(no subject)

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Comments

[murphyluck.livejournal.com]

Good one!

[liliaeth]

Nice one, though I have to admit, I like Hillary a million times more than Bernie, which is a bit odd, since I started out the election season thinking I'd prefer Bernie. (me being a socialist and all) It's just that Hillary has shown herself to just be the better candidate in comparison.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

What has HRC done that has shown herself to be the better candidate?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Win more delegates?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I guess that means Trump is the better candidate too then, huh?

Stupid answer is stupid.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

You guessed right!
Technically the best Republican candidate.
Best in the sense of winning over opponents. Sure.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You're using a tautology that I think most people would not agree with.

Via your logic, George W Bush was the best candidate in 2004. Do you think that's true?

[garote]

Well, he was running for reelection, and he won, so yeah. The Republicans would have been insane to pick anyone else.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

The question "Who is the better candidate?" Is NOT synonymous with "Who won the election?"

This is lazy thinking. There is *a sense in which* the candidate who won, is "better" at getting votes--but that is usually not the metric people use to say "I think candidate X is better than candidate Y"

It's not even technically correct (the best kind of correct) as one would need to specify: "They are *better at getting votes*."

But generally the word "better" is not so narrowly understood, and attempting to make it be so narrowly understood is a clear and simple example of lazy thinking and seeing what you want to see.

[garote]

Well then quit asking such general questions!!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

It's not a general question, it's just that some people have deliberately chosen to misunderstand it.

When someone says they are a socialist, and one candidate is *CLEARLY* more socialist than the other (despite neither being full-blown socialists, and yet both agree on having socialistic tendencies in society, like public schools, for example) the question of "What made you prefer the less socialistic one?" is *obviously* not asking the question: "Who won the election?" Because it's obvious who won the election, and if all they are saying is that they are a warm-weather fan, then it's hardly worth investigating. But assuming that the "better candidate" was a declaration made based upon ideas, and not upon election results, the question is suddenly worth asking.

It's kinda absurd that people have played the fool on this question. It's completely straightforward, unless you attempt to make it confusing.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

You're using a tautology that I think most people would not agree with.


Perhaps. But it was a somewhat tongue in cheek reply to your leading question.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Leading question?

You mean when I asked what it was that was being pointed to as "the better candidate" ?

Cause obviously, I'm aware she got more delegates. That's a given. It's not particularly clever to use tautological reasoning that is empty of explanatory value, when you are being asked to give an explanation.

Someone saying "I'm a socialist" but somehow thinks HRC is the better candidate is confusing, and I seek understanding. I understand people have different views, and I was hoping to understand an alternative viewpoint--not get lame tongue-in-cheek non-responses.

[garote]

Today, you are RIk

https://youtu.be/u1vy6dTCfrk?t=11m19s

ordering coffee at the pub.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Terribly sorry old chap, I don't quite follow your meaning.

I'm not sure why it's so out-of-place, to ask someone, who self-identifies as a socialist, why the less socialist candidate is thought of as the better candidate. It'd be like asking someone who self-identified as a Christian Conservative, why the less-conservative and less-Christian candidate was better.

(And again, who won is irrelevant to the question at hand)

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Besides her impressive credentials and demonstrated performance through the primaries, I think a lot of people were less won over by Hillary than turned off by Bernie, given his one-note campaigning, lackluster performance in non-caucus states, and his failure to emphatically disavow certain elements of his base. I know that I, personally, found his revolutionary rhetoric to be less convincing the further we got into the campaign, as it became increasingly clear that he had no revolutionary strategy to match his aspirations. That is, his message started to ring a bit hollow.

I genuinely like Hillary. I don't think she's especially or dangerously "crooked," and I think she'd be an excellent president. But I don't know that I could point to anything she's done since the campaign began to show this (apart perhaps from her debate performances).

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Let's take this slowly, but thoroughly:

"Besides her impressive credentials"

You mean being a 1-term Senator, who sponsored 0 meaningful bills that got turned into law? (I'll readily admit, Bernie only got 1 meaningful bill that he sponsored turned into law, during the same amount of time in the senate. Last I checked, 1 > 0 )

Or you mean her term as SoS? Cause, I'll let that one go, sure. She has foreign policy experience and credentials when it comes to foreign policy affairs. Her domestic policy credentials I don't find to be impressive, but that's a bit of a judgment call.

Please do point to anything else that qualifies as credentials, other than her term as SoS and her 1 term as a US Senator.

"and demonstrated performance through the primaries, I think a lot of people were less won over by Hillary than turned off by Bernie, given his one-note campaigning"

One-note campaigning? You mean how he was the champion of a dozen different ideas in how to improve the economic status of millions of hard working Americans? Be it with the min-wage, be it with free public college, be it with un-rigging the tax-code, be it with single payer healthcare, be it with.....oh yeah, all those ideas, they are ALL THE SAME. Yup yup yup! Dealing with wall-street greed is the same as dealing with insurance company greed, is the same as dealing with employers greed.

It's almost like Greed is bad and fucks our economy up or something.....

Moving on. (And I'm ignoring his fight against Citizens United and the corrupting influence of money/greed on the political process itself)


"lackluster performance in non-caucus states,"

You mean like in MA or IL, where he was within 2% of HRC? You mean like Michigan? Or do you mean like how he got 42% in HRC's home-state of NY? Compared to the 14% HRC got in Bernie's home state of VT.


"and his failure to emphatically disavow certain elements of his base."

Oh for fucks sake. I'm sick of this. How many times, in how many ways, did Bernie need to say: "I don't want your vote cause HRC is a woman and you are a sexist." or "Violence is never acceptable, and anyone who supports me should remain 100% peaceful"

Like, for fucks sake. He completely and totally did disavow those elements of his base. What, exactly, did you want him to say?


"I know that I, personally, found his revolutionary rhetoric to be less convincing the further we got into the campaign, as it became increasingly clear that he had no revolutionary strategy to match his aspirations. That is, his message started to ring a bit hollow."

Yeah, you don't strike me as the revolutionary type. You're a pretty moderate centrist. You seem to be the ideal voter for HRC. The kind of white moderate that MLK wrote about from a Birmingham jail cell.

I'm not surprised that you genuinely like her.

I'm guessing you don't mind her campaign speech where she said we would "never, EVER" get single-payer healthcare.

Cause fuck me, it's crazy-pants to talk about making sure that people who need doctors can see them.

You probably also don't mind her campaign speech where she said "I don't know where Bernie was in the 90's when I was fighting for healthcare" (answer: RIGHT BEHIND YOU!)

You probably don't mind that she dodged the question on her GS transcripts. You probably don't mind her hawkishness.

You don't really strike me as the socialist-type. Which means you responding to my inquiry is rather different than the person I asked, because that person self-identified as a socialist.

When it comes to someone who holds socialist values, thinking HRC > Bernie is confusing to me.

But, I suppose, you do at least admit she didn't do much of anything impressive in the campaign itself (apart, perhaps, from her debate performances, which I wouldn't say were great, but I also didn't feel were all that bad. she did fine in the debates, which is all she needed to do)

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you don't strike me as the revolutionary type. You're a pretty moderate centrist. You seem to be the ideal voter for HRC. The kind of white moderate that MLK wrote about from a Birmingham jail cell.

Which is a bit rich, coming from the guy supporting the candidate who notoriously couldn't convince minority voters to vote for him.

I'm not a revolutionary, but neither was Bernie. He didn't have a strategy to do anything besides get himself into the presidential office, and even there he failed to inspire enough people to give him the nomination. If there's going to be a "revolution" in Washington, it needs to start at the state and local level. We need Berners in state legislatures, we need them in the House and Senate, we need them on the courts. That was the only way any of Bernie's policy goals would have any chance of seeing the light of day.

But is that what we saw him or his campaign doing? No. What was the explanation? Oh, the idea was - let's get him elected first, then somehow his mandate will inspire already-elected politicians to come to his side. Which is just nonsense - nothing about current politics or political discourse suggests that anyone's ready for that kind of change. The political mood right now favors Trumpism - loyal and opportunistic devotion to a single, authoritarian leader preaching a new style of nationalism.

I'm nothing like the "white moderates" referenced in MLK's exhortation. I'm not advising that we "go slow" or accept incremental change rather than radical reforms. I am still 100% in favor of everything Bernie was for, and I'm for it today and now. But what I've recognized, which you evidently have not, is that Bernie had adopted the rhetoric of revolution in order to create for himself a salient political brand, a brand that helped carry him through much of the primary campaign, but little more than a brand nonetheless. Easily-duped supporters like you are going to just switch over to Stein now - another candidate who talks big but has no real plan for making the dream a reality - and possibly leave us with a Trump presidency (because, apparently, every Bernie/Steiner is in a "safe district").

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"Easily-duped supporters like you"

I've been pro-Bernie for over a decade now, so how about you STFU instead of acting like you know me.

And go on, tell me how New York is gonna go red this year. I'm waiting.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I've been pro-Bernie for over a decade now, so how about you STFU instead of acting like you know me.

Are you kidding? I've seen you writing/commenting long enough to know that you've been a blathering fool that whole time. Going all the way back to your college/student of philosophy days, when you at least leavened your defining incompetence with a measure of self-awareness that you mightn't be right about every last thing. Now, that measure of humility is gone, replaced only by a foul defensiveness that is as devoid of merit as it is of substance.

And go on, tell me how New York is gonna go red this year. I'm waiting.

You're doing your darnedest to make it happen.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Oh, so because you've seen me post things on the internet you are in a position to judge me.

Well, then by that metric, I can judge you, as an arrogant, spiteful, shitty person.

If you think there is a 1% change of NY is going red this year you are dumber than a box of rocks.

I'm sorry you do not understand modern American politics, it must be quite an impediment to your "smarter-than-thou" shtick.

If NY goes red, HRC has already lost.

Not to mention: you got no fucking clue what I do. You've already decided that when I spend my time and energy on supporting political candidates that I think should hold office, that I am wasting my time/life.

So how about you got suffer mild burns in a fire, you pompous prick.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

Oh, so because you've seen me post things on the internet you are in a position to judge me.

Certainly, I am in a position to judge the quality of the things you've said and what they tend to indicate about the person who said them. I am not really sure why you find that controversial.

Well, then by that metric, I can judge you, as an arrogant, spiteful, shitty person.

That's fine! I won't deny that my self-confidence often strikes the insecure as "arrogance," nor can I deny that I have nursed the odd grudge from time to time. If that makes me "shitty," so be it, though I'm not exactly sure what you expect me to do with that information or how I'm to respond to the accusation. I mean, Ouch? I guess?

If you think there is a 1% change of NY is going red this year you are dumber than a box of rocks.

And if you think I've said that, etc., etc.

I'm sorry you do not understand modern American politics, it must be quite an impediment to your "smarter-than-thou" shtick. If NY goes red, HRC has already lost.

Do I think that you, personally, pose a real risk that NY will flip red? No. But I see a lot of Bernie/Steiners making this kind of claim - that their vote for Stein is really about giving the Greens a national platform in future elections - and they're not necessarily all in "safe" districts, nor do I think that the Bernie/Steiners living in "purplish" districts would find the fact that their votes might actually "matter" all that compelling. I believe there are many Bernie/Steiners - yourself included - who would actually take some satisfaction in a Hillary loss, just because it would "send a message" that ignoring the Bernie base is no longer an option for the Democratic establishment. It just so happens that you live in a district that prevents you from having to admit that or potentially accept responsibility for it personally.

Not to mention: you got no fucking clue what I do. You've already decided that when I spend my time and energy on supporting political candidates that I think should hold office, that I am wasting my time/life.

Quite to the contrary. Given that your incompetence likely pervades your every act, I imagine that your decision to volunteer your worthless time and valueless talents to the promotion of causes that are, in themselves, good, is a greater benefit to society as a whole than whatever else you could be doing with them.

So how about you got suffer mild burns in a fire, you pompous prick.

Cheers!

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

" If that makes me "shitty," so be it, though I'm not exactly sure what you expect me to do with that information "

I don't know, maybe, ya know, stop being a shitty person? Change your behavior to be less shitty? Aim to improve yourself?

Given that you know, and I know, and *everybody else knows* that NY is not going red, your continued attempt to assault my choice to withhold my vote from a candidate who I do not like (even if I like her *more* than the only other realistic choice) is stupid and pointless. You know my vote isn't gonna matter, not in our current electoral college system. The fact is, I pay a lot of attention to detail and I'm well aware of the impact of voting, and I do so strategically. That you think my strategic voting is somehow *less thoughtful* than the mindless, blind, party-line voting you want from me, is indicative of the stupidity you express, though veiled in an arrogance.

You're absolutely wrong to somehow conflate me not planning to vote for HRC, and people in, say, Ohio or Florida not planning to vote for HRC.

And now you are just flip-flopping. You have explicitly stated in the past that when I give my blood, sweat and tears to an issue campaign, or a candidates campaign, that is fighting the good fight, that it is a waste of my time. You cannot even make up your mind and stick with one consistent belief.

You're a real piece of work you know that? You're at the top of the bell curve you are.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I don't know, maybe, ya know, stop being a shitty person? Change your behavior to be less shitty? Aim to improve yourself?

I don't view my self-confidence or occasional grudge as character defects, nor do I view your estimation of my character to be particularly helpful in my self-improvement. There are people whose judgment that I'm "shitty" I might care about. You're not one of them, particularly when you so clearly misapprehend 90% of what I say.

Given that you know, and I know, and *everybody else knows* that NY is not going red, your continued attempt to assault my choice to withhold my vote from a candidate who I do not like (even if I like her *more* than the only other realistic choice) is stupid and pointless.

See what I mean? I think I rather clearly just stated that I don't think your protest vote really hurts anyone. But here you're continuing to attack my intelligence and character for something I've never said and have, in fact, clearly disavowed. Is there any reason I should take your word for it when you conclude that I'm a "shitty person?"

And now you are just flip-flopping. You have explicitly stated in the past that when I give my blood, sweat and tears to an issue campaign, or a candidates campaign, that is fighting the good fight, that it is a waste of my time. You cannot even make up your mind and stick with one consistent belief.

I'll acknowledge that the various insults I've lobbed in your direction may not cohere into a single theory of why you're a waste of space. I'm not too worried about it.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Scroll up a pinch and you'll find yourself saying:

"You're doing your darnedest to make it happen."

Now what is the "it" in question? Ostensibly making NY go red, and if we are stretching the meaning, possibly costing HRC the election. But both of those are frankly stupid thoughts.

By voting for a candidate I prefer, I am "doing [my] darnedest" ? You have a very low threshold for what someone doing their darnedest is.

Do I think that you, personally, pose a real risk that NY will flip red? No. But I see a lot of Bernie/Steiners making this kind of claim - that their vote for Stein is really about giving the Greens a national platform in future elections - and they're not necessarily all in "safe" districts, nor do I think that the Bernie/Steiners living in "purplish" districts would find the fact that their votes might actually "matter" all that compelling. I believe there are many Bernie/Steiners - yourself included - who would actually take some satisfaction in a Hillary loss, just because it would "send a message" that ignoring the Bernie base is no longer an option for the Democratic establishment. It just so happens that you live in a district that prevents you from having to admit that or potentially accept responsibility for it personally.

You have an epic problem in differentiating me, from other people. I am a single individual and to treat me as if I am somehow a stand-in for the entire group of Bernie supporters is massive stupidity. You want to somehow blame me, or condemn me, for what others may or may not do. You want me to accept responsibility, personal responsibility, for what other people, in other districts do.

That's fucking stupid. And frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for penning something so outrageously, unbelievably, stupid.

I'm responsible for casting my vote, and my vote alone, in my district, alone.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

By voting for a candidate I prefer, I am "doing [my] darnedest" ? You have a very low threshold for what someone doing their darnedest is.

By attacking anyone who voices the slightest positive thing about Hillary? By repeatedly explaining why you're voting for someone other than Hillary? I imagine you're doing a fair amount of real-world advocacy, as well, given your fondness for trumpeting your volunteering activities elsewhere. That you're suddenly trying to narrow the scope of your participation in the election - after all the dick-measuring before - to merely voting third-party in a safe district is highly suggestive to me that you're intentionally leaving things unstated.

You have an epic problem in differentiating me, from other people.

The passage you cited explicitly differentiates you from those other people. I don't blame you for what they may or may not do. I do, however, assert that you share a sentiment with them. If you don't actually share that sentiment - that you wouldn't actually prefer that Hillary lose as a way of "sending a message" to the Democratic establishment, you just view yourself as doing what you can in a decidedly "safe" district to support a third-party candidate - then you could have just said as much.

But you didn't. Instead you accuse me of doing something I haven't done (i.e., blame you for what others might do) and call me "outrageously, unbelievably, stupid" for having done that thing I haven't done. Well, that's kind of an obvious way of avoiding my core criticism above, isn't it? Like I said, you want Hillary to lose, but you don't want to own up to that, because you realize how horribly sociopathic that would make you look. So you keep that sentiment private and try to treat your participation in the election as an intensely personal matter (despite the fact that it has been anything but to date, by your own account). Since your own personal vote won't make a difference, you feel entitled to that little deceit. You're very easy to read.