DescentBB

....and, it IS appearing to clearly be reality: There is only ONE candidate who seems to have arrived in ANY SENSE prepared to actually BE the President of the United States*. This is a Sarah Palin moment on steroids:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

Lord knows, weed fucks with your memory sometimes, and to varying extents, but, GEEZ, Gary!







* when stating this, I am not sure if, indeed, Wavy Gravy has suspended his campaign. If so, I'll stretch the list to two.

Why bother slick. Let the opposition eat itself. Why point out Johnson's idiocy to everyone anyway? Just let all those Republicans and conservatives who hate Trump plunk their votes down for Johnson. A vote given for Johnson is a vote taken from Trump.

well, personally, I didn't know Johnson going in and sort of liked Weld when I lived in a nearby state when he was governor of Massachusetts. I'm just astounded at the level of preparedness accepted by far too many. I mean, you can have issue with politics, you can parse rumors of deceit or corruption and determine the truth, but for crying out loud, the least that should be expected is that the nominee be somewhat prepared to do the job........

We can see how prepared a incompetent Like Hillary and Obame were on the world stage.

yes, we have, and they both proved very much not to be incompetent.

callmeslick wrote:I'm just astounded at the level of preparedness accepted by far too many. I mean, you can have issue with politics, you can parse rumors of deceit or corruption and determine the truth, but for crying out loud, the least that should be expected is that the nominee be somewhat prepared to do the job........

I agree this is a blunder and different from the Aleppo incident. It is one thing to be caught off guard by someone using an uncommon expression with no context, but it is quite different to be this unprepared. I understand that he wants to talk about policy, not people, but having a good understanding of policy is studying the policies of our peers and who those peers are. Foreign policy experience makes or breaks candidates and this was a bad day for Johnson. But part of me thinks the lack of preparation is partly to do with the fact so little pressure put on third party candidates and the low expectations for them in general. I think Stein does a much better job off-the-cuff, but even she will never get her chops up the way a Republican or Democratic nominee will simply because of the constant media exposure.

I asked myself the same question and it honestly took several seconds before I settled on Angela Merkel. Then again, I'm not running for an elected position comparable to hers.

callmeslick wrote:....and, it IS appearing to clearly be reality: There is only ONE candidate who seems to have arrived in ANY SENSE prepared to actually BE the President of the United States*. This is a Sarah Palin moment on steroids:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

All you're convincing me to do is vote for Stein instead. I'm not ever going to vote for a neocon.

your call, but you cannot call her prepared to do the job either. If it makes your conscience feel all warm and fuzzy, it's a free country.

callmeslick wrote:your call, but you cannot call her prepared to do the job either. If it makes your conscience feel all warm and fuzzy, it's a free country.

No one here has ever called her unprepared. We call her dishonest, and we criticize her domestic and foreign policy. Someone with her foreign policy I would actually hope to be as ineffectual at her job as possible so as to minimize whatever further damage she would have otherwise done.

Jim Wright, retired vet and blogger from Florida, put it as well as I can:



Folks, I've gone out of my way to be respectful of your views.

But if you are now sending me angry messages about Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, then I must speak bluntly to you.

Neither Johnson nor Stein are going to be president. Ever. Never ever. Get used to that idea.

Neither should be president.

Neither Stein nor Johnson is in any way qualified, both are less qualified than Trump, and their party platforms are goddamned ridiculous fantasies. Dangerous fantasies in some cases that are fantastically ignorant of how the world actually works.

Now look, I'm NOT saying that the idealism of the Libertarian or Green Party platforms is not in some cases admirable. Nor am I saying that those ideas aren't something we should work towards, some of them anyway.

But we are now out of time.

Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, one of them, is going to be the next president. This is simple fact and if you can't wrap your head around that, distasteful as that may be for you, then you're in the wrong place.

We are out of time and you must now face it.

You want to call it voting for the lesser of evils? Fine. I think that colors your thinking, but if that's what you want to call the situation then fine by me. Here's the thing about evil: if you have the opportunity to make the world less evil and you don't take it because you just can't get your hands dirty, because for you it's all or nothing, then you're the problem. Society, humanity, civilization, doesn't work that way and never has.

Now, if you write to tell me it doesn't matter, that your state is all tied up one way or the other and so YOU can vote however you like and it doesn't matter, but swing state voters of course must vote for Clinton so YOU don't end up with Trump and you can't see what a ★■◆●ing selfish ★■◆● you're being, then I am very likely to speak rudely to you as I have now reached the limit of my patience with this nonsense.

Yes, I am very much aware that I will right now lose readers over this post. So be it. I've pulled my punches on this subject long enough and we are now out of time.

We are out of time.

Clinton or Trump. These are the choices.

Face it.

Yeah man, you are in your arogant bubble again. I'm leaning toward Stein again after reading such a stupid opinion piece. Too bad I don't live somewhere my vote can damage Clinton.

Slick, is this your argument? You should never vote symbolically--only vote for Clinton or Trump because only those votes can affect the outcome of the election. Unless you're in a state where voting for Clinton or Trump won't affect the outcome of the election--in that case, you should vote for Clinton or Trump symbolically.

Give me one item of proof that Jill Stein is prepared to lead our military, or pass legislation. It isn't arrogance, it is fact. She simply isn't prepared. Stunning though it may be, Clinton is the only one who showed up prepared for the final exams. I don't like that limitation upon the field, but it is what it is.

Jeff250 wrote:Slick, is this your argument? You should never vote symbolically--only vote for Clinton or Trump because only those votes can affect the outcome of the election. Unless you're in a state where voting for Clinton or Trump won't affect the outcome of the election--in that case, you should vote for Clinton or Trump symbolically.

well, did you read Wright's appraisal of the logic and mindset behind the 'vote for a protest where it won't affect me' thing? I agree with him, and couldn't put it better, or more bluntly. And, as a rule(not just this election), I see no good coming of 'protest votes' for POTUS. None. The bottom line is that until we see a radical, bottom up, alteration of the election system, casting protest votes is at best psychological masturbation, at worst, dereliction of civic responsibility. If you don't like where things are now, where were you over the time it's gotten to this?

callmeslick wrote:well, did you read Wright's appraisal of the logic and mindset behind the 'vote for a protest where it won't affect me' thing?

You mean this? "wing state voters of course must vote for Clinton so YOU don't end up with Trump and you can't see what a ★■◆●ing selfish ★■◆● you're being." It's not really an argument.

callmeslick wrote:And, as a rule(not just this election), I see no good coming of 'protest votes' for POTUS. None.

Except you do. You just said that in a state that is already tied up, you should protest vote for Hillary Clinton. You're not against protest voting. You just want people to only protest vote for Hillary Clinton.

Jeff250 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:well, did you read Wright's appraisal of the logic and mindset behind the 'vote for a protest where it won't affect me' thing?

You mean this? "wing state voters of course must vote for Clinton so YOU don't end up with Trump and you can't see what a ★■◆●ing selfish ★■◆● you're being." It's not really an argument.

well, it shouldn't have to be an argument. It is fact.

callmeslick wrote:And, as a rule(not just this election), I see no good coming of 'protest votes' for POTUS. None.

Except you do. You just said that in a state that is already tied up, you should protest vote for Hillary Clinton. You're not against protest voting. You just want people to only protest vote for Hillary Clinton.

ok, let me clarify to 'third party protest votes'. You do have to pick either the Dem, the Republican or abdicate your civic rights and duties. Look, I hate to be the one having to clarify this, but this whole moral equivalency between Trump and Clinton has gone on too long. As I said, she is clearly prepared to do the job, whether one agrees with the direction she takes in office. That can be addressed as soon as 2018 mid-terms. Right now, the nation is faced with a serious issue that overrides all others: Do you wish to further embolden those who would make this a nation of bigots, cut off from the rest of the planet, isolated economically and morally in the world? If so, pull that Trump lever proudly. It's your right as an American. Likewise, pull the Stein or Johnson(or Wavy Gravy) lever, write in Donald Duck or otherwise 'protest' but not register any true rejection, which will be seen by the plurality Clinton wins by. So, yes, in a way, the vote could be a 'protest' if you don't think Clinton's policy's will be great, but one with actual effect.

callmeslick wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:well, did you read Wright's appraisal of the logic and mindset behind the 'vote for a protest where it won't affect me' thing?

You mean this? "wing state voters of course must vote for Clinton so YOU don't end up with Trump and you can't see what a ★■◆●ing selfish ★■◆● you're being." It's not really an argument.

well, it shouldn't have to be an argument. It is fact.

If your argument is that you should only vote such that it can affect the outcome of the election, then there's no reason to vote for Hillary Clinton in a state that is all tied up. If there were, then it should be easy for you to tell me instead of just telling me how it's such a fact.

callmeslick wrote:Look, I hate to be the one having to clarify this, but this whole moral equivalency between Trump and Clinton has gone on too long. As I said, she is clearly prepared to do the job, whether one agrees with the direction she takes in office.

Who are you correcting? No one in this thread has claimed moral equivalency or that she isn't prepared. You already know why we don't want to vote for her.

callmeslick wrote:Do you wish to further embolden those who would make this a nation of bigots, cut off from the rest of the planet, isolated economically and morally in the world? If so, pull that Trump lever proudly. It's your right as an American. Likewise, pull the Stein or Johnson(or Wavy Gravy) lever, write in Donald Duck or otherwise 'protest' but not register any true rejection, which will be seen by the plurality Clinton wins by.

You just switched your argument from that you should only vote such that it can affect the outcome of the election to that you should vote even if it can't affect the outcome of the election if it sends the right message. You probably resisted arguing for people voting to send a message as long as possible because you know that this is why people vote their conscience, even if for a third party, in the first place. Voting for one not-Trump candidate doesn't reject Trump any more than voting for any others. Voting for Hillary Clinton is no more a rejection of Trump than voting for Stein. You might choose to see it another way, but it doesn't make it the case. In fact, voting third party has the advantage of rejecting both Trump and Hillary Clinton.

callmeslick wrote:Give me one item of proof that Jill Stein is prepared to lead our military, or pass legislation. It isn't arrogance, it is fact. She simply isn't prepared. Stunning though it may be, Clinton is the only one who showed up prepared for the final exams. I don't like that limitation upon the field, but it is what it is.

That doesn't matter one wit. Ready smeady. Who cares? My vote is my conscience and I personally refuse to vote for the Democratic version of a NeoCon. I'd feel used afterwards. Slick, you can spout Clinton's qualifications until you're blue in the face, but face it, she's no better than re-electing Dubya and his ilk, especially when his ilk are pushing for her.

callmeslick wrote:Give me one item of proof that Jill Stein is prepared to lead our military, or pass legislation. It isn't arrogance, it is fact. She simply isn't prepared. Stunning though it may be, Clinton is the only one who showed up prepared for the final exams. I don't like that limitation upon the field, but it is what it is.

Give me proof Obama was prepared in 2008.

callmeslick wrote:She simply isn't prepared. Stunning though it may be, Clinton is the only one who showed up prepared for the final exams. I don't like that limitation upon the field, but it is what it is.

If Ronald f-ing Regan can be the president, so can Stein. I don't recall Stein and Clinton debating together so I can't really say if she was prepared or not, can you? Saying "it is what it is" is a terrible attitude to have about our political system when it is entirely within our power to change it.

callmeslick wrote:Do you wish to further embolden those who would make this a nation of bigots, cut off from the rest of the planet, isolated economically and morally in the world? If so, pull that Trump lever proudly.

Fear tactics. Despicable. Everyone should vote for the policies and platform they feel strongest about no matter what. You should NEVER vote for a candidate just to shut our a different one. That's NOT democracy, that's abuse and it's dishonest. The reason you should always vote your conscious is as simple as this: We need the best data possible. A good leader will look at who voted for what and use that information to make decisions that are best for everyone. If people vote dishonestly then there is no way to tell if the voters agree with you or disagree with another candidate (there is a difference).

ok, vision, I saw Steins 90 minutes on CNN, and heard ZERO of substance. Correct the record, please.

Oh, and to the Reagan and Obama comparisons given, variously, above:

Reagan was chief executive of a state that would have the worlds 7th largest economy by itself. He was also clearly willing to accept advice, and wasn't in any way shape or form incapable of articulating real policies.

Obama had been in the US senate, and admittedly had no experience in the exec branch. Still, anyone who saw him in debates or other interactions could clearly see he had the intellect, temperment and innate willingness to cooperate and learn that serves the job.

Stein has shown ZERO acceptance of the real world outside, NONE. Her plans would be tantamount to complete abandonment of our international obligations and responsibilities. I am all for maintaining peace, and anyone here knows I think we have meddled FAR too much on the international stage, but reality dictates that we cannot simply curl up in a safe domestic ball, and assume nice things will happen.

If you're arguing that Jill Stein isn't as good of a candidate as Hillary Clinton, then are you conceding that if Stein were a better candidate then we should vote for her?

Jeff250 wrote:If you're arguing that Jill Stein isn't as good of a candidate as Hillary Clinton, then are you conceding that if Stein were better candidate then we should vote for her?

no, but I was asked to clarify the statement that she isn't even PREPARED to be President. I thought I was pretty straightforward, above, as to the utter nonsense behind a third party protest vote under the current electoral system.

callmeslick wrote:ok, vision, I saw Steins 90 minutes on CNN, and heard ZERO of substance. Correct the record, please.

Jeez, now I know you have your head up your arse.... Look I get you don't like her, but all you are going to do now is change your definition of what it means to have "substance" and what it means to be "prepared" and you'll do so with double standards. We've already seen you do it several times.

I get it. That CNN Town Hall was crap. It was mostly a fluff piece and they only asked about six questions on policy. In cased you missed them here are a few:

• 27min: Battling ISIS by imposing a weapons embargo and funding freeze against countries that support them.
  32min: States the desire and reasons to back down our military abroad and defund the development of new types of nuclear weapons.
  48min: Outlines plan to absolve student loan debt, mentioning multiple vectors
  58min: List of ideas for healing racial inequality

Whether you think these ideas are feasible or not is beside the point that the Green Party actually has plans and is not a bunch of dreamers and stoners. Stein and her running mate are far more articulate and thoughtful than the majority of candidates in this recent presidential race. There is no difference between this CNN Town Hall and any other I seen from any candidate. But go ahead and move the goalposts for Hillary. It doesn't change the fact that the "not Hillary" crowd is barely smaller than "not Trump."

Related: I just saw the long time Democratic City of Chicago's biggest newspaper endorsed Gary Johnson and San Diego's ultra conservative major newspaper the UT just endorsed Clinton. Man, I really wish Jeb! was still in the race.

Biden, personally, but I sympathise.

callmeslick wrote:Biden, personally, but I sympathise.

At least we can agree on Biden.

Here is something else to consider. Donald Trump won the nomination because the "not Trump" votes were divided among two or more competitors. No one saw it coming. The same thing almost happened with Sanders unbelievably great performance. There are so many people who are disenfranchised with both major parties that it is now entirely possible for a third-party candidate to capture the presidency with the "not these two" vote. I think the political landscape in the US is way more unstable than people admit. I predict Hillary will be a one term president. I haven't any idea what will happen in 2020.

if a candidate aimed for the MIDDLE of the electorate, the broad, vast mom and pop, working type middle, they could win. It would require a long term candidacy or at least long-term setup for the party they'd represent, but it could be done. The problem is, our current alternative parties are fringe parties, to be charitable. It's those folks not ideologically driven, in the middle, who have been largely left out of the decision process, IMHO.

like I said, I always respected Bill Weld:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

callmeslick wrote:like I said, I always respected Bill Weld:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

You'd respect any liberal reporter who backs Clinton. MSN....really?

...for the umpteenth goddamn time, MSN is a WEB PORTAL run by Microsoft. It aggregates a variety of news stories in from a bunch of different sources and displays them in an index. It's the exact same thing as Yahoo is, and as AOL was (is? hell if I know if its zombie is still shambling along). This particular article came from the news site The Hill. Oh, and to head off the inevitable whining, MSN has absolutely NOTHING to do with the network MSNBC, which Microsoft doesn't even have a stake in anymore.

Seriously, do you have even the slightest idea how to Internet?

callmeslick wrote:no, but I was asked to clarify the statement that she isn't even PREPARED to be President. I thought I was pretty straightforward, above, as to the utter nonsense behind a third party protest vote under the current electoral system.

You either believe in votes to send a message or you don't. If you do, then there is nothing wrong with voting third party to send a message (even though you may personally disagree with that message). On the other hand, if you don't believe in votes to send a message, then you have no reason to vote for Hillary Clinton over a third party candidate in states that are already tied up.

Jeff250 wrote:

callmeslick wrote:no, but I was asked to clarify the statement that she isn't even PREPARED to be President. I thought I was pretty straightforward, above, as to the utter nonsense behind a third party protest vote under the current electoral system.

You either believe in votes to send a message or you don't. If you do, then there is nothing wrong with voting third party to send a message (even though you may personally disagree with that message). On the other hand, if you don't believe in votes to send a message, then you have no reason to vote for Hillary Clinton over a third party candidate in states that are already tied up.

I believe the only message that is worth sending is to DEFEAT a given candidate. Period. I think you can see the difference and yet wish to play semantic games over the matter.

I agree with slick. The only way to defeat a elitist insider politician like Hillary is to vote for Trump.

woodchip wrote:I agree with slick. The only way to defeat a elitist insider politician like Hillary is to vote for Trump.

within the strict parameter of this discussion, yours is a perfectly valid choice. One or the other.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BK_F37lAtCQ/


would be funny were it not so damned close to accurate.......

Yeah, as funny as this:
https://www.facebook.com/Danney-William ... 276415563/

wow, stretching in the muck, huh? Of course, Bill isn't running, so, the whole matter looks petty and small. Looks like another in the series of appeals to racists and haters. Enjoy the soon to end ride!! The Orange Baboon is akin to a jack o lantern--scary, essentially empty and to be thrown out at the beginning over November.

callmeslick wrote:I believe the only message that is worth sending is to DEFEAT a given candidate.

You have an argument at least in swing states. Many of us believe in doing what's right based on first principles, and so we vote for who we believe to be the best candidate. You're arguing that the ends justify the means, and so you believe in voting for the lesser of two evils if that candidate has a better chance of winning your state. (I'm actually not convinced that voting for Hillary Clinton would even be best in an ends-justify-the-means sense, which I address more further below.) It's an age-old moral divide that I don't think is going to be settled here, and it's a place where intelligent people can disagree. Your arrogance is quite off-putting though.

For states that are all tied up, you don't have this argument though, since no matter who you vote for, the outcome of the election cannot be affected. After calling people who vote third party in those states assholes and then claiming that you don't need to make an argument because your position "is fact," the closest thing you said resembling an argument for why you shouldn't vote third party in these states is this:

callmeslick wrote:Do you wish to further embolden those who would make this a nation of bigots, cut off from the rest of the planet, isolated economically and morally in the world? If so, pull that Trump lever proudly. It's your right as an American. Likewise, pull the Stein or Johnson(or Wavy Gravy) lever, write in Donald Duck or otherwise 'protest' but not register any true rejection, which will be seen by the plurality Clinton wins by.

You have given no evidence that voting for Hillary Clinton is more of a rejection than Trump than voting for any other non-Trump candidate. In fact, here are some reasons why this thinking is problematic:

1) Most people who vote for one of the two parties are people who vote that party regardless of what stance that party's candidate has on the issues (look at how this election most Republicans are voting for a non-conservative or how most Democrats are voting for a neocon). By voting for Hillary Clinton, your vote is indistinguishable from someone who votes based on party and not the issues. Since the vast majority of people voting third party this election have not voted third party before, a third party vote is a better way to signal a conscious rejection of Trump on the issues.

2) If you vote for Hillary Clinton, you are rejecting Donald trump, but you are also signaling that you accept Hillary Clinton and her domestic and foreign policy. For example, by voting for Hillary Clinton, you are endorsing her neoconservative foreign policy, which we should also send a strong message that we reject.

3) If you vote for a candidate that is not the best representative of your political stance, then you are signaling to politicians including Hillary Clinton that your vote is cheap and that they do not need to represent you to win your vote.

Not only does voting third party issue a stronger rejection of Trump, but it also has the advantage of rejecting Hillary Clinton, including her foreign policy, and it best ensures that your values will be represented regardless of who wins the election.

If you're a disaffected liberal in a battleground state and you want a reason to vote for Clinton, how about a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for the next generation?

Vander wrote:If you're a disaffected liberal in a battleground state and you want a reason to vote for Clinton, how about a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for the next generation?

yup, that reason alone, even if you're a 3rd party fan. Without Citizens United being revisited, you can kiss any idea of a viable third party goodbye. Part of what fuels the two party monopoly is the economic efficiency for the donor classes.