Trump isn't a fascist? Meet advisor Bannon's bestest buddies

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

This analogy is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.

People didn't incidentally vote for Trump. People made a choice, and they had options. They deliberately chose the racist candidate. In many cases they didn't chose him because he was racist, but they chose him despite him being racist. They knew what they were doing. To say that they support racism is simply correct. They actively and knowingly did so, even if what they wanted was something else in the MAGA package. When you make a choice, you are responsible for that choice.

It might have been different if this choice had not affected anyone else, but that's not the case here.

Look at it this way: You buy a gas-guzzling, fume-spewing car because you like the color and you need a 4WD. You are still responsible for the bad effect this car is having on the environment. You made the choice. You could have bought electric, but you didn't.

I actually agree with what you said here. That is,

each Trump voter is responsible for voting for a racist candidate.

I don't think I've said otherwise here.

My dispute has been over the misleading statement that each Trump voter supports racism.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Yes. At least in so much as you are responsible for the choice you made.

But when one says, "I support gun control," he does not mean, "I made a choice which benefited gun control and I am responsible for that choice."

You seem to have misunderstood my point. I am disputing the aptness of claiming, "All Trump voters support racism." I am not disputing whether Trump voters are responsible for the choice they made.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I actually agree with what you said here. That is,

each Trump voter is responsible for voting for a racist candidate.

I don't think I've said otherwise here.

My dispute has been over the misleading statement that each Trump voter supports racism.

You might call it misleading, but I would argue that it's both accurate and effective in getting across the importance of the choice they made. It is going to affect a lot of people negatively, and each and every person who voted for Trump will have a share in the blame.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

But when one says, "I support gun control," he does not mean, "I made a choice which benefited gun control and I am responsible for that choice."

You seem to have misunderstood my point. I am disputing the aptness of claiming, "All Trump voters support racism." I am not disputing whether Trump voters are responsible for the choice they made.

They support racism in the sense that they have given a mandate to racism. Whether or not they agree with the racism themselves isn't as important as the fact that they supported it by voting for it.

As a compromise, we could use the word "enable" as a substitute if you want.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by phiwum

But when one says, "I support gun control," he does not mean, "I made a choice which benefited gun control and I am responsible for that choice."

You seem to have misunderstood my point. I am disputing the aptness of claiming, "All Trump voters support racism." I am not disputing whether Trump voters are responsible for the choice they made.

You seem to be basically arguing that people can't tell which meaning of "support" is being used, here. I think they can.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

You might call it misleading, but I would argue that it's both accurate and effective in getting across the importance of the choice they made. It is going to affect a lot of people negatively, and each and every person who voted for Trump will have a share in the blame.

Okay, so let's discuss whether the phrase

(A) All Trump voters support racism.

is misleading and why. We're not asking whether people are responsible for their votes, nor whether (A) is effective in shaming folks (or some other way), but whether (A) conveys an unambiguous and true statement.

I have given my arguments. In your previous two posts, you offered arguments that people are responsible for their votes, but this is not at issue. If you want to convince me that (A) is an unambiguous, true claim, then I think you have to address the arguments I made that it is not.

Here is a related claim which I take to be unambiguous and (I will assume without argument) true.

(B) All Trump voters benefited racism by voting for Trump.

On the other hand, the claim

(C) All Trump voters supported racism this election.

I take to be somewhat less ambiguous (because many uses of "supported" presuppose intention), but not totally unreasonable.

Statement (A) on the other hand not only strongly suggests intention, but also explicitly claims that this support is ongoing. (A) is in the present tense. Moreover, when we say, "Joe supports gun control," we don't mean just *at this moment* Joe is in favor of gun control, but that this is a persistent view[1], so (A) isn't just about this moment, or the moment of the vote, but about some length of time including both and proceeding into the foreseeable future.

In short, (A) is most naturally (I claim) interpreted thus:

(A') Trump voters have had a positive attitude towards racism, from at least the election, until now, and continuing hereafter.

What you mean is (B) or (C) -- but the tense of (A) is wrong for both of those! So how is (A) not misleading?

[1] Unless Joe is a politician or lobbyist, whose views depend on benefits rather than commitments. Especially, when we say "Trump supports X", the best interpretation is "at this moment!"

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

They support racism in the sense that they have given a mandate to racism. Whether or not they agree with the racism themselves isn't as important as the fact that they supported it by voting for it.

As a compromise, we could use the word "enable" as a substitute if you want.

With the appropriate tense, i.e., Trump voters enabled racism this election.

ETA: Well, "benefited" is still better. Individual voters benefited racism, but none of them enabled it. Collectively, these voters enabled racism.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

You seem to be basically arguing that people can't tell which meaning of "support" is being used, here. I think they can.

I am arguing that the reason you and others think (A) is effective (key below) is that the natural interpretation is (A'), which is a damning accusation, even though all you have proved is (B), which is much less damning. Hence, this is an equivocation fallacy.

If not for the benefit of equivocation, why insist on (A) rather than (B)?

(A) All Trump voters support racism.
(B) All Trump voters benefited racism by voting for Trump.
(A') Trump voters have had a positive attitude towards racism, from at least the election, until now, and continuing hereafter.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I am arguing that the reason you and others think (A) is effective (key below) is that the natural interpretation is (A'), which is a damning accusation, even though all you have proved is (B), which is much less damning. Hence, this is an equivocation fallacy.

You may wish to argue this for someone else, but I've always argued that "support" means what I said it means. That people have a strong reaction to the accusation may be a good thing, but I still think they're smart enough to understand what it means.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

With the appropriate tense, i.e., Trump voters enabled racism this election.

ETA: Well, "benefited" is still better. Individual voters benefited racism, but none of them enabled it. Collectively, these voters enabled racism.

Unless they actively and loudly speak up against Trump's racism (they have already had ample chance to do so), they keep enabling (and in my view, supporting) it. A vote is the political voice of the person. The Trump voters spoke and lent their voice in support of racism.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

You may wish to argue this for someone else, but I've always argued that "support" means what I said it means. That people have a strong reaction to the accusation may be a good thing, but I still think they're smart enough to understand what it means.

I guess we're at an impasse, but it seems to me that you're using the equivocation. How can you explain the strong reaction, aside from the pull of the misinterpretation? If (A) and (B) literally mean the same thing, then they should have the same effectiveness.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Unless they actively and loudly speak up against Trump's racism (they have already had ample chance to do so), they keep enabling (and in my view, supporting) it. A vote is the political voice of the person. The Trump voters spoke and lent their voice in support of racism.

In my life, I have voted for many candidates who had some views with which I disagreed.[1] I have never publicly spoken up against those policies. That does not change my lack of support.

In fact, I have never once publicly spoken out against any policy. What kind of "loudly speaking out" do you expect from the average citizen?

Let me return to a point I made earlier. The following two statements are not inconsistent in the least:

(1) I support gun control, but voted for (anti-GC) Fred.
(2) I voted for (pro-GC) Joe, but I do not support gun control.

There's not even a whiff of oddness about those two sentences, so your insistence that to vote for a candidate is to support every policy of that candidate (until you do public penance to the contrary) is just twaddle.


[1] Actually, this is a lie. I haven't voted for many candidates. I usually don't vote. But let's pretend otherwise.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by phiwum

In my life, I have voted for many candidates who had some views with which I disagreed.

I've voted for provincial parties that had independance as part of their platform, knowing that independance is something that can no longer happen here. But yeah, that means that I supported independance even if I don't agree with it, and I'd rightly be called on it if the party I voted for was in power and actually made it happen.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I've voted for provincial parties that had independance as part of their platform, knowing that independance is something that can no longer happen here. But yeah, that means that I supported independance even if I don't agree with it, and I'd rightly be called on it if the party I voted for was in power and actually made it happen.

....and clearly their stance on independence was not a deal-breaker for you.

OTOH I presume that there could be some things which, even if you supported the majority of their policies, would mean that you couldn't support a candidate or party.

For example even if I supported my local MP (and, as it happens colossal tool) on a range of other points any one of his views on homosexuality, climate change, homoeopathy, the role of religion in government and Brexit mean I simply cannot vote for him. Conversely, anyone who votes for him is at best a homophobe enabler and at worst (and sadly round here probably true) a homophobe themselves.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

I've voted for provincial parties that had independance as part of their platform, knowing that independance is something that can no longer happen here. But yeah, that means that I supported independance even if I don't agree with it, and I'd rightly be called on it if the party I voted for was in power and actually made it happen.

So, you see nothing misleading if I say, "Argumemnon supports independence?"

If I were to say that in some other thread (say, a thread about independence), you would not dispute that claim?

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by The Don

....and clearly their stance on independence was not a deal-breaker for you.

OTOH I presume that there could be some things which, even if you supported the majority of their policies, would mean that you couldn't support a candidate or party.

For example even if I supported my local MP (and, as it happens colossal tool) on a range of other points any one of his views on homosexuality, climate change, homoeopathy, the role of religion in government and Brexit mean I simply cannot vote for him. Conversely, anyone who votes for him is at best a homophobe enabler and at worst (and sadly round here probably true) a homophobe themselves.

There are very few positions which really are "deal-breakers", full stop. Is racism a deal-breaker? Not for me. If the alternative was someone who intended to start a nuclear war, I'd vote for the racist. If the alternative was someone who intended to imprison homosexuals, then I'd vote for the racist, if his racist goal was "just" to subject certain immigrants to quotas. In most elections, of course, I wouldn't vote for that racist.

So, all we can do is judge whether a particular candidate is worth voting for in a particular election, and hence whether his bag of policies is better than the other candidates' bags. Hence, it is silly to conclude that, because Joe voted for a candidate who promises X, Joe supports X.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Good point. I watched much of his speech and didn't see anything really objectionable. Yeah, they do the heil salute, but that strikes me as nose-thumbing at the media which has labeled them as neo-Nazis. Like Yiannopolous said, they are prone to defying taboos and engaging in juvenile pranks.

I prefer taking them at their words and actions. Why take chances they are just playing ********.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by phiwum

There are very few positions which really are "deal-breakers", full stop. Is racism a deal-breaker? Not for me.

I guess that's where we differ

Originally Posted by phiwum

If the alternative was someone who intended to start a nuclear war, I'd vote for the racist.

Yes, because candidates run on the basis of starting a nuclear war every time

IMO that's a ridiculous position, as valid as "what about if someone was running on a platform of raping and killing your wife and the other candidate was a proven paedophile and was advocating making sex with 2-year olds - who would you vote for then huh ?".

Originally Posted by phiwum

If the alternative was someone who intended to imprison homosexuals, then I'd vote for the racist, if his racist goal was "just" to subject certain immigrants to quotas.

Of course that person is often also the racist, intolerance and prejudice tends to come as a full package.

Originally Posted by phiwum

In most elections, of course, I wouldn't vote for that racist.

Oh good

Originally Posted by phiwum

So, all we can do is judge whether a particular candidate is worth voting for in a particular election, and hence whether his bag of policies is better than the other candidates' bags. Hence, it is silly to conclude that, because Joe voted for a candidate who promises X, Joe supports X.

On this point I agree, IMO not all Trump supporters are racist or support racism (though many, many are and do) however they are sufficiently tolerant or racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, graft, lying and corruption to vote for a candidate and party which has exhibited all those "qualities" to a significant degree.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by phiwum

So, you see nothing misleading if I say, "Argumemnon supports independence?"

If you make it clear what you mean by that, sure. Although as you noted earlier, past tense might help.

Quote:

Is racism a deal-breaker? Not for me.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by The Don

I guess that's where we differ

Nice place to snip. Not at all deceitful.

Quote:

Yes, because candidates run on the basis of starting a nuclear war every time

IMO that's a ridiculous position, as valid as "what about if someone was running on a platform of raping and killing your wife and the other candidate was a proven paedophile and was advocating making sex with 2-year olds - who would you vote for then huh ?".



Of course that person is often also the racist, intolerance and prejudice tends to come as a full package.

My point is that there are worse features than racism (especially racism of a moderate sort). It is naive to say that one would never vote for a racist candidate, since it is perfectly possible that the alternative to a moderately racist candidate is worse.

You fail to imagine that this could be the case, despite two examples. The first, of course, is somewhat fanciful, the second more plausible. One could imagine other scenarios.

This is why it's silly to speak of racism as a deal-breaker, full stop.

(1) Racism comes in degrees, and one who distrusts South Asians but is otherwise tolerant isn't as incapable of governing as a white separatist.

(2) There are situations in which a racist candidate is honestly the best choice available.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

If you make it clear what you mean by that, sure. Although as you noted earlier, past tense might help.



I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm sorry that you felt is was worthwhile to take this out of context, snipping the entire point I was making.

Let me be clear: racism is not a "deal-breaker" for any rational person, for reasons that I said in that post and repeated just now. The statement, "I would never vote for a racist," expresses an irrationality, if we take it literally at all.

It sure sounds good, though, and to point out that it's irrational makes me sound like a monster. Congrats to you and The Don.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I'm sorry that you felt is was worthwhile to take this out of context, snipping the entire point I was making.

This sort of response is ridiculous. I didn't "take it out of context". I responded to that part specifically.

Quote:

Let me be clear: racism is not a "deal-breaker" for any rational person, for reasons that I said in that post and repeated just now.

Let's test the limits of that: would you say that "wanting to murder group X as part of your political platform is not a "deal-breaker for any rational person" for the same reasons? If not, where's your cut-off point?

I am challenging your contention that racism shouldn't be a deal-breaker lest one is irrational.

Quote:

It sure sounds good, though, and to point out that it's irrational makes me sound like a monster. Congrats to you and The Don.

What are you talking about? I have never said or implied such a thing. I request that you retract this accusation.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Nice place to snip. Not at all deceitful.

How is it deceitful ?

You put the full stop there, I wasn't even splitting a sentence.

You then go on at length to describe a series of scenarios in which you would find yourself able to look past a candidate's racism and vote for them.

Then in the next post you go on to say:

Quote:

(2) There are situations in which a racist candidate is honestly the best choice available.

Which means as far as you are concerned, racism is not a deal-breaker. It would be for me.

Firstly because here in the UK I couldn't imagine an election where the range of candidates is so poor that "the racist" is the best candidate. Typically I will have a choice between, among established, main, parties

- Plaid Cymru - Welsh nationalist
- Labour - Democratic Socialist/Centre left depending on candidate
- Liberal Democrat - Centreist
- Conservative - conservative/centre right depending on candidate
- UKIP - Nationalist

Only in the last two parties would I expect to find institutional racism.

Secondly the idea that the choices are the racist and the person who wants to blow up the world (but somehow pursues their aim by democratic means) is ludicrous regardless of how narrow a choice of candidates you have.

Thirdly in the unlikely event that I'm faced with candidates who all exclude themselves for one reason or another then I would turn out, spoil my ballot and then enquire of my local Labour Party why no adequate candidate could be found.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It sure sounds good, though, and to point out that it's irrational makes me sound like a monster. Congrats to you and The Don.

Hyperbole much ?

I've never suggested that you're a monster, merely someone who wouldn't consider a candidate being a racist as being a deal-breaker. I haven't even suggested that it's shameful, all I've said is that it's different to my own position.

And yet when I point this out you call me deceitful.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by The Don

Hyperbole much ?

I've never suggested that you're a monster, merely someone who wouldn't consider a candidate being a racist as being a deal-breaker. I haven't even suggested that it's shameful, all I've said is that it's different to my own position.

And yet when I point this out you call me deceitful.

I think it's shameful, for the record.

The hypotheticals phiwum are coming up with are ridiculous.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

This sort of response is ridiculous. I didn't "take it out of context". I responded to that part specifically.

It is deceitful because I explained that part in what immediately followed.

Look, you're a better poster than that. You know better than to quote, "Racism isn't a deal-breaker for me," without quoting what immediately followed which explained that apparently shocking statement.

It would rather be like me repeatedly saying, Argumemnon supports independence, ignoring the context in which he admitted that was true.

Quote:

Let's test the limits of that: would you say that "wanting to murder group X as part of your political platform is not a "deal-breaker for any rational person" for the same reasons? If not, where's your cut-off point?

It is hard, but not impossible, to imagine things worse than wanting to murder group X. One thing worse would be wanting to murder group Y, where Y is larger than X and they are equally morally innocent. So, yes, if you want to consider situations in which a candidate wants to murder some particular group, I would say that even then this is not a deal-breaker,
since it is conceivable that the other candidate is worse.

Honestly, duh. There are few policies which are so bad that they are worse than any other imaginable policy. How is this controversial?

Quote:

I am challenging your contention that racism shouldn't be a deal-breaker lest one is irrational.

Answered, I think. Racism comes in various degrees, and at least many of them are not the worst things imaginable. They're bad, very bad. Even small amounts of racism overt in the highest office produces a very bad situation. It's rare when a smidgen of racism is the better choice.

But it isn't unheard of, and it's literally stupid posturing (what lesser folk might call "virtue signalling" -- ptui!) to pretend otherwise. With no offense intended.

You tell me: is racism the worst feature imaginable in a candidate? Really? Even a bit of racism in an ineffectual candidate bound to have a legislature thwarting him all the way?

I can imagine worse.

Quote:

What are you talking about? I have never said or implied such a thing. I request that you retract this accusation.

You made it sound as if I said, "Racism isn't a deal-breaker," without explaining myself, and you regarded it as regrettable. I won't regret this accusation. You quoted me out of context for points.

You and I have a long and mostly amicable history. I tend to like you, though we often disagree. I am sorry that what you did here in quoting only a snippet of what I said and putting it in a negative light is simple, plain intellectual dishonesty.

With due respect.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It is deceitful because I explained that part in what immediately followed.

Look, you're a better poster than that. You know better than to quote, "Racism isn't a deal-breaker for me," without quoting what immediately followed which explained that apparently shocking statement.

It would rather be like me repeatedly saying, Argumemnon supports independence, ignoring the context in which he admitted that was true.



It is hard, but not impossible, to imagine things worse than wanting to murder group X. One thing worse would be wanting to murder group Y, where Y is larger than X and they are equally morally innocent. So, yes, if you want to consider situations in which a candidate wants to murder some particular group, I would say that even then this is not a deal-breaker,
since it is conceivable that the other candidate is worse.

Honestly, duh. There are few policies which are so bad that they are worse than any other imaginable policy. How is this controversial?



Answered, I think. Racism comes in various degrees, and at least many of them are not the worst things imaginable. They're bad, very bad. Even small amounts of racism overt in the highest office produces a very bad situation. It's rare when a smidgen of racism is the better choice.

But it isn't unheard of, and it's literally stupid posturing (what lesser folk might call "virtue signalling" -- ptui!) to pretend otherwise. With no offense intended.

You tell me: is racism the worst feature imaginable in a candidate? Really? Even a bit of racism in an ineffectual candidate bound to have a legislature thwarting him all the way?

I can imagine worse.



You made it sound as if I said, "Racism isn't a deal-breaker," without explaining myself, and you regarded it as regrettable. I won't regret this accusation. You quoted me out of context for points.

You and I have a long and mostly amicable history. I tend to like you, though we often disagree. I am sorry that what you did here in quoting only a snippet of what I said and putting it in a negative light is simple, plain intellectual dishonesty.

With due respect.

Do you not see that this whole hypothetical is ludicrous? The choice wasn't between a racist and a murderer (unless you believe the most outrageous conspiracy theories by the extreme right). It was between a racist conman with no experience and (at worst) an experienced public servant with questionable ethical standards and computer skills.

Racism, in the real scenario, should be a deal breaker. As should the "conman" part. Neither was. That's sort of the point.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by The Don

How is it deceitful ?

You put the full stop there, I wasn't even splitting a sentence.

You then go on at length to describe a series of scenarios in which you would find yourself able to look past a candidate's racism and vote for them.

Then in the next post you go on to say:



Which means as far as you are concerned, racism is not a deal-breaker. It would be for me.

Firstly because here in the UK I couldn't imagine an election where the range of candidates is so poor that "the racist" is the best candidate. Typically I will have a choice between, among established, main, parties

- Plaid Cymru - Welsh nationalist
- Labour - Democratic Socialist/Centre left depending on candidate
- Liberal Democrat - Centreist
- Conservative - conservative/centre right depending on candidate
- UKIP - Nationalist

Only in the last two parties would I expect to find institutional racism.

Secondly the idea that the choices are the racist and the person who wants to blow up the world (but somehow pursues their aim by democratic means) is ludicrous regardless of how narrow a choice of candidates you have.

Thirdly in the unlikely event that I'm faced with candidates who all exclude themselves for one reason or another then I would turn out, spoil my ballot and then enquire of my local Labour Party why no adequate candidate could be found.

Perhaps you have a limited imagination.

In all honesty, as recently as, oh, say, March, I could not imagine Trump as a viable candidate for president. Now, he's president-elect.

Let's agree that he's racist. He's not, by a long shot, the worst racist, but he's racist. Let's suppose that racism is a "deal-breaker".

Anyone with a modicum of imagination should be able to imagine future elections in which a contending candidate is even worse than Trump, but not racist. After all, racism is far from Trump's most dangerous feature! So, imagine a non-racist candidate who otherwise accentuates Trump's worst features, let's call him Fump.

Who ought you vote for, Fump or Trump? Depends on how bad Trump's racism is, but very likely you ought to vote for the racist.

To fail to imagine a situation in which some racism isn't better than the non-racist candidate is a failure of imagination. And a lot of racism may still be preferable, if it comes in an ineffectual candidate.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by The Don

Hyperbole much ?

I've never suggested that you're a monster, merely someone who wouldn't consider a candidate being a racist as being a deal-breaker. I haven't even suggested that it's shameful, all I've said is that it's different to my own position.

And yet when I point this out you call me deceitful.

Apologies if you didn't mean your comment as a moral distinction between you and me. It came off that way to me.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I think it's shameful, for the record.

The hypotheticals phiwum are coming up with are ridiculous.

Really?

You can't now imagine a candidate worse than Trump in every way, but non-racist? Now that Donald J. Trump has been elected, you think that this is as bad as it gets, or at least every worse candidate would have to be racist?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Really?

You can't now imagine a candidate worse than Trump in every way, but non-racist? Now that Donald J. Trump has been elected, you think that this is as bad as it gets, or at least every worse candidate would have to be racist?

Not at all what I'm talking about. Nobody should accept a racist President just because it could get worse. If you start accepting things that are simply unacceptable, it will get worse.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Do you not see that this whole hypothetical is ludicrous? The choice wasn't between a racist and a murderer (unless you believe the most outrageous conspiracy theories by the extreme right). It was between a racist conman with no experience and (at worst) an experienced public servant with questionable ethical standards and computer skills.

Racism, in the real scenario, should be a deal breaker. As should the "conman" part. Neither was. That's sort of the point.

I didn't say that I would vote for the racist in this situation. You are misreading the conversation.

The Don suggested that certain issues, such as homophobia or Brexit, would be deal-breakers for him. My only point is that this notion of a deal-breaker shows a lack of imagination. Very few issues are deal-breakers, no matter what, and these only the most extreme issues (genocide, etc.).

There are hypothetical situations in which, no matter your feelings on Brexit, you ought to vote for the pro-Brexit candidate.

One of my conservative friends had very strong opinions against Hillary Clinton, including that she is Hillary Clinton. None of these opinions mattered when her opponent turned out to be Trump. None of his concerns about pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, whatever else he thinks makes a candidate palatable, mattered when he saw how the candidate who ticked these boxes fell short in so many other ways. So, he voted Hillary.

Good for him, since he didn't think in dull terms like "deal-breakers". This election should have taught us to realize that there are worse things than someone being wrong on our pet issues.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Not at all what I'm talking about. Nobody should accept a racist President just because it could get worse. If you start accepting things that are simply unacceptable, it will get worse.

You've misread me.

In a situation in which the racist candidate is worse than the alternative (which is most situations, including this election), then one ought not vote for the racist. Duh.

To say that a position/trait is a "deal-breaker" is to say that, in any election, I can't vote for someone with that position/trait. Almost always, that is a naive claim.

If you think that I'm claiming a vote for Trump was as sensible as a vote for Clinton this year, then I'm astonished.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

You've misread me.

In a situation in which the racist candidate is worse than the alternative (which is most situations, including this election), then one ought not vote for the racist. Duh.

To say that a position/trait is a "deal-breaker" is to say that, in any election, I can't vote for someone with that position/trait. Almost always, that is a naive claim.

If you think that I'm claiming a vote for Trump was as sensible as a vote for Clinton this year, then I'm astonished.

I think you are misunderstanding me.

I'm saying that in any election, racism should be a deal breaker. Same as someone being a murderer or wanting to start a nuclear war. These are simply not acceptable. No matter who the other candidate is, I wouldn't vote for the racist. If the other guy was a murderer or wanted to start a nuclear war, I'd vote for a third option, not vote at all, or ******* take up arms.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by phiwum

You've misread me.

In a situation in which the racist candidate is worse than the alternative (which is most situations, including this election), then one ought not vote for the racist. Duh.

To say that a position/trait is a "deal-breaker" is to say that, in any election, I can't vote for someone with that position/trait. Almost always, that is a naive claim.

If you think that I'm claiming a vote for Trump was as sensible as a vote for Clinton this year, then I'm astonished.

I think you are confusing a desire to stick to certain principles, with a lack of imagination.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I think you are misunderstanding me.

I'm saying that in any election, racism should be a deal breaker. Same as someone being a murderer or wanting to start a nuclear war. These are simply not acceptable. No matter who the other candidate is, I wouldn't vote for the racist. If the other guy was a murderer or wanted to start a nuclear war, I'd vote for a third option, not vote at all, or ******* take up arms.

Okay, I think that statement is naive.

If the two major candidates are (1) a moderately racist person and (2) a guy wanting to lob a few nukes in order to settle the Middle East, and it's a close election, your principles would prevent you for voting for (1)? I readily admit that such a choice is very unlikely, but in that case, surely you ought to vote for (1).

We both agree that a racist President is a very bad thing for the nation, even if he's only moderately racist (not a separatist or worse, but has some racist opinions). It would be rare indeed that the racist would be better than the alternative.

But in a year in which Trump won the Presidential election, it's not at all unthinkable that there would be a choice between an otherwise decent but moderately racist candidate and someone much worse. If there were, for instance, no evidence that Trump was racist, and some evidence that Hillary likes occasional racist jokes and refuses to hire South Pacific lawyers, then I'd have voted for the racist, because Trump was that dreadful regardless of his race issues.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

I think you are confusing a desire to stick to certain principles, with a lack of imagination.

I have a desire to stick to those same principles, but there are situations in which it would be foolish to do so. Other principles would take precedence in such situations.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Okay, I think that statement is naive.

If the two major candidates are (1) a moderately racist person and (2) a guy wanting to lob a few nukes in order to settle the Middle East, and it's a close election, your principles would prevent you for voting for (1)? I readily admit that such a choice is very unlikely, but in that case, surely you ought to vote for (1).

We both agree that a racist President is a very bad thing for the nation, even if he's only moderately racist (not a separatist or worse, but has some racist opinions). It would be rare indeed that the racist would be better than the alternative.

But in a year in which Trump won the Presidential election, it's not at all unthinkable that there would be a choice between an otherwise decent but moderately racist candidate and someone much worse. If there were, for instance, no evidence that Trump was racist, and some evidence that Hillary likes occasional racist jokes and refuses to hire South Pacific lawyers, then I'd have voted for the racist, because Trump was that dreadful regardless of his race issues.

There were more than two candidates, and also none of the above or a write in. It is entirely possible for the top two candidates to not meet your threshold - you are not obligated to pick one or the other. False duality is a lack of imagination, and a naïve belief IMHO. You will not decide the election either way as a single vote.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Okay, I think that statement is naive.

If the two major candidates are (1) a moderately racist person and (2) a guy wanting to lob a few nukes in order to settle the Middle East, and it's a close election, your principles would prevent you for voting for (1)? I readily admit that such a choice is very unlikely, but in that case, surely you ought to vote for (1).

We both agree that a racist President is a very bad thing for the nation, even if he's only moderately racist (not a separatist or worse, but has some racist opinions). It would be rare indeed that the racist would be better than the alternative.

But in a year in which Trump won the Presidential election, it's not at all unthinkable that there would be a choice between an otherwise decent but moderately racist candidate and someone much worse. If there were, for instance, no evidence that Trump was racist, and some evidence that Hillary likes occasional racist jokes and refuses to hire South Pacific lawyers, then I'd have voted for the racist, because Trump was that dreadful regardless of his race issues.

I honestly think that if we were presented with such a choice, democracy would have failed us, and it would be time for a reset. I stand by my point: racism is a deal breaker.

As LSSBB says above, there are more choices than person A or person B. One such is "Both are poison, I'm going for neither". I realize that's what a lot of people thought about this election. Those people were ill informed, as you guys did have one decent choice. You failed to pick it.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

There were more than two candidates, and also none of the above or a write in. It is entirely possible for the top two candidates to not meet your threshold - you are not obligated to pick one or the other. False duality is a lack of imagination, and a naïve belief IMHO. You will not decide the election either way as a single vote.

There is a problem with this tactic that is almost too obvious to be written out:

What if - as is undeniably the reality in US elections - the third party candidates have not the slightest chance to beat both the racist and the crazy nuke thrower? Then such a "moral" vote does nothing to prevent nuclear war, while the "racist" vote is one vote closer to preventing nuclear war.

Just imagine the nuke candidate was 47% in the latest polls a week before election, the moderately racist candidate was 46%, and all others shared the remaining 7%. And it had been known since the beginning of the campaigns that the candidates are such slime balls.



One further fact to spoil the "never a racist President" mantra:
Every President so far has been a moderate racist. Yes. I said it. JFK was and LBJ and even BHO.
Every candidate who ever applied for the Presidential ticket has been a moderate racist. And a moderate sexist, ageist, you call it. Unless they were outright racists, of course.
Just depends on what the threshold for "moderate" is