 48.2%
For some it seems that the electoral college wasn't a factor. "Repudiation" of the Obama years? "The only way she could've lost?"
