Trump just won

[Deepak]

I don't think land crabs from Sweden will have much bearing on US elections. It strikes me as curious, though, how much PC snowflake status the alt-right reserve for themselves - surely being able to call people retards should be top line on the agenda...

ha ha... Did I hurt your feelings? Trump spewed racist nonsense non-stop. Like a child he just said whatever popped into his mind. Anxious to get love from his fans he desperately said stuff they seemed to want to hear. Of course, all bullshit. He demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't understand how democracy works. And he obviously had no inclination nor ability to do any of the stuff he said he was going to do. If a voter doesn't understand that then yes... retardation is the name for it.

The only thing (of all the things he said he would do) he has political power to do anything about is repeal Obamacare. It doesn't look like he's going to do that. So yeah... it's going to be a long and embarrassing four years. I have no doubt he'll get reelected. No, doubt by the same idiots who voted for him the first time.

Not sure if you quoted the wrong post here, but if you think not I'd recommend rereading it as well as what I was replying to.

 

[DrZoidberg]

ha ha... Did I hurt your feelings? Trump spewed racist nonsense non-stop. Like a child he just said whatever popped into his mind. Anxious to get love from his fans he desperately said stuff they seemed to want to hear. Of course, all bullshit. He demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't understand how democracy works. And he obviously had no inclination nor ability to do any of the stuff he said he was going to do. If a voter doesn't understand that then yes... retardation is the name for it.

The only thing (of all the things he said he would do) he has political power to do anything about is repeal Obamacare. It doesn't look like he's going to do that. So yeah... it's going to be a long and embarrassing four years. I have no doubt he'll get reelected. No, doubt by the same idiots who voted for him the first time.

Not sure if you quoted the wrong post here, but if you think not I'd recommend rereading it as well as what I was replying to.

Lol. Thanks. Yes, I could have read that more carefully

 

[jonatha]

By not voting for the other guy they're supporting Trump.

Indeed. I have reports of many 3rd party voters saying that their votes magically changed after they voted. Some of them, upon talking to Democrats, discovered that their votes magically changed into Trump votes, while other, upon talking to Republicans, discovered that their votes magically changed into Hillary votes.

We are experiencing supernatural forces at work here. The attempts by fundies to prove that God actually exists have finally been solved.

I blame quantum mechanics

 

[DrZoidberg]

By not voting for the other guy they're supporting Trump.

Indeed. I have reports of many 3rd party voters saying that their votes magically changed after they voted. Some of them, upon talking to Democrats, discovered that their votes magically changed into Trump votes, while other, upon talking to Republicans, discovered that their votes magically changed into Hillary votes.

We are experiencing supernatural forces at work here. The attempts by fundies to prove that God actually exists have finally been solved.

The American election is a choice between two candidates. You can pretend all you like that it isn't. That's not going to change facts. Voting on a third alternative (or not voting) is like voting for both just as much. You may not have voted for Trump on your ballot. But if you voted for a third alternative you helped him along a little bit. The question to ask yourself, if you voted for a third alternative is, do you think that both candidates are exactly as bad? Isn't it at all possible, in any way, to weigh one above another?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Indeed. I have reports of many 3rd party voters saying that their votes magically changed after they voted. Some of them, upon talking to Democrats, discovered that their votes magically changed into Trump votes, while other, upon talking to Republicans, discovered that their votes magically changed into Hillary votes.

We are experiencing supernatural forces at work here. The attempts by fundies to prove that God actually exists have finally been solved.

The American election is a choice between two candidates.

I saw five options on my ballot.

You can pretend all you like that it isn't.

My ballot, printed by the state of California, showed five. Is the sheet of paper pretending or is the state of California pretending? Was it the California Secretary of State pretending? Or someone under that office? Or even someone over that office? The ballot showed more than two options, so who was responsible for all the pretending that put all those additional options on the ballot?

The question to ask yourself, if you voted for a third alternative is, do you think that both candidates are exactly as bad? Isn't it at all possible, in any way, to weigh one above another?

In this case, yes I saw them as equally bad, both of them. That may sound strange to someone who actually thinks my vote magically turned into a Trump vote, but I saw them as equally bad and if there was no 3rd party option I wouldn't have voted at all.

 

[Ford]

The American election is a choice between two candidates.

I saw five options on my ballot.

And only two with a chance of winning.

My ballot, printed by the state of California, showed five.

And only two with a chance of winning.

Is the sheet of paper pretending or is the state of California pretending? Was it the California Secretary of State pretending?

You're pretending those three other choices had a chance.

When was the last time a 3rd party candidate had a chance? Ross Perot played spoiler, but didn't come anywhere near close to winning. John Anderson made a decent showing, but never had a chance to win.

That's because the process by which we choose candidates inherently favors binary contests. Other countries are set up to encourage multiple parties competing for power then forming ruling coalitions, but not the US. The two-party system goes back to the founding of the country. It is part of the fabric of our nation. There have been times when a new party comes along and wins, but every time an old party gets tossed aside. Just ask the Whigs.

Simply put, the only way a third party can win is to supplant one of the two major parties, becoming a major party themselves.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The American election is a choice between two candidates.

I saw five options on my ballot.

That's known as a magician's choice. Only two of them had a chance in hell of winning. Choice is about choosing between possible paths. Choosing an impossible path is choosing not to chose. There was only two of those options that were actual options. The rest of them weren't.

You can pretend all you like that it isn't.

My ballot, printed by the state of California, showed five. Is the sheet of paper pretending or is the state of California pretending? Was it the California Secretary of State pretending? Or someone under that office? Or even someone over that office? The ballot showed more than two options, so who was responsible for all the pretending that put all those additional options on the ballot?

You are pretending. You pretended that there were more than two real options. There weren't. There were only two options.

The question to ask yourself, if you voted for a third alternative is, do you think that both candidates are exactly as bad? Isn't it at all possible, in any way, to weigh one above another?

In this case, yes I saw them as equally bad, both of them. That may sound strange to someone who actually thinks my vote magically turned into a Trump vote, but I saw them as equally bad and if there was no 3rd party option I wouldn't have voted at all.

Well, congratulations. One of the candidates you supported won the election. Yes, you did support Trump. The maths isn't that hard.

 

[TSwizzle]

The American election is a choice between two candidates. You can pretend all you like that it isn't.

Even although there are other names on the ballot, in practical terms you are correct.

Voting on a third alternative (or not voting) is like voting for both just as much. You may not have voted for Trump on your ballot. But if you voted for a third alternative you helped him along a little bit. The question to ask yourself, if you voted for a third alternative is, do you think that both candidates are exactly as bad? Isn't it at all possible, in any way, to weigh one above another?

You have to keep in mind that in certain states, such as California where I live, it doesn't really matter. California is democrat through and through. I voted for the libertarian candidate. I view this as a protest vote or abstention but by no means was it a vote for Trump anymore than it was a vote for Clinton.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You are pretending. You pretended that there were more than two real options. There weren't. There were only two options.

But the ballot listed five. Therefore either the piece of paper was pretending, or the California Secretary of State was pretending.

Well, congratulations. One of the candidates you supported won the election.

No, Johnson only got about 3% nationwide and isn't likely to receive a single electoral vote.

Seriously, your strange insistence that by not voting for your candidate I am somehow voting for the other, that strange insistence translates into you personally thinking that Trump is legitimate, so it is more realistic to say a candidate you supported won the election.

You think there are only two choices, and everyone must pick one of the two. That means you think Trump is as valid as Hillary, an opinion I don't share. That makes you, to some small extent but more of an extent than me, a Trump supporter.

Yes, you did support Trump. The maths isn't that hard.

I have a degree in math, and have never come across a time when adding zero increased a sum.

 

[skepticalbip]

When was the last time a 3rd party candidate had a chance? Ross Perot played spoiler, but didn't come anywhere near close to winning. John Anderson made a decent showing, but never had a chance to win.

The last third party win that I can think of was Theodore Roosevelt running on the Bull Moose party ticket.

There have been times when a new party comes along and wins, but every time an old party gets tossed aside. Just ask the Whigs. .

And what is wrong with that. I wouldn't cry if the Libertarian party won and either the Democrat or Republican party vanished.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Even although there are other names on the ballot, in practical terms you are correct.

Voting on a third alternative (or not voting) is like voting for both just as much. You may not have voted for Trump on your ballot. But if you voted for a third alternative you helped him along a little bit. The question to ask yourself, if you voted for a third alternative is, do you think that both candidates are exactly as bad? Isn't it at all possible, in any way, to weigh one above another?

You have to keep in mind that in certain states, such as California where I live, it doesn't really matter. California is democrat through and through. I voted for the libertarian candidate. I view this as a protest vote or abstention but by no means was it a vote for Trump anymore than it was a vote for Clinton.

That's partly my point. There's a context. The context matters. Who do you think gives a fuck about your protest? Nobody, that's who. That was your private little protest in your head. I do the same thing. When I buy stamps, I refuse to buy stamps with the Swedish king on them. It's a protest. But it's a worthless protest.

BTW, USA has a very healthy democratic debating climate. But the interesting election (in a majority system) is the one within the two major parties. The congresses where they elect their representatives. That's where issues are discussed. The major election isn't anywhere near as interesting. It's pure theatre. Yes, it's a more important election. But it's not particularly enlightening. I don't think anybody learned anything about what any of the candidates platform was from the main event. If they cared they already knew at that point.

 

[dismal]

Wait, once he says he's in California shouldn't people be telling him there's only one candidate who has a practical chance of winning?

 

[TSwizzle]

Even although there are other names on the ballot, in practical terms you are correct.



You have to keep in mind that in certain states, such as California where I live, it doesn't really matter. California is democrat through and through. I voted for the libertarian candidate. I view this as a protest vote or abstention but by no means was it a vote for Trump anymore than it was a vote for Clinton.

Who do you think gives a fuck about your protest?

I never asked for a fuck to be given.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, once he says he's in California shouldn't people be telling him there's only one candidate who has a practical chance of winning?

Indeed.

 

[Ford]

The last third party win that I can think of was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 running on the Bull Moose party ticket.

Roosevelt defeated Taft quite handily, but Wilson won the White House.

There have been times when a new party comes along and wins, but every time an old party gets tossed aside. Just ask the Whigs. .

And what is wrong with that. I wouldn't cry if the Libertarian party won and either the Democrat or Republican party vanished.

Nothing wrong with one of the two major parties being supplanted, but I doubt it will be by the Libertarians. Or the Greens. A third party would have to scoop the middle out of the two main parties, not nibble at the edges.

 

[skepticalbip]

Roosevelt defeated Taft quite handily, but Wilson won the White House.

There have been times when a new party comes along and wins, but every time an old party gets tossed aside. Just ask the Whigs. .

And what is wrong with that. I wouldn't cry if the Libertarian party won and either the Democrat or Republican party vanished.

Nothing wrong with one of the two major parties being supplanted, but I doubt it will be by the Libertarians. Or the Greens. A third party would have to scoop the middle out of the two main parties, not nibble at the edges.

That is where the Libertarians are positioned. They are fiscally conservative (the supposed Republican foundation) and socially liberal (the get the fucking government out of my personal life of the Democrats).

 

[Elixir]

Roosevelt defeated Taft quite handily, but Wilson won the White House.

There have been times when a new party comes along and wins, but every time an old party gets tossed aside. Just ask the Whigs. .

And what is wrong with that. I wouldn't cry if the Libertarian party won and either the Democrat or Republican party vanished.

Nothing wrong with one of the two major parties being supplanted, but I doubt it will be by the Libertarians. Or the Greens. A third party would have to scoop the middle out of the two main parties, not nibble at the edges.

That is where the Libertarians are positioned. They are fiscally conservative (the supposed Republican foundation) and socially liberal (the get the fucking government out of my personal life of the Democrats).

At this point I'd join (almost) any party that truly embraced science. Denial and lip service don't cut it.

 

[Ford]

Roosevelt defeated Taft quite handily, but Wilson won the White House.

There have been times when a new party comes along and wins, but every time an old party gets tossed aside. Just ask the Whigs. .

And what is wrong with that. I wouldn't cry if the Libertarian party won and either the Democrat or Republican party vanished.

Nothing wrong with one of the two major parties being supplanted, but I doubt it will be by the Libertarians. Or the Greens. A third party would have to scoop the middle out of the two main parties, not nibble at the edges.

That is where the Libertarians are positioned. They are fiscally conservative (the supposed Republican foundation) and socially liberal (the get the fucking government out of my personal life of the Democrats).

I don't know that I'd characterize the Libertarians that way. If I remember correctly they're against social safety net programs, against government regulation of business, and generally opposed to the government doing anything but the bare minimum. They're not exactly in line with Democrats on those issues.

 

[skepticalbip]

Roosevelt defeated Taft quite handily, but Wilson won the White House.

There have been times when a new party comes along and wins, but every time an old party gets tossed aside. Just ask the Whigs. .

And what is wrong with that. I wouldn't cry if the Libertarian party won and either the Democrat or Republican party vanished.

Nothing wrong with one of the two major parties being supplanted, but I doubt it will be by the Libertarians. Or the Greens. A third party would have to scoop the middle out of the two main parties, not nibble at the edges.

That is where the Libertarians are positioned. They are fiscally conservative (the supposed Republican foundation) and socially liberal (the get the fucking government out of my personal life of the Democrats).

I don't know that I'd characterize the Libertarians that way. If I remember correctly they're against social safety net programs, against government regulation of business, and generally opposed to the government doing anything but the bare minimum. They're not exactly in line with Democrats on those issues.

There was no claim that they mirrored the Democrats. It is the heart of what Democrats think their party stands for that Libertarians embrace - the government not telling them what to do in their private lives. That, in Libertarian speak, is individual freedom.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Roosevelt defeated Taft quite handily, but Wilson won the White House.

There have been times when a new party comes along and wins, but every time an old party gets tossed aside. Just ask the Whigs. .

And what is wrong with that. I wouldn't cry if the Libertarian party won and either the Democrat or Republican party vanished.

Nothing wrong with one of the two major parties being supplanted, but I doubt it will be by the Libertarians. Or the Greens. A third party would have to scoop the middle out of the two main parties, not nibble at the edges.

That is where the Libertarians are positioned. They are fiscally conservative (the supposed Republican foundation) and socially liberal (the get the fucking government out of my personal life of the Democrats).

I don't know that I'd characterize the Libertarians that way. If I remember correctly they're against social safety net programs, against government regulation of business, and generally opposed to the government doing anything but the bare minimum. They're not exactly in line with Democrats on those issues.

Yeah, that's basically what he said. He said on economics the LP is where people imagine the RP to be, and on social issues the LP is where people imagine the DP to be. And when he points that out you say "they're nothing like the Democrats, since I'm only looking at economics exclusively."

Would you say that a party that shares the DP's economic platform but whose social program is 100% authoritarian supremacist for some group (take your pick) is exactly the same as the DP because they share the economics exclusively?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There was no claim that they mirrored the Democrats. It is the heart of what Democrats think their party stands for that Libertarians embrace - the government not telling them what to do in their private lives. That, in Libertarian speak, is individual freedom.

That's not the heart of what Democrats think their party stands for. It's one amongst a number of things, sure, but hardly the central thing. The heart of what the Democratic party stands for is that the government has a strong role to play in society in maintaining a social safety net, regulating businesses, ensuring fair and equal treatment of various groups, etc. The Libertarian philosophy is diametrically opposed to Democratic philosophy on pretty much all of the important issues.