• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Isn't "lesser two evils" just semantics?

Isn't "lesser two evils" just semantics?

  • Total voters
    24
Jesse Booth said:
And even looking at it from that angle, I can't decide which would be more destructive, for various reasons that you've surely read dozens of times already. After about a month of trying to figure out which candidate was less awful earlier in the year, I simply gave up. The amount of havoc I think these two will wreak is simply too close together to differentiate between them.
Click to expand...

As I just said in another thread...

I wanted Bernie because I believe he had energetic and impassioned ideas moving forward, and based on his forty-year record I believe he would have tried to implement them in a sensible way. But I didn't get Bernie (sorry, spoiler alert). So now my choice is down to "BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND!!!" versus "Hey, about we don't burn it all to the ground?"

I chose the latter.

It should be disturbing to anybody paying attention, completely regardless of Trump's personality problems, his sex crimes and his intent on catering solely to white racists, that he wanted to change all our economic, domestic and international policies, but not once in the entire year even attempted to formulate a strategy for how to do so.
 
radcen said:
Presuming one is looking at it from the two major parties only as having a legitimate shot at winning, and not including third-party and/or independent options.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the way you have to look at it.

The last time a third party candidate won electoral votes was George Wallace taking 45 back in 1968, before that Strom Thurmond won 39 in 1948, and Robert La Follette won 13 electoral votes in 1924.

The most successful third party bid in history was Theodore Roosevelt running as a Bull Moose in 1912 and taking 88 electoral votes.

At no point since our modern two parties came in to being has a third party candidate even come close to winning the election.

So if we're talking about a third party candidate having a legitimate shot, no, no third party candidate has anything even approaching a legitimate shot at winning the presidency.

So while calling it a contest between "the lesser of two evils" may be a bit of semantics, in a very real sense it's also true.

A third party candidate might serve as a "spoiler", siphoning votes away from one or the other major party candidates, which could skew the results in favor of the other.

Ross Perot did win a lot of votes (~19% of the popular vote) in 1992 running as an independent candidate, but the consensus seems to be that he took votes from both Clinton and Bush 41 equally and didn't really effect the outcome of the election.

But I don't see anyone in this race capable of either winning or spoiling the election.

No matter how you slice it either Clinton or Trump are going to win.

Period.

So you either really support one, or you choose between the lesser of two evils, or you vote your conscience (assuming one of the third party or independent candidates actually appeals to you) and congratulate yourself for doing your civic duty knowing full well that your vote had no effect at all on the outcome of the race.

For the record, I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and congratulated myself for doing my civic duty knowing full well that my vote had no effect at all on the outcome of the race.

In that instance I refused to cast a vote for what I considered to be six evils in one hand and a half dozen in the other.
 
Cardinal said:
So you're demoralized then. That's not unfathomable, but it doesn't change the fact that whether you like it or not one of these two highly fallible human beings is going to be President, and as a responsible voter it's up to you to decide which one will be better for the country's stability. If the only way you can intellectually approach the choice is by which candidate is less destructive than the other, so be it.
Click to expand...

Well, said.
And should more Americans realize that's their only course, they need vote. When voters stay home from the polls, you get really, really bad results based on a minority of Americans
 
Cardinal said:
As I just said in another thread...

I wanted Bernie because I believe he had energetic and impassioned ideas moving forward, and based on his forty-year record I believe he would have tried to implement them in a sensible way. But I didn't get Bernie (sorry, spoiler alert). So now my choice is down to "BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND!!!" versus "Hey, about we don't burn it all to the ground?"

I chose the latter.

It should be disturbing to anybody paying attention, completely regardless of Trump's personality problems, his sex crimes and his intent on catering solely to white racists, that he wanted to change all our economic, domestic and international policies, but not once in the entire year even attempted to formulate a strategy for how to do so.
Click to expand...


Another good one.

What disturbs me the most is these decisions are based on minimal facts, and the ones making the decisions have no idea what either has said they will do. This election is being run on personality and **** slinging.
I read the other day that less than 3% of those intending to vote is fully aware of the platforms of either
 
Fearandloathing said:
Another good one.

What disturbs me the most is these decisions are based on minimal facts, and the ones making the decisions have no idea what either has said they will do. This election is being run on personality and **** slinging.
I read the other day that less than 3% of those intending to vote is fully aware of the platforms of either
Click to expand...

Trump's sales strategy is quite clear: "You don't sell products, benefits or solutions -- you sell feelings." This is evident in that the only cogent policy a Trump supporter can name is "build a wall." That's it.

FWIW, Clinton's policy is actually quite cogent: "Stay the current path." That doesn't have to inspire you, you don't have to agree with it and you don't have to like it, but that is very much Clinton's platform. I can't say it especially inspires me, but compared to Trump's "Destroy everything including the fundamental underpinnings of democracy" platform, I do find it preferable.
 
Cardinal said:
Trump's sales strategy is quite clear: "You don't sell products, benefits or solutions -- you sell feelings." This is evident in that the only cogent policy a Trump supporter can name is "build a wall." That's it.

FWIW, Clinton's policy is actually quite cogent: "Stay the current path." That doesn't have to inspire you, you don't have to agree with it and you don't have to like it, but that is very much Clinton's platform. I can't say it especially inspires me, but compared to Trump's "Destroy everything including the fundamental underpinnings of democracy" platform, I do find it preferable.
Click to expand...


My concern is Trump's personality. I don't think he realized how much he would be exposed in a presidential campaign. What has been exposed is just how much he is "me" centered, thin skin and over-reacts to the slightest on insults. He's also an idiot. His latest is he's going to fix the Internet, he will meet with Bill Gates "A great guy, tremendous guy" who will help him close if down, restricting users.

That's a very stupid man
 
Cardinal said:
Trump's sales strategy is quite clear: "You don't sell products, benefits or solutions -- you sell feelings." This is evident in that the only cogent policy a Trump supporter can name is "build a wall." That's it.

FWIW, Clinton's policy is actually quite cogent: "Stay the current path." That doesn't have to inspire you, you don't have to agree with it and you don't have to like it, but that is very much Clinton's platform. I can't say it especially inspires me, but compared to Trump's "Destroy everything including the fundamental underpinnings of democracy" platform, I do find it preferable.
Click to expand...


The Vancouver Sun ran a special on Trump's businesses, The local tower under construction is being protested, and customers who have signed are backing out. The article claimed the same was happening elsewhere, focusing on the new hotel in DC. They opened with less than 40% occupancy despite having cut rates nearly in half.

Several of his partner companies [he leases his name, no more...he's never "built" a thing] are removing the name Trump and the question has been raised here. Vancouverites I suspect will be very hard core
 
radcen said:
It's common to hear people decry the "lesser of two evils". Isn't "lesser two evils" just semantics? Isn't "lesser of two evils" still the "best" possible option?

Presuming one is looking at it from the two major parties only as having a legitimate shot at winning, and not including third-party and/or independent options.
Click to expand...

The 2 parties are funded by the rich and powerful. Both parties do the biding of the rich and powerful. The choice of the lesser of 2 evils is really an illusion of choice. No matter who is elected president they win. No matter who is elected to congress they win. No matter who their puppets appoint to the supreme court they win. All the major banks I looked at all donate 50/50 to both parties. There is only one reason to donate to both parties. So no matter who is elected they own them. Even the major companies that appear to support 1 party do not. While the CEO and board may support the republican party the workers and union support the democratic party. No matter who wins the company supported both parties. No matter who wins the company will get favorable legislation because they own both parties.

The only one who loses is the average middle class worker. We pay the brunt of the taxes. We only get enough from government to keep us from uniting and taking back our government. They use their media to make sure we are split roughly 50\50 allowing them to divide and rule. The poor are kept dependent on government and will never see the American Dream. They vote according to the media propaganda. Just look at all the good Obama did for the poor. Nothing. There are more people today dependent on government than ever before. The middle class and upper middle class is shrinking as jobs are shipped elsewhere or slave labor is brought in to do the work.

I am at the end of my life and will not have to live the life our children have been left. Unimaginable debt, global warming, pollution, dwindling resources, and the loss of the livable wage. What a legacy we have left them.
 
Two choices for food:

Hillary Clinton, a plate of asparagus covered in rancid butter.

Donald Trump, a poisonous mushroom covered in bleach.

They're both lousy choices, but if you can't figure out which is better you're just dumb.
 
radcen said:
It's common to hear people decry the "lesser of two evils". Isn't "lesser two evils" just semantics? Isn't "lesser of two evils" still the "best" possible option?

Presuming one is looking at it from the two major parties only as having a legitimate shot at winning, and not including third-party and/or independent options.
Click to expand...

Lesser of two evils implies they are BOTH bad. Best possible option doesn't imply that at all.
 
MaggieD said:
Lesser of two evils implies they are BOTH bad. Best possible option doesn't imply that at all.
Click to expand...

BOTH ARE bad.

These two represent the de-evolution of American politics.

The question then becomes which will do less damage...and I here Trump attacking Muslims, I hear Trump talking about "pre-emptive" nuclear war, I hear him lying every three minutes and I see his so easily bruised ego. I hear boasting of him grabbing women's genitals, I hear his own words attacking America's allies.....

And I say he is the most dangerous and stupid candidate ever to run for president.

That's the lesser of two evils.
 
Fearandloathing said:
BOTH ARE bad.

These two represent the de-evolution of American politics.

The question then becomes which will do less damage...and I here Trump attacking Muslims, I hear Trump talking about "pre-emptive" nuclear war, I hear him lying every three minutes and I see his so easily bruised ego. I hear boasting of him grabbing women's genitals, I hear his own words attacking America's allies.....

And I say he is the most dangerous and stupid candidate ever to run for president.

That's the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

And I didn't realize the OP was about Trump and Clinton.
 
Anagram said:
It is the best possible option, but I don't think it's just semantics. It gives the impression you believe that both options are net negatives. Whether or not one should vote for a net negative, even if they're the only ones with a chance to win is a legitimate discussion.
Click to expand...
I think both main party options are net negatives
 
Deuce said:
Two choices for food:

Hillary Clinton, a plate of asparagus covered in rancid butter.

Donald Trump, a poisonous mushroom covered in bleach.

They're both lousy choices, but if you can't figure out which is better you're just dumb.
Click to expand...
Analogy falls apart for me, because I actually like asparagus, although not with rancid butter.
 
Sometimes, bad decisions happen. Even on the national level.
 
radcen said:
It's common to hear people decry the "lesser of two evils". Isn't "lesser two evils" just semantics? Isn't "lesser of two evils" still the "best" possible option?

Presuming one is looking at it from the two major parties only as having a legitimate shot at winning, and not including third-party and/or independent options.
Click to expand...


Legit condemnation.It basically means that you think both candidates are a piece of **** and that one of those candidates is less of a piece of **** than the other candidate.
 
radcen said:
It's common to hear people decry the "lesser of two evils". Isn't "lesser two evils" just semantics? Isn't "lesser of two evils" still the "best" possible option?

Presuming one is looking at it from the two major parties only as having a legitimate shot at winning, and not including third-party and/or independent options.
Click to expand...

If you value your democratic right, and vote; then in a two candidate race it is perfectly logical that you may detest both and vote for the one you detest, the least. How is this debatable?
 
jamesrage said:
Legit condemnation.It basically means that you think both candidates are a piece of **** and that one of those candidates is less of a piece of **** than the other candidate.
Click to expand...

It really is that simple :)

I'm not sure how this has become a debate.
 
gunner said:
If you value your democratic right, and vote; then in a two candidate race it is perfectly logical that you may detest both and vote for the one you detest, the least. How is this debatable?
Click to expand...

Or you can vote for a Third Party candidate, or skip over the Presidential choices and simply vote on the other issues, or you can just throw up your hands and blow off the entire idea as pointless and move on with life. Want to vote for a turd that you thinks smells a little better than the other turd that is your business, but just so ya know you are still voting for a turd.
 
radcen said:
It's common to hear people decry the "lesser of two evils". Isn't "lesser two evils" just semantics? Isn't "lesser of two evils" still the "best" possible option?

Presuming one is looking at it from the two major parties only as having a legitimate shot at winning, and not including third-party and/or independent options.
Click to expand...

It's like the greater of two benefits. Just being precise in ranking the qualities.
 
Cardinal said:
So you're demoralized then. That's not unfathomable, but it doesn't change the fact that whether you like it or not one of these two highly fallible human beings is going to be President, and as a responsible voter it's up to you to decide which one will be better for the country's stability. If the only way you can intellectually approach the choice is by which candidate is less destructive than the other, so be it.
Click to expand...

Actually the fact of the matter is for most voters the State will decide which is better for the Nation and our vote is simply to make us feel as if we are part of the process. As such why should someone connect themselves to a candidate you would not vote for as Dog Catcher no less the highest office in the land. So if your candidate wins we can blame you for putting the A-hole in office, we did not do it, You did and hence you are to blame, see how easy that works.
 
soot said:
For the record, I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and congratulated myself for doing my civic duty knowing full well that my vote had no effect at all on the outcome of the race.
Click to expand...
And your vote won't matter in this race, unless of course, your state is the deciding state under the Electoral College and the candidate wins by a single vote in your state.

Here's how your vote CAN matter. If none of the candidates wins 270 electoral votes, then the president is decided by the House of Representatives among the THREE candidates that receive the most electoral votes. If Gary Johnson receives any electoral votes (here's to you NM and CO!), then it's possible that the House could elect him as president since he is the least hated candidate running.

So, you want your vote to matter? Vote for Gary Johnson.
 
radcen said:
It's common to hear people decry the "lesser of two evils". Isn't "lesser two evils" just semantics? Isn't "lesser of two evils" still the "best" possible option?

Presuming one is looking at it from the two major parties only as having a legitimate shot at winning, and not including third-party and/or independent options.
Click to expand...
It's not just semantics.

If you're voting for the best candidate, you've looked at all of them and think the one you're voting for is the best.

If you're voting for the lesser of two evils, you've looked at both of the main party candidates and decided that one of them is so goddamn terrifying you'll vote for a slightly less terrifying candidate to keep them out of the oval office.

But you do so knowing that lesser of two evils is still going to **** America up some more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom