Would we really be better off under President Clinton?

[RedDenver]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

So... you are only and ever required to vote for the candidate you feel is best suited for the job, and you're never allowed to make a defensive vote against a particular candidate, and if you do, you're being undemocratic?

 

Help me follow this logic. 

No, as made clear by "It's also not about forcing people into binary decisions."

[knapplc]

That clearly can't be the point, because if you do anything other than vote for the person you feel is best suited for the job, no matter the ramifications of that vote, you're being forced into a binary decision. 

 

So you have to vote for the person you feel is best suited for the job, no matter the ramifications of the vote.  Which is a binary decision.

[RedDenver]

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

That clearly can't be the point, because if you do anything other than vote for the person you feel is best suited for the job, no matter the ramifications of that vote, you're being forced into a binary decision. 

 

So you have to vote for the person you feel is best suited for the job, no matter the ramifications of the vote.  Which is a binary decision.

A binary decision has only two possible options. Every election I can remember had more than two candidates on the ballot.

 

EDIT: Plus "best suited" could mean you're including ramifications of the vote in your decision.

[Redux]

22 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

How is it undemocratic to prevent a horribly unfit candidate to occupy an office by voting for a less unfit candidate?

 

Regarding the bold, it is not an opinion I hold of most elections, just of this specific election, and construing it as a blanket statement on all elections for all offices is not accurate. 

 

The 2004 election comes to mine.  John Kerry was an absolute marionette of a candidate, an orangutan would have gotten the same vote totals.  Nobody voted for him, they were just voting against Bush.  Now, in 2008 with two new candidates, the vote for this person in spite of this person totals would have been very different.

 

Overall, the anti voting voting strategy feels very High School popularity contest to me.

[Danny Bateman]

Hillary had better policies, for the most part. Regardless of how unlikable she is, I think she would have made better, more informed decisions most of the time.

 

But the dynamics of Washington were primed to chew her up and spit her out. I'm pretty sure the partisan rancor would have been just as bad as it is now if not worse. Not to mention the fact the Clintons have an outstanding knack for poor judgment on ethical matters. Trump is pretty openly corrupt, but they probably would've walked the line between unseemly and seedy pretty frequently. And that's before the right-wing BS machine gets pumping into full gear.

[knapplc]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

A binary decision has only two possible options. Every election I can remember had more than two candidates on the ballot.

 

EDIT: Plus "best suited" could mean you're including ramifications of the vote in your decision.

 

Per your edit, then I don't see what @Enhance could argue with about my position.  Interesting.

[RedDenver]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

Per your edit, then I don't see what @Enhance could argue with about my position.  Interesting.

Maybe you should lay out your position better because it seems to me you're telling us that there was only the binary choice of "Vote for Hillary" or "All Other Choices Support Trump". I'm saying those aren't the only choices. It seems like you were pushing for the very restricted choices but then switched to somehow trying to make what @Enhance said restricted when it was clearly open to all options.

[Moiraine]

I don't think many people vote for the person they think is best suited for the job. If that is the case, most of the country is full of easily duped idiots. A vote for Johnson or Stein was almost never because they were thought to be the best suited. If people voted for someone they thought best suited for the job there would be hundreds of thousands of different people getting votes because people would vote for the friend or co-worker or other acquaintance they have the most respect for.

 

People tend to vote for the well known candidate they think is more suitable than the other well known candidates. Or they vote against people they hate.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Maybe you should lay out your position better because it seems to me you're telling us that there was only the binary choice of "Vote for Hillary" or "All Other Choices Support Trump". I'm saying those aren't the only choices. It seems like you were pushing for the very restricted choices but then switched to somehow trying to make what @Enhance said restricted when it was clearly open to all options.

 

Apparently I should have spelled it out, but you didn't have ONLY two choices. You could vote for Stein or McMullin or whomever you want to write in.

 

My point was, with the likelihood of Trump being elected, the only RESPONSIBLE choice was to vote to prevent that. 

 

It's nice to talk philosophically about popular sovereignty and a vote being a voice. A vote is a real thing, and it has consequences.  The consequences of spending your vote however you wished was that you ran the risk of Trump. 

 

Call that whatever you will.  Binary choice. Undemocratic.  Whatever.  It's the reality we faced.  Because enough people didn't make a responsible vote (with all the caveats of freedom and Electoral College and everything wrapped up in there), here we are.

 

If that's a binary constraint, it's not mine. I'm just pointing it out. 

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Apparently I should have spelled it out, but you didn't have ONLY two choices. You could vote for Stein or McMullin or whomever you want to write in.

 

My point was, with the likelihood of Trump being elected, the only RESPONSIBLE choice was to vote to prevent that. 

 

It's nice to talk philosophically about popular sovereignty and a vote being a voice. A vote is a real thing, and it has consequences.  The consequences of spending your vote however you wished was that you ran the risk of Trump. 

 

Call that whatever you will.  Binary choice. Undemocratic.  Whatever.  It's the reality we faced.  Because enough people didn't make a responsible vote (with all the caveats of freedom and Electoral College and everything wrapped up in there), here we are.

 

If that's a binary constraint, it's not mine. I'm just pointing it out. 

And I think you're wrong that it's the ONLY responsible choice. (I understand you don't think we literally only had a binary choice, but you're arguing that there's really a binary choice: the responsible or irresponsible ones.) I spelled out quite clearly why my vote couldn't help or hurt Trump's chances of being elected (or Hillary's for that matter), so my vote could not have prevented Trump getting elected and therefore also could not have caused or prevented any consequences due to Trump's election. I think you're trying to make a blanket statement that isn't as simple or general as you think it is.

[knapplc]

Just now, RedDenver said:

And I think you're wrong that it's the ONLY responsible choice.

 

I'll never be convinced Trump was a responsible choice. If that's a goal, I'll advise you not to waste that time (unless you find it super entertaining, then have at it).

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

I'll never be convinced Trump was a responsible choice. If that's a goal, I'll advise you not to waste that time (unless you find it super entertaining, then have at it).

<Sigh> I never said or even implied Trump was a responsible choice.

 

I'm claiming that there are situations that both didn't vote for Hillary AND didn't help Trump get elected, and I've explained mine as one of those situations. If you'd like to explain to me how I supported Trump getting elected, then by all means go ahead but I don't think you can.

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I'm claiming that there are situations that both didn't vote for Hillary AND didn't help Trump get elected, and I've explained mine as one of those situations. If you'd like to explain to me how I supported Trump getting elected, then by all means go ahead but I don't think you can.

 

I already have. If you don't agree...

 

 

 

 

[Redux]

20 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I'll never be convinced Trump was a responsible choice. If that's a goal, I'll advise you not to waste that time

 

#politics

[RedDenver]

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I already have. If you don't agree...

 

 

 

 

I'm not seeing where you've once addressed how I helped Trump get elected. All I see are generalities and broad assumptions.