4 ms·

> The argument stays at the high level of "how could you vote for someone who said that", "he is a monster", etc. It is "I don't want to listen". >> And what T

> The argument stays at the high level of "how could you vote for someone who said that", "he is a monster", etc. It is "I don't want to listen". >> And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being. And Clinton is not a liar, not a tech illiterate, not arrogant, and not disgusting human being? On misogyny - she has never attacked a woman's character before? Bias, bias, bias, and bias. > People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to. Do you believe you are rationale. Everyone is saying that you lost the election because you didn't listen. This has real consequences. ACA will be repealed. Etc. Etc. And you still have the attitude of: "I don't want to listen". All I can say is thank you - because now it doesn't matter anymore.

joshvm 10y ago
You can argue that a lot of people (Democrats included) didn't want to vote for Clinton either. By that argument you're justifying both candidates' character flaws by saying "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK".
- shawabawa3 10y ago
  > "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK" That is perfectly logical in a 2 (effectively) candidate election
- masondixon 10y ago
  I wasn't agreeing with the claims against Trump. I think they are wrong. I was commenting on the fact that you can find arguments for all those claims for Clinton. Which cancels out the argument - and requires each claim to be taken by itself without supporting evidence and reasoned arguments. The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Except they're a classic smokescreen - every time one is refuted (and they all are, through expensive pointless investigation) another is invented to fill airtime.
    - masondixon 10y ago
      This is where I disagree. There are so many analagous examples for Clinton its not funny. This election I really saw the "liberal media" that everyone always talks about. Clinton had such a history that it made it clear as day. "Super predators", Jewish slurs, all the emails, Hillary's treatment of women after Bill's affairs, etc, etc. Look at the NYTimes front pages during the election.
  - mch82 10y ago
    What I don't understand is that you're telling us how you feel bullied by the libs using generalities, and in doing that you're labeling me a "lib" and doing so in a way that comes across as talking down to me. I'm not defending the behavior of Democratic Party supporters, but can you recognize the hypocrisy in your behavior just now?
    - masondixon 10y ago
      Racist is an attribute of a group. Libs is the name of a group. I think its different. I am not using libs as a derogatory term. Liberals vs conservatives. Left vs right. I think the division is pretty clear. I absolutely don't mean to come across talking down to you :)
      - mch82 10y ago
        On the internet, without body language, it's hard to read tone of delivery. Thanks for the note back, and cool :-)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - 10y ago
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > justifying both candidates' character flaws > so that makes it OK How? This is your interpretation. If you have a choice of two, you must pick one. You have to weight up the options. choosing one doesn't automatically mean endorsing it as the post possible choice, but just the better of the given options.
  - joshvm 10y ago
    No, you don't. Most democratic voting systems allow abstention for precisely this reason. In the UK you're allowed to 'spoil' your ballot paper so that it's deemed invalid. If done properly then abstention is a perfectly valid alternative to not voting at all, because your vote means it's more difficult for the parties to obtain a majority. If you don't vote then (ideally) you have no effect on the numbers. Whether this is how the US system works, I don't know, hence the ideally.

joshvm 10y ago

You can argue that a lot of people (Democrats included) didn't want to vote for Clinton either. By that argument you're justifying both candidates' character flaws by saying "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK".

shawabawa3 10y ago
> "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK" That is perfectly logical in a 2 (effectively) candidate election
masondixon 10y ago
I wasn't agreeing with the claims against Trump. I think they are wrong. I was commenting on the fact that you can find arguments for all those claims for Clinton. Which cancels out the argument - and requires each claim to be taken by itself without supporting evidence and reasoned arguments. The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Except they're a classic smokescreen - every time one is refuted (and they all are, through expensive pointless investigation) another is invented to fill airtime.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    This is where I disagree. There are so many analagous examples for Clinton its not funny. This election I really saw the "liberal media" that everyone always talks about. Clinton had such a history that it made it clear as day. "Super predators", Jewish slurs, all the emails, Hillary's treatment of women after Bill's affairs, etc, etc. Look at the NYTimes front pages during the election.
- mch82 10y ago
  What I don't understand is that you're telling us how you feel bullied by the libs using generalities, and in doing that you're labeling me a "lib" and doing so in a way that comes across as talking down to me. I'm not defending the behavior of Democratic Party supporters, but can you recognize the hypocrisy in your behavior just now?
  - masondixon 10y ago
    Racist is an attribute of a group. Libs is the name of a group. I think its different. I am not using libs as a derogatory term. Liberals vs conservatives. Left vs right. I think the division is pretty clear. I absolutely don't mean to come across talking down to you :)
    - mch82 10y ago
      On the internet, without body language, it's hard to read tone of delivery. Thanks for the note back, and cool :-)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 10y ago
Chris2048 10y ago
> justifying both candidates' character flaws > so that makes it OK How? This is your interpretation. If you have a choice of two, you must pick one. You have to weight up the options. choosing one doesn't automatically mean endorsing it as the post possible choice, but just the better of the given options.
- joshvm 10y ago
  No, you don't. Most democratic voting systems allow abstention for precisely this reason. In the UK you're allowed to 'spoil' your ballot paper so that it's deemed invalid. If done properly then abstention is a perfectly valid alternative to not voting at all, because your vote means it's more difficult for the parties to obtain a majority. If you don't vote then (ideally) you have no effect on the numbers. Whether this is how the US system works, I don't know, hence the ideally.