I'm thinking of abandoning Bernie

[PhantomWolf]

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

When one or other is going to win regardless of your action, what does not voting for the closest to your own beliefs gain you, other than giving the one more opposed to you a greater chance of victory?

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?

If I have to chop off a person's leg to save their life, then yes, I'll chop off their leg, the fact you wouldn't but would leave their life up to fate all while knowing that the best case scenario is they'll lose their leg anyway is appalling and totally abhorrent to me.

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?

Hmmmm, you mean other than getting the US involved in two unwinnable wars with no exit strategy and then destroying the economy plunging the US in trillions of dollars of debt, bankrupting millions, putting millions more out of work... oh, and ordering the torturing and committing of War Crimes as well as handing over prisoners to be tortured by other countries. Shall we add in the greatest loss of freedoms since, ever, under the Patriot act, the NSA spying on allies and Americans at home... shall I continue?

 

[TragicMonkey]

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.

"My fellows"? If "my fellows" support a candidate I do not, how are they "my fellows"? Why should I change my vote to match theirs, instead of them changing their votes to match mine? Where's your loyalty? Why aren't you voting for Bernie Sanders?

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.

And you are doing the equivalent of eating whatever dessert is offered to you, even if it's poisoned, because you're terrified of not getting dessert. Sometimes it's better to go without a dessert, if it disagrees with you, than have one that's bad.

 

[TragicMonkey]

When one or other is going to win regardless of your action, what does not voting for the closest to your own beliefs gain you, other than giving the one more opposed to you a greater chance of victory?

I don't feel the need to be on the winning side outweighs the need to be true to my principles.

If I have to chop off a person's leg to save their life, then yes, I'll chop off their leg, the fact you wouldn't but would leave their life up to fate all while knowing that the best case scenario is they'll lose their leg anyway is appalling and totally abhorrent to me.

And it's abhorrent to me that you'd chop someone's leg off if someone told you to.

Hmmmm, you mean other than getting the US involved in two unwinnable wars with no exit strategy and then destroying the economy plunging the US in trillions of dollars of debt, bankrupting millions, putting millions more out of work... oh, and ordering the torturing and committing of War Crimes as well as handing over prisoners to be tortured by other countries. Shall we add in the greatest lose of freedoms since, ever, under the Patriot act, the NSA spying on allies and Americans at home... shall I continue?

Yes, yes, terrible things. And yet....you seem to have an internet connection, sufficient leisure and freedom to bitch about America online. Did you eat meals today? Do you have a home? A job? Money? Where are the death squads? Where are the craters of fire? Where are the armies of ringwraiths? You seem to regard Republican presidents as dark lords of cataclysmic might, yet the country still seems intact even after a double term of the Worstest Evil Imaginable. Either you are grossly exaggerating the powers and wickedness of Republicans, or you are crediting Obama with miraculous healing powers that restored the country to its current...what? Perfection? Can you find flaws with the state of things now? If so, does that mean the presidency is not as powerful as you seem to think it is?

 

[varwoche]

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.

I agree in general, but that misses the point somewhat. As best as I know, both Sanders and Clinton have been for equal rights across the board -- except marriage -- both favoring civil unions until semi-recently. In other words, same sex marriage is the only topic on the table, in terms of these two candidates not favoring equal rights.

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.

In case you mean me -- I'm not telling you anything of the sort. I am responding, however, to an extremely vague post you made a couple of weeks ago. (I responded to that same vague post earlier too, and explained that I wasn't 100% clear what you meant. You offered no further explanation.) Sharpen your pencil if you wish to be better understood.

 

[PhantomWolf]

"My fellows"? If "my fellows" support a candidate I do not, how are they "my fellows"?

And there it is, you don't agree or respect anyone that doesn't agree with you. They are your fellows, because you all live in the same country under the same government and laws.

[Why should I change my vote to match theirs, instead of them changing their votes to match mine?

If your candidate is the one that gets the nod to go ahead to round 2, they should. I have no issues with you voting for whoever you like in round 1, it's throwing a tantrum when your candidate loses and refusing the support the winner of round one I find illogical and irresponsible.

Where's your loyalty?

My loyalty is always to the candidate that matches my values the closest, and if if that candidate is one I can't vote for next time, I re-evaluate and vote for the next best one. I don't pout and sit in the corner and refuse to vote.

Why aren't you voting for Bernie Sanders?

I'm not allowed to. I'm not allowed to vote for Hillary or Trump either.

And you are doing the equivalent of eating whatever dessert is offered to you, even if it's poisoned, because you're terrified of not getting dessert. Sometimes it's better to go without a dessert, if it disagrees with you, than have one that's bad.

No, because I know that not getting a dessert at all is is not an option you have. You seem to think that if offered one poisoned enough to make you ill verses one poisoned enough to make you dead, that it's somehow batter to refuse to choose and have one force fed to you randomly meaning you have as much a chance of dying as living and being ill, than actually picking the one that will just make you ill in the first place.

This is what I really don't understand. You don't have a choice to avoid the result. If Hillary gets the nod, then the absolute best scenario for you is that she wins, but you are willing to allow the worse case scenario, a Trump or Cruz winning, rather then ensuring that the best case scenario occurs because you don't like either one. That's insane.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sharpen your pencil if you wish to be better understood.

I don't believe I can make myself understood. I am simply too different from other people posting here. I've said everything I can think to say, as well as I can say it. I think I should give up here. I favor Sanders as a candidate and will vote for him. I do not favor Clinton and will not vote for her, and no appeals to idealogical solidarity or condemnations of evil will sway me to vote against my own taste. I certainly don't care if people think I'm selfish for using my own judgment, it's what I have the damn thing for, and people have been disapproving of my using it since I first started.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And there it is, you don't agree or respect anyone that doesn't agree with you. They are your fellows, because you all live in the same country under the same government and laws.

And yet you don't extend that same fellowship to Republicans! Or that respect to me for disagreeing with you!

If your candidate is the one that gets the nod to go ahead to round 2, they should. I have no issues with you voting for whoever you like in round 1, it's throwing a tantrum when your candidate loses and refusing the support the winner of round one I find illogical and irresponsible.

And I find it illogical to vote for someone you don't want to vote for.

My loyalty is always to the candidate that matches my values the closest, and if if that candidate is one I can't vote for next time, I re-evaluate and vote for the next best one. I don't pout and sit in the corner and refuse to vote.

Why can't you accept that some people (me) simply have different reasoning than you do? Why do you have to keep characterizing it as being childish, and "pouting"?

This is what I really don't understand. You don't have a choice to avoid the result. If Hillary gets the nod, then the absolute best scenario for you is that she wins, but you are willing to allow the worse case scenario, a Trump or Cruz winning, rather then ensuring that the best case scenario occurs because you don't like either one. That's insane.

Sanity is relative. From my perspective, I'm one of the few sane people around.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't feel the need to be on the winning side outweighs the need to be true to my principles.

No one is saying you have to vote for the winning side. What I'm saying is that refusing to support the side that is closest to you and opposing the side that is furthermost from you, is childish. You determine who to support based on principles, and who is closer. Refusing to support that person because your first choice is no longer available is just trowing a temper tantrum because there's no more double chocolate and you only have a choice of chocolate and vanilla and waaaaah, I don't want either of them. But since you're going to be forced to eat one whether you want it or not, why not go with chocolate since it's closer to your first choice? What exactly do you lose?

And it's abhorrent to me that you'd chop someone's leg off if someone told you to.

If it was a choice of saving their live by doing so, or letting them be killed by not doing so, why is that abhorrent to you? Why would you be willing to let them die when you can save their life?

Yes, yes, terrible things. And yet....you seem to have an internet connection, sufficient leisure and freedom to bitch about America online. Did you eat meals today? Do you have a home? A job? Money? Where are the death squads? Where are the craters of fire? Where are the armies of ringwraiths? You seem to regard Republican presidents as dark lords of cataclysmic might, yet the country still seems intact even after a double term of the Worstest Evil Imaginable. Either you are grossly exaggerating the powers and wickedness of Republicans, or you are crediting Obama with miraculous healing powers that restored the country to its current...what? Perfection? Can you find flaws with the state of things now? If so, does that mean the presidency is not as powerful as you seem to think it is?

You really think that W was worse that Trump and co? You seem to have missed that the GOP has taken a serious turn down crazyville into outright racism, Bigotry, the removal of women's rights and more in the passed 8 years. Republic led states are stripping people's right to vote, forcing impossible demands for women to get abortions, denying any action on global climate change, treating immigrants, LGBTI, and anyone that looks "unamerican" as a second class citizens, forcing science of out schools and religion (the "right" one) on to them and more. Do you really want that sort of behaviour in Federal Government? Do you want millions of Americans now covered under the ACA and the expanded Medicare to have their health insurance repealed and removed from them? These are the things that the GOP want to do, and by refusing to support the platform closest to you, the Democrats, unless your primary candidate wins their nod, you are letting them do it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And yet you don't extend that same fellowship to Republicans! Or that respect to me for disagreeing with you!

Neither Republicans, nor you, are my fellows who live in the same country under the same government and laws.

And I find it illogical to vote for someone you don't want to vote for.

Then don't see it as a vote for a person you don't like, and see it instead as either a vote against the person you really hate, or perhaps just a vote for the best people for the job from those that made it that far. And yes, it is illogical that you would be willing to refuse to vote for the person whose policies are at least close to yours and in doing so open the door, allowing the person whose policies are directly opposed to yours win, when you know that one of them is going to win regardless of what you do. It still seems like you have this belief that if you don't vote for either then you won't get either.

Why can't you accept that some people (me) simply have different reasoning than you do? Why do you have to keep characterizing it as being childish, and "pouting"?

Because that's exactly how you're acting. It doesn't matter your reasoning, when you storm off crying, "It's my ball and I'm going home," people see you acting childishly. When you know that no matter what you do, you are either going be be force fed option A or option B, refusing to pick one even knowing one is far worse than the other comes over as irrational and illogical.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Keep in mind that not voting can mean a vote for the other side. And unless people are under the delusion that Trump or Cruz would be no different from Clinton, it's not like the absence of a vote has no consequences.

I imagine even some of the mainstream GOP know what a disaster Trump would be for the country. They might even vote for Clinton if that is the choice.

 

[theprestige]

Keep in mind that not voting can mean a vote for the other side. And unless people are under the delusion that Trump or Cruz would be no different from Clinton, it's not like the absence of a vote has no consequences.

I imagine even some of the mainstream GOP know what a disaster Trump would be for the country. They might even vote for Clinton if that is the choice.

I imagine even some of the mainstream Democratics know what a disaster Hillary would be for the country. They might even vote for Trump if that is the choice.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Keep in mind that not voting can mean a vote for the other side. And unless people are under the delusion that Trump or Cruz would be no different from Clinton, it's not like the absence of a vote has no consequences.

It's not a "can" it's a "does". When someone on the Left fails to vote, they give the Right an non-countered vote. It's the same as if the Right got an extra vote. The only thing worse is if they voted for the right, which is like giving them two votes.

It seems to come from some irrational thought process that makes them believe that if they don't participate in determine which of the two possible outcomes occurs, they can magically avoid either outcome.

 

[varwoche]

I don't believe I can make myself understood. I am simply too different from other people posting here.

If I could locate your vague statement and paste it here as a reminder, I'm sure you'd agree that even a unique snowflake such as yourself could express yourself more clearly. And I think if I posted my initial response, you'd also agree that I invited clarification.

I've said everything I can think to say, as well as I can say it. I think I should give up here. I favor Sanders as a candidate and will vote for him.

I have no desire whatsoever to convince you or anyone else not to vote for Sanders. (It's conceivable that I'll vote for him.) Like PhantomWolf, where I take issue is the general.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I imagine even some of the mainstream Democratics know what a disaster Hillary would be for the country. They might even vote for Trump if that is the choice.

Hillary is wanting to build a wall between the US and Mexico, and make Mexico pay for it? Round up millions of immigrants and sent them home? Shut down Mosques? Refuse entrance to the US for American Citizens based entirely on their religion? Register American Citizens again based entirely on their religion? Break every single trade agreement the US is part of setting up the US for thousands of civil suit cases? Remove citizenship from kids born in the US because of who their parents are, in violation of the Constitution of the US? Force companies to have their manufacturing where she tells them that they have to? Cut Federal Funding to any city that refuses to do what the President tells them? (BTW the SCotUS already decided that this sort of thing was unconstitutional when applied to States, it is unlikely to allow it for cities either.) Offering massive tax cuts, but somehow spending far less that this new tax system brings in (which will result is what federal spending be cut?????) Attempt to try and force other countries specifically China to change it laws and practices (how?) Oh never mind, He's gunna do that by sending in the military and have a glaring contest over the barrel of a gun, which is good, cause he wants everyone in the US armed too, so I guess the arms manufacturers are gunna be happy with a Trump victory. Gun all around, you have one, and you have one, and you have one, and you have one, in fact everyone can have one!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I imagine even some of the mainstream Democratics know what a disaster Hillary would be for the country. They might even vote for Trump if that is the choice.

Right, a well seasoned, heavily experienced diplomat vs a bombastic bull in a china shop with nothing but daddy-handouts, bankruptcies, and a narcissistic personality disorder to stand on.

I doubt many mainstream Democrats would vote for Trump. You notice the mainstream Democrats are heavily favoring Clinton.

 

[varwoche]

I imagine even some of the mainstream Democratics know what a disaster Hillary would be for the country. They might even vote for Trump if that is the choice.

Thankfully, that door swings both ways.

if Donald Trump gets the nomination, if Donald Trump makes me vote for Hillary Clinton, I’m coming after him with the two weapons he is most frightened of, a building inspector and Kobe Bryant’s barber.

link

 

[Mike!]

Right, a well seasoned, heavily experienced diplomat vs a bombastic bull in a china shop with nothing but daddy-handouts, bankruptcies, and a narcissistic personality disorder to stand on.

I doubt many mainstream Democrats would vote for Trump. You notice the mainstream Democrats are heavily favoring Clinton.

That include the labor unions?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...us-thought-to-endorsing-trump/article/2573359

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That include the labor unions?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...us-thought-to-endorsing-trump/article/2573359

Labor unions like they are a monolith?

It's nonsense.

 

[Travis]

Ted Cruz is giving a speech at a church that openly prays for the destruction of liberal states and thinks we need to implement martial law to keep Christianity on top.

But keep trying to sell me on the idea that Hillary is just as bad as him.

 

[DavidJames]

Ted Cruz is giving a speech at a church that openly prays for the destruction of liberal states and thinks we need to implement martial law to keep Christianity on top.

But keep trying to sell me on the idea that Hillary is just as bad as him.

You can't fight self righteous pride with logic.