Don't vote for Johnson because ISIS is Nader's fault
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:58:12 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Don't vote for Johnson because ISIS is Nader's fault
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Don't vote for Johnson because ISIS is Nader's fault  (Read 2489 times)
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 17, 2016, 09:05:11 AM »

link NewJersey.com, whatever the hell that is.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's pretty good, I like this one too
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
He can't think of any other reason the guy running as a Libertarian would be pro-pot?  That's like saying an 1846 Democrat from S.Carolina was pro-slavery just to get the white vote.

He then goes on to explain, like most pro-Hillary people do, how bad Trump is.  No selling of Hillary at all, just fearmongering (rightly no doubt) about Trump.  People that don't plan on voting for her or Trump are not going to change their mind because we were reminded again how sh**tty Trump is.  We don't care.  We think Clinton is just as bad or at least nearly as bad that it makes no stinking difference.  To paraphrase something I read recently..it's the GOP's fault Trump was nominated, it will be the Dems fault if he wins.  How the hell did we even get here?  This is Donald Trump we're talking about.  Hasn't he always been a joke?  Like since the early 80s?  Why...what?  It makes no freaking sense.

Both parties should be embarrassed by this entire fiasco, and they both will be in time.  The GOP before the Dems I predict.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2016, 09:39:51 AM »

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.
Logged
Enduro
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,073


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2016, 11:42:33 AM »

I don't like this guy.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2016, 11:49:45 AM »

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

Because, you know, Trump is totally going to win in California if I vote for Johnson.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2016, 01:59:59 PM »

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

Because, you know, Trump is totally going to win in California if I vote for Johnson.

He might if every person who didn't like Hillary but liked Drumpf even less chose to vote for Johnson while all the voters who didn't like Drumpf but liked Hillary even less still voted for Drumpf. Of course that's not actually gonna happen, but the mere theoretical possibility is troubling to me.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2016, 03:06:34 PM »

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

Because, you know, Trump is totally going to win in California if I vote for Johnson.

He might if every person who didn't like Hillary but liked Drumpf even less chose to vote for Johnson while all the voters who didn't like Drumpf but liked Hillary even less still voted for Drumpf. Of course that's not actually gonna happen, but the mere theoretical possibility is troubling to me.

The point is, if Trump winning California is within the realm of probability, he has already won the election because of votes in other states, so it won't matter at that point anyway.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2016, 03:09:20 PM »

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

Because, you know, Trump is totally going to win in California if I vote for Johnson.

He might if every person who didn't like Hillary but liked Drumpf even less chose to vote for Johnson while all the voters who didn't like Drumpf but liked Hillary even less still voted for Drumpf. Of course that's not actually gonna happen, but the mere theoretical possibility is troubling to me.

The point is, if Trump winning California is within the realm of probability, he has already won the election because of votes in other states, so it won't matter at that point anyway.

Ugh, I hate the Electoral College for making this inherently ridiculous logic actually make sense...
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2016, 03:48:21 PM »

The fact that people blame Nader for benefiting from Gore's horrendous campaign, boring personality, and total lack of accomplishment still confuses me.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2016, 03:33:05 AM »

The fact that people blame Nader for benefiting from Gore's horrendous campaign, boring personality, and total lack of accomplishment still confuses me.

Shouldn't it be Pat Buchanan's fault too? He was on the ballot and got some mistake votes because of the butterfly ballot. Hell, even the natural law party got more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore in FL. Using Sith logic anyone who does not vote straight ticket democrat is with the terriztz because something about republicans always being objectively more evil therefore always Democrat always or so ive heard.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2016, 01:14:50 PM »
« Edited: September 18, 2016, 01:18:12 PM by Goldwater »

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

Because, you know, Trump is totally going to win in California if I vote for Johnson.

He might if every person who didn't like Hillary but liked Drumpf even less chose to vote for Johnson while all the voters who didn't like Drumpf but liked Hillary even less still voted for Drumpf. Of course that's not actually gonna happen, but the mere theoretical possibility is troubling to me.

The point is, if Trump winning California is within the realm of probability, he has already won the election because of votes in other states, so it won't matter at that point anyway.

Ugh, I hate the Electoral College for making this inherently ridiculous logic actually make sense...

Yeah, if it weren't for the Electoral College, I would be far more inclined to agree with the "lesser of two evils" argument. Of course, if we combined a national popular vote with some sort of multi-round or IRV system, than voting for the lesser of two evils would be even less necessary.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2016, 10:56:54 PM »

I love the arguments that third party supporters (in swing states) put forth to defend their completely indefensible positions.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2016, 05:04:44 AM »

I love the arguments that third party supporters (in swing states) put forth to defend their completely indefensible positions.
Right, like anti-war Dems voting for Hillary.  Wait, no, they don't defend their positions at all do they? Smiley
Logged
‼realJohnEwards‼
MatteKudasai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,867
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2016, 09:37:55 PM »

The fact that people blame Nader for benefiting from Gore's horrendous campaign, boring personality, and total lack of accomplishment still confuses me.
Nader hardly "benefitted" from it... if anything, it made the Democrats hate him.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2016, 10:04:10 PM »

I love the arguments that third party supporters (in swing states) put forth to defend their completely indefensible positions.
Right, like anti-war Dems voting for Hillary.  Wait, no, they don't defend their positions at all do they? Smiley

The other option is Donald Trump.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2016, 07:05:07 AM »

(hey look, somebody defended Hillary by attacking Trump...weird!)

No it's not.  There are several other options, at least two of them are much more anit-war than Hillary.  If you are anti-war, and you vote for Hillary, you're an asshole.  (unless you're only anti-war when it's a Pubby in charge, then you're a super asshole)  Were there anti-war Dems in the Primary?  If yes, why didn't they win the nomination...if no, what the hell is wrong with your party?
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2016, 12:08:09 PM »

link NewJersey.com, whatever the hell that is.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's pretty good, I like this one too
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
He can't think of any other reason the guy running as a Libertarian would be pro-pot?  That's like saying an 1846 Democrat from S.Carolina was pro-slavery just to get the white vote.

He then goes on to explain, like most pro-Hillary people do, how bad Trump is.  No selling of Hillary at all, just fearmongering (rightly no doubt) about Trump.  People that don't plan on voting for her or Trump are not going to change their mind because we were reminded again how sh**tty Trump is.  We don't care.  We think Clinton is just as bad or at least nearly as bad that it makes no stinking difference.  To paraphrase something I read recently..it's the GOP's fault Trump was nominated, it will be the Dems fault if he wins.  How the hell did we even get here?  This is Donald Trump we're talking about.  Hasn't he always been a joke?  Like since the early 80s?  Why...what?  It makes no freaking sense.

Both parties should be embarrassed by this entire fiasco, and they both will be in time.  The GOP before the Dems I predict.

uncharacteristic Joycean bombastic rant, dead0man.

But I agree.  Mostly.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,109
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2016, 02:22:33 PM »

The fact that people blame Nader for benefiting from Gore's horrendous campaign, boring personality, and total lack of accomplishment still confuses me.

It's a mind*f* from Team Blue in their effort to try to control people who normally would vote for the party but are willing to not do so when Team Blue has nominated a *s* candidate.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2016, 05:36:02 PM »

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

Because, you know, Trump is totally going to win in California if I vote for Johnson.

He might if every person who didn't like Hillary but liked Drumpf even less chose to vote for Johnson while all the voters who didn't like Drumpf but liked Hillary even less still voted for Drumpf. Of course that's not actually gonna happen, but the mere theoretical possibility is troubling to me.

The point is, if Trump winning California is within the realm of probability, he has already won the election because of votes in other states, so it won't matter at that point anyway.

Ugh, I hate the Electoral College for making this inherently ridiculous logic actually make sense...

Yeah, if it weren't for the Electoral College, I would be far more inclined to agree with the "lesser of two evils" argument. Of course, if we combined a national popular vote with some sort of multi-round or IRV system, than voting for the lesser of two evils would be even less necessary.

     A multi-round majoritarian system like France has would be cool, even if it did lead to a hilariously lopsided second round between Chirac and Le Pen in 2002.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2016, 08:24:49 PM »

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

But lesser of two evils is still bad, because the consequence is always evil.

You say the crazy scenario that if all the Clinton > Trump voters vote for another option but all the Trump > Clinton voters vote for Trump, Trump will win, but what about the not any crazier scenario where a vast majority of voters from either camp vote for their actual favorite, regardless of party affiliation? The consequence of that is a functioning representative republic, freed from the two-party system of evil vs. evil.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,963
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2016, 10:34:28 PM »

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

But lesser of two evils is still bad, because the consequence is always evil.

You say the crazy scenario that if all the Clinton > Trump voters vote for another option but all the Trump > Clinton voters vote for Trump, Trump will win, but what about the not any crazier scenario where a vast majority of voters from either camp vote for their actual favorite, regardless of party affiliation? The consequence of that is a functioning representative republic, freed from the two-party system of evil vs. evil.

That will never happen, because such is the nature of single-round FPP. Duverger's law might not be quite a law in the way the laws of gravity are, but it's pretty damn close.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2016, 09:25:51 AM »

(hey look, somebody defended Hillary by attacking Trump...weird!)

No it's not.  There are several other options, at least two of them are much more anit-war than Hillary.  If you are anti-war, and you vote for Hillary, you're an asshole.  (unless you're only anti-war when it's a Pubby in charge, then you're a super asshole)  Were there anti-war Dems in the Primary?  If yes, why didn't they win the nomination...if no, what the hell is wrong with your party?

Either Trump or Clinton is going to win the election. We know this with 100% certainty. There are not other options, at least not in the realm of reality. If you want to treat a vote as a moral act that makes you complicit with everything done by the candidate of your choice, past, present and future, then go ahead. I'll continue to treat my vote as it is: a supremely flawed tool that I can use to facilitate the best of a constrained set of possible outcomes.


Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

But lesser of two evils is still bad, because the consequence is always evil.

You say the crazy scenario that if all the Clinton > Trump voters vote for another option but all the Trump > Clinton voters vote for Trump, Trump will win, but what about the not any crazier scenario where a vast majority of voters from either camp vote for their actual favorite, regardless of party affiliation? The consequence of that is a functioning representative republic, freed from the two-party system of evil vs. evil.

"Lesser of two evils" is a saying. Just because you say it doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton is evil. I hate seeing this trotted out all over the damn place.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2016, 10:42:41 AM »

I blame George III for ISIS

No George III - No American Revolution - No America - No Bush

Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2016, 01:56:57 PM »

I blame George III for ISIS

No George III - No American Revolution - No America - No Bush



     You mean President George III, AKA George W. Bush? It settles it: no Bush means no Bush. Shocked
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2016, 07:32:19 PM »

Meh, putting the blame on third-party candidates or their voters is obviously wrong, but it's undeniable that if a voter genuinely cares about preventing the worst outcome, then the only worthwhile course of action is choosing the lesser evil.

But lesser of two evils is still bad, because the consequence is always evil.

You say the crazy scenario that if all the Clinton > Trump voters vote for another option but all the Trump > Clinton voters vote for Trump, Trump will win, but what about the not any crazier scenario where a vast majority of voters from either camp vote for their actual favorite, regardless of party affiliation? The consequence of that is a functioning representative republic, freed from the two-party system of evil vs. evil.

The Democratic and Republican Parties are designed to appeal to a broad group of people. Even if people voted on a "What's your favorite party?" election with no consequences whatsoever, the Democrats and Republicans would come out on top. Just because you would prefer Johnson doesn't mean most people would. Personally, I see Clinton as the least of four evils, not the lesser of two, and I think many Clinton supporters would agree with me on that.

Also, I can't actually control what Trump>Clinton people do, so I'm going to use my vote to counteract theirs. Voting Stein on the assumption that some conservative is going to vote Johnson or whatever is a terrible idea.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,420
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2016, 02:35:20 PM »

The "both sides are equally terrible" crowd seriously need to get over themselves. And they need a reality check as well.

PS: I think the mere possibility of a Donald Trump Presidency is absolutely a great reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. Unless, of course, you think that it makes no difference whether the US elects Clinton or a petulant, thin-skinned, unqualified, racist, misogynistic, psychopathic, and willfully ignorant manchild who is a documented serial fraud/con man, makes George W. Bush look intellectually formidable and accepting of inconvenient facts, and would quite plausibly bring the US as close if not closer to nuclear war than the Cuban Missile Crisis did.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 12 queries.