A challenge for people who refused to vote for trump OR Hillary

[Craig234]

Who is actually worse is debatable but I prefer to vote who I want, not against one monster by voting for a different monster....

If it's debatable, you should try debating it which is exactly what the OP demanded. I originally wrote how people who rejected both are clueless about the harm - not sure what happened to that comment - but you're proving it. Read the OP again (or first time?).

 

[katzgar]

At least you conceded the Senate argument. Good on you. I said Dems might have gotten the House, but prob. not. It would all depend on Obama's coalition turning out.

Don't try to conflate mid term numbers with general election numbers. We aren't falling for it.

he has serious memory issues

 

[Cancel 2018.1]

1. Removed the DACA Dreamer protections for people who were brought to the US as children and have long lived here, for protection from deportation to a country they don't know.

Very good. Forces a permanent solution rather than a temporary fix.
1 for Trump.

2. Fought against the climate, slavishly serving fossil fuel companies. The US is the only country in the world not in the Paris accords. Witch hunts were done in the government to find any scientists who had worked on climate change to get rid of them. The government has taken down any scientific information that shows the problem.

No brainer.
2 for Trump.

3. Appointed the worst cabinet and officials in history. People like Rick Perry to run the Department of Energy *he campaigned on wanting to abolish* that controls all the nuclear weapons. People like Betsy De Voss to run the Department of Education, when she is the nation's leading enemy of public education, fighting a fundamentalist religious desire to replace public education with for-profit and as much as possible religious education, brother to Blackwater founder Eric Prince.

Rex Tillerson is Sect. of State. DeVoss is pro charter schools. If you're against charter schools you're a blatant racist.
Besides Dept. of Educ. should be abolished anyway.
3 for Trump

4. Appointing radical right-wing judges to all the open seats, from names provided by the Federalist Society, including Neil Gorsuch, with an agenda to let the wealthy have unlimited power to control the political system, and to take power away from the people and weaken democracy, paving the way to destroying it.

Best appointee since Roberts.
4

5. Ordered that transgender members of the military not be allowed to serve.

non issue
still 4

6. Hugely escalated the deportations that were already high under Obama, to deport many people who have year often for decades, law-abiding other than immigration status, to the point of people avoiding courts, medical treatments, or shelters in natural disasters because of the threat of arrest.

Enforcing the law.
5

7. Fought for the repeal of the ACA, which would take healthcare from 25 million Americans; remove the requirement to insure people with pre-existing conditions; allow 'junk insurance' and remove many requirements for quality care.

That should count for double.
6

8. Fought for the worst bill in decades, the tax scam bill, which would even further increase inequality already at record levels by shifting trillions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare, education and more for the public to tax cuts for the rich and big corporations.

Too complicated for me to understand it.
I'll pass judgement on that one.

9. Bolstered anti-democratic authoritarianism domestically and globally. He can't say enough good about every dictator in the world who isn't his enemy (and he can't even help himself then, saying recently he and the North Korean dictator could be friends), such as the Philippines dictator who has killed thousands of people, some personally, and the dictator of Turkey, whose security forces beat American protesters in Washington, D. C. And, the pardon of racist abuser Joe Arpaio.

This has led to the US hitting new lows in how it is viewed globally. For example, a survey of global expatriates found that the US has drooped in their ranking where they'd like to live from #5 in 2014 to #43 in 2017.

I wish we had dropped to last.
7

10. Tried to undo the deal with Iran to prevent their obtaining nuclear weapons, slavishly supporting the Saudi and Israeli policies against Shiite Muslim countries like Iran.

8

Note I didn't include everything from his history of sexual assault to thousands of lies to the Russian and other organized crime issue and so much more that is less

Noted.


Trump 8 positives
hrc 0

I'm convinced. I wasted my vote on Johnson and should've voted for Trump.

 

[Craig234]

At least you conceded the Senate argument. Good on you. I said Dems might have gotten the House, but prob. not. It would all depend on Obama's coalition turning out.

Don't try to conflate mid term numbers with general election numbers. We aren't falling for it.

At least you conceded the House claim. Good on you. I did bundle in the Senate and as a result understated the Democrats more than 'little' but still improbable odds for the Senate.

Republicans have Gerrymandered so badly, that if electors were assigned by districts as Republicans want, Romney would have won in 2012. I did not conflate the numbers - look at the 2012 election and 1000 state seats in recent years.

 

[Althea]

At least you conceded the House claim. Good on you. I did bundle in the Senate and as a result understated the Democrats more than 'little' but still improbable odds for the Senate.

I conceded nothing. We picked up House seats, in a year when it could have been taken if Bernie were the candidate. That's not even up for debate.

Republicans have Gerrymandered so badly, that if electors were assigned by districts as Republicans want, Romney would have won in 2012. I did not conflate the numbers - look at the 2012 election and 1000 state seats in recent years.

Redistricting is a huge problem. Which is why Dems had better have a new look for 2020, or it will only get worse.

 

[Craig234]

I conceded nothing. We picked up House seats, in a year when it could have been taken if Bernie were the candidate. That's not even up for debate.

Redistricting is a huge problem. Which is why Dems had better have a new look for 2020, or it will only get worse.

Funny, I 'conceded nothing' either. And it's not only open for debate, you have not done well in the debate on it.

Ya, with Democrats losing 1000 state seats AFTER the terrible 2010 Gerrymandering and Republicans controlling something like 34 state governments entirely, it's one of Democrats' biggest 2020 issues.

 

[Flash]

So you have zero answer to the OP - as I've said, you are responsible for all these things that are worse about trump and clueless that you are.

The question is based on the false premise that voting for Trump or Hillary instead of third party would have affected the election results. If a person lives in a heavily red or blue state his vote would not have changed that state from giving all its electoral votes to the popular vote winner of that state. On the other hand, in many states a party must get a certain percent of the vote to qualify for the ballot in the next election. So voting for a third party helps it to qualify its candidates in 2018.

 

[Craig234]

The question is based on the false premise that voting for Trump or Hillary instead of third party would have affected the election results. If a person lives in a heavily red or blue state his vote would not have changed that state from giving all its electoral votes to the popular vote winner of that state. On the other hand, in many states a party must get a certain percent of the vote to qualify for the ballot in the next election. So voting for a third party helps it to qualify its candidates in 2018.

No, it's not. First, it's a question of principle. Second, it's directed *to people who claim that the reason for not voting for either was that they're both too bad to vote for*, not because they knew their vote wouldn't matter.

If they want to argue that the benefit of 'helping the third party qualify next election', they're welcome to make that argument, explaining how that outweighs the OP issues.

 

[Flash]

No, it's not. First, it's a question of principle. Second, it's directed *to people who claim that the reason for not voting for either was that they're both too bad to vote for*, not because they knew their vote wouldn't matter.

If they want to argue that the benefit of 'helping the third party qualify next election', they're welcome to make that argument, explaining how that outweighs the OP issues.

One reason many people chose to vote 3rd party was because they believed both Clinton and Trump were both too bad to vote for. Those that did vote for Trump or Hillary simply believed their choice was the lesser of two evils.

If Sanders had been the nominee the Democrats would have still lost the House, Senate, and the presidency. Sanders would get less votes than Clinton.

Concerning the climate change issue the Trump administration recently released a report claiming they could find no alternatives to climate change other than human contributions.

 

[CFM]

I'll list ten things trump is doing Hillary clearly wouldn't have that are harmful.

You list the worst ten things you can reliably say Hillary would have done if elected - be specific - and say how harmful they would have been. Compare which is worse.

1. Removed the DACA Dreamer protections for people who were brought to the US as children and have long lived here, for protection from deportation to a country they don't know.

2. Fought against the climate, slavishly serving fossil fuel companies. The US is the only country in the world not in the Paris accords. Witch hunts were done in the government to find any scientists who had worked on climate change to get rid of them. The government has taken down any scientific information that shows the problem.

3. Appointed the worst cabinet and officials in history. People like Rick Perry to run the Department of Energy *he campaigned on wanting to abolish* that controls all the nuclear weapons. People like Betsy De Voss to run the Department of Education, when she is the nation's leading enemy of public education, fighting a fundamentalist religious desire to replace public education with for-profit and as much as possible religious education, brother to Blackwater founder Eric Prince.

4. Appointing radical right-wing judges to all the open seats, from names provided by the Federalist Society, including Neil Gorsuch, with an agenda to let the wealthy have unlimited power to control the political system, and to take power away from the people and weaken democracy, paving the way to destroying it.

5. Ordered that transgender members of the military not be allowed to serve.

6. Hugely escalated the deportations that were already high under Obama, to deport many people who have year often for decades, law-abiding other than immigration status, to the point of people avoiding courts, medical treatments, or shelters in natural disasters because of the threat of arrest.

7. Fought for the repeal of the ACA, which would take healthcare from 25 million Americans; remove the requirement to insure people with pre-existing conditions; allow 'junk insurance' and remove many requirements for quality care.

8. Fought for the worst bill in decades, the tax scam bill, which would even further increase inequality already at record levels by shifting trillions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare, education and more for the public to tax cuts for the rich and big corporations.

9. Bolstered anti-democratic authoritarianism domestically and globally. He can't say enough good about every dictator in the world who isn't his enemy (and he can't even help himself then, saying recently he and the North Korean dictator could be friends), such as the Philippines dictator who has killed thousands of people, some personally, and the dictator of Turkey, whose security forces beat American protesters in Washington, D. C. And, the pardon of racist abuser Joe Arpaio.

This has led to the US hitting new lows in how it is viewed globally. For example, a survey of global expatriates found that the US has drooped in their ranking where they'd like to live from #5 in 2014 to #43 in 2017.

10. Tried to undo the deal with Iran to prevent their obtaining nuclear weapons, slavishly supporting the Saudi and Israeli policies against Shiite Muslim countries like Iran.

This is just from what he's already done in less than a year - such as killing more civilians with relaxed rules on drone use in less than a years than Obama killed in 8 years.

Note I didn't include everything from his history of sexual assault to thousands of lies to the Russian and other organized crime issue and so much more that is less

1) If they're illegal, they don't belong here no matter how they got here. If the children of a bank robber had the mother their parent stole, should they get to keep it because it was given to them as children and they've long been in possession of it?

2) Why do you expect people to follow a hoax? If you believe CO2 emissions are a problem, voluntarily stop breathing and emitting it and prove you truly believe what you say.

3) You not liking who they are or what they do doesn't make them bad choices. Funny how you lefties equate something you don't like with something that is bad.

4) Nothing radical about appointing judges that will uphold the Constitution unlike those you'd support reading into the Constitution what you want it to say.

5) We don't need mentally ill people in the military. Aren't you lefties the ones that say guns shouldn't be in the hands of the mentally ill?

6) If they shouldn't be here due to immigration status, they should have already been gone. It's never to late to do the right thing by getting them out now. If they're here illegally, they have consistently been committing a crime every day they're here that they shouldn't be here.

7) Why shouldn't something that should never have been passed be repealed and correct the mistake? How many of those 25 million received a subsidy funded by taxpayers to provide them with something they should be providing themselves with their own money? If you care as much as you pretend you care for them, pay their premiums yourself. They're not the responsibility of the taxpayers to fund.

8) When the half that pay no income taxes now start paying their fair share, get back to me about those of us already paying doing more. The they pay other taxes excuse is bullshit. Don't waste your time trying that one.

9) Tell that shit to Obama who went on an apology tour sucking the dicks and kissing the ass of every leader he met.

10) The deal with Iran was illegal and didn't do a damn thing to prevent what you said Obama's bullshit would do. Keep kissing his black ass.

 

[CFM]

One reason many people chose to vote 3rd party was because they believed both Clinton and Trump were both too bad to vote for. Those that did vote for Trump or Hillary simply believed their choice was the lesser of two evils.

If Sanders had been the nominee the Democrats would have still lost the House, Senate, and the presidency. Sanders would get less votes than Clinton.

Concerning the climate change issue the Trump administration recently released a report claiming they could find no alternatives to climate change other than human contributions.

I understand the 3rd party voter mindset. What none of them has ever explained is why they think doing so is going to prevent either one of the two they believe are too bad from getting elected.

Don't assume those that all those that voted for Trump or Hillary did so because of the lesser of two evil belief.

 

[CFM]

No, it's not. First, it's a question of principle. Second, it's directed *to people who claim that the reason for not voting for either was that they're both too bad to vote for*, not because they knew their vote wouldn't matter.

If they want to argue that the benefit of 'helping the third party qualify next election', they're welcome to make that argument, explaining how that outweighs the OP issues.

If that's what they call a principle, their principle is faulty, at best.

 

[CFM]

I conceded nothing. We picked up House seats, in a year when it could have been taken if Bernie were the candidate. That's not even up for debate.

Redistricting is a huge problem. Which is why Dems had better have a new look for 2020, or it will only get worse.

You seem to have forgotten all the House seats, and others in the over 1000 total Democrats lost during Obama's 8 years. That's not picking up, that's lessening an extremely large loss. Once you've recouped all of the seats lost, then it's picking up.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'll list ten things trump is doing Hillary clearly wouldn't have that are harmful.

what a joke post. it assumes that hillary would have done nothing harmful when had she been elected, this list could be twice as long with her damaging policies

 

[Flash]

I understand the 3rd party voter mindset. What none of them has ever explained is why they think doing so is going to prevent either one of the two they believe are too bad from getting elected.

Don't assume those that all those that voted for Trump or Hillary did so because of the lesser of two evil belief.

They don't explain why their 3rd party vote would prevent Hillary or Trump from getting elected because they don't believe it would. They vote 3rd party because (1) they favor one of the 3rd party candidates or parties (2) out of principle they can't vote for Hillary or Trump; (3) some believe if a 3rd party gets enough votes one of the other parties will try to attract those voters by adopting some of their platform; (4) I am sure there are other reasons but these are three I can think of; none of which assumes their vote was preventing Clinton or Trump from winning.

 

[Craig234]

They don't explain why their 3rd party vote would prevent Hillary or Trump from getting elected because they don't believe it would. They vote 3rd party because (1) they favor one of the 3rd party candidates or parties (2) out of principle they can't vote for Hillary or Trump; (3) some believe if a 3rd party gets enough votes one of the other parties will try to attract those voters by adopting some of their platform; (4) I am sure there are other reasons but these are three I can think of; none of which assumes their vote was preventing Clinton or Trump from winning.

Yet any of those reasons leave them obligated to justify why they're worth the price I listed some of in the OP. Favoring a third party candidate with no chance to win isn't worth the price. The word 'principle' would better fit not allowing the harm than helping to
cause it. And while your third reason is a valid reason, it's a very expensive price to pay and not justifiable. They can fight for third parties to be more viable, but until they are, there are two choices as I discussed. Notice no one has answered the challenge.

 

[CFM]

They don't explain why their 3rd party vote would prevent Hillary or Trump from getting elected because they don't believe it would. They vote 3rd party because (1) they favor one of the 3rd party candidates or parties (2) out of principle they can't vote for Hillary or Trump; (3) some believe if a 3rd party gets enough votes one of the other parties will try to attract those voters by adopting some of their platform; (4) I am sure there are other reasons but these are three I can think of; none of which assumes their vote was preventing Clinton or Trump from winning.

Then their principles are lacking at best.

 

[Flash]

Then their principles are lacking at best.

Not if their principles keep them from voting for Trump or Clinton. Or, if the Green or Libertarian parties represent a person's principles more than Democrats or Republicans, they are adhering to their principles by voting for that party.

 

[Flash]

Yet any of those reasons leave them obligated to justify why they're worth the price I listed some of in the OP. Favoring a third party candidate with no chance to win isn't worth the price. The word 'principle' would better fit not allowing the harm than helping to
cause it. And while your third reason is a valid reason, it's a very expensive price to pay and not justifiable. They can fight for third parties to be more viable, but until they are, there are two choices as I discussed. Notice no one has answered the challenge.

Assume a person voted third party because they can't stomach Trump or Clinton. But, that person favors stricter immigration enforcement, tax cuts, reduced government regulation, and other things Trump favors. To that voter, Trump winning comes closer to some of the policies they favor than had Clinton won.

I have heard people argue that with a Republican Congress Clinton could pass little of her platform and even with a Republican Congress Trump is not going to get most of his proposals passed. Therefore, government would accomplish little under either president which is preferable to any of the policies either proposed.

I think this thread is more of an argument that you think Clinton's policies are preferable to those of Trump, not whether 3rd party voters can justify their votes. Some posters did answer your challenge about the ten issues, you just do not agree with their policy choices.

 

[CFM]

Not if their principles keep them from voting for Trump or Clinton. Or, if the Green or Libertarian parties represent a person's principles more than Democrats or Republicans, they are adhering to their principles by voting for that party.

That sounds like a football team sticking to their game plan of a running game despite it not working just so they can claim they stuck to their "principles".