Why vote for the lesser evil?
Writes in Cthulhu...
Post
Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:43 pm
#17
Donald Trump is a man of small words and short sentences. While I am unaware of his linguistic beliefs or motivations, it appears he intends to capture the vote of folks who believe in plain speaking, though to some it may seem that he means to belittle the intelligence of the voters in the audience. When Trump uses polysyllabic words (e.g. "stamina", cf. the first debate and his remarks on Clinton's fitness for the presidency), he provides little contextual information to imply he actually understands the word being used -- no use of synonyms and very little effort to expound upon his statement. When he does use complex non-buzzwords, it sounds as if he's picked them up off a word-a-day calendar.
Trump also attempts to present himself with an air of pretension. When he enters at the third debate, he's squinting, and grimacing. He does not smile or wave. He acknowledges the audience with a mouthed "thank you", but has no visible desire to engage them. But this visage is undermined by his habit of interrupting and pulling smug and strange faces when it's not his turn. And at the end of the third debate, after the microphones are switched off and the moderator gives his closing remarks to the audience, Trump waits on stage for his guests to approach and greet him. There is no humility or gratitude that marks his behavior. The audience is there in a subordinate position to him; his guests are there in a subordinate position to him.
Hillary Clinton on the other hand is an eloquent speaker, and overflows with charisma when she enters on stage -- she smiles and waves and gazes throughout the audience. She uses context-appropriate words and explains (linguistically, not politically) her statements. Clinton puts forth a greater effort to appear sympathetic and receptive to the voters in the audience. Afterward, she walked into the audience to greet guests and converse. Clinton didn't wait for people to come to her -- she went to them. She acts the part of a president as someone deigned to serve the American people, not to rule them.
I'm not terribly on board with Clinton due to the scandals she's produced, but I absolutely abhor the notion of a Trump presidency. We are choosing the president here -- our leader and our chief diplomat. The president represents us, more than anyone else, in front of the rest of the world. Do we want to send Trump to meet with world leaders and discuss policy? Should we entrust this office to a man who embodies irrationality and feigns composure?
I'm not asking anyone to vote for Hillary Clinton, because I get it if you're not with her. But I think that anyone at all would be a better choice than Donald Trump.
Re: American Election 2016
Lawful evil is still lawful. However, disregarding political differences for a moment, I would like to consider the behaviors of the two primary candidates.masseffect7 wrote:Personally, I would rather have someone who is incompetent, stupid, and evil, than someone who is intelligent and evil. So, in a binary election, I would have to choose Trump. But, I will likely vote for no one for the presidency or Evan McMullen and then vote for everyone else lower in the ballot. I can't endorse Trump or Clinton and so I will not do so with my vote.
Donald Trump is a man of small words and short sentences. While I am unaware of his linguistic beliefs or motivations, it appears he intends to capture the vote of folks who believe in plain speaking, though to some it may seem that he means to belittle the intelligence of the voters in the audience. When Trump uses polysyllabic words (e.g. "stamina", cf. the first debate and his remarks on Clinton's fitness for the presidency), he provides little contextual information to imply he actually understands the word being used -- no use of synonyms and very little effort to expound upon his statement. When he does use complex non-buzzwords, it sounds as if he's picked them up off a word-a-day calendar.
Trump also attempts to present himself with an air of pretension. When he enters at the third debate, he's squinting, and grimacing. He does not smile or wave. He acknowledges the audience with a mouthed "thank you", but has no visible desire to engage them. But this visage is undermined by his habit of interrupting and pulling smug and strange faces when it's not his turn. And at the end of the third debate, after the microphones are switched off and the moderator gives his closing remarks to the audience, Trump waits on stage for his guests to approach and greet him. There is no humility or gratitude that marks his behavior. The audience is there in a subordinate position to him; his guests are there in a subordinate position to him.
Hillary Clinton on the other hand is an eloquent speaker, and overflows with charisma when she enters on stage -- she smiles and waves and gazes throughout the audience. She uses context-appropriate words and explains (linguistically, not politically) her statements. Clinton puts forth a greater effort to appear sympathetic and receptive to the voters in the audience. Afterward, she walked into the audience to greet guests and converse. Clinton didn't wait for people to come to her -- she went to them. She acts the part of a president as someone deigned to serve the American people, not to rule them.
I'm not terribly on board with Clinton due to the scandals she's produced, but I absolutely abhor the notion of a Trump presidency. We are choosing the president here -- our leader and our chief diplomat. The president represents us, more than anyone else, in front of the rest of the world. Do we want to send Trump to meet with world leaders and discuss policy? Should we entrust this office to a man who embodies irrationality and feigns composure?
I'm not asking anyone to vote for Hillary Clinton, because I get it if you're not with her. But I think that anyone at all would be a better choice than Donald Trump.
Post
Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:33 pm
#18
Re: American Election 2016
You are talking about a man who has never debated before nor has any prior political experience. Is it a surprise that he lacks the social skills of a person who has been in politics for 30 years? Perhaps I've just had different experiences than you, but when I've gone into interviews it is the manager or boss who sits at their desk as the potential employee is called into the room. It is up to the employee to approach the authority figure and shake their hand. So, isn't it reasonable to assume that a man who is the chairman and president of his own organization would lack these qualities?
Maybe not, maybe everyone should know this is the appropriate way to act. Either way, I judge all those who I vote for by what they say and what their track record is. I will not vote for a liar (like Marco Rubio), nor do I want to vote for someone who comes across as an aggressive jerk (like Rand Paul). Therefore, I can't in right conscience vote for Hillary Clinton who has multiple scandals, one of which should have ended in indictment ("the reckless mishandling of classified information") as stated by James Comey [google it and watch the full length clip].
I'll add more after you guys pick this apart.
Maybe not, maybe everyone should know this is the appropriate way to act. Either way, I judge all those who I vote for by what they say and what their track record is. I will not vote for a liar (like Marco Rubio), nor do I want to vote for someone who comes across as an aggressive jerk (like Rand Paul). Therefore, I can't in right conscience vote for Hillary Clinton who has multiple scandals, one of which should have ended in indictment ("the reckless mishandling of classified information") as stated by James Comey [google it and watch the full length clip].
I'll add more after you guys pick this apart.
Last edited by BFett on Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post
Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:10 pm
#19
Re: American Election 2016
Wait, wait, wait.
In America voting for a third party is not just a wasted vote, it's a vote FOR your least preferred primary candidate.
As America works on the abominable First Past the Post system.
Therefore, why are third parties even an option up here?
Everybody knows Hillary is a liar. But honestly, she would only be a bad president.
Trump on the other hard, he doesn't even classify as human.
When you are willing to kill women and children to get to "terrorists", terrorists who wouldn't be out there doing a thing if America had kept it's dick out of the Middle East in the Cold War, and afterwards.... yeah, at that point you no longer classify as a human, but rather as a war crime waiting to happen.
Hitler's, stupider, less charismatic, hillbilly, inbred, third cousin.
In America voting for a third party is not just a wasted vote, it's a vote FOR your least preferred primary candidate.
As America works on the abominable First Past the Post system.
Therefore, why are third parties even an option up here?
Everybody knows Hillary is a liar. But honestly, she would only be a bad president.
Trump on the other hard, he doesn't even classify as human.
When you are willing to kill women and children to get to "terrorists", terrorists who wouldn't be out there doing a thing if America had kept it's dick out of the Middle East in the Cold War, and afterwards.... yeah, at that point you no longer classify as a human, but rather as a war crime waiting to happen.
Hitler's, stupider, less charismatic, hillbilly, inbred, third cousin.
<Cuisinart8> apparently without the demon driving him around Silver has the intelligence of a botched lobotomy patient ~ Mar 04 2020
console.log(`What's all ${this} ${Date.now()}`);
console.log(`What's all ${this} ${Date.now()}`);
Post
Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:42 pm
#20
Re: American Election 2016
While I understand that you have to start somewhere, the list of candidates offered in this poll excludes the one who may be the first third-party candidate to win a state's electoral votes since 1968.
That would be Evan McMullin in Utah.
That would be Evan McMullin in Utah.
Post
Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:27 am
#21
Do you have evidence that I could google that will support your claim against Trump? I know collateral damage is something that sadly occurs in war, but I don't recall ever hearing Trump speak in the loose terms you put forth.
Also, if we are going to insult candidates, let's please site sources for such descriptions (much like I did after stating my thoughts on Clinton). This will help keep the conversation civil and more informative for all those involved.
Re: American Election 2016
Silverware wrote:Wait, wait, wait.
In America voting for a third party is not just a wasted vote, it's a vote FOR your least preferred primary candidate.
As America works on the abominable First Past the Post system.
Therefore, why are third parties even an option up here?
Everybody knows Hillary is a liar. But honestly, she would only be a bad president.
Trump on the other hard, he doesn't even classify as human.
When you are willing to kill women and children to get to "terrorists", terrorists who wouldn't be out there doing a thing if America had kept it's dick out of the Middle East in the Cold War, and afterwards.... yeah, at that point you no longer classify as a human, but rather as a war crime waiting to happen.
Hitler's, stupider, less charismatic, hillbilly, inbred, third cousin.
Do you have evidence that I could google that will support your claim against Trump? I know collateral damage is something that sadly occurs in war, but I don't recall ever hearing Trump speak in the loose terms you put forth.
Also, if we are going to insult candidates, let's please site sources for such descriptions (much like I did after stating my thoughts on Clinton). This will help keep the conversation civil and more informative for all those involved.
Post
Mon Oct 24, 2016 1:14 am
#22
Surely yes, Trump is deaf to the idea that voters are hiring him and that he is entering an office intended to be in service to the public. But why should the reasonable nature of such an assumption excuse him from putting on a presidential show? If he has no interest in playing the part of president on the electoral stage, how could we possibly expect him to play the part of president from the set of the white house?
His lack of legal and political experience, not to mention grievous neglect for social expectations of politeness, is all the more reason not to consider him a valid candidate.
Re: American Election 2016
Some of these are essential social skills beyond the offices of politicians. At the very least, Stephen Fry would have something to say about his use of language. Trump's word choice isn't strictly speaking incorrect in terms of grammatical structure, but its undressed and unbecoming-of-a-politician nature certainly demonstrates a certain passive disrespect toward our electoral system, and by extension the participating voters.BFett wrote:You are talking about a man who has never debated before nor has any prior political experience. Is it a surprise that he lacks the social skills of a person who has been in politics for 30 years? Perhaps I've just had different experiences than you, but when I've gone into interviews it is the manager or boss who sits at their desk as the potential employee is called into the room. It is up to the employee to approach the authority figure and shake their hand. So, isn't it reasonable to assume that a man who is the chairman and president of his own organization would lack these qualities?
Surely yes, Trump is deaf to the idea that voters are hiring him and that he is entering an office intended to be in service to the public. But why should the reasonable nature of such an assumption excuse him from putting on a presidential show? If he has no interest in playing the part of president on the electoral stage, how could we possibly expect him to play the part of president from the set of the white house?
His lack of legal and political experience, not to mention grievous neglect for social expectations of politeness, is all the more reason not to consider him a valid candidate.
Post
Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:56 am
#23
Re: American Election 2016
"You have to take out their families" is the term you are looking for.BFett wrote: Do you have evidence that I could google that will support your claim against Trump? I know collateral damage is something that sadly occurs in war, but I don't recall ever hearing Trump speak in the loose terms you put forth.
panic
Post
Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:49 am
#24
It also explains why there's no such thing as a wasted vote.
Re: American Election 2016
It is, however, still evil.Grumblesaur wrote:Lawful evil is still lawful.
Both candidates do this, at every opportunity.Grumblesaur wrote:But this visage is undermined by his habit of interrupting and pulling smug and strange faces when it's not his turn.
This is a complete myth, and you'll read why in the post I made at the bottom of the first page.Silverware wrote:In America voting for a third party is not just a wasted vote, it's a vote FOR your least preferred primary candidate.
It also explains why there's no such thing as a wasted vote.
Games I like, in order of how much I like them. (Now permanent and updated regularly!)
Post
Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:47 am
#25
Re: American Election 2016
Of that there is no doubt. However, in masseffect's terms, they're both evil, so why bother mentioning the commonality?DigitalDuck wrote:It is, however, still evil.Grumblesaur wrote:Lawful evil is still lawful.
Clinton came off as smug, but never strange. Trump seems to need to warp his face to keep his tongue (although it's a shame he's unsuccessful).DigitalDuck wrote:Both candidates do this, at every opportunity.Grumblesaur wrote:But this visage is undermined by his habit of interrupting and pulling smug and strange faces when it's not his turn.
Post
Mon Oct 24, 2016 7:57 am
#26
Re: American Election 2016
Because it's a reason for voting for neither.Grumblesaur wrote:Of that there is no doubt. However, in masseffect's terms, they're both evil, so why bother mentioning the commonality?
Games I like, in order of how much I like them. (Now permanent and updated regularly!)
Post
Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:01 am
#27
Re: American Election 2016
Fair.DigitalDuck wrote:Because it's a reason for voting for neither.Grumblesaur wrote:Of that there is no doubt. However, in masseffect's terms, they're both evil, so why bother mentioning the commonality?
Post
Mon Oct 24, 2016 8:48 am
#28
Re: American Election 2016
I've only heard of two of those fellas on that there poll. Those two are alternately praised and damned by whomever you may run across. I don't have any clue of what their real agendas are. I suppose there's a reason I'm not a registered voter; nothing worth voting for.
Now, if Tal were to run...
--IronDuke
Now, if Tal were to run...
--IronDuke
Post
Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:05 pm
#29
Re: American Election 2016
He would get a vote. Just one.IronDuke wrote: Now, if Tal were to run...
I am Groot.
Please don't take my advice. You will wind up in jail if you do.
For some reason, I feel obliged to display how many people have talked in IRC over the past 2 hours:
Please don't take my advice. You will wind up in jail if you do.
For some reason, I feel obliged to display how many people have talked in IRC over the past 2 hours:
Post
Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:42 pm
#30
Re: American Election 2016
Well if this is what Silverware was trying to say I understand his concern. This occurred early in the election cycle and I'm not sure that this is his position anymore. Either way, this is a fair point to bring up.Mistycica wrote:"You have to take out their families" is the term you are looking for.BFett wrote: Do you have evidence that I could google that will support your claim against Trump? I know collateral damage is something that sadly occurs in war, but I don't recall ever hearing Trump speak in the loose terms you put forth.