Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[wareyin]

This is circular: Assume that either X or Y must be president. Therefor, promoting that X should not be president entails promoting that Y should be president and vice versa.

Who, if anyone, will be president is neither logically nor physically predetermined - even if only down to 2 choices. It is determined by the aggregate choices made by a set of individuals, such as yourself, all of whom have a wide range of choices available to them.

Your appeal to "realism" falls flat on its face for being nothing but a self-imposed restriction. Suppose I am at a pub and have a choice between drinking a beer or a soda. Me declaring "the only realistic choice is drinking a beer" because I prefer beer over soda has nothing to do with realism but everything to do with me rationalizing away my own preference with an appeal to "realism". There is, after all, nothing logical or physical stopping me from drinking the soda instead. Appeals to realism are then of course also the prime rationalization of the political right - "it's just not realistic to take in more refugees", "austerity is the only realistic choice", etc.

You misunderstand. To use your analogy: you are at the pub, and can drink beer or soda. It is not realistic to then order salt water. The choice is Trump or Clinton, advocating against one will get you the other.

 

[caveman1917]

You misunderstand. To use your analogy: you are at the pub, and can drink beer or soda. It is not realistic to then order salt water.

Why not? The bartender clearly has salt water available so why would it not be "realistic" to order salt water?

The choice is Trump or Clinton, advocating against one will get you the other.

You keep repeating this, yet it is clearly false. There are a wide range of choices available which do not result in Trump or Clinton being president. Heck, there's a whole range of choices available which do not result in anyone being president. Also, I'm not advocating against one but against both.

As an aside, I always find it fascinating when people then turn around and call this election thing a demonstration of their "democratic freedom of choice".

 

[wareyin]

Why not? The bartender clearly has salt water available so why would it not be "realistic" to order salt water?



You keep repeating this, yet it is clearly false. There are a wide range of choices available which do not result in Trump or Clinton being president. Heck, there's a whole range of choices available which do not result in anyone being president. Also, I'm not advocating against one but against both.

As an aside, I always find it fascinating when people then turn around and call this election thing a demonstration of their "democratic freedom of choice".

No, the bartender does not have salt water, nor can you drink salt water. For the presidential election expecting people that poll at less than 5% to win is a similar choice. The best chance anyone not named Clinton or Trump has of being elected this year is Johnson, and currently he has less than a 1% chance. Realistically, the only 2 people with a shot are Clinton arena Trump.

Please explain what choices we as a country could make which result in no one being President.

 

[caveman1917]

No, the bartender does not have salt water, nor can you drink salt water.

Of course he has salt water. Just because you, along with that crowd in the pub, ignore the salt water because you're collectively obsessed with debating a self-restricted choice between beer and soda doesn't mean that the salt water isn't there. Ignoring a choice does not mean it doesn't exist.

For the presidential election expecting people that poll at less than 5% to win is a similar choice. The best chance anyone not named Clinton or Trump has of being elected this year is Johnson, and currently he has less than a 1% chance. Realistically, the only 2 people with a shot are Clinton arena Trump.

A self-fulfilling prophecy then? It's not "realistic" because you choose to make it not "realistic". Those polls are not logical or physical restrictions being placed on the outcome, they are just the choices made by individuals, all of whom have a whole range of choices available other than Clinton or Trump. There is nothing stopping any individual from making another choice, nor them collectively doing so.

Seems akin to the strategy used by anti-immigrant groups. First they claim it is not "realistic" to accept refugees because it would lead to all sorts of problems, then they go create all sorts of problems whenever refugees get accepted, and then say "see that it was not realistic?"

The only people making a result other than Trump or Clinton not "realistic" are the ones choosing either Trump or Clinton, ironically enough for a good part based on their own claims of another choice not being "realistic".

Please explain what choices we as a country could make which result in no one being President.

If you're not even willing to accept that you, as a country, have choices which would result in another president than Trump or Clinton, then why should I expect you to accept that you, as a country, have choices resulting in no one being president?

But since you asked anyway, abolishing the position of president would seem to do it.

 

[DavidJames]

This is circular: Assume that either X or Y must be president. Therefor, promoting that X should not be president entails promoting that Y should be president and vice versa.

Who, if anyone, will be president is neither logically nor physically predetermined - even if only down to 2 choices. It is determined by the aggregate choices made by a set of individuals, such as yourself, all of whom have a wide range of choices available to them.

Your appeal to "realism" falls flat on its face for being nothing but a self-imposed restriction.

This is the best point to stop this silly post. This thread is about HRC being done (part 3). You can't simply discard reality. In 2016 HRC or Trump will be elected president. If you want to play mind games, academic footsie, or continue with your mental masturbation, open a new thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-shut-down-clinton-foundation-227263


Clinton faces late summer scandal wave

Controversies surround the Clinton Foundation and her email server will likely dog Clinton all the way through the election — and potentially beyond.

avid readers are already up to speed on this, but thought you'd like this.

 

[caveman1917]

You can't simply discard reality.

What reality would that be? The reality you freely choose to create and then use to justify your choice as "having no other realistic choice"? That's not discarding reality, it's discarding the choice you make.

This thread would be a prime example. If you poll people they'd pretty much all choose either Hillary or Trump "because it's the only realistic choice", leading to either Hillary or Trump winning, which is then used as a justification for the earlier claim of "the only realistic choice".

In 2016 HRC or Trump will be elected president.

No, you will make a free choice to elect either Hillary or Trump, even though you also had a free choice of doing something entirely different. Attempting to rationalize your choices behind appeals to "realism" does not shield your choices from criticism.

 

[Tero]

Clinton faces late summer scandal wave

Controversies surround the Clinton Foundation and her email server will likely dog Clinton all the way through the election — and potentially beyond.

avid readers are already up to speed on this, but thought you'd like this.

I would get working on that special prosecutor for Jan 1. Benghazi may still hide inside that server.

 

[The Big Dog]

I would get working on that special prosecutor for Jan 1. Benghazi may still hide inside that server.

0/10

 

[NoahFence]

0/10

Much like your contributions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's stipulate that Clinton is infinitely preferable to Trump. That doesn't mean that Clinton is without flaws, or that her history and judgment are not subject to examination and criticism. I suspect you will be more disappointed than most of us with President Clinton's administration.

I suspect I will not be. No one is more out there in all their glory and faults than Clinton.

Meanwhile, in the live-horse news that actually matters: Racism and talk of religious war: Trump staff's online posts

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's paid campaign staffers have declared on their personal social media accounts that Muslims are unfit to be U.S. citizens, ridiculed Mexican accents, called for Secretary of State John Kerry to be hanged and stated their readiness for a possible civil war, according to a review by The Associated Press of their postings.

The AP examined the social media feeds of more than 50 current and former campaign employees who helped propel Trump through the primary elections. The campaign has employed a mix of veteran political operatives and outsiders. Most come across as dedicated, enthusiastic partisans, but at least seven expressed views that were overtly racially charged, supportive of violent actions or broadly hostile to Muslims.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is there something wrong with promoting the idea she should not be elected?....

Yes. Like it or not, there is no false dichotomy here, it's Clinton or Trump. You pick between them. You don't decide one choice without making the other choice.

And you can abstain or vote third party to assert your independence and superior moral stance or whatever. But even that choice results in one or the other, Trump or Clinton.

 

[The Big Dog]

I suspect I will not be. No one is more out there in all their glory and faults than Clinton.

Meanwhile, in the live-horse news that actually matters: [

and then she goes on to post something about Trump in a Hillary Clinton thread, while ignoring the 15,000 emails the FBI found, or the raging Clinton pay for play scandal.

head in the sand....

 

[caveman1917]

Yes. Like it or not, there is no false dichotomy here, it's Clinton or Trump. You pick between them. You don't decide one choice without making the other choice.

And you can abstain or vote third party to assert your independence and superior moral stance or whatever. But even that choice results in one or the other, Trump or Clinton.

Clearly false, if you say to me (assuming I'm a voter in that election) that even if I decide to vote third party that it will still be either Clinton or Trump, then, given that I am not different compared to all other voters, your argument should equally apply when you say this to all voters. Yet if all voters decide to vote third party then that choice doesn't result in either Trump or Clinton.

I'm guessing you just want to present it as a choice between Trump or Clinton because it gives you an easy argument for your preferred choice, Clinton, by pointing to Trump as the "only alternative".

And that's even ignoring the whole range of other choices available, even as an individual, that would not result in either Clinton or Trump - such as sabotaging the elections.

 

[wareyin]

Clearly false, if you say to me (assuming I'm a voter in that election) that even if I decide to vote third party that it will still be either Clinton or Trump, then, given that I am not different compared to all other voters, your argument should equally apply when you say this to all voters. Yet if all voters decide to vote third party then that choice doesn't result in either Trump or Clinton.

I'm guessing you just want to present it as a choice between Trump or Clinton because it gives you an easy argument for your preferred choice, Clinton, by pointing to Trump as the "only alternative".

And that's even ignoring the whole range of other choices available, even as an individual, that would not result in either Clinton or Trump - such as sabotaging the elections.

Here is the thing: you really are not representative of US voters. Your "if all voters decide to vote third party" fantasy is entirely unrelated to what will happen, or even to what has any chance whatsoever of happening. No third party candidate has even 1% chance of winning.

 

[acbytesla]

and then she goes on to post something about Trump in a Hillary Clinton thread, while ignoring the 15,000 emails the FBI found, or the raging Clinton pay for play scandal.

head in the sand....

I don't care about the emails and there is no evidence at all of a pay for play. All you can find is people trying to use a charity to get access. It sure beats what goes on in the House and Senate EVERY SINGLE FRICKIN DAY. Until the GOP comes out strongly against Citizens United, why the hell should I give a crap about the Clinton Foundation?

Seriously, It's beyond hypocrisy with the billions of dollars in contributions and gifts that lobbyists use to get access and influence legislation.

 

[Fudbucker]

And how would you know if it were a crime or just careless negligeance or some other sort of non-malicious error?

When negligence regarding the handling of classified info reaches a certain point (gross negligence), a crime is committed regardless of intent. Either Clinton's carelessness didn't reach that point or no reasonable prosecutor could have secured a conviction based on what she did.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't care about the emails and there is no evidence at all of a pay for play. All you can find is people trying to use a charity to get access. It sure beats what goes on in the House and Senate EVERY SINGLE FRICKIN DAY. Until the GOP comes out strongly against Citizens United, why the hell should I give a crap about the Clinton Foundation?

Seriously, It's beyond hypocrisy with the billions of dollars in contributions and gifts that lobbyists use to get access and influence legislation.

You don't care about emails or pay for play, but are faux-raged about lobbying expenses and citizens united which magically only republicans like?

You know who is exploiting citizens united? Hillary and her sleazy friends at correct the record. Uh oh, you don't give a crap anymore, do you.

Lolz!

 

[acbytesla]

You don't care about emails or pay for play, but are faux-raged about lobbying expenses and citizens united which magically only republicans like?

You know who is exploiting citizens united? Hillary and her sleazy friends at correct the record. Uh oh, you don't give a crap anymore, do you.

Lolz!

No, I care about both. But I know how the system works. I've seen it from the inside. It's a disgrace. It's a pox on the entire system. But the GOP doesn't give a damn about good government or ethics. So you'll excuse me if I don't care about the Clinton Foundation. What I'm not, is a pansy ass liberal who will disarm while the Republicans have no intention of ever slowing down their fire.

But the GOP thinks money is speech and money is how you play. Two things Republicans don't care about is "money in politics" and "democracy". This is why they purge voter rolls and demand voter IDs and prevent college students from voting on campuses.

So you'll excuse me that donors of a charity used that charity to get access to the SecState. And again, explain to me how is that any different than AETNA or Group Health donating to some Congressman or Senator to get a meeting and lobbying some piece of legislation?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Yet if all voters decide to vote third party then that choice doesn't result in either Trump or Clinton....

And therein lies your problem and Nader's problematic philosophy. It's not a realistic scenario.