by ZAPPA-ESQUE 75 Replies latest jw friends
Because not everyone weighs every issue or fact in an identical manner? Otherwise, every election would be 100% landslide one way or the other.
That is a fact of psychology, however either you believe one candidate is better for objective reasons, or you think it is a tie, or you vote for the candidate which would benefit you more than the other.
That is a fact of psychology, however either you believe one candidate is better for objective reasons, or you think it is a tie, or you vote for the candidate which would benefit you more than the other.
I think everyone knows and understands what the principle of "voting" entails.
Is there a point other than to tell us that a vote represents a choice for one of the candidates in preference to the other?
Simon: You believe HRC is the better candidate than Trump, presumably for good reasons (or least worst candidate, or whatever).
Those reasons are either rational, in which case they are available for everyone (including the large group of coal-miners who are tired of hearing about bathrooms) or they are not. I assume we both think they are rational, such as Trump denial of global warming, or that Trump seems unable to open his mouth without lying.
The view that HRC lost because she was too mean to white america, too preoccupied with racial discrimination, etc. might be true in a causal sense (I still doubt it since I simply can't recall her bringing these topics up a lot), however what that really mean is that white america (let's call it that) allowed less important reasons for voting Trump get in the way for the more weighty, rational reasons for voting HRC; reasons that we both recognize exists (otherwise we too would prefer Trump).
white america (let's call it that) allowed less important reasons for voting Trump get in the way for the more weighty, rational reasons for voting HRC
You still don't get it. The scale of what is important to you can be different to what is important to others. It's not simply whether any one reason is rational or not, it's that they are not all weighted equally and consistently by everyone.
They have the right to make their own choices for their own reasons. You don't have the right to label them for it.
Bohm does have the right to label them for it. His label can be wrong but he has the right.
You still don't get it. The scale of what is important to you can be different to what is important to others. It's not simply whether any one reason is rational or not, it's that they are not all weighted equally and consistently by everyone
Of course I recognize that. However this does not mean all weightings of what is important are equally rational. I can't consistently think that I have objective, rational reasons to think Trump is disqualified to be president in a way no other candidate I can think of has been (this, by the way, include Nixon who at least was rational and made good decisions) and at the same time think that a coal-miner in the middle of America does not have access to those same reasons.
Sure, we can say that this coal-miner because he is a coal-miner simply must vote trump because HRC supporters say mean thing about him, but that is not a rational reason for voting Trump and I think it is depriving him of basic agency.
I will put it like this: If HRC spend all her day saying that my particular social class was trash, and Trump spend all day saying my particular social class was the best, that would still not provide a rational reason to vote Trump because he remains a much more flawed candidate.
Lots of words but in the end all you are trying to come up with is a reason to delegitimize anyone's vote for anyone other than the candidate that you wanted to win.
What a perfect way not to learn a damn thing. Put your hands over your ears, close your eyes and say "la la la la la" and voila, Trump didn't win!
Keep it up and he won't win in 2020 as well.
He's only more flawed based on YOUR scale. Other people considered Hillary more flawed based on THEIRS.
Simon I agree with your assessment of putting your hands over your ears. However I don't see bohm doing that here. Stating that many of trumps voters are uninformed does not negate the current problem on the left.
It is appearing to me that you are the one that is being dogmatic here. If one doesn't focus on the regressives only they are wrong, wrong, wrong, and everything else contributes to Trump being re-elected in four years. I fear this very dogmatism will continue to strengthen the regressives and keep secularist values as a minority in this country.
Switching to labelling them "uninformed" is just another attempt at delegitimizing their vote unless you have specific evidence (which you don't).
Ultimately, they are all simply attempts to avoid the introspection that the left desperately needs to go through but adamantly refuses to.
We can't do anything about the right being wrong and I don't think they can be changed or, right now, see any need to change. They won the election and they will win the next ones unless the left gets a clue.
Everyone has labels and gets labeled. Again what is with the zero sum game. I believe many who voted for Obama and then Trump are uninformed. By their actions they prove so. If all the people that voted for Obama and then Trump would have voted for Hillary she would be President.
I also know the left desperately needs introspective adjustment. It is not one of the other. It's both. Until we all get that extremism rules the day.
