Hillary vs Bernie

[Capetan Mihali]

I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric.   As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.

Vote for Trump, Mihali. You know you want to. 

But that would be throwing my vote away.   You see, Washington State is solidly "blue" in 2016, so it's just juvenile to vote for anyone but the Democrat, because of the Electoral College. 

And I'm sure the voter turnout rate will clear 54% this year too if more responsible adults set a good example and vote for their choice of either Approved Candidate.   As James Brown put it: Livin' in America...

[Berkut]

Part of being a grown up in a democracy is making the right choice of between lousy choices.  There can be pretty big differences between 2 evils and failing to get that choice correct can have very serious consequences.

There is a reasonable argument to be made however that in this case, picking the worst solution might be dangerous and short term bad, but be necessary for a long term shift in US politics.

IE, Trump is probably going to be a "D" President, and might be a "F" President. At best he might surprise us and be a "C" President.

Clinton is probably going to be a "C" President, very unlikely to be a "D", and maybe a "B" at best.

However, electing Clinton just reinforces the status quo, and that status quo (the argument goes) is fucking things up badly because the systemic problem we have gotten ourselves into cannot be fixed without radical change. And Clinton is an agent to oppose that change.

So maybe it is better to risk the possible "F" President if necessary, to force the system to change in the long run.

I can't bring myself to come to that conclusion myself - Trump is just too terrible, and further, I don't actually think he would even try to make the systemic change anyway. For me, the potential payoff is nearly zero, and the risk very, very high.

But I can understand others who go through that same evaluation and come to a different conclusion.

I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.

[garbon]

I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric.   As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.

Re-read the definition of ad hominem.
I'll take this as a non-response.

While fair, I have to admit, I always wondered what it would be like if you channeled grumbler.

[Capetan Mihali]

I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric.   As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.

Re-read the definition of ad hominem.
I'll take this as a non-response.

OK, I'll go re-read it (if the words aren't too big for me), while you think about how to tell me you didn't post a load of puerile alt-history up above.

[garbon]

I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.

Yeah, I don't really see that at all.

[Berkut]

I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.

Yeah, I don't really see that at all.

That it is getting better, or getting worse?

[PJL]

Mihali is exactly what I am talking about when I try to convince people that Trump (or rather the problem that he is a symptom of) is NOT a "Republican" problem.

The GOP has created the most fertile ground for someone like him to thrive in with their xenophobia and intolerance and embrace of the stupid, but Trump is getting votes from Republicans and a lot of independents who recognize that the system itself is broken, and people like Clinton cannot be a solution, since they are actually the problem.

Now, IMO here the solution is considerably worse than the problem. Or rather, the solution cannot solve the problem anyway, and hence all the incredibly negative baggage he carries with him cannot possibly be worth it.

But I completely understand where he is coming from, and fundamentally agree with his stance - at least in theory.

Indeed, and for those who think the system is broken may feel that it needs to be discredited first before a new one can be started. In that sense leftists may prefer a Trump presidency over a Clinton one as although it would incur short term pain, it would be worth it if a better system comes out of it. Of course, it could mean that the short term is much worse than envisioned before a better one comes along, just as Hitler and the Nazis discrediting the Weimar system in Germany did huge damage to Germans and Europe before a better system came along after the war.

[The Minsky Moment]

Part of being a grown up in a democracy is making the right choice of between lousy choices.  There can be pretty big differences between 2 evils and failing to get that choice correct can have very serious consequences.

There is a reasonable argument to be made however that in this case, picking the worst solution might be dangerous and short term bad, but be necessary for a long term shift in US politics.

. ..

However, electing Clinton just reinforces the status quo, and that status quo (the argument goes) is fucking things up badly because the systemic problem we have gotten ourselves into cannot be fixed without radical change. And Clinton is an agent to oppose that change.

Ok but that is still a choice between 2 evils.  I.e. if you truly believe that, then you should vote Trump, not stay home or vote for Harold Stassen. 

[DGuller]

I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.

I don't think we actually followed that approach at all.  Instead of voting for the least worst choice, voters yo-yo regardless of the merits of the two parties and their candidates.  That's almost precisely the opposite approach:  it does nothing to incentivize being the least worst choice, because your cycle will come soon enough anyway.

[The Minsky Moment]

I love this "grown up" line of rhetoric.   As if that were not the definition of ad hominem, not that anyone keeps track of what that means in this kiddie pool.

Re-read the definition of ad hominem.
I'll take this as a non-response.

OK, I'll go re-read it (if the words aren't too big for me), while you think about how to tell me you didn't post a load of puerile alt-history up above.

Thanks - before you look it up make sure the dictionary also has "puerile" in it.  Just to save time. 

[Berkut]

Part of being a grown up in a democracy is making the right choice of between lousy choices.  There can be pretty big differences between 2 evils and failing to get that choice correct can have very serious consequences.

There is a reasonable argument to be made however that in this case, picking the worst solution might be dangerous and short term bad, but be necessary for a long term shift in US politics.

. ..

However, electing Clinton just reinforces the status quo, and that status quo (the argument goes) is fucking things up badly because the systemic problem we have gotten ourselves into cannot be fixed without radical change. And Clinton is an agent to oppose that change.

Ok but that is still a choice between 2 evils.  I.e. if you truly believe that, then you should vote Trump, not stay home or vote for Harold Stassen. 

Good point - if your evaluation is that Trump is the right choice under whatever metric, then yeah, go vote for him.

Not voting doesn't make any sense at all, IMO. Or voting for someone who cannot win, unless you actually believe that the establishment parties actually "hear" that message. I don't think that they do....

[Berkut]

I do not buy into DG "incremental" approach. We given that decades to work, and each cycle it appears to be worse than it was before. It is not getting a little bit better each time, it is getting worse each time.

I don't think we actually followed that approach at all.  Instead of voting for the least worst choice, voters yaw-yaw regardless of the merits of the two parties and their candidates.  That's almost precisely the opposite approach:  it does nothing to incentivize being the least worst choice, because your cycle will come soon enough anyway.

OK, but that is because each partisan group thinks their slightly less worse choice is the right incremental step.

It will *never* be the case that one party just dominates every election for a length of time long enough to enact that change in question, and what is more, if they did, the incentive for them to destroy the very system they are dominating would be gone!

Your system *cannot* work even if you managed to convince enough people to vote for Dems all the time. Only the threat of losing could theoretically force either party to buck the system, and if that threat exists, then it is the case that they will not consistently win enough for your incremental plan to take effect, since we will get that churn back and forth.

[Norgy]

For the record, I think it is perfectly fine for a Bernie supporter to vote for Trump instead of Clinton (or to stay home) provided he or she does not think Trump is the Hitler Reborn(tm).

That's really my beef with the Trump hate - he is seriously lacking as a candidate despite his appeal but he is not Hitler and painting him as such does disservice to the democratic process (not least because of which, it gives all kinds of idiots, especially on the left, a license to do all kinds of unsavory things - like shutting down a pro-Trump rally - to stop him). I just hope the leftist anti-Trump frenzy does not end up in a political assassination.

He'd be a shitty candidate even in Poland, M.

[The Minsky Moment]

Indeed, and for those who think the system is broken may feel that it needs to be discredited first before a new one can be started. In that sense leftists may prefer a Trump presidency over a Clinton one as although it would incur short term pain, it would be worth it if a better system comes out of it. Of course, it could mean that the short term is much worse than envisioned before a better one comes along, just as Hitler and the Nazis discrediting the Weimar system in Germany did huge damage to Germans and Europe before a better system came along after the war.

The example that came to my mind was the Communist disavowal of the "bourgeois socialists" and abandonment of the Popular Front strategy.  That kind of strategy can be logically consistent but it is playing with fire.

[Capetan Mihali]

You guys were right, of course; it's not truly an ad hominem argument (thank goodness for Nizkor!).  Though it's not really an argument at all.  Just something you slip into an argument to be extra pompous, condescending, unproductive, and trite.