Michelle CatlinMichelle CatlinJul 26, 2016

You can keep your Tea: Why the Lesser of Two Evils mentality is Authoritarian, Selfish, and Narcissistic

This post is a response a post made by fellow Allthink poster James A. Lindsay in what in my personal opinion has to the worst post I have yet seen on the site. So bad that I felt a response was warranted.

For the record I have nothing against James. He's a talented writer. Don't confuse disagreements with personal grudges. Allthink is a platform dedicated to free speech, not political hegemony. So I believe discussing disagreements should be encouraged.

But let's get started with the post.

Basically James argues that we should vote for Hillary and tries to make the case by resorting to hyperbolic immature comparisons that do not constitute an argument while portraying any critic of Clinton as toddlers who want to see the US burn.

The first half of the article can't even be really considered an article, but him posting a group of tweets by novelist Chuck Wendig who tries to portray Hillary as a simple politician and Trump as a plague upon man. This is not me being hyperbolic, this is what the tweets actually say.

Which brings me to the first argument of this post, the "Lesser of two evils" point. The article is solely based on the idea that Hillary is the lesser of two evils.

But the article never provides an actual example of why Trump is worse than Hillary. It's largely just a group of tweets calling Trump a "Plague unto man" "The actual Devil" "Scorpion infested lava shit" "Fascist fuckery" while never actually providing any examples, citations or arguments. So the primary argument in this article, that Trump is worse than Clinton is not backed by any evidence. In fact there's a very strong case to be made that Hillary is far worse.

To quote the Green Party candidate Jill Stein: "So we see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing,"

And this isn't far from the truth. Let's consider the things that people hate Trump the most for:

Trump said he'll place a ban on Muslim refugees and deport countless of immigrants. Hillary actually backed deporting immigrant children and barred refugees from Honduras from entering the country, refugees who where fleeing a coup that for the record she was involved with.

Trump said he would build a border wall. Clinton has actually done so, voting for a bill that would put a 650 miles long border wall and even bragging about it during her campaign which former Democrat candidate Martin O'Malley even called her out on.

What else...Trump making racist statements? Clinton got you covered. Trump being supposedly backed by a dictatorship? Hillary is bankrolled by multiple. Trump being Islamophobic? He hasn't caused the brutal deaths of innocent Muslims via multiple unnecessary wars. Trump not a friend of free speech? Clinton has a very long record on that. Trump has been described as incompetent and unqualified? Just look how the FBI described her.

James wants to desperately portray Hillary as a progressive centrist, a simple milquetoast Democrat who is experienced and reliable. But the very opposite is true. She's an authoritarian corrupt warmonger with an extremely terrible track record as politician, clear ties to dictatorships and multinationals, riddled with scandals, who can't be trusted with classified information, and who by all means should be in prison right now.

So all the hyperbolic try-hard name calls aside. Is there even a proper argument to be had that Clinton is actually the lesser of two evils? Because unlike you I have actually provided evidence that the opposite is true.

But whether one or not is actually the lesser of two evils is hardly relevant, the point is that both are evil. Why should people have to vote for the lesser of two evils? My answer: we shouldn't.

And i'm absolutely sick and tired of the disgusting narcissistic mentality that the two party candidates somehow think they're owed votes from people they disagree with purely because they can blackmail and shame voters by pointing to the other one. It does not work that way.

"But if you don't vote for Hillary then Trump will win"

That's this terrifying thing called Democracy. If you're not liked people won't vote for you, and if you don't get enough votes you lose.

Tough shit.

You want to blame the voters for not wanting to vote for Hillary? No, blame Hillary for being such an unlikable blowhard that they're not interested in voting for her. She doesn't just owe you votes. She's meant to prove and persuade people that she earns the votes, and with the clear corruption and rigging that her campaign has committed that has clearly not worked.

When you are saying that people should take their Tea with Vinegar and vote for Hillary, you're making a statement of pure selfishness. You're saying that the views of progressives, libertarians, socialists, conservatives, ect should not be represented, that they should have to give up their own views purely to suck up to someone that they don't stand with. Not only is that extremely insulting to people's own intelligence but it is a pure narcissism.

Feel free to call people "spoiler toddlers" for daring to criticize the queen. But the reality is that your article makes you sound like the spoiled toddler. Your article is nothing more than hyperbolic jargon and immature narcissism dressed up in neat word salad without any substance in it whatsoever. You should be better than this.

But hey after the election, at least you can proudly say that you voted for Kodos.

UPDATE: I've noticed that James has responded to me, if you can call damage controlling a response. I am not going to bother responding to his response or even comment on his response for the reason that he has been nothing but disrespectful, immature, and insulting towards me ever since i dared to criticize him. I thought we'd be able to have a mature discussion regarding this issue but clearly I was proven wrong by his behavior.

12 Replies23 Likes↻ Reply
What do you think? Reply to Michelle Catlin.
ChancellorChancellorJul 27, 2016320 views
You can keep your Tea: Why the Lesser of Two Evils mentality is Authoritarian, Selfish, and Narcissistic This post is a response a post made by fellow Allthink poster James A. Lindsay in what in my personal opinion has to the worst post I have yet seen on the site. So bad that I felt a
Duverger's Law theoretically loses validity as competence of the national parties wanes, and it's pretty obvious to just about any observer that neither party is competently run. It will be an interesting test to see if the fear-mongering of both parties - the Dems following the path of James Lindsay's post; the GOP following the path of "if you don't vote for Trump, you're hosed on SCOTUS for the next 20 years", among a host of other fearsome sounding, fact lacking threats. However, both parties have nearly unlimited resources to pour into their fear-mongering, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

It's pretty obvious, that if you're a progressive or even a moderate who leans left that Jill Stein is a vastly superior candidate to Hillary Clinton. Michelle Catlin's list of failures is but a brief list; Hillary's failures at State were legion and near-constant. It's also equally obvious, that if you're a moderate, fiscal conservative or libertarian who leans right that Gary Johnson is a vastly superior candidate to Donald Trump.

However, due to the Nader Effect, such logic often gets crushed in the political game of chicken. Many left-leaning individuals dread voting for Jill Stein for fear they'll get Trump; the converse goes for Johnson for fear they'll get Hillary.

I'm hoping at least 5% - better yet 15% - on each side vote for Stein or Johnson. I suspect they'll get drowned in the tidal wave of propaganda that's yet to come from both parties and PACs.
◇ View1 Like↻ Reply
James A. LindsayJames A. LindsayJul 26, 2016250 views
You can keep your Tea: Why the Lesser of Two Evils mentality is Authoritarian, Selfish, and Narcissistic This post is a response a post made by fellow Allthink poster James A. Lindsay in what in my personal opinion has to the worst post I have yet seen on the site. So bad that I felt a
I'll respond to the headline: The lesser of two evils mentality is not authoritarian, selfish, or narcissistic. It is the unfortunate reality of a political system built upon first past the post voting with loosely defined political parties, this being a consequence of a law of political science known as Duverger's Law. You can circumvent Duverger by changing the voting system (in the US, this would require changing the Constitution, which is possible but difficult, especially with our current political environment) or you can drastically tighten the definitions of political parties and their membership. Duverger's says that FPTP nets a 2.x political party system (or, if you can handle it, y parties with y in [2,3)), where x is determined by the looseness of the parties. Ours are very loose. They allow coalitions; they allow off-membership voting, etc. Therefore, x is very small. Therefore under our current voting system, we have a 2.x, x very small, party system by default of the capacity to form political collusions and FPTP voting. (Please tell me I don't need to explain why collusions and loose party affiliation leads to this set of circumstances.)
That means we're dealing with a political reality in which we have two realistic candidates, one of whom will win with high confidence every time. In this case, those candidates are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, supposing the GOP doesn't go nuts and throw a curveball second straight-conservative candidate up there. There's nothing authoritarian about this arrangement, nor selfish, nor narcissistic any more than there is anything authoritarian, selfish, or narcissistic about gravity holding massive bodies together (if you take the analogy that the "physics" of our political reality is defined by our Constitution and the voting schema coded therein). Not liking what reality gives you can't change it unless you can change the underlying reality. Here, that's the constitution, however many fed-up individuals in the country don't align with the de facto conservative or de facto liberal party d'jour (because guess what the parties will collude around, speaking broadly - left/right bent).

All the bluster you have about Trump having not proved himself to be capable of massive political failures all follow an argument from ignorance that isn't even worth raising an eyebrow to. He's never had political office. He's never had the opportunity to generate the kind of evidence against him that you hold him up as not having against him. Never mind that every businessman that's ever taken the office has kind of sucked at being president (because politics and business aren't isomorphic endeavors by any stretch of the imagination). Never mind that he demonstrates clear authoritarian tendencies unrivaled in the entire history of serious candidates for major office in the United States (with the closest parallel literally being from Benito Mussolini). Never mind that he has demonstrably for decades demonstrated exactly the opposite temperament appropriate for a statesman. This list - which would require the research that I alluded to in my other comment - could go on for pages, maybe even enough to fill a book (as has been alleged publicly by people who actually know Trump's working demeanor up close).
Pardon me while I ignore the accusation that I have "lost all of my credibility." For the record, I will not be returning the insult.
◇ View1 Like↻ Reply
@itsthatguyagain@itsthatguyagainJul 26, 2016332 views
You can keep your Tea: Why the Lesser of Two Evils mentality is Authoritarian, Selfish, and Narcissistic This post is a response a post made by fellow Allthink poster James A. Lindsay in what in my personal opinion has to the worst post I have yet seen on the site. So bad that I felt a
Every election year a lot of ersatz, super-charged pseudo-patriotic rhetoric rises up, like morning fog off a sewer pond; I pretty much just laugh at all of it. My own view on presidents and electoral politics, is that I really don't give a rat's ass who is the top dog of the federal juggernaut, so long as it leaves me the hell alone. It is a comic farce to consider anything having to do with the DC regime and who runs it as being in any way relative to some "democracy"; for my own part I look on the federal machine as a lawless occupying power, an enemy regime seeking only to expand its powers by any means available.

Pseudo-left administrations achieve this with broad-swath edicts about social justice and by adding on altruistic-sounding programs replete with career bureaucrats and grant-recipient parasites to profit from them and represent federal authority totally unchecked in their local spheres; while pseudo-right ones carry off the same objectives by fomenting different fears and fabricating different threats, and expand their reach and grasp using the dialectics of "national security" and "traditional values."

Every bit of it is pure horse-shit. There is only one ideology in the federal government, and that is the ideology of careerism. By that code the ordinary people are hated and feared, and accordingly deceived and manipulated. How this is accomplished matters not a trifle to me, I don't believe any of it. Federal power is about preserving and expanding federal power, and stands for absolutely nothing else.

In that vein, much as I despise this Hilary creature and everything she pretends to stand for, much as I recognize what a two-faced, opportunistic, mediocre, coat-tailing, fake-feminist, fake-liberal, (and to borrow a term) "unlikable blowhard" of a greedy charlatan she is, she also has the advantage of being such a complete non-leader and so bottomlessly inept at anything she puts her hand to, that she may be the best bet as presidents go this time around.

She is sure to make such a train-wreck of her administration (while it lasts), that the federal machinery will be so scandal-plagued and so log-jammed by internecine squabbling that it will scarcely have any resources left over to come to my neighborhood and to my doorstep and interfere with my life, which is the one thing any part of the federal establishment is any good at, and not much else.

I don't plan to vote for her, or anyone or anything else for that matter, ever again, but my suspicion is that her "election" is an inevitability and has been engineered carefully as such for years already, and my private hope is that she gets her obsessive wish to be the First Woman President, and subsequently falls flat on her idiot face in the bargain.

As for this Trump character? His campaign is nothing but a prank and a big fix to get Hilary elected in a landslide no matter what, and I haven't taken him seriously from the start. Who could?
◇ View1 Like↻ Reply
Blake WinterBlake WinterAug 3, 2016316 views
You can keep your Tea: Why the Lesser of Two Evils mentality is Authoritarian, Selfish, and Narcissistic This post is a response a post made by fellow Allthink poster James A. Lindsay in what in my personal opinion has to the worst post I have yet seen on the site. So bad that I felt a

Spot on! James' post was horrible, but it's what I've come to expect from Hillbots.

Besides, if every person who said 'but 3rd party candidates can't win' just voted for a 3rd party candidate, one would win.

I for one plan to continue to do everything I can to prevent Hillary from becoming president, no matter what it takes.

◇ View1 Like↻ Reply
Quick Sign Up
Allthink is a community of free thinkers. It's fun and free.
(private, SPAM-free)
(use A-Z and 0-9 characters only)
(8+ characters long)