5 ms·

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 fl

by 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]
- rootlocus 10y ago
  > I wasn't agreeing with the claims against Trump. What claims aren't you agreeing with? That he's a liar? That he's arrogant? That he's a misogynist? > The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber. Oh, you want libs to back up their claims? Have you seriously not seen Trump talk? OK, here goes: Liar: [1] Just one out of hundreds of examples. Just look at PolitiFact. Arrogant: [2] He considers his "tremendous success" a sacrifice comparable to a fallen soldier. Misogynst: [3] Saying to a reporter: "You wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful. It's very sad isn't it?" Disgusting: [2] Every link shows him saying everything. They're not claims, it's not text, it's recorded videos of him talking. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xpqD_SXy34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xpqD_SXy34 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_8dSiQBXog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_8dSiQBXog [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6FkCjIlAdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6FkCjIlAdM
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.

by joshvm 10y ago

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]
rootlocus 10y ago
> I wasn't agreeing with the claims against Trump. What claims aren't you agreeing with? That he's a liar? That he's arrogant? That he's a misogynist? > The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber. Oh, you want libs to back up their claims? Have you seriously not seen Trump talk? OK, here goes: Liar: [1] Just one out of hundreds of examples. Just look at PolitiFact. Arrogant: [2] He considers his "tremendous success" a sacrifice comparable to a fallen soldier. Misogynst: [3] Saying to a reporter: "You wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful. It's very sad isn't it?" Disgusting: [2] Every link shows him saying everything. They're not claims, it's not text, it's recorded videos of him talking. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xpqD_SXy34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xpqD_SXy34 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_8dSiQBXog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_8dSiQBXog [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6FkCjIlAdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6FkCjIlAdM

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.