[ArtificialSoldier]

You know what I mean...

While she was standing beside him while giving his apologies and speeches, I bet she was thinking "just wait until it's my office."

Quote

I still think that people who threw away their votes should reconsider their strategy

You know, I agree with that. Anyone who just throws away their vote should definitely reconsider their strategy. I've been talking to some of my friends about that for years. They have a vote, but don't use it. I think it's unfortunate. Maybe when someone comes along who they agree with, they'll decide to step up and vote for who they think represents them. I'll continue to do the same, as should we all.

[depricated]

She has no consistency. She couldn't even keep her positions straight between campaign stops. It was a train wreck. But I get it, I used to be like that - it can be real fuckin hard to keep all the lies straight and remember which one you need to tell. I was a piece of shit, maybe that's why I recognize what a piece of shit she is. She's me at 20. And she's still acting like me at 20, blaming everyone but herself for her own failings.

Quote

By your previous logic, since you didn't get what you voted for, your vote was irrelevant. So, your vote was doubly irrelevant because not only did you not get what you wanted, but there was never a chance that you would get what you wanted. You made a "statement" with your vote that nobody ever heard or would have cared about if they'd heard it. I hope you enjoyed it.

That's by your logic, man. Context. Go back to the context. Remember that I was deriding your insistence that 3rd Party votes are irrelevant. That's not my position, that's yours. I've insisted that third party votes are entirely relevant, for the exact same reason you think me not voting for Darth Clinton is relevant.

You're right: Johnson wasn't popular. He still had 4.5 million votes, putting him 3rd in the running and the only other candidate to even have over 1% (at 3%). But you and the DNC convinced everyone that it was "Trump or Hillary" and you convinced everyone that the protest vote should go to Trump and not Johnson. You convinced everyone that voting 3rd Party is a waste and so 44.5% of eligable voters - over 100 million people - didn't vote at all, rather than vote between two of the most disgusting humans to ever inhabit this planet, because you convinced them that their vote only matters if it's for one of those parties.

You're the problem. Your rhetoric is a huge part of what caused the mess that you think we're responsible for.

Have you considered that many "Bernie Babies" did vote Clinton, and that the reason there's such disparity is that Sanders had bipartisan appeal? Have you considered that of those 4.5 million votes that went to Johnson, the majority would probably have gone to Sanders? Have you even stopped to consider that the DNC is the one at fault here? Because I don't vote to a party line, I vote to the person. Sanders drew my vote, which meant I would have voted Democrat because I supported Sanders. But me not voting Clinton isn't a vote she lost. I never would have voted for her. As I said previously, Bernie is contrary to my ideals, but I could set those aside because he resonates with my ethics. That's a one-way street. I won't set my ethics aside for someone that appeals to my ideals - and even if I did, let's face it, neither Trump nor Clinton appeal to my ideals OR my ethics. Neither one can exemplify even ONE of the virtues I name sacrosanct, and Trump only accidentally supports my ideals because his bumbling buffoonery is bringing the walls crashing down around him. It's not intentional, he's just a Chris Farley character with an Adam Sandler script.

[macosxnerd101]

Jon- Have you watched Seasons 19-20 of South Park? You should watch them.

[ArtificialSoldier]

I guess I have something else to add, if we can pull away and abstract the conversation a little bit.

I see flaws in Jon's argument. On one hand, he's trying to argue that it is irrational to vote for a minor candidate with whom you agree, and that it is rational to vote for a candidate with whom you have major ethical objections. I think that's backwards. If we leave out the particular candidates so that we can avoid arguing whether or not our opinions of them are correct, I think that it is definitely rational to vote for someone with whom you agree, regardless of their chance of winning, and that it is not rational to make an effort to cast your vote for someone with whom you have major ethical disagreements, and furthermore that no one should be expected or obliged to vote for someone that they do not like. In fact, the expectation that you only have 2 options to choose from is probably a major reason why voter turnout is so low. When people have major disagreements with either candidate, or at least a complete disinterest in the candidates, and they feel like a minor vote won't matter, they just stay home. The continued insistence that minor votes don't matter or are wasted does our country a disservice.

If we look at the origin of the electoral college and the creation of our election system (Article II - part of the original document, not even an amendment, although it was later changed), the debate at the time was how to best ensure that no person who was unqualified to ascend to the office of president would be able to do so. Well, in the words of noted American philosopher David Scott Mustaine, "the system has failed." The system that we have today has failed, it has resulted in a president who is absolutely unqualified for the office, and the reason is because of the false narrative of two political parties, and two choices. Both parties nominated candidates who were extremely disliked and it resulted in our most unqualified president. Washington himself famously warned against political parties. Washington was our only president who was not elected as a member of a political party.

Now, a thought experiment. Let's imagine that, in 2020, the de-facto rules set by the two major parties have been removed, and that more candidates are allowed into the televised debate process. For the sake of argument, let's just say that any candidate with a mathematical ability to win can be included, so if they're on the ballot in enough states to win then they can debate. Would that be better or worse? Would there really be anyone arguing saying that "no, this isn't good, we should only have two choices to choose from, and they should be a Democrat and a Republican." I don't think anyone would try to make that argument, other than the Democratic and Republican candidates, anyway. If that's a better system, then why advocate for the existing system? Why try to convince people that they need to play by the rules that Democrats and Republicans have set, the rules in which they always win and we always lose? Are we just hoping for a year where eventually they let us win one? It doesn't make sense. If it's a better system to have more choices and more intelligent debate about important issues, and get more voters engaged, then we should be fighting and advocating for that system now. We shouldn't tell people that they need to vote for one of these two, even though they have major ethical objections, and that a vote for any smaller candidate is a waste. We shouldn't tell people that it is irrational to vote for someone you like, and rational to vote for a candidate and a system that you think damages the country and the democracy. We need to stop trying to prop up the failing system and envision a better future.

If anyone has an issue with me calling Trump the most unqualified president we've ever had, allow me to direct you to the list of US Presidents. There's a column there for "Prior Office". There are a few generals, a lot of VPs, governors, senators, congressmen, cabinet members, some ambassadors. Washington and Eisenhower get to fight it out over who had the most impressive prior title. Now, go ahead, scroll to the bottom.

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

What? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not trying to suggest that Mussolini or Hitler were somehow "better" than the other one.

Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin - so you two seem to be agreed on the idea that Hillary is comparable to one of the five or ten worst people of the twentieth century.
I'll be honest, I have no idea at all where that comes from. I feel like I'm going to regret this, but can you spare me a clue at all? I mean so far there's been nothing concrete at all except "I don't like her". Which, fine, you don't have to like her, nobody's asking you to. But is there anything underneath all this seething, frothing, foaming rage, or is it just a rehash of the old "Clinton body count" stuff that Alex Jones was peddling twenty years ago?

[macosxnerd101]

Quote

I see flaws in Jon's argument. On one hand, he's trying to argue that it is irrational to vote for a minor candidate with whom you agree, and that it is rational to vote for a candidate with whom you have major ethical objections. I think that's backwards. If we leave out the particular candidates so that we can avoid arguing whether or not our opinions of them are correct, I think that it is definitely rational to vote for someone with whom you agree, regardless of their chance of winning, and that it is not rational to make an effort to cast your vote for someone with whom you have major ethical disagreements, and furthermore that no one should be expected or obliged to vote for someone that they do not like.

Looking at this strictly from an individual perspective, this is correct. No person's individual vote matters. Unless your vote is the tie breaker in an election (which it never will be), then it is a weakly dominant strategy to vote for your preferred candidate.

As we aggregate folks, this isn't so much the case. Let's consider voter blocs rather than individual voters. Suppose we assume that only one of the two major candidates will win. Then if a certain voter blocs vote for a minor candidate that will lose, this could swing the election. Essentially, the bloc has to decide if it is happy with the more likely of the two major candidates, if it chooses to throw its support behind a minor candidate. Is the outcome of voting for a losing minor candidate worth having the greater of the two evils win the election? That depends on what the bloc's rationale for voting for the minor candidate is. If it is to get said candidate campaign funds from the government, then perhaps it is worthwhile.

As for having more options that have a hope of winning, I would like that too. Neither party represents me well. With that said, a third party candidate clearly wasn't winning last election, nor is such a candidate likely to win this coming election. Hell, even in local and congressional elections, third party candidates hold a very small minority of seats. As with most change, a move to include more third party candidates will be best executed at the local level initially.

[ArtificialSoldier]

Quote

Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin - so you two seem to be agreed on the idea that Hillary is comparable to one of the five or ten worst people of the twentieth century.

I'm not trying to suggest that, I'm just using an extreme example to point out that I don't find the prospect of a Hillary presidency to be any objectively "better" than Trump. The two have completely different sets of issues though, it's an apple and oranges comparison. Do I want to eat this rotten and moldy apple, or this rotten and moldy orange? They're not the same, but neither is good.

Quote

I'll be honest, I have no idea at all where that comes from. I feel like I'm going to regret this, but can you spare me a clue at all?

If I try to choose a single word, it's "integrity". I think that she has none, I think that she will tell 5 people that she's going to do 5 different things about an issue because she thinks it's what they want to hear, and then she's going to turn around and do something else, which she was always going to do all along. That's the general idea, I think she completely lacks integrity and honesty, she just doesn't have any credibility with me. The "sociopathic lawyer" line was about her being incredibly intelligent (like I said, completely different than Trump) and trying every trick she can to make people like her. The email server issue is actually a pretty great example of that. As a lawyer, she knows that if there is no body, there's no case. She used a private server that she owned for one reason: to avoid accountability and scrutiny. And, since there is no body, there's no real evidence of a crime. Nothing is going to come of it, although there could be any number of incriminating things on there (but, again, a useless exercise to wonder; maybe there's nothing at all). But it goes to her integrity and credibility. She's not dumb, she knew exactly what she was doing and why, but she's going to act like there's no problem and just expect everyone to keep trusting her because there's no body. And that's all I have to say about her damn emails.

That's it in a nutshell, I have no trust in her to the point that I don't even believe she'll do anything she promises or puts in her platform once she's in office, and I don't trust her to do the right thing. I don't believe someone when they say they are going to "reign in" Wall Street while accepting six-figure salaries to speak on topics that she won't reveal. It doesn't pass the smell test.

There's a story from a photographer following her campaign that I remember. This was something like memorial or labor day, and she was in a "parade". It consisted of several of her aides keeping pace around her, holding ropes or other barriers to stop the plebs from getting too close to her (contrast that with Bernie, by the way, for another great fundamental contrast between them). She's walking down the street in her safe space, smiling and waving and pointing and whatever else. The photographer recounting this was in front of her, walking backwards. He said that he raised his camera to shoot, and she got this great big smile and started waving and pointing to someone over his shoulder. After he got the shot he turned around, and there was no one there. It's all a carefully orchestrated circus to sell a certain person, a person different than who she actually is. And it's been going on since Bill was governor. I just hate that kind of dishonesty, I can't support or vote for it. Every time I see her on stage (example: balloon reaction shot at the DNC) I think "this is an act, she's acting, this isn't who she is, she's trying to sell me something."

I realize that photographer anecdote might not be true, but I've felt that way about her for a while and it's just an illustration of how I view her character. Not character as in "the quality of her character", but the Hillary Clinton character that she plays on TV. It's just not a very believable performance for me. So that's about it, I don't trust her to do what she says, and I don't even trust her to do the right thing when it counts. I don't buy into any of the Clinton conspiracy crap though, all of that is ridiculous. She's just acting to try and secure the highest office in the country, that's it.

As another example of why I could support Bernie but not her, about integrity and honesty, I think that Bernie has more integrity than the majority of other Senators combined. He's got it in spades, and it's obvious, he doesn't even have to try, he doesn't have to sell himself, only his ideas. It's a very stark contrast.

Quote

Essentially, the bloc has to decide if it is happy with the more likely of the two major candidates

I think that question has been thoroughly answered, in giant neon letters. The answer was "we don't like these people." The only realistic conclusion is that our election system has failed, not the electorate. It's not the fault of the people, it's the nature of the system that gave this to us.

[macosxnerd101]

Quote

I think that question has been thoroughly answered, in giant neon letters. The answer was "we don't like these people."

Nobody is arguing that both candidates sucked this time around. But again- it's about loss minimization. If a bloc votes for a candidate that will lose the election and we have one of two possible winners- A and B; the bloc has to ask itself: if A is likely to win, is voting for a losing candidate worth at least as much as voting for B to prevent A from taking office? And vice versa.

[ArtificialSoldier]

I understand that argument, believe me. I understand it, but I reject it. Do I want to lose my left hand, or my right foot? Well, I don't want to make that choice, I want to change the system that's asking me which thing I'd miss less. I think that we can change the system, but I'm trying not to be naive, I know it's not a quick or easy fix. But, hey, maybe a Trump presidency gives the country the motivation it needs to change the system. That definitely would not have happened under Clinton, but that's actually more possible now in my view. I genuinely believe that the way forward is to change our election system to put the power back with the people, to take it from the two major parties. And because of that, I can't rationalize how voting for one of the major parties when I so strongly dislike their candidates is going to help achieve that.

Hey, see if you guys can figure out which posts I make at work when I'm dealing with unreasonable or uninformed customers, and which posts I make at home when I'm sipping on a drink with my wife and cats.

[ArtificialSoldier]

I went back and re-read your previous post mac, it was a good reply and I didn't address it like I should have.

Quote

Then if a certain voter blocs vote for a minor candidate that will lose, this could swing the election. Essentially, the bloc has to decide if it is happy with the more likely of the two major candidates, if it chooses to throw its support behind a minor candidate.

I think that what we saw with the last election, with respect to Bernie supporters, is that we aren't dealing with a single bloc. There were all kinds of people who supported him for different reasons. Maybe they liked his liberal policies. Maybe they like the possibility that he would disrupt the system, and Trump was just too ridiculous. Maybe they didn't like Hillary, nor the Republican candidates. Maybe other reasons. When it was clear that Bernie was out, those blocs didn't all set up a conference call and figure out which direction to go. The people who like his liberal policies probably went with Clinton or a third party (e.g. Stein). The people who liked the possibility of disruption probably went with Trump. The people who didn't like Clinton either went with Trump, a third party, or stayed home. The bass playing anarchist libertarian bloc broke for Johnson (feel the Johnson '16).

There were a lot of different reasons why people supported Bernie, and we can't treat all of them like a single group. When it comes down to it, the votes are individual. His base broke into a lot of pieces and it's not realistic to assume that any one person could have picked all of them up. If Bernie was interchangeable with any other candidate, then his supporters would have just gone with the stronger candidate to start with.

Personally, I agree with Larry Sanders.

[depricated]

That sums it up to a degree, probably articulated infinitely better than I would have put it, too. Another point is just where they fall on the political compass. Trump is Authoritarian-Far-Right, which is Fascism - ergo I've been deriding him with the nickname Mussolini. Clinton is Authoritarian-Middle-Left, which is Communism. Not necessarily Stalinism, I don't think she intended purges and gulags, but who knows?

But what evil, specifically, has she done? She certainly had a hand in the birth of ISIS(don't get me wrong, that goes back to Carter with Operation Cyclone, with an especially appreciative nod to Reagan for kicking it up a notch), and ironically her only backlash from that is for not reinforcing the agents in Benghazi - who were smuggling weapons to what is now ISIS and encouraging the civil war that has utterly destroyed Syria and displaced 13.5 million Syrians. Ironic because the Redcaps are up in arms about the death of the people directly responsible for creating the terrorists they're so fucking afraid of. Now I understand that the reports that that's what they were doing came from an anonymous source, but an officially acknowledge one during tribunal, and the confirmation came from Wikileaks. The only real question left in that regard is if she was cognizant of where the weapons were going, or ignorant. Either one is contemptible; she's either knowingly complicit or catastrophically negligent. And if that's what she'll encourage abroad, I'm terrified of the prospects she offers at home. She helped push the PATRIOT Act, she's contributed to the growing xenophobia in the country - she's divisive and manipulative. And she's good at it. I mean shit, here you are, Jon - someone who I respect for typically seeing through that brand of bullshit - buying her line about Bernie Sanders supporters being the reason she lost.

She was her own downfall. She helped create the jingoistic menace, planted the xenophobia that Trump tapped into. If not for her direct contributions, Trump may have never been able to gain the fanatical following he did by preaching hate and fear. She enabled his victory, and then convinced the DNC to shoot themselves in the foot to allow it. I had always thought Trump was a plant by Clinton to ensure her victory by throwing the race intentionally. Perhaps it's the other way around?

It's not that Trump is better or worse. Both are atrocities. Both are monsters. Both are authoritarian nightmares, they're just different flavors of horror.

Sanders has integrity. He has constancy. As career politicians go, he's one of the better ones. I'd love to have seen him team up with Maxine Waters. His socialist ideals were a little heavy handed for my taste, but I was willing to swallow that pill because first and foremost he demonstrated compassion time and again. He demonstrated a pursuit of justice, not just appeasement. He showed respect for people, he demonstrated discretion. I had no fear of him trying to construct an authoritarian regime or drive the country into a communist revolution. He showed an understanding that equality isn't the same as equity. He always tempered his own ideals with reason and wisdom, but he had ideals and wasn't afraid to drive for them. And he always stood accountable for his actions, never claimed to be right 100% of the time.

Neither Trump nor Clinton would recognize an ideal if it beat them over the head. Ideal to them is just a word to describe the weather or a trade deal.

Quote

The bass playing anarchist libertarian bloc broke for Johnson (feel the Johnson '16).

This warmed my cold little heart.

Johnson wasn't a fantastic candidate, but he was far and away the best of what was offered.

[ArtificialSoldier]

Quote

I had always thought Trump was a plant by Clinton to ensure her victory by throwing the race intentionally. Perhaps it's the other way around?

I ran the numbers, and the probability of that statement being true is actually in the negatives. If nothing else, the Clintons are very smart. They're intelligent, and before politics they made a career about understanding the law, and then applied that to how they can use that in their quest for power. The probability that the Clintons were a pawn for Trump is roughly -42%. She, like the media, knew with 100% certainty that she was going to win, and they knew that right up to the point in the news coverage where that pit in the stomach starts to form and you see the door to her presidency slowly closing. And, man, when that sucker shut, it was quite the bang.

Quote

Johnson wasn't a fantastic candidate, but he was far and away the best of what was offered.

He wasn't perfect, of course. But, man, I'd love it if we had a president whose major blunder was not knowing about Aleppo (he's kind of isolationist - it's a feature, not a bug). Instead we have the Pussy Grabber In Chief, who is under an investigation that is shaping up to be the most damning thing we've probably ever seen in politics. His former chief strategist said that he's responsible for the largest blunder in modern political history, firing Comey. And he was up against a person who decided that federal laws don't apply to her, she can hide whatever she wants from the public in her job as a public servant and still act like she's entitled to the trust and votes of everyone. It would be great if we had a president whose major problem was that he regularly smoked pot several years ago and didn't really watch the news much, or a guy trying to pass universal healthcare over the steadily dimming shrieks of a Republican congress.

Anyway, here's to more and better choices in the future.

[depricated]

What I meant to say, pardon it was late, is that I always joked that Trump was a plant by Clinton.

May we survive the collapse of this system and help something better come about

[jon.kiparsky]

Just out of curiosity, Dep, what's your sourcing for the "Clinton created ISIS" notion?
'Cause that's a new one on me - to put it mildly.

[jon.kiparsky]

In the meantime, interesting that once again the sports pages give a useful if somewhat messy overview of where we're at now.

https://www.nytimes....m-protests.html