The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: LateForLunch on May 18, 2017, 09:11:03 pm
-
The subject came up on another thread.
The assertion was made (by me) that U.S. elections are de facto binary choices, even though there are more than one candidate on the ballot.
Various posters disagreed, though I confess I didn't agree with them, they were with few exceptions, at leave somewhat civil about it.
Let us, at the invitation of one such poster who was unhappy with my inability to "understand" how an election with more than one candidate on the ballot could not ever be seen as a binary choice. This poster suggested that I lack an ability to grasp English.
So taking her seriously I will attempt to explore that possibility.
First, let's look at the word (borrowed from Latin) "de facto". What some may not know is that even if a word is Latin it can also become part of the English lexicon.
English has a long, rich history absorbing words from other languages and making them our own. The term "de facto" is one of them. A synonym for that term is "effectively". An antonym would be "literally". If I were to have said that U.S. presidential elections are LITERALLY binary choices, I would have been demonstrating a lack of understanding of English.
So in accepting the challenge on that term, I would assert that I used it correctly, since my central point was that even though the choice for president was LITERLLY multiple candidates, the greater point was that since only one of two candidates had any realistic chance of winning, the choice was EFFECTIVELY (de facto) only a choice between the only two candidates who could conceivably win and casting a null vote (effectively equivalent to abstention in the net effect)
So I guess what I would have to ask is whether the poster who questioned my grasp of English really understood the point? Another question might be whether that lack of grasping was due to apathy about reading or understanding the LOGIC of the post, or inability to realize the meaning of "de facto" ?
I feel comforted that I am only echoing what William F. Buckley elucidated many years ago - that there is a profound importance to understanding the difference between a candidate who simply qualifies to be on a ballot, and one that has a reasonable possibility of actually being elected.
So it seems to me that there can be no denying that in a practical (de facto) sense, the statement that U.S. presidential elections are binary choices is 100% true. No third party candidate (outside the TWO principle political parties operating in the USA) has ever been elected nor gotten to within artillery distance of the other two viable candidates.
I realize that for many, even the most basic stipulations of facts are considered controversial. I am prepared to accept that some of those who represent disagreement with basic stipulations may be doing do purposefully to avoid having to admit things that they don't want to admit (for whatever reason). I also realize that when exchanges of opinion are reduced to such minuscule facets of discussion as to whether or not an election is effectively a multiple choice or not, the value of engagement is fairly void. Such people will forever claim disagreement simply out of pure cussedness.
-
And as you were told over and over and over again on the other thread:
You're wrong. The only binary choice is do I vote? Yes/No
As soon as candidates are introduced into the equation your binary nonsense flies out the window because you now have the choice of not voting.
Stop trying to convince us of your brilliance for voting for Trump. We ain't buying.
-
Yes, elections in the United States boil down to binary choices. There has never been a possible three way tie in American History of which I am aware.
In fact, many elections boil down to a unary choice. Only one candidate had any possibility of winning.
This last election was pretty much a binary choice, it could have gone either way. Only votes for one candidate or the other would have had any effect on choosing the leadership.
Abstentions or votes for Third party candidates were merely noise in the balloting system, and they did nothing other than to waste the time of the poll workers.
-
I believe it comes down to the view of the question. If the question is viewed at a national level, then until a third party is able to gather more than 20% of the vote, then yes it is a binary choice. However if the question is viewed from the personal level, then any candidate that is available to be voted for is a viable option.
-
I got a feeling this thread is going to give me a binary choice of a headaches. Deep Pounding or sharp and painful like a knife in the eye.
-
You can either choose Coke or Pepsi, it's a binary choice!
uh, nope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=80&v=icVgXZyHdFw
-
Being able to tell your associates, family, friends about voting for some 3rd party kook with no chance, gets some the type of attention the crave.
So called conservatives include within the ranks, a fair number of folks that are logic and math-statistics challenged.
-
One need only listen to the founding fathers, and their reluctance wrt parties, for exactly this reason.
What matters is what any candidate stands upon, and the veracity with which one can prove that stance to be true.
Thereafter vote for the one that your conscience can abide.
I will never pull the lever for the big, rhinestone 'R' again.
My vote must be earned.
and there has been a Conservative on every single ballot since Reagan.
That's the one that gets my vote, regardless of all this cacaphony (intentional misspelling).
If you listen to the founders instead of the game players, you will too.
-
Don't like the word 'binary'? Fine.
From July 2016 onward there were only two people who could possibly have won the election.
Is that better?
-
Don't like the word 'binary'? Fine.
From July 2016 onward there were only two people who could possibly have won the election.
Is that better?
and neither one of them was worth voting for
-
and neither one of them was worth voting for
And that is an opinion, no more or less valid than any other.
-
Being able to tell your associates, family, friends about voting for some 3rd party kook with no chance, gets some the type of attention the crave.
So called conservatives include within the ranks, a fair number of folks that are logic and math-statistics challenged.
The only principle you value is apparently 'cheering your team' and 'winning the game', whatever that means in this day and age.
Your party that most of us were foot soldiers in for decades, told us to sit down, shut up and vote who they tell us to vote for, and/or get out of the party. They told us they wished we SOCONS would get lost. Trump's mobs told us that if we did not vote for Trump , we were to be counted as the enemy. Now the same tell us that we have no right to criticize, ridicule or point out issues unflattering to Trump or we are again...the enemy.
Fine.
We're the enemy. I'm done attempting to argue against that charge.
So here is the dealio:
We're not shutting up.
We're not going away.
We're not voting whom you tell us to vote for or else.
We're not supporting whom you insist we must support, or else.
We will vote third party if we choose. We will vote Independent if we choose.
We will vote for whomever we damned well please.
We intend to be vocal about those issues that matter to us and invoke God and religion when applicable.
Other than bitching and moaning about us on a BB forum, what do you plan to do about it?
You have not persuaded us, you have only made irreconcilable the divide and ran off what would have been your natural allies.
-
and neither one of them was worth voting for
Which instantaneously and in a de facto fashion, suggests at least THREE options.
All valid.
-
Yes, elections in the United States boil down to binary choices.
This last one boiled down to liberal or liberal. Which did you choose?
-
I feel comforted that I am only echoing what William F. Buckley elucidated many years ago - that there is a profound importance to understanding the difference between a candidate who simply qualifies to be on a ballot, and one that has a reasonable possibility of actually being elected.
Let me remind you of one thing here.
William Buckley's brother James, who I'm assuming had Bill's support, ran for Senate and won. He did it on a third party line, when both of his opponents, one of whom was an incumbent Republican, were admitted liberals.
So it seems to me that there can be no denying that in a practical (de facto) sense, the statement that U.S. presidential elections are binary choices is 100% true. No third party candidate (outside the TWO principle political parties operating in the USA) has ever been elected nor gotten to within artillery distance of the other two viable candidates.
So, the question is: how do we change that?
The only way is to get a mass of people to vote, in unity, for a third option—something I advocated this past election cycle.
The great thing about the Electoral College is that a majority of electoral votes are needed. If the vote is split three ways, the candidate with 49% of them (for example) doesn't win. So, the task for a third party candidate is only to get electoral votes, either through shenanigans with the electoral college, or simply by winning a state election, and hope the other two split enough for neither to get a majority. Evan McMullin got very close this past election cycle to doing just that.
There is a viable way forward. Eventually, if neither party represents the right way, that path will have to be explored, no matter how uncomfortable that may be. Otherwise, you end up in the vicious cycle—nobody considers it because they can't win, and they can't win because nobody considers it. It's a cycle that can, and must, be broken.
-
The only principle you value is apparently 'cheering your team' and 'winning the game', whatever that means in this day and age.
I became a Republican voter before Reagan. I liked Reagan, and still do. Far from perfect and amnesty really pissed me off at the time. From those early years I learned it was a binary choice between the two major parties, and however imperfect the Republican was, he was the better alternative.
Name one time during your voting years when anybody other than the Republican, was the more choice.
If the vanity 3rd party thing rocks your boat, have at it.
Perot probably caused Bush I to lose, and Buchanan put Bush II in greater jeopardy.
Nader almost certainly cost Gore the election in 2000.
I try to learn from life, not fanciful dreams of what would be nice.
-
Yet somehow I managed to vote without voting for your Orange democrat or the Pantsuit aficionado.
I WILL do the same next time.
-
and neither one of them was worth voting for
Didn't matter. One of them was going to win no matter what.
-
This last one boiled down to liberal or liberal. Which did you choose?
Its like a choice between Ernst Thälmann and his opponent.
-
I became a Republican voter before Reagan. I liked Reagan, and still do. Far from perfect and amnesty really pissed me off at the time. From those early years I learned it was a binary choice between the two major parties, and however imperfect the Republican was, he was the better alternative.
I became a Republican because they opposed segregation. I remained a Republican because they at least claimed to support Conservatism. It is clear to me now that they no longer support it.
Name one time during your voting years when anybody other than the Republican, was the more choice.
2016
Perot probably caused Bush I to lose
Bush raising taxes after he promised not to, and then signing a budget $400 billion in the red is what caused Bush to lose.
Trump will repeat that same lesson in 2020 when we still have Obamacare, when our annual deficits exceed half a trillion dollars, and when the wall isn't built.
-
2016
Hillary more conservative than Trump? They were the two choices. Others just vanity.
-
Name one time during your voting years when anybody other than the Republican, was the more choice.
If the vanity 3rd party thing rocks your boat, have at it.
I try to learn from life, not fanciful dreams of what would be nice.
Unlike you, I do not put faith in politics for salvation.
Politics is merely a reflection of the character of the people in the nation.
And that in itself is an awful indictment.
-
Hillary more conservative than Trump? They were the two choices. Others just vanity.
Your argument is a preposterous fallacy. My choice is Conservatism, or not Conservatism. It is that simple. Screw your two candidates, neither of whom was a Conservative.
-
Unlike you, I do not put faith in politics for salvation.
Politics is merely a reflection of the character of the people in the nation.
And that in itself is an awful indictment.
I said nothing of salvation. That is a different topic. Struggling to stay on topic?
Your main theme is how lousy American people are. Psychologically it must make you feel superior, each time you put others down.
I value those who take action, not just words. All of the men and now women in uniform, who go in harms way to preserve all those mighty concepts you talk about, are tops in my book.
-
I said nothing of salvation. That is a different topic. Struggling to stay on topic?
My bad, I thought we were initially discussing principles and you doubled down on voting again. As to salvation, I've read quite a bit today about the need to get behind Trump and support him in order to save the republic or other similar nonsense.
Your main theme is how lousy American people are.
If I had a theme, it would be how wayward, ignorant and corrupted this people have become. Sorry if that offends, but it's the truth. This culture stands as an indictment of where the people have allowed the nation to devolve, as does the current state our politics finds itself. You can pretend all you like that it is not so, but it still screams each and every time we get to read the news and watch what is transpiring across the nation.
The Founders gave us plenty warnings about the kind of people that could preserve liberty and a Constitution. As evidenced, we are no longer those people, and those that are - are a shrinking minority.
Of course being told by fellow self-identifying Conservatives to shut up about morality and religion and focus only on politics is certainly not building any confidence that my current viewpoint on the state of this people and the culture should warrant change.
Psychologically it must make you feel superior, each time you put others down.
Well doc, despite whatever BS Degree in psychoanalysis you've ascribed to yourself - pointing out the truth to a complacent people happy in their stupor is never popular and often results in nasty reactions by the very people you would like to wake up to the truth. I would have thought someone with your handle would grasp that concept.
Unless politics is the only truth you actually seek.
-
Of course being told by fellow self-identifying Conservatives to shut up about morality and religion and focus only on politics is certainly not building any confidence that my current viewpoint on the state of this people and the culture should warrant change.
:amen:
-
Let me remind you of one thing here.
William Buckley's brother James, who I'm assuming had Bill's support, ran for Senate and won. He did it on a third party line, when both of his opponents, one of whom was an incumbent Republican, were admitted liberals.
So, the question is: how do we change that?
The only way is to get a mass of people to vote, in unity, for a third option—something I advocated this past election cycle.
The great thing about the Electoral College is that a majority of electoral votes are needed. If the vote is split three ways, the candidate with 49% of them (for example) doesn't win. So, the task for a third party candidate is only to get electoral votes, either through shenanigans with the electoral college, or simply by winning a state election, and hope the other two split enough for neither to get a majority. Evan McMullin got very close this past election cycle to doing just that.
There is a viable way forward. Eventually, if neither party represents the right way, that path will have to be explored, no matter how uncomfortable that may be. Otherwise, you end up in the vicious cycle—nobody considers it because they can't win, and they can't win because nobody considers it. It's a cycle that can, and must, be broken.
Thanks for the very substantive, gracious response.
You raised some excellent points.
That being said, the fact that Buckley's relative was an exception to the general statement does not expunge the validity of the basic premise of the Buckley Rule (voting for the most conservative candidate that can win). I don't have the pre-election opinion polling numbers for that election available, but I would guess that the winning candidate polled high enough prior to the general election to give some strong indication that a vote for them would have no value except in the sense of being a "spoiler".
-
Thanks to everyone who posted for their honest responses. I invited honesty even with the added ingredient of vituperation and that's what I got, so no complaints from me.
I don't agree with the conclusions or endorse the logic of most of the posts which dispute the title post's conclusions, but reading everyone's genuine opinions gives me some valuable information about why people on the Forum hold the opinions that they do.
I got the general sense that many of those who posted disagreement felt attacked or harassed (unfairly challenged) but that was not the intention of the post. I have no interest in inflating my own ego by "proving" anything ( or putting my shoulder to the wheel of breaking others upon it). I consider everyone who posted to be an ally, because they are all self-described conservatives.
It is clear to me (even if it is not to some of our members) that the only disagreements we have here are over the best methods for achieving our commonly favored results.
It's not unusual for individualists with a strong moral sense to get into contentious disputes over issues both large and small. That was true in the 18th century and it's true now.
This post was most definitely NOT about laying down the gauntlet for some sort of power struggle with winners and losers. It was about knowledge. So thanks again to everyone who responded, even (especially) those who disagreed with me.
It's going to be a long slog into the 2018 election, but from what I've seen, the conservative/Republican political movement is in a lot better shape and has a much more encouraging configuration of basic elements to bring success than the 'Crats.
As contentious as conservative arguments can be, and as passionately fierce as we defend those arguments, we are still talking primarily about real, tangible, substantive issues. The leftists are still mired in a Marianas Trench of self-pity disguised as outrage. Their sigil is hate / chaos with a pronounced dedication to remaining almost wholly detached from reality and getting everyone else to join them.
-
I believe it comes down to the view of the question. If the question is viewed at a national level, then until a third party is able to gather more than 20% of the vote, then yes it is a binary choice. However if the question is viewed from the personal level, then any candidate that is available to be voted for is a viable option.
Methinks you are misapplying the word "viable."
-
One thing left out in all this is the US Constitution and the actual process we have in place. This article is all about how the writer 'feels' on the situation, but the facts of our system prevent it from being a truly binary choice. The elector process is a check and balance on a 'binary-only' system. Federalist 68 goes pretty in depth into it. One of the things that make us a Republic, not a direct Democracy. the elector process is to be one extra check and balance in the Presidential election process, offering the possible reset button if needed. This is why it gives a minimum threshold the candidate must meet.
The people have made it, in most elections, a binary choice because they were told that is the only choice they had. Just like in this election, how many 'held their nose' because they were told they had to do that to stop the other person. They weren't voting for who they wanted, they were voting against who they didn't want.
The reality though, back to Federalist 58, is that it doesn't take a third party to win outright. It just takes the opportunity to influence the elector count to keep one of the major parties from reaching 270.
But the fact of the matter, voting your values, even if it is for a third party is never a wasted vote, nor is it 'helping the other guy'
It is all about the electoral college and understanding how that works. A third candidate does not need to be on the ballots in all 50 states to be competitive nor to make an impact.
All the third parties need to do is keep the two major party candidates from reaching 270 EVs.
If no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, the race is decided by the House of Representatives for president and Senate for VP. The House makes their choice based on the top 3 EV winners (in contention). But it gets even more interesting if the House fails to come to a decision, then the President is the VP selected by Senate..
Remember Bush v Gore; Bush won, 271 to 266 electoral votes. Only two EV's shifting to a (or multiple) third party candidates could have meant that neither major party candidate would win outright, it would go to the House. In the Bush v Gore case, a third party only getting on the ballot in ONE state could have theoretically made them competitive.
Give the 12th Amendment a read.
This is like a big red reset button.
This is also not unheard of. This has happened twice before in our history, so out of 45 presidents, those are bad odds but not impossible odds. In addition, in four other elections, what would be considered a 'third party' overtook the given two major parties of the time. That is six times out of 45 presidents. (13% change in the 'binary given')
So no, a third party vote is not a wasted vote. This is why it is critical people vote their conscience and values, not the game.
-
You can either choose Coke or Pepsi, it's a binary choice!
uh, nope.
Nonsense analogy. Election are national referendums boiling down to a single winner, not 300 million choices.
-
So if my not voting for Trump is a vote for Clinton, What are you lil Trumpers gonna do about it? :silly:
-
This last one boiled down to liberal or liberal. Which did you choose?
That is an incorrect statement. The choice was between a psychotic, criminally minded Nazi-like hate-witch and a boorish guy from New York.
They are different magnitudes of objectionable. You are comparing a lightning bug to lightning and calling them equivalent.
-
Yet somehow I managed to vote without voting for your Orange democrat or the Pantsuit aficionado.
I WILL do the same next time.
You should get a political "Darwin Award" for removing yourself from the political gene pool.
Your "genes" will not pass on.
-
One other factor I failed to add in is the nature of political parties as businesses. The voters are the consumers of the products the parties are selling. In any business, if you see a decent percentage of your customers leaving, you will analyze your market position to determine if you are selling the right product to stop a trend of your customers leaving.
Let's say for example, in a future election, both the Democrat and Republican parties see a drop in their voters by 15% to the Owl party, then, in the next election, another 15% of their voters defect, the parties will look at the positions the Owl party takes and will have to decide if they need to shift their position and platform to stop the exit of their customers.
This is how voters can not only choose a candidate but influence the position trend of politics itself. It doesn't mean an outright win in those elections but it does mean they are influencing the change in the product going forward.
If, however, the voters continue to accept candidates whose positions they disagree with, we will continue to get more and more disagreeable candidates. We have been sending the message to politics that we will accept more and more statist candidates and further leftward shifts. We are not sending a message about our values, we are telling them we will keep playing the game.
This is like if people kept eating at McDonalds even though they served spoiled food simply because McDonalds told them they have no other choice. As long as people keep eating what they are serving, they see no need to change their menu.
-
Every mother's son/daughter on this Forum with the time and inclination to read good fiction, should read Tolkien's Silmarillion. See, that book is an object lesson in how good people defeat and sometimes destroy themselves.
Several things have now been made clear to me from reading the posts in this thread.
1. There is some intransigence on basic issues and facts in evidence that is chronic and unlikely to be resolved in this format. Selah.
2. Some of our posters are getting their feelings hurt by others who disagree with them strongly.
3. Even though there is strong disagreement, it is largely over issue peripheral to the most basic ones . We universally agree on the need for achieving the same results but differ on how best to achieve them.
One of the most important goals of all good discussion forums (whether their members see it as such or not) is to establish a constructive dialectic. That is a term oft misused and misunderstood, which refers to basically "finding firm common ground that does not shift" between contentious factions.
The process of creating a dialectic is that one party makes a statement as truth, establishes it with the use of critical thinking/argument. Then the established truth forms the basis for another, further truth. And so on.
The Miracle of the Constitution was the product of a dialectic. The far left has hijacked the process of using this method and turned it into a form of corrosive acid instead of consensus-building between like-minded patriots.
I have ZERO interest in trying to establish a dialectic with leftists. They are almost to a man, fanatical extremist anti-conservatives. And that sort by definition is both unwilling (due to their extremist ideology) and unable (due to their warped ontology) to trace any sort of legitimate flow of constructive ideas focused on cooperative compromise.
I have a tremendous interest in building a conservative dialectic, because even after 200+ years, the Hegelian Dialectic is still the best way for serious-minded individuals to move forward together as one common people, without leaving vast sections of the constituency behind to feel abandoned, forsaken and hated.
Bravely Somatotonic people (those "muscle-dominated" types with an inclination to action/engagement) have a dilemma, they (we) tend to want to act with courage and bravery and fearlessness, even when we don't have a clear purpose. We want to be like a gun that is pointed in a direction and fired. We don't like intellectual debate (we are impatient and suspicious of too much lollygagging, hemming and hawing). The problem for those of us with this essential personality-inclination is that in an age where strength is more often shown by refraining from drastic action than in taking drastic action.
Mastery, both of the inner and outer world, is best achieved through self control and self knowledge which enables that. I would submit that all of us who love the United States as an institution and as an historically magnificent force for good, may do both ourselves and our cause great good by abandoning any concerns of ego in regard to advocacy.
My own wish is that I will ignore, (to the best of my ability) those who seek to insult and denigrate me or my ideas, and move on to those who have at least the willingness to put aside their own concerns about power or humiliation, and work together to kill the enemy.
And of course the enemy is not the primarily Democrats, nor the Norks/Marxists and it's not even the militant muzz. It's CHAOS and the mismanagement of human affairs that brings it.
-
In any business, if you see a decent percentage of your customers leaving, you will analyze your market position to determine if you are selling the right product to stop a trend of your customers leaving.
Or you can be like Sears and double down on stupid.
Which is exactly what the GOP has done.
And like Sears - their brand is now bankrupt of any principles except better managing big government.
Which is why I'll be shopping at a political version of Amazon.
-
The goal of all good discussion forums is to establish a constructive dialectic. That is a term oft misused and misunderstood, which refers to basically "finding common ground that does not shift" between contentious factions.
The process of creating a dialectic is that one party makes a statement as truth, establishes it with the use of critical thinking/argument. Then the established truth forms the basis for another, further truth. And so on.
I think these discussions and the atmosphere since the last election cycle proves that 'common ground' no longer really exists.
The arguments are between man and party over principles, or principles over man and party. It is become obvious there is no middle ground to be had. Those who push man and party have told us to shut up, sit down and get out. They have declared us selfish, stupid, foolish, idiotic and boorish. They have decided to refer to those of us who are governed by principles as an enemy that must be silenced and destroyed. Persuasion of principles has fallen on deaf ears and pushers of man and party is demanded, not persuaded.
The core principles of liberty grounded in morality and religion that once created the common ground that made this republic possible, have been rejected. They do not want to even hear them mentioned or advocated. Politics used to be an extension of our national morality and religion. Today, Politics has become the religion and morality of the nation.
Those are divides that history teaches are never reconciled.
Except by blood.
And we have been reading all the precursors to such an outcome.
Some if it directed at those who will not surrender principles to bow to man and party.
-
I think these discussions and the atmosphere since the last election cycle proves that 'common ground' no longer really exists.
The arguments are between man and party over principles, or principles over man and party. It is become obvious there is no middle ground to be had. Those who push man and party have told us to shut up, sit down and get out. They have declared us selfish, stupid, foolish, idiotic and boorish. They have decided to refer to those of us who are governed by principles as an enemy that must be silenced and destroyed. Persuasion of principles has fallen on deaf ears and pushers of man and party is demanded, not persuaded.
The core principles of liberty grounded in morality and religion that once created the common ground that made this republic possible, have been rejected. They do not want to even hear them mentioned or advocated. Politics used to be an extension of our national morality and religion. Today, Politics has become the religion and morality of the nation.
Those are divides that history teaches are never reconciled.
Except by blood.
And we have been reading all the precursors to such an outcome.
Some if it directed at those who will not surrender principles to bow to man and party.
I disagree. The problem is that folks want to have these arguments in the general election and even after the election. Time for this is now, 3+ years before the election. Get a voice in who is running the local elections, the local party and who gets nominated.
Arguing about the best way to lock the door after the horse has left is pointless.
-
I disagree. The problem is that folks want to have these arguments in the general election and even after the election. Time for this is now, 3+ years before the election. Get a voice in who is running the local elections, the local party and who gets nominated.
Arguing about the best way to lock the door after the horse has left is pointless.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that discussion of Principles must be kept in a box and only opened at limited times before an election.
The fact remains this people do not want to discuss or hear about foundational moral, religious and liberty principles at any time if it interferes with cheerleading their favorite team and players.
-
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that discussion of Principles must be kept in a box and only opened at limited times before an election.
The fact remains this people do not want to discuss or hear about foundational moral, religious and liberty principles at any time if it interferes with cheerleading their favorite team and players.
That's really one of the big problems. We treat it like a Superbowl we watch once a year or so, but don't really pay attention or stand up the rest of the time. We wait until the propaganda and group dynamic is in full force and it results in easily being manipulated.
-
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that discussion of Principles must be kept in a box and only opened at limited times before an election.
The fact remains this people do not want to discuss or hear about foundational moral, religious and liberty principles at any time if it interferes with cheerleading their favorite team and players.
Never said they must only be let out at certain times. I'm saying that if you try to fight every single battle you will lose. Not only will you lose but you will become irrelevant and cease having any impact on the issues. Your voice counts the same as everyone else. The leftists work together pretty good and unite their voices. Conservatives spend more time fighting with each other and proving who is the most conservative and get nothing actually done.
But hey as long as you can pound your chest and say "I am the most conservative of them all!!" I guess thats good.
-
[...] no value except in the sense of being a "spoiler".
Your dismissal aside, to 'spoil' is a valid motive for voting otherwise - disproving 'binary' again.
-
If I were anyone else posting on this topic, I'd just write off any disagreements over the issue and move on.
I've recently realized that it's not necessary to win every battle or to convince everyone who disagrees with me that I am correct and they incorrect.
I have decided to let people believe what they like and try to look for common ground in the future, without focusing on recovering lost common ground in the past.
I don't believe that failure to agree on this is really so much a character issue as it is a matter of people feeling respected. One of the negative side effects of Trump running the sort of campaign he ran was that, whether he intended to or not, he made a lot of people who might have voted for him if he had been less coarse or vituperative feel disrespected.
To me, that is the bottom line. I question whether DJT should consider running another campaign with the same approach. There was an element of luck involved in his victory which makes me think that even if he has a fairly good first term (which I think there is a lot of evidence he has so far) he might be doing a more helpful thing for the nation to not seek a second term and let Pence run in his stead.
-
That is an incorrect statement. The choice was between a psychotic, criminally minded Nazi-like hate-witch and a boorish guy from New York.
That is a significant downplaying of Trump, whether intended or not.
They are different magnitudes of objectionable. You are comparing a lightning bug to lightning and calling them equivalent.
Not in my mind. I find them comparable in stench.
-
You know folks, the results of this thread are inclining me toward starting another because I want to explore why people feel so strongly that this is an issue which must be fought to the death, rather than simply finding forgiveness in their hearts for the offenses of others and hope for some future reconciliation based upon common interest.
Do any of you really believe that someone who is a self-described conservative is automatically a person of unacceptably low character simply based on their position on this one issue?
-
You know folks, the results of this thread are inclining me toward starting another because I want to explore why people feel so strongly that this is an issue which must be fought to the death, rather than simply finding forgiveness in their hearts for the offenses of others and hope for some future reconciliation based upon common interest.
Do any of you really believe that someone who is a self-described conservative is automatically a person of unacceptably low character simply based on their position on this one issue?
I don't see where, at least in this thread, anyone said or implied any of that.
-
That is a significant downplaying of Trump, whether intended or not.
Not in my mind. I find them comparable in stench.
@roamer_1
You find a guy who murdered millions of people comparable to Donald Trump? Donald has done a lot of immoral things but I don't think he's actually killed anyone. Nor caused anyone to take a fatal shower.
-
Are U.S. presidential elections de facto binary choices?
No.
Next question.
-
No.
Next question.
I have a question. Can you imagine why someone might think that this response is being flippant?
-
I have a question. Why does the poster who calls himself TX Radio Guy so infrequently have the courtesy to provide any substantive support for his assertions without being asked? Some of your posts are very good and I enjoy reading them, but some, like this one make me wonder if you are like one of those mean kids in kindergarten with a sadistic streak who always behaved as if they believed that they were better than everyone else.
I provide substantive replies when they are warranted...do it all the time here.
This thread however...doesn't warrant it. It's flamebait pure and simple. You're trying to lure people into a pissing contest.
I gave the answer your question to start this thread off warranted. If you think that's mean...maybe you need to grow a bit thicker skin.
Don't worry...it will come with age and maturity.
-
I don't see where, at least in this thread, anyone said or implied any of that.
Well, I believe that the high level of harsh vituperation indicates that there are some extremely hostile underlying attitudes and hurt feelings in play over this and some other issues. Call it a hunch from years of experience posting on political fora.
-
I provide substantive replies when they are warranted...do it all the time here.
This thread however...doesn't warrant it. It's flamebait pure and simple. You're trying to lure people into a pissing contest.
I gave the answer your question to start this thread off warranted. If you think that's mean...maybe you need to grow a bit thicker skin.
Don't worry...it will come with age and maturity.
hah hah I appreciated your posts earlier, even if I didn't agree. Though I suppose we should add mind-reading to ham radio skills for TXradioguy - you know me so well that you described my exact thoughts, intentions and emotions in posting this topic (LFL rolls eyes)! Seriously, give it a rest, Tex - the flippancy, the condescension and the baiting and trying to lure people into a p*ssing contest. Don't do that stuff. Be humble. Like the character in the avatar you use.
-
That is a significant downplaying of Trump, whether intended or not.
There is a difference in magnitude of objectionability between Trump and Hillary.
Hillary is massively worse in every conceivable way.
-
No.
Next question.
Yes they are, and of course you are once again on the incorrect side of reality.
Stop trying to force the world into what you think it should be and start recognizing the reality that does indeed exist now.
-
@roamer_1
You find a guy who murdered millions of people comparable to Donald Trump? Donald has done a lot of immoral things but I don't think he's actually killed anyone. Nor caused anyone to take a fatal shower.
You don't know any of that either way.
Trump has long advocated 'Choice', and I don't believe his 'conversion'... So murder is a poor point of distinction.
There is plenty of evidence that trump has long been in the sack with mob types, so crime is a poor point of distinction. His involvement in casinos, strip clubs, and escort services also point that way. Seedy.
Trump is every bit as bad, or worse wrt lying.
so rah rah team BS aside, I don't see much difference.
-
There is a difference in magnitude of objectionability between Trump and Hillary.
Hillary is massively worse in every conceivable way.
I don't see it that way. At a certain point, magnitude becomes incidental.
-
And as you were told over and over and over again on the other thread:
You're wrong. The only binary choice is do I vote? Yes/No
As soon as candidates are introduced into the equation your binary nonsense flies out the window because you now have the choice of not voting.
Stop trying to convince us of your brilliance for voting for Trump. We ain't buying.
Ah!! I remember now...with whom I confused you.
@EasyAce Was drawn to the capital A, for some reason.
Carry on! ^-^
-
Stop trying to force the world into what you think it should be and start recognizing the reality that does indeed exist now.
That's rich coming from someone who thinks that in an election there are only two choices...ever.
That is the epitome of not living in reality.
-
So if my not voting for Trump is a vote for Clinton, What are you lil Trumpers gonna do about it? :silly:
Not voting for Measles is a vote for the Mumps.
Not voting for Chevy is a vote for Dodge.
Not voting for Ohio is a vote for Delaware.
Not voting for Enchiladas is a vote for Tamales.
Seems kind of silly to keep bring up that old nonsense.
It is the easiest (and laziest) of rhetorical tactics, that the supporters of these last 2 candidates standing tried to rally around.
Both the Clinton and Trump camp tried to pull that off.
@Cripplecreek, like you, anyone with half a brain could see threw that immature nonsense.
-
Not voting for Measles is a vote for the Mumps.
Not voting for Chevy is a vote for Dodge.
Not voting for Ohio is a vote for Delaware.
Not voting for Enchiladas is a vote for Tamales.
Seems kind of silly to keep bring up that old nonsense.
It is the easiest (and laziest) of rhetorical tactics, that the supporters of these last 2 candidates standing tried to rally around.
Both the Clinton and Trump camp tried to pull that off.
@Cripplecreek, like you, anyone with half a brain could see threw that immature nonsense.
Its a simple attempt to insult people into compliance and its utterly pointless. I'm not a middle schooler who can be ridiculed into going along with the crowd and I couldn't care less what the popular kids think.
-
Its a simple attempt to insult people into compliance and its utterly pointless. I'm not a middle schooler who can be ridiculed into going along with the crowd and I couldn't care less what the popular kids think.
Not to mention it's a tactic that's been stolen from the Libs.
"If you don't support abortion you hate women"
If you don't support social security you want old people to die"
And on and on and on...
-
Already said me bit on other threads. No need to repeat it for the 20th time.
-
I don't see it that way. At a certain point, magnitude becomes incidental.
You are telling me a weed is the same as a Sequoia. Pardon me if I cannot comprehend your viewpoint.
Hillary:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EecX12EQ8-c/VSVqRl6mlDI/AAAAAAAAPfE/n_s6PVDzRWM/s1600/sequoiaForestCalifornia.JPG)
Trump:
(http://rcrec-ona.ifas.ufl.edu/images/weed-id/buttonbush.jpg)
-
Not to mention it's a tactic that's been stolen from the Libs.
"If you don't support abortion you hate women"
If you don't support social security you want old people to die"
And on and on and on...
Yeah there's one particularly nasty troll here who likes to tell us that we support abortion because we didn't vote for Trump.
-
That's rich coming from someone who thinks that in an election there are only two choices...ever.
I didn't say "ever", just in the absolute vast MAJORITY OF OCCASIONS.
You are trying to use a rare event to rebuke the normal, and this is exactly what I mean when I say you aren't accepting reality.
-
Not voting for Measles is a vote for the Mumps.
Is mumps and measles on a ballot? Are the people being forced to choose between one of the two in some bizarre circumstance?
If not, then you analogy is something that might make sense to a child, but is complete nonsense to an adult.
The problem a lot of you have with understanding this election business is that it is going to produce a single result, and it is going to be a resultant of a choice between two alternatives.
-
Its a simple attempt to insult people into compliance and its utterly pointless. I'm not a middle schooler who can be ridiculed into going along with the crowd and I couldn't care less what the popular kids think.
But you sure make a point to inform all of us what you think, even though it's always the same thing, and many of us are weary of hearing it.
Apparently you care what we think, else you wouldn't keep making your opinion known.
-
And the problem you are having is forgetting that other peoples votes are earned. Not owed.
-
You are telling me a weed is the same as a Sequoia. Pardon me if I cannot comprehend your viewpoint.
Hillary:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EecX12EQ8-c/VSVqRl6mlDI/AAAAAAAAPfE/n_s6PVDzRWM/s1600/sequoiaForestCalifornia.JPG)
Trump:
A very nice simile and post IMO, and I wholly agree with your logic. That being said, I have reached a point where I also believe that the greater truth is that there is some very real reason that people who disagree with this view are reluctant to assent to what seems obvious to us.
My concern now is to try to suss that deeper reasoning out for my own benefit and that of the cause of conservatism. This is in order to hopefully prevent the same thing from happening again. I've noticed that continuing to pursue discussion of it seems only to arouse resentment, not understanding. So I have given up trying to act as an advocate for my own POV.
To be frank, I think there is some evidence that the actual reasons some of our friends (and I do believe to the core of my being that they are friends) disagree has to do with something outside their conscious scope of realization. That is not to say that I believe that they are dense, or insane or have any other major defect, but only that they are human.
IOW, resistance of this magnitude often has roots in something legitimately worth addressing. One of the problems with that is the reason may vary from person to person. The unifying theme that seems to reoccur in virtually all cases is the belief that they and their values have in some significant way been disrespected, ignored or dismissed.
The failure to ameliorate this situation effectively enough to recover many voters, is of the Trump campaign and the GOP directors. And it is their failure, since who else would be responsible!?! 'Not a failure of morality so much as messaging, since the net result of ignoring it was to alienate a significant (but thankfully not a decisive) percentage of the self-described conservative electorate.
Trying to get others to come around to my (our) POV seems to me to be pursuing a Pyrrhic Victory so I won't do it any more.
I can live with disagreement on this issue. What I can't live with is to enable further schism in the conservative cause by allowing my own personal sense of frustration in my failure to convince others, to affect the conservative movement.
Maybe after some long pondering I will come back to it, but for now, it's going to the warehouse for storage so that I can move on to other things with more potential for positive return on investment. This boy is movin' on with the tumblin' tumble weeds ! Who will come with me?
-
You are telling me a weed is the same as a Sequoia. Pardon me if I cannot comprehend your viewpoint.
A couple more years of Trump, and I bet you will
-
Is mumps and measles on a ballot? Are the people being forced to choose between one of the two in some bizarre circumstance?
If not, then you analogy is something that might make sense to a child, but is complete nonsense to an adult.
The problem a lot of you have with understanding this election business is that it is going to produce a single result, and it is going to be a resultant of a choice between two alternatives.
I must have struck a nerve.
You weren't one of those "Not voting for X is a vote for Y" people, were you?
As far as "people being forced to choose between one of the two in some bizarre circumstance", I'd say that about sums up 2016.
-
You can either choose Coke or Pepsi, it's a binary choice!
uh, nope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=80&v=icVgXZyHdFw
@geronl
LOL. Omigod, this commercial reminds me of this scene:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OaA3LZHbQs
(That doesn't have the part where he walks into the saloon, but the relevant line is in there!)
-
As long as we are playing binary hyperbole.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18527767_1339842392752347_3350773843248354640_n.jpg?oh=0b444803a8973ed3b68144330dc85b0c&oe=59AD9F7D)
-
And the problem you are having is forgetting that other peoples votes are earned. Not owed.
Shhhh can't let the truth slip out like that.
They might not be able to handle it.
-
To be frank, I think there is some evidence that the actual reasons some of our friends (and I do believe to the core of my being that they are friends) disagree has to do with something outside their conscious scope of realization. That is not to say that I believe that they are dense, or insane or have any other major defect, but only that they are human.
A very diplomatic way of saying they can't see as far as we can.
I fully believe that most of these people who keep carping about Trump really can't see the bigger picture, or the larger future. (or past, for that matter.) We talk about binary choices, and most of these people want to force events into one of two choices. Good/Evil.
The problem they face is that they have been presented with a situation in which the only viable choices are both on the "evil" side of their preferred Good/Evil axis. Their paradigm is unable to cope with "evil" vs "Horribly malevolent, life threatening and screaming in darkness forever" level of Evil.
If it's tainted with "evil" it's simply not good enough, and so relatively minor evil is just as repulsive to them as really really bad horrible terrible evil.
Their scope is too narrow. They are looking at things with a Microscope when they ought to be using a Telescope. The world is much bigger than they realize.
-
A couple more years of Trump, and I bet you will
I cannot comprehend what you are suggesting. Hillary is a National Socialist/ Communist/ Vengeful corrupt psychopath imbecile with delusions of grandeur.
I can't conceive of Trump enacting any sort of the behavior I would have expected from Hillary. I don't think he will be spying on us, I don't think he will be trying to ban our speech, I don't think he will use the Federal government to target us, I don't think he will collude with the media powers to mock and disparage us.
Just what exactly do you expect Trump to do in the future that would seem similar to what Hillary would have done?
-
I also believe that the greater truth is that there is some very real reason that people who disagree with this view are reluctant to assent to what seems obvious to us.
It's simple.
Conservatives are no longer going to vote for liberal Democrats who run as Republicans so as to take the nation further Left. We're done playing that game of insanity. We do not care which one is said to be 'better' than the other one decreed to be 'worse'. We don't care anymore. We realize voting for the candidate who best represents our principles is all that matters, and we no longer care if those principles no longer exist within the GOP, as it has become self-evident they have been discarded and not wanted along with those of us who have been told to get out and get lost by your party leaders.
So, we are building a new home and coalition elsewhere and leaving your Uniparty to itself.
I've noticed that continuing to pursue discussion of it seems only to arouse resentment, not understanding.
Because 'discussion' and 'understanding' is not the intention. Shaming, insulting, ridiculing and threatening us into submission or silence out of fear of Democrats is the intention. Because of that, there is no possibility of 'understanding'. Besides the fact that we have already explained our intention to uphold our principles since the primaries and that was clearly 'understood' by people like yourself. In fact, we were told that our principles were 'an enemy of the good'.
The issue is that voting and speaking our consciences was REJECTED. We were told we do not have the liberty to vote our consciences because the country was at stake. It has been a solid bass drumbeat of "VOTE TRUMP OR ELSE YOU ARE THE ENEMY" which has since morphed itself into "CRITICIZE TRUMP AND YOU ARE THE ENEMY". So fine, having been told we have to shut up, sit down and get out of the party - along with everything that has transpired since, we're done. We reject the insistence of a binary choice and no longer care which Statist your party and this people want to make as your ruler considering many of us are breathing the fresh air of choosing other candidates in other parties that best represent our principles and values. Finally - we are getting to enjoy voting FOR someone as opposed to voting AGAINST someone else.
IOW, resistance of this magnitude often has roots in something legitimately worth addressing.
It has already been addressed and has been rejected by the Trump and GOP Party faithful. So we are done with them and their party. The divide at this point is irreconcilable and each shaming effort simply widens it and deepens it.
The unifying theme that seems to reoccur in virtually all cases is the belief that they and their values have in some significant way been disrespected, ignored or dismissed.
Duh! It's not like you folks were not aware of that fact. We have been told point blank that those values and beliefs do not win elections and they are a drag on the party and the country. We have been told that Reagan Conservatism is dead and Nationalist Populism is where it is at and that we must adapt or die. We have told by your party "There is the door" after attempting to beguile us of our votes via scare tactics and intimidation. Your party has made itself completely and totally hostile to the fundamental core of principles that govern and animate us, and all your party and people have done is confirm the fact that we have no place among you - and given behaviors exhibited, we are glad this is now so.
What I can't live with is to enable further schism in the conservative cause by allowing my own personal sense of frustration in my failure to convince others, to affect the conservative movement.
Maybe you can convince your pals to take some of that advice to heart. Each time they attempt to ridicule and shame us of our views, that schism grows to the point of hostility.
Personally, the damage is already done, and your party is forever as repulsive to me as the Democrat party is. Trump didn't do that alone, McConnell and Ryan didn't do that alone - the mobs of party fanatics and Trump supporters helped confirm that a divorce was an absolute necessity.
So in our estimation Conservatism will have to exist in a new home outside of the beltway and many of us are working to build new avenues and parties to do so. We do not care that it may take a generation or more to accomplish. The existing party is as corrupted and tyrannical in nature as the other party is and our values and principles have been repeatedly said to have no place among them.
So be it.
The message of our Founding principles needs to be preached to a willfully ignorant and brainwashed people and it has become self-evident that cannot take place from within the existing GOP whose goal is to better manage Statism than Democrats. The split has scattered the seeds, and we may not see a harvest in our lifetimes but unless we want a famine of the principles that make liberty possible, being scattered to the wilderness for a time is necessary.
-
I must have struck a nerve.
More like, silly arguments are getting on my last one. You compare measles and mumps to an election? Yeah, that's getting on my last nerve because it is too silly to contemplate.
You weren't one of those "Not voting for X is a vote for Y" people, were you?
My position was more complicated than that. In a binary election, every vote results in a two vote swing. Candidate one gains a vote at the expense of Candidate two.
A vote outside the two dominant candidates simply solidifies the race into a position favoring the dominant candidate.
Whichever of the two is dominant is effectively who you voted for.
-
As long as we are playing binary hyperbole.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18527767_1339842392752347_3350773843248354640_n.jpg?oh=0b444803a8973ed3b68144330dc85b0c&oe=59AD9F7D)
Manson was not on the ballot. He was not one of the available two choices, and therefore your analogy is simply false.
Or as Wolfgang Pauli noted:
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-that-s-not-right-that-s-not-even-wrong-wolfgang-pauli-53-1-0166.jpg)
-
It's simple.
I'm curious. If it is simple, why can't you be brief, concise etc.?
"Conservatives" voted for trump, according to election data. A few neverhappy 3rd party cranks, did not.
They didn't, they won't, nobody even expects them to do anything, but write lengthy and repetitive epistles, trying to prove they are too moral for the real world as it is.
-
More like, silly arguments are getting on my last one. You compare measles and mumps to an election? Yeah, that's getting on my last nerve because it is too silly to contemplate.
My position was more complicated than that. In a binary election, every vote results in a two vote swing. Candidate one gains a vote at the expense of Candidate two.
A vote outside the two dominant candidates simply solidifies the race into a position favoring the dominant candidate.
Whichever of the two is dominant is effectively who you voted for.
All it takes is courage and will.
You are wrong, and here is why:
To quote @jmyrlefuller from an earlier post:
"So, the question is: how do we change that?
The only way is to get a mass of people to vote, in unity, for a third option—something I advocated this past election cycle.
The great thing about the Electoral College is that a majority of electoral votes are needed. If the vote is split three ways, the candidate with 49% of them (for example) doesn't win. So, the task for a third party candidate is only to get electoral votes, either through shenanigans with the electoral college, or simply by winning a state election, and hope the other two split enough for neither to get a majority. Evan McMullin got very close this past election cycle to doing just that.
There is a viable way forward. Eventually, if neither party represents the right way, that path will have to be explored, no matter how uncomfortable that may be. Otherwise, you end up in the vicious cycle—nobody considers it because they can't win, and they can't win because nobody considers it. It's a cycle that can, and must, be broken."
So, to have 2 major party candidates does not mean you have to chose the better of the 2 bad candidates.
It requires work to do the right thing.
I will repeat, "Not voting for X is a vote for Y", is an emotional, lazy, rhetorical response, started by the left, to raise fear among its constituents, and it saddens me to see some on the right pick up that mantle.
-
I'm curious. If it is simple, why can't you be brief, concise etc.?
Because most people on this board have an IQ higher than yours and are not addled with ADD requiring the discussion of principles to be limited to sophomoric one-liners.
-
The great thing about the Electoral College is that a majority of electoral votes are needed. If the vote is split three ways, the candidate with 49% of them (for example) doesn't win. So, the task for a third party candidate is only to get electoral votes, either through shenanigans with the electoral college, or simply by winning a state election, and hope the other two split enough for neither to get a majority. Evan McMullin got very close this past election cycle to doing just that.
But he didn't. You are banking the prevention of a potentially horrible disaster on the possibility of a "Hail Mary Pass."
Pardon me if I didn't think my entire future and that of my children was worth the risk of attempting to game the system to produce an extremely rare "black swan" event.
There is a viable way forward. Eventually, if neither party represents the right way, that path will have to be explored, no matter how uncomfortable that may be. Otherwise, you end up in the vicious cycle—nobody considers it because they can't win, and they can't win because nobody considers it. It's a cycle that can, and must, be broken[/i]."
It was not worth the risk of having modern Gestapo show up at my door and arrest me for incitement or sedition, or whatever the hell charge they felt like levying against me.
Hillary would not have been business as usual. Hillary would have been a weaponized FedGov against all of us Individual Freedom advocates.
Hillary would have been Lois Lerner expanded to the entire system.
-
Pardon me if I didn't think my entire future and that of my children was worth the risk of attempting to game the system to produce an extremely rare "black swan" event.
Where did your entire future and that of your children come into play when you decided to support a candidate who supported the Obamacare mandates during the campaign and thought favorably of socialized medicine? Just curious. Because by doing so, we already lost.
Was that really worth the fantasy of building a wall which we wouldn't even need if we simply cut off the supply of 'free stuff' to immigrants?
-
But he didn't. You are banking the prevention of a potentially horrible disaster on the possibility of a "Hail Mary Pass."
Pardon me if I didn't think my entire future and that of my children was worth the risk of attempting to game the system to produce an extremely rare "black swan" event.
It was not worth the risk of having modern Gestapo show up at my door and arrest me for incitement or sedition, or whatever the hell charge they felt like levying against me.
Hillary would not have been business as usual. Hillary would have been a weaponized FedGov against all of us Individual Freedom advocates.
Hillary would have been Lois Lerner expanded to the entire system.
I didn't vote for Hillary, or her husband, and I won't vote for their daughter in the future.
It does strike's me as odd that the rhetoric you are using to describe life under Hillary is the same rhetoric the left uses to describe life under Trump.
Neither one as president would bring on the end of the world as we know it.
After all, we still hold the House and Senate, the majority of governor seats and state houses, how far do you really think she could have gotten?
I am glad we don't have to find out, but as you say, look at the big picture.
She would have been a lame duck from day one.
The quotes from @jmyrlefuller won't be easy, but doing the right thing is often harder than doing the expedient thing.
-
.
I will repeat, "Not voting for X is a vote for Y", is an emotional, lazy, rhetorical response, started by the left ESTABLISHMENT, to raise fear among its constituents, and it saddens me to see some on the right pick up that mantle.
FIXED! :beer:
-
It's simple.
Conservatives are no longer going to vote for liberal Democrats who run as Republicans so as to take the nation further Left. We're done playing that game of insanity. We do not care which one is said to be 'better' than the other one decreed to be 'worse'. We don't care anymore. We realize voting for the candidate who best represents our principles is all that matters, and we no longer care if those principles no longer exist within the GOP, as it has become self-evident they have been discarded and not wanted along with those of us who have been told to get out and get lost by your party leaders.
So, we are building a new home and coalition elsewhere and leaving your Uniparty to itself.
Because 'discussion' and 'understanding' is not the intention. Shaming, insulting, ridiculing and threatening us into submission or silence out of fear of Democrats is the intention. Because of that, there is no possibility of 'understanding'. Besides the fact that we have already explained our intention to uphold our principles since the primaries and that was clearly 'understood' by people like yourself. In fact, we were told that our principles were 'an enemy of the good'.
The issue is that voting and speaking our consciences was REJECTED. We were told we do not have the liberty to vote our consciences because the country was at stake. It has been a solid bass drumbeat of "VOTE TRUMP OR ELSE YOU ARE THE ENEMY" which has since morphed itself into "CRITICIZE TRUMP AND YOU ARE THE ENEMY". So fine, having been told we have to shut up, sit down and get out of the party - along with everything that has transpired since, we're done. We reject the insistence of a binary choice and no longer care which Statist your party and this people want to make as your ruler considering many of us are breathing the fresh air of choosing other candidates in other parties that best represent our principles and values. Finally - we are getting to enjoy voting FOR someone as opposed to voting AGAINST someone else.
It has already been addressed and has been rejected by the Trump and GOP Party faithful. So we are done with them and their party. The divide at this point is irreconcilable and each shaming effort simply widens it and deepens it.
Duh! It's not like you folks were not aware of that fact. We have been told point blank that those values and beliefs do not win elections and they are a drag on the party and the country. We have been told that Reagan Conservatism is dead and Nationalist Populism is where it is at and that we must adapt or die. We have told by your party "There is the door" after attempting to beguile us of our votes via scare tactics and intimidation. Your party has made itself completely and totally hostile to the fundamental core of principles that govern and animate us, and all your party and people have done is confirm the fact that we have no place among you - and given behaviors exhibited, we are glad this is now so.
Maybe you can convince your pals to take some of that advice to heart. Each time they attempt to ridicule and shame us of our views, that schism grows to the point of hostility.
Personally, the damage is already done, and your party is forever as repulsive to me as the Democrat party is. Trump didn't do that alone, McConnell and Ryan didn't do that alone - the mobs of party fanatics and Trump supporters helped confirm that a divorce was an absolute necessity.
So in our estimation Conservatism will have to exist in a new home outside of the beltway and many of us are working to build new avenues and parties to do so. We do not care that it may take a generation or more to accomplish. The existing party is as corrupted and tyrannical in nature as the other party is and our values and principles have been repeatedly said to have no place among them.
So be it.
The message of our Founding principles needs to be preached to a willfully ignorant and brainwashed people and it has become self-evident that cannot take place from within the existing GOP whose goal is to better manage Statism than Democrats. The split has scattered the seeds, and we may not see a harvest in our lifetimes but unless we want a famine of the principles that make liberty possible, being scattered to the wilderness for a time is necessary.
Excellent summation @INVAR
-
I'm gonna let y'all in on a little secret...the only reason the shooting has started already is because the sides haven't fully coalesced yet and the leaders that will cause coalescence haven't stepped up yet.
Our side still has faith in the system, although it's taken a real beating lately. As soon as that faith is unalterably damaged, gird your loins folks...and until it is shaken we will continue to be taken to the woodshed....precisely because we DO still have faith in the system!
-
Manson was not on the ballot. He was not one of the available two choices, and therefore your analogy is simply false.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/nicholas-cage-you-dont-say.gif)
It wasn't an analogy, it was a joke. More information can be found here:
http://www.livescience.com/13738-trouble-detecting-sarcasm-dementia-sign.html
-
FIXED! :beer:
It is also an elementary logic error called a false dichotomy and commonly used as a propaganda technique. If you see it being used, it is a red flag for manipulation into a choice you should not be making based on the variables being presented as the only choice. It is either someone being lazy or manipulative.
http://www.sjsu.edu/people/nicole.hughes/courses/engl1aspring13/s1/Fallacies-and-Propaganda-PowerPoint.pdf
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/logicalfallaciespowerpoint-110729100320-phpapp02/95/logical-fallacies-powerpoint-20-638.jpg?cb=1368176873)
-
My position was more complicated than that. In a binary election, every vote results in a two vote swing. Candidate one gains a vote at the expense of Candidate two.
A vote outside the two dominant candidates simply solidifies the race into a position favoring the dominant candidate.
Whichever of the two is dominant is effectively who you voted for.
I'm going to start throwing flags on the field. These are age old logic errors that one used to be taught to avoid in around 5th grade (you probably don't get to that until college these days if you are lucky)
(http://matthewepierce.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/false-dichotomy-300x169.jpg)
-
It is also an elementary logic error called a false dichotomy and commonly used as a propaganda technique. If you see it being used, it is a red flag for manipulation into a choice you should not be making based on the variables being presented as the only choice. It is either someone being lazy or manipulative.
http://www.sjsu.edu/people/nicole.hughes/courses/engl1aspring13/s1/Fallacies-and-Propaganda-PowerPoint.pdf
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/logicalfallaciespowerpoint-110729100320-phpapp02/95/logical-fallacies-powerpoint-20-638.jpg?cb=1368176873)
Bravo! You are attempting to force us into a false choice by presenting the fallacy of false choice as itself a false choice.
Ballots really are almost always a choice between two viable candidates, and you are trying to eliminate that *REALITY* as a choice. You are trying to withhold it.
Chutzpah, You've got it!
-
I'm going to start throwing flags on the field. These are age old logic errors that one used to be taught to avoid in around 5th grade (you probably don't get to that until college these days if you are lucky)
(http://matthewepierce.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/false-dichotomy-300x169.jpg)
Point out the error of logic, don't just assert it.
-
Because most people on this board have an IQ higher than yours and are not addled with ADD requiring the discussion of principles to be limited to sophomoric one-liners.
Sophomoric one-liners are the currency of this site, sir.
I believe the last time my IQ was tested was when I entered the Army. You have done what again, in service for your country?
-
Sophomoric one-liners are the currency of this site, sir.
I believe the last time my IQ was tested was when I entered the Army. You have done what again, in service for your country?
OFFS are you seriously gonna pull that kinda BS out?
That's a real chicken bleep tactic in the 21st century when only 1% have ever worn the uniform.
If you were any kind of real current or former soldier you would know we volunteer so others don't have to.
It's a privilege to wear the uniform. You don't use it as a damn hammer to beat someone else over the head with because they chose to do other things with their life.
-
Sophomoric one-liners are the currency of this site, sir.
I believe the last time my IQ was tested was when I entered the Army. You have done what again, in service for your country?
Then why are you still here? Or are "sophomoric one-liners" just your speed?
-
Sophomoric one-liners are the currency of this site, sir.
Now that the other site is back up, you can go trade your high dollar witticisms over there then so you don't have to sully your uniform by associating with the grunts over here on this board.
You have done what again, in service for your country?
I put up with people like you. That's what I do in service for the country. How do you like them apples?
OFFS are you seriously gonna pull that kinda BS out?
That's a real chicken bleep tactic in the 21st century when only 1% have ever worn the uniform.
If you were any kind of real current or former soldier you would know we volunteer so others don't have to.
It's a privilege to wear the uniform. You don't use it as a damn hammer to beat someone else over the head with because they chose to do other things with their life.
It's okay sir. Some people have to brag about their service.
It's all the currency they actually have.