Already got IANAW in here worrying about which person can beat trump rather than which person would be, you know, a good president

You know who isnt a good president?

The guy already in office.

Might want to think about the best way to not have that happen anymore.

Perhaps the best person for the job also has the least likely chance to hold the job. What exactly is the solution in that situation BM?

Election is a long way away. Lots can happen.

One might conclude the hopelessness of electoral politics?

“We must elect the slightly less fascist person to get the fascist out of power. This is obviously wise and pragmatic as there are no other options.”

When it's a binary choice, yes.

This doesn't say we can't and shouldn't do other things (like, for example, getting the best "less fascist person" possible to the contest).

We are two years out from the election and IANAW and Master are already in here with their less of two evils logic

I believe becoming president is a prerequisite for being a good president


haven't done much research, though

Isn't a little war in the middle east worth it to have a non-racist president?

What if you were still getting the war anyways? That's why you have to vote democratic.

you know what would be better than a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon?

a car that gets 6,000 miles on a drop of water


everyone driving hybrids/plugins right now - ****ing sellout scab pos mf'ers

Cool concluded.

Now,the election is in two years. How has my conclusion that electoral politics sucks helped to stop the man who is currently president from no longer being president?

Didn't you lose the right to play this card after your guy bombed Syria?

Isn't that why I said you might as well vote democratic?
And tbf you don't think his hands weren't tied there?

first part looked sarcastic

second part could use some more explaining

Seems pretty basic. Assad wasn't attacked before or since and when he was it was in direct response to purported chemical attacks.

Trump's hands were tied, but none of the neocons' before him were?

which reminds me, I knew vaya had already addressed the trump-media-attention issue to you


but even afterwards, you continued to use the media-attention argument as a basis for your viewpoints

so what's the point of acknowledging a flaw in your reasoning if you are going to continue to employ the exact same reasoning anyway?

What is your argument? That Trump does want to attack Syria the same as the neocons or that the neocons were only always responding to events the same as Trump or what exactly?

I don't think you properly understood my response to Vaya.

More of the latter, but with a smattering of the former, your "neocon" distinction looses a bit of value.

tbf I don't remember your response to vaya


I do remember vaya calling you out on Trump's media attention, and then later you suggesting that AOC cannot be legitimate because of her media attention

this might be a good time to distinguish whataboutism from hypocrisy


To whatabout is to deflect an argument against your position away by applying the argument to another position. The problem with it is that the person doing it doesn't address the applicability of the problem to their own position, doesn't reevaluate their position, etc.

Hypocrisy, otoh, is the practice of insisting that others adhere to a standard which you yourself don't maintain.



When one does a whatabout, one likely believes themselves to be elucidating a hypocrisy, but it doesn't always work like that.

So for example, if I said "Trump shouldn't be caging children", and someone else said "well Obama caged children", that's a whatabout because it doesn't address the problem of Trump doing it. The retort would only elucidate my hypocrisy if I said something like "I have no problems with any of Obama's policies, but I don't like that Trump caged children".

It was the opposite. First we talked about aoc. Then Vaya said "what about Trump". Then I acknowledged that Vaya has a point.

I still don't understand your argument. Is it basically because Trump attacked Syria that he isn't that different from neocons?