Post # 256
MelissainNC : MarriedToMyWork :
I am the first to admit that I am not a political expert. I have never said I am. I have said I’m a regular person with mostly liberal values, the same as both of yours – pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, etc., who voted for Obama twice.
You both like to present yourselves as somehow intellectually superior – fine. I think what I have said has been straightforward and honest and simple. And from my heart.
You should ask yourselves why someone like me would even consider voting for Trump? I am like you in many ways. A regular white woman, working, college educated, higher than middle income, middle age. I am not really a conservative. So, why would I vote for Trump?
I have answered that in this thread. Obviously many women here agree with me but are too afraid (rightly so) to speak out in fear of being evicerated by the two of you. If you’re so smart answer why I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton?
I have stated I am an Independent, which is a perfectly legitimate political stance to have in the U.S.
But it seems that only if I said I was a Democrat would you lay off your insults to my intelligence. Newsflash, ladies – a lot of people in this country, who are as equally intelligent as both of you, are not Democrats.
I will not blindly vote for Hillary Clinton due to the reasons I have given in this thread. It is HER I refuse to vote for, nothing to do with party. So, I’m stuck voting for Trump. That’s it in a nutshell.
Post # 257
Yore not “stuck with voting for Trump” just because you don’t like Clinton. You’re not required to vote. And actually, I would prefer people like you NOT vote, because it’s like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Post # 258
You say you have liberal values, yet the politicians that you consistently express support for, with the exception of Obama, are generally enemies of liberal values as liberal values are defined and understood in the context of USA politics. Plus, you have made it clear that your personal dislike of Hillary Clinton is more important to you than doing what you can to make sure that she, who is the only candidate that can plausibly win the election AND will defend liberal values even a little, succeeds. You have every right to do those things, but you also have to expect that people will be a little puzzled when you do these things while claiming to hold liberal values.
As for your attempts to paint yourself as the “victim” of ivory tower meanies (I think you’re not nearly as innocent as some other posters do because you’re skilled at dodging and coming back to this “I’m just a simple, honest, well-meaning person who doesn’t have that fancy book-learnin’ but has a lot of heart” thing–and I’d love to learn why “heart” should be as valid as “evidence” or “logic” when it comes to judging whether or not claims in a discussion on politics are any good) who won’t think you’re smart until you join up with the Democratic Party, all I have to say is that it’s not just Melissa and I who have been critical of your claims and arguments, it’s also raliel, Horseradish, BalletParker, WestCoastV, katie-didn’t, and passthepeas and others. And, like I hinted at in my earlier post on Libertarianism, I have friends and associates of all kinds of political affiliations, all of whom are very smart. The only thing they have in common, and the only thing they need to do for me to think they are smart, is that they make smart arguments.
PS. I don’t suppose you care to answer my earlier question on how you square your praise for Mike Pence (post #22 on pg. 2: “I also really like Mike Pence even though he’s so converative and I’m not a conservative, really, but he is a decent human being”) with your claimed pro-LGBTQA stance, do you?
Post # 260
Marriedtomywork: it’s ok for others to have a differing opinion! You and several others sound like elitists telling everyone what they should think, believe and vote for! Anyone who doesn’t agree is subject to being chastised and belittled. Lighten up.
Post # 261
Pointing out flaws in logic and demonstrable empirical/historical inaccuracies does not constitute chastising or belittling.
Attempting to give the strongest persuasive argument possible, which includes pointing out errors in competing arguments, does not constitute chastising or belittling.
Remaining committed to one’s position when discussing something like the 2016 USA election, a serious moment in this nation’s history and arguably a moment in which we are fighting over the nation’s soul, instead of caving to sexist expectations that women will, in the end, always be nice and conciliatory and use trite phrases like “oh let’s agree to disagree” does not constitute chastising or belittling.
I assure you that if I wanted to belittle or eviscerate someone here, it would be so many orders of magnitude more brutal than what usually gets posted in a political discussion thread, that there wouldn’t be any question about what I was doing.
As for the whole “but everyone gets to have an opinion!” claim–sure, but, to paraphrase the old quote often attributed to Moynihan, everyone does not get to have his or her own facts and rules of argumentation. Nor does the fact that something is an opinion excuse it from being analyzed or critiqued: as it turns out, some opinions are better formulated and supported than others.
Post # 263
I’m comfortable with my current manner of refutation and want to respect the WB TOS. But thanks for your kind invitation.
ETA2: I actually regret how I wrote that entire paragraph that you quoted. Any reasonable person reading that paragraph would think that I was trying to come off tough or threatening when I merely wanted to express confusion at how anyone could think that my ponderous-but-mild critiques constituted anything like evisceration. (It’s not evisceration until your interlocutor has insulted your advisor, the key figures in your research, and possibly your parents just for good measure.) I don’t want to edit it out, because that would be weak-spirited and pointless, but I want to be on record as saying that I’m at fault for writing a dumb/unclear paragraph.
Anyway, for the third time: can you explain how you are both pro-LGBTQA rights and also see Mike Pence as “a decent human being” [ETA] given the fact that Pence actively sought to make life very unpleasant for the LGBTQA citizens of his state with the RFRA and has a 10+ year history of discrimination against the LGBTQA community: http://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/
Post # 265
I think that we all suffer from being a little blinkered and inconsistent now and again.
I think that American politics could do with an overhaul as could British politics. We’re regretting Brexit by the way.
I think unless Trump cleans up his act it’s going to be Trumpexit.
Post # 266
…sooooooo.. It’s not ok for someone on this board to “belittle and chastize”… But you don’t see anything wrong when Trump belittles EVERYONE but Hetero white Christian republican males?
Post # 267
[content moderated for personal attack]
Post # 268
Would you be willing to explain the particular ways in which Hillary Clinton has betrayed you as a citizen while she was senator or Secretary of State? Also would you be willing to explain the ways she has betrayed the most vulnerable persons in our country (for example the disabled)? … I don’t believe that any accusation I have heard of her wrongdoing and possible wrongdoing outweighs all the good she has done for the U.S. while Secretary of State or that it merits electing a candidate who plays upon our fears and would take away women’s rights.
By the way, some accusations against Hillary I’m seeing here in this thread have more to do with Bill Clintons sex addiction and her wrong way of handling it (which of course is misogyny but was not reflected in his policies towards women — far from it) or with possible corrupt Democratic Party people (they exist in both parties) than they reflect on Hillary’s policies while in office!)
Post # 269
“arduously exacting…” I can live with people thinking that…better than contemptible “oh I guess that’s your opinion so we have to agree to disagree” relativism.
“imperious, instisting tone” OK, that’s fair, when I get frustrated with people who don’t argue in good faith I suppose I do get a bit haughty sounding…
“Give us, your thesaurus, and your perfectionsim, a well-earned break.” Wait. Is this woman seriously insinuating that I have to use a thesaurus when I post at WB? Now I’m actually pissed. There is bad blood between us, JenJennyJennifer. Bad blood.
( 😉 I kid, of course. There’s no hard feelings at all.)
Honestly, the way I post at WB is just kind of the way I talk/write (other than letting frustration turn into haughtiness from time to time, which doesn’t happen IRL because there I can use humor to express my frustration without having to be afraid of a TOS warning)–it’s how I sound on a day-to-day basis, talking to students, etc. It’s never occurred to me to alter that for posting at WB. It seems like it would be very, well, elitist of me to do so, because doing so would be insinuating that the people here aren’t generally as smart as the people I encounter elsewhere, which is unfair and inaccurate.
But anyway, hey did you all check that NYT story about Trump’s tax losses (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html) and isn’t anyone going to tell me how Mike Pence is “a decent human being” (that’s not going to stop amusing me for a long time)?
Post # 270
Hahaha I, for one, find your posts exhilarating, not exhausting!