Those Lincoln Project Folks are At it Again ...

quote:

“Hi, my name is Josh and I live in North Carolina and I voted for Donald Trump — my bad, fam,” he begins, before explaining that this November will mark the first time “ever, ever” that he will vote for a Democrat. “If Joe Biden drops out and the DNC runs a tomato can, I will vote for the tomato can, because I believe the tomato can will do less harm than our current president.”

I would vote for the tomato can too but if the expiration date were before 2025 I’d take a hard look at its VP can-didate.

Tomato cans are not and have never been the issue. The issue is how much damage each candidate will do and choosing the lesser, by whatever logic an individual voter chooses. Tomato cans are not known to cause trouble or to have troubling directional aspirations.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
I would vote for the tomato can too but if the expiration date were before 2025 I’d take a hard look at its VP can-didate.

Oh, groan.

Vote Tomato. Better red than dead.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
I would vote for the tomato can too but if the expiration date were before 2025 I’d take a hard look at its VP can-didate.

The tomato can analogy is a nice silly endearing rhetorical flourish but it's a false reductio ad absurdum, in that a tomato can is not considered evil, and often voters must choose between the lesser of two evils. This is actually meaningful because people who say they'd vote for a tomato can rather than Trump might have an actually difficult decision to make if faced with an election between an avowed Marxist and Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
I would vote for the tomato can too but if the expiration date were before 2025 I’d take a hard look at its VP can-didate.

Lol!

quote:

Originally posted by Horace:
Tomato cans are not and have never been the issue. The issue is how much damage each candidate will do and choosing the lesser, by whatever logic an individual voter chooses. Tomato cans are not known to cause trouble or to have troubling directional aspirations.

Oh, most certainly. Take the last election, for example:

We had one candidate with a shady land deal (the Clintons were never charged, much less convicted while 15 others were), a kerfuffle over using a private e-mail server because the government-provided ones weren't up to the task, and being nailed for the attack in Benghazi (several other similar U.S. posts had made the same desperate pleas for support). Then there was the never-ending stream of simply false claims like pizzagate.

On the other hand, we had a candidate who has committed fraud after fraud, is an admitted sexual predator, serial adulterer, five-time draft dodger, who lied, cheated (who the hell stiffs a piano dealer???), and stole to get everything he claims to have "won". Not to mention his eternal racism--he was birther-in-chief, never rented to Black tenants unless they got a court order demanding he do so, and remember the Central Park Five ad. And if he proposed "running the country like a business" (which is stupid and foolish on its face), one only need to look at his string of bankruptcies to know the level of his business acumen (how do you bankrupt a casino in Atlantic City for God's sake?).

Clearly, a choice between the lesser of two evils.

quote:

Originally posted by Horace:
The tomato can analogy is a nice silly endearing rhetorical flourish but it's a false reductio ad absurdum, in that a tomato can is not considered evil, and often voters must choose between the lesser of two evils. This is actually meaningful because people who say they'd vote for a tomato can rather than Trump might have an actually difficult decision to make if faced with an election between an avowed Marxist and Trump.

Is there an avowed Marxist running? AOC isn't running for President, the last I saw.

Or are you attempting your own "endearing rhetorical flourish"? If so, I'd give it a C+ at best.

Anyway, I hope the Lincoln Project is buying time in the markets and on the programming that will make a difference.

During televised NASCAR races would be a good start.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by Horace:
The tomato can analogy is a nice silly endearing rhetorical flourish but it's a false reductio ad absurdum, in that a tomato can is not considered evil, and often voters must choose between the lesser of two evils. This is actually meaningful because people who say they'd vote for a tomato can rather than Trump might have an actually difficult decision to make if faced with an election between an avowed Marxist and Trump.

Is there an avowed Marxist running? AOC isn't running for President, the last I saw.

Or are you attempting your own "endearing rhetorical flourish"? If so, I'd give it a C+ at best.

A C+ isn't bad, thank you. But no, it was a thought experiment, and not an outlandish one. Certainly within the range of a slippery slope, for those prone to consider such slopes.

Well, it's a sad state the U.S. is in. Perhaps one day her voters will think of voting for the most qualified candidate who is best situated to do the most positive things for the country, her citizens, her standing in the world, and her future; not the lesser of two evils.

Also, sadly, I don't remember such an election in the U.S. That is, when there has been a hard choice between two very good candidates.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
I would vote for the tomato can too but if the expiration date were before 2025 I’d take a hard look at its VP can-didate.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
Well, it's a sad state the U.S. is in. Perhaps one day her voters will think of voting for the most qualified candidate who is best situated to do the most positive things for the country, her citizens, her standing in the world, and her future; not the lesser of two evils.

Also, sadly, I don't remember such an election in the U.S. That is, when there has been a hard choice between two very good candidates.

Well, I do though I wasn't very aware of much going on in those days. It's mostly in retrospect (now that I read quotes from the candidates) that I see both as having been sterling candidates. and honorable, highly ethical men.

I speak, of course, of the contest between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson.

And I also contemplate with astonishment and sadness how far we have fallen from the standard of discourse back then. They were both so polite and respectful of the other! Likewise, of their opposition's supporters. Who then could have dreamt of name calling the opposition at the level of a malicious, spoiled adolescent? Of ridiculing a woman candidate for taking a longer potty break than he did ("Disgusting" he exclaimed!) And I could go on (and on) with horrific then and now comparisons. And I'm sure you too could list (LONG list) of the same detestable standards - if that word even fits - set by today's electioneering.

Primarily by the Right, of course. (Reminding me unpleasantly of the similar animosity evoked and expressed in the OLD Coffee Room when Gore and Bush Sr. were up against each other. The contretemps which led to Frank's banning all of us. It was very, very ugly.

Trump and crew never had a "worthy" opposition, he wouldn't even brook the slightest criticism from within his party (such as during the intra party candidates' debates.) Veiled imputations were bantered about concerning various candidates' primary sexual characteristics!

How low we have sunk as a country when such a destructive man has been able to rise so far! But however many dirty tricks were played with the social media, gerrymandering, and exploiting the weaknesses of the Electoral College, he still DID garner enough votes to make us shudder now. How can one avoid doubting the collective intelligence of a significant portion of the electorate? Trump's "useful idiots" - the uneducated, the undereducated he proclaimed his love for.

Speaking of which, have you seen "Idiocracy"?