Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, December 07, 2017

As the rest of the U.S. wrestles with holding sexual harassers to account, President Donald Trump is seeking to silence one of his most vocal critics -- a former contestant on his reality TV show who accused him of groping her and sued him for calling her a liar. At a crowded Manhattan courtroom Tuesday, his lawyer asked a New York state judge to dismiss a defamation case by Summer Zervos, a contender on The Apprentice in 2005 who alleges he "ambushed" her without her consent on more than one occasion starting in 2007, kissing her on the mouth, touching her breast and pressing his genitals against her.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Regardless of what the judge decides, the case is likely to be appealed to the state's highest court. That almost certainly guarantees that if the president is forced to testify, it won't happen any time soon.

The suit may take years to resolve, due to "a lot of obstruction from Trump, refusal to schedule depositions, long delays in responding to discovery requests and defendants always stall," said Debra S. Katz, a lawyer who isn't involved in the case.

Zervos claims Trump defamed her by denying that he groped her and branding women who accused him of similar behavior as liars. The claim stems from statements the then-candidate made following the release of the infamous Access Hollywood recording that featured him making crude comments about women.

Lawyers for Trump argue that if the case is allowed to move forward, evidence gathering should be delayed until he leaves office.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

What Trump is saying is that as President he doesn't have time for this... as it would interfere with his golf game.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-05 04:54 PM | Reply

"... and pressing his -------- against her."

How could she tell?

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-05 05:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

The crunch of pustules?

#3 | Posted by bored at 2017-12-05 06:09 PM | Reply

Ew that's gross

#4 | Posted by Scotty at 2017-12-05 07:17 PM | Reply

Funny. You'd think RoC would have posted this as part of his sexual harassment/assault threads.

But. Any threads about Trump or Moore's actions are missing from him.

Seems like he has an agenda.

Defamation of democrats while spouting out excuses for republicans.

Just a second ago he posted a page of excuses for why Roy Moore had to run for Senate.

Yet. He's still adamant Franken resigns.

Partisan stooges will always remain partisan stooges.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-05 07:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Summer Zervos, a contender on "The Apprentice" in 2005 who alleges he "ambushed" her without her consent on more than one occasion starting in 2007, kissing her on the mouth, touching her breast and pressing his -------- against her.

"She's clearly lying. Let me tell you more about the picture Franken took with the playboy playmate..."

-RoC

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-12-05 07:39 PM | Reply

What is Trump afraid of? Why not face his accuser in court like a man. Oh...

#7 | Posted by bored at 2017-12-05 08:00 PM | Reply

Trump is a disgusting pig. I'm glad I didn't vote for him.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 02:49 PM | Reply

Trump is a disgusting pig. I'm glad I didn't vote for him.

#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

But you did.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-07 01:01 PM | Reply

This weird logic that if someone didn't vote for Hillary then they voted for Trump is getting tiresome.

#10 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-12-07 01:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

This weird logic that if someone didn't vote for Hillary then they voted for Trump is getting tiresome.

#10 | Posted by Whatsleft

If they live in a swing state it's sort of true. You could do a little to stop trump by not voting for him, you could do MORE to stop trump by voting for the person with the best chance to beat him.

So yeah not voting for hillary or trump isn't the same as supporting trump, but it's also not the same thing as opposing him as much as possible.

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 01:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trump is a disgusting pig. I'm glad I didn't vote for him.
#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
But you did.

#9 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

No comprendo.

#12 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2017-12-07 01:18 PM | Reply

^ENGLISH! Do you Speak It?!
www.youtube.com

#13 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-12-07 01:27 PM | Reply

It's one thing to claim harassment. But, it you can't prove it, you will be called a liar.
Defamation?

Actually, if you can't prove harassment, then your claim could be defamation.

Counter-sue.

#14 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-12-07 01:31 PM | Reply

#10 | Posted by Whatsleft

No it isn't. This was not a time to throw away your vote. In the election we just had there were two choices because one or the other was going to win. If you voted for anyone else you may as well have voted for Trump.

#15 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-12-07 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#10 it isn't weird logic. It is just a lie. A stupid one if you think about it at all...

#16 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"This weird logic that if someone didn't vote for Hillary then they voted for Trump is getting tiresome." - #10 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-12-07 01:04 PM

The logic isn't "weird":

Only A or B will win a state
✔ Voting for A helps A win that state
✘ Voting for anyone other than A hurts A's chances to win that state and therefore helps B... because
Only A or B will win a state

#17 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 02:16 PM | Reply

Trump is a disgusting pig. I'm glad I didn't vote for him.
#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
But you did.
#9 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
No comprendo.

#12 | POSTED BY CRISISSTILLS

I decided I didn't want to be a johnson so I voted for Gary Johnson. In Sycophant's mind that means I - a registered Republican who voted for Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain and Romney - somehow voted for Trump even though my vote didn't add to his tally.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-07 02:26 PM | Reply

#17 except anyone with a brain can see that the same logic has to apply in reverse according to your model. So not voting for a helps b and not voting for b helps a. And that means not voting for a or b helps both, which is illogical.

The reason why the model collapses in on itself is that you premise it on an obvious lie. In reality the only way to help a candidate win is to vote for that candidate.

Now that you've been proven wrong you can stop spewing this crap.

#19 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 02:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I think Sycophant's position could be better clarified. No, you obviously disnt actually vote for Trump by not voting for Hillary. But you also didn't do everything in your power to stop him from being president. That's fine if you didn't want to, just admit you didn't.

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 02:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The reason why the model collapses in on itself is that you premise it on an obvious lie."

Bingo. I don't know which is worse: the "logic" or the "ethics." This sort of nonsense would make a freshman philosophy student blush...

#21 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 02:31 PM | Reply

#20

Rhetorical trickery disguising what amounts to the same position. You didn't vote for the person but for an alternative. This is "doing something to stop them from winning."

#22 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 02:33 PM | Reply

"#17 except anyone with a brain can see that the same logic has to apply in reverse according to your model." - #19 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 02:27 PM

So?

Let's look at a real-world example. In November, 2016:

Only Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would win Michigan
✔ Voting for Hillary Clinton helps Hillary Clinton win Michigan
✘ Voting for anyone other than Hillary Clinton hurts Hillary Clinton's chances to win Michigan and therefore helps Donald Trump win Michigan... because
Only Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would win Michigan
You're welcome.

#23 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 02:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The reason why the model collapses in on itself is that you premise it on an obvious lie. In reality the only way to help a candidate win is to vote for that candidate.

Now that you've been proven wrong you can stop spewing this crap.

#19 | Posted by Sully

You can help a candidate in 2 ways:
1 - by voting for them
2 - by not voting for their opponent

You only helped trump in 1 of the 2 possible ways. Good job.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 02:47 PM | Reply

Franken resigned because there was an actual video that appeared to actually show him groping a woman. My guess is that it was supposed to be some sort of joke that went wrong. Especially in the context of now. That said, pretty much everyone else (politicians at least) that I have heard about are simply accusations from way back that are now being brought to light because of political expediency. Nobody should be sexually assaulted or molested. But someone didn't think it was worth reporting in a reasonable timeframe, I have to question the sincerity of someone who just now decides it is worth reporting. So what to do? How about investigate and if a crime is found, prosecute. But that would also mean that these women would have to go on the record somewhere besides twitter or a slanted journalist.

#25 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-12-07 02:49 PM | Reply

"Franken resigned because there was an actual video that appeared to actually show him groping a woman."

Link? I've seen a photo of him fake groping a woman (his hands aren't actually touching her breasts) but not a video.

#26 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-07 02:58 PM | Reply

#24 you are lying about how voting works and you are lying about me not voting for a Trump opponent.

Congratulations on telling amazingly obvious lies, Dumny

As much as you hacks want to spew this crap, I will rub your noses in it.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You didn't vote for the person but for an alternative. This is "doing something to stop them from winning."

I didn't say it wasn't "doing something." It was. And i commend it.

But it wasn't "doing the most you could do to prevent him from winning." Clearly voting for the other candidate who had a chance of beating Trump is doing more to stop him from winning than voting for someone with zero chance of winning. I don't know who could even debate that point. And please don't twist this into me somehow saying you should only vote for people who can win; that's not at all what i'm saying, i'm just saying that in the context of solely trying to deny Trump a presidency, the ability of an opponent to win must be factored in.

I threw away my principles and voted for someone i didn't like because i wanted to do everything in my power to deny Trump a win. Voting for someone else who happens to not be Trump does not have the same preventative power. Kudos to you for sticking with your principles - my discarding them didn't get me anywhere - but please don't pretend you did everything you could to prevent a Trump presidency, because you didn't.

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 03:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

Sully you seem to be saying that with your one vote, you voted against two candidates.

Can I see your math?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 03:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#24 you are lying about how voting works and you are lying about me not voting for a Trump opponent.

Congratulations on telling amazingly obvious lies, Dumny

As much as you hacks want to spew this crap, I will rub your noses in it.

#27 | Posted by Sully

You didn't vote for the only opponent who could have beaten trump, which is one of the two possible ways you could have helped trump.

If youre in a swing state, you helped trump. If you're not, your vote doesn't matter anyway because the electoral college is a perversion of democracy.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#29 you made up. It isn't my job to back up your lies.

Are you really so stupid as to think I would be fooled with regards to what I said? I'm just amazed by what a waste of bandwidth you are

#31 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 03:28 PM | Reply

#30 you are lying about what "help" means.

This is another stupid thing to lie about. You and your sub 90 IQ should nip at another ankle. I'm obviously not going to be fooled by your pathetic efforts

#32 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- which is one of the two possible ways you could have helped trump.

It's the maths, stupid!

Even Dully can't argue the maths!

But of course he will anyway.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-07 03:38 PM | Reply

This is another stupid thing to lie about. You and your sub 90 IQ should nip at another ankle. I'm obviously not going to be fooled by your pathetic efforts

#32 | Posted by Sully

If you cant figure out that in a swing state, not voting for trump's opponent helps get trump elected, you shouldn't be insulting anyone else's intelligence.

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Math proves you idiots wrong. Adding the number zero to any sum does not increase it no matter how vehemently you ----- insist otherwise.

If you idiots didn't realize how dumb you are being before now, surely Corky's approval is causing you to pause and reconsider...

#35 | Posted by Sully

That's because elections aren't about getting to a certain predetermined number stupid, they're about getting more than the next person. If you didn't want trump to win, you make sure the other person has more votes than him.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#37 the only way to help trump win is to vote for him. I am sorry if you don't know what help means. Flaunting your ignorance and low IQ over and over will never make you less wrong

#38 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Corky's approval

Corky can do the maths and knows that not voting for Trump's opponent can help Trump.

He can also do the ethics of civic responsibility that puts voting for better real world consequences for the country is more important than voting to make one's self feel better; aka holding one's dick in one's tiny hand because it feels good rather than making the tough choices that are better for the country even if they are the lesser of two evils.

Especially when one choice of policies is SO obviously better than the other, and have been for decades, than the only other actual choice, no matter the party candidate.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-07 04:12 PM | Reply

"Flaunting your ignorance and low IQ over and over will never make you less wrong"

Neither will insulting other posters nor will protesting too much, methinks. Reread #28 and let it sink in.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-07 04:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"#37 the only way to help trump win is to vote for him."

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Your vote... it is like ze goggles. They do nothing!

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 04:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

FWIW, I almost posted that quote in my last comment.

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-07 04:42 PM | Reply

#37 the only way to help trump win is to vote for him. I am sorry if you don't know what help means. Flaunting your ignorance and low IQ over and over will never make you less wrong

#38 | Posted by Sully

Saying that over and over doesn't make it true. It just makes you look dumber and dumber.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I created a post to vote for the worst elected president.
I gave two names to choose from and a write-in.

Everyone is writing in their choice.

Amazing that when it comes to Hillary and Trump, the write-in isn't a valid choice.

#44 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-12-07 04:49 PM | Reply

Oh, it's a choice all right.

The result of making that choice in a Presidential election is the same result as not voting.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 04:52 PM | Reply

If everyone voted as I did, would Trump be president ? No? Then how did I help him? Your claims fail under the most basic logical tests.

I've proven you morons wrong over and over dozens of time over the past year. It is more than fair for me to just call you dumb liars at this point. It is what you are.

#46 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 05:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Then how did I help him?" - #46 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 05:07 PM

Only A or B will win a state
✔ Voting for A helps A win that state
✘ Voting for anyone other than A hurts A's chances to win that state and therefore helps B... because
Only A or B will win a state
Again, you're welcome.

(You're also as slow as a post turtle.)

#47 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 05:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#41 you supported an evil candidate you jackass. For a year, you idiots have been spamming lame lesser evil arguments.

Did you just figure out that evil is unacceptable?

Welcome to the club, Stupid

#48 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 05:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I've proven you morons wrong over and over dozens of time over the past year." - #46 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 05:07 PM

Pigeon chess

Refers to somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, who proceeds to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, but who always proclaims victory.

#49 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 05:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#41 you supported an evil candidate you jackass. For a year, you idiots have been spamming lame lesser evil arguments.

Did you just figure out that evil is unacceptable?

Welcome to the club, Stupid

#48 | Posted by Sully

Pick one:

1. The flu

2. AIDS

3. Let someone else decide for you.

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 05:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Did you just figure out that evil is unacceptable?" - #48 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 05:14 PM

Obviously, you find Trump acceptable.

Speaks volumes.

#51 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 05:21 PM | Reply

Pick one:

1. Stage 1 (or 2 or 3) of any kind of cancer

2. Stage 4 of any kind of cancer

3. Let someone else decide for you.

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-07 05:54 PM | Reply

#50 inaccurate analogy.

That is why you won't answer: if everyone voted as I did, who would be president?

Unless the answer is Trump, you are wrong and obviously so

#53 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 06:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That is why you won't answer: if everyone voted as I did, who would be president?"

I know, I know!
"Whoever the Electoral College voted for."
What do I win?

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 06:15 PM | Reply

This was the actual choice. Pick one:

Hillary

Trump

Johnson

Stein

The only reason for the analogies is to obfuscate. A vote for Stein mathematically does nothing for Trump. If everyone voted for Stein, trump would not be president.

I'm not going to let people whose IQ is 2/3 of mine at best tell me how I need to vote. Especially not with such grossly incompetent talking points

#55 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 06:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"A vote for Stein mathematically does nothing for Trump."

You might have well not voted, is the thing, you don't want to acknowledge.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 06:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"people whose IQ is 2/3 of mine at best"

Great news everybody,
Goatman is back!

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 06:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

This was the actual choice. Pick one:

Hillary

Trump

Johnson

Stein

#55 | Posted by Sully

Yup. But because hillary was the only one who could beat him, a vote for anyone but her helped trump.

If not voting for a flawed candidate was your highest priority, you achieved it, even if your idealism ended up hurting every policy goal you have.

If preventing president trump was your highest priority, you screwed up.

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 06:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#55 | POSTED BY SULLY

Try again, this time considering an opportunity cost.

A vote for stein was a vote against clinton. Therefore a vote for stein is the same as a vote for trump, when considered from the perspective of Hillary's vote totals.

Either way, a vote for stein or johnson was mathematically a poorly cast vote. Those voters voted to make themselves feel good rather than to influence US politics. Anyone failing to understand this is as bad as the apathetic nonvoters.

#59 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-07 06:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Either way, a vote for stein or johnson was mathematically a poorly cast vote. Those voters voted to make themselves feel good rather than to influence US politics. Anyone failing to understand this is as bad as the apathetic nonvoters."

Bingo.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 06:32 PM | Reply

Either way, a vote for stein or johnson was mathematically a poorly cast vote. Those voters voted to make themselves feel good rather than to influence US politics. Anyone failing to understand this is as bad as the apathetic nonvoters.

#59 | Posted by IndianaJones

*If you live in a swing state.

If not, vote for whoever you want to send a message to your party about the direction you want them to head.

#61 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 06:33 PM | Reply

"...if ..." - #53 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 06:03 PM

If you were smart you wouldn't be stupid.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world doesn't deal with hypothetical "if" situations.

We deal with reality.

#62 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 06:34 PM | Reply

"This was the actual choice. Pick one:" - #55 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 06:16 PM

Hillary: One of only 2 candidates with a chance to win

Trump: The only other candidate with a chance to win

Johnson: No chance in hell of winning

Stein: No chance in hell of winning

Only Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will win a state
✔ Voting for Hillary Clinton helps Hillary Clinton win that state
✘ Voting for anyone other than Hillary Clinton hurts Hillary Clinton's chances to win that state and therefore helps Donald Trump win the state... because
Only Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will win a state

#63 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 06:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#58 there is no "yeah but" in the face of facts.

That a vote for stein did not mathematically help trump is a fact. I have never said that trump not winning is my highest priority. You are moving the goalposts because you are wrong. My position is that an Indy vote did not help Trump, which is also a mathematical fact. You are wrong. Grow up and move on.

#59 that is a silly opinion that supports a failing status quo. You are entitled to it. But I will not support your race to the bottom or tolerate people who lie about how counting works in order to discourage actual change.

You can be as dumb as you want with your own vote but you are not entitled to my vote or to redefine how basic math works. Fair enough?

#64 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 06:43 PM | Reply

"Either way, a vote for stein or johnson was mathematically a poorly cast vote. Those voters voted to make themselves feel good rather than to influence US politics. Anyone failing to understand this is as bad as the apathetic nonvoters."

Laughably untrue. Fear of losing votes to third parties definitely influences the way the two major parties behave. Also, the two parties have changes before in US political history. There is no magical rule that Democrats and Republicans will dominate US politics forever.

#65 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 06:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

If not, vote for whoever you want to send a message to your party about the direction you want them to head.

#61 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-12-07 06:33 PM | FLAG:

You are contradicting yourself. What sort of message is it if the vote in those places doesn't matter?

#66 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 06:49 PM | Reply

"But because hillary was the only one who could beat him..."

False premise. Any of the other national candidates COULD have beaten him. There was no magical principal of the universe keep that from happening.

#67 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 06:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"There is no magical rule that Democrats and Republicans will dominate US politics forever." - #65 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 06:47 PM

This might be true. But, consider...

There are over 500,000 elected officials across the US.

And while some are "independent" (or no party affiliation), either by choice or by the fact that the office itself has no party affiliation (such as a county judge), the vast majority are either a Republican or a Democrat. Less than a few dozen are affiliated with one 3rd party or another.

Every state in the union has a formal Republican or Democratic organization, recognized by the national party committees. These have volunteers down to the county and precinct level, again, in every state in the union. No 3rd party comes even close to that level of local-state-national organization for fundraising and organizing, including the ever important GOTV activities before each election.

The last time a US political party went national, coinciding with the decline and eventual disappearance of another US party, was over 160 years ago.

When do you see something like that happening again?

#68 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 06:57 PM | Reply

That a vote for stein did not mathematically help trump is a fact. I have never said that trump not winning is my highest priority. You are moving the goalposts because you are wrong. My position is that an Indy vote did not help Trump, which is also a mathematical fact. You are wrong. Grow up and move on.

#59 that is a silly opinion that supports a failing status quo. You are entitled to it. But I will not support your race to the bottom or tolerate people who lie about how counting works in order to discourage actual change.

You can be as dumb as you want with your own vote but you are not entitled to my vote or to redefine how basic math works. Fair enough?

#64 | Posted by Sully

Hey dum dum stop lecturing people about math when you're making such pathetic math errors. You don't win by getting a set number of votes, you win by getting more than your closest opponent.

If the Giants are playing against the cowboys, and you want the cowboys to lose, are you just rooting for the cowboys NOT to score points, or does it also help you if the giants DO score points?

#69 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 07:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Any of the other national candidates COULD have beaten him." - #67 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 06:52 PM

No, they couldn't have.

The last time a 3rd party candidate came close was Ross Perot in 1992, and even he didn't win a single Electoral College vote, despite getting almost 19% of the popular vote.

#70 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:00 PM | Reply

#68

Quick show of hands, Yankees: who among you is really, truly happy with EITHER party or with the US two party system as a whole?

I see nothing but complaints on this forum and have since I started reading it. These days the best you get even from the usual sycophants is damning with faint praise followed quickly by a hellfire and brimstone condemnation of the other side.

#71 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No, they couldn't have."

Why not? Is there a rule written somewhere?

#72 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Why not?" - #72 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:04 PM

240 years of American political history.

#73 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:11 PM | Reply

- Any of the other national candidates COULD have beaten him.

This is a philosopher's answer, not a realist's solution. They could have beat him only in theory, not much of a chance at all in practice.... you know, the real world most of us live and vote in.

But hey, as long as so many people vote to make themselves feel good rather than consider the real world consequences of their vote; that their vote is a civic duty to choose for the benefit others as well themselves, they'll still treat voting as a form of emotional ------------ instead of rational choice.

The Trumps of the world couldn't win without those voters both right and left; the Randians and the Purity Pony Riders.

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-07 07:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

240 years of American political history.

#73 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2017-12-07 07:11 PM | FLAG:

What about it?

#75 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:14 PM | Reply

"...who among you is really, truly happy with EITHER party or with the US two party system as a whole?" - #71 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:04 PM

I'm not even remotely happy with EITHER party.

But, divide Democrats and Republicans have an even easier job of getting elected.

And, unfortunately, Americans are way too easily swayed by marketing and, combined with their amnesia, the GOP currently dominates the American political landscape, from county courthouses all the way to the White House.

Following the 1928 stock market crash and the Great Depression, Democrats and progressives dominated the political landscape across this nation for decades. Even Ike said "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history."

Only 2 years after the 2008 Great Recession, the GOP was back on top of the US House, and on its way to the dominance they have today.

You might not be happy with EITHER party. Neither am I.

But what do you propose? Dividing the only local-state-national party that at least isn't the GOP so that the GOP has an even easier time of getting elected?

#76 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"What about it?" - #75 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:14 PM

In all but a few national elections early in our history, the winner of the presidency came from one of only two political parties.

And since the national election of 1860, those 2 parties were, exclusively, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Did you not know that?

#77 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:22 PM | Reply

"But hey, as long as so many people vote to make themselves feel good rather than consider the real world consequences of their vote; that their vote is a civic duty to choose for the benefit others as well themselves, they'll still treat voting as a form of emotional ------------ instead of rational choice."

Yeah, you are still wrong. Third party votes do make a difference, as I've already explained. I also note that your little self-gratification strawman gets trotted out yet again, devoid of any real argument for the ethical position underlying it.

#78 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This is a philosopher's answer, not a realist's solution. They could have beat him only in theory, not much of a chance at all in practice.... you know, the real world most of us live and vote in." - #74 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-07 07:12 PM

Bravo, Corky.

#79 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:24 PM | Reply

#77

And yet it still doesn't follow from this that this will always be the case. So yeah.

#80 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:24 PM | Reply

"Third party votes do make a difference..." - #78 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:22 PM

They sure do make a difference.

And that difference is called spoilers.

#81 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:25 PM | Reply

"And yet it still doesn't follow from this that this will always be the case." - #80 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:24 PM

You are probably right.

But I doubt you or I will ever live to see it (see my #68).

#82 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:27 PM | Reply

"And, unfortunately, Americans are way too easily swayed by marketing and, combined with their amnesia, the GOP currently dominates the American political landscape, from county courthouses all the way to the White House."

And here's the rub. You will vote against your reason and principles out of a belief that your fellows have neither. Mark Twain has a line about how a single man with a gun can rob a train full of people: the passengers could easily overpower him in a rush but each person on the train doesn't trust that his fellows will help. And so they all are relieved of their valuables.

#83 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And that difference is called spoilers.

#81 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2017-12-07 07:25 PM | FLAG:

Use whatever petty pejorative you want. Fear of defection to third parties forces the two major parties to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't, contrary to all the posturing about third party votes being "wasted" or "thrown away."

#84 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You will vote against your reason and principles out of a belief that your fellows have neither." - #83 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:27 PM

That, and your Mark Twain line, make zero sense in the context of this thread.

#85 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:30 PM | Reply

"Use whatever petty pejorative reality-based observation you want." - #84 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:30 PM

Fixed that for you, to reflect reality, not fantasy.

#86 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:31 PM | Reply

"But what do you propose? Dividing the only local-state-national party that at least isn't the GOP so that the GOP has an even easier time of getting elected?"

False dilemma. As if the GOP membership are so happy with their own party. Just imagine how your country would look if you people actually voted your consciences..

#87 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Funny. You'd think RoC would have posted this as part of his sexual harassment/assault threads.
But. Any threads about Trump or Moore's actions are missing from him.
Seems like he has an agenda.
Defamation of democrats while spouting out excuses for republicans.
Just a second ago he posted a page of excuses for why Roy Moore had to run for Senate.
Yet. He's still adamant Franken resigns.
Partisan stooges will always remain partisan stooges.

#5 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2017-12-05 07:37 PM

Just saw this, you are so full of Shart it's getting tiresome.

How many times have I said that Moore should drop out and Trump should step down? 20? 30?

The fact that I haven't started Trump or Moore threads is THAT THEY ALREADY EXIST.

I know it bummed you out when I gave the legal reasons why Moore is still on the ballot, but those are the facts.

I don't like or support Moore and am pissed that the RNC and Trump have flipped and are supporting him. I know the political reasons why they are doing it, but hope he loses.

But you are right, as a partisan stooge you will remain that way.

#88 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-12-07 07:33 PM | Reply

That, and your Mark Twain line, make zero sense in the context of this thread.

#85 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2017-12-07 07:30 PM | FLAG:

It makes perfect sense. You don't trust your fellow citizens. Hence the highest you can aspire as a citizen is damage control within a two party system you don't even like.

#89 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"...contrary to all the posturing about third party votes being "wasted" or "thrown away."" - #84 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:30 PM

There are no objective facts you can provide that demonstrate that 3rd party votes accomplished anything more than serving as spoiler votes.

#90 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:35 PM | Reply

Fixed that for you, to reflect reality, not fantasy.

#86 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2017-12-07 07:31 PM | REPLY | FLA

Spoiler is a value judgement, not a reality based observation, slick. That you can't tell one from the other goes a long way towards showing why you are so totally unconvincing.

#91 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:36 PM | Reply

"It makes perfect sense." - - #89 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:34 PM

No, it doesn't.

"You don't trust your fellow citizens."

You mean my fellow citizens who have given us President Donald Trump, a GOP-controlled Washington, a GOP Senate that stole a SCOTUS nomination, and GOP dominance of governors and state houses across this nation?

Those fellow citizens?

#92 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:38 PM | Reply

Hillary: One of only 2 candidates with a chance to win
Trump: The only other candidate with a chance to win
Johnson: No chance in hell of winning
Stein: No chance in hell of winning

✔ Only Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will win a state
✔ Voting for Hillary Clinton helps Hillary Clinton win that state
✘ Voting for anyone other than Hillary Clinton hurts Hillary Clinton's chances to win that state and therefore helps Donald Trump win the state... because
✔ Only Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will win a state
#63 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2017-12-07 06:40 PM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY 1

The same exact logic also says that by not voting for Trump, I helped Hillary.

I can't imagine being so stupid as to not see that immediately let alone post it for the consumption of others. I like to joke about your low IQs but in this case, I'm dead serious. This is tragically stupid.

#93 | Posted by sully at 2017-12-07 07:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#90

Again, spoiler is your silly pejorative, not mine. But yeah, acting as a "spoiler" forces changes by the major parties so that you don't "spoil" things for them. That is a powerful thing and quite disproves assertions that third party votes don't matter. Thanks for conceding the point.

#94 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:39 PM | Reply

"You mean my fellow citizens who have given us President Donald Trump, a GOP-controlled Washington, a GOP Senate that stole a SCOTUS nomination, and GOP dominance of governors and state houses across this nation?"

You are all huddled on the same train, HANS, ole stick.

#95 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:40 PM | Reply

Hey dum dum stop lecturing people about math when you're making such pathetic math errors. You don't win by getting a set number of votes, you win by getting more than your closest opponent.
If the Giants are playing against the cowboys, and you want the cowboys to lose, are you just rooting for the cowboys NOT to score points, or does it also help you if the giants DO score points?

#69 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-12-07 07:00 PM | FLAG:

LOL. My vote for Stein did nothing to help Trump get more votes (electoral or actual) than Clinton. You're making a distinction that does nothing to change how the match of my zero votes for Trump doing nothing to help Trump.

So yeah, you still need to be lectured on how math works, Copernicus.

#96 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 07:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Spoiler is a value judgement..." - #91 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:36 PM

That would be news to William Howard Taft (in 1912), Hubert Humphrey (in 1968), George H.W. Bush (in 1992), Al Gore (in 2000), and Hillary Clinton (in 2016).

"...why you are so totally unconvincing."

Hate to break it to you, slick, but convincing you of anything is not a priority of mine.

#97 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:42 PM | Reply

"No, it doesn't."

Sure it does. You just confirmed you don't trust your fellows to support efforts to move outside the current system. And it is this fear that keeps you from even trying to do so, like the fear of the man who won't rush the train robber because he fears being left to die by the train's other passengers. A psychologist who call that prolepsis by the way...

#98 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:43 PM | Reply

"You are all huddled on the same train..." - #95 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:40 PM

Again with the nonsensical comments.

#99 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:43 PM | Reply

"That would be news to William Howard Taft (in 1912), Hubert Humphrey (in 1968), George H.W. Bush (in 1992), Al Gore (in 2000), and Hillary Clinton (in 2016)."

Not it wouldn't. They are all better educated than you and this would know the difference between a value judgement and a factual observation.

And I am glad you've made your peace with being unconvincing.

#100 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:45 PM | Reply

"Sure it does." - #98 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:43 PM

Nope. Not at all.

"... like the fear of the man who won't rush the train robber because he fears being left to die by the train's other passengers."

A psychiatrist would call that delusion by the way...

#101 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:45 PM | Reply

"The same exact logic also says that by not voting for Trump, I helped Hillary."

Yes, now you're getting it!

The way you think makes sense if Johnson or Stein actually had a chance of winning.
But they didn't.
You have a hard time acknowledging that.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 07:46 PM | Reply

Now that your simpletons can agree that winning elections is about getting more votes than the opposition, you are almost there as far as understanding what my zero votes for Trump did for Trump.

Here is a link that explains how adding zero to a number (in this case # of votes Trump received) works.

www.math-only-math.com

Get reading, dimwits!

#103 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 07:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#101

Sorry Hans, but you gave up the game with your characterization of your fellow citizens in #92 and #76.

#104 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:48 PM | Reply

"Not it wouldn't." - #100 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:45 PM

Yeah, it would.

"They are all better educated than you and this would know the difference between a value judgement and a factual observation."

Yep.

And their factual observation would be that Teddy Roosevelt prevented William Howard Taft from re-election in 1912, George Wallace prevented Hubert Humphrey from winning in 1968, Ross Perot prevented George H.W. Bush from being re-elected in 1992, Ralph Nader prevented Al Gore from being elected in 2000.

Those are all factual observations.

#105 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The same exact logic also says that by not voting for Trump, I helped Hillary."
Yes, now you're getting it!
The way you think makes sense if Johnson or Stein actually had a chance of winning.
But they didn't.
You have a hard time acknowledging that.

#102 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-12-07 07:46 PM | FLAG:

LOL. If the same "logic" can be used to reach conclusions that are the exact opposite for one another, the "logic" is false.

I just had to explain that to someone.

#106 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 07:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"LOL. If the same "logic" can be used to reach conclusions that are the exact opposite for one another, the "logic" is false."

The conclusions are opposite because the winner in your scenario is the opposite, dummy.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 07:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"...but you gave up the game..." - #104 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:48 PM

Pigeon chess

Refers to somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, who proceeds to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, but who always proclaims victory.

#108 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:51 PM | Reply

How some people love the old catch-22.

"You shouldn't vote for them because they can't win," and "they can't win because no one votes for them."

The American two party system really is a comedy of the absurd.

#109 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The conclusions are opposite because the winner in your scenario is the opposite, dummy.

#107 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-12-07 07:51 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Umm, no. If the logic was sound then it wouldn't matter who won.

#110 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 07:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#105

Those are observations. The term "spoiler" is a value judgment. But thanks for playing.

Meanwhile, thanks for proving my point: third parties can have a major effect on the outcome of elections and votes for third parties are therefore not wasted, thrown away, or any other such nonsense.

#111 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How some people love the old catch-22.
"You shouldn't vote for them because they can't win," and "they can't win because no one votes for them."
The American two party system really is a comedy of the absurd.

#109 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN AT 2017-12-07 07:51 PM | FLAG:

These morons also know nothing about our history. Parties have gone in and out of favor throughout US history and there is no reason to assume it won't happen again. These things can change very quickly. If there still is a US in 50 years, people will be looking back on the age of blind loyalty to "R" and "D" in utter disbelief of how foolish and easily manipulated they were.

#112 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 07:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Parties have gone in and out of favor throughout US history..." - #112 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 07:55 PM

Not since the mid 1850s.

Don't you know anything about our history?

#113 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:56 PM | Reply

Reality-ish:
Trump: 50
Clinton: 49
Stein: 1 (this is your vote, Sully! Look how much it mattered!)
Outcome: Trump wins

Your Flip The Script Scenario:
Trump: 50
Clinton: 49
Stein: 1 (this is your vote, Sully! Look how much it mattered!)
Outcome: Clinton wins

You voted the same way, but you played spoiler/kingmaker, for the opposite candidate.
That happened because of the circumstances of a thing called reality, which is bigger than you.
Thanks for reading and understanding.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 07:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Hell some of these idiots were alive when the parties swapped positions and they still act as if the current status quo has always been and always will be.

#115 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The term "spoiler" is a value judgment." - #111 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 07:54 PM

Not in the context of this thread.

You're welcome.

#116 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 07:57 PM | Reply

LOL. My vote for Stein did nothing to help Trump get more votes (electoral or actual) than Clinton. You're making a distinction that does nothing to change how the match of my zero votes for Trump doing nothing to help Trump.

So yeah, you still need to be lectured on how math works, Copernicus.

#96 | Posted by Sully

Let's play "how many ways can we say the same thing before a dunce understands it?"

You keep saying you understand math then you prove you can't do 1+1.

Your vote didn't help trump get more votes, but it did help him win by helping widen the gap between him and his nearest opponent.

IF YOU DIDNT VOTE FOR THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD BEAT HIM, YOU HELPED HIM WIN. Coal companies thank you. Polar bears told me to tell you to screw yourself.

#117 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 07:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

People as smart as you claim to be don't do this much Magical Thinking, Sully.

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 07:57 PM | Reply

You voted the same way, but you played spoiler/kingmaker, for the opposite candidate.
That happened because of the circumstances of a thing called reality, which is bigger than you.
Thanks for reading and understanding.

#114 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-12-07 07:56 PM | FLAG:

In both examples the 50 people who voted for the winner are the only ones responsible for that person winning. Your assertion to the contrary is based on nothing but your own inability to think logically. There is not way you can repackage your false claim that will make it true.

#119 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 07:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Hell some of these idiots were alive when the parties swapped positions..." - #115 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 07:57 PM

You mean the Democratic Party and the Republican Party switched positions?

That's still just 2 parties.

What happened to "Parties have gone in and out of favor throughout US history..."?

#120 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:00 PM | Reply

Whine all you want, Hans. All any reader has to do is see the posts I pointed to.

You won't vote third party because you think it is a waste. You think it is a waste because you think a third party cannot win (history be damned). You think they cannot win because you don't think people will join you in voting for a third party. You don't think people will join you in voting for a third party because they are gullible, ignorant, and/or unprincipled (see posts 76 and 92). HENCE, you won't vote for a third party because of your low regard for your fellow citizens. WHICH is precisely what Twain describes in his train robbery examples.

QED

#121 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:00 PM | Reply

"You won't vote third party because you think it is a waste." - #121 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:00 PM

It is a waste.

"You think it is a waste because you think a third party cannot win (history be damned)."

When since 1860 did a third party candidate win the presidency?

Apparently, your history is the one that's damned.

Oops.

#122 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:02 PM | Reply

"Not in the context of this thread."

Oh really? So spoiler does not imply that spoiling is a negative or disruptive activity (spoiling, from the verb "to spoil")? How bizarre.

#123 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:02 PM | Reply

"Your vote didn't help trump get more votes, but it did help him win by helping widen the gap between him and his nearest opponent."

No it didn't. You do not understand how addition with zero works. I voted zero times for Trump. There is way that my zero votes for Trump could affect his lead or deficit or vote tally.

The problem is that you are such a hack that you don't understand that all your illogical claims are based on the unspoken premise that for some reason my vote was owed to Hillary. Not true. She never had any chance of receiving my vote. That you wanted me to vote for that objectively horrible candidate does not entitled you to anything, lest of all re-writing how the basis laws that govern the universe work.

#124 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Show me how my vote helped him widen the gap, moron. LOL

#125 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 08:05 PM | Reply

- devoid of any real argument

Chomsky makes a great argument, but you've already ignored it.

.
Lots of people don't like the two party system and would like to change it, but as Bernie so aptly noted, the last election was not a good time for a protest vote because of the particularly dire consequences.... which now reside in the WH because some people are willing to sacrifice those Americans that will suffer in order to feed their ego.

#126 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-07 08:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#122

You just conceded that third party votes influence elections. You gave examples. I, in turn, pointed out how this effect the behavior of the two major parties. So, no. Not a waste. Thanks for helping me make the point though.

"When since 1860 did a third party candidate win the presidency?"

So you concede that it has happened and could again. You are just totally laying your own argument to waste here, Hans!

#127 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:06 PM | Reply

"So spoiler does not imply that spoiling is a negative or disruptive activity (spoiling, from the verb "to spoil")?" - #123 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:02 PM

Never said it wasn't a "negative or disruptive activity."

It is.

Just like dropping a stool in your holiday party punch bowl is a "negative or disruptive activity."

Doesn't make it subjective, though.

Unless, of course, you like the taste of ____ in your holiday punch.

Again, you're welcome.

#128 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:07 PM | Reply

"Chomsky makes a great argument, but you've already ignored it."

No, I have already refuted it piece by piece and you ignored my response (on the Federalist thread).

Here it is again:

A clumsy argument typical of a man operating outside his field of expertise. Chomsky may be fine enough as a linguist but as an ethicist he is inexcusably sloppy. For starters, he takes as assumed a consequentialist ethical framework he doesn't bother to defend (as well he would: a deontological position, to name just one alternative, would undermine his whole argument). Further, he claims, again without real argument, that the politics of witness is merely self-indulgence, ignoring the fact that concerns over losing votes to third party candidates has a real impact on how candidates in the two major parties behave AND the fact that the two dominant parties in the US political landscape have changed repeatedly over the course of US history. His suggestion that people should vote for the lesser evil and then return to activism etc. as a means of undermining the two party system likewise ignores the effect that the one has on the other: how seriously can we take a supposed reformer who is so sanguine about propping up during an election the very system he seeks to oppose with the remainder of his time?

#129 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"So you concede that it has happened and could again." - #127 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:06 PM

Didn't happen in 1860.

And, using that touchstone as a starting point, it hasn't happened in 157 continuous years.

"You are just totally laying your own argument to waste here..."

No I'm not.

#130 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:10 PM | Reply

"Never said it wasn't a "negative or disruptive activity."
It is."

Hence your claim is a value judgement ("negative" "disruptive") and not a statement of fact.

Do you have any more of your own points you'd like to accidentally refute, Cletus? This is getting funny.

#131 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:11 PM | Reply

"You just conceded that third party votes influence elections." - #127 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:06 PM

Never said otherwise.

Their influence is in spoiling the results of the election.

As always, you're most welcome.

#132 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:12 PM | Reply

"...and not a statement of fact." - #131 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:11 PM

Nope. It is a statement of fact.

'Tis a pleasure helping you.

#133 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:13 PM | Reply

#130

Did something magically change such that it can never happen again, Clever HANS?

#134 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:13 PM | Reply

"Nope. It is a statement of fact."

"Negative" is a value judgement.

#135 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:14 PM | Reply

For the philosophically impaired: en.m.wikipedia.org

#136 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:15 PM | Reply

For the philosophically impaired: en.m.wikipedia.org

#137 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:15 PM | Reply

"Did something magically change such that it can never happen again..." - #134 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:13 PM

It hasn't happened in 157 continuous years.

What's changed that it will somehow magically happen in the future if it hasn't happened in all that time?

Your turn.

#138 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:16 PM | Reply

- refuted it

No, you just whined about it and ignored the short term civic duty aspect in pursuit of your magnificent opinion on how things SHOULD be rather than how they are... just like when you voted.

And pretending that a third party has as much chance to win as one of the other two parties in this country is another bit of silly disingenuous blather.

You sure you aren't MadBomber?

#139 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-07 08:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Negative" is a value judgement." - #135 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:14 PM

Not in the context of this thread.

Your turn.

#140 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:16 PM | Reply

"Never said otherwise."

Lie some more:

Post 122:

"You won't vote third party because you think it is a waste." - #121 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:00 PM

"It is a waste."

Oops.

#141 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:17 PM | Reply

Show me how my vote helped him widen the gap, moron. LOL

#125 | Posted by Sully

Trump had X votes. Hillary had Y votes. The gap (Z) between them was: X-Y=Z

If you gave hillary your vote: X - (Y+1) = (Z-1) See that? The gap SHRANK!

But you didn't.
Again, the coal companies thank you. Future generations don't.

#142 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 08:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

At least Corky admits that all his nonsense is premise on my owing my vote to Hillary.

He's not smart enough to know he shouldn't be admitting that.

#143 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 08:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Not in the context of this thread."

Yeah, I gave you a wiki page and everything. You have no excuse not to know what a value judgement isn't any more.

#144 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:19 PM | Reply

"Lie some more" - #141 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:17 PM

You're very confused, boyd.

Voting 3rd party is a waste because its influence is in spoiling an election.

Oops.

Your turn.

#145 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:20 PM | Reply

"I gave you a wiki page and everything." - #144 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:19 PM

That's irrelevant and everything, boyd.

Your turn.

#146 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:21 PM | Reply

Trump had X votes. Hillary had Y votes. The gap (Z) between them was: X-Y=Z
If you gave hillary your vote: X - (Y+1) = (Z-1) See that? The gap SHRANK!
But you didn't.

#142 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-12-07 08:17 PM | FLAG:

You prove my point: Your entire argument is based on the totalitardian premise that my vote was owed to Hillary.

It wasn't.

I did not deny Hillary a vote that was rightly hers. I would have never voted for her. My vote for Stein neither added to Trump's vote total nor subtracted from Hillary's vote total (which is the basis for you idiotic claim). Therefore, you are proven wrong. Beyond all doubt. Now go get your shine box.

#147 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 08:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Epistemologically, ontologically, and hagiographically, calling a phrase a value judgement is a value judgement in itself. Which would be a tautomeric Tu Quoque fallacy. ☺

#148 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-12-07 08:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"No, you just whined about it and ignored the short term civic duty aspect in pursuit of your magnificent opinion on how things SHOULD be rather than how they are... "

Show me where I did any such thing.

Meanwhile, let me lay out my arguments again.

Chomsky assumes an ethical framework he doesn't bother to support with arguments.

He ignores the actual efficacy of third party voting.

He ignores that the major parties have changed in the past.

He ignores the implications of propping up a system every election year that you try to undermine the rest of the time as an activist.

No responses from you to any of these points.

#149 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Here is how the math actually works once you get it through your pea brain that in reality, Hillary was never entitled to my vote:

Trump has X
Hillary has Y

X-Y = Z

(X+0)-Y = Z

Welcome to Reality, Numbnuts!

#150 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 08:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You prove my point: Your entire argument is based on the totalitardian premise that my vote was owed to Hillary.

#147 | Posted by Sully

No my argument is based on the premise that you didn't want trump to be president.

If so, and you live in a swing state, you should have voted for the only person who could make him not be president, whether that was hillary clinton or ronald mcdonald.

#151 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 08:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"Voting 3rd party is a waste because its influence is in spoiling an election."

That is a self contradiction. The efficacy of third parties in changing election outcomes changes the behavior of parties. Hence voting third party is an effective means of political engagement. Your own examples prove it. Your response?

#152 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That is a self contradiction." - #152 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:29 PM

No it isn't, boyd.

"The efficacy of third parties in changing election outcomes changes the behavior of parties."

You can offer zero objective proof of that ever happening, boyd.

Again, your turn.

#153 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:31 PM | Reply

"That's irrelevant and everything, "

Hey, look! I found another definition of a value judgement:

www.dictionary.com

Wow! Once again, it looks exactly like what you are doing with the word spoiler! That's two sources to your zero sources!

#154 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:31 PM | Reply

"I found another definition of a value judgement" - #154 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:31 PM

Once again, boyd, you're not making any sense.

Regardless, your turn.

#155 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:33 PM | Reply

#153

So your argument is that third parties frequently act as spoilers but that the two major parties don't react to this in any way? Got it. You are getting less convincing with each post you make.

#156 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No my argument is based on the premise that you didn't want trump to be president."

If I wanted him to be president, I would have voted him. Because that is the only way I could have possibly helped him become president. As the math proves.

I am disbelief that it actually became necessary for me to explain that to you.

Hint: You can tell which candidate I did want to be president by who I voted for...

#157 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 08:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Once again, boyd, you're not making any sense."

All I am doing is posting links to discriminatory and encyclopedic articles explaining what a value judgement is. You've already conceded that you feel a spoiler is negative and disruptive. Now, look at the definitions that i provided and tell me, is spoiler, as you are using it here, a value judgement? Come on Clever Hans! You can do this! I believe in you!

#158 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:37 PM | Reply

Dictionary^

Bloody autocorrect

#159 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:40 PM | Reply

Sully, you didn't help Trump win. You just declined to do a thing that would have helped him lose more than anything else you could have done.

#160 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 08:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

If I wanted him to be president, I would have voted him. Because that is the only way I could have possibly helped him become president. As the math proves.

I am disbelief that it actually became necessary for me to explain that to you.

Hint: You can tell which candidate I did want to be president by who I voted for...

#157 | Posted by Sully

I did the math for you in #150.

Again, it's about your priorities.

You prioritized a symbolic vote for who you MOST wanted, over an effective vote against who you LEAST wanted.
That's your prerogative. But if not ending up with president trump was important to you, it was a dumb strategy. If you live in a swing state, you DID help him win. Keep in mind, all this is coming from a fellow hillary hater. I'm just not dumb enough to think she's equally as bad as trump.

#161 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 08:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So your argument is that third parties frequently act as spoilers..." - #156 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:35 PM

I cited 1912, 1968, 1992 and 2000.

That's hardly anyone's idea of "frequently," especially as it relates to the every-four-years presidential elections.

There was a time when you and nullifidian were thoughtful, intelligent, even witty liberals, real assets to the dialog here on the Retort.

Sad to see the depths to which you've fallen, boyd. Just like nullifidian.

Sad.

#162 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:42 PM | Reply

"You prioritized a symbolic vote for who you MOST wanted, over an effective vote against who you LEAST wanted." - #161 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 08:42 PM

An excellent comment, and post, Speak.

#163 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:44 PM | Reply

"Sully, you didn't help Trump win. You just declined to do a thing that would have helped him lose more than anything else you could have done." - #160 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 08:41 PM

Bravo, Joe!

#164 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-07 08:47 PM | Reply

"That's hardly anyone's idea of "frequently," especially as it relates to the every-four-years presidential elections."

Often enough all by itself, and it we looked I am sure we could find other examples. The point stands regardless.

#165 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:47 PM | Reply

Sully, you didn't help Trump win. You just declined to do a thing that would have helped him lose more than anything else you could have done.

#160 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2017-12-07 08:41 PM | FLAG:

With the only vote I could control, I voted for the candidate who I wanted to win.

I have not once in the last year lamented that the objectively horrible human being who you supported in the election is not president instead of the objectively horrible human being who is our president.

#166 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 08:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You just declined to do a thing that would have helped him lose more than anything else you could have done."

What a bizarre argument. Should we take it to it's conclusion? I doubt we could without making a federal case out of it: "did you do ALL you could to stop Trump?"

#167 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 08:50 PM | Reply

"You prioritized a symbolic vote for who you MOST wanted, over an effective vote against who you LEAST wanted."

Look, its the Argument from Uranus!

I had no desire to see either Trump or Hillary win the election. Zero is not greater or less than zero.

And no, you did not go over any math with me. You posted nonsense that was based entirely on a false premise.

I showed you how the math actually works.

#168 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 08:52 PM | Reply

I have not once in the last year lamented that the objectively horrible human being who you supported in the election is not president instead of the objectively horrible human being who is our president.

#166 | Posted by Sully

Then you're a moron.

Because if hillary were president she wouldnt be ripping apart the consumer protection bureau, trashing the environment, or killing the poor so the rich can have a tax cut, among the countless other terrible and destructive things trump has done.

#169 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 08:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I had no desire to see either Trump or Hillary win the election.

#168 | Posted by Sully

Neither did I. But I'm not stupid enough to think they are equally bad. You are.

#170 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 08:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I have not once in the last year lamented that the objectively horrible human being who you supported in the election is not president

Then your values are ----.

#171 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

We were on the trajectory towards third world status well before 2016. If everyone keeps doing what you are suggesting, we stay on that trajectory. If people started voting with their heads instead of allowing themselves to be manipulated and ruled by fear, we could stop it. So I'm going to do the right thing and hope that one day enough of you idiots will come around. Joining you would be a cynical waste with the only benefit the approval of you fools. And that is not worth much.

You are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and trying to make it into some kind of moral triumph, which only proves you are unqualified to talk about morality.

#172 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 09:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"In both examples the 50 people who voted for the winner are the only ones responsible for that person winning. "

In both examples, your vote could have changed things, but you chose to cast it in such a way that it didn't change things.

You might as well not have voted.

#173 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 09:28 PM | Reply

We were on the trajectory towards third world status well before 2016. If everyone keeps doing what you are suggesting, we stay on that trajectory. If people started voting with their heads instead of allowing themselves to be manipulated and ruled by fear, we could stop it. So I'm going to do the right thing and hope that one day enough of you idiots will come around. Joining you would be a cynical waste with the only benefit the approval of you fools. And that is not worth much.

You are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and trying to make it into some kind of moral triumph, which only proves you are unqualified to talk about morality.

#172 | Posted by Sully

You're now just like Ray, saying its better to drive the country off a cliff than try to hit the brakes.

If you're worried about becoming a third world country, do you think that happens faster under president trump or president clinton? (this is the part where you reveal how stupid you truly are).

#174 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 09:31 PM | Reply

In both examples, your vote could have changed things, but you chose to cast it in such a way that it didn't change things.
You might as well not have voted.

#173 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-12-07 09:28 PM | FLAG:

In both examples any number of people could have changed their vote and changed things, you moron. You are trying and failing to create a hypothetical situation where for some reason my vote is the only one that counts AND it is owed to someone who didn't earn it. You can't even succeed hypothetically.

And you also voted for a candidate who did not win so by your own "logic", you mind as well have not voted. (Only a real dummy walks right into that one, BTW)

#175 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 09:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I had no desire to see either Trump or Hillary win the election."

Well you certainly voted accordingly.

But you kinda didn't put much thought into which you'd rather actually have, since it was inevitably going to be one of those two.

You just dropped ten and punted with your vote. You voted "let someone else decide."

#176 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 09:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"And you also voted for a candidate who did not win so by your own "logic", you mind as well have not voted."

I voted for a candidate with a chance to win, though.
You did not.
That's the difference.

#177 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 09:34 PM | Reply

"You're now just like Ray, saying its better to drive the country off a cliff than try to hit the brakes."

No, that is YOU. The brakes would be to stop voting for the corporate owned parties who are destroying us. You are arguing over the speed at which we should drive over the cliff. And you know this which is why you fools keep babbling about lesser evils.

"If you're worried about becoming a third world country, do you think that happens faster under president trump or president clinton? (this is the part where you reveal how stupid you truly are)."

I'm not interested in becoming a third world country more slowly. Why would I be? So maybe I can maximize the number of decent years I have while totally screwing over the future? That would be an incredibly selfish and immoral stance to take. It could even be argued that a gradual conversion is what the oligarchs want because it is less likely to cause a blow back. I want it stopped and my vote will reflect as much.

#178 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 09:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I voted for a candidate with a chance to win, though.
You did not.
That's the difference.

#177 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-12-07 09:34 PM | FLAG:

And I voted for a candidate who may have made things better. You did not. Your vote was wasted.

#179 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

No, that is YOU. The brakes would be to stop voting for the corporate owned parties who are destroying us. You are arguing over the speed at which we should drive over the cliff. And you know this which is why you fools keep babbling about lesser evils.

#178 | Posted by Sully

Yeah we had a chance to do that in the dem primary. And we'll have another chance if the country lasts that long. But if babies like you insist on throwing us all off the cliff because it's not happening fast enough for you, then we won't.

#180 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-07 10:05 PM | Reply

Trump is garbage

#181 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2017-12-08 12:47 AM | Reply

Keep up the good work Sully.

#182 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-12-08 06:35 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"And I voted for a candidate who may have made things better. You did not. Your vote was wasted."

Your vote enabled Trump whether you are ready to admit it or not. Pragmatism is something that too few Democrats thoroughly embrace, sad because it is the ONLY road to success.

#183 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-08 08:22 AM | Reply

"I'm not interested in becoming a third world country more slowly. Why would I be? So maybe I can maximize the number of decent years I have while totally screwing over the future? That would be an incredibly selfish and immoral stance to take. It could even be argued that a gradual conversion is what the oligarchs want because it is less likely to cause a blow back. I want it stopped and my vote will reflect as much."

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is opening up federal lands to mining, drilling, etc. You go ahead and vote for your emotional choice, see where that gets you....us. Until you recognize the FACT that only political parties can make significant change or prevent significant change in the wrong direction we will experience significant change in the wrong direction. We only win when we stick together, FDR taught us that. Do you honestly believe we would have SS today if Americans thought the way you do back then? If you don't like the direction of the party then get involved in the party, don't be just a nay sayer on the outside trying to disrupt the consensus. WE need the consensus, we can adjust our message but we need to retain our consensus. Reality. The reality is quite clear, we would have all be much better off if Hillary Clinton won the last election, either you can accept or deny that fact but the reality will remain whichever choice you make. WE would have been better off with President Hillary Clinton.

#184 | Posted by danni at 2017-12-08 08:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I voted third party my whole life. The prospect of a Trump presidency was different to me. Hillary would essentially have been 4-8 more years of Obama. A corporatist, centrist president who occasionally throws crumbs to the left. Certainly not ideal.

But Trump is off the rails. He's already appointed Gorsuch, throttled the EPA, rejected science, and is about to sign the most regressive tax legislation in history. He's an avowed racist and a sexual predator. Not to mention the fact that he embarasses the nation on a daily basis. If you can't find a meaningful difference between what he's doing and what Hillary likely would have done, you are just stupid. There's no other way to say it. And if doing everything you could to stop him from being president wasn't priority #1 for you, you might want to re-evaluate yourself.

#185 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-08 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

= He ignores the actual efficacy of third party voting.

No, actually he doesn't. He is in accord with Bernie Sanders who made it as clear as possible that although party building and system changing may be admirable tasks, in this particular election it would be most unwise to cast a protest vote rather than to support Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

And Trump has done nothing but prove him 100 percent correct... no matter how many people decided to cast their vote to make themselves feel good rather than to consider the consequences of their vote for their country... you know, their civic duty as a citizen.

#186 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-08 12:57 PM | Reply

"No, actually he doesn't."

Yeah, he actually does. Read your own link. He regards third party voting as purely symbolic when it manifestly isn't. "The politics of witness" he call it. But one is doing more than witnessing when one votes third party.

"He is in accord with Bernie Sanders who made it as clear as possible that although party building and system changing may be admirable tasks, in this particular election it would be most unwise"

Which is problematic. I ask again, how seri Idly can we take an advocate who props up a system every election that she opposes through activism with the rest of her time?

#187 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 01:38 PM | Reply

^how seriously

#188 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 01:39 PM | Reply

"one is doing more than witnessing when one votes third party"

Very true. This article lays out the evidence.

www.carlbeijer.com

I still think that whatever gains that are to be had by third party voting should have been discarded this time around in favor of stopping Trump.

#189 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-08 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Chomsky picked out that election as especially important, and it was.

- how seri Idly can we take an advocate who props up a system every election that she opposes through activism with the rest of her time?

Very seriously... by keeping them in context of living in the real world politic rather than in an idealistic philosophical ivory tower.

#190 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-08 01:58 PM | Reply

"I ask again, how seri Idly can we take an advocate who props up a system every election that she opposes through activism with the rest of her time?"

I'd say that largely depends on whether you think Tu Quoque is a logical fallacy or a valid criticism.

I ask, which one do you think it is?

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 02:04 PM | Reply

"I'd say that largely depends on whether you think Tu Quoque is a logical fallacy or a valid criticism.
I ask, which one do you think it is?"

What has that to do with anything? You are suggesting that the charge of hypocrisy against such activists would be fallacious? Even if that is true, hypocrisy stills hurts on a rhetorical level: that is why charges of hypocrisy are so common in political discourse. It is an effective attack.

But even leaving that aside, on a purely practical level, surely propping up a system innonnarea of your life and opposing it in another is less productive than simply committing one way or the other (lest you counteract your own efforts).

#192 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 02:27 PM | Reply

"Very seriously... by keeping them in context of living in the real world politic rather than in an idealistic philosophical ivory tower."

You take hypocrisy seriously? You take people working against themselves seriously? Well, your choice, I suppose...

#193 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 02:28 PM | Reply

Thanks for the link, Joe. An interesting read, to be sure. It even includes some things I missed (3rd parties as a source of policy innovation).

#194 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 02:32 PM | Reply

It is an effective attack.

Right up there with the Clinton Deflection.

#195 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-12-08 02:35 PM | Reply

Right up there with the Clinton Deflection.

#195 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2017-12-08 02:35 PM | FLAG:

That is an example, yes. And people keep using it and similar strategies.

#196 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 02:38 PM | Reply

"You are suggesting that the charge of hypocrisy against such activists would be fallacious?"

Indeed, that is exactly what Tu Quoque means.

So, now what? You gonna keep attacking the person since you can't attack their message?

#197 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 02:41 PM | Reply

"So, now what? You gonna keep attacking the person since you can't attack their message?"

I haven't done any such thing. I have pointed out that the charge of hypocrisy against activists, fallacious or not, will impede their activism.

I have also pointed out that working against yourself reduces your efficacy (as should go without saying), which is precisely what these hypothetical activists would be doing.

Both of those points still stand, and you haven't even touched my other ones.

#198 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 02:48 PM | Reply

And people keep using it and similar strategies.

That doesn't make it effective, it makes it tedious.

#199 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-12-08 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Wait, your complaint about hypocrisy was about purely hypothetical activists?

Do you live on -------- Mountain?

#200 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 02:52 PM | Reply

That doesn't make it effective, it makes it tedious.

#199 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2017-12-08 02:52 PM | FLAG:

So why do people keep using it?

#201 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 02:54 PM | Reply

"I have pointed out that the charge of hypocrisy against activists, fallacious or not, will impede their activism."

Yeah, propaganda is effective. Everybody knows that, (except Sully!).

Everybody is a hypocrite. Which is why it shouldn't be effective as an attack, but it is nonetheless. But I'd say, the less educated you are, the more hypocrisy seems like a valid criticism.

#202 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 02:56 PM | Reply

#200

...what complaint about hypocrisy?

I am responding to Chomsky's suggestion that one should practice "lesser evil voting" during elections and activism (to cause a more
Radical change) the rest of the time. I pointed out, rightly, that a person doing this could be accused of hypocrisy, which would hurt their activism.

I also pointed out that doing what Chomsky suggests is basically working against your own efforts.

So? How do you answer?

#203 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 02:58 PM | Reply

"So why do people keep using it?"

Why do people cross the street before looking both ways?

#204 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 02:59 PM | Reply

So why do people keep using it?

Usually lack of an argument, or lack of imagination.

#205 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-12-08 03:00 PM | Reply

"Yeah, propaganda is effective. Everybody knows that, (except Sully!).
Everybody is a hypocrite. Which is why it shouldn't be effective as an attack, but it is nonetheless. But I'd say, the less educated you are, the more hypocrisy seems like a valid criticism."

I must point out that "everyone is a hypocrite, therefore hypocrisy doesn't matter" is itself a logical fallacy... (Argumentum ad populum).

In either case, I understand what you mean and it fits with what I was trying to say: it shouldn't hurt to call one of these activists a hypocrite but it does. Hence, my original argument against Chomsky's effort to have his activist cake and eat it too.

#206 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 03:02 PM | Reply

"I pointed out, rightly, that a person doing this could be accused of hypocrisy, which would hurt their activism."

Any of us could be accused of hypocrisy for anything we do.

Since when is that alone a reason not to do it?

#207 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 03:02 PM | Reply

#205

Yes, but why?

Are you seriously making the case that people do not care about hypocrisy? That they recognize the claim as a fallacy and reject it more or less universally?

#208 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 03:04 PM | Reply

Since when is that alone a reason not to do it?

#207 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-12-08 03:02 PM | FLAG:

Look again at my claim. It is the effect of the accusation that I am concerned with. What I am saying is that following Chomsky's advice makes activism of the type he endorses more difficult, something that he does not seem to acknowledge.

#209 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 03:06 PM | Reply

"everyone is a hypocrite, therefore hypocrisy doesn't matter" is itself a logical fallacy... (Argumentum ad populum).

ROFL.
That's not the argument, and it's not what I said.

The reason hypocrisy doesn't matter is because: Tu Quoque.

The fact that everyone happens a hypocrite is unrelated to the reason it's a fallacy. It's a fallacy because it is addressing the person, not their argument.

#210 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 03:08 PM | Reply

Yeah, Look again:

"Everybody is a hypocrite. WHICH IS WHY it shouldn't be effective as an attack,"

Emphasis mine.
That is definitely an argument and a fallacious one. Pretty funny, given your concern with fallacies.

#211 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 03:12 PM | Reply

"I also pointed out that doing what Chomsky suggests is basically working against your own efforts."

Because some poorly educated rube -- or someone smart enough to know what poorly educated rubes like to hear -- will yell "Hypocrite?"

Or is there something more to it that I'm still not seeing?

#212 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 03:13 PM | Reply

"The fact that everyone happens a hypocrite is unrelated to the reason it's a fallacy. It's a fallacy because it is addressing the person, not their argument."

Yeah, I get it. But that's not what you said in the passage I was referring to.

#213 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 03:13 PM | Reply

"Everybody is a hypocrite. WHICH IS WHY it shouldn't be effective as an attack,"

Is "we are all humans" an ad populum fallacy now?

#214 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 03:15 PM | Reply

"Because some poorly educated rube -- or someone smart enough to know what poorly educated rubes like to hear -- will yell "Hypocrite?""

Yes, in part. There are some people who won't listen or won't listen as readily to a hypocrite. Which hurts the cause.

"Or is there something more to it that I'm still not seeing?"

There is, which is that voting a certain way and getting people to vote a certain way go along with activism as means of producing change. You can lobby Congress, March in the streets, etc. against the two party system all you want, but if at the end of the day everyone still votes for it, your efforts are going to have that much more difficulty In succeeding.

#215 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 03:17 PM | Reply

Is "we are all humans" an ad populum fallacy now?

#214 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-12-08 03:15 PM | FLAG:

Academic, since it's not what you said. Relax. I am sure it was a slip of the pen. I just couldn't resist pointing out your use of a fallacy.

#216 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 03:18 PM | Reply

"A vote for Stein mathematically does nothing for Trump."

Nonsense. There's an answer to the question Who would you have voted for, if Stein was out of the race?

If your answer is Johnson, the next question is Who would you have voted for, if both Stein and Johnson were out of the race?

If that person was HRC, you've just done something for Trump. Mathematically.

#217 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-08 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

- Chomsky's suggestion that one should practice "lesser evil voting" during elections

Only during certain high stakes elections... the same as Bernie Sanders advised. And Chomsky has participated in and advocated liberal activism... has been a high profile leader of such, for decades.

This black and white thinking, "splitting" is the psychological term, that one cannot be a liberal activist while calling for rational, consequence-based, civic-minding voting when the stakes are particular high, doesn't even pass the laugh test.

en.wikipedia.org(psychology)

#218 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-08 04:05 PM | Reply

"Only during certain high stakes elections... the same as Bernie Sanders advised."

Which affects my criticisms of his argument not at all. In fact, it just introduces a new one: aren't all elections high stake? How does one evaluate that?

"And Chomsky has participated in and advocated liberal activism... has been a high profile leader of such, for decades."

Not as good a one as he could have been if he had rejected the lesser evil voting strategy, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

"This black and white thinking, "splitting" is the psychological term..."

...is a strawman that you constructed just now. Also, you linked to the "splitting" disambiguation page and not to the psychological term.

#219 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 04:17 PM | Reply

"If that person was HRC"

of course that's the assumption. Every vote for 3rd party was going to be for HRC....not Trump.

3rd party candidates take votes from both sides.

not necessarily equally, but both sides.

#220 | Posted by eberly at 2017-12-08 04:24 PM | Reply

"Academic, since it's not what you said."

It follows inevitably from what I said, by syllogism:
We are all humans.
We are all hypocrites.
Therefore all humans are hypocrites.

#221 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 04:26 PM | Reply

It follows inevitably from what I said, by syllogism:
We are all humans.
We are all hypocrites.
Therefore all humans are hypocrites.

#221 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-12-08 04:26 PM | FLAG:

And yet it is still not what you said. What you said was that we are all hypocrite and BECAUSE we are all hypocrites, the charge of hypocrisy shouldn't matter. Which is a textbook argumentum ad populum fallacy.

#222 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 04:28 PM | Reply

Which affects my criticisms of his argument not at all. In fact, it just introduces a new one: aren't all elections high stake? How does one evaluate that?

#219 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

No. The idea that you can't separate a presidential election from a blow out house race is ridiculous. You should smack yourself for claiming something this dumb.
And the rest of your argument isn't even argument but merely restatement of your position.

#223 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-08 04:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh, and your syllogism also doesn't work.

#224 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 04:30 PM | Reply

"You can lobby Congress, March in the streets, etc. against the two party system all you want, but if at the end of the day everyone still votes for it, your efforts are going to have that much more difficulty In succeeding."

So what's the easier path to success then?
I don't think it exists, but you can paint me a picture.
Reference historical successes if that helps.

#225 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 04:34 PM | Reply

"No. The idea that you can't separate a presidential election from a blow out house race is ridiculous."

Based on what standard? You aren't arguing, you are just appealing to intuition (one I don't even share).

"And the rest of your argument isn't even argument but merely restatement of your position."

Hardly. You just can't address it.

Care to address my point that a charge of hypocrisy hurts would be activists? Care to address my point that supporting and opposing something reduces your practical ability to effect Change?

Care to address my point that third party voting is NOT merely symbolic but prouduces real outcomes? Care to address my point that the two party system is not necessarily permanent? Care to address, in a word, any of the dozen or so arguments I have made in this thread?

#226 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 04:36 PM | Reply

#225

Obviously it is to do all those things and to vote against the system as well.

#227 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 04:37 PM | Reply

*If you live in a swing state.
If not, vote for whoever you want to send a message to your party about the direction you want them to head.

#61 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

True. If you know your state will go with your preference, then not voting your first choice instead of your best choice is okay.

#228 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-08 04:43 PM | Reply

Obviously it is to do all those things and to vote against the system as well.

How do you "vote against the system" though?
That's not a thing you can do without participating in the system, is it?
So you're right back to hypocrisy again.

#229 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How do you "vote against the system" though?
That's not a thing you can do without participating in the system, is it?"

Well, it depends. In this case, we were talking about the two party system. One can vote against the two party system by voting third party.

#230 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 04:49 PM | Reply

"Care to address my point that third party voting is NOT merely symbolic but prouduces real outcomes?"

Okay, I'll address it:
What real outcomes did it produce in 2016?
Pick another year divisible by four if it helps.
Now show me hiw voting third party alone achieved it.
Thanks.

#231 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 04:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And in case you are curious, the syllogism you were going for was

P1: all humans are hypocrites.
P2: we are all humans.
Ergo
C: we are all hypocrites

#232 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 04:51 PM | Reply

"What real outcomes did it produce in 2016?"

Why are you here? Why are you upset about people voting third party?

#233 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 04:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"One can vote against the two party system by voting third party."

No, you can't.
It will still be a two party system, because that's a structural element that can't be changed just by voting.

You're conflating the candidates with the system.

#234 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 04:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No, you can't.
It will still be a two party system, because that's a structural element that can't be changed just by voting."

Surely voting must be involved somehow, however. Some of the structures you seem to have in mind can be changed by voting.

#235 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 04:57 PM | Reply

The reason people get so bent out of shape lever third party voting is because they believe, rightly, that it can change the corse of a close election. The major parties realize this too and this are obliged to consider issues that they would otherwise ignore in order to keep parts of their base from defecting to a third party representative of their beliefs. Further, as Joe points out, third parties can be valuable sources of policy innovation, focusing on and bringing attention to issues that eventually come into the political mainstream. Finally, third parties have, repeatedly in US history, actually ascended to dominance and become national parties (by replacing another national party).

#236 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 05:03 PM | Reply

^course of a close election

#237 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 05:04 PM | Reply

"The reason people get so bent out of shape lever third party voting is because they believe, rightly, that it can change the corse of a close election."

They believe, wrongly, that voting third party weakens the two party system.

That's the major disconnect: Between what they want, and how they think they can get it.

#238 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 06:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They believe, wrongly, that voting third party weakens the two party system."

Doesn't it?

#239 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 06:42 PM | Reply

It doesn't
They also never win, which underscores it not doing that.

#240 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 07:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#240

History says you're wrong. The dominant parties have changed repeatedly in US history. Further, votes for third parties influence the behavior of the major parties.

#241 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 07:06 PM | Reply

"They also never win, which underscores it not doing that." - #240 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 07:00 PM

Yep.

History says that from 1853 until today, presidents have been either a Democrat or a Republican.

In all that time there's been no independent president, no Bull Moose president, no Green Party president, no States' Rights president, no American Independent president.

Nope. No 3rd party presidents. None whatsoever.

History says that for 164 non-stop years of American history, presidents have been only Democrats or Republicans.

#242 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-08 07:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The dominant parties have changed repeatedly in US history. Further, votes for third parties influence the behavior of the major parties."

Thus is surprisingly weasely coming from you.

First, no mention of when we've ever been a more-than-two-party system.
Then, no mention that even though the dominant parties change, it's still a been two party system.
Finally, no mention of how minor parties have actually influenced the major ones, ine of which is to Gerrymander the States so as to solidify the two parties hold on the elecyirate.

In American politics there's the winner, and everyone else is a loser. The process itself results in two de facto parties. Voting won't change the process in anything but an indirect manner. Until such change occurs, we remain a two party system.

#243 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 07:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"First, no mention of when we've ever been a more-than-two-party system.
Then, no mention that even though the dominant parties change, it's still a been two party system."

Fair point. But the two parties, at least, can change. Which, in turn, might open the way towards the kind of systemic changes needed to allow more parties a real seat at the table.

"Finally, no mention of how minor parties have actually influenced the major ones"

Now that I have mentioned, and repeatedly. Fear of losing votes to third parties forces the big two to address issues they would otherwise ignore to prevent such losses. Likewise, see Joe's link about policy innovations etc. by third parties.

#244 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 08:03 PM | Reply

"And I voted for a candidate who may have made things better." - #179 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 09:43 PM

"May" have made things better?

A candidate with a 0.0% chance of winning has no opportunity to make things anything, better or worse.

#245 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-09 08:00 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort