Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Anything that fits in his ridiculously biased world view. Trying to follow exactly how it fits is too tiring.
[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
- Status
Anything that fits in his ridiculously biased world view. Trying to follow exactly how it fits is too tiring.
Like, I don't know if he's hanging a legacy from 50 years ago on Democrats or if he currently believes the Democrats aren't relatively the party of equality and civil rights in America or what. It seems he wanted to use one of my patented obtuse-to-be-funny moves but it just comes across as incoherent and esoteric.
That is indeed scary..
Oh, it is biased world view now. Well, next there is only a biased universe view, so pace yourself
It was a standard cfc ot fare snarky one-liner :/
As to your first sentence... this is a heavy lift because of the perspective problem. Here is a list of the Prime Ministers of Greece. Now right off the top of my head, I can think of two reasons, informing your perspective, which would cause you not to care about such a thing as having a 1st female, or first black, or first whatever Leader elected. The second reason on my list is because Greece has already had a "first" female Prime Minister. The first reason on my list is probably obvious, and ties into your 3rd sentence. Therefore, it is ironic (and telling) you think that you are a credible judge of who adequately represents Civil Rights movements or equality in America.
As to your fourth sentence... Please remember, that I was addressing Commodore, and Commodore and I have already discussed that reason and he has already rejected it. So it would not make sense for me to raise those same grounds again... in fact, I have noticed, that Commodore has repeatedly expressed irritation, specifically at being hit with the same repetitive arguments, which is why I presented an alternative one.
Finally... *sigh* I'll just respond to the bolded by saying I disagree with you.
It's ok, i sort of also disagree with me re that point in my post -- or rather how much it was stressed
Let's work on these together
We both stand to lose!
It's best if you read into it as little as possible.
Ok.It's ok, i sort of also disagree with me re that point in my post -- or rather how much it was stressed
Incidentally, I just thought of a third thing that may inform the Greek perspective, generally that is divergent from American sensibilities, which has to do with the age of Greece and Greek culture, heritage, tradition, etc. Greece is ancient, and I imagine that a culture so historic reaches a point where, like a priceless work of art, its age alone justifies its preservation, before even considering other factors. As an American, I can't relate as well to that, because for us, the fact that our culture is always being reinvented, including in the sense of our diversity is generally seen as a virtue and at a minimum, it is regarded negatively to say otherwise.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Backing a person because she's the odds' on winner is a great idea for sporting events.
It is the most reliable way to make money.
Ha! Honestly, the main reason to back Hillary, if you don't want to give her a mandate, is to help crush whatever it is that Trump created. Or to be proactive against his post election temper tantrum. People who are pro-Conservative can do the same thing by voting Libertarian or Green, though.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
A candidate people think is going to win can get a boost from being perceived as likely to win, though I don't know if that carries through to presidential elections. There are so few data points to work with, it's difficult to draw many good conclusions from the data.
However, it actually does make sense to vote for the winning presidential candidate, for that reason. Voting blocs gain power by being large enough to tangibly affect the outcome of the race. If you are a conservative or centrist and want a more centrist presidency, then you should vote for Hillary and then your voting bloc can go to her and say that you expect her not to be too far left. People on the left ought to do the same thing. She's going to be coming back and asking for your vote again in four years; if you showed up for her the first time she'll want you to show up for you again. Being in the winning coalition gives you a voice.
However, it actually does make sense to vote for the winning presidential candidate, for that reason. Voting blocs gain power by being large enough to tangibly affect the outcome of the race. If you are a conservative or centrist and want a more centrist presidency, then you should vote for Hillary and then your voting bloc can go to her and say that you expect her not to be too far left. People on the left ought to do the same thing. She's going to be coming back and asking for your vote again in four years; if you showed up for her the first time she'll want you to show up for you again. Being in the winning coalition gives you a voice.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
I'm pretty sure everyone has a voice.
Then we have left the gold standard long ago.
Oh. The way you posted that made it look as if you'd dismissed them both out of hand.
But the military dudes get killed. And also Dogmeat.Commodore said:
Kenny's… you bastard.
Destructor of everything she touched, her family made arms sales deals in exchange for illicit payments (this is not corruption), she helped install Reaganism as a set of ‘values’… we can go on and on about why she was absolutely deplorable and did great harm to the country she pretended to serve.
Yes… the problem is that you may just have an interference with that when you're in a safe state. Why bother voting then?
Oh, my dear. Watson!
It's not good rhetoric, but it is obvious rhetoric.
I'm sure people who vote Trump because they feel disenfranchised appreciate this sentiment.
- Status
Similar threads
