And what’s your point? How should this translate into I shouldn’t hate Hillary?
That your emotional conclusions should be based on fact, not vice versa.
And that you might consider that those emotions are at least in part a conditioned response, and that it’s worth considering who’s been doing the conditioning and why.
I remember posting something about Biden that was very similar to that, only to be reminded about how he only got single digit traction in 2008. It’s possible he could have, but I’m a lot less sure than I was. BTW, Brazile does a good job of explaining the whole “draft Biden” thing in her interview on This Week with G. Stephanopolous. What I originally heard was taken out of context, and strongly implied that she was claiming she could issue an edict and make it happen, when in reality it was just some crisis management “what if” when Hillary fainted and no one really knew how serious it was (or not) yet. It wasn’t that she was thinking: AH-HA, this is finally my chance to get rid of HRC!!
I still think there must have been something that happened between her and Hillary that made her want to come down on Hillary so hard. It could be that she just wanted to gin up interest in her book, but I think equally plausible is that she really was pissed about how she was treated by Hillary’s campaign during the primaries when she stepped in, as a volunteer, to clean up DW-S’s mess at the DNC.
Airing this kind of dirty laundry is never good for the party, but at least it’s out there now instead of right before the midterms. You can always argue that any time is bad for this stuff to come out, which is just another way of telling her to keep quiet, to which she had what I though was a good response: GO TO HELL!
The proper democracy-respecting choice in the event of a Clinton incapacitation would have been Kaine, and would have had to be ratified by the DNC and not just her. So I’m not buying that.
By her own account, it was Clinton who did whatever cleaning up was done, not Brazile. So maybe she’s just jealous of someone who could do, and did, her job better than she did.
It isn’t telling her to keep quiet, it’s asking her to be honest about telling her story, including about her own role. As it is, the proper thing to tell *her *is GTH.
Well, maybe the party that isn’t in power should run better candidates instead of futilely insisting that I owe them my vote.
I don’t have a civic duty to vote for absolute shit candidates, and you really don’t seem to get this whole voting thing; no party is entitled to my vote. It’s interesting how many Hillary supporters like you are explicitly anti-democratic (note the small ‘d’), though. The whole idea that candidates have to actually earn votes by appealing to voters is just repugnant to you, and you want to replace real voting some kind of weird patronage system where voters have a duty to support whoever the Party puts forward.
Again, the idea that I have a duty to vote for the candidate you want is absurd and anti-democractic, Hillary (or any other candidate) is not entitled to a single vote beyond her own. The Democratic Party has a responsibility to be informed and either do the most help or the least harm, in part by running candidates that Americans actually want to vote for.
You guys have a really weird narrative in your heads that doesn’t match reality. I liked Bernie and voted for him in the (rigged, so pointless) primary but I doubt he’s going to be a contender in 2020 (if nothing else, because of age) and am not especially worried by that. I think it’s because you can’t admit that Clinton was simply an awful candidate, so you have to for some reason demonize the guy that ran against her and lost and blame him for her abject failure.
Yes, I’m guilty of going against my principles and voting for Clinton in spite of her having several major policy stances that should have been a hard ‘no’ for me. I will not make that mistake again, trust me - she’s the only pro-Iraq vote that will ever get my vote, for example.
I’d say that Trump’s victory is the fault of a complacent Democratic party who ran an awful candidate that absolutely failed to appeal to American voters and got votes mostly from “do the have a D? they’re the one for me!” and “Anyone but Trump” voters. Maybe the Democrats should run a decent candidate in 2020 instead of trying to guilt people into repeating mistakes. Pulling out ‘lesser of two evils’ arguments every four years just isn’t going to win elections.
I understand your dilemma, Pantastic. I really do. But I think you’re over-reacting by calling Clinton an “evil”. What specific policies does she advocate that you would consider evil? I don’t like Hillary, but I think she would have been an OK president. Not a great one, but OK. She’s more hawkish than Obama was (not what Obama claimed to be, but how he actually acted), but I see that more as a difference in degree rather than anything else. In short, I think you’re taking this “lesser of two evil” things a bit too literally. Hillary is not my cup of tea, but I don’t consider her to be evil.
If the alternative were Jeb!..well, maybe. Yeah, sorta kinda. But this is not the case, the alternative is a loathsome slimeball, a weeping pustule on the rectum of the body politic. In which case, no, you don’t owe Hillary your vote, you owe it to me, and to yourself. Your children, if you got 'em, mine, if you don’t. Our heroes in harm’s way. The forlorn and forgotten of Puerto Rico. The Dreamers.
That, too. There might be a time to say “enough is enough and I’m not going to vote for these candidates who don’t appeal enough to me”. But when the alternative is Trump, I’d say that’s not one of those times. If Trump isn’t actually evil, many of his actions are indistinguishable from those of an evil person.
“If you don’t give me the democracy that I want, then I just won’t have any part of democracy then.”
Now that’s an intelligent approach to writing a social contract. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Rigged? By slipping her a few pretty damn obvious Debate questions?
Thanks. I’m having second thoughts about my “thumb on the scales” analogy, though. I think that works well for the party leaders, but I think “partially turning the DNC into an arm of the Hillary campaign, during the primaries” is closer. I won’t claim that HRC had full control over the DNC, but she had a good amount of control.
I’m not ready to say this changed the outcome, though. Hillary got beaten by Obama in '08, but Bernie wasn’t exactly Obama. I think it’s more a matter of her paranoia about losing, and her doing things she didn’t really need to do in order to win. The numbers were behind her, especially in the South. One can argue that those stated don’t matter since they are largely in the GOP camp, but that’s not how the rules are written.
As the vote totals and her popular vote majority show?
Not him, he’s just one guy, but the people who irresponsibly voted for him despite his absolute lack of qualification, and demonized (and continue to do so) the candidate who was qualified, not to mention proven honest in a multitude of investigations that found nothing.
You’re getting guilted because you’re guilty. Maybe it’s time to consider the possibility yourself. Right after you consider that not voting for “the lesser evil” is the same as voting for the greater one. Now why the hell would you want that? To punish the lesser-evil party for not groveling to you enough to make you feel good, when in fact you’re only punishing all of us including yourself?
Sheesh.
This thread needs more [del]cowbell[/del] finger-wagging.
Which you are eagerly supplying, bless your heart.
I shall repent and mend my ways.
Shit, Amazon had a sale just last week for online sarcasm detectors, and I didn’t get one, and now this one is pining for the fjords.
(**Bolding **mine.) This is utter bullshit. When you guys figure out that browbeating people for voting differently than you did is not going to win them over to your side, then maybe there can be a dialogue. But you just won’t accept that many people who didn’t vote Hillary withheld their vote because she did not overcome their preference for another candidate. If voters think both candidates are lousy, it shouldn’t matter that one is more lousy than another if there are other candidates to choose from. There are only two ways to disrupt a two-party system – one is to vote third/fourth party; the other is for one of those parties to implode leaving one powerful party. Voters owe no party complete loyalty, nor their votes. Your candidate did not EARN enough votes to succeed. Period.
But they weren’t reasonable 3rd party candidates in the race. Jill Stein is a fucking loon and a Russian stooge to boot. Gary Johnson is beyond incompetent . Writing in Harambe or Bernie or anyone is a pointless waste of time. Any vote that wasn’t for Hillary Clinton was a vote for Donald Trump. I hope all the purity ponies in Madison, State College, and Ann Arbor will finally learn their lessons.
- In this discussion, the determination that Clinton was the lesser of the two evils (and the choice of terminology) was Pantastic’s. You seem to agree.
- Not voting for Candidate A is indeed the same as actually voting for Candidate B. Do the math.
- Ergo, not voting for the lesser evil is, in fact, voting for the greater one, with the ensuing consequences for us all. This isn’t hard.
You can complain that the lesser evil is still evil, if you like, but that’s really just pouting. The time to convince people that another choice would have been better came during the primaries, and most voters remained unconvinced of that. Maybe you should focus on why so many millions of people so obstinately refused to join you in basking in the wonderfulness of Bernie, hmm? Or perhaps become just a little willing to consider why they did what they did, and that they just might have been right. Something to ponder.