• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
dylan winter

TV Gold from Miller

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

Do you remember this performance

 

what a treat!

That's today's GOP.  Very different from the GOP before 1-20-17.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, saxdog said:

Orwellian barely describes Miller.  Where do these little creeps come from?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I see or hear Miller, I can't help but think he was a junior SS officer in a former life.  "Ze authority of ze Fuhrer vill not be questioned!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

he has the eyes of a lizard

He has stupid eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

 

Trump never had a suit so well tailored,nor made out of such high quality fabric.

He always looks like he's wearing something Oliver Hardy found in a garbage can, with a necktie made for Geoffrey the Giraffe from Toys-R-Us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole interview. Tapper ends it brilliantly.

The Whitehouse really shouldn't let Miller out of his hole. He doesn't do well around normal people.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, saxdog said:

Orwellian barely describes Miller.  Where do these little creeps come from?

He worked for Sessions before this. 

Filibuster on a topic you choose instead of debating on ground you fear. Sounds familiar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, saxdog said:

Orwellian barely describes Miller.  Where do these little creeps come from?

The USA seems to create quite a lot of them. I've always guesstimated that it's somewhere in the 15% - 20% range of the population.

Trump has made it a lot safer for them to come out of their holes. They don't have to hide in Northern Idaho and places like that anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

The USA seems to create quite a lot of them. I've always guesstimated that it's somewhere in the 15% - 20% range of the population.

Trump has made it a lot safer for them to come out of their holes. They don't have to hide in Northern Idaho and places like that anymore.

Whitefish, Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

The whole interview. Tapper ends it brilliantly.

The Whitehouse really shouldn't let Miller out of his hole. He doesn't do well around normal people.

 

 

 

 

When Miller kept harping on Trumps "Bring jobs back to America", populist appeal, why didn't Tapper ask him about Donald and Ivankas branded clothing and other items are sill manufactured overseas, instead of using American workers??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF?  That motherfucker is HIGH! 

Seriously, he's on the verge of slurring his words, he's so wasted.

Valium?  Ludes?  Something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, frenchie said:

WTF?  That motherfucker is HIGH! 

Seriously, he's on the verge of slurring his words, he's so wasted.

Valium?  Ludes?  Something.

 

I think he is mixing his uppers and his downers at the same time?  Valium and Crank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, frenchie said:

WTF?  That motherfucker is HIGH! 

Seriously, he's on the verge of slurring his words, he's so wasted.

Valium?  Ludes?  Something.

Looks (sounds) like he took the "Red eye" direct from SFO.

 Stoned on the purple Kush.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

The whole interview. Tapper ends it brilliantly.

The Whitehouse really shouldn't let Miller out of his hole. He doesn't do well around normal people.

What is with his rocking back and forward throughout the interview? At best, he looks like he's drunk or high "swaying" as he tries to remain lucid... at worst, it looks like he's going to sidle up to the nearest wall and start bashing his head against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dylan winter said:

 

Your TV is so good at the moment - genius stuff.

Anybody else get this as a "suggested for you" on that y-tube? 

 

Heck of a comment on the relationship between Trump and Miller, I guess. Maybe Bannon too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-miller-escorted-off-cnn-2018-1

White House adviser Stephen Miller was escorted off the set of CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday after a contentious interview with host Jake Tapper.

Two sources close to the situation told Business Insider that after the taping was done Miller was asked to leave several times.

He ignored those requests and ultimately security was called and he was escorted out, the sources said.

CNN declined to comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-miller-escorted-off-cnn-2018-1

White House adviser Stephen Miller was escorted off the set of CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday after a contentious interview with host Jake Tapper.

Two sources close to the situation told Business Insider that after the taping was done Miller was asked to leave several times.

He ignored those requests and ultimately security was called and he was escorted out, the sources said.

CNN declined to comment.

That kind of disrespectful ejection is going to excite the crowd. Expect broken glass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, frenchie said:

WTF?  That motherfucker is HIGH! 

Seriously, he's on the verge of slurring his words, he's so wasted.

Valium?  Ludes?  Something.

I got that impression also, but I just figured his brain was zapped by hanging around with morbidly stupid people, plus an environment of virulent irrational hatred.

Tapper did an OK job but pointing out that he was repeating himself would have been a better counter. "You've already said that."

Miller's rambling about what a genius Trump is, shows what this administration expects to feed the public as "news."

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mad said:

Are they all on the same medication?

Just playing a role for an audience of one.  As long as he likes it, they're doing fine.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Just playing a role for an audience of one.  As long as he likes it, they're doing fine.  

That's it.  Right there.

They are playing to an audience of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

The whole interview. Tapper ends it brilliantly.

The Whitehouse really shouldn't let Miller out of his hole. He doesn't do well around normal people.

 

 

 

Its TV news like this where the two sides do nothing but argue back and forth and talk over each other is why I absolutely despise watching cable news.  I would rather eat broken glass than listen to this shit.  Both sides of this debate suck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I googled this word and there was photo of some guy named Miller ??

syc·o·phant

ˈsikəˌfant,ˈsikəfənt/  
noun
noun: sycophant; plural noun: sycophants
  1. a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage.
    synonyms: yes-man, bootlicker, brown-noser, toady, lickspittle, flatterer, flunky, lackey, spaniel, doormat, stooge, cringer, suck, suck-up
    "I thought you wanted a competent assistant, not a nodding sycophant"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't even imagine him singing something like 'happy birthday'.

It's almost a joke.  Like God decided 'Hm.. i'm bored with platypuses - what else ridiculous can I make?  I know.. a guy who's the physical embodiment of a condescending sneer..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its TV news like this where the two sides do nothing but argue back and forth and talk over each other is why I absolutely despise watching cable news.  I would rather eat broken glass than listen to this shit.  Both sides of this debate suck!

What would be better? Letting a rambling, barely coherent sycophant repeat his mindless adulation of President Trump; or shutting him off sooner? Miller began with condescension and quickly became insulting. If a guest in my home had acted or spoken this way, he'd have been shown the door much sooner. Tapper could have been a bit more professional, but his producer should have shut off the microphones of either one trying to interrupt the other. That's more of a system failure.

Apparently America is entertained by argument and not put off by public rudeness. Another step down the ladder, probably another step closer to Balkanization

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2018 at 12:21 PM, dylan winter said:

Do you remember this performance

 

what a treat!  Git.........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its TV news like this where the two sides do nothing but argue back and forth and talk over each other is why I absolutely despise watching cable news.  I would rather eat broken glass than listen to this shit.  Both sides of this debate suck!

Have you ever listened to Prime Ministers questions in the UK?

That’ll  send you truly over the edge listening to those petulant fucks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2018 at 12:39 PM, B.J. Porter said:

The whole interview. Tapper ends it brilliantly.

The Whitehouse really shouldn't let Miller out of his hole. He doesn't do well around normal people.

 

 

 

  They'd be better off re-deploying Kellyanne.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/01/2018 at 12:39 PM, B.J. Porter said:

The whole interview. Tapper ends it brilliantly.

The Whitehouse really shouldn't let Miller out of his hole. He doesn't do well around normal people.

 

 

 

Notice how he calls is "grotesque "  but but not lies?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians and Criminal corporations have normalised lying.

Their representatives are valued for their abilities to lie and not answer questions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its TV news like this where the two sides do nothing but argue back and forth and talk over each other is why I absolutely despise watching cable news.  I would rather eat broken glass than listen to this shit.  Both sides of this debate suck!

Personally prefer that over the news anchors passively letting the political hacks repeat the same talking point over and over (and over) without any dispute or debate to it's veracity or their credibility spouting it. Then again, I've never been a fan of unchallenged propaganda. Your mileage may vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

  They'd be better off re-deploying Kellyanne.  

I’m struggling to imagine anyone who could be worse than this current advisor!!  So they might as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's gonna be tough on political comedy writers for a few years......

Remember when.........

 

image.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2018 at 9:17 AM, frenchie said:

WTF?  That motherfucker is HIGH! 

Seriously, he's on the verge of slurring his words, he's so wasted.

Valium?  Ludes?  Something.

That was my thought too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, saxdog said:

I thought this was about Stephen Miller. 

I agree lots of people checked the "Not Hillary" box.  

According to one line of logic frequently postulated on this board, voting against Hillary was a vote in favor of Trump and any vote for Trump is, in fact, a vote in favor of racism so checking the 'Not Hillary" box means you're self identifying as a racist.

Just thought I'd let you know :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

According to one line of logic frequently postulated on this board, voting against Hillary was a vote in favor of Trump and any vote for Trump is, in fact, a vote in favor of racism so checking the 'Not Hillary" box means you're self identifying as a racist.

Just thought I'd let you know :)

 

It's an all or nothing proposition.  You can't just pick out the parts you like.  Not to go all Godwins's law, but hey, Hitler gave us the Volkswagon and the autobahns.

I was talking to a German guy I knew one day.  He said his stepfather was an Israeli Jew.  He went on and on about he admired the Jewish people, etc.  A while later we were talking about something else and he said, "You know, Hitler wasn't all bad.  There was the Strenght Through Joy thing and the Deutscher Maedchen Bund.  They taught women the homemaker skills they needed and how to behave properly. Those were good things, you know?"   My head almost exploded at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not one of the voters who checked the Not Hillary box and would never have voted for the Orange Shithole.  But I think this illustrates why she was such a bad candidate. Even Trump didn't think he would win. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

It's an all or nothing proposition.  You can't just pick out the parts you like.  Not to go all Godwins's law, but hey, Hitler gave us the Volkswagon and the autobahns.

I was talking to a German guy I knew one day.  He said his stepfather was an Israeli Jew.  He went on and on about he admired the Jewish people, etc.  A while later we were talking about something else and he said, "You know, Hitler wasn't all bad.  There was the Strenght Through Joy thing and the Deutscher Maedchen Bund.  They taught women the homemaker skills they needed and how to behave properly. Those were good things, you know?"   My head almost exploded at that point.

 

 

I doubt Jill Stein and her supporters consider themselves racists but I'm sure they'll understand it if you explain it too them slowly :)

As will all the Hillary supporters that stayed home that night, many of whom were Obama supporters.  I'm sure they'll be shocked to know they're actually racists.  It's an all or nothing proposition after all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

 

I doubt Jill Stein and her supporters consider themselves racists but I'm sure they'll understand it if you explain it too them slowly :)

As will all the Hillary supporters that stayed home that night, many of whom were Obama supporters.  I'm sure they'll be shocked to know they're actually racists.  It's an all or nothing proposition after all.

 

I think you are purposely avoiding the point.  We are all many things and when people like us they like certain qualities and find ways to accept what they don't like.  With politicians it's different.  I don't give a flying fuck if they are a siant except...  With Trump i's even easier, there is nothing to like about him, he is dangerously narcissistic and stupid.   If somebody likes Trump and they aren't racist, they are tolerant of a racist among his many other bad qualities.  In a friend, maybe, maybe you could deal with it,  In a president?  No fucking way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:

I think you are purposely avoiding the point.  We are all many things and when people like us they like certain qualities and find ways to accept what they don't like.  With politicians it's different.  I don't give a flying fuck if they are a siant except...  With Trump i's even easier, there is nothing to like about him, he is dangerously narcissistic and stupid.   If somebody likes Trump and they aren't racist, they are tolerant of a racist among his many other bad qualities.  In a friend, maybe, maybe you could deal with it,  In a president?  No fucking way.  

 

My belief is that it's possible to sincerely have thought that someone 'not Hillary' could be a good president and that is never wrong to vote your conscience.   For me, that's a fundamental tenant of democracy.  You should reflect on what you believe, then vote according to what you think is the best for yourself and your country.  Hopefully they are coincident!  

I can understand having the discussion about voting for Trump "as a protest" being a bad decision.  I can understand asking the question - 'do you regret it now?'.  I get all that.  I do believe that "not all republicans are racists but all racists are republicans" and that the republicans have made a deal with the devil and are going to have to live with the consequences.  If Oprah does run, the Democrats are going to find out what it's like to have a seemingly infinite pile of media attention pick your candidate for you.  Perhaps they'll have more fortitude to resist.

But I absolutely reject the premise that voting for your beliefs makes you a racist just because you don't happen to agree with the candidate selected by the Democratic party.  I'd reject that as a libertarian.  I'd reject that as an environmentalist.  i even reject that as a conspiracy theorist who believes BENGHAZI!  To me, voting your conscience is a civic imperative in any modern democracy and there's a reason why ballots have more than one name.

I have no problem squaring my own vote for Obama with my vote for Johnson. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, saxdog said:

I thought this was about Stephen Miller. 

I agree lots of people checked the "Not Hillary" box.  

And, unfortunately, the two parties have convinced the voters that it must be one or the other. 

I'd still like to see ballots without party designation in any election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Saorsa said:

And, unfortunately, the two parties have convinced the voters that it must be one or the other. 

I'd still like to see ballots without party designation in any election.

I see your point.  I am not sure it would make much of a difference.  

It's not like the bulk of American voters do any homework and research where the candidates stand on issues.

It all comes down to "I recognize that name from all the stories".  Both good and bad stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I see your point.  I am not sure it would make much of a difference.  

It's not like the bulk of American voters do any homework and research where the candidates stand on issues.

It all comes down to "I recognize that name from all the stories".  Both good and bad stories.

Equal time for all candidates or annouce yourself as an agent of the candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cmilliken said:

No, but it does slide through spell checkers :)

Tenet of a good rant.. first spell write?  

Candidate for a Pullet Surprise
by Mark Eckman and Jerrold H. Zar

I have a spelling checker,
It came with my PC.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea.

Eye ran this poem threw it,
Your sure reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it's weigh.
My checker tolled me sew.

A checker is a bless sing,
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when eye rime.

Each frays come posed up on my screen
Eye trussed too bee a joule.
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.

Bee fore a veiling checker's
Hour spelling mite decline,
And if we're lacks oar have a laps,
We wood bee maid too wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flare,
Their are know fault's with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a wear.

Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier.
My pay purrs awl due glad den
With wrapped word's fare as hear.

To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should bee proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaw's are knot aloud.

Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays
Such soft wear four pea seas,
And why eye brake in two averse
Buy righting want too pleas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2018 at 12:23 PM, cmilliken said:

 

My belief is that it's possible to sincerely have thought that someone 'not Hillary' could be a good president and that is never wrong to vote your conscience.   For me, that's a fundamental tenant of democracy.  You should reflect on what you believe, then vote according to what you think is the best for yourself and your country.  Hopefully they are coincident!  

I can understand having the discussion about voting for Trump "as a protest" being a bad decision.  I can understand asking the question - 'do you regret it now?'.  I get all that.  I do believe that "not all republicans are racists but all racists are republicans" and that the republicans have made a deal with the devil and are going to have to live with the consequences.  If Oprah does run, the Democrats are going to find out what it's like to have a seemingly infinite pile of media attention pick your candidate for you.  Perhaps they'll have more fortitude to resist.

But I absolutely reject the premise that voting for your beliefs makes you a racist just because you don't happen to agree with the candidate selected by the Democratic party.  I'd reject that as a libertarian.  I'd reject that as an environmentalist.  i even reject that as a conspiracy theorist who believes BENGHAZI!  To me, voting your conscience is a civic imperative in any modern democracy and there's a reason why ballots have more than one name.

I have no problem squaring my own vote for Obama with my vote for Johnson. 

 

Before the election, Trump was openly racist. Openly misogynistic.

Trump voters were not bothered by this. Ergo they tolerate it.

Does that mean that by voting for Trump they are starching their white sheets for the next Klan meeting? Not, it doesn't. But it DOES mean they might well look the other way when their neighbor does.

Because the overt racism and misogyny don't bother them to stop putting it in office because the rest of the message appeals to them, it's tacit support of it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Before the election, Trump was openly racist. Openly misogynistic.

Trump voters were not bothered by this. Ergo they tolerate it.

Does that mean that by voting for Trump they are starching their white sheets for the next Klan meeting? Not, it doesn't. But it DOES mean they might well look the other way when their neighbor does.

Because the overt racism and misogyny don't bother them to stop putting it in office because the rest of the message appeals to them, it's tacit support of it.

You run what you brung. You own it, before and after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Equal time for all candidates or annouce yourself as an agent of the candidate.

Sounds almost like a "Fairness Doctrine" idea.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Before the election, Trump was openly racist. Openly misogynistic.

Trump voters were not bothered by this. Ergo they tolerate it.

Does that mean that by voting for Trump they are starching their white sheets for the next Klan meeting? Not, it doesn't. But it DOES mean they might well look the other way when their neighbor does.

Because the overt racism and misogyny don't bother them to stop putting it in office because the rest of the message appeals to them, it's tacit support of it.

So we've come full circle to the question that began this - if you're a supporter of the Green party and believe that Jill Stein would be a good president, are you complicit in Trump because you didn't vote for Hillary?

I'm not asking about people that pinched their nose and voted for Trump.  I"m not asking about people that just wanted to make a protest.

I'm asking about people who believed that their third party candidate was the best candidate for the job.  Are they complicit in the election of Trump?  Does our democracy allow for this option or not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

So we've come full circle to the question that began this - if you're a supporter of the Green party and believe that Jill Stein would be a good president, are you complicit in Trump because you didn't vote for Hillary?

I'm not asking about people that pinched their nose and voted for Trump.  I"m not asking about people that just wanted to make a protest.

I'm asking about people who believed that their third party candidate was the best candidate for the job.  Are they complicit in the election of Trump?  Does our democracy allow for this option or not?

 

To a degree. If we're going to have a multi-party system (Which technically we do, it's just a severely handicapped system) then the winner should have to win not a mere plurality of the vote, but a majority of the vote. IE: If there are 3 candidates Trump, Clinton, and Stein. Stein gets 10% Clinton gets 41% Trump gets 49%.... Trump is not the winner.... YET.... Because he has only 49% to the opposition's 51% So there would be a run off between the two biggest winners.... It works very nicely in some parts of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

To a degree. If we're going to have a multi-party system (Which technically we do, it's just a severely handicapped system) then the winner should have to win not a mere plurality of the vote, but a majority of the vote. IE: If there are 3 candidates Trump, Clinton, and Stein. Stein gets 10% Clinton gets 41% Trump gets 49%.... Trump is not the winner.... YET.... Because he has only 49% to the opposition's 51% So there would be a run off between the two biggest winners.... It works very nicely in some parts of the world.

I would favor something like that ONLY if a strict timeline for campaigning and limits on spending were part of the deal.  Otherwise, the day after one election will really and truly start the next cycle.  It's bad enough, now.  That'll only make it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

To a degree. If we're going to have a multi-party system (Which technically we do, it's just a severely handicapped system) then the winner should have to win not a mere plurality of the vote, but a majority of the vote. IE: If there are 3 candidates Trump, Clinton, and Stein. Stein gets 10% Clinton gets 41% Trump gets 49%.... Trump is not the winner.... YET.... Because he has only 49% to the opposition's 51% So there would be a run off between the two biggest winners.... It works very nicely in some parts of the world.

 

So, are the people that voted for Jill Stein in November 2016 complicit  in the election of Donald Trump because they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton?

To me, the answer is obvious - in an election in the US, people can and should vote for what they believe is the best person for the job.  No, people who voted for Jill Stein are not complicit in Donald Trump.  If they wanted Trump, they would have voted Trump, and then might be complicit.  They are not racists, or misogynists, or any of the other buzz-words of negation.

The only reason any of this matters is that 'invalidation' is a typical argument, particularly on this board.  "You made a bad choice therefore your opinion doesn't matter ever again" is about as common a verbal tactic as flame-throwing a straw man.  I get that.   I just find it a stupid strategy for dialog.  Knowledge comes from testing your ideas and concepts against competing ideas and concepts, not from shutting people up or destroying some phantom argument defended by no one.

I find the idea that a vote "for anyone not-Hillary!" is a "vote for racism! to be ridiculous.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

So, are the people that voted for Jill Stein in November 2016 complicit  in the election of Donald Trump because they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton?

To me, the answer is obvious - in an election in the US, people can and should vote for what they believe is the best person for the job.  No, people who voted for Jill Stein are not complicit in Donald Trump.  If they wanted Trump, they would have voted Trump, and then might be complicit.  They are not racists, or misogynists, or any of the other buzz-words of negation.

The only reason any of this matters is that 'invalidation' is a typical argument, particularly on this board.  "You made a bad choice therefore your opinion doesn't matter ever again" is about as common a verbal tactic as flame-throwing a straw man.  I get that.   I just find it a stupid strategy for dialog.  Knowledge comes from testing your ideas and concepts against competing ideas and concepts, not from shutting people up or destroying some phantom argument defended by no one.

I find the idea that a vote "for anyone not-Hillary!" is a "vote for racism! to be ridiculous.

 

 

I don't support Trump but...

 

The question for me, re. Stein and her supporters, is not whether her supporters are complicit in the Trump election.  People can vote how they want.  The question I have is whether Stein is complicit, and other questions along those lines.  Did anyone pay her, and for what?  Etc.  I'd like to know the same info about Evan McMullen's candidacy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I don't support Trump but...

 

The question for me, re. Stein and her supporters, is not whether her supporters are complicit in the Trump election.  People can vote how they want.  The question I have is whether Stein is complicit, and other questions along those lines.  Did anyone pay her, and for what?  Etc.  I'd like to know the same info about Evan McMullen's candidacy.  

You mean, like the Republican Party (or it's major donors, same thing) funding Ralph Nader's campaigns for President?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 

So, are the people that voted for Jill Stein in November 2016 complicit  in the election of Donald Trump because they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton?

To me, the answer is obvious - in an election in the US, people can and should vote for what they believe is the best person for the job.  No, people who voted for Jill Stein are not complicit in Donald Trump.  If they wanted Trump, they would have voted Trump, and then might be complicit.  They are not racists, or misogynists, or any of the other buzz-words of negation.

The only reason any of this matters is that 'invalidation' is a typical argument, particularly on this board.  "You made a bad choice therefore your opinion doesn't matter ever again" is about as common a verbal tactic as flame-throwing a straw man.  I get that.   I just find it a stupid strategy for dialog.  Knowledge comes from testing your ideas and concepts against competing ideas and concepts, not from shutting people up or destroying some phantom argument defended by no one.

I find the idea that a vote "for anyone not-Hillary!" is a "vote for racism! to be ridiculous.

 

 

To a small degree. But it is the system it's self which may be more to blame. If the votes cast for Clinton, and Stein outnumber those cast for Trump, there should be a run off. If the number of votes for Trump outnumber the combined votes for Clinton and Stein, then no...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 

So, are the people that voted for Jill Stein in November 2016 complicit  in the election of Donald Trump because they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton?

To me, the answer is obvious - in an election in the US, people can and should vote for what they believe is the best person for the job.  No, people who voted for Jill Stein are not complicit in Donald Trump.  If they wanted Trump, they would have voted Trump, and then might be complicit.  They are not racists, or misogynists, or any of the other buzz-words of negation.

The only reason any of this matters is that 'invalidation' is a typical argument, particularly on this board.  "You made a bad choice therefore your opinion doesn't matter ever again" is about as common a verbal tactic as flame-throwing a straw man.  I get that.   I just find it a stupid strategy for dialog.  Knowledge comes from testing your ideas and concepts against competing ideas and concepts, not from shutting people up or destroying some phantom argument defended by no one.

I find the idea that a vote "for anyone not-Hillary!" is a "vote for racism! to be ridiculous.

 

 

Complicit in racism? No, not really.

Bearing a portion of the responsibility for Trump's election? Absolutely.

A Trump presidency is clearly a partial by-product of the self-righteousness of third-party voters.

Trump was a clear and obvious danger to the country literally from the minute he announced his candidacy by proclaiming Mexican immigrants to be rapists and criminals. It was no secret that Trump was an unstable fool and a racist, among many things, and would be a disaster as a president.

I get that some people didn't like Clinton. The 40 year assault on her character certainly rubbed off on a lot of people, and she's made a few dodgy judgments of her own along the way as well. She wasn't my first choice, as I differed with her on a number of positions and I tend to stand to the left of her.

But to suggest there was "no difference" between Clinton and Trump is a failure of intellect, and simply not a true statement. Pure mental laziness and/or gullibility.

When presented with what may well be an existential threat to American Democracy - and to be perfectly clear, Trump was quite obvious in his disrespect for the constitution, the free press, etc. before the election - you can react several ways. One way says "let's keep this dangerous incompetent ideologue away from power because he will fuck things up catastrophically if he gets in." Another way says "I'm going to vote to make a statement for the future because that is better than worrying about what happens if this guy comes into power for four years."

Anyone and everyone also knew that a vote for Stein or Johnson was, at this point in the American body politic, tantamount to not voting or writing in "Mickey Mouse". Neither one had any chance of winning. No one reasonably expected them to. A vote for them is a statement, no more, no less.

The margins in four key states that put Trump over the top were considerably smaller than the votes that went to Stein. So a few hundred thousand people got to make a statement which was basically meaningless by voting for an under-qualified candidate they knew couldn't win. Because they didn't care enough about the risks of a Trump presidency.

In most cases they threw that vote because they had the luxury to do so. Good for them. They voted their conscience and can all feel good about themselves. But they ignored the obvious danger, and we're all paying for it. I'm not going to let them slide on that one.

So no, they aren't racists for that vote. But they certainly had the privilege to take that risk, unlike all the minorities and poor people they endangered by making it. And they do share a portion of the responsibility for the outcome of the election with their self-indulgence.

 

And P.S. for the Stein voters:

russia_dinner630.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean said:

Ironically, Trump was elected because nobody thought he could win. 

Agreed. It seemed a lot of people wanted to make a point and had the freedom to do it because Hillary was a shoe-in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me  -  depends on whether this hypothetical Stein voter lives in a swing state. 

I voted for Nader in 2000.  I don't feel guilty about it, NY being firmly democrat anyways. 

But if I'd been living in Florida and voted 3rd party in 2000... yeah, I'd feel pretty bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, frenchie said:

For me  -  depends on whether this hypothetical Stein voter lives in a swing state. 

I voted for Nader in 2000.  I don't feel guilty about it, NY being firmly democrat anyways. 

But if I'd been living in Florida and voted 3rd party in 2000... yeah, I'd feel pretty bad.

Agreed with that one. It makes far less difference in non-swing states. Which is stupid, but not changing any time soon. My vote as a Floridian is worth a lot more than when I was voting in RI.

 

2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Agreed. It seemed a lot of people wanted to make a point and had the freedom to do it because Hillary was a shoe-in.

That, and they had the privilege of not being too worried if Trump did get elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites