https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcqXijVzYU

The video is from a “progressive” news outlet. Anyone accusing them of being anything to the right of the spectrum is on a different planet.

Uh, whose mental distress? ALL I did was point out that voting for the lesser evil was still voting for evil, then get annoyed when you make out that this is not the case by posting nonsequtur statements after quoting my factual statement.

My only “distress” is at your incapacity at making any formal point here.

You remember those deniers, right? They FEEL intensely about either AGW, the proponents of the theory, or the proposals to avoid the problem, and that causes them to flail about witlessly trying to find some “reason” why those they don’t agree with are WRONG.

YOU *FEEL* equally intensely about hilary voting (or even just nonvoting). And you are acting in the exact same manner they do.

Giving me the same distress at someone who can, at least theoretically, think logically, but refuses to even attempt it.

That there are options, and I gave them, BEFORE you demanded them, means that Vote Hilary is NOT the only option.

It’s the bare truth.

I couldn’t give a rat’s ass if you want to vote for Hilary because Trump is bad. I want you to acknowledge it so that you indicate some actual brainstem activity in your voting strategy.

Without that, you’re no better than Born Trumpers.

Why then did you proclaim my error when I said it??? If you did not take exception to it, why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth???

disproof of the statement “Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil”.

Who in the world ever made any attempt at arguing a disproof of that statement? (And don’t embarrass yourself by claiming it was me. Your [mis]interpretations are your own business, so don’t be making claims about something that was never written.)

Speaking of misinterpretations… Oy!

“and what is your suggested solution to avoid this thing you find so distasteful? ”

See above.

Voting. ::yawn:: That’s what I was discussing and advocating. (And you’ve been ignoring, other than to plug into some standard rant inspired by your pet peeve.) Why are you in a tizzy (beyond getting wound up about your perceived evil, whatever that may be?

as if their lack were some proof I was wrong,

Never did I write claiming that you were wrong. But I will write this: You are confused. And mildly entertaining, too (watching you spin in self-righteousness and rants about evil, which you stridently refuse to define for us).

“Vote for this crap candidate, because the other one is worse” is a damn stupid thing to do and the REASON you’re in this state today.

Then, praytell, who SHOULD we be voting for? And what is your solution to the quandry you’ve got your knickers all in a twist over when the only candidates on the ballot are those that you have a personal vendetta with over their being evil, whatever you invent that to be?

this is unhealthy and you should never get yourself in that state voluntarily.

This is getting annoying. You’re back to arguing that we should be able to vote “no candidate” or “leave the seat empty”. I keep having to point out to you that this is not an option in the U.S. election system. You degenerate into a rant in response. We’re to take you seriously then??

And that means your “ideals” lead to Trump

You, for whom the phrase, “That’s a non sequitur” is a favorite, are blasting out some nice examples of non sequiturs there.

make you believe that the other candidate is worse.

Allow me to dispel some of your confusion (or at least attempt to; you’ll likely deflect yet again): That is incorrect. The candidate himself is doing an excellent job of making (at least) 54% of the voting public in the U.S. believe that he is worse. It really doesn’t matter who runs against him; that’s not part of the judgment when assessing Trump.

as long as they convince you that the other candidate is worse.

And just as you continue to resist listening to me, I am not listening to these candidates you so readily accuse. As I am not listening to them, why is this an issue?

All we’ve gotten out of you so far as to what should be done to resolve this mental distress of yours is:

* Vote for who you think is better,
* Vote for who you prefer,
* Let others vote for you.

and the last option is unacceptably anti-American, un-patriotic, foolish, and allows people like Trump, Putin, Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein get into power.

You should be advocating that people run for office and that the populace vote, and not throw out poorly thought-out suggestions that they not vote at all.

But, by all means, rant on. I highly doubt that you’re in any sufficiently sane and mature state of mind that you’ll actually address these things and lay out a cogent argument for a solution. You seem to be satisfied only to rant. Perhaps I’m helping make you happy now by giving you more grist for your mill. Have at it, and Wow us, capitals and all.

No. Actually if you’re voting FOR someone,you’re NOT “voting the lesser of two evils”, you’re voting for someone who merely isn’t perfectly matched in your opinion.

That’s not the same as the lesser of two evils.

So remember that you CAN criticise Hilary for bad things (just like you could with Obama) and this isn’t calling her “lesser evil”. Only making your argument “Trump is WORSE!!!” is making the claim of Hilary being the lesser evil.

Aye, and that’s fine as your decision. For some, that’s not sufficient, Desertphile being one of them. Me, I’d find someone to vote FOR, or not vote at all.

However, unlike some, I’m not insisting that the ONLY MORAL CHOICE is to do as I do.

All I AM insisting on is a frank look at the truth of the situation.

Chose the least worse? Still doesn’t make it a GOOD option, just the least worst.

And this is not merely just pickyness. If you don’t acknowledge the reality, and accept that, yes, you ARE voting the “lesser evil” (unless you think Hilary IS actually good, in which case you don’t see this as the lesser evil, so the claim is moot, because you’re voting FOR Hilary, not AGAINST Trump). Because when you accept that reality, you can weigh the situation every time it comes up and, at some point in the spectrum of options, you will decide otherwise.

If you live in denial of this fact, that voting the lesser evil is still voting evil, at the very least, you will be predictable and led around by anyone amoral enough to take advantage of you.

If you decide, as you have, to vote Hilary because you hope to avoid the catastrophe, fair enough.

But others will make their own decision.

Hell, they may have voted against Shrub rather than for Obama, but have decided that Hilary is even less appealing than Obama at the same position of presidential hopeful. Or they may decide that if Reed runs DNC next time that he would be beyond the pale.

And the reason to let it be know is so that politicians would NOT see “If I can demonise my opponent, I win by default, the two best words in the English language!!!” as a winning strategy to run with.

And even if you think Hilary perfectly fine and voting FOR her, you got to admit that’s a worthwhile reason to say it.

I have some sympathy for what you are saying. Nevertheless, I’ll be voting for Hillary. The situation is just too ridiculous not to.

Next time around, if I think the country is getting locked into becoming ungovernable or completely debauched politically, I may indeed vote (or not vote) in protest. We may be coming close to that point, but I don’t think we’re quite there yet (remembering that regardless of the outcome of this election, Trump supporters will not simply be going away).

Otherwise, wrt your logic, I’d simply point out that every vote can be viewed as the lesser of two evils depending on your disposition. Logic that can’t accommodate realpolitik risks being unuseful and sterile.

I am following on,”

Only in a temporal sense. I meant logically following on.

“You still have yet to offer any suggestions of what to do about your quandry.”

Another nonsequitur.

I DO NOT HAVE TO. Failure to have a good option is not disproof of the statement “Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil”. Despite the fact I have given several already.

a) Vote for the bigger one. Stop boiling frogs.
b) Vote for the one you want instead.
c) Don’t vote.

They are ALL alternatives for

d) Vote the lesser evil.

and ALL given earlier.

“What is the meaning of “voting for evil””

The same as “voting for the lesser evil”. IF you demand a concrete example, voting Hilary rather than Trump.

“and what is your suggested solution to avoid this thing you find so distasteful? ”

See above.

“The American election system does not seem to provide you with a satisfactory set of options”

They do. See above. If you mean”suitable candidate options”, I’ve given several above again, the one Desertphile cannot avail himself of because of the current laws, and for that I’ve given a suggestion there too.

But the existence of these examples do not seem to impinge on your consciousness, so I wonder why you are demanding them as if their lack were some proof I was wrong, when they do no such thing, they’d only indicate the lack of any better option.

“How do you propose to change the U.S. system such that it will make you happy with the available outcomes?”

Point out to the lazy thinkers that “Vote for this crap candidate, because the other one is worse” is a damn stupid thing to do and the REASON you’re in this state today.

Look, smearing yourself in the excrement of hospital patients is a bad idea. But the fact that you’re already smeared in it by your own actions DOES NOT CHANGE THAT FACT. And the fact that you’re already in the state and would have to actually clean it up yourself DOES NOT make being covered in excrement the best thing available at this moment because you don’t happen to have a bar of soap with you. All I can do is point out you’re covered in it, and that this is unhealthy and you should never get yourself in that state voluntarily.

YOU think “Hilary is better than Trump”, but Trump supporters think Trump is better than Hilary. And that means your “ideals” lead to Trump leading UNLESS YOU DO AS HIS SUPPORTERS DO. Do YOU think they have anything better than “Hilary is worse” to his suitability for the job? Even Trump thinks that’s his best card.

And, as you’ve ignored, all a politician has to do to get your vote, despite their obvious inability to do the job, is to make you believe that the other candidate is worse. Which, of course, is made far far easier by you thinking there’s only two candidates.

The politician KNOWS that they haven’t an need to listen to you or do anything other than screw you over, as long as they convince you that the other candidate is worse. And it doesn’t even have to be true.

try something that actually follows on.

I am following on, but you’re dodging. Again. And not very artfully at that.

VOTING FOR B IS STILL VOTING FOR EVIL.

You still have yet to offer any suggestions of what to do about your quandry. We’re all waiting. (And you’ve yet to define evil for us, in this context.)

What is the meaning of “voting for evil”, and what is your suggested solution to avoid this thing you find so distasteful? The American election system does not seem to provide you with a satisfactory set of options (and I’ve gone to apparently wasted pains to explain that to you), so tell us: How do you propose to change the U.S. system such that it will make you happy with the available outcomes?

(And please, try to quell the capitalized rantings about evil this and evil that… Have a cup of tea, calm down, and lay out your suggestions in a normal tone.)

And since Brainstorm validates the “Vote for this horrible candidate, because the other one is WORSE”, this would be ENTIRELY CONSISTENT AND VALID to support.

Since I don’t ascribe to the frigging idiotic idea, I can tell Roman this is a really bad reason to vote Trump.