|
Post by majorminor on Nov 3, 2020 10:26:33 GMT -5
Somebody liked them, and those somebodies were apparently in the majority. It's steadily gotten worse through the last several election cycles but what I see is a majority of the people voting against someone rather than for someone. YMMV and all that.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 3, 2020 11:02:53 GMT -5
I have to express sadness and amusement ("sadment"?) at people who look at the candidates and refer to them as "stunningly, bafflingly, historically, impossibly bad." As if the parties are required to give you a candidate you agree with 100 percent of the time. That's the straw man fallacy, right there. What do we have: One nominee has a multi decade history of flagrantly racist statements, limitless on-video examples of ultra-creepy, pervy behavior toward women and girls, is 78 years old and in obvious mental decline, etc, etc, etc. The other nominee is Donald F-ing Trump. Here's the prism I use to analyze this: Would either party, historically, have accepted the defects in their own candidate, were it not for the defects in the other's? Not on your life. Put another way, each party is forced to prostitute themselves and compromise (which is to say turn a blind eye) to manifest infirmities in their candidate they would never accept under any other circumstances. I agree with you that those nominees won their respective nominations, and there in lies my point, which you might say goes way deeper than any political maneuvering. There is something going on, culturally, socially, that lead to these two "stunningly, bafflingly, historically, impossibly bad" candidates being on the ballot. We ignore that (and pretend this is all business as usual) at our peril. That's the ad hominem fallacy, right there.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 3, 2020 11:49:08 GMT -5
I agree with you that those nominees won their respective nominations, and there in lies my point, which you might say goes way deeper than any political maneuvering. There is something going on, culturally, socially, that lead to these two "stunningly, bafflingly, historically, impossibly bad" candidates being on the ballot. We ignore that (and pretend this is all business as usual) at our peril. In 2016 a whole bunch of us seemed to figure out that we've been screwed by business as usual for the last couple of decades and the DC machine needed to be broken and reset. Up until then every election in most of our lives had basically offered two identical versions of not quite exciting suckage that was proceeding to bankrupt us with no real say for us in how far it was being rammed up our rear ends. That ended in 2016 and should carry forward to real structural change this year. It's definitely not business as usual and it's about time.
|
|