poor Mike, betrayed yet again

Post #412,265 by rcareaga 7/28/16 4:19:52 PM 7/28/16 4:19:52 PM Reply	poor Mike, betrayed yet again This time it’s Noam Chomsky making the case for voting the “lesser evil.” Excerpts: The suffering which [Trump’s] and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency. [This] should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state. However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration. …by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve. Yes, he implicitly gives Indiana a pass, but it must distress mmoffitt in a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger kinda way to see a formerly trusted comrade suborned by the corrupt oligarchic sham democracy Clintonistas like this...unless of course Chomsky had merely been biding his time and was secretly on the payroll all along! In any event, another one over the side, but if I’ve followed his reasoning thus far, mmoffitt’s beliefs on this issue will never be shaken by the dissenting views of anyone he respects, because if the view dissents from his, the respect is forfeit. Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason. —John Harington (1561-1612) cordially,
Post #412,275 by Andrew Grygus 7/28/16 9:24:10 PM 7/28/16 9:24:10 PM Reply	Well, with the lunatic fringe of the radical far left . . . . . saying "Vote for Hillary", that leaves Mike sort of slowly twisting in the wind.
Post #412,280 by Ashton 7/29/16 2:24:02 AM 7/29/16 2:24:02 AM Reply	A glance at his listing of the more egregious human-failures of the stunted Drumpf psyche might prove a tipping-point for those just returning from a year in Tuva (maybe not for MIke, since he Knows This already, fershure:) 3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses. Emphasis added, natch. And his Last bears repeating, I wot: …by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve. Q.Fucking E.D. Hamlet: Let us go in together, And still your fingers on your lips, I pray. The time is out of joint—O cursèd spite, That ever I was born to set it right! Nay, come, let's go together.
Post #412,282 by Another Scott 7/29/16 7:26:04 AM 7/29/16 7:26:04 AM Reply	That's not a complete list (no SCOTUS), but it's a great piece. Shared. ;-) Thanks.
Post #412,284 by mmoffitt 7/29/16 8:17:50 AM 7/29/16 8:17:50 AM Reply	Hardly betrayed. He's advocating LEV and what does he say about that? He explicitly tells me I don't have to vote. Simply put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive “swing” states, where you must, one votes for the “lesser evil” Democrat. And he even says there's at least an "outside possibility" that I'm right with respect to foreign policy. Emphasis Mine. Before fielding objections, it will be useful to make certain background stipulations with respect to the points below. The first is to note that since changes in the relevant facts require changes in tactics, proposals having to do with our relationship to the “electoral extravaganza” should be regarded as provisional. This is most relevant with respect to point 3) which some will challenge by citing the claim that Clinton’s foreign policy could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump. In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump’s foreign policy is preferable, most of us not already convinced that that is so will need more evidence than can be aired in a discussion involving this statement. I do not feel any sorrow. I've known since I was 10 years old that this corrupt neo-Fascist State would collapse one day. With our Presidential elections down to the choices we have this year, the demise may come sooner than even I expected. I said in the early 1980's that the 21st century would vindicate Marx. Given our, er, um, choices for leadership in November, that vindication may come early enough in this century for me to observe it. Why would I feel sorrow?
Post #412,287 by Another Scott 7/29/16 8:29:16 AM 7/29/16 8:29:16 AM Reply	Indiana is a swing state - It voted D in 2008.
Post #412,288 by mmoffitt 7/29/16 8:30:47 AM 7/29/16 8:31:47 AM Reply	That's rich. In 2012 it went back to Red. And before 2008? When did the Democratic Party's candidate last carry Indiana? 1964. Edit: Aside: Now if the candidate had been Bernie, then yeah, it could have also gone Democratic in 2016. ;0) Edited by mmoffitt July 29, 2016, 08:31:47 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #412,290 by Another Scott 7/29/16 8:36:10 AM 7/29/16 8:36:10 AM Reply	It can Swing from Red to Blue. Definition of a Swing State. HTH.
Post #412,292 by mmoffitt 7/29/16 8:49:14 AM 7/29/16 8:52:45 AM Reply	ROFL! Two D victories since 1940 makes it a swing state? Indiana General Results 1900: R 1904: R 1908: R 1912: D 1916: R 1920: R 1924: R 1928: R 1932: D 1936: D 1940: R 1944: R 1948: R 1952: R 1956: R 1960: R 1964: D 1968: R 1972: R 1976: R 1980: R 1984: R 1988: R 1992: R 1996: R 2000: R 2004: R 2008: D 2012: R 29 Elections. Democrats won 5, Republicans won 24. Indiana's hardly a swing state. Edited by mmoffitt July 29, 2016, 08:51:08 AM EDT Edited by mmoffitt July 29, 2016, 08:52:45 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #412,294 by Another Scott 7/29/16 9:27:25 AM 7/29/16 9:27:25 AM Reply	It can swing, and has recently. So it's a Swing State. This isn't hard.
Post #412,296 by mmoffitt 7/29/16 9:45:17 AM 7/29/16 9:45:17 AM Reply	That's an election bet I'd take.
Post #412,295 by rcareaga 7/29/16 9:45:07 AM 7/29/16 9:45:07 AM Reply	emphasis yours which some will challenge by citing the claim that Clinton’s foreign policy could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump. Your belief I take it (Chomsky, who is not shy about these things, did not advance it as his own). Duly noted, then. FWIW, the tone of the speech and of the convention preceding it, was more belligerent, global hegemony-wise, than I would have liked. I am less inspired by HRC than might be a woman of my generation (my wife, for example, who feels fairly comfortable with and even cheerful about the candidate. FWIW further, I know one woman who, contrariwise, makes you look like a Romney voter, and has derided me online as an "establishment conservative" because I did not vote for Saint Bernard and now will not vote for Jill Fucking Stein (I am also faulted for dismissing the chemtrail conspiracy), so grading on the curve you get points for sweet reason, and also a participation trophy (insert typographical emoticon signifying jocular goodwill). cordially,

Welcome to IWETHEY!