I'm thinking of abandoning Bernie

[TragicMonkey]

But what I said would be the result of a sufficient amount of people thinking like you do.

I don't think there's much risk of large numbers of people thinking as I do, yet.

I don't understand how you can risk bigotry and war because you dislike a person.

You may as well accuse people who don't kill butterflies of abetting hurricanes. Sane people make their choices based on what the immediate effects are, not hyperbolic hypotheticals. I'm not going to vote for a politician I dislike and distrust merely because you can imagine some cascade of events where doing so would have resulted in a better outcome. For all you know you should murder a baby because it might grow up to be the next Hitler, or Kardashian.

Skickat från min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

You can turn this off, you know.

 

[Dog Town]

I thought it was poetic in a certain way.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I thought it was poetic in a certain way.

Well, maybe in a Donald Rumsfeld way!

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's not that I "don't get it", it's that I don't agree. The lesser of two evils is still evil. If one has a principle about not furthering evil, one cannot further evil--even if there's a worse evil around the place. If you're given a choice between murdering someone and maiming them, would you set to chopping their hands off while congratulating yourself on your excellent moral choice? The principled option there is to refuse to make a choice, even if that upsets the pragmatists who believe everything is a numbers game.

You make it sound like if you do nothing, neither choice is going to happen, as if there is a 3rd option that by doing nothing you can achieve. But this isn't so. In your example, the guy is going to die or be maimed whatever you decide to do, or not do. Is it better to save his life, and have him lose his hands, or sit on your principles and say "well at least my hands are clean, I didn't vote" as the guy is dragged off to be executed? You seem to be more willing to allow the guy to die though your inaction, than to be willing to act to save his life if it means harming him to do it. Yeah, that is really moral, remind me never to be in a situation where it is take my leg or leave me to die when it's you making the decisions.

Sorry, but no, not voting -is- voting, it's giving the greater evil an uncontested vote because you refuse to counter one of theirs with your own. By not voting for a lesser evil you are supporting the greater one, and all the while trying to claim some holier than thou position over those willing to stand up against the greater evil and make sure it doesn't happen.

Personally I think the moral thing to do is to fight the greater evil, even if it mean siding with a lesser one to do it. You can deal with the lesser one once the threat of the greater is vanquished. Standing aside and letting the Greater Evil win by your inaction and then trying to claim it as some moral high ground? No, that is BS and hypocrisy.

 

[Dog Town]

Personally I think...

That's special! Have a snickers!

 

[PhantomWolf]

The whole country shifted on gay marriage, why couldn't both Clinton and Sanders have also shifted like so many other people?

Clinton may have been for the tar sands pipeline for any number of reasons that she since reconsidered given the increasing evidence of climate change or perhaps after hearing more from the people who didn't want it to cross their land.

What else has she changed her position on?

You are ascribing one motive when there are many possible explanations.

You just don't get it.

If a politician you like (agree with) changes their stance it's because they "listen to the people" or that they "evolved their opinion with the evidence."

If a politician you don't like (agree with) changes their mind it is because they "are a flip-flopping poll chaser" or because they are "a fair weather friend just after the votes."

If a politician you like (agree with) won't change their stance it's because they "have sound principles" or because they "know how to stay the course."

If a politician you don't like (agree with) won't change their stance it's because they "are stubborn and willfully ignorant in the face of facts" or because they "refuse to listen to what their constituents want."

You need to learn the lingo.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That's special! Have a snickers!

Troll much?

 

[Dog Town]

Troll much?

No troll! That was my honest opinion, of your diatribe. I don't agree.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You make it sound like if you do nothing, neither choice is going to happen, as if there is a 3rd option that by doing nothing you can achieve. But this isn't so. In your example, the guy is going to die or be maimed whatever you decide to do, or not do. Is it better to save his life, and have him lose his hands, or sit on your principles and say "well at least my hands are clean, I didn't vote" as the guy is dragged off to be executed? You seem to be more willing to allow the guy to die though your inaction, than to be willing to act to save his life if it means harming him to do it. Yeah, that is really moral, remind me never to be in a situation where it is take my leg or leave me to die when it's you making the decisions.

Sorry, but no, not voting -is- voting, it's giving the greater evil an uncontested vote because you refuse to counter one of theirs with your own. By not voting for a lesser evil you are supporting the greater one, and all the while trying to claim some holier than thou position over those willing to stand up against the greater evil and make sure it doesn't happen.

Personally I think the moral thing to do is to fight the greater evil, even if it mean siding with a lesser one to do it. You can deal with the lesser one once the threat of the greater is vanquished. Standing aside and letting the Greater Evil win by your inaction and then trying to claim it as some moral high ground? No, that is BS and hypocrisy.

And that's the same justification collaborators always use. "I'm helping evil, yes, but it's a lesser evil!" And thus evil is propagated further.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You just don't get it.

If a politician you like (agree with) changes their stance it's because they "listen to the people" or that they "evolved their opinion with the evidence."

If a politician you don't like (agree with) changes their mind it is because they "are a flip-flopping poll chaser" or because they are "a fair weather friend just after the votes."

If a politician you like (agree with) won't change their stance it's because they "have sound principles" or because they "know how to stay the course."

If a politician you don't like (agree with) won't change their stance it's because they "are stubborn and willfully ignorant in the face of facts" or because they "refuse to listen to what their constituents want."

You need to learn the lingo.

Preacher meet choir.

I know but I still thought the point was worth posting.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And that's the same justification collaborators always use. "I'm helping evil, yes, but it's a lesser evil!" And thus evil is propagated further.

Bollocks. Collaborators have a choice of supporting a great evil or fighting it. Yes, choosing to work with it is to support it, but when to fight it people had to work with a lesser one, that's the choice they made. Many of the French Resistance were communist, or worked with the Communists. Under your belief, they were as bad as those that supported the invaders.

In the politics arena you don't have that choice. You can't fight both options when you only have a and b and one of then will win, even if you stand aside and do nothing. You would rather allow the greater evil to win than make sure it doesn't. That's supporting it whether you like it or not.

If you want the closer analogy , those that refuse to help the lesser evil to fight the greater one are the Collaborators with the Greater Evil.

The Allies joined with the Communists in Soviet Russia, not because they supported Communism, but rather because Fascism was the greater threat, and needed to be dealt with first.

Your principles would have resulted in Fascism taking over Europe while you stood aside and watched it happen. Sorry, but letting great evil take over because you won't fight it along side a lesser evil doesn't make you principled, it makes you just as evil as supporters that cheer and clap the greater evil.

 

[Denver]

I'm listening to Dan Carlin's latest Common Sense. He made an interesting point on why it is next to impossible for Bernie to get the DNC nomination. If I understand, since Hillary is the establishment's preference, even if Bernie gets a comparable number of caucus votes as Hillary, the superdelegates (who are technically unpledged to any specific nominee, but probably really will do what the party wants them too) will start signing their votes over to Hillary: not en masse, so as not to look too suspicious, but as many as needed.

Which gives the non-establishment candidate an especially uphill battle.

 

[varwoche]

I have one nitpick...

Bollocks. Collaborators have a choice of working with evil or fighting it. Choosing to work with it is to support it. If you want the closer analogy , those that refuse to help the lesser evil to fight the greater one are the Collaborators with the Greater Evil.

The Allies joined with the Communists in Soviet Russia, not because they supported Communism, but rather because Fascism was the greater threat, and needed to be dealt with first.

Your principles would have resulted in Fascism taking over Europe while you stood aside and watched it happen. Sorry, but letting great evil take over because you won't fight it along side a lesser evil doesn't make you principled, it makes you just as evil as supporters that cheer and clap the greater evil.

Or, it might indicate the person is simply naive. I'm not a fan of the black/white declarations of what constitutes good/evil during this ongoing dialog.

(not in response to your post...) Nor am I fan of the different standards applied to Sanders and Clinton. Clinton is evil for being slow to support same sex marriage. But for unexplained reasons, Sanders is not evil, though he too was slow on the uptake.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Bollocks. Collaborators have a choice of supporting a great evil or fighting it. Yes, choosing to work with it is to support it, but when to fight it people had to work with a lesser one, that's the choice they made. Many of the French Resistance were communist, or worked with the Communists. Under your belief, they were as bad as those that supported the invaders.

In the politics arena you don't have that choice. You can't fight both options when you only have a and b and one of then will win, even if you stand aside and do nothing. You would rather allow the greater evil to win than make sure it doesn't. That's supporting it whether you like it or not.

If you want the closer analogy , those that refuse to help the lesser evil to fight the greater one are the Collaborators with the Greater Evil.

The Allies joined with the Communists in Soviet Russia, not because they supported Communism, but rather because Fascism was the greater threat, and needed to be dealt with first.

Your principles would have resulted in Fascism taking over Europe while you stood aside and watched it happen. Sorry, but letting great evil take over because you won't fight it along side a lesser evil doesn't make you principled, it makes you just as evil as supporters that cheer and clap the greater evil.

Yeah, that's it, I'm evil because I won't vote for someone I don't want to president.

You don't know what evil is. Evil is creating and sustaining that ridiculous illusory adversarial system to begin with. Evil is convincing people to do evil in the name of good. Evil is convincing yourself that it's okay to do evil, just this once, for a cause. It's different because it's you doing it, and you have good intentions, eh? That's what practically every evil person has thought while performing practically every evil action ever.

Tell you what, if Trump wins because Hillary Clinton loses by exactly one vote (which someone wrote in for Bernie Sanders) I'll buy you a Coke!

 

[TragicMonkey]

(not in response to your post...) Nor am I fan of the different standards applied to Sanders and Clinton. Clinton is evil for being slow to support same sex marriage. But for unexplained reasons, Sanders is not evil, though he too was slow on the uptake.

If you're aiming that at me, aim elsewhere. I don't dislike Clinton because of her slowness to support gay marriage (a cause I actually don't care that much about). I dislike her for, among other things, pretending now to be such a champion of The Gay. I haven't seen Sanders preening himself and sending out rainbows and pride logos the way she has. And I really wish people would stop focusing on marriage as the be-all and end-all of gay rights. Some of us care more about things like getting some sort of legal protections against getting fired or evicted for being gay which yes, can and still does happen. Not everywhere has laws against that.

Even more annoying than being told I must vote for Clinton because of the noble war against Republicans is being told that as a gay I must care so much about marriage. God, people do love to tell me what I should think, and get so angry when I don't comply.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have one nitpick... Or, it might indicate the person is simply naive. I'm not a fan of the black/white declarations of what constitutes good/evil during this ongoing dialog.

I can't see it as nativity to be honest. The policies between the GOP and Clinton are streets apart, while between Bernie and Clinton they are pretty close. The GOP has declared that should they win this election they will roll back the ACA, something we know they have been trying to do ever since it was brought in. People that refuse to vote for Hillary, should she get the nod, because she's not left enough for them, give support to the GOP in doing so, and thus are also supporting the removal of medical insurance form millions of their fellow Americans by their inaction. How is that not evil? Not only that but they will be supporting the loss of women's rights, probably the minimum wage, official and Government supported bigotry again LGBTIs and those of any religion that isn't the "right one" as determined by the GOP. Voting for whoever the Dems put up is fighting the loony that the GOP has become. Turning their backs on that isn't being principled, it's stabbing their fellow Americans in the back because they didn't get what they wanted. It's childish, selfish, pig-headed, and down right nasty.

(not in response to your post...) Nor am I fan of the different standards applied to Sanders and Clinton. Clinton is evil for being slow to support same sex marriage. But for unexplained reasons, Sanders is not evil, though he too was slow on the uptake.

It's not unexplained though, it's because they like Bernie and dislike Clinton, thus everything she does is seen as evil, and everything he does is seen as golden, even when those actions are identical.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I can't see it as nativity to be honest. The policies between the GOP and Clinton are streets apart, while between Bernie and Clinton they are pretty close. The GOP has declared that should they win this election they will roll back the ACA, something we know they have been trying to do ever since it was brought in. People that refuse to vote for Hillary, should she get the nod, because she's not left enough for them, give support to the GOP in doing so, and thus are also supporting the removal of medical insurance form millions of their fellow Americans by their inaction. How is that not evil? Not only that but they will be supporting the loss of women's rights, probably the minimum wage, official and Government supported bigotry again LGBTIs and those of any religion that isn't the "right one" as determined by the GOP. Voting for whoever the Dems put up is fighting the loony that the GOP has become. Turning their backs on that isn't being principled, it's stabbing their fellow Americans in the back because they didn't get what they wanted. It's childish, selfish, pig-headed, and down right nasty.



It's not unexplained though, it's because they like Bernie and dislike Clinton, thus everything she does is seen as evil, and everything he does is seen as golden, even when those actions are identical.

Really? You're the one declaring those who aren't for you are against you, and you label them evil? You use analogies of fascism to condemn them yet you're the one using their rhetoric. Disloyalty! Treachery! The worst enemy is the closest ally who won't convert to every point of your platform! You sound like ISIS condemning other Muslims for not being sufficiently Islamic. Are you certain you even want a democracy? Are you certain you're not guilty of the same authoritarian streak you accuse the Republicans of harboring?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah, that's it, I'm evil because I won't vote for someone I don't want to president.

No, because you refuse to vote against the person that would make an even worse President, thus increasing their chances of winning.

You don't know what evil is. Evil is creating and sustaining that ridiculous illusory adversarial system to begin with. Evil is convincing people to do evil in the name of good. Evil is convincing yourself that it's okay to do evil, just this once, for a cause. It's different because it's you doing it, and you have good intentions, eh? That's what practically every evil person has thought while performing practically every evil action ever.

Evil is standing aside and letting Evil flourish. Evil is letting people be hurt, or harmed worse, because you won't act to prevent it. Allowing others to commit evil unchecked when you know that they are doing it is just as bad as doing the actions yourself.

Tell you what, if Trump wins because Hillary Clinton loses by exactly one vote (which someone wrote in for Bernie Sanders) I'll buy you a Coke!

Except that you're not the only one that thinks like this. Bernie supporters have made it quite clear than many of them won't vote, so clearly they'd rather see the GOP in and have every advance they have gotten under Obama wiped out, and for-go every advance they would have gotten under Hillary, watch the country burn as minorities are targeted and vilified, trade seals destroyed and the only winners in the mess being the super rich, that being willing to take smaller steps and smaller victories than what they wanted.

Talk about throwing your toys out of the cot. Toddlers throwing temper tantrums are more rational.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No, because you refuse to vote against the person that would make an even worse President, thus increasing their chances of winning.

Yes, yes, I know. Support Joffrey because Stannis is worse, right? Funny how Stannis's supporters say the same thing with the names reversed.

Evil is standing aside and letting Evil flourish. Evil is letting people be hurt, or harmed worse, because you won't act to prevent it. Allowing others to commit evil unchecked when you know that they are doing it is just as bad as doing the actions yourself.

You believe performing a lesser evil is less evil than not performing any evil? You have an interesting morality. Did you train with the Jesuits or the Borgia popes?

Except that you're not the only one that thinks like this. Bernie supporters have made it quite clear than many of them won't vote, so clearly they'd rather see the GOP in and have every advance they have gotten under Obama wiped out, and for-go every advance they would have gotten under Hillary, watch the country burn as minorities are targeted and vilified, trade seals destroyed and the only winners in the mess being the super rich, that being willing to take smaller steps and smaller victories than what they wanted.

Talk about throwing your toys out of the cot. Toddlers throwing temper tantrums are more rational.

Toddlers? You seem to have an extremely exaggerated view of the "advances" that occurred in the last eight years, and the hypothetical advances you imagine Hillary Clinton would accomplish. I don't think I even need point out the apocalpytic hyperbole of what you imagine another Republican presidency would be like. The president is not a dictator, and we've had bad ones before. How many of the predicted/fear horrors of the Dark Lord George W Bush came to pass?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Really? You're the one declaring those who aren't for you are against you, and you label them evil? You use analogies of fascism to condemn them yet you're the one using their rhetoric. Disloyalty! Treachery! The worst enemy is the closest ally who won't convert to every point of your platform! You sound like ISIS condemning other Muslims for not being sufficiently Islamic. Are you certain you even want a democracy? Are you certain you're not guilty of the same authoritarian streak you accuse the Republicans of harboring?

Actually "He who is not with Me is against Me" is from the Bible, not from Fascism.

As to the rest, you seem to think that to be willing to support someone you have to be a clone, you don't, but refusing top support the person who's platform is closest to your your own because they aren't exactly what you want and by doing so harming your fellows, yeah that disloyalty.

Democracy is about taking part, not standing on the sidelines and crying because your candidate lost in the first round. It's about making sure that your voice is heard by making a difference, not by helping those that you oppose because poor you didn't get your way. If you want to make a difference, you don't stand outside and throw stones, you work inside the system. You are doing the equivalence of throwing your toys out of the cot because you didn't get the dessert you wanted, and you don't seem to care who that ends up hurting in the long run.