We are heading towards an Idiocracy!

[Gregness]

I mean, if I'm honest I'm not voting for Hillary, either, but a large part of that is because I live in California, and if a universe exists where she doesn't win my state, that race's election isn't even remotely close anywhere else on the map. I'll be voting third party for the presidency to try and nudge them into one of those national funding thresholds I keep hearing about, and progressive choices down the ticket.

[shiney]

It's difficult when there's a billion dollar empire dedicated to pushing the entire notion that your political opponents are your country's sworn enemies. You end up with arguments like Dual Destiny there where reasonable effort toward forging a path midway between the wants and desires of an incredibly diverse country are tantamount to being one of the worst presidents in living memory.

Dual, with respect, you are entirely off base here. You have conflated the worst aspects of every politician to encompass that person's entire worth as an elected official. Making deals, however unsavory to one side or the other, are a necessity. The President serves all of us, not just the party that elected them. When all parties act in good faith, we get a good picture of the reality of a situation. If one party acts so colossally bad that you can't take anything in good faith, we end up with this situation.

Obama has bad policies, but he has good ones too. He is willing to compromise, but he gets called either an empty suit or dictator depending on who is perceived to have gotten the better of the deal. He has fought against a Congress and a media empire so recalcitrant, so uncompromising, that they have repeatedly put the full faith and credit of the united states at jeopardy because of petty personal grievances. He was accused of lying, in person, at a State of the Union. He has been called every racist epithet under the sun, and all the dog whistle terms. He faced unprecedented obstruction in every aspect of his job, even the menial mindless ones. He has faced filibuster after filibuster only to have those bills, unamended, pass unanimously.

If he is one of the worst presidents in living memory, it is because he did not have the opportunity to govern in good faith, and because of absolute idiots, people who are intentionally ignorant and proudly so, who mindlessly consume what their flavor of media presents to them.

Now we have this with Hillary, the most relentlessly investigated person of the past 30 years. I question you, what criminal charges might be levied against her that have not already? What specific areas is she untrustworthy, and not just some nebulous concept of "I don't trust her"? What evidence in her votes and actions in any recent capacity has she proven unwilling to listen or govern in good faith? Is it equalizing that she criticized Bill's accusers, so that means it cancels out Trump saying "when you're famous you can do anything, kiss the, grab them by the pussy"? Is it an equalizer that since she voted for the Iraq war, we can go ahead and ban an entire religion not just from practicing but from entering the country at all? Is it equalizing that she made speeches for wall street so his horrific mismanagement of his wealth and businesses gives him record for being one of the worst businessmen of all time?

Additionally there are hours upon hours upon hours of footage of Donald Trump saying horrific, unredeemable things. Hours. From his own mouth. Repeatedly. Passionately. International broadcasts that do not put anything out of context. The words come out of his own goddamn mouth. Advocating hatred, disgust, discrimination, xenophobia, racism, misogyny, intolerance, and above all a consistent message that says "Our country is terrible and I will make it not terrible."

Our country is terrible? If that is so, then the message Trump sends is that it is terrible because of mexicans, women, LGBTQ, muslims, atheists, black people, environmentalists, etc etc. "Make America Great Again" just means "make American 1950s sitcoms again" which ignores the very real plight of anyone who didn't live in suburbia 60 years ago.

Both sides are not even close to being comprehensibly the same, but still we have to deal daily, with hundreds and thousands of people who argue like you in bad faith that Hillary being preferential to rich assholes on Wall Street means she's as corrupt as thrice-married consistent sexual assaulter and adulterer, 6-times bankrupt serial fraudster and tax cheat Donald Trump.

Give me a fucking break, dude.

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Gregness

I mean, if I'm honest I'm not voting for Hillary, either, but a large part of that is because I live in California, and if a universe exists where she doesn't win my state, that race's election isn't even remotely close anywhere else on the map. I'll be voting third party for the presidency to try and nudge them into one of those national funding thresholds I keep hearing about, and progressive choices down the ticket.

So, I'd still go vote against Trump.

Brexit passed despite having "no chance at all", because of people assuming that everyone else was voting against it and placing rebellion votes to "send a message". Even if you are only one person, there are tons more people who share your attitude.

This same thing applies to anyone who says that voting in their state is pointless because of how blue it was.


If you are going to respond about how you need to throw away your morals to vote for Clinton, and wring your hands with false guilt over the fact that she isn't perfect and how you don't vote for anyone just because they're the "lesser of two evils" - Keep in mind that this is fallacious thinking (Specifically, the The Perfect Solution Fallacy). There is not a perfect choice available to you. That doesn't mean that one of the choices isn't MUCH better than the other, and that you should make efforts to have the better one.

Voting isn't an endorsement of someone. It's not you saying, "I think this person is great, and I love them forever." You're going into a box, and then putting a checkmark inside a different box, in order to try to secure the best possible outcome. If you refuse to try do this, because your morals tell you that it's better that Trump has a slightly increased chance of winning, as long as you can feel good that you don't "dirty" yourself by voting for Hillary's imperfections, well, that says a lot of things about you.

[Kim]

congrats rpg you just wrote every single article about how millennials are dooming us to president trump thats come out during the election

its amazing how you were able to do that in a single post

the thing is the us election system is fucked and there's mass disenfranchisement going on and just in general all sorts of fucked up shit

so if people see that and feel like their vote doesnt matter, thats because in a lot of places and in a lot of ways it doesnt

they are accurately assessing the system

and if they look at hillary, who is economically conservative and liable to throw groups under the bus if it suits her and who dropped what left wing overtures she made during the primary as soon as she won, and say "i cant vote for this person" that is not a personal moral failing of theirs and they arent dooming us to president trump, because if president trump happens its gonna be the fault of people who voted for trump and the mass media networks that enabled his campaign

speaking as someone who contemplates suicide more and more the closer we get to election day, i wish i could vote, but i still wouldnt be voting for hillary, because a vote for hillary wouldnt matter in my state. i would be voting for things im slightly more likely to have an affect on or to encourage third party growth. thats strategic voting. and its this that has stuff going on like people who support third parties voting hillary in their swing states in exchange for people in states like mine voting for third parties.

and yet i still dont blame the people who cant bring themselves to vote for their decision or blame them for the result. make the presidential election a popular vote, make election day a national holiday, make voting mandatory, and make it a hell of a lot more accessible than it is right now and then we'll talk

this isn't comparable to brexit cuz our system is completely different, and you know what brexit had RECORD HIGH VOTING TURNOUT and still turned out how it did so find another scapegoat

[Dual Destiny]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

I mean, you could choose not to vote for Trump...

So, if I'm not voting for Hillary, I'm voting for Trump? Nice black and white fallacy. Sorry, voting third party. It's just the fact of knowing they're not going to win.

Originally Posted by Kim

Idiocracy is a bad movie that basically advocates eugenics.

Anyway if you think Obama's why so many people are angry at cops for being racist murderers, you're way off course.

Too bad the movie is so accurate.

He made a speech about something he shouldn't have and calling everyone who reacted 'racist', says more about you than it does about them. I can also tell you why.

It's not an epidemic. Something that isn't nearly as bad as people are conflating it to be. Systemic? No. The statistics fit neither the academic interpretation or dictionary definition of the word. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove it doesn't, it's on everyone else who claims it does. (This is not the 'why' I mentioned above.)

Originally Posted by pochercoaster

Let's just vote for the guy who called an entire nation of people rapists, duh

Honestly, though, I prefer my presidents to be the kind of people who know how to work in an office with fully clothed women

Again, black and white argument, "If you're not for one, you're for the other." Third Party Voter here.

Originally Posted by shiney

It's difficult when there's a billion dollar empire dedicated to pushing the entire notion that your political opponents are your country's sworn enemies. You end up with arguments like Dual Destiny there where reasonable effort toward forging a path midway between the wants and desires of an incredibly diverse country are tantamount to being one of the worst presidents in living memory.

And so you call me out and forge me to be a bad guy. Not a very good start. If you're going to start an argument with someone, please don't use the same tactics as politicians. I said they're both crappy and crooked people. Who's worse is up for interpretation.

While making concessions is part of the job, thinking that the middle ground is always the best solution is a logical fallacy. You have to take the good with the bad though, right? You end up with 'many' problems.

One of which is the ever present, "You can't satisfy everyone." As each side complains that the other is getting more than the other. Another problem is, "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile." Concede a certain hot issue to one group and they'll expect even more out of it. Which admittedly, is part of the first one.

So in conclusion, trying to achieve 'perfect' balance is folly and all you can get is 'close enough'.

The Presidency is the most extreme form of Juggling. So in that case, you want someone you know isn't going to drop the balls when they're passed.

Dual, with respect, you are entirely off base here. You have conflated the worst aspects of every politician to encompass that person's entire worth as an elected official. Making deals, however unsavory to one side or the other, are a necessity. The President serves all of us, not just the party that elected them. When all parties act in good faith, we get a good picture of the reality of a situation. If one party acts so colossally bad that you can't take anything in good faith, we end up with this situation.

No, it's that we're in this situation because we only have two parties and it only takes one screwing up to put us in this situation.

Obama has bad policies, but he has good ones too. He is willing to compromise, but he gets called either an empty suit or dictator depending on who is perceived to have gotten the better of the deal. He has fought against a Congress and a media empire so recalcitrant, so uncompromising, that they have repeatedly put the full faith and credit of the united states at jeopardy because of petty personal grievances. He was accused of lying, in person, at a State of the Union. He has been called every racist epithet under the sun, and all the dog whistle terms. He faced unprecedented obstruction in every aspect of his job, even the menial mindless ones. He has faced filibuster after filibuster only to have those bills, unamended, pass unanimously.

If he is one of the worst presidents in living memory, it is because he did not have the opportunity to govern in good faith, and because of absolute idiots, people who are intentionally ignorant and proudly so, who mindlessly consume what their flavor of media presents to them.

My 'biggest' grievances with Obama weren't his policies, they were things he actually did. The one I already mentioned to Kim and some of his executive orders.

Additionally there are hours upon hours upon hours of footage of Donald Trump saying horrific, unredeemable things. Hours. From his own mouth. Repeatedly. Passionately. International broadcasts that do not put anything out of context. The words come out of his own goddamn mouth. Advocating hatred, disgust, discrimination, xenophobia, racism, misogyny, intolerance, and above all a consistent message that says "Our country is terrible and I will make it not terrible."

Our country is terrible? If that is so, then the message Trump sends is that it is terrible because of mexicans, women, LGBTQ, muslims, atheists, black people, environmentalists, etc etc. "Make America Great Again" just means "make American 1950s sitcoms again" which ignores the very real plight of anyone who didn't live in suburbia 60 years ago.

Both sides are not even close to being comprehensibly the same, but still we have to deal daily, with hundreds and thousands of people who argue like you in bad faith that Hillary being preferential to rich assholes on Wall Street means she's as corrupt as thrice-married consistent sexual assaulter and adulterer, 6-times bankrupt serial fraudster and tax cheat Donald Trump.

Give me a fucking break, dude.

Our country is terrible, that's the problem. Just not in the same way he thinks it is, because he's on the opposite side of the same reactionary coin. All instinct, no thought. At least with Trump, a good 90% of his flaws are all right there in the open. Though honesty really isn't always the best policy.

Again, the same black and white argument of, "If aren't with us, you're against us." Just stop it. I don't like either one of them. They're both corrupt treasonous goons who are only out for themselves. Demographic pandering is just more reaction/instinct garbage.

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

So, I'd still go vote against Trump.

Brexit passed despite having "no chance at all", because of people assuming that everyone else was voting against it and placing rebellion votes to "send a message". Even if you are only one person, there are tons more people who share your attitude.

This same thing applies to anyone who says that voting in their state is pointless because of how blue it was.


If you are going to respond about how you need to throw away your morals to vote for Clinton, and wring your hands with false guilt over the fact that she isn't perfect and how you don't vote for anyone just because they're the "lesser of two evils" - Keep in mind that this is fallacious thinking (Specifically, the The Perfect Solution Fallacy). There is not a perfect choice available to you. That doesn't mean that one of the choices isn't MUCH better than the other, and that you should make efforts to have the better one.

Voting isn't an endorsement of someone. It's not you saying, "I think this person is great, and I love them forever." You're going into a box, and then putting a checkmark inside a different box, in order to try to secure the best possible outcome. If you refuse to try do this, because your morals tell you that it's better that Trump has a slightly increased chance of winning, as long as you can feel good that you don't "dirty" yourself by voting for Hillary's imperfections, well, that says a lot of things about you.

There's also something called the Middle Ground fallacy, that I already pointed out. Just vote third party instead of voting for someone you don't like. It's that easy.

Originally Posted by Kim

congrats rpg you just wrote every single article about how millennials are dooming us to president trump thats come out during the election

its amazing how you were able to do that in a single post

the thing is the us election system is fucked and there's mass disenfranchisement going on and just in general all sorts of fucked up shit

so if people see that and feel like their vote doesnt matter, thats because in a lot of places and in a lot of ways it doesnt

they are accurately assessing the system

and if they look at hillary, who is economically conservative and liable to throw groups under the bus if it suits her and who dropped what left wing overtures she made during the primary as soon as she won, and say "i cant vote for this person" that is not a personal moral failing of theirs and they arent dooming us to president trump, because if president trump happens its gonna be the fault of people who voted for trump and the mass media networks that enabled his campaign

speaking as someone who contemplates suicide more and more the closer we get to election day, i wish i could vote, but i still wouldnt be voting for hillary, because a vote for hillary wouldnt matter in my state. i would be voting for things im slightly more likely to have an affect on or to encourage third party growth. thats strategic voting. and its this that has stuff going on like people who support third parties voting hillary in their swing states in exchange for people in states like mine voting for third parties.

and yet i still dont blame the people who cant bring themselves to vote for their decision or blame them for the result. make the presidential election a popular vote, make election day a national holiday, make voting mandatory, and make it a hell of a lot more accessible than it is right now and then we'll talk

this isn't comparable to brexit cuz our system is completely different, and you know what brexit had RECORD HIGH VOTING TURNOUT and still turned out how it did so find another scapegoat

No, it's the ill-informed and reactionaries that are ruining everything. Like you're doing right now. Also? A lesser Evil is still Evil, no matter how much you try to sugarcoat it.

[rpgdemon]

"Vote third party instead of someone you don't like"

"It's just the fact of knowing they're not going to win."

If you believe these two things simultaneously, you know that you are doing nothing by voting third party. If you know you're doing nothing by voting third party, then fucking do something instead.

Look, you can want third party to work all that you want - But the system that we have in the US is most likely to only ever support two parties, by Duverger's Law. The middle of the most dangerous election we've ever had is not the time to realize that and start throwing votes away in angry protest.

The time to get angry about it and fix it is on November 9th. Start campaigning to fix our system. If you think that making a protest vote once every four years (Or somehow think that refusing to vote will effect change that you want - If they don't want you to be enfranchised, you're doing their job for them) is going to make a difference, you're wrong, and dangerously so this year.

If (instead of fixing the two party system that we have right now) you really want a third party to subvert one of the existing parties - This ALSO isn't the way to do it. Third parties have subverted one of the two major parties in the past, but it's done from the ground up. Third parties have a much better chance of winning in local elections, state senate, et cetera. Once they begin winning seats that way, then they can start getting more traction and eventually tip the scales from one of the two big parties.

The other way to do it is to subvert one of the two parties into your vessel. We saw that happen with Sanders (Who has not been a member of the Democratic party for very long at all), who almost got there. Yes, he was hobbled every step of the way by insider politics (And some really dubious nonsense going on in the primaries), but he showed that it is possible, and he even pushed Hillary pretty far left through his campaign.

Finally, you might be thinking, "No, you're wrong and stupid, if a third party got enough traction we'd just have three parties. No replacements would happen."

Do you know what happens if neither of the two parties gets a majority of the electoral college vote (50+%)? It doesn't go to the person who has the plurality. It goes to the House of Representatives, who decide among the top 3 candidates. This means that if a handful of battleground states go to Johnson or Stein, or anyone else, it doesn't matter who won the vote - The House will ignore the people, and put in whomever they want.

You might think, "No one would be stupid enough to blindly follow their party, and ignore the voice of the people. It'd definitely go to the person who had the plurality." You've got a lot more faith in the Republican party (Who hold the house) than I do.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Dual Destiny

Too bad the movie is so accurate.

Too bad it's not. It's a fictional, marginally entertaining movie about something that is not happening. That will not happen. Making it the basis of a political argument is like trying to plan urban development around Shaun of the Dead. It has no basis. It's not "So accurate", you're just far enough up your own ass to want to chuckle smugly at others and believe the world is going to hell because there aren't enough people like you.

He made a speech about something he shouldn't have and calling everyone who reacted 'racist', says more about you than it does about them. I can also tell you why.

It's not an epidemic. Something that isn't nearly as bad as people are conflating it to be. Systemic? No. The statistics fit neither the academic interpretation or dictionary definition of the word. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove it doesn't, it's on everyone else who claims it does. (This is not the 'why' I mentioned above.)

Depends on what you want to look at. Are the police shooting black people for no reason every moment of every day? No. Are large swaths of our police operating on racially motivated policing practices that increase the chances of it happening and turn the communities those police are meant to be protecting into their enemy? Yeah. Read the Department Of Justice's investigation into Ferguson and tell me that the people of that city had no reason to believe they were being abused by their police department.

Or do what the last person I asked to do that did; backpedal and pretend that just because the people of Ferguson had a totally accurate read on how they were being treated by their police and why, doesn't mean that others across the country do.

Also, really funny that Shiney went so far and deep into "Holy shit no Hillary Clinton is not as bad as Trump by any remote measure here's why and how and just for the love of FUCK stop pretending they're even remotely the same" and it just kind of got ignored because no wait they're still both totally treasonous because I say so thanks.

---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

I have to spread some rep around before giving it to Shiney again, but if I could the message attached would probably be "You tried really hard and explained what you wanted to really well, but apparently that doesn't mean anything if the person in question just doesn't read what you said. Sorry buddy!"

That might not have fit into the message box anyway now that I think about it.

[Dual Destiny]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

"Vote third party instead of someone you don't like"

"It's just the fact of knowing they're not going to win."

If you believe these two things simultaneously, you know that you are doing nothing by voting third party. If you know you're doing nothing by voting third party, then fucking do something instead.

Look, you can want third party to work all that you want - But the system that we have in the US is most likely to only ever support two parties, by Duverger's Law. The middle of the most dangerous election we've ever had is not the time to realize that and start throwing votes away in angry protest.

The time to get angry about it and fix it is on November 9th. Start campaigning to fix our system. If you think that making a protest vote once every four years (Or somehow think that refusing to vote will effect change that you want - If they don't want you to be enfranchised, you're doing their job for them) is going to make a difference, you're wrong, and dangerously so this year.

If (instead of fixing the two party system that we have right now) you really want a third party to subvert one of the existing parties - This ALSO isn't the way to do it. Third parties have subverted one of the two major parties in the past, but it's done from the ground up. Third parties have a much better chance of winning in local elections, state senate, et cetera. Once they begin winning seats that way, then they can start getting more traction and eventually tip the scales from one of the two big parties.

The other way to do it is to subvert one of the two parties into your vessel. We saw that happen with Sanders (Who has not been a member of the Democratic party for very long at all), who almost got there. Yes, he was hobbled every step of the way by insider politics (And some really dubious nonsense going on in the primaries), but he showed that it is possible, and he even pushed Hillary pretty far left through his campaign.

Finally, you might be thinking, "No, you're wrong and stupid, if a third party got enough traction we'd just have three parties. No replacements would happen."

Do you know what happens if neither of the two parties gets a majority of the electoral college vote (50+%)? It doesn't go to the person who has the plurality. It goes to the House of Representatives, who decide among the top 3 candidates. This means that if a handful of battleground states go to Johnson or Stein, or anyone else, it doesn't matter who won the vote - The House will ignore the people, and put in whomever they want.

You might think, "No one would be stupid enough to blindly follow their party, and ignore the voice of the people. It'd definitely go to the person who had the plurality." You've got a lot more faith in the Republican party (Who hold the house) than I do.

I don't think I can disagree with you here. Though I'm not voting Dem or Rep either way as I still can't see a reason why. This is still a matter of "who's going to pay" when (x) wins.

Originally Posted by dude guy fella bro steve

Too bad it's not. It's a fictional, marginally entertaining movie about something that is not happening. That will not happen. Making it the basis of a political argument is like trying to plan urban development around Shaun of the Dead. It has no basis. It's not "So accurate", you're just far enough up your own ass to want to chuckle smugly at others and believe the world is going to hell because there aren't enough people like you.

Unless you've been living under a rock, the world is going to Hell. Not sure where you've been.

Depends on what you want to look at. Are the police shooting black people for no reason every moment of every day? No. Are large swaths of our police operating on racially motivated policing practices that increase the chances of it happening and turn the communities those police are meant to be protecting into their enemy? Yeah. Read the Department Of Justice's investigation into Ferguson and tell me that the people of that city had no reason to believe they were being abused by their police department.

Or do what the last person I asked to do that did; backpedal and pretend that just because the people of Ferguson had a totally accurate read on how they were being treated by their police and why, doesn't mean that others across the country do.

Or it could be this "fuck the police" culture thats been around since the late 70's early 80's that teaches black youth to hate the police and distrust all authority, thereby making it harder to foster good relationships with the communities. This 'no snitching' culture within them doesn't help either. Trust goes both ways. If there's a problem with one, there's a problem with the other. The police aren't the only ones with slack to pick up.

Also, really funny that Shiney went so far and deep into "Holy shit no Hillary Clinton is not as bad as Trump by any remote measure here's why and how and just for the love of FUCK stop pretending they're even remotely the same" and it just kind of got ignored because no wait they're still both totally treasonous because I say so thanks.

I believe in Legalese, it's called "Leading the Witness". In other words, leading them into giving testimony in order to incriminate themselves or ensure the guilt of the accused. In this case, it was an attempt at a gotcha. In other words, something I refuse to play into.

---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

I have to spread some rep around before giving it to Shiney again, but if I could the message attached would probably be "You tried really hard and explained what you wanted to really well, but apparently that doesn't mean anything if the person in question just doesn't read what you said. Sorry buddy!"

That might not have fit into the message box anyway now that I think about it.

"Sorry your trap didn't work Shiney"

[rpgdemon]

Okay, see, but when you say that all black people think "Fuck the police" and have a "no snitching culture" "within them" (WTF?!) you know that's hella racist, right?

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Dual Destiny

Unless you've been living under a rock, the world is going to Hell. Not sure where you've been.

Lower war, longer life expectancy, higher productivity, intelligence, worldwide presence of Civil and Political rights. Where I've been, and where you likely are, is living in a time with unprecedented access to health, wealth, recreation and relevantly to this conversation; Information. If you think things are going to hell, it's probably because you only very recently started paying enough attention to notice bad things happen. Bad things are always happening, they have happened for all human history. There's a kind of Bell Curve with suffering for our history, where our old style societies had very little, and it spiked ridiculously for a while but have been getting better. But along with that reduction in actual things wrong has come an inundation of knowledge about the things that do go wrong. Leading to a lot of people thinking the world is worse than it is, or getting worse as we go along.

That said, no matter how likely it has been, there's almost constantly been some portion of people who say the world is literally right about to end. Which, I guess has something to do with feeling themselves important enough to see the end of the world. They do things like convince a bunch of people to sell all their stuff and then sit on a mountainside for a while, and, so far, every single person who has ever said the end of the world was imminent has been pretty wrong about it.

Or it could be this "fuck the police" culture thats been around since the late 70's early 80's that teaches black youth to hate the police and distrust all authority, thereby making it harder to foster good relationships with the communities. This 'no snitching' culture within them doesn't help either. Trust goes both ways. If there's a problem with one, there's a problem with the other. The police aren't the only ones with slack to pick up.

Wow.
The seventies and eighties, huh?
Can't.
Even.
Begin.
To imagine why black people before, during and after the seventies and eighties may have been distrustful of police.
I'm sure it was for no reason. They, as a community, decided to incite violence against themselves through a conspiracy of distrust of the authorities. All so that they could one day continue to be abused.

I believe in Legalese, it's called "Leading the Witness". In other words, leading them into giving testimony in order to incriminate themselves or ensure the guilt of the accused. In this case, it was an attempt at a gotcha. In other words, something I refuse to play into.


"Sorry your trap didn't work Shiney"

I mean usually if someone challenged something I was saying in such a fundamental way I'd probably try to at least address it a little, like pointing out why my belief IS valid, but I can totally see where you're coming from. Challenges to your claims claims are definitely an insidious trap. Being asked to substantiate them must have felt incredibly insulting.

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

I'm trying to comprehend how that sentiment works minutes after reading it. Like.

"Hillary Clinton is not as bad as Trump in any reasonable way."

"Yes she is, here's several reasons why that I, as a rational adult have given thought to."

"Haha! You may have suspected that I would critically respond to these points, but instead the very fact that you have responded to my initial point IN AND OF ITSELF was a ruse! You have fallen into my cunning trap, and thus doomed yourself entirely! MWAHAHAHAHA"

I do not know much about Shiney on a personal level, but I have a reasonable level of confidence that he does not have a curling black mustache, or that if he does indeed have such a mustache, I have confidence he does not twirl it menacingly as he writes posts. Nor does he likely wear a black cape as he stalks upon rooftops, and does not in fact cunningly lay traps on the internet waiting for unsuspecting but goodly folk to stumble into them.