undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmasondixon9y ago0 comments

> The argument stays at the high level of "how could you vote for someone who said that", "he is a monster", etc. It is "I don't want to listen".

>> And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being.

And Clinton is not a liar, not a tech illiterate, not arrogant, and not disgusting human being? On misogyny - she has never attacked a woman's character before?

Bias, bias, bias, and bias.

> People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.

Do you believe you are rationale. Everyone is saying that you lost the election because you didn't listen. This has real consequences. ACA will be repealed. Etc. Etc.

And you still have the attitude of: "I don't want to listen". All I can say is thank you - because now it doesn't matter anymore.

0 comments

joshvm9y ago

You can argue that a lot of people (Democrats included) didn't want to vote for Clinton either. By that argument you're justifying both candidates' character flaws by saying "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK".

masondixonOP9y ago

I wasn't agreeing with the claims against Trump. I think they are wrong. I was commenting on the fact that you can find arguments for all those claims for Clinton. Which cancels out the argument - and requires each claim to be taken by itself without supporting evidence and reasoned arguments.

The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber.

mch829y ago

What I don't understand is that you're telling us how you feel bullied by the libs using generalities, and in doing that you're labeling me a "lib" and doing so in a way that comes across as talking down to me.

I'm not defending the behavior of Democratic Party supporters, but can you recognize the hypocrisy in your behavior just now?

1 more reply

JoeAltmaier9y ago

Except they're a classic smokescreen - every time one is refuted (and they all are, through expensive pointless investigation) another is invented to fill airtime.

1 more reply

shawabawa39y ago

> "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK"

That is perfectly logical in a 2 (effectively) candidate election

Chris20489y ago

> justifying both candidates' character flaws

> so that makes it OK

How? This is your interpretation.

If you have a choice of two, you must pick one. You have to weight up the options. choosing one doesn't automatically mean endorsing it as the post possible choice, but just the better of the given options.

joshvm9y ago

No, you don't. Most democratic voting systems allow abstention for precisely this reason. In the UK you're allowed to 'spoil' your ballot paper so that it's deemed invalid.

If done properly then abstention is a perfectly valid alternative to not voting at all, because your vote means it's more difficult for the parties to obtain a majority. If you don't vote then (ideally) you have no effect on the numbers. Whether this is how the US system works, I don't know, hence the ideally.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsmasondixon9y ago0 comments

> The argument stays at the high level of "how could you vote for someone who said that", "he is a monster", etc. It is "I don't want to listen".

>> And what Trump said showed he's a liar, misogynist, tech illiterate, arrogant and overall a disgusting human being.

And Clinton is not a liar, not a tech illiterate, not arrogant, and not disgusting human being? On misogyny - she has never attacked a woman's character before?

Bias, bias, bias, and bias.

> People listen up until the point you prove to them you're not worth listening to.

Do you believe you are rationale. Everyone is saying that you lost the election because you didn't listen. This has real consequences. ACA will be repealed. Etc. Etc.

And you still have the attitude of: "I don't want to listen". All I can say is thank you - because now it doesn't matter anymore.

0 comments

joshvm9y ago

masondixonOP9y ago

The libs got to use to not having to back up their claims through a confirmation bias from their echo chamber.

mch829y ago

I'm not defending the behavior of Democratic Party supporters, but can you recognize the hypocrisy in your behavior just now?

1 more reply

JoeAltmaier9y ago

Except they're a classic smokescreen - every time one is refuted (and they all are, through expensive pointless investigation) another is invented to fill airtime.

1 more reply

shawabawa39y ago

> "Well, you know the other person is just as bad as my choice, so that makes it OK"

That is perfectly logical in a 2 (effectively) candidate election

Chris20489y ago

> justifying both candidates' character flaws

> so that makes it OK

How? This is your interpretation.

joshvm9y ago

No, you don't. Most democratic voting systems allow abstention for precisely this reason. In the UK you're allowed to 'spoil' your ballot paper so that it's deemed invalid.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse