|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Any votable option is a viable option. In the dictionary meaning of viable as "capable of being done".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Alternately phrased as capable of being successful.
So,"Tadaa! Your third-party vote has been successfully cast! It is also being successfully ignored, successfully forgotten and successfully futile. Congratulations!"
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your third-party vote has been successfully cast! It is also being successfully ignored, successfully forgotten and successfully futile. Congratulations!"
It is also successfully not a vote for some asshole I wouldn't piss on if I found them in flames, or a vote against anyone or any party where as a majority most likely will be.
Voters like that are the problem. Self righteous idiots completely cemented in their positions (and ignorance) and counted to the tenth of a percent months before election day.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your third-party vote has been successfully cast! It is also being successfully ignored, successfully forgotten and successfully futile. Congratulations!"
It is also successfully not a vote for some asshole I wouldn't piss on if I found them in flames, or a vote against anyone or any party where as a majority most likely will be.
Voters like that are the problem. Self righteous idiots completely cemented in their positions (and ignorance) and counted to the tenth of a percent months before election day.
To be sure - "voters like that". Always a problem.
Although I seem to recall you had already picked out Gary Johnson back in February, and yet I wouldn't call you a self righteous idiot. How far in advance of the election is it acceptable to make a choice, do you think? And are you keeping anyone else in the mix besides Johnson?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Certainly there are many for whom that is true. Many people will vote for Trump because he is "close enough" to what they want. Likewise, many will vote for Clinton because she is "close enough" to what they want. All those people are comfortably voting "for" a candidate. I agree with you that that is not fear voting. I have no problem with that.
But what I have been discussing is the other set: those who do not particularly want to vote for either major candidate and, in fact, have a third party candidate they are willing to support (somebody who is also "close enough"), and whether they should then support such a third party candidate or, instead, vote for one of the two who are actually going to win. For the reasons outlined, in states that are battlefield states, such a person is really pressured into a fear vote.
Even when you're voting for the "least bad" option, that still doesn't mean it's a fear-based vote. It still can be a realistic option.
Let's say you're deciding on a new carpet for your church's sanctuary. You and your buddy Sam really really like the seafoam green carpet. No one else does. The rest of the congregation is about evenly divided between those who like the beige carpet and those who like fru-fru Barbie doll pink carpet. You're not crazy about bland boring beige carpet, but you really dislike the pink carpet that looks like someone barfed Pepto Bismo all over it. Realizing you're never gonna get the seafoam green carpet you love, you vote for the beige. You're not afraid of the pink carpet, you don't think your sanctuary will be inhabited by minions of the underworld if you choose it, you simply dislike it more than the beige carpet.
It seems to me that group decisions are almost always like this. You seldom are in the happy situation where you have a chance to get everything you want. You ordinarily have to make these sorts of realistic compromises. That's what it means to live in community, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with fear, or at least not necessarily so.
But hey, vote for the seafoam green. Just don't blame me when you get Pepto Pink.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Ciffdweller puts it well for those of you who have first past the post voting, except for those who like a parquetry floor such as we have. With (in NSW and federally here, other states vary in their upper houses) preferential voting in the lower house and proportional (Hare-Clarke) in the upper house, you can vote first for the one you really want, then subsequently in descending order for those with whom you can live.
Or you can vote to make a statement also. My first federal election was in 1969, those being the days when you had to be 21 to vote. The thick of the Vietnam war, to which I was opposed. There was a group called Liberal Reform, created by a group of business people specifically opposed to continuing Aust involvement. To show opposition, many in my group voted first for the candidate from that party, then second for the Labor Party. It was really the second vote which could have counted - it did not for me as my electorate then and now is one of the very safest conservative-voting seats in the country, always decided on the first preference.
No-one is forcing Hedgehog and others who think the same to vote any particular way. Can an outsider say that it's a great pity that in 2000 Nader took as many votes in Florida as he did - had only a few over half gone to those bound to Gore, the whole election result would have been different.
[ 03. July 2016, 23:54: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Imagine we had instant run-off voting. I'd put Jill Stein for #1, then Hilary Clinton for #2.
But Jill Stein has as much chance of being elected president in 2016 as a feral ferret. So my #1 choice will be eliminated, and my #2 choice is what will count.
Unless I stupidly, in my high-minded purity, didn't put a #2 choice. Then my #1 choice is eliminated, and that's the end of my positive influence over the outcome. (I still have a negative influence inasmuch I could have made Hils my #2 choice and that would help her defeat Trump, whom I most assiduously do NOT want as my president.)
But we don't have instant run-off. Voting for Stein is like the scenario of not putting a #2 choice. Voting for Hilary when I'd rather vote for Stein is the functional equivalent of putting Hilary as my #2 choice.
tl/dr: If I vote for Stein, I have effectively thrown away my vote.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Or instead of an instant run-off, a preferential voting system, saving a second election. Easy enough to bring in with a quick amendment to the relevant legislation.
A public education programme would be a good idea. There used be rumours here of strange practices in the rural areas of the Northern Territory. Voters of little education (ie, Aboriginals) would be advised by electoral officials that as they really wanted to vote for the Labor candidate, they should put a 4 next to his name and give him 4 votes; as they did not want to vote for the Country Liberal Party they would give just one vote to that candidate and put a 1 next to his (always his in that party and that territory) name.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Or instead of an instant run-off, a preferential voting system, saving a second election. Easy enough to bring in with a quick amendment to the relevant legislation.
I may be wrong, but aren't those the same thing? Also known as "ranked-choice voting", here in California.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Sorry, I thought that Mousethief was referring to a version of the Presidential election system in France, where there are polls a week apart if no one candidate gets a majority; the leading 2 from that are the only candidates at the second.
Yes, your ranked-choice would be what we call preferential. Another term is single-transferrable vote. It contrasts with the proportional, Hare-Clarke, system used for the federal Senate and the NSW Legislative Council. In each case, the entire State becomes the 1 electorate which returns multiple members. From this last Senate election there will be 12 senators chosen for the states.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Interesting, all the different ways various democracies find to handle these things.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
There's a difference in strategy between a prisoner's dilemma problem and an iterated prisoner's dilemma.
If you vote for someone who is not one of the two candidates, you lose a decision in the current election. You may however have an influence in future elections. A major party may adapt the platform points of a minor party that failed in the previous election if it doesn't have enough supporters.
Note also that the Democrats and Republicans weren't always the two major parties. And platforms can be changed over multiple elections. The Suffragettes and Abolitionists knew they would lose if they voted for their candidates.
You are losing a chance to vote for someone who wins in the current election, but that may be meaningless. If only one person is running for office (which happens here a lot with judges) and you despise them, are you losing anything by writing in a protest vote?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You are losing a chance to vote for someone who wins in the current election, but that may be meaningless. If only one person is running for office (which happens here a lot with judges) and you despise them, are you losing anything by writing in a protest vote?
We're not talking about an election in which only one person is running, though. We're talking about an election in which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are running. In an election in which only one person is running, vote for whomever the fuck you want, as it doesn't matter. In this election it does matter. It matters that we not elect Donald Trump. All the philosophizing in the world won't change that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Imagine we had instant run-off voting. I'd put Jill Stein for #1, then Hilary Clinton for #2.
But Jill Stein has as much chance of being elected president in 2016 as a feral ferret. So my #1 choice will be eliminated, and my #2 choice is what will count.
Although you then get into a situation such as occurred here in the late 1980s and early 1990s in which allegedly had everyone who would have voted Liberal Democrat if they'd had a chance of winning voted for the Liberal Democrats, the Liberal Democrats would have won.
History does not record whether the people who told pollsters this are the same people who told them they weren't voting Conservative last year and were voting Remain this year.
[ 04. July 2016, 15:11: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Imagine we had instant run-off voting. I'd put Jill Stein for #1, then Hilary Clinton for #2.
But Jill Stein has as much chance of being elected president in 2016 as a feral ferret. So my #1 choice will be eliminated, and my #2 choice is what will count.
Although you then get into a situation such as occurred here in the late 1980s and early 1990s in which allegedly had everyone who would have voted Liberal Democrat if they'd had a chance of winning voted for the Liberal Democrats, the Liberal Democrats would have won.
History does not record whether the people who told pollsters this are the same people who told them they weren't voting Conservative last year and were voting Remain this year.
Apples and oranges. British elections and American elections just don't work the same way or have the same dynamic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And are you keeping anyone else in the mix besides Johnson?
If he keeps up his recent idiocy I could easily switch my vote to Castle. We'll see...
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Note also that the Democrats and Republicans weren't always the two major parties. And platforms can be changed over multiple elections. The Suffragettes and Abolitionists knew they would lose if they voted for their candidates.
That would've been a problematic strategy for Suffragettes anyway.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If this were any ordinary party nominee -- Romney, McCain -- I think that a GOP win would not be calamity. This one is a rule-changer, folks. He cannot be President. Hold your nose if you have to, but vote.
I keep hearing "this election is special you have to hold your nose and vote for the least bad choice." Do you think you won't be saying the same thing in four years?
I will reluctantly vote for Clinton, since I don't see any reasonable third party choice. However I don't see Clinton as being a good president or not leaving the Democratic in rubble as Clinton eagerly seeks to please right of center Republicans. Then there's the charm of watching Bill create even more scandals.
Both candidates are calamities.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I keep hearing "this election is special you have to hold your nose and vote for the least bad choice." Do you think you won't be saying the same thing in four years?
Of course you will. And you'll be doing the same time every time your group of friends decides to go out to a movie or your family decides what to have for dinner. Again, that's just what group decision making looks like. The kind of change that really moves the goal-posts is hard-- and is going to take decades of very hard work that has been detailed upthread. But even then there'll be compromises, even among the revolutionaries.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The trouble is there is no way of indicating that this was a nose-held vote. A vote with nose held and a vote with manic enthusiasm are indistinguishable--and then the recipient goes on to claim a "mandate from the people."
What I wish we could do is have negative votes--"Hell no" votes on candidates.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re political parties:
"When American Voters Had 2 Choices: Whig or Loco Foco. This fascinating electoral map from 1840 documents a chaotic time in American politics." (Atlas Obscura) Cool map, and good article.
For those who aren't familiar with Atlas Obscura, it collects info about unusual or little-known places, events, etc. All kinds of interesting stuff.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If this were any ordinary party nominee -- Romney, McCain -- I think that a GOP win would not be calamity. This one is a rule-changer, folks. He cannot be President. Hold your nose if you have to, but vote.
I keep hearing "this election is special you have to hold your nose and vote for the least bad choice." Do you think you won't be saying the same thing in four years?
I know that, although I have strong political feelings, and strong opinions, I have not in the past thought that the "wrong" candidate would be a calamity. It wouldn't be my preference, but sometimes, in a democracy, you have to live with the Pepto-Bismol Pink carpets. It's just the way things work. You do your best to get people to see it your way, and if they don't, you deal with it.
But Trump is different. You've read Asimov's Foundation series, haven't you? Trump is the Mule. He's not part of the system, and he affects the system in baleful ways.
He would be a calamity.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I don't see Clinton as being a good president or not leaving the Democratic in rubble as Clinton eagerly seeks to please right of center Republicans.
She may not have to if Congress goes Democratic also. Let's give the girl a chance.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
right of center Republicans.
Are there any other kind? I'm not convinced there are many left of center Democrats. With no wish to engage in a Pond war, American politics doesn't truly know where the Center is.
Though, to be fair, the UK is fast forgetting.
[ 05. July 2016, 17:40: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
With no wish to engage in a Pond war, American politics doesn't truly know where the Center is.
Well, we do use different measuring systems... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Forgot to add the money quote:
"This fulsome embrace of Mr. Trump (by Evangelical leaders) is rather problematic, since he embodies a worldview that is incompatible with Christianity. If you trace that worldview to its source, Christ would not be anywhere in the vicinity."
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Ciffdweller puts it well for those of you who have first past the post voting, except for those who like a parquetry floor such as we have. With (in NSW and federally here, other states vary in their upper houses) preferential voting in the lower house and proportional (Hare-Clarke) in the upper house, you can vote first for the one you really want, then subsequently in descending order for those with whom you can live.
Or you can vote to make a statement also. My first federal election was in 1969, those being the days when you had to be 21 to vote. The thick of the Vietnam war, to which I was opposed. There was a group called Liberal Reform, created by a group of business people specifically opposed to continuing Aust involvement. To show opposition, many in my group voted first for the candidate from that party, then second for the Labor Party. It was really the second vote which could have counted - it did not for me as my electorate then and now is one of the very safest conservative-voting seats in the country, always decided on the first preference.
No-one is forcing Hedgehog and others who think the same to vote any particular way. Can an outsider say that it's a great pity that in 2000 Nader took as many votes in Florida as he did - had only a few over half gone to those bound to Gore, the whole election result would have been different.
I thought the Hare Clarke system was how we used to work out the finals games back when we had a final five and twelve teams, and people from Sydney played league or union, but not both.
*sigh*
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I keep hearing "this election is special you have to hold your nose and vote for the least bad choice." Do you think you won't be saying the same thing in four years?
Of course you will. And you'll be doing the same time every time your group of friends decides to go out to a movie or your family decides what to have for dinner. Again, that's just what group decision making looks like. The kind of change that really moves the goal-posts is hard-- and is going to take decades of very hard work that has been detailed upthread. But even then there'll be compromises, even among the revolutionaries.
That being so it would be nice not to trot out the argument that this election is special the way every election is special. Like Dash
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
...That being so it would be nice not to trot out the argument that this election is special the way every election is special. Like Dash
This election certainly is special if one of the major candidates threatened to take away your civil rights and/or prosecute you because of your religion or where you came from.
Banning Muslim immigration and not accepting judges based on their ancestry is not the norm.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
We somehow missed the fact that the FBI has not recommended that Hilary Clinton be prosecuted over the email server issue. But apparently as a salvo in an ongoing pissing match between the FBI and State Department, the statement managed to throw in enough scolding language aimed at Clinton to make at least one "can she really be trusted?!?" commercial.
Not that Hillary Clinton ever gets closure from scandals, but if the intent of the statement was to close the book on the email story, the FBI could have tried a little harder...
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
There will be more than one commercial.
The FBI confirmed her as a liar, but declined to prosecute. I'm sure Comey's testimony tomorrow will only provide more fodder.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And are you keeping anyone else in the mix besides Johnson?
If he keeps up his recent idiocy I could easily switch my vote to Castle. We'll see...
Sorry I dropped this - what idiocy are you referring to, specifically? Was it that he recently said he stopped using marijuana to be "knife sharp"?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I don't see Clinton as being a good president or not leaving the Democratic in rubble as Clinton eagerly seeks to please right of center Republicans.
She may not have to if Congress goes Democratic also. Let's give the girl a chance.
She may not have to, but as far as anyone can tell beneath all the postures, she wants to. She's a big Netanyahu fan for example.
As for "give the girl a chance", she's still defending Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA. And then there's her e-mail server which was reviewed by the FBI this week. From my perspective she's out of chances. You can peddle her as the less disastrous misfortune but that's about it.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You can peddle her as the less disastrous misfortune but that's about it.
That ought to do it, really.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
So given that, Palimpsest, for whom are you intending to vote. Shall you abstain? Not an option here, and even in the US there'd seem almost a duty to vote for her, taking all possible steps to ensure Trump's defeat.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a NY Times link, but on the other hand i's the beginning of the month, eh? In which after considering whether Trump is a Christian the author concludes hei's actually an apostle of Nietzsche.
Thanks for this Brenda. quote:
The calling of Christians is to be “salt and light” to the world, to model a philosophy that defends human dignity, and to welcome the stranger in our midst. It is to stand for justice, dispense grace and be agents of reconciliation in a broken world. And it is to take seriously the words of the prophet Micah, “And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, and to love kindness and mercy, and to humble yourself and walk humbly with your God?”
For all of Clinton's faults, and I'm not a big fan, she models those values so much better than Trump, who is almost the opposite.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You can peddle her as the less disastrous misfortune but that's about it.
That ought to do it, really.
Hey, nobody's perfect. All candidates have their flaws, and her opponents have been blowing up hers out of all proportion for decades. To borrow a concept from Christian scholarship, it is getting to the point where people are having trouble distinguishing the flesh-and-blood person who is the 'historical Hillary' from the transcendent figure (usually portrayed as a demon, in her case) who is the 'Hillary of faith'.
There's only one flesh-and-blood candidate in the race whose election I would describe as a 'disastrous misfortune', and she's not it. But even that were an accurate description of her rather than extreme hyperbole, she would still be the less disastrous choice, and as Barnabas says, that's reason enough.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
But even that were an accurate description of her rather than extreme hyperbole
Oops, time for editing ran out before I saw this. Should be "...even if that..."
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Apparently Donald Trump was so good at his post report speech yesterday that Clinton linked to it on her twitter account as he was giving it.
Yup, so bad the other side uses it as political ammunition.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I'm no big fan of either Clinton, but one has to note that at this point the Congressional Republicans have spent many tens of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to find something to nail them with, and all they could come up with was that Bill lied about getting a blowjob when they backed him into a corner. I'd say that makes them squeaky clean by Washington standards. How many congressthings could stand up to that level of investigation?
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I'm no big fan of either Clinton, but one has to note that at this point the Congressional Republicans have spent many tens of millions of taxpayer dollars trying to find something to nail them with, and all they could come up with was that Bill lied about getting a blowjob when they backed him into a corner. I'd say that makes them squeaky clean by Washington standards. How many congressthings could stand up to that level of investigation?
The case of the Clinton Impeachment is fairly illustrative. Newt Gingrich was ostensibly relieved of his Speakership because it looked bad to have a known serial adulterer prosecuting the President for an adulterous affair. (It seems just as likely that Republicans blamed Newt for their drubbing in the 1998 mid-terms and used his marital infidelity as an excuse.) Then Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston had to give the Speakership a pass because they were also encumbered with past extra-marital affairs. Finally they picked Dennis Hastert as the kind of solid, no surprises guy who would never bring disrepute to the House Republicans. Whatever happened to that guy, I wonder?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
Bill wasn't impeached for an adulterous affair, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
It now seems likely that Hillary is guilty of the same offenses.
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bill wasn't impeached for an adulterous affair, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
About an adulterous affair. Which they spent millions of dollars to find, because BILL CLINTON MUST GO!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Bill wasn't impeached for an adulterous affair, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
About an adulterous affair. Which they spent millions of dollars to find, because BILL CLINTON MUST GO!
And, just to close the circle: he was investigated for an adulterous affair by an adulterous jerk, at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile the adulterous jerk kept railing on and on about "family values" and "fiscal responsibility".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
A number of pieces, of which this is but one remarking that The Donald's latest iterations seem to be downright unhinged. This has no historical precedent.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
...That being so it would be nice not to trot out the argument that this election is special the way every election is special. Like Dash
This election certainly is special if one of the major candidates threatened to take away your civil rights and/or prosecute you because of your religion or where you came from.
Banning Muslim immigration and not accepting judges based on their ancestry is not the norm.
I'm a gay man. Elections where one or many major candidates have proposed taking away my civil rights is nothing special or new. It's more of a novelty when they don't.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
So you know the territory. Shouldn't think you ever voted for a a candidate who threatened your civil rights. Or threatened them the most. I'd have though that was a good enough reason not to support, either directly or indirectly, a candidate who threatened other people's civil rights. If you know yours matter, then you know theirs matter.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
