The Blame Game

[LordKiran]

You proved my point, you are denying that voters can make bad choices. You are not only denying that political foundations can be wrong,

WTF are you talking about. Wrong based on what political philosophy. A choice that would be wrong for a socialist system can be correct for a capitalist system and vice-versa. There are many more political philosophies than the particular one you hold and what would be right someone holding one of them would be wrong for you (and vice-versa).

you are likewise denying that voters can make a self-defeating choice for their political goals.

Not denying it at all. In fact, I have pointed out that the Democrat party nominating Clinton was a poor choice for their political goals as evidenced by the fact that the choice put the Democrat party out of power.

I mean you could argue they're wrong based on what their desired outcome is. If the outcome they want was the return of the manufacturing base to the rust belt and for the swamp to be drained, or for Hillary to be imprisoned, and for their lives to be noticeably improved, then there's an argument to be made that their choice wasn't the right one, but then who else could they have voted for that was promising those same things?

 

[skepticalbip]

It is expected that people would be upset if their chosen candidate loses. However, it is arrogance, intolerance, and disdain that would lead someone to blame the loss on the ignorance of the opposition. Their candidate lost because they didn't appeal to the concerns of the voters. A loss should call for reexamining one's own beliefs and the candidate they offered.

The political foundations of others being different only means they are different. The intolerance of other political thought and animosity toward those who disagree reminds me of the mentality that lead to the conflict in the Balkans.

But what if the way that they are different is "they are more ignorant than I am"?

Tom Sawyered again.

 

[blastula]

You proved my point, you are denying that voters can make bad choices. You are not only denying that political foundations can be wrong,

WTF are you talking about. Wrong based on what political philosophy. A choice that would be wrong for a socialist system can be correct for a capitalist system and vice-versa. There are many more political philosophies than the particular one you hold and what would be right someone holding one of them would be wrong for you (and vice-versa).

Yes, this is my point again. You are claiming every political position is equally valid.

you are likewise denying that voters can make a self-defeating choice for their political goals.

Not denying it at all. In fact, I have pointed out that the Democrat party nominating Clinton was a poor choice for their political goals as evidenced by the fact that the choice put the Democrat party out of power.

I get it now. Democrats were stupid, but it's arrogant to call Trump voters stupid.

 

[skepticalbip]

WTF are you talking about. Wrong based on what political philosophy. A choice that would be wrong for a socialist system can be correct for a capitalist system and vice-versa. There are many more political philosophies than the particular one you hold and what would be right someone holding one of them would be wrong for you (and vice-versa).

Yes, this is my point again. You are claiming every political position is equally valid.

you are likewise denying that voters can make a self-defeating choice for their political goals.

Not denying it at all. In fact, I have pointed out that the Democrat party nominating Clinton was a poor choice for their political goals as evidenced by the fact that the choice put the Democrat party out of power.

I get it now. Democrats were stupid, but it's arrogant to call Trump voters stupid.

Where the fuck did you see the word, "stupid"? You really do seem to find it impossible to discuss anything political without resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than reasoned discussion.

Do you disagree that the Democrats could have won with a better choice of candidates? That being the case then the selection of Clinton as the candidate was a bad choice made by the Democrats - unless they intended to loose.

 

[blastula]

Where the fuck did you see the word, "stupid"?

"A poor choice" is here effectively the same as saying stupid choice. Get a dictionary.

But it shouldn't matter to you what word is used to signify criticism of the choice because you have been arguing Trump voters shouldn't be criticized at all for their choice.

You really do seem to find it impossible to discuss anything political without resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than reasoned discussion.

I do like reason, that's why I haven't use an ad hominem to justify any argument.

"Democrats were stupid, but it's arrogant to call Trump voters stupid" is not an ad hominem on anybody. It's a rephrasing of your argument.

Do you disagree that the Democrats could have won with a better choice of candidates?

If you are only talking about the nomination, then it could have been a bad choice as to winning the general, but we can never know the contrafactuals. And if you think the only right choice for a primary voter is one that would win the general, then you are being inconsistent about your previous appeal to respecting someone's "political foundations." This would qualify as showing "intolerance," going by your prior remarks. It would also imply intolerance of all voters for third party candidates.

That being the case then the selection of Clinton as the candidate was a bad choice made by the Democrats - unless they intended to loose.

It could be true both that Clinton was a weak candidate as far as chances of winning and that Trump voters made the wrong choice. The former doesn't negate the latter.

 

[bilby]

Even though voter participation is not why Trump was elected, but the founding father's stop gap measure against weak presidents was.

The facts don't line up with your views.

Actually they do, but as you suggested, grasping the limits of democracy is something that requires serious consideration, and I have not had the time for a detailed response today.

I plan to post my complete position on this topic tomorrow, if I have the opportunity. It's likely a thread all of its own, and I would welcome your participation, once I have the chance to set out my position in more detail.

New thread is here: http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?9761-Limits-of-democracy&p=351599&viewfull=1#post351599

 

[skepticalbip]

"A poor choice" is here effectively the same as saying stupid choice. Get a dictionary.

But it shouldn't matter to you what word is used to signify criticism of the choice because you have been arguing Trump voters shouldn't be criticized at all for their choice.

You really do seem to find it impossible to discuss anything political without resorting to ad hominem attacks rather than reasoned discussion.

I do like reason, that's why I haven't use an ad hominem to justify any argument.

"Democrats were stupid, but it's arrogant to call Trump voters stupid" is not an ad hominem on anybody. It's a rephrasing of your argument.

Do you disagree that the Democrats could have won with a better choice of candidates?

If you are only talking about the nomination, then it could have been a bad choice as to winning the general, but we can never know the contrafactuals. And if you think the only right choice for a primary voter is one that would win the general, then you are being inconsistent about your previous appeal to respecting someone's "political foundations." This would qualify as showing "intolerance," going by your prior remarks. It would also imply intolerance of all voters for third party candidates.

That being the case then the selection of Clinton as the candidate was a bad choice made by the Democrats - unless they intended to loose.

It could be true both that Clinton was a weak candidate as far as chances of winning and that Trump voters made the wrong choice. The former doesn't negate the latter.

You seem to live in your own world. "Bad choice" does not mean "stupid". Einstein often made bad choices. Stupid means unintelligent, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse, doltish, etc. None of those could be applied to Einstein even if he happened to disagree with you politically. Stupid people can certainly make bad choices but just because someone makes a bad choice does not mean they are stupid. Seems that you need to learn some basic logic.

You can't say that Trump supporters made a bad choice until you can define (in their terms, not your terms projected on them) why they supported him. From what I can determine, the majority of Republicans, Independents, and yes some Democrats who supported Trump, did so as a big "FUCK YOU" to the establishment political order (calls to drain the swamp). This they did in spades. The Bush machine and the GOP hierarchy as well as the Clinton machine and DNC hierarchy were big losers. There will almost certainly have to be some major political realignment if any of these want any future say in the governance of the country.

Personally I used Gary Johnson to express my "fuck you". Maybe I should have used Trump but then my one vote would have gone even more unnoticed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hillary Clinton lost because people don't like her.
She is mediocre campaigner who had to follow two really good campaigners, her husband and Barack Obama. And they just made her look worse than she was.
She was put in the position of having to campaign by a political party with its head so far up its ass that it couldn't see the citizenry just the lamb roast it had for dinner.

AND ALL of this happened in a liberal bubble that was bound to pop and did.

People don't like her because the Republicans have thrown so much mud that many voters didn't see that it wasn't sticking.