|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 31, 2016 21:05:27 GMT -5
And I second the notion that labeling people "haters" and saying that they have no empathy for others simply because they do not espouse the same views as you do is a poor way to hold a fair and respectful dialogue with others so I'd suggest that people find other ways to voice their disagreement with the views of others without sinking to personal remarks. I have been very careful in speaking in generalities. . I have not focused on any personal remarks. " it won't change his mind (he took my post and all he heard was that I think he's "evil". . . something never even implied. . . what was implied was that I thought 3rd party supporters of the "never Hillary" ilk are lacking some empathy. and I will stand by THAT, but that's a far cry from "evil"). I have no idea who is a hardline "3rd party supporter of the never Hillary ilk" on here and who isn't. hell, last I recall, Hondobrode was Bernie or Bust, but he's recently been saying he'll vote Hillary over Trump. think of that as being as disingenuous if you like, but it's the truth. I wasn't singling anyone out (other than responding to Warmonger personally in correctly stating that he thinks I called him "evil" which I did not), and if someone felt like I was singling them out with a "personal attack". . .that isn't what I typed, and that's not what I intended. . but I can't control how someone reads the words. Even in generalities it is a low form of argumentation, as it's still a personal rather than objective argument even if you don't specifically name names. And it's not about controlling how "someone reads your words" it's the words themselves. When you write a post about people "bought into the Republican smear campaign" after some people have posted views concerning Hilary's record you are dismissing those people's opinions and saying that they are not thinking for themselves even if you don't say it to them directly because of the sequential nature of how a discussion board works. And yes, although you never said people were evil and that is a false conclusion to draw from your posts that does not excuse the comment about empathy; that is pointedly a personal remark and one that you cannot objectively argue as you are not telepathic and thus cannot know the motivations of your fellow users. It's perfectly acceptable to take issue with the Bernie or bust opinion, and there are many ways to argue against that opinion but the two examples above are not valid forms of argumentation and worse yet do a great disservice to you and your own opinions as they allow others to single out your obvious fallacies and ignore and obfuscate any other points you may make.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 22:14:23 GMT -5
I'm sorry you see it that way.
I will stay out of this thread, since obviously you view civil discussion differently than I do, and as you are a Mod here, I will respect your 'rules' on it.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 1, 2016 5:41:17 GMT -5
I'm voting third-party for two main reasons. 1. I refuse to vote for Clinton and allow the Democrats to count my vote as part of any "mandate" they want to claim for her when she wins. I would not be voting for her but rather against Trump, but the Democrats would consider my vote as approval for their policies and positions, some of which I do support but many of which I do not. (...) There's no way I want a Trump presidency, but I'm not thrilled by the prospect of a Hilary presidency either. If she winds up in the White House, it's better for the country as a whole, but I sure don't want to help put her there. In that, Canadian and U.S. elections are a bit alike... I can't remember an election in which I actually voted for someone; it's pretty much been always against someone. Inspiring candidates are few and far between, but absolute disasters that must be avoided at all cost are becoming more frequent.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 1, 2016 5:50:45 GMT -5
I have a possibly naive question for the Bernie or Bust people who are saying that they will now vote 3rd party, rather than vote for Hillary.
Isn't it more important for everyone who isn't voting Trump to unite around one candidate in order to stop him from becoming President? I mean, given how dangerous Trump would be as a U.S. president, isn't it time to put aside quibbles about the things you maybe dislike about Hillary and instead unite around her, since, let's be honest, she's the only viable means of stopping him at this point? I'm all for protest voting under normal circumstances, but it seems to me that the stakes are too high this time round to be messing about with anything other than stopping Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 1, 2016 7:49:56 GMT -5
I have a possibly naive question for the Bernie or Bust people who are saying that they will now vote 3rd party, rather than vote for Hillary. Isn't it more important for everyone who isn't voting Trump to unite around one candidate in order to stop him from becoming President? I mean, given how dangerous Trump would be as a U.S. president, isn't it time to put aside quibbles about the things you maybe dislike about Hillary and instead unite around her, since, let's be honest, she's the only viable means of stopping him at this point? I'm all for protest voting under normal circumstances, but it seems to me that the stakes are too high this time round to be messing about with anything other than stopping Trump. Can't speak for anyone considering a third option, but that's absolutely how it worked in Canada in the last election. I really didn't want the Liberals back in power, but the only alternative in terms of what would actually happen (and not what I might wish) was another Conservative mandate, which was flat out unacceptable. Now the Liberals are back and I'm not that happy with them, but the alternative would have been so much worse that it's at least an endurable situation. Does that mean we're forever stuck in a two party system where we'll have to vote for the least evil each and every election? No, not necessarily. The solution is to start working right after an election to make any third way a true viable option and not a mere protest vote. It worked with the Canadian NDP one election ago; it built itself up and went from a fringe party to the official opposition.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 1, 2016 8:15:45 GMT -5
I'm sorry you see it that way. I will stay out of this thread, since obviously you view civil discussion differently than I do, and as you are a Mod here, I will respect your 'rules' on it. You don't have to remove yourself from the thread Bert and you don't have to stop talking about the subject of Bernie or bust either, it's obviously something you're passionate about and you bring a lot to the table in the discussions here; it's just something to you have to do with out getting personal about it which you are capable of doing as you have already voiced your opinion on the matter several other times with out needing to include personal arguments, and those comments were much stronger for it.
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Aug 1, 2016 8:44:20 GMT -5
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 1, 2016 9:04:01 GMT -5
"Vote with your conscious-you'll have to live with it"
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Aug 1, 2016 14:51:23 GMT -5
I never voted for Bill Clinton; I went Libertarian for both of those elections. But I'll happily vote for Hillary this time, and stay on Bernie Sanders' mailing list, and MoveOn's, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's, and do what I can to continue the momentum that Bernie started.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,755
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 1, 2016 14:59:31 GMT -5
Seems to me the easiest way to unite non-Trump supporters is for Clinton to make Sanders the Secretary of Commerce and Stein the Surgeon General. Most of Bernie's issues are economic ones, and most of Stein's are (at the heart of the matter) public health related.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Aug 1, 2016 16:12:52 GMT -5
Seems to me the easiest way to unite non-Trump supporters is for Clinton to make Sanders the Secretary of Commerce and Stein the Surgeon General. Most of Bernie's issues are economic ones, and most of Stein's are (at the heart of the matter) public health related. I would be down for that to an extent, but I don't see any of Bernie's ideas flying under a largely Republican controlled Congress anyway.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,755
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 1, 2016 18:31:05 GMT -5
Seems to me the easiest way to unite non-Trump supporters is for Clinton to make Sanders the Secretary of Commerce and Stein the Surgeon General. Most of Bernie's issues are economic ones, and most of Stein's are (at the heart of the matter) public health related. I would be down for that to an extent, but I don't see any of Bernie's ideas flying under a largely Republican controlled Congress anyway. There are certain levers a cabinet member has that congress would have a hard time disrupting, but I do agree that implementing real change will require a shake-up in Congress. Sanders has announced that he'll be launching a program in the near future to address these problems.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Aug 1, 2016 19:23:48 GMT -5
I would be down for that to an extent, but I don't see any of Bernie's ideas flying under a largely Republican controlled Congress anyway. There are certain levers a cabinet member has that congress would have a hard time disrupting, but I do agree that implementing real change will require a shake-up in Congress. Sanders has announced that he'll be launching a program in the near future to address these problems. Part of what appeals to me about Gary Johnson's platform is that he's an advocate of congressional term limits, which neither Clinton nor Trump have touched on.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,755
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 1, 2016 19:53:07 GMT -5
There are certain levers a cabinet member has that congress would have a hard time disrupting, but I do agree that implementing real change will require a shake-up in Congress. Sanders has announced that he'll be launching a program in the near future to address these problems. Part of what appeals to me about Gary Johnson's platform is that he's an advocate of congressional term limits, which neither Clinton nor Trump have touched on. I'm generally not a fan of Johnson at all. I think anyone who is Pro-Bernie for any reason other than sticking it to the Democratic Party has got to be pretty averse to his Libertarian hands-off approach to government.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Aug 1, 2016 20:07:19 GMT -5
Part of what appeals to me about Gary Johnson's platform is that he's an advocate of congressional term limits, which neither Clinton nor Trump have touched on. I'm generally not a fan of Johnson at all. I think anyone who is Pro-Bernie for any reason other than sticking it to the Democratic Party has got to be pretty averse to his Libertarian hands-off approach to government. I was never on the #FeeltheBern train, so it's down to Hillary and Gary for me. I disagree with a few of Johnson's views, such as no changes to gun control laws and no interest in environmental regulation, but I agree with him on a lot of issues,
|
|