He still might.
What do you mean, now what? It’s not like it matters how I vote; if it comes down to NM Clinton is already in major trouble and both House and Senate are lost for the Democrats. I’m just of the opinion that haranguing is not going to work, especially with those who don’t like either candidate.
…which is a really stupid way to view the world.
Everyone knows it revolves around ME.
So vote for Hillary.
^^^ echoing this, to a degree.
[del]We[/del] My fellow boomers ABSOLUTELY should have known better than to let GWB, or any Republican, into the Oval Office.
The party gave us GHWB, Reagan, and freaking RICHARD M NIXON, ferfuckssake. Forget about “Why should I vote FOR the Democrat?” That’s puerile and stupid. The answer is “To keep the REPUBLICAN out of the White House!” That is enough good to justify it. You might as well ask “Why should I eat this bag of Chili-cheese Fritos instead of this spoonful of strychnine?” I shouldn’t have to prove that Chili-cheese Fritos are GOOD for you to persuade you to not poison yourself.
And in this case, to not poison ME, along with yourself.
An apt concern if we were playing football (although why should we be? It’s a stupid game. But I digress). But we’re playing Barn-Raising.
:dubious:
The only line that’s not objectively, inarguably factual is the one about her being a legitimate liberal. The half about her not being a hardline conservative blowhard is correct, though.
I think maybe he wasn’t going for “rebuttal” so much as “dismissal”…
So in your analogy, the Republicans are gravity?
The problem with the argument of ‘it will be a catastrophe that is your fault if you don’t vote for the PartyA and the PartyB win!’ is that the same people who feel entitled to every not-diehard Party vote have made it in every single election since I was a kid hearing about Reagan vs Mondale. Perot vs Bush vs Clinton got a lot of heat from the right, and Nader vs Bush vs Gore got a lot from the left, and yet we survived all of those elections without things blowing up.
In this particular election I think that Trump actually is actually over-the-top awful enough that I am likely to hold my nose and vote for Clinton. But if one of the moderate Republicans was running against Clinton, there is no way I would seriously consider voting for her, and yet the same people ranting about how the youth are betraying the team here would still be ranting about it.
Many people didn’t.
Yes, people die under both Democratic and Republican presidents. And would under a less moderate president of either major party, or a third party president. But it’s certainly arguable that fewer people would end up blown up under someone who wasn’t either a D or R, so saying ‘people might die’ doesn’t really support ‘so you must vote for this candidate who will support the war on certain drugs and the prison-industrial complex, overseas military adventures and the military-industrial complex, wall street and lack of social welfare systems, and so on’.
It’s also arguable that fewer people would die under a hyperintelligent omnipotent benevolent AI that controlled all society only to the extent that it prevented violence and maximized access to vital resources for everyone. But I don’t see a clear path to that happening any time soon. Until that clear path becomes available, I’m not going to base all my actions around achieving that goal; instead, I’m going to go for the best, or least worst, option at each juncture.
There may be an analogy in there somewhere.
A truck driven by a maniac is careening down the road aimed at babies at play. Observers are screaming for help to get the babies out of the way in time. You complain, on the basis that, in your opinion the voices would be just as shrill if, instead of a careening truck, the threat were a sedate bicycle rider. :smack:
Does not compute.
That is weak sauce compared to all the material from the '80s that Republicans were just licking their chops over being able to dish up. And you don’t seem to understand that brand-new info (brand-new, that is, to the vast majority of voters) in campaign attacks is more effective than stuff Republicans have been screeching about for years.
Over those decades, she has had three separate points at which she rebounded from terrible approval ratings to ones that even Obama now doesn’t get close to. That is actually a great political achievement when you think about it. Everyone seems to have a weird combination of very short-term memory combined with very selective long-term memory. They only remember the periods when her ratings have been low.
In the late 90s, when she was on the second of one of those three rebounds, she helped negotiate with Republicans to get SCHIP. That program has over the past 16 years insured every one of my children, including their mothers’ pregnancies, such that we paid no premiums and no co-pays. I don’t know how much that has financially benefited us in total, but it’s probably close to six figures and I don’t know what we would have done without it.
They would have a field day with “Commie Bernie”.
Heh, good question. I was going to ask where the other team comes into that barnraising analogy, but maybe that’s it. If so, then my analogy still works, adapted to the situation. If my cousin Abel and I are using a pulley to lift up a huge board to make the loft, and he lets go of the rope and it causes the board to come tumbling down and crush my legs, I am going to blame him and not gravity!
I love this!
Also love this!
One truck is aimed at babies at play. Observers are screaming that I need to help the one with a big D on her chest into the driver’s seat because she’ll only hit five babies instead of ten. Also she and some of the observers are going to make a ton of money off of her being the driver. money which I and the parents of the dead babies won’t share in. Also they’re going to do it again in four years, and make the same argument.
No, I observed that in actual history the voices have been just as shrill every election cycle.
Here’s a thread from sixteen years ago on this board that I found with a google search where people are ranting about Nader voters, just as an example
What some millennials are doing. This video is what I think effective persuasion looks like.
There’s a bit of dog whistle in it, I admit, or at least something vaguely akin to dogwhistle. It’s pretty clearly designed to appeal to leftist millennials, and would only serve to irritate and alienate conservative millennials. I suspect that’s deliberate.
Fine. That still five babies that will die if you let her opponent win, whom you otherwise could saved. Those five that Clinton is gonna murder in your scenario? There’s no option that results in them living.
I don’t much care for your analogy, but even in your analogy, you better believe I’d vote to save as many babies from death as I could. The time to change the fucked-up system is between elections. If, come election time, your only choice is whether to help five babies be murdered or ten babies be murdered, go for the fives, Boo.
I hate the word “shrill.” But do you genuinely think the complaints about McCain and Romney were of the same caliber as the complaints about Trump?
Set that aside: do you genuinely think Trump is no more dangerous than McCain or Romney?
If you don’t think that, all this business about when people were more shrill is kind of a side issue.
This is such weird blame-shifting. You’re the one putting a baby-killing driver in the truck, not me. There are lots of options that result in them living - putting someone who won’t drive the truck into babies is certainly possible, I saw thousands of such people driving today. But because you and supporters of the baby killer want the benefits she gives you, you band together to get heavy support for the ‘less dead babies’ candidate, refuse to take blame for the babies she runs down, then insist that because you’ve got stronger support for the ‘some baby killing’ instead of ‘no baby killing’ that ‘no baby killing’ is not an option.
No, you just got done saying that you’d vote for killing some babies, not to vote to save as many as you could because you could save them all.
Oh yes, because politicians really have a motive to change if you keep voting them into office.
Why are you changing the subject? The complaints about third party voters were just as shrill.
I don’t reanswer questions that I explicitly addressed in my first post in the thread.
There’s a certain irony here. No, actually, I’m not putting the baby-killing driver in the truck. If you insist on claiming something so entirely counterfactual, there’s nothing more to be said.