This article forms an interesting contrast with the one about the false positive meth test. There, you have health care professionals doing the (arguably) wrong thing by believing the tests and ignoring the patients, and here they did the reverse, and ended up allowing something much worse to happen.
Well, I have to say the Pascalevs put a lot of thought into making a bold and principled stand against the mysterious and potentially deadly radiation that smart meters emit. Unlike @trumwill, though, I'm not to surprised to see this sort of thing pop up in Bethesda, which seems to be exactly the sort of place where you'd get this oddball confluence of dingbat quasi-libertarianism and New Age dippiness.
I mean, look, I'm a liberal Democrat who's preferred Hillary Clinton from the start of the current cycle. The idea that everything that will come out of the Oval Office is going to be what I wanted all along is... completely alien to me.
More to the point, though, it seems like this is what Hillary-reluctant but anti-Trump conservatives should want: someone who isn't Trump but is too weak to be effective. It's not clear to me why it would play out this way--partisan sorting is too strong in the contemporary environment--but my first concern is having a President who will faithfully execute the duties of their office. In a normal election, this wouldn't be an issue.
Won't matter for what purpose? It may not do much to get Clinton's policy proposals through, but even if she's deathly unpopular and ineffective, electing her will still do a bang-up job preventing Trump from exercising the powers of the Executive Branch.
You asked "Really? Why?" in response Francis saying ” looking at the cost side only is just wrong.”
I gather you were facetiously referring to people who don't follow Francis' advice when the subject is defense spending, but I'm still not clear on why it's relevant that some people make silly arguments about defense spending.
That was a different and, at least IMO, considerably weaker argument.
On the other hand, it's hard to argue that the folks on the other side of the aisle, who were saying, "WE ABSOLUTELY MUST VOTE ${NOT_TRUMP} BECAUSE OTHERWISE CLINTON!" didn't kind of have a point.
The EC has a lot to do with the votes of people in OK, MA, et c. being completely irrelevant. It basically increases or decreases the power of your vote in a pretty arbitrary way.
Yes, I expect the contours of the debate would be very different if the nominee were John Kasich or Mitt Romney. I mean, I wouldn't want either as President because I think they'd pursue a terrible policy agenda, but they'd be running for President.
Why? People routinely vote for candidates that aren't "good" by some internally applicable standard, and do so in the face of contrasts much less stark than the one presented by Clinton and Trump.
That certainly would justify a primary vote, but it's very unclear how voting for a random third party candidate in the general election will help an insurgent candidate in a future major party primary.
We had three elections in a row where third parties got an appreciable, and at least arguably decisive, portion of the vote, since Perot posted pretty big numbers in both '92 and '96. We've iterated. The outcomes do not appear to have moved in the direction you want.
Yes. Maybe @jaybird lives in Oklahoma or Massachusetts or something, in which case his vote won't matter and nobody will care, but maybe he lives in Florida or Ohio or some other swing state.
[Insert obligatory argument about how moronic the electoral college is here.]
We tried this experiment in 2000. Yet here you are, with Donald Trump on one side and Hillary Clinton in the other. Notably, neither party looked long and hard at what they would have needed to do to attract that sizable number of Nader voters.
What would make her a particularly good candidate? I'm not sure her hypothetical performance against other Republicans is a terribly useful metric, and I think it's strange to frame Sanders' exceptional success entirely in terms of Hillary's weaknesses.
Yes. When it comes time for the general election, your argument doesn't make sense at all. The only way it would make sense is if both candidates are equally (un)acceptable.
Even if I stipulate for some reason that Hillary Clinton is an unusually terrible candidate, I don't see the relevance. Is there some plausible mechanism where voting for someone other than Kang of Kodos leads to a better set of choices in the future?
I can look back on Hillary Clinton’s experiences of being a candidate and see that there are a non-zero number of examples where her opponents played cards perfectly against her.
Yes. I mean, one of those opponents was Barack Obama, who in retrospect is a very good card player. Sanders saw an opportunity, capitalized on it well, and... lost anyway?
On the other hand, of all the candidates you listed for the GOP, the only one who actually demonstrated any ability at all to run a decent national level campaign wasn't even running.
Hillary Clinton is a jackass privately. In fact, her jackassery is so private that you need a dubious tell-all book from a Secret Service agent to substantiate it.
Donald Trump is a jackass publicly. In fact, his jackassery is so public that you need to immediately describe it as an "elephant in the room".
The idea that this indicates that both candidates suffer from equally disqualifying character flaws is bananas. By your own admission, your favored candidate doesn't even have the basic common sense and impulse control to keep his tantrums behind closed doors.
Because if one is actually interested in choosing the best course of action, one is well-served by considering both costs and benefits. The fact that similarly bad arguments have been presented in other contexts doesn't change this.
Imagine a universe in which Clinton was fighting against a different Republican. Romney, Rubio, Walker, Perry. Is Clinton doing as well against this candidate in that universe as against Trump?
The answer seems to be a pretty obvious, "No," to me, because none of those candidates would have charted a course that makes it so difficult to run a general election campaign. Trump, wittingly or not, did a lot of things though the primary campaign that have made it much more difficult for him to compete with Hillary, including saying a ton of stupid shit and alienating the hell out of a lot of important people in his party.
Also, I think people perpetually underestimate Sanders' ability as a politician. I was a Hillbot from Day One, but he played a lot of cards perfectly.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Gypsy Blancharde Is In Jail For Killing Her Mother”
This article forms an interesting contrast with the one about the false positive meth test. There, you have health care professionals doing the (arguably) wrong thing by believing the tests and ignoring the patients, and here they did the reverse, and ended up allowing something much worse to happen.
On “Morning Ed: United States {2016.08.25.Th}”
Well, I have to say the Pascalevs put a lot of thought into making a bold and principled stand against the mysterious and potentially deadly radiation that smart meters emit. Unlike @trumwill, though, I'm not to surprised to see this sort of thing pop up in Bethesda, which seems to be exactly the sort of place where you'd get this oddball confluence of dingbat quasi-libertarianism and New Age dippiness.
On “Gasp! A Trump Supporter!”
I mean, look, I'm a liberal Democrat who's preferred Hillary Clinton from the start of the current cycle. The idea that everything that will come out of the Oval Office is going to be what I wanted all along is... completely alien to me.
"
Then I'm afraid it isn't obvious to me what you are trying to say.
"
It's a good start.
More to the point, though, it seems like this is what Hillary-reluctant but anti-Trump conservatives should want: someone who isn't Trump but is too weak to be effective. It's not clear to me why it would play out this way--partisan sorting is too strong in the contemporary environment--but my first concern is having a President who will faithfully execute the duties of their office. In a normal election, this wouldn't be an issue.
"
Won't matter for what purpose? It may not do much to get Clinton's policy proposals through, but even if she's deathly unpopular and ineffective, electing her will still do a bang-up job preventing Trump from exercising the powers of the Executive Branch.
"
You asked "Really? Why?" in response Francis saying ” looking at the cost side only is just wrong.”
I gather you were facetiously referring to people who don't follow Francis' advice when the subject is defense spending, but I'm still not clear on why it's relevant that some people make silly arguments about defense spending.
"
That was a different and, at least IMO, considerably weaker argument.
On the other hand, it's hard to argue that the folks on the other side of the aisle, who were saying, "WE ABSOLUTELY MUST VOTE ${NOT_TRUMP} BECAUSE OTHERWISE CLINTON!" didn't kind of have a point.
"
The EC has a lot to do with the votes of people in OK, MA, et c. being completely irrelevant. It basically increases or decreases the power of your vote in a pretty arbitrary way.
"
Yes, I expect the contours of the debate would be very different if the nominee were John Kasich or Mitt Romney. I mean, I wouldn't want either as President because I think they'd pursue a terrible policy agenda, but they'd be running for President.
Trump is running for Generalissimo.
"
Why? People routinely vote for candidates that aren't "good" by some internally applicable standard, and do so in the face of contrasts much less stark than the one presented by Clinton and Trump.
"
I would ask why the Bradley Effect which didn't exist in 2008 has shambled back onto the scene like a particularly unwelcome zombie.
"
Yes, but you were the one asking why we might wish to do otherwise.
"
That certainly would justify a primary vote, but it's very unclear how voting for a random third party candidate in the general election will help an insurgent candidate in a future major party primary.
"
Yeah, Russian Roulette odds are both plausible and metaphorically appropriate.
"
We had three elections in a row where third parties got an appreciable, and at least arguably decisive, portion of the vote, since Perot posted pretty big numbers in both '92 and '96. We've iterated. The outcomes do not appear to have moved in the direction you want.
"
That seems like a reasonable position.
"
Yes. Maybe @jaybird lives in Oklahoma or Massachusetts or something, in which case his vote won't matter and nobody will care, but maybe he lives in Florida or Ohio or some other swing state.
[Insert obligatory argument about how moronic the electoral college is here.]
"
We tried this experiment in 2000. Yet here you are, with Donald Trump on one side and Hillary Clinton in the other. Notably, neither party looked long and hard at what they would have needed to do to attract that sizable number of Nader voters.
"
What would make her a particularly good candidate? I'm not sure her hypothetical performance against other Republicans is a terribly useful metric, and I think it's strange to frame Sanders' exceptional success entirely in terms of Hillary's weaknesses.
"
Yes. When it comes time for the general election, your argument doesn't make sense at all. The only way it would make sense is if both candidates are equally (un)acceptable.
Even if I stipulate for some reason that Hillary Clinton is an unusually terrible candidate, I don't see the relevance. Is there some plausible mechanism where voting for someone other than Kang of Kodos leads to a better set of choices in the future?
"
I can look back on Hillary Clinton’s experiences of being a candidate and see that there are a non-zero number of examples where her opponents played cards perfectly against her.
Yes. I mean, one of those opponents was Barack Obama, who in retrospect is a very good card player. Sanders saw an opportunity, capitalized on it well, and... lost anyway?
On the other hand, of all the candidates you listed for the GOP, the only one who actually demonstrated any ability at all to run a decent national level campaign wasn't even running.
"
Hillary Clinton is a jackass privately. In fact, her jackassery is so private that you need a dubious tell-all book from a Secret Service agent to substantiate it.
Donald Trump is a jackass publicly. In fact, his jackassery is so public that you need to immediately describe it as an "elephant in the room".
The idea that this indicates that both candidates suffer from equally disqualifying character flaws is bananas. By your own admission, your favored candidate doesn't even have the basic common sense and impulse control to keep his tantrums behind closed doors.
"
Because if one is actually interested in choosing the best course of action, one is well-served by considering both costs and benefits. The fact that similarly bad arguments have been presented in other contexts doesn't change this.
"
Imagine a universe in which Clinton was fighting against a different Republican. Romney, Rubio, Walker, Perry. Is Clinton doing as well against this candidate in that universe as against Trump?
The answer seems to be a pretty obvious, "No," to me, because none of those candidates would have charted a course that makes it so difficult to run a general election campaign. Trump, wittingly or not, did a lot of things though the primary campaign that have made it much more difficult for him to compete with Hillary, including saying a ton of stupid shit and alienating the hell out of a lot of important people in his party.
Also, I think people perpetually underestimate Sanders' ability as a politician. I was a Hillbot from Day One, but he played a lot of cards perfectly.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.