Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

You skipped a link. Logically, and mathematically, it is impossible for me to have robbed Hillary of a vote unless I was obligated to give her mine. That's not me creating an obligation. That's just a fact.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

No, it's a stupid semantic argument. Whether or not you had an "obligation," whatever you mean by that, you made a choice about how to vote and you didn't vote for her. No one was talking about obligations and duties; they have been talking about the choice you made, and how it looks more and more misguided every day.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

y'know, people hating on him for the 3rd party vote are implying we have some right to control his vote, or at least to expect him to use it a certain way. That could be read as we are setting an obligation.

The better approach is to remind him of the assumptions he stated when telling us what his vote was going to be.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I will admit that the topic is a little tired, but then so is the Trump presidency, and yet we are still stuck with that.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Meanwhile, in the politics of grievance, apparently the Statute of Liberty is an implicit attack on the Trump Administration. My first reaction is that if they're doing it that way, they're losing. My second reaction is that losing is pretty integral to the politics of grievance, and that even when they're on top they need to be losing.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Thank you for doing this, Hank. I think it's important to remind him of those assumptions, including the assumption that Hillary was some kind of uncontrollable hawk and Trump would be less interventionist and bellicose.

But does this really need to be an either/or? Can't we do both?

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

Yeah, statute of liberty, Constitution, Bible... mention of any of them is an attack (not even implicit) on the Trump Administration.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I said that he had an obligation to vote for Hillary based upon the information that was available to him at the time. Hank and I - especially Hank - warned him that PA could go for Trump, and *unless* he wanted Trump to be president, he had an obligation (ETA - Hank didn't say this. I'm not sure if I used the word, but it was what I felt) to vote for Hillary. In PA, a vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein (or Gus Hall and Angela Davis) WAS A VOTE FOR TRUMP.

If he wanted to note his protest at the choices available for the major party nominees, I offered to vote for Gary or Jill in my deep red State of Podunk. He declined.

Again, this was based upon information available at the time. The fact that more stuff has come out since November is irrelevant. Sebby knew or should have known that he was casting his vote for a thin-skinned lying racist bully would could give two shits about the people of PA or WV. And that he held few or no ideological principles and would allow Ryan and McConnell a free hand on social policy.

I stand by my use of the word "obligation." Sebby knew (1) that PA was close and so a vote for anyone other than Hillary was a vote for Trump, and (2) that Trump is reprehensible. He knew that sometimes we don't like the choices* we are given, and he chose to punt so that he could disclaim responsibility for whoever won.

*I concede that many view Hillary as reprehensible. But if you really felt that, you still had a choice of two evils. If you think she is worse, then vote for Trump.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

You make a great case against yourself, but in your defense: ncs posted about Sebby voted without talking about obligations or duties; Sebby asked whether he had an "obligation"; and then you used the word because he had. He went there first, and you followed him.

Re: A shred of human decency would be enough
 

But let's face it, the "obligation" only applies if there is an assumption that he is a reasonable human being who does not wish ill for either himself or his neighbors. That is, that he have some modicum of either self-interest or empathy (not necessarily even both).

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

If we destroy NK's shitty infrastructure or remove their dear leader without immediately going in and setting up a government and staying there until you and I are sabotaging each other's rocking chairs, millions of North Koreans will die. It may be better for us in that we won't have angered a world full of Muslims, but dozens of millions of North Koreans will starve to death.

TM

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

You assumed it. You. Are you a coal miner in WV?

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I could not agree more. Because if there's one certain thing we will not be doing, it is engaging in post-conflict infrastructure and govt building.

I mean, we'll let US contractors run around the country and put big box soup kitchens, barracks, and a few shitty hospitals, with change orders causing a 5000% increase in construction price. And we'll hire armies of private armies for security. But actual infrastructure rebuild? And actual working govt? Not a fucking chance.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

I did not assume that. At all. From day one I laughed at Trump's immigration plan because it absurdly targeted immigrants while automation was the actually driver of domestic job loss.

Recall all those bitter arguments about buggie whips and Luddites?

I've a pretty think skin, but asserting that I trusted Trump at his word? Them's fighting words.

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 

You told us that some things would be better under Trump, specifically saying that a little protectionism would be good (and help defend against the automation boogie man).