Old Thread About Election Consequences

South_Mountaineer said:

 Nice going. Now he'll be up half the night responding. 

 Nailed it.

paulsurovell said:

WxNut2.0 said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:
For all those who helped make this possible (and you know who you are), please click the link to enjoy watching President Trump and the formal swearing in of new Justice Kavanaugh. https://www.pscp.tv/WhiteHouse/1eaKbVgdoqRKX The event is over, but please click the "play" button. [Edited to add] Bonus for you, a tweet from Press Secretary Sarah Sanders showing her gratitude for all of your efforts. https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1048687047400218624?s=20 "Congratulations Judge Kavanaugh! Instead of a 6-3 liberal Supreme Court under Hillary Clinton, we now have a 5-4 conservative Supreme Court under President @realDonaldTrump, cementing a tremendous legacy for the President and a better future for America"

sbenois said:
Own it Nan.  Own it.   

 

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

sbenois said:
Own it Nan.  Own it.   

 Yes, sad to say I voted for Hillary.  Should have voted for Jill.  

 What unadulterated horsesh!t. 

The Three OCD Amigos foaming at the mouth because they have calculated that if one person changed their vote, Hillary would have carried NJ by 2,148,279 to 1,601,933, instead of 2,148,278 to 1,601,933. And that would have changed the Kavanaugh vote.

Of course, we don't know how they voted.

And when you think about it, they really doth protest too much. Did they vote for Jill Stein? Gary Johnson?
Darrell Castle? Alyson Kennedy? Rocky De La Fuente? Monica Moorehead? or Gloria La Riva?
Probably Rocky, because that has a macho ring to it. And these dudes are seriously macho. Well, maybe not @nohero, he's got other issues. He probably went for Alyson Kennedy.

 Its hard to fathom putting together a string of words like this and it not being an infinite monkey type situation.

Let me explain it for you:

@nohero, has spent the last two years accusing anyone who supported Bernie or criticized Hillary -- especially Nan -- as being responsible for Trump's victory. His post cited above makes the same point, but extends it to apply to the Kavanaugh confirmation.
@sbenois understood that when @nohero" wrote "you know who you are" he was referring to Nan, which is why he posted "Own it Nan. Own it."
But when Nan responded by saying she voted for Hillary, @Dennis_Seelbach" replied "What unadulterated horseshit!"
I pointed out that these fine gentlemen were taking the insane position that one vote in NJ would have changed the outcome of the Presidential election and thus the Kavanaugh confirmation.

And since Dennis had the arrogance to claim that Nan didn't vote the way she said she did, then why not make a counter-claim that @nohero, @sbenois and Dennis didn't vote the way they said they did.
As I mentioned before, I was giving Dennis et al a taste of their own medicine.

 +10

It is unclear to me what causation standard that NoHero et al are using for blaming Nan for her critiques of HRC.  But it is a causation standard/method with which I am unfamiliar.

paulsurovell said:

 

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

sbenois said:
Own it Nan.  Own it.   

 Yes, sad to say I voted for Hillary.  Should have voted for Jill.  

 What unadulterated horsesh!t. 

But when Nan responded by saying she voted for Hillary, @Dennis_Seelbach" replied "What unadulterated horseshit!"
I pointed out that these fine gentlemen were taking the insane position that one vote in NJ would have changed the outcome of the Presidential election and thus the Kavanaugh confirmation.

And since Dennis had the arrogance to claim that Nan didn't vote the way she said she did, then why not make a counter-claim that @nohero, @sbenois and Dennis didn't vote the way they said they did.
As I mentioned before, I was giving Dennis et al a taste of their own medicine.

 The "horsesh!t" was in reference to Nan's statement that she "should have voted for Jill". For that imprecision, I apologize. As to the rest of your voluminous garbage, I again say HORSESH!T! By the way, for whom did you vote? (I don't have the time, patience or tolerance to look through all your crap to see if you ever told us).

RealityForAll said:

paulsurovell said:
(a)@nohero, has spent the last two years accusing anyone who supported Bernie or criticized Hillary -- especially Nan -- as being responsible for Trump's victory. (b)His post cited above makes the same point, but extends it to apply to the Kavanaugh confirmation.
(c)@sbenois understood that when @nohero" wrote "you know who you are" he was referring to Nan, which is why he posted "Own it Nan. Own it."
(d)But when Nan responded by saying she voted for Hillary, @Dennis_Seelbach" replied "What unadulterated horseshit!"
(e)I pointed out that these fine gentlemen were taking the insane position that one vote in NJ would have changed the outcome of the Presidential election and thus the Kavanaugh confirmation.

(f)And since Dennis had the arrogance to claim that Nan didn't vote the way she said she did, then why not make a counter-claim that @nohero, @sbenois and Dennis didn't vote the way they said they did.
As I mentioned before, I was giving Dennis et al a taste of their own medicine.

 +10
It is unclear to me what causation standard that NoHero et al are using for blaming Nan for her critiques of HRC.  But it is a causation standard/method with which I am unfamiliar.

 Your first mistake is trusting Mr. Surovell's description of anything.  If "Fox and Friends" ever needs a substitute for the Not Steve Doocy guy who is unfamiliar with obvious facts, they would be well advised to "better call Paul".

I added some letters (a) through (f) to Mr. Surovell's fantasy version of the discussion, for ease of response.  As to each:

(a) No. See thread title.  No specific person named.  "You know who you are" is enough.  And it's not "anyone who supported Bernie", for one - it's anyone who, when Bernie wasn't the nominee, took the position that the future of the Supreme Court or anything else didn't matter and so didn't care to support the Democratic nominee.

(b) No the post didn't "extend it".  I started this thread because Justice Kennedy had announced his retirement, and people were expecting what everyone SHOULD have expected when Donald Trump had the chance to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.  I wonder how many people loudly complaining about how the Democrats weren't fighting against Kavanaugh hard enough are among the same people in the group named in the title of this thread.  My guess is lots.

(c) You left out the part where Mr. Sbenois was responding to a post by Ms. Nan about "voter shaming" (if addressing people who opposed Hillary's election is "voter shaming", then maybe those people should blame themselves for feeling ashamed).  It's kind of an important fact, which is probably why it was left out of your argument.

(d) You left out the part where Nan said, "Should have voted for Jill" in the post Mr. Seelbach responded to.

(e) what you say you "pointed out" isn't in the point of anything I and the other "fine gentlemen" wrote.  Reading the posts and the whole thread shows that.

(f) As for the "counter-claim", I'm partial to the WxNut2.0 conclusion.

Interesting to me that over in The Democrats Dilemma thread that there are some people insisting that the Democrats should not nominate a progressive for president in 2020.  Apparently the notion is that centrist voters who would potentially vote Democratic would not if the candidate was not a pure enough centrist for them.

So I guess it's not just progressive voters who can't see the big picture and vote against the Trumpster fire if the candidate isn't a perfect match for them.

ml1 said:
Interesting to me that over in The Democrats Dilemma thread that there are some people insisting that the Democrats should not nominate a progressive for president in 2020.  Apparently the notion is that centrist voters who would potentially vote Democratic would not if the candidate was not a pure enough centrist for them.
So I guess it's not just progressive voters who can't see the big picture and vote against the Trumpster fire if the candidate isn't a perfect match for them.

 I think the difference is that for some who call themselves "centrist", they could be against or worried about positions taken by Trump, and ALSO positions by someone they consider "too far" to the left.  I'm not defending any point of view, just pointing out that they could be weighing which approach they DON'T like is the one they can live with.

With "progressives" who couldn't support a candidate who was "not progressive enough", that same factor isn't there.  The worst they could say about the Democratic candidate was either she wasn't going as far left as they want the country to go, or she wasn't different enough from Trump (see, for example, on some foreign policy issues).  Either way, there wasn't anything to point to indicating she would be WORSE than Trump, which is what makes the lack of support or outright opposition so illogical.

[Edited to add] I'm putting the same answer on the "Dilemma" thread.

it seems to me it's exactly the same.

If the Democrats nominated a sane and sensible progressive candidate who had a platform of real ideas to help working people, and to curtail U.S. military action around the world, there would certainly be "cerntrists" who refused to vote for that person.  Even though there would be nothing nutty or scary about any of those ideas.  And that might help reelect an erratic malignant narcissist.

Or at least that's the theory.  Personally, I think such a person could win, and possibly even perform better than a centrist.  Just looking at the polls, it's obvious 40% of Americans are all-in on Trump.  No Democrat is getting them.  About 50% dislike Trump.  The Democrat is likely to get them.  So they're fighting over the other 10%.  And it doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate, the right will be hysterical over the person being a "socialist" who "hates America."  Might as well pursue real progressive policies if the Republicans are going to accuse the candidate of that anyway.  And the bonus is maybe you get a higher percentage of young voters and people of color to support the Democrat.

paulsurovell said:

WxNut2.0 said:

 Do you think it makes sense to accuse a NJ voter who didn't vote for Hillary as being responsible for Kavanaugh's confirmation?

 Yes.
 

I'll bet there are monkeys who can count better than that.

 Really? I'll take that bet.

$10,000?

LOST said:

paulsurovell said:

WxNut2.0 said:

 Do you think it makes sense to accuse a NJ voter who didn't vote for Hillary as being responsible for Kavanaugh's confirmation?

 Yes.
 

I'll bet there are monkeys who can count better than that.

 Really? I'll take that bet.
$10,000?

I won't take your money, but the examples cited are far more difficult than the NJ voter math:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12849-monkeys-reveal-brain-is-hard-wired-for-counting/

Paul is very excited that he has discovered arithmetic.

Hey, thanks for bumping this up to the top of the queue.  This thread deserves to be read.

paulsurovell said:
Hey, thanks for bumping this up to the top of the queue.  This thread deserves to be read.

 I agree.  It's a cautionary tale about being an informed voter, and also about not just voting based on your own selfish and petty motives (such as, "I can't vote for her since Bernie's not the nominee").  We've discussed this ad infinitum, such as when I responded to you in November of last year regarding the YouTube "personality" that Ms. Nan often shares with us here.

As for defending Jimmy Dore and his stupid argument that it doesn't matter, or would be better if Trump won, you haven't addressed the collateral damage that he is so uncaring about.  I could give you an example.  My spouse teaches in a NJ urban school district.  Last night she was telling me at dinner about her current assignment to her AP English students: write their college essays.  One student, a good student, told her that she's not going to be able to go to a four-year college.  Her family can't afford it.  She can't file a FAFSA, can't get a loan or financial aid, and is closed out of scholarships - because she's undocumented, was brought here as a small child.  Since DACA's been cancelled, because Trump is President, her life has been changed for the worse.
So that's one example of a real person suffering real consequences.  You could pick lots of issues, to find people hurt in a similar fashion.  I recall your support for the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump is trying to screw up (he probably won't succeed, but the mere fact that he has the power to try is worrying).  It's not "fun and games", and any jackhole like Jimmy Dore who tries to argue that Trump as President has some great benefit, is someone I can't stomach.

Sadly, that same attitude is creeping into the debate for 2020, and can be seen in the 2018 midterms as well.  The primaries should be where all the diverse approaches to implementing progressive programs should be debated.  Once there is a nominee, it's a different game, which some people didn't realize in 2016.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:
Hey, thanks for bumping this up to the top of the queue.  This thread deserves to be read.

 I agree.  It's a cautionary tale about being an informed voter, and also about not just voting based on your own selfish and petty motives (such as, "I can't vote for her since Bernie's not the nominee").  We've discussed this ad infinitum, such as when I responded to you in November of last year regarding the YouTube "personality" that Ms. Nan often shares with us here.

As for defending Jimmy Dore and his stupid argument that it doesn't matter, or would be better if Trump won, you haven't addressed the collateral damage that he is so uncaring about.  I could give you an example.  My spouse teaches in a NJ urban school district.  Last night she was telling me at dinner about her current assignment to her AP English students: write their college essays.  One student, a good student, told her that she's not going to be able to go to a four-year college.  Her family can't afford it.  She can't file a FAFSA, can't get a loan or financial aid, and is closed out of scholarships - because she's undocumented, was brought here as a small child.  Since DACA's been cancelled, because Trump is President, her life has been changed for the worse.
So that's one example of a real person suffering real consequences.  You could pick lots of issues, to find people hurt in a similar fashion.  I recall your support for the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump is trying to screw up (he probably won't succeed, but the mere fact that he has the power to try is worrying).  It's not "fun and games", and any jackhole like Jimmy Dore who tries to argue that Trump as President has some great benefit, is someone I can't stomach.

Sadly, that same attitude is creeping into the debate for 2020, and can be seen in the 2018 midterms as well.  The primaries should be where all the diverse approaches to implementing progressive programs should be debated.  Once there is a nominee, it's a different game, which some people didn't realize in 2016.

Of course this is a tactical retreat from your insane missive that accused NJ voters on this thread of being responsible for Kavanaugh's confirmation which triggered equally insane personal attacks against Nan and then me when I defended her.

It became necessary to remind readers of Hillary's huge victory in NJ where the relevant votes were counted and where the discussions on this thread took place. A simple reminder of basic math and basic geography to point out the absurdity of your proposition.

On a general level, when a candidate is leading her party to disaster, friends of the party need to speak up, but if the candidate and her team of geniuses are too arrogant to listen to criticism, the candidate's defeat is their own making.

Jill Stein interview, part 1.  We need more democracy, not less.  Why don't Democrats support Ranked Choice voting?

nan said:
Jill Stein interview, part 1.  We need more democracy, not less.  Why don't Democrats support Ranked Choice voting?

 Keep it trump-strong...shameless!

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:
Jill Stein interview, part 1.  We need more democracy, not less.  Why don't Democrats support Ranked Choice voting?

 Keep it trump-strong...shameless!

 Why don't you watch it before trashing?  Part 2 is coming, also.

Jill Stein is an idiot.  A selfish idiot.

When I read this thread I think, What don't these people get about time, and how it doesn't run backward, only forward?  Also, deplorable-izing the electorate is still not a good strategy for winning votes.  

breal said:
When I read this thread I think, What don't these people get about time, and how it doesn't run backward, only forward?  Also, deplorable-izing the electorate is still not a good strategy for winning votes.  

 It is if you don't give a crap about getting the votes of deplorables.

sbenois said:
Jill Stein is an idiot.  A selfish idiot.

 Is she? Or does she and has she served the agenda of someone else?

BG9 said:

sbenois said:
Jill Stein is an idiot.  A selfish idiot.

 Is she? Or does she and has she served the agenda of someone else?

 Are you for real?  

It's likely that she is a Russian agent.

sbenois said:
It's likely that she is a Russian agent.

I strongly disagree.

The term "useful idiot" was coined to describe people like Dr. Stein.

nan said:

BG9 said:

sbenois said:
Jill Stein is an idiot.  A selfish idiot.

 Is she? Or does she and has she served the agenda of someone else?

 Are you for real?  

 Are you under the illusion that one gets to sit at Putin's table simply because they are nice?   

nohero said:

sbenois said: It's likely that she is a Russian agent.

I strongly disagree. The term "useful idiot" was coined to describe people like Dr. Stein.

I wouldn't strongly disagree. How do you know she is not?

Besides, Russians do consider useful idiots to be their agents. Just a different class of agent as those who get paid or some other emolument or blackmailed or feel "loyalty" to their system or agenda.

I almost didn't watch when I saw it was an interview by that guy, Jimmy.

"Useful idiot"? 

I really don't know if either of them is useful.

When the Fascists are in power or close to power no time should be wasted critiquing the Social Democrats.

LOST said:
I almost didn't watch when I saw it was an interview by that guy, Jimmy.
"Useful idiot"? 
I really don't know if either of them is useful.

Ouch.

(I always wanted to do that.)

So, Jimmy and Jill basically sit around and justify Trump's presidency.   Astounding!  JILL 2020!!

And has Bernie announced yet?  Nan said without a doubt he was running - maybe we should have 20 people vs Trump - that would be the ultimate democracy.  Let's have 1 democrat and 19 progressive independents - VS Trump.

We wouldn't win - but who cares - we voted our conscience.

jamie said:
We wouldn't win - but who cares - we voted our conscience.

I maintain that if your "conscience" told you to vote with so that protection of the environment would be endangered, protection of LGBTQ rights would be endangered, protection of the rights of religious and racial minorities would be endangered, protection of the rights of women would be endangered, etc. - there's a good chance that wasn't your conscience you were hearing.

jamie said:

We wouldn't win - but who cares - we voted our conscience.

 You’ll let the nans of this country know which election it’s OK to make their discontent known at the ballot box, won’t you?

I Googled Jill Stein to find out what she is up to lately.

Apparently nothing. It's like she is off the grid.