Some people say they have distrust and disdain for politicians, so should not those people be they the party of Twiddle Dee (Democrats) or the party of Twiddle Dumb (Republicans) support President Elect Trump for not being a career politician?

I generally dislike career politicians (there are exceptions). That statement in no way means that I think all non-career politicians would make good presidents. Your argument is logically invalid.

You are describing a Venn diagram with little or no overlap. Those who don’t like career politicians are quite happy with the election.

But, alas, your premise, as usual is flawed. Not trusting a career politician does not breed trust in a fraud huckster demonstrated liar.

<Both> Then it is a statement that hold true that those who say they dislike career politicians are disingenuous to their own saying, they ought better to say they love career politicians but only if they like them, gutting the blanket career politician dislike. If you have the choice of a career politician, and a nonpolitician and you still want the career politician because they are a career politician, or acquiesce to that because the other person in spite of not being a politician is unpopular, and especially to those who would not support him.

@Hypocrisy_Central What? You just made absolutely no sense. Please read what I wrote.

Ummm. Look at Congress. People like who they vote for because it would be stupid to vote for a person you hate. People think they voted for the right person. They just think you voted for the wrong person. That is why the approval is so low but you elect them over and over again.

The fact that someone doesn’t like asparagus doesn’t automatically entail that they should or will like celery (even though celery is not asparagus). Celery has one quality that they like (i.e., not being asparagus), but it may still have lots of other qualities they dislike.

Similarly, the fact that someone doesn’t like career politicians doesn’t automatically entail that they should or will like Trump (even though Trump is not a career politician). He may have one quality that they like (i.e., not being a career politician), but he may still have lots of other qualities they dislike.

Just because someone doesn’t want asparagus for dinner doesn’t mean they’ll be happy with any other vegetable. Just because someone doesn’t want a career politician to be president doesn’t mean they’ll be happy with any non-career politician.

If I say I don’t like small dogs, that doesn’t mean that I will like any particular big dog. It’s possible to dislike small dogs, and many big dogs as well and yet still like some big dogs too. There is no logical contradiction in making the assertion that I don’t like small dogs, and that no, I don’t like that particular large dog either.

As I stated above, your argument is logically invalid. Validity is a technical term that means that if the premises are true the conclusion must also be true. Something that isn’t valid means that there is an error in the logic of the argument such that even if all premises are true, the conclusion could still be false.

@zenvelo But, alas, your premise, as usual is flawed. Not trusting a career politician does not breed trust in a fraud huckster demonstrated liar.
Let’s simplify this to the bottom, there are only two choices, either you back off the idea of loathing career politicians if the non-politician you do not like or distrust because you have to choose one. If you do not choose you still chose not to back the blood sucking politician even if you did not vote Jonny come lately. If there was a viable third or more option then one could still bypass voting the career politician and the Jonny come lately they can’t stand. That would be like having two, and only two vehicles to choose from to get somewhere, if you say you will not be caught dead riding or driving in anything but an American made vehicle but the only one available was a motorcycle which scares the heebie jeebies out of you, you have a choice, capitulate on your disdain for foreign made vehicles and take the what is not a motorcycle, or get over yourself and stick with American made even if it is a motorcycle you don’t care for.

@gorillapaws If I say I don’t like small dogs, that doesn’t mean that I will like any particular big dog. It’s possible to dislike small dogs, and many big dogs as well and yet still like some big dogs too.
If you loathed small dogs, all of them, but for some reason you had to have a dog, if a big dog did not have the traits of the small dog, yappy, etc. since you have to have the large dog, would you not simply embrace having to have it because the only other choice it the yappy dogs you hate.

It’s not just politicians that can be crooked corrupt and dishonest. Businessmen can be to and when it comes to politics they are likely to be hopelessly inept into the bargain.

Let’s simplify this to the bottom, there are only two choices,

Nope, you cannot do that. The world is not Manichaen, and cannot be divided as you always do into yes/no simplistic theology. Try thinking about nuance for once in your life.

If I do not like the way an auto mechanic fixed my car, that does not mean that next time I will have it repaired by a stockbroker. I will look for a better auto mechanic. Like any other profession, being a politician requires certain skills. Part of it is having a familiarity and comfort with law. Trump notwithstanding, we are still a nation of laws, and it is helpful to have in the government people with legal experience.. Congress passes laws, the Supreme Court interprets them and the president carries them out. I think that Trump is clueless regarding the Constitution and federal laws in general.

How about voting for a person you believe can make things better, regardless of being a professional politician or not?

No logic in HC’s writings at all. I like the Venn diagram comparison. Good explanation why none of what he is trying to say here holds any logic. Doubt he’ll see or understand though.

Let’s see if I can set these cookies nice and low. The mere fact someone isn’t a career politician does not make them trustworthy. Not telling blatant lies and being fact checked and found having veracity in statements one makes, makes one trustworthy. Trump does not hold up to that test.

People can find BOTH Trump and career politicians liars using the same method.

^ Exactly. That is why whether or not is a candidate a professional oe an amateur not at all important. Amateur Bob is equally as bad as professional Alice, if none of them can offer any good solutions.

No, because it does not matter that Orange Hitler is not a carreer politician. He still is a vile cunt and must be opposed.

@Hypocrisy_Central “Let’s simplify this to the bottom, there are only two choices, either you back off the idea of loathing career politicians if the non-politician you do not like or distrust because you have to choose one.”

This is not a complete sentence, so let’s see if I can reconstruct what you are trying to get at here. It looks like you are asking us to consider a thought experiment:

Imagine a situation in which there are only two choices: a career politician and a newcomer who has never held political office. These are the only two people running, so anyone who votes has to vote for one of these candidates.

I’m not exactly sure what you were trying to get at with this sentence: “If you do not choose you still chose not to back the blood sucking politician even if you did not vote Jonny come lately.” I interpreted it as meaning that you aren’t asking us to imagine a situation in which we are required to vote. So we can avoid both candidates, but only by not voting at all (and thus choosing to support neither candidate).

But you are clearly asking about people who did choose to vote despite disliking both candidates, saying that anyone who chooses the career politician must “back off the idea of loathing career politicians.” I don’t think this follows, though. It is possible to vote for someone you hate, and it is even rational to do so if the alternative is someone that you hate even more.

What you seem to be forgetting is that we are able to rank our preferences. Suppose I am stuck on an island and won’t be rescued for a week. There is plenty of food—enough to last me a whole month—but I don’t like any of it. However, I dislike the prospect of dying from starvation more than I dislike the prospect of eating the food. Choosing to eat the food instead of dying from starvation does not require me to back off from my dislike of the food. It simply requires me to acknowledge that I dislike something else (in this case, dying) more than I dislike the food.

Similarly, someone who votes for a career politician even though they dislike career politicians doesn’t require them to back off from their dislike of career politicians. It simply requires them to acknowledge that they dislike something else (in this case, the particular non-career politician running for office) more than they dislike the career politician. People don’t dislike career politicians just because they are career politicians, after all. They have reasons for thinking that there are problems with (some? most? all?) career politicians. So if they think that the alternative candidate has all of those problems plus other problems on top of them, then it would make perfect sense to prefer the career politician in that specific case.

Sure I give +4 support for not being a career politician, and +50 support for being anti-TPP, and -1000 support for each evil bastard he aligns himself with, -100 for each disastrous idea/policy he considers (less impact than the evil bastards because they seem to randomly reverse themselves sometimes) and… um, it’s not coming out positive.

@Hypocrisy_Central is, once again, setting out a false dichotomy. The choice is NOT one or the other as he sets out. But does he understand that? I doubt it. He likes his life choices in simplified systems that follow no rules of logic but simply support, in twisted ways, his beliefs and self-imposed rules. It is important he can then use those self-qualified rules to judge and condescend to anyone who disagrees.

@zenvelo Nope, you cannot do that. The world is not Manichaen, and cannot be divided as you always do into yes/no simplistic theology.
This is not the world, it is US politics, but I have all decade, show me how there is truly more than two choices? There was a Green Party or Libertarian that slipped into the White House in the last century I have not heard of? The minor parties are not even placeholder in US politics; even as a bloc altogether they are lighter than vapor. If you think you actually have a choice in voting one into the White House I have land in Florida I will sell you for $15 bucks, but you can only get on it twice a day when the tide is low and you better have a good gator gun.

@LostInParadise If I do not like the way an auto mechanic fixed my car, that does not mean that next time I will have it repaired by a stockbroker.
No, you don’t, but with two people going for the same office it is not two people in DIFFERENT offices. That makes it more like two mechanics, you don’t trust women mechanics but you capitulate and use one because the other mechanic is from the Middle East and you hate him because of 9/11, or you love the woman mechanic because you want to boink her or she always give you home baked cookies when you come in, so in actuality any rhetoric about women not knowing cars is actually all hat with no cattle.

[…and it is helpful to have in the government people with legal experience.
You want to amend the Constitution to say no one can run for President unless they have a law degree or at least been a paralegal? What if someone thinks lawyers are slimy moneygrubbing whores, I guess they would have to have one leading them if that were the case.

@cazzie Doubt he’ll see or understand though.
Understand it better than you understand even half a line of scripture.

@SavoirFaire What you seem to be forgetting is that we are able to rank our preferences. Suppose I am stuck on an island and won’t be rescued for a week. There is plenty of food—enough to last me a whole month—but I don’t like any of it. However, I dislike the prospect of dying from starvation more than I dislike the prospect of eating the food. Choosing to eat the food instead of dying from starvation does not require me to back off from my dislike of the food. It simply requires me to acknowledge that I dislike something else (in this case, dying) more than I dislike the food.
How that show who sits in the White House does effects my day to day? My body will not shut down if I choose one or the other or none of them, I will still live on. When it comes to death, eating food you hate you can put aside to some degree because your body compels you to eat something.

Yes. I’m talking about logic and reasoning, not fairy tales and fantasy. You keep your superior notions of what you read into old goat herder text and I’ll stand by my notions of reason and science.

@Hypocrisy_Central “How that show who sits in the White House does effects my day to day?”

I’m going to assume you meant to ask “how does that show that who sits in the White House affects my day to day life?” If that’s what you meant to ask, then I will point out that your question is a non sequitur. At no point have you indicated that your question is about day to day life, and introducing the topic now is nothing more than a red herring fallacy. As it happens, I do think that the president affects our day to day lives, even if the influence is not always obvious. But that has nothing to do with the original question (which was about the consistency of people’s voting patterns with their stated preferences). Asking how an analogy gives an response to a question it wasn’t even intended to answer makes no sense.

“My body will not shut down if I choose one or the other or none of them, I will still live on.”

Irrelevant. It was an analogy to help you understand a simple fact: people can rank their preferences, and they aren’t hypocrites for acting against one of their preferences if doing so prevents them from violating a more deeply held preference. Failing to recognize this fact about preferences is the misconception behind your original question, so understanding this fact will help you understand the answer to your question.

@cazzie Yes. I’m talking about logic and reasoning, not fairy tales and fantasy.
Yet you seem to think the reasoning that an unborn human is not some invading parasite devoid of DNA both the man and the woman provided or that the whole birth design is structured to go. I have yet to see one of you…..well, any one of you come up with an explanation or truth that says the birthing process is unnatural or not the way it is supposed to be, anything other than that is the fairy tale.

@SavoirFaire If that’s what you meant to ask, then I will point out that your question is a non sequitur. At no point have you indicated that your question is about day to day life, and introducing the topic now is nothing more than a red herring fallacy.
Me? It was others who went there first. The question was quite straight forward, if you hate career politicians and you have an alternate choice, why not the support the alternate choice you got? Starving on an island is no comparison, more of some red herring fallacy to me, because no one would suffer anything detrimental not voting. The body needs food and water; it doesn’t need to choose a politician.

Irrelevant. It was an analogy to help you understand a simple fact..]
It was a flawed analogy, because the choice to avoid politics is not compelled on a person the same way the need for food it. If I HAD to choose one or the other because death was the outcome for not choosing, then it might work.

@Hypocrisy_Central you come up with a way for a fetus to grow in someone else’s body that is a willing host, and you’ve solved the problem. Meanwhile, choices will be made, legally. There are loads of things that are natural and just as it should be that we treat because they are unwanted. We fix our water so it doesn’t kill us. We use antiboitics to kill those perfect little bacteria that would kill us, quite naturally. We inoculate ourselves for diseases that live quite naturally and as they should be, so we don’t get them and die or be inconvenienced by them. If you would like to volunteer to be host to malaria, polio, measles, anthrax, botulism etc. I won’t fight your choice to keep them and not seek medical treatment to have them removed from your system.

(also, your book says that the baby isn’t actually alive until it takes it’s first breath outside of the mother. You should read it closer. Less time here, more time reading that book to claim to live by. which you don’t)

^^ […you come up with a way for a fetus to grow in someone else’s body that is a willing host, and you’ve solved the problem. Meanwhile, choices will be made, legally.
Either you did not understand the question or flat ignored it, in a same spirit of duck, dodge, and hide. Legal aspect has no baring, not one iota. Are unborn babies (developing humans) design, structured, whatever spin you want to call it, to develop in the human female womb until such time it is birth into the world? That is about biology, it has been around long before laws were, so what the law says about it doesn’t change a thing, just in the minds of the selfish people wanting to use it to sooth their conscience.

We fix our water so it doesn’t kill us.
You need to fix rain water? Water only needs to be treated when it is contaminated by some outside foreign matter. Are you trying to make the case that the human is some foreign outside matter that was not designed to grow there?

We use antiboitics to kill those perfect little bacteria that would kill us, quite naturally.
Do all bacteria kill us? The only time I have known that to happen is when it goes unchecked by the natural mechanism of the body that keeps then at bay, again, the bacteria seeks to take over the baby and never leave. The baby doesn’t hang around until it kills the woman (let’s not be stupid and try to use unnatural anomalies as regular) it is its separate person and will leave the female’s body at the appointed time.

Better go get some friends, you have a clip full of duds, you best search for some live ammo.

I was weak. *looks shamefully at her feet…...

It’s ok my child. We all have our moments of weakness. Say 25 Hell Mary’s and perform 3 acts of contradiction as penance.

Can I just eat some chocolate and drink red wine this weekend?

Hmmm. Well I can see someone isn’t taking their eternal salvation seriously.

*looks around the room suspiciously….. Who, me? (I think that should be written on my grave marker)

@cazzie Can I just eat some chocolate and drink red wine this weekend?

Communion for the true believers?

@zenvelo I like to think so. If it really was the body of the saviour, wouldn’t it taste heavenly, like chocolate and not a dry stick-to-the-roof-of-your-mouth wafer?

Chocolate would be an appropriate color for the savior, since she is a POC (Oprah Christ?). ;-)

@Hypocrisy_Central “Me? It was others who went there first.”

Irrelevant. Our discussion is separate and does not involve those comments. You were the one who imported them into our conversation—and for no good reason.

“The question was quite straight forward, if you hate career politicians and you have an alternate choice, why not the support the alternate choice you got?”

No, that was not your question. Perhaps it’s what you meant to ask, but it is not what you actually asked. I know it was not because I can still see what you actually wrote. You asserted that people who hate career politicians ought to support Trump, and you accused them of being two-faced/double-minded if they did not do so.

(Note: the fact that your sentences all end in question marks does not entail that you are not making assertions. So-called “negative interrogatives” are frequently used to make disguised assertions, not least because they nearly always contain presuppositions.)

“No one would suffer anything detrimental not voting. The body needs food and water; it doesn’t need to choose a politician.”

Another non sequitur, I’m afraid. That one does not need to choose a politician does not mean that failing to do so has no detrimental effects. Case in point: more than half of the US population failed to vote, and we now have a racist, misogynistic, neo-Nazi sympathizer as our President-elect (something that I think most rational people would consider detrimental).

“It was a flawed analogy, because the choice to avoid politics is not compelled on a person the same way the need for food is.”

It was not a flawed analogy. You are either deliberately ignoring the point of the analogy or else have no idea how analogies work. No comparison can be 100% analogous, after all, because otherwise you would just be comparing something to itself (which is obviously not very helpful). The point of comparison here is not whether the situations are both life and death, but whether or not they can both be made sense of in terms of ranked preferences. But since you seem intent on missing the point insofar as you can, let’s try again. I’ll use a different analogy with no life-or-death implications.

Suppose I have a friend, Jim, who throws a party every year (or every four years if you really need the analogy to be more exact). I like going to this party because it’s usually my only chance to see my friend Sally, who lives far away from me and doesn’t visit very often. Unfortunately, Jim also likes to invite Frank. I really don’t like Frank, but I put up with him.

Then one year, Jim tells me he’s thinking of inviting Paul instead. Paul and Frank refuse to be in the same place together, so he can only invite one. Jim knows that I don’t like Frank, so he asks me what I think about inviting Paul instead. The problem is, Paul is even worse than Frank. So I tell Jim that I think he should invite Frank instead of Paul.

Now, if Jim said to me, “Wait a second, you’ve been complaining about Frank for years! Shouldn’t you be happy for me to invite Paul instead?” he would clearly be misunderstanding my preferences. My top preference is for Jim to invite neither Frank nor Paul. But I would rather he invite Frank than invite Paul even though my top preference is for neither of them to be invited.

So if my top preference is out of the running (there’s no way that Jim will choose to invite neither Frank nor Paul), then it is perfectly rational for me to encourage Jim to invite Frank rather than Paul. It’s true that I could just not go to the party at all, of course. Or I could leave the decision to Jim and not try to encourage him one way or the other. But the mere fact that I dislike Frank does not require me to prefer Paul to him.

@Hypocrisy Central If the guy with horns and a pitchfork did appear on the ticket against a career politician would you vote for him?

((hint: He DID!))

When a person is determined to simplify their life and see only in black and white terms, they become VERY easy to manipulate. The ‘Pro-Life’ people can’t understand that what they are fighting for will actually cause more death and suffering. Black and White. Bad vs Good. Life doesn’t work that way. We simplify things for children, but when we grow older, we are expected to learn more and understand more. Some just never can or refuse to leave their little scared selves behind to mature into rational, thinking human beings. I don’t care what god or gods you pray to, but understand that life is more complex than black and white absolutes.

^ When a person is determined to simplify their life and see only in black and white terms, they become VERY easy to manipulate.
That would leave no one here immune, had this been a thread on sexual conduct or activity some would try to cut very black and white lines where there wasn’t any and gray out lines that were blacker than tar.

The ‘Pro-Life’ people can’t understand that what they are fighting for will actually cause more death and suffering.
Imagination, the only ones affected are those dead set trying to avoid the byproduct of their own lust, not everyone who kills their unborn these days are loving married couples whose birth control fail of the condom broke, I would bet my donuts to anyone’s dollars that is a very small percentage, and will end up with a lot of dollars to go with my donuts which I will lose not one.

I don’t care what god or gods you pray to, but understand that life is more complex than black and white absolutes.
If I dared pray to a god or gods, it would be the man-made variety you follow by default and ignorance, and I would not care what he, she, or it said either, I only put trust in a God that is living and was not created in the minds or fashioned from the hands of any man or human.

Rumpy has signed on to kiss the asses of the Ultra-Republicans, the Tea Baggers. Our collective fate; worse than death!

We need a new classification for Trump. I have never seen anyone, acting politically or otherwise, tell so many lies. This is the kind of thing one might expect from Kim Jong un. Trump even lies about things that are easily checked, like the comparative number of his electoral votes and the size of his inauguration audience. He has a particular interest in lying about Obama. The birther movement, which Trump started and tried to pin on Clinton (holy cow!) and now the wiretap claim. There must be a special circle close to the center of Dante’s Inferno for the likes of Trump.