I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't give a crap who gets elected, so long as we all vote our conscience, after thinking - something you Hillarybots have forgotten about.

Dude, get this through your head: other people can look at the same information as you, and come to a different conclusion. Not because they're stupid, or brainwashed, but because they just analyze it differently.

It's not like I'm not voting for Bernie because he can't seem to find a comb. (Seriously, though, somebody find that guy a comb.)

Reducing those who disagree with you to robots is pretty offensive, although it does insulate you from their viewpoint. (Which, btw, is part of that Groupthink thing you keep going on about. Perhaps you're a bit guilt of that yourself?)

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

If Clinton loses to Trump, it'll be her own damn fault.

Exactly!

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Or, you can vote for your third/fourth party candidate of choice who are already on the ballot. No need for a write-in vote when there are viable choices already there.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote joefromchicago:

Quote:

I'm not the one who brought up the claim about "proof." That was you. If you want to drop it now, that's fine with me.

I won't allow you to set the only acceptable standard of proof is for the entire United States get into a time machine and go back to 2000 and hold the election again without Nader. Several polls have shown the second choice of a large majority of Nader voters was Gore, Gore was an environmentalist and Bush and the Republicans believe environmentalists are a scam. Plus, there are exhaustive studies of the down-ballot voting that shows a good majority of the Nader voters leaned toward Democrats on their down-ballot choices. Check out the Herron and Lewis study:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

Quote joe:

Quote:

Environmentalism was just one part of Nader's platform, and it was a much smaller part of Gore's platform.

It was a major part of Nader's platform, a smaller part of Gore's platform, and anti-environmentalism was a major part of the Republicans' platform. Remember, the Republicans at the moment were screaming in anger about Clinton having the nerve to lower the acceptable amount of arsenic found in rivers and ponds after Congress recessed. Beside themselves with indignation, they were, that he would lower the allowable arsenic levels. Environmental concerns were a big part of Nader's appeal, and the major reason he was famous before he ever ran. The notion that, of the 97,000 voters who went for Nader, there would not be many more than 537 of them voting for Gore than voting for Bush if Nader didn't run is preposterous. The rigorous Herron and Lewis study shows at least 10,000 more votes going for Gore than going for Bush if Nader never runs.

Quote joe:

Quote:

If Nader hadn't run but Gore and Bush remained terrible choices, then someone else besides Nader would have run and would have received those votes.

Whoever ran would not have the political and fame stature of Ralph Nader and therefore would not have received anywhere near 97,000 votes in Florida. According to Herron and Lewis' figures, even if only 10% of the eventual Nader voters instead voted their second choices, Gore wins easily. Whoever decided to run instead of Nader would not get anywhere near half of Nader's vote total, let alone 90% of it.

Nader's candidacy delivered the presidency to Bush. Now some people want to repeat the same third party process.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Dude, get this through your head: other people can look at the same information as you, and come to a different conclusion. Not because they're stupid, or brainwashed, but because they just analyze it differently.

Reducing those who disagree with you to robots is pretty offensive, although it does insulate you from their viewpoint. (Which, btw, is part of that Groupthink thing you keep going on about. Perhaps you're a bit guilt of that yourself?)

Whoa! Look in the DrewDad Mirror "dude!"

Shift your perspective from Edgar and his anti-HRC sentiments to you and your anti-conservative sentiments.

You've given yourself a damned good lesson if you'll acknowledge it.

(You'll need to substitute "moronic, immoral demons" for "robots", but the message remains the same)

1 Reply

Rich, rich and triple rich!!!

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/25859178.jpg

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

I won't allow you to set the only acceptable standard of proof is for the entire United States get into a time machine and go back to 2000 and hold the election again without Nader.

You won't allow me? I didn't know I had to ask your permission.

Regardless, the simple truth is that you can't prove a counterfactual.

Blickers wrote:

Remember, the Republicans at the moment were screaming in anger about Clinton having the nerve to lower the acceptable amount of arsenic found in rivers and ponds after Congress recessed.

Now you're starting to sound like Oralloy. Honestly, is that the only thing you remember about the 2000 campaign? That was like 148th on the list of most important issues that voters cared about in that election.

Blickers wrote:

Environmental concerns were a big part of Nader's appeal, and the major reason he was famous before he ever ran.

No, he was famous for being a consumer advocate on product-safety issues.

Blickers wrote:

The rigorous Herron and Lewis study shows at least 10,000 more votes going for Gore than going for Bush if Nader never runs.

No, it posits an imaginary ceteris paribus world where everything was just like it was in 2000 except that Nader didn't run. But that world never existed. It's a figment of the authors' imaginations. The results of the study, therefore, are likewise fictitious.

Blickers wrote:

Nader's candidacy delivered the presidency to Bush. Now some people want to repeat the same third party process.

Face it: Gore lost because Gore couldn't convince enough voters that he was the best choice. Blaming Nader voters for Gore's defeat is like a sports team blaming its loss on the fans.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't give a crap who gets elected, so long as we all vote our conscience, after thinking - something you Hillarybots have forgotten about.

Dude, get this through your head: other people can look at the same information as you, and come to a different conclusion. Not because they're stupid, or brainwashed, but because they just analyze it differently.

It's not like I'm not voting for Bernie because he can't seem to find a comb. (Seriously, though, somebody find that guy a comb.)

Reducing those who disagree with you to robots is pretty offensive, although it does insulate you from their viewpoint. (Which, btw, is part of that Groupthink thing you keep going on about. Perhaps you're a bit guilt of that yourself?)

You people with your lynch mob actions on this site are a classic of groupthink. But I promise you this: I will be around here to say I told you so if she gets elected, after her actions betray her electioneering.

4 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote edgar:

Quote:

ou people with your lynch mob actions on this site

Lynch mob? We don't even know where your house is.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote joe:

Quote:

Regardless, the simple truth is that you can't prove a counterfactual.

You can show what the overwhelming probabilities were. Men have been hanged on less evidence.

Quote joe:

Quote:

Now you're starting to sound like Oralloy. Honestly, is that the only thing [Clinton's lowering of acceptable arsenic levels] you remember about the 2000 campaign?

Merely giving an example of the stark contrast on the environment between Nader and Gore on one side, and Bush on the other.

Quote joe:

Quote:

No, he [Nader] was famous for being a consumer advocate on product-safety issues.

That was back in the mid sixties. Ralph had long since morphed into an environmentalist advocate.

Quote joe:

Quote:

it [the study] posits an imaginary ceteris paribus world where everything was just like it was in 2000 except that Nader didn't run

Actually, it examined the down ballots of the Florida counties to show that many more Nader voters were Democrats than Republicans. Which shouldn't surprise anyone since the Democrats are pro-environment, Republicans anti-environment. Hence Gore's loss in Florida due to environmentalist votes being diverted from Gore to Nader.

Quote joe:

Quote:

Face it: Gore lost because Gore couldn't convince enough voters that he was the best choice.

Normally, there is one pro-environmentalist choice, (Democrats), and one anti-environmentalist choice, (Republicans). Nader foolishly siphoned just enough environmentalist votes away from Gore to give the whole damn election to the anti-environmentalist Bush. And now people are advocating the same disastrous course.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Well, Bill was impeached for lying under oath and lost his license to practice law. If even lawyers don't want him in their club, that's bad. I can't think of anyone lower than a lawyer, not even a used car salesman.

0 Replies

I find EB's persecution paranoia disturbing. He lashes out at people who have never said an unkind word to him.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

I will be around here to say I told you so if she gets elected, after her actions betray her electioneering.

The same in reverse is true, we will be around if things don't quite as bad as you imagine. Btw-what do you imagine will or will not happen under a Hillary Clinton presidency? What are you benchmarks? In other words any improvements towards the working class, would it be considered a mark for her or a mark against her if you feel it does not go far enough? For example, say going from 7.25 to 10.00, would that be considered an improvement or a set back because it is not 15.00? What if she proposes it, but congress opposes it, does she get credit for trying or does she get the blame because it did not pass congress?

1 Reply

@revelette2,

I had this situation at work once. I was speaking to an operator who was grilling me about a project one of my employees was working on. She said something to the effect of "if it doesn't work, I'm going to call you personally to let you know." My response was "Ok, that's fair, but if it does work, I expect you to call me personally to tell me what a good job my guy did in solving your problem." That completely poll axed her. A few weeks later, I got a phone call telling me it could be slightly better but she was overall pleased and my guy did a good job.

I hope that if Edgar finds his fears are unfounded he will be as generous with his praise has he has been with his condemnation.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

That completely poll axed her.

Wow, "poleaxed".

1 Reply

@engineer,

Actually, I think you just stumbled upon a great pun that I can use during this election year. Thanks. Very Happy

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

You people with your lynch mob actions on this site are a classic of groupthink. But I promise you this: I will be around here to say I told you so if she gets elected, after her actions betray her electioneering.

a) "lynch mob" is just a tad hyperbolic.
b) Seeking out others to learn their viewpoint and discuss the differences is the complete opposite of groupthink.

Groupthink. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.

I get that you're upset that your candidate is losing. I get that, to you, he's the obvious choice. I get that you've made a thoughtful and principled decision.

Please accept that others can have made a thoughtful and principled decision to vote for Clinton.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

her actions betray her electioneering.

Quote:

electioneer
verb (used without object)
1. to work for the success of a particular candidate, party, ticket, etc., in an election

Uh... I concur?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Blickers wrote:
I won't allow you...
You won't allow me? I didn't know I had to ask your permission.

It's a new unwritten rule around here apparently; at least for some, we must present an idea or indicate which candidate other than Ms.Clinton we are in support of and then await approval. Just the other day I was given permission to vote for whichever candidate I wanted to. That happened when I made clear that Ms.Clinton was not my choice for the primaries. I was given the gift of permission to vote for another. Of course this was a worthless gift since the primary election in my state had already occurred.

1 Reply

I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know