The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Jeff Lebowski]

Verdict is in. MBN has been leading a destructive campaign to convince people waste their votes this cycle. Sad!

http://kutv.com/news/local/want-to-w...econsider?mnhu

[Jeff Lebowski]

But I'm not wrong.

No, you are cherry-picking and distorting the meaning of the fallacy. I have not been pointing to Trump's faults as a response to a specific criticism of a candidate for whom I have been advocating. For example, Trump put on a clinic on tu quoque the other day when he called a press conference with the Bill Clinton victims prior to the debate the other night. Pure unadulterated appeal to hypocrisy. My consistent message all along has been that ANY of the other candidates would be 1000x better than Trump. He is a deranged, egotistical, thin-skinned, orange-skinned lunatic that shouldn't get anywhere near the oval office.

[BlueK]

No, you are cherry-picking and distorting the meaning of the fallacy. I have not been pointing to Trump's faults as a response to a specific criticism of a candidate for whom I have been advocating. For example, Trump put on a clinic on tu quoque the other day when he called a press conference with the Bill Clinton victims prior to the debate the other night. Pure unadulterated appeal to hypocrisy. My consistent message all along has been that ANY of the other candidates would be 1000x better than Trump. He is a deranged, egotistical, thin-skinned, orange-skinned lunatic that shouldn't get anywhere near the oval office.

Seriously, if Trump hadn't been born into money which allowed him to become a famous rich guy who later became a reality tv star and presidential candidate, he'd likely be an unknown inmate right now in some state prison somewhere: sexual assault, fraud, who knows what else. Some of his victims coming forth now were even from the TEEN USA pageant. All of this is coming to a boil right now and is going to end up being too much for even the state of Utah to go Republican this time. We have never had any presidential candidate this bad.

[imanihonjin]

No, you are cherry-picking and distorting the meaning of the fallacy. I have not been pointing to Trump's faults as a response to a specific criticism of a candidate for whom I have been advocating. For example, Trump put on a clinic on tu quoque the other day when he called a press conference with the Bill Clinton victims prior to the debate the other night. Pure unadulterated appeal to hypocrisy. My consistent message all along has been that ANY of the other candidates would be 1000x better than Trump. He is a deranged, egotistical, thin-skinned, orange-skinned lunatic that shouldn't get anywhere near the oval office.

I didn't even mention the fallacy, but whatever. You posted a quote that you liked, which included this:

Instead, we are supposed to be motivated by the need to block the evils of the other side, and this is considered good reason not too look to closely at the evils of those who claim to be on our side.

As far as I can tell, this is precisely your position on this election and the bolded portion of post confirms that .

[Northwestcoug]

Verdict is in. MBN has been leading a destructive campaign to convince people waste their votes this cycle. Sad!

http://kutv.com/news/local/want-to-w...econsider?mnhu

MBN, before you throw your vote away, ask WWMittD. I'm assuming he'd advise against throwing your vote away. And when you get his response, let us know who he's voting for!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I didn't even mention the fallacy, but whatever. You posted a quote that you liked, which included this:

As far as I can tell, this is precisely your position on this election and the bolded portion of post confirms that .

Yeah, like I said: you are cherry-picking one line in a weak attempt to make a point.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Trump threatens to sue NYT over article outlining the claims of several women that he groped, kissed them, etc. NYT responds with this letter:

http://documents.latimes.com/read-ne...rumps-lawyers/

[SeattleUte]

Trump threatens to sue NYT over article outlining the claims of several women that he groped, kissed them, etc. NYT responds with this letter:

http://documents.latimes.com/read-ne...rumps-lawyers/

He doesn't get the First Amendment. Another DISqualification.

[imanihonjin]

Yeah, like I said: you are cherry-picking one line in a weak attempt to make a point.

I see, so cherry-picking for you equals, you can't really respond to the point. That line really encapsulates the argument he is trying to make, which is the ridiculousness of the strategies of the current election to attempt to get voters to point to the negatives of the person for whom they are not voting for to justify their voting instead of "positive ideals" of the candidate for whom they are voting. Basically he rejects the whole reason you are voting for Hillary and for some reason you think he supports some silly point your are trying to make.

The article actually supports the idea that I have been promoting, which is, if you think both of the main candidates suck, find someone else who you can actually support, rather than vote for someone because you think one of the other candidates is worse.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ho-hum. Another victim.

http://people.com/politics/donald-tr...people-writer/

#orangecosby

[BlueK]

MBN, before you throw your vote away, ask WWMittD. I'm assuming he'd advise against throwing your vote away. And when you get his response, let us know who he's voting for!

I'm going to guess it's most likely Mitt will vote for McMullin.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I see, so cherry-picking for you equals, you can't really respond to the point. That line really encapsulates the argument he is trying to make, which it the ridiculousness of the current election is to point to the negatives of the person for whom you are not voting to justify your voting instead of "positive ideals" of the candidate for whom you are voting. Basically he rejects the whole reason you are voting for Hillary and for some reason you think he supports some silly point your are trying to make.

The article actually supports the idea that I have been promoting, which is, if you think both of the main candidates suck, find someone else who you can actually support, rather than vote for someone because you think one of the other candidates is worse.

I am not sure if you could be any more obtuse. Or stubborn.

I support ANY candidate but Trump.

[BlueK]

The article actually supports the idea that I have been promoting, which is, if you think both of the main candidates suck, find someone else who you can actually support, rather than vote for someone because you think one of the other candidates is worse.

I do agree with this. I wish more Americans would do this regularly because the two major parties don't care if you voted for the lesser of evils. They take that hold your nose vote and turn it into a runaway mandate. it's what politicians do. If more voted their conscience those third parties would sometimes win and change for the better might happen and the increased competition might actually improve the quality of the candidates the major parties send out there.

[Topper]

Verdict is in. MBN has been leading a destructive campaign to convince people waste their votes this cycle. Sad!

http://kutv.com/news/local/want-to-w...econsider?mnhu

Salt Lake City — (KUTV) If you are planning to write in Mitt Romney, your mom, or Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election, you may want to think again.

Facebook is filled with people saying they're fed up and ready to write someone in. With ballots arriving in the mail this week, we want to make sure you know if your vote will be counted.

While you are free to write in whoever you want, the state legally doesn't have to count it, and won’t, if the person did not jump through correct legal hoops earlier this year.

Sunday's debate has many Utahns questioning their vote. Many say they’ll vote for their 2012 choice, Mitt Romney. Disenfranchised Democrats are saying they will write in Bernie Sanders.

Either of these votes will get you nowhere.

Writing in a candidate may sound like a great way to take a stand for what you believe in -- while still having your vote counted -- and yet in most cases it's as good as not even voting.

Josh Romney, last month at a speaking engagement, said he's still trying to make his choice and he "may have to write someone in." If that someone is his father Mitt Romney, their would be no record of it.

Justin Lee with Utah elections said there's a reason "we legally can't count those votes.”

"We need to make sure people are constitutionally qualified. If everyone wrote in Mickey Mouse and Mickey Mouse won, he obviously can't hold office."

I prefer Mickey Mouse to the two main party nominees. I'm okay if the office of President is vacant for four years.

[imanihonjin]

I am not sure if you could be any more obtuse. Or stubborn.

I support ANY candidate but Trump.

Which is exactly the thing the article that you posted was deriding. What is really funny, is that you don't see it. The whole point of his article was boiled down to the sentence I have copied a couple of times and will again:

Instead, we are supposed to be motivated by the need to block the evils of the other side, and this is considered good reason not too look to closely at the evils of those who claim to be on our side.

You are motivated to vote based on a "block of evils", rather than looking for the positive ideals of a candidate you can support.