When Secretary Clinton is elected President, barring more shenanigans on the part of Republicans like James Comey, she will take an oath of office, promising to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Then, within a few days, she'll violate that oath by appointing one or more Republicans to important positions in the Federal Government.
(As an aside, I'm wondering, what is the mechanism for paying someone like James Comey for giving a helping hand to his party and violating his constitutional oath? Offshore accounts? Do the payments come later? How does that work? I know how they do it on TV, but how do they do it in real life? But I digress...)
Every now and then, in every Democratic administration, a couple of Republicans are asked to serve. This is a thing both parties do at about equal levels. But what does not appear to be equal is the probability, increasing in recent years, that the cross party appointment will lead to either embarrassment, or serve to plant a time bomb of some sort. A cross party appointee messing with Democracy, or simply screwing up, seems to be more of a Republican thing than a Democratic things. (Though I'm sure there are a few counter examples.) Often, the Republican turns around at some point and sticks it to the Democrats. Sometimes it is just a personal attack that happens after they serve, other times it is a criminal act they carry out while still in their position.
James Comey is an example of this.
There are three truths that must be understood, and I hope Hillary Clinton understands and acts on these truths. But I doubt she will, because she she is a olde timey Democrat, bless her heart, and will likely carry on the tradition of bending over for the Republicans. But, since she should understand this more than anyone, ever, perhaps she will act differently.
Here are the truths:
1) Republicans are, in fact, very bad at certain things, especially national defense and crime. We are faced as a nation with huge problems in both of these areas, and if Secretary Clinton is elected to be President, she will be spending much of her administration dealing with these things. This includes the hatred of America engendered by protracted Republican wars, and the fact that our society is a prison state, and a police state, and other effects of the Patriot Act. These are mostly Republican-caused problems, and where Democrats were involved, they were Blue Dogs or cow towed.
2) Democrats are actually very good at doing these things, at dealing with defense and criminal justice. If Democrats keep putting their token Republicans in those areas, that will simply reinforce the utter falsehood that Democrats are lousy on crime and lousy on defense. This has to stop.
3) Republicans can not be trusted to govern, under any circumstances, in any role, at any level of government, ever. The fundamental philosophy of Republicans is that nothing matters, no ethical considerations or legal restrictions, as long as one ultimately votes against women's health, for voter suppression, and in favor of unfettered gun ownership and use. Everything else, all other issues, are secondary. Therefore, when a Democratic president puts a Republican in any position of responsibility, knowing this, a deeply cynical and irresponsible act has occurred. The Republican will, eventually, violate the constitution.
To Republicans, the collective rights of all Americans make up the very pavement over which the bus of the Second Amendment, a Religious Republic, and a Police State roll. We don't get thrown under the bus. We are expected to reside there, under the bus. Their bus.
Dear Secretary Clinton: After you take your oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, don't violate that oath right away by appointing any Republicans to any positions of authority of any kind whatsoever. Please.
There are Republicans who have served in Democratic administrations with honor and dignity, people like Jim Leach. But they are old, they are retired, they represent the GOP before the Republican Revolution. And the good they've done is not unique. Those positions could have been covered by Democrats. The Petraeus scandal, Bernanke's sexism vis-a-vis the $10 bill, Chuck Hagel's controversy, Bob Gate's book, all serve as warnings.
But at this state, appointing a Republican to an important position within a Democratic administration carries sufficient risk of unconstitutional behavior that the act of appointment itself should be considered a violation of the oath.
- Log in to post comments
Or, in other words, the GOP in its present form is a violation of the US Const. This has been thinly veiled for years.
No explanation above on who James Comey is or was, but I assume it is an evil person.
Judging by some internet venues there are still some liberals and progressives who are hoping Clinton is a secret liberal and that she will Do The Right Thing after being elected., Heh. This odd behavior might explain why liberals have not had any political power in the USA since the 1960s.
As for Clinton and USA Constitution, when she still had Senator Sanders to worry about she told voters that she hates being given hundreds of millions of dollars by corporations and that she wants to prevent corporations from funding her (and everyone else) in the future. She said she has "put Wall Street on notice" (her words) that she will no longer tolerate receiving millions and millions of dollars from them for political favors. A few of the exceptionally stupid people in the audience cheered her for saying this.
And the alternative is.. Trump.
'nuff said. Vote Clinton.
"When Secretary Clinton is elected President, barring more shenanigans on the part of Republicans like James Comey, she will take an oath of office, promising to protect and defend the Constituent of the United States of America."
Where can I get a copy of the Constituent?
It is an abridged version of the Constitution.
Here's a question:
Given Hilary gets elected. Then the FBI investigation into her breaches of national security ramps up a notch when it is able to prove she lied to them during that investigation.
Breaching national security is bad enough, but lying to the FBI is also criminal.
So say Hilary gets convicted of various crimes.
I assume this means she loses her job?
What happens next? Does the job go to her running mate? Is there a re-election? Or does Trump get the job?
At that point Obama issues a full pardon to HRC, allowing her to take office with no stain or complications. (Those come after January, when the rethuglicans in Congress gang up on her.)
Wouldn't Obama be out of the picture by the time the slow-turning wheels of justice see Hilary convicted of whatever it is?
For the purpose of my hypothetical, what happens if a president is found guilty of criminal acts - do they have to be impeached, or is there some other mechanism that moves them aside?
Bear in mind the Russians have access to all sorts of hacked stuff we haven't seen yet..
I'm trying to figure out what their plan might be, given it's fairly clear they are putting in a fair bit of effort into getting Trump elected, and it seems reasonably likely that he won't win.
He might be; if this occurred before the third week of January, he could pardon her. Otherwise, after taking office, they would have to impeach her.
This scenario has already played out in U.S. politics, in the early 1970's when Nixon was facing impeachment proceedings for illegal wiretapping (Watergate, the giver of the "-gate" scandal meme).
However, Nixon "cheated the hangman", so to speak, by resigning before he would face the humiliation of impeachment. One of the first things Gerald Ford did upon taking office (after Spiro Agnew also resigned, giving the White House to the Speaker of the House) was to pardon Nixon. (I think Agnew went to prison...)
So, in that scenario, Clinton could resign, then President Tim Kaine would pardon her.
Craig, you need to look up impeachment. I'm thinking you assume it is a synonym for removal from office, because that seems to be how you are using it. It isn't.
Cool. As the Russian and the US governments become more tightly integrated, "auditing" each other's IT assets and sharing expert politicos like Putin and Trump , we can look forward to a tidy economic boost as duplications are eliminated and our respective administrations are able to focus more on their proven areas of expertise. The futures market is already seeing substantial gains in hacking, posturing and sabre-rattling, and there's nowhere to go but up! Arms manufacturers are optimistic.
I was hoping for a broader and more democratic World Government, but this will have to do for the time being.
One problem still looms, though, GregH:
You get to help fund it for them. Now get to work and start making some money for them!
October 30, 2016
No explanation above on who James Comey is or was, but I assume it is an evil person."
Comey is the Director of the FBI, a lifelong devout Republican he was appointed by Obama (why, who knows) and as of this weekend is most likely in violation of the Hatch Act as he released a letter to the GOP Senate leaders that had nothing in it but suppositions regarding some emails found on former Congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, whom she is/was married to. The FBI were searching his laptop for evidence of sexting (for which he is infamous) with an underage (15 yo) girl.. Abedin had used that laptop on occasion so all her personal and work emails were on it (probably using Outlook and an Exchange mail server) More details at http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/clinton-aide-didn-t-delete-old-emails-1.313… - it is more than apparent at this ppoint he released a nothing letter making unproven accusations by inference was nothing more than a political move to affect the election. The best part this weekend though was this from Harry Roid - http://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Letter-to-Directo…
Harry Reid's letter is biting — biting, I say!
If Comey has been sitting on information damaging to Trump, whether on ties to the Russians or anything else, I think that would more than cancel out any negative effect of last week's disclosure on Clinton.
Doug Alder. Thank you; good bloody gods! I avoid political news, which I suppose is not civic minded of me.
A few minutes ago I Googled " James Comey." I am dismayed at the articles I read--- as if the USA's problem with democracy wasn't bad enough, we apparently now have a major law enforcement officer lying for our benefit. My ignorant, uninformed "take" on it is that James Comey believes lying is justified for the good of the USA because citizens must be protected from politicians he disapproves of. That is, James Comey dislikes Clinton therefore all citizens would if only they were as intelligent as he is.
Brainstorms @ # 11: ... after Spiro Agnew also resigned, giving the White House to the Speaker of the House...
It didn't quite play out that way. Agnew was forced from office (as a plea deal for crimes committed while Governor of Maryland) first. Nixon (recognizing an experienced* and reliable cover-up-after-the-fact-accomplice) then nominated Gerald Ford to replace Agnew, and Ford was duly approved by the Senate as VP before Nixon took his dive.
*See: Warren Commission. Yes, I said that.
Indeed, that's how it it played out. Forgive my 43-year-old memory... I was still too young at the time to pay much attention to national politics. (And too busy today to have bothered to look it up.)
Approved by the Senate and House.
He might be; if this occurred before the third week of January, he could pardon her. Otherwise, after taking office, they would have to impeach her."
You would assume the Russians have gamed this, and they are usually pretty sharp with their active measures operations - of which this US Presidential Election is obviously a target - so they won't be doing whatever is the least disruptive option.
So they will wait until the end of Jan.
I'm not sure releasing whatever it takes to prove she lied to the FBI would be enough.
Whether they have a killer blow prepared or not, they will surely spend several months paralyzing the US (thanks to their useful idiots in the Republican Party and friendly media) with a constant drip-feed of Clinton scandal.
Either way, knee-jerk partisan defensiveness in favour of Clinton is Denial, pure and simple. She is clearly a massive liability.
Tim Kaine seems like a good bloke. Is he dodgy in any way?
A productive scenario for the USA might be if Clinton wins then resigns (does it work this way?) and lets him see if he can get the US political class to get down to doing something productive for a change.
I think the Russians — and Trump — are going to have some trouble getting this election to come out the way they supposedly want.
No, Tim Kaine is not dodgy, though he has quite a bit less experience where it counts than does Clinton. However, he's not nominated for President, only VIce-President. So, he's not an option to Clinton.
Your scenario of Clinton winning, then resigning would give the presidency to Kaine. However, there's nothing that says that Clinton wouldn't be working to do something productive.
The big question in this election is whether or not the Senate will be retaken by the Democrats and help provide Clinton/Kaine with the support needed to achieve these productive things.
Christopher - the problem is, those kinds of smears only bother the good guys. People like Trump just ignore it and his supporters Deny Deny Deny...
Brainstorms - the way I see it, there is virtually no possibility of Clinton doing anything productive with this Russian-led drip-feed of crud which the media are only too happy to sensationalise.
Craig, somebody needs to tell you that you are being delusional and playing right into the hands of the Kremlin. In fact, you are saying things that make you indistinguishable from a Russian agent.
Are you or are you not the Manchurian Commenter?
Evidently you are sure there is nothing real behind these stories of a Trump-Russia connection — i.e. they are just "smears."
You seem equally sure that Hillary Clinton is responsible for "breaches of national security."
Are you just using words carelessly?
I'm not using the word "smear" in any sense except the sense that it is information that makes somebody look bad.
"Evidently" I haven't said anything about my confidence level in the correctness of the information we have about Trump's alignment with Putin.
All I'm saying is he doesn't care what people say about him - and the media know it, hence their luke-warm approach to sensationalising Trump's association with the Kremlin.
Clinton on the other hand clearly does value her reputation, and the media therefore are milking it for what it's worth - thus playing right into the hands of the Kremlin.
I see a lot of Denial here as to Clinton's breaches of national security and her lies to the FBI. Very interesting. More self-awareness please.
Craig, you write as though you believe that HRC is the only person in the U.S. Government who has ever carelessly handled classified documents (correcting your accusation of "breach of national security", which the FBI absolved her). Or that she's the first politician in the history of America who has ever lied to the FBI. In the words of our younger generation, "Get real..."
I'll match 10... no, 100 lies that Trump has proffered for every lie of Hillary's. And for each breach of procedure and rules on HRC's part, you'll have several cases where Trump has broken state and federal laws, cheated business associates, used unethical legal tactics, evaded taxes, ... Don't get me started on his flagrant, almost constant hypocrisy.
If you're down on Hillary, tell us -- and I've already asked this before -- WHO do you think we should be voting for, if not Hillary Clinton??
I don't see Craig saying many of the words put in his mouth here - most recently, he has not suggested that we should not vote for Clinton. He has only pointed out the fact that Clinton is a flawed candidate. A better candidate would not be neck and neck with an object like Trump at this point.
I have pointed out (elsewhere) that Clinton is a flawed candidate. I have admitted that she lied to the FBI.
But I have seen no confirmation of the Clinton "breaches of national security" that Craig has mentioned at least three times. Such a breach of national security would be unauthorized persons getting access to classified information either because Clinton intentionally delivered it to them, or because she (or people managing her server) failed to properly protect it.
If there were evidence of that having happened, Comey's July press conference would have gone very differently — as would subsequent events.
As for the word "smear," the way I've seen it used is to mean information that falsely makes someone look bad.
Granted. In fact, he sounds an awful lot like 'Wow'.
I'm still waiting to hear from either of them how this helps, fixes, improves, restores, remedies, or otherwise solves any problems related to our election and the choices we have to make.
Do you have something constructive to add, or do you just like to hear yourself complain about things everyone is already very well aware of?
For starters, given that he didn't (at least initially) get why Comey's actions were highly questionable, I would guess that Craig is forming overly strong opinions based on light weight, BAU, he-said-she-said reportage.
It's one thing to opine that there is denial here, but as for the rest of it, he needs to do a much better job of backing up his assertions.
Sorry, was everyone else already very well aware that certain people in this discussion were deploying a whole field of straw men? Some people have a limited knowledge of logic.
Right now, unless we want America as we know it to be finished, we have to vote for Clinton. I for one am happier doing that after the debates, despite my continued loathing of her neocon, imperialist foreign policy and banksters-first economic policy. Her performance was superb.
However, in future elections - which it is worth thinking about - our problems might be lessened if Democrats do not allow the party bosses to hand-pick a member of the elite with known ethical problems and high negative ratings among the working class. I said a year ago that if they ended up running against a fascist, they'd rather have a real populist than a BAU elitist trying hard to sound populist. The GOP will also be looking at what happens. If Trump had lost big, they just might have said that a populist candidate who was not a white supremacist would have had a better chance. It now looks like if Trump loses it will be by a nose, and they are more likely to say that a white supremacist candidate who wasn't a cognitively impaired fraudster would have had a better chance. If the Dems just have more-of-the-same to run against him, things will get ugly.
One of the things that Craig was conflating was exactly this issue of "how should we pick candidates to run in future elections" with "how should we decide between HRC & DT in this election".
We can't be wasting attention debating whether or not Hillary is a good candidate to nominate for Nov 8th when it's already water under the bridge. Yes, Craig makes good points about choosing candidates that are upstanding, etc., but we're already past the phase of choosing nominees.
Craig's issues should be trotted out 3 years from now, or a year ago. But not now...
"A better candidate would not be neck and neck with an object like Trump at this point."
And that's kind of the point - why hobble yourself with a Clinton, thus giving a Trump a chance?
"But I have seen no confirmation of the Clinton “breaches of national security” that Craig has mentioned at least three times."
Well, you might need to move out of whichever echo chamber you're in and look into it. If I did what she did, I wouldn't just lose my job, i would be spending big on a lawyer to keep me out of jail.
"Such a breach of national security would be unauthorized persons getting access to classified information"
No, that isn't any breach I'm aware of - quite a strangely obvious little strawman there....it would indicate you *are* in fact aware of how she has breached both the conditions of being awarded a clearance as well as the conditions of access to specified sources of information.
Here's a big hint: cut-and-pasting chunks of text out of a classified electronic document into an email you are sending using a non-government, non-classified email service is a breach of both of those. Her extensive misbehaviour in that regard is then compounded by her lying to the FBI as to her understanding of the purpose of classification and the process of handling classified materials.
And then there are the umpteen government-issue Blackberries used to access classified information and which she is unable to account for.... (She went through 19 of them, from memory).
Christopher is in some kind of Denial over this, clearly.
"how should we decide between HRC & DT in this election”. "
I should hope that's not even something we would need to discuss.
"We can’t be wasting attention debating whether or not Hillary is a good candidate to nominate for Nov 8th when it’s already water under the bridge. Yes, Craig makes good points about choosing candidates that are upstanding, etc., but we’re already past the phase of choosing nominees."
I have two problems with this:
1. I don't believe in shutting up when an obvious wrong is being perpetrated, and the best time to discuss it is while the wrong is in progress.
2. Several commenters here clearly believe that the ends mustify the means: Clinton is not a maniac like Trump, therefore we are all entitled to lie about her and with her, because it's all in a good cause. The slippery slope starts *right* there.
Put up or shut up time, Craig...
Now that you've insisted there's a problem with voting for Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, you're obligated to inform us how we should mark our ballots.
Hurry up! Some of us have mail-in ballots and we must get them posted in time...
What's your answer? You keep dodging the question you've raised... Why is that, Craig?
Craig Thomas #35,
I am still at a loss as to what criminal statute you are referencing.
Instead of being coy, why don't you man up and support your legal opinion with some facts?
As to "lying to the FBI about 'understanding' " something-- that's such a gray area that any prosecution would be seen as politically motivated, kind of like all the double-standard Clinton Witch-hunts we've seen over the years. Even when Bill actually did lie about his idiotic behavior, he ended up leaving office as the most popular President since Truman.
"end justifies the means"
No. Republicans' constant gas lighting is an example of the ends justifying the means.
We are faced with a poor choice. But the truth is we are all flawed to one degree or another. That is true of all candidates as well. In some sense we are always making the best of a less than ideal situation, and the fact is at we could do a lot worse than Clinton.
Understand that there is reason to believe that Trump is an *existential threat*. You are in essence, at this point in the game (i.e. NOW, of all times!) advocating that we turn it all over to Trump-- and on the basis of flimsy accusations at that.
Craig - I objected to people putting pro-Trump words in your mouth that you had not said, but indeed, they are right to say that eventually you do have to decide which of these imperfect candidates to vote for. Sloppy handling of sensitive information is fairly common among politicians, and backroom pay-for-play almost ubiquitous. I cannot think of a recent administration that was not infested with cronyism and leaks, yet the republic did not collapse. Just this week, while supposedly being kept on message, Trump started attacking and whipping up his mob against a specific female reporter who had dared to cover him. Do you not think that what such a man could do as president might make ordinary corruption look like the good old days?
We ARE talking about the narcissistic mental case of a human being who asked three times in his national security briefing this summer "We have nukes.. Can't we use them?" and who wants to give other countries nukes, too.
4 minutes. No recall. "Pre-emptive strike against the U.S.", anyone??
Oh, and Craig, while they're pre-emptively striking the U.S., they'll also be nuking the allies of the U.S. that are known to have nukes, too.
That would be, um,.. your country. "How SAD."
In case it wasn't semi-clear, it wasn't my intent to put words in Craig's mouth, merely to point out (since he's oddly and adamantly silent about actual voting) the de facto effect of not voting for Clinton, for whom a vote seems to be anathema to Craig... Semi-clear, maybe sort of?
No, they aren't.
If nobody votes for Trump and 80% of democrat voters don't turn out to vote at all because it's Hilary, then Hilary *still wins*.
Hell, if it's only 20% turnout altogether, maybe the political class will do something about it and start doing what voters want, not what donors will pay for.
But not voting is not a vote for Trump. Not at all.
Hell, if you want to claim so, then those not voting for Hilary can just say they're not voting for Trump, which CLEARLY means that this will give Hilary the win, right?
"“We have nukes.. Can’t we use them?” and who wants to give other countries nukes, too."
The president does not fire the nukes. He gives permission to fire. All the way down to the firing officer, each level of control can say that such orders are not legitimate, being illegal orders against the morals of the serviceman being ordered.
WWII was supposed to have put to bed the "I was just following orders", but recent bull(shit)ish US militarisation has pretty much put that excuse back in the picture.
It's not just Trump putting the USA back to 1930s Germany. And not just the right, either, the left have been either too chicken or in agreement with the reinstatement of "I was just following orders".
But then again, you basically don't HAVE a left.
1.) You are obviously oblivious to U.S election history.
2.) You are obviously oblivious to U.S. voter mentality.
3.) Your assertion is irrelevant to this election.
4.) You don't seem to get this, even as it's been brought to your attention multiple times. That self-righteous ideology of yours is blinding you...
You have failed to make an argument that these orders would not be followed. Many of those in Germany knew that gassing Jews was immoral and illegal, but the orders were carried out.
Ergo, the POTUS, who is the military's Commander-in-Chief, does fire the nukes, at his sole discretion.
"" He has only pointed out the fact that Clinton is a flawed candidate."
Granted. In fact, he sounds an awful lot like ‘Wow’. "
Granted, but that doesn't indicate any actual logical problem with the statement.
Clinton IS a flawed candidate. She's not listening to the voters, but the donors. This is not a situation that allows a democracy to exist, only plutocracy or facism.
Because what happened to progressives in the USA after Barak won was every time he made a bad decision (to the political opinions of the progressives and left wing), they were howled down with "Well, you voted for him too!" and "Yeah, but Shrub was WORSE!".
Hell, Sadam was ousted despite there being a worse person in charge of North Korea. Come to think of it, the leading house of Saud is worse than Sadam, but you protect them.
Maybe every time you whinge to Russia, Putin should just say "Well, there's others out there worse!". They shot a UN convoy? "We thought they were ISIS troops from our intel. This is just collateral damage". You know, just like we do, and then insist this makes everything just fine.
Clinton is flawed.
In your opinion, not flawed enough to not vote for.
For Obstreperous, not QUITE flawed enough not to vote for, but only because of how much MORE flawed Trump is.
For Desertphile, too flawed to vote for, which DOES NOT make Trump votable for by Desertphile.
It doesn't matter if I sound like Trump who says Clinton is flawed, this IS NOT and NEVER WILL BE proof Clinton is not flawed.
And each voter gets to decide whether the flaws are enough not to vote for a candidate.
If Clinton wants to win, she should start damn well listening to the voters, especially those in the left and progressive wings who are complaining about her and try to make her a valid candidate to vote for with them, not just whinge that some medically insane nutbar might get in if she doesn't get their vote.
You know, EARN the goddamned vote, not hold the country to ransom to blackmail you for it.
I think it's called "Democracy".
Wow - No, you don't HAVE to vote if you have a choice of two lousy candidates. However, if you lived in Germany in the early 30s and the choices were Hitler and whoever he was running against, no matter what you thought of the latter guy it would have been smart to get out and vote for him. I wouldn't have said there was such an affirmative duty to vote for Al Gore over Cheney/Bush, say. There is lousy, and then there is nation-destroying.
Brainstorms, on the other hand, makes a comment implying that Craig lives outside the U.S.. If Craig is not a U.S. citizen or never plans to be a resident again, he either cannot vote or has the luxury of not voting without worrying whether someday his grandchildren will ask him why he didn't do anything to stop Trump. Or worrying whether he'll wind up in a Trump concentration camp. The rest of us don't have that luxury.
"Wow – No, you don’t HAVE to vote if you have a choice of two lousy candidates. "
Then why did you claim otherwise? Or were your word choices inexact?
"they are right to say that eventually you do have to decide which of these imperfect candidates to vote for."
excludes a third option: neither.
Stand by your words or stop complaining when your error is pointed out.
"You have failed to make an argument that these orders would not be followed"
You have failed to make the argument that these orders would be forthcoming.You predict they COULD be. That's all.
If you want evidence that these orders might not be followed, watch "Schindler's List".
"" if it’s only 20% turnout altogether, maybe the political class will do something about it and start doing what voters want"
1.) You are obviously oblivious to U.S election history."
Proclamation without evidence or reason can be ignored. Try harder next time.
"2.) You are obviously oblivious to U.S. voter mentality."
You are oblivious to any idea other than your own. It's called "projection". Please try to think that others do not think the way you do.
"3.) Your assertion is irrelevant to this election."
Look up what the "conditional if" means in conversation.
"4.) You don’t seem to get this,"
Which "this"? You don't seem to be able to say what "this" is.
"That self-righteous ideology of yours is blinding you…"
Ah, that's right. The FIRST and PRIMARY indication of self-righteousness is to defend others who wish to make a decision other than what I would make.
It's only the self-effacing who keep trying to make people scared to act differently from "the right people" with their "right ideas".
Oh, hang on, no, that's the opposite of reality.
Let's get real here, it's a tight race.
Anything that diminishes Clinton at the polls helps Trump. (Note the enthusiasm gap.)
As for the rest of the blethering about how many flaws can dance on the head of a pin or whatever... stop pretending it's anything more than an expression of disgust (aren't we all, suck it up) backed up by motivated reasoning.
You can make your choice, just don't expect everyone to tell you it's wonderful.
As for Craig, he may be outside the U.S., but the challenge posed to him was to make a recommendation.
"Anything that diminishes Clinton at the polls helps Trump."
Only if they were otherwise voting for Clinton.
You're confusing "No longer voting for Hilary" with "Never was going to vote for Hilary".
Then again, anything that diminishes Trump helps Clinton.
Saying that clinton is crap and trump worse HELPS CLINTON.
And saying they're both as bad as each other HELPS NEITHER.
If Hilary wins with a lower turnout, she still wins. If Trump loses with a lower turnout, she still wins. If the turnout is higher, this still doesn't change anything.
"stop pretending it’s anything more than an expression of disgust (aren’t we all, suck it up) backed up by motivated reasoning."
I'm sorry, what is insufficient as a reason not to vote for hilary than disgust with her???
"You can make your choice, just don’t expect everyone to tell you it’s wonderful. "
I don't expect anyone to tell me it's wonderful.
What I DO expect is you to stop telling everyone it's going to make trump win when it doesn't.
"Now that you’ve insisted there’s a problem with voting for Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, you’re obligated to inform us how we should mark our ballots."
Lets say he says "Abstain". Will you do so? No. Will he insist you do? I don't know, but don't think so.
What craig is saying is that if you don't vote at all and make it loud and clear that NOBODY was worth your vote, then this doesn't fix THIS election, but gives a chance to fix the future ones.
And the reason why it wont fix THIS one is because you've spent a year blathering on how you HAD to vote Clinton because Trump and Bernie would be bad.
Not why you should vote for Clinton, why you shouldn't vote for someone else.
If I step in dogshit, I think to myself "I shouldn't have done that, I should be looking where I'm going" but this doesn't make the dogshit disappear. However, ignoring the dogshit and not worrying about it because you had to put your foot down SOMEWHERE just means you're going to tread in some other pile of poo. And complaining that saying "Look where you're going next time" isn't cleaning your dogshit off isn't going to either make the dogshit disappear or help you avoid it next time.
Here's an excerpt from an NBC news story dated 6 July 2016:
Note how the word "breach" is used here, and especially the statement "The FBI did not uncover a breach..."
If you want to use words in non-standard ways, that's your lookout. But you should be aware that's what you're doing.
Again, note the enthusiasm gap.
Too much cute arguing by analogy going on.
Heh heh! Wow, if you will look in the dictionary, "have to" has multiple connotations, and saying "which of these imperfect candidates to vote for" does not specify the top two. In fact, if you read carefully you would have noticed that this could include voting for the third-party candidates, both of whom are plainly underqualified, or Evan McMullin where he is on the ballot. However, I will opine that it is both immoral and foolish to sit on your lazy ass and refuse to vote at all when presented with an election that, if it goes wrong, just might be the last free election your nation in its current form ever sees. None of the candidates may be precisely what you would wish for; boo hoo, welcome to real life. Pick the least worst and go vote. If you don't participate, you deserve whatever others choose in your stead.
"Again, note the enthusiasm gap."
Maybe Hilary should have been listening to voters before, then. Or, at the very least, spouting out empty promises that *sound like* listening to the voters like Trump does.
Hilary is going to go, as Obama did before, for The Change We Think We Can Get Away With Without Angering The Right Wing or Investing Powers. And, if EVER criticised, will shout down the critics with "But the other side is WOOOOOOORRRSSE!!"
Is there any surprise, really, that when voting for the Democrat puts the Republicans in charge anyway, AND gets you pilloried and demeaned unless you smile and say happy thoughts, the left really can't be arsed to turn out and vote for your democratic candidate?
If Kasich (spelling?), for example, were the candidate, the left might as well vote for him, since the republicans would be calling the shots anyhow, so why pretend?
And when the choice is *Trump*, and that badly shaved orangutan with a gigantic shredded wheat on his head is voted for by a similarly large proportion as are happy voting for Clinton, why pretend that voting matters for them?
But by being clear on this, maybe the parties will frigging LISTEN in future. MAYBE they'll change and actually be worth voting for. Because until that happens, possibly half of the democratic voting party block have no reason to bother.
"Heh heh! Wow, if you will look in the dictionary, “have to” has multiple connotations, and saying “which of these imperfect candidates to vote for” does not specify the top two."
And not specifying the top two does not assert that there are more options.
Please look up the meaning of the words "context" and "meaning" and while you're at it "weasel words" and "backpedal".
You're dreaming. That might be a semi-valid argument in another election. One where MAYBE we will eventually agree that maybe we can all join hands in a field of posies and sing in perfect harmony and drink Coca Cola.
But your sheltered, hypothetical view apparently can't accommodate how dire the situation is. And no, I'm not saying this one election will fix the problem--or even that elections by themselves fix problems. What happens afterwards matters. But this is *now*.
You like analogies, so I'll give you one: You have two groups of people pushing a giant wheel (representing our democracy, and climate change...) through mud. One group is pushing it into a shallow ditch and the other is on the verge of pushing it over a cliff. The people trying to keep it from going over the cliff are calling you to help.
Your response is, "Wah, you're yelling at me. Wah, you can't make me! Wah, it's muddy. I might get my new pretty pink shoes dirty! Wah, my mind is too beautiful for this! Wah, you won't listen to me; you don't get it! Wah, the wheel won't go over the cliff because magic. Wah!"
Don't forget "Wah! You're trying to push it into a ditch, when you should be pushing it onto a road. Since you're not doing the most ideal thing, I won't help you! You're all wrong! Your system is bad! Wah!"
Wow. Just Wow.
" “But by being clear on this, maybe the parties will frigging LISTEN in future. MAYBE they’ll change and actually be worth voting for. Because until that happens, possibly half of the democratic voting party block have no reason to bother.”"
And you're standing knee deep in dogshit looking for the next pile to step in, because your shoes are already mucky.
No, I'm not dreaming, you're just lazy.
No votes, no power for politicians. No power for them, nothing to leverage.
"Don’t forget “Wah! You’re trying to push it into a ditch, when you should be pushing it onto a road. Since you’re not doing the most ideal thing, I won’t help you! You’re all wrong! Your system is bad! Wah!”"
That IS a good way to describe you two.
Instead of trying to pull out, youre insisting we should just keep pushing, since it's downhill that way.
"Instead of trying to pull out, youre insisting we should just keep pushing, since it’s downhill that way."
No. Not at all what I said. You really don't understand analogies. There's no road, no downhill in this analogy-- not because it's imperfect in that regard, but because that is the situation I'm conveying to you. I know this, because that's how it was presented.
The analogy is a part of the whole comment, btw. It sounds to me as though you don't care if the wheel goes off the cliff. Maybe that'll teach the stupid world for not being perfect! Is that it?
I'll point out, in case it wasn't clear, this is about taking into account the reality of group dynamics.
And I'll also point out that not voting for them is generally taken by politicians not as a rebuke, but as a reason to ignore you.
Wow's view on life, as established by his reaction to OA's analogy:
When reality isn't what you wish it to be, and you don't want to deal with it as it is, simply redefine reality to your liking and deal with that instead.
Does this sound eerily familiar??? Wow. Just Wow.
@Brainstorms: "Wow’s view on life, as established by his reaction to OA’s analogy: When reality isn’t what you wish it to be, and you don’t want to deal with it as it is, simply redefine reality to your liking and deal with that instead. Does this sound eerily familiar??? Wow. Just Wow."
The scary part is that research suggests that spooky, frightening ability is common to all humans.
Some times I lay awake at night dreading the thought that I might believe something.
Desertphile, that brings up a good question: If you're of the political persuasion that anyone talking sense to you is out to get you, how do you determine if you've had a psychotic break from reality?
What if you're of the political persuasion that you don't care?
(I've had conversations with those types lately. They're convincing that they really prefer their made-up reality.)
"“Wow’s view on life, as established by his reaction to OA’s analogy: "
You mean "As I (brainstorms) interpret it".
"“Instead of trying to pull out, youre insisting we should just keep pushing, since it’s downhill that way.”
No. Not at all what I said."
Yes, you meant that it was anyone not voting Hilary or criticising hilary was bad because we may be fooked, but we only have a choice of bad and worse, and that we were currently in this state so we cannot change anything because that's just not going to happen.
You know, the same sort of reasoning in that analogy: pushing the car deeper into the ditch because, well, it's downhill that way, and the car is already in the ditch.
Quite why you thought I needed to know that wasn't what you meant when I started off with a pretty clear indication that it would analogise elsewhere than your original intent is entirely hidden from view.
Brainstorms' view of life: if you're in the cack, instead of trying to get out of it, just dig deeper and insist that even trying to stop this is just plain wrong, because.
"And I’ll also point out that not voting for them is generally taken by politicians not as a rebuke, but as a reason to ignore you."
And I'll point out to you that not voting *AND TELLING THEM WHY* is very VERY different from just not voting, and the only reason to keep quiet about your reasons are people like yourself who screech and yell people to STOP CRITICISING OUR CANDIDATE!!!!!
Now why are you insisting that saying why you won't vote for Clinton is a bad thing, when you know that just keeping quiet about your reasons is a very bad thing?
"Desertphile, that brings up a good question: If you’re of the political persuasion that anyone talking sense to you is out to get you"
You mean like when you tell others that if they don't get out and cote, then Trump will win, and this will be bad for everyone? Maybe you don't see this and hence aren't aware of the hypocrisy?