# Mini Tuesday April 26 Primaries discussion thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 25, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095 "2016-04-25T15:29:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/121 "2016-04-27T14:34:26Z")
Ha, you’re going to do well around here. “Clinton supported Iraq due to 9/11!” “But… that’s what the republicans said and we were all aghast at how stupid it was” “WHATEVER YOU’LL NEVER BE CONVINCED, LATERZ BRO, I WIN” ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/122 "2016-04-27T14:41:13Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Off the top of my head in 2016: > > Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. > > Jim Webb and Bernie Sanders. > > Ted Cruz and George Pataki. Rand Paul and… umm… everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/123 "2016-04-27T14:44:15Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Voting for Clinton gives them “90% of what they want”? According to whom? > > They don’t want everything that Sanders wants; they want specific things, a lot of which Clinton won’t give them. Go to the next Sanders rally, and tell them, “Clinton will give you 90% of what Sanders wants - just not free public school tuition, single-payer health care payable by the rich and day traders, or any significant reform that takes away from the 1%,” and see where that gets you. > > I still think Sanders’s best shot at reform is to concentrate on getting Representatives and Senators friendly to his ideas elected, even if it means replacing existing Democrats. This shouldn’t be that hard if the “Bernie Bros” come out in force in November - and this has the added advantage for Clinton of reminding them that pretty much anything they do concerning Congress is meaningless if the President is a Republican. But the thing is that Sanders wouldn’t get those voters free public school tuition or single-payer health care payable by the rich and day traders. Both because his plans are incomplete at best, and because he’d need a lot of other Democratic politicians voted in and he hasn’t worked on supporting many. I don’t know what reforms either of them have stated for “taking away from the 1%” so I can’t compare their plans there. I hope Sanders does start supporting more down ticket races, and even more I hope that he rallies his voters in 2018 for the midterm races. He’s talked a lot about his revolution, and how he’ll keep things going, I hope he really means that and is not just saying it for attention. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/124 "2016-04-27T14:46:21Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I may be the most persuadable person on this board. I have no partisanship or fixed loyalty. My prime intellectual goal is empirical skepticism. You could easily convince me, if you actually had a good argument. There are no words. Even “cite?” quails before this argument. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/125 "2016-04-27T14:50:19Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Heh prove a negative using data. Yeah, good luck with that. > > Intellectual skepticism based solely on an opinion. Ohhhkay, bud. Sorry, it’s not on me to disprove your total assertion. It’s on _you_ to prove it. See, I’m the skeptic here. None of this makes any sense. Prove a negative? SenorBeef is just unwilling to forgive Hillary for her Iraq war vote. There was plenty of reasons back then that it was a bad idea and history has shown it was a really bad idea.There was never good evidence Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 either. What shades of grey do you want him to consider? That he should cut Hillary some slack because she merely jumped on the blind vengeance bandwagon? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/126 "2016-04-27T14:51:40Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > There are no words. Even “cite?” quails before this argument. Do you understand what happened? He said, essentially, Hillary was right to support Iraq because 9/11. I said 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq and that’s a ridiculous argument. He says whatever, clearly you can’t be convinced, I give up. So I say actually, I’m quite convincible, but you haven’t made an argument. So in this exchange, you find him saying “whatever, I’m not gonna try to substantiate my points because you’d never listen anyway!”, and I say “actually, I am listening, you just aren’t making an argument”, and you’re exasperated at _my_ side of the argument here? Partisanship in action. You view him as being on your side, so you attack me, even though he is the one who made the laughable cop-out rather than putting forth an argument. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/127 "2016-04-27T15:10:00Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Do you understand what happened? What you said is called begging the question. 1. I am utterly convincable and I would buy your argument were it any good. 2. I do not buy your argument. 3. Therefore your argument isn’t any good and I am not convinced. There is no way for someone to win against this argument. It’s also not quite in line with empirical skepticism. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/128 "2016-04-27T15:20:46Z")
Re-read the conversation. He was the one who said, essentially, “oh, I’ve got this awesome argument I could make, but I won’t be bothered, because you just never would believe me no matter what I said, so why bother” My reply to that was “actually, I’ve got a long history of changing my opinions based on arguments that have been put forth to me, so your characterization of me isn’t true at all. Rather, you clearly have no foot to stand on in this argument, so you are giving a false reason as to why you’re choosing not to support your argument” I did not dismiss his argument with begging the question. I dismissed his argument by pointing out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. He then had a follow up character attack on me - “nothing could possibly convince you!” - and the comment you decided to criticize was a response to that character attack. It was not a fallacious statement at all, you merely chose to grasp at straws. It’s funny because you are serving as an example of the partisanship I speak of: he clearly is doing an awful job of arguing his point, and bowed out with a pathetic copout. But because you’ve decided that he is on your side, and I am not, you actually focus on how my response to his cop-out is fallacious. You’re not interested in getting to the truth of the matter or evaluating critically. You’re interested in attacking the other side. Look at yourself. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/129 "2016-04-27T15:27:14Z")
SenorBeef was rejecting 9/11 as an argument but was saying he was open to a reasonable argument. You haven’t caught him in some logical fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/130 "2016-04-27T15:27:15Z")
To add: you’re siding with the guy who’s justifying the Iraq war because of 9/11, and siding against the guy who’s calling BS on that. That’s the sort of mental gymnastics that partisanship gets you. It’s the opposite of intellectual integrity and skepticism. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/131 "2016-04-27T15:37:11Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Re-read the conversation. I’m responding only to the post I quoted, which is a classic logical fallacy. You want the fact that you are unpersuaded to be evidence that his argument was bad because of your assertion that you are persuadable. Therefore, anything that fails to persuade you is a bad argument. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/132 "2016-04-27T15:42:07Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > SenorBeef was rejecting 9/11 as an argument but was saying he was open to a reasonable argument. You haven’t caught him in some logical fallacy. Are there people who will not say they are open to a reasonable argument? Heck, are there people who don’t believe they are open to a reasonable argument? People think they are utterly reasonable. That’s what people do. Do you believe that if he says he’s open to reasonable argument, that means that he’s open to reasonable argument, and therefore if he is not persuaded that means the argument was not reasonable? ETA: Goddamn, I’m adding to a hijack, which pisses me off. I’m willing to continue this conversation in another thread, but not this one. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/133 "2016-04-27T15:42:51Z")
Why not respond to the other arguments, **SenorBeef**? For example, my argument that supporting Hillary Clinton, should she be nominated, is absolutely vital to defeating the Republican candidate, who would be far, far more damaging to the country. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/134 "2016-04-27T15:44:04Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I’m responding only to the post I quoted, which is a classic logical fallacy. You want the fact that you are unpersuaded to be evidence that his argument was bad because of your assertion that you are persuadable. Therefore, anything that fails to persuade you is a bad argument. I’m still amazed that, having had it pointed out to you in detail, you’re still not getting it. He made the assertion that argument was useless because I’m unpersuadable. That’s both an attack on who I am - one he has no evidence to justify whatsoever - and a cop-out, a way for him to avoid actually having to make a substantial argument. _I did not dismiss any argument_ because I am persuadable. I dismissed his copout, which was “I couldn’t convince you anyway, so I’m not going to try!” I refuted his argument in post 111. I refuted his cop-out in post 116. His behavior here was infantile, and yet you seek to criticize my dismissal of that infantile behavior, rather than his behavior itself. Because you view him as being on your side, and so you stick up for him, even when he’s obviously wrong, and obviously not bringing any substantial discussion, even when he’s _blaming 9/11 on Iraq_ like any delusional republican would. These are the pretzels you twist yourself into in order to attack me, since you view me as being against your group. You’re giving a really great example of why partisanship is anti-intellectual. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/135 "2016-04-27T15:45:08Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Therefore, anything that fails to persuade you is a bad argument. He didn’t say that. You added that part to complete your logical fallacy circle. Anyway this whole thing is stupid because you jumped on one sentence without bothering to understand the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Kron](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kron/32/12444_2.png) [@Kron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kron)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/136 "2016-04-27T15:59:08Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > The idea that you can evaluate candidates in their entirety by the seeing what their checklists are on the issues is obviously flawed. If some random guy filled out a political questionaire the same as Clinton, but he was completely insane and rash and stupid and a liar, would you say “hey, vote for him, his stated positions match up 90% with what you want”? > > No, you’re voting for a person. You’re voting for judgment. You’re voting for honesty, and integrity. > > Different candidates will also have different priorities. What if gay rights is your #1 issue, and while one candidate technically gave the right answer on a survey for gay rights but has no intention of doing anything about it, the other one is super passionate about the issue and makes it a centerpiece of their campaign? You should vote for either interchangably, right? Because they both gave the same answer, you’re getting the same thing. > > I doubt that Sanders and Clinton match up 90% on the issues, and I think that’s a ridiculous thing to take for granted. But even if that were true, you could still think those 10% of issues were important. Or that you think Clinton is just giving lipservice to some of those ideas with no intentions of pursuing them. Or that she’s lying about her belief in some of the issues and you believe she’ll actually act against your interest. Or that while she has the right opinion on abortion, you don’t trust her to be the person in charge when she gets woken up at 3am to a false alarm about ICBMs coming in. Or a thousand other reasons that separate real candidates other than some sort of political values checklist. > > It’s especially ironic and dishonest since the attitude of Bernie is “OMG HE’S FAR TOO RADICAL TO GET ANYTHING DONE!” while simultaneously saying “oh Clinton has all the opinions he has anyway.” - He’s totally radical, and she’s totally not, and yet you should vote for her because she has all the same opinions as him! > > Your condescending attitude towards people who don’t swear allegiance to a political party is going to be part of the reason that the “BernieBots” reject your candidate when you need their support, and it will disenfranchise an entire generation to your political party. And you will have deserved every bit of it. QFT. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/137 "2016-04-27T16:02:24Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > You speak as if you don’t remember 9/11. You really want to compare the atmosphere 13 years ago in the aftermath of the worst single atrocity ever committed on U.S. Soil to now? Get superior all you want, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t actual intelligent people who supported the war for reasons other than “WAR! KILL!” Give me a BIG break. I think Clinton’s vote for Iraq was much worse than you are painting it. I also think it was not as bad as some others paint it. Part of me agrees that context, and popularly-held beliefs are relevant, but of course that can go awry very quickly, especially when so many emotions are involved as they were after 9-11. The nuance in the vote is the question of what exactly she was voting for, and what the understanding of the time was for that decision. I don’t think it can be defended in any way otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/138 "2016-04-27T16:05:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why not respond to the other arguments, **SenorBeef**? For example, my argument that supporting Hillary Clinton, should she be nominated, is absolutely vital to defeating the Republican candidate, who would be far, far more damaging to the country. My purpose in this thread was to stop people from being assholes to Bernie supporters because they wanted to vote their conscience. To fight the idea that people had some sort of moral obligation to be loyal to the democratic party, and if they don’t, then they’re somehow wrong. Such an attitude actually hurts your cause - I may end up being a “hold your nose and vote” Clinton supporter, but the rhetoric around here bashing Bernie supporters disgusts me. I criticized someone for refusing to support a candidate because of their supporters, so I’m trying not to do the same, but it makes me deeply uncomfortable to get on board with you people. I’m a very tepid Bernie supporter (he’s the only guy running who I actually think would attempt to do the job with integrity, but I don’t think he’d be successful in getting much done), and if your behavior disgusts me this much, it justiably disgusts them even more because they’re being more directly attacked. You’re going to cost yourself the support of those newly awakened active young people involved in politics this time around by telling them they’re stupid to be idealistic, Clinton is going to happen, you can’t change anything, it’s going to be the same old same old, shut up and take it, you have to be loyal to a party that you don’t even feel really represents you. And you will have deserved it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/139 "2016-04-27T16:06:40Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > My purpose in this thread was to stop people from being assholes to Bernie supporters because they wanted to vote their conscience. To fight the idea that people had some sort of moral obligation to be loyal to the democratic party, and if they don’t, then they’re somehow wrong. Such an attitude actually hurts your cause - I may end up being a “hold your nose and vote” Clinton supporter, but the rhetoric around here bashing Bernie supporters disgusts me. I criticized someone for refusing to support a candidate because of their supporters, so I’m trying not to do the same, but it makes me deeply uncomfortable to get on board with you people. I’m a very tepid Bernie supporter (he’s the only guy running who I actually think would attempt to do the job with integrity, but I don’t think he’d be successful in getting much done), and if your behavior disgusts me this much, it justiably disgusts them even more because they’re being more directly attacked. > > You’re going to cost yourself the support of those newly awakened active young people involved in politics this time around by telling them they’re stupid to be idealistic, Clinton is going to happen, you can’t change anything, it’s going to be the same old same old, shut up and take it, you have to be loyal to a party that you don’t even feel really represents you. > > And you will have deserved it. ??? What does any of this have to do with me? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095/140 "2016-04-27T16:08:57Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > The nuance in the vote is the question of what exactly she was voting for, and what the understanding of the time was for that decision. I don’t think it can be defended in any way otherwise. Oh please. If I go digging around to the posts during that time, am I going to find you cheerleading the Iraq war, because hey, 9/11 happened, let’s just invade some random unrelated country because we have the national collective emotional maturity of toddler? Everyone knew Iraq was bullshit from the start. There was no “at the time” understanding. Clinton voted for it because she’s a war-monger. Has there ever been a potential US military intervention that she doesn’t like? “We have to invade Iraq because of 9/11!” is apparently the battlecry of low-IQ fox news watchers from 2003, and suddenly Clinton supporters. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > ??? What does any of this have to do with me? You asked why I wasn’t addressing the issue of voting for the lesser of two evils. That wasn’t my point upon entering this thread. I was explaining why I didn’t address the issue, which I felt was at a tangent to what I was actually arguing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mini-tuesday-april-26-primaries-discussion-thread/753095.md?page=8)