5 ms·

All 4 presidents had violent conflicts in the middle east, and Iraq in particular. In fact, the "WMD" stuff started with Clinton (though not nukes). I'm no whe

by larrik 7y ago

All 4 presidents had violent conflicts in the middle east, and Iraq in particular. In fact, the "WMD" stuff started with Clinton (though not nukes). I'm no where near a Trump supporter, and I'm very disappointed with the Democratic party seeming to fail in being able beat him in elections. Of course, I've only ever voted third party presidential candidates.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
If you talk about Saddam's WMDs ... yes, he actually used those before. It's kind of ironic that he later didn't have any. Yes, the democratic party hasn't been able to win against Trump in a presidential election since 2016. Can't be because there wasn't one, can it? On the other hand, Democrats wiped the floor in any other elections meanwhile. Biggest losses in GOP history. Huge increases in voter turnout. If that doesn't count, what else would count? And if you vote for third party candidates, you are part of the problem, not the solution. If you didn't want Trump you should have voted for Clinton, from a rational point of view. If you don't like Clinton you should examine why. In my opinion, the hatred against Clinton has more to do with the GOP campaign against her and general misogyny than anything she ever did wrong.
- larrik 7y ago
  My state was going Clinton regardless of how I voted, so the only meaningful vote I had was for a 3rd party (which can lead to them getting funding).
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    That kind of thinking was what lost Clinton the election, even if maybe in your particular case it didn't matter as much. Overall, the absolute number of voters is a political argument, so even those votes count.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      No, that's not what lost Clinton the election. Calling much of the country "a basket of deplorables". Years of scandals (yes, Trump had them, too, but Clinton's were more public). The definite impression that she thought she was entitled to the presidency. The campaign she ran, where she just assumed that she would win certain states. The way she assumed that she would have the blue-collar vote, and therefore didn't have to do anything to earn it. Those things cost her the election.
      - bayesian_horse 7y ago
        In reality, she had more votes than Trump. In reality, the third-party voters would have been more than enough to give her the victory. In reality, there were no real scandals about Hillary Clinton. Most have been disproven. Unlike multiple incidents of criminal behavior on Trumps' part that were known even before the election. Trump needed a lot of unexpected factors to eek out a very narrow win. He couldn't have won without any of those factors: Cheating about the hush money (committing actual crimes), Comey's breaking of DOJ rules and all of Russia's efforts. None of those factors, except the Russian influence, will repeat this year. The voter turnout - before the pandemic - was on track to be setting records. The enthusiasm on the Democratic side has mopped the floor with GOP seats in most elections since 2016. Trump needs a bigger miracle than last time to get reelected. For example Covid-19, by depressing voter turnout or (god beware) disabling his opponent.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > In reality, she had more votes than Trump. In reality, that's completely irrelevant, since that's not how we do presidential elections. It's like saying that one team had more yards than another in a football game, or more hits in a baseball game. It doesn't matter whatsoever. > In reality, the third-party voters would have been more than enough to give her the victory. Sure, if they had all voted for Clinton. They didn't, though. Why not? I can tell you why I voted third-party: Because I couldn't stomach voting for Trump, and I couldn't stomach voting for Clinton. If all those third-party voters had voted for Trump, we might not have had to listen to three years of people whining about the popular vote. But those people didn't vote for Trump, and they didn't vote for Clinton. Counting them all as voting for Clinton if they just hadn't voted third-party seems rather presumptuous, just as counting them all as voting for Trump would be.

by larrik 7y ago

bayesian_horse 7y ago

If you talk about Saddam's WMDs ... yes, he actually used those before. It's kind of ironic that he later didn't have any. Yes, the democratic party hasn't been able to win against Trump in a presidential election since 2016. Can't be because there wasn't one, can it? On the other hand, Democrats wiped the floor in any other elections meanwhile. Biggest losses in GOP history. Huge increases in voter turnout. If that doesn't count, what else would count? And if you vote for third party candidates, you are part of the problem, not the solution. If you didn't want Trump you should have voted for Clinton, from a rational point of view. If you don't like Clinton you should examine why. In my opinion, the hatred against Clinton has more to do with the GOP campaign against her and general misogyny than anything she ever did wrong.

larrik 7y ago
My state was going Clinton regardless of how I voted, so the only meaningful vote I had was for a 3rd party (which can lead to them getting funding).
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  That kind of thinking was what lost Clinton the election, even if maybe in your particular case it didn't matter as much. Overall, the absolute number of voters is a political argument, so even those votes count.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    No, that's not what lost Clinton the election. Calling much of the country "a basket of deplorables". Years of scandals (yes, Trump had them, too, but Clinton's were more public). The definite impression that she thought she was entitled to the presidency. The campaign she ran, where she just assumed that she would win certain states. The way she assumed that she would have the blue-collar vote, and therefore didn't have to do anything to earn it. Those things cost her the election.
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      In reality, she had more votes than Trump. In reality, the third-party voters would have been more than enough to give her the victory. In reality, there were no real scandals about Hillary Clinton. Most have been disproven. Unlike multiple incidents of criminal behavior on Trumps' part that were known even before the election. Trump needed a lot of unexpected factors to eek out a very narrow win. He couldn't have won without any of those factors: Cheating about the hush money (committing actual crimes), Comey's breaking of DOJ rules and all of Russia's efforts. None of those factors, except the Russian influence, will repeat this year. The voter turnout - before the pandemic - was on track to be setting records. The enthusiasm on the Democratic side has mopped the floor with GOP seats in most elections since 2016. Trump needs a bigger miracle than last time to get reelected. For example Covid-19, by depressing voter turnout or (god beware) disabling his opponent.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > In reality, she had more votes than Trump. In reality, that's completely irrelevant, since that's not how we do presidential elections. It's like saying that one team had more yards than another in a football game, or more hits in a baseball game. It doesn't matter whatsoever. > In reality, the third-party voters would have been more than enough to give her the victory. Sure, if they had all voted for Clinton. They didn't, though. Why not? I can tell you why I voted third-party: Because I couldn't stomach voting for Trump, and I couldn't stomach voting for Clinton. If all those third-party voters had voted for Trump, we might not have had to listen to three years of people whining about the popular vote. But those people didn't vote for Trump, and they didn't vote for Clinton. Counting them all as voting for Clinton if they just hadn't voted third-party seems rather presumptuous, just as counting them all as voting for Trump would be.