"Fighting the hypothetical" just means refusing to engage in this kind of mental exercise ... which means that you never have to acknowledge your position's weaknesses.
I'm not "fighting" the hypothetical. Your hypothetical is strawman scaremongering, with the implicit assumptions that:
Trump is dangerous; and
Any vote that isn't for a viable candidate that can beat Trump is yet another match on the Trump fire.
I know it's such because I used to berate former Nader voters with exactly the same argument. So why indulge it?
And here's a question for you: If the candidate of one's choice is not chosen by one's state's electoral college delegates, and if the Supremes decide to Bush the next recount, why are you putting so much mental energy into getting one voter to reconsider the logical inconsistencies of my, er, "his" vote?
Left unconsidered (as usual): the fact that money is robbing us of a democracy.
(I do apologize if that sounds rhetorical and pat, without detail or substance. I have a lot of mental keyboard abuse accumulated that isn't so thumbnailed, which I would be interested in hearing opinions from others, including yourself. Here is not the forum, though.)
I will concede that your points on the Fourth Turning are worth discussing, but that would go on for some time. I did, in fact, record an interview as a guest to a podcast discussing Strauss & Howe's theory recently. (I'd link, but it's behind a pay wall for subscribers only.)
Nutshell summary: I very much doubt any of the candidates running now could be the next leader during the predicted coming events, based on elements of S&H's theory. If anything, the pres elected in Nov. would likely be the precursor, either immediate or penultimate, to the next Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt.
I'm not "fighting" the hypothetical. Your hypothetical is strawman scaremongering, with the implicit assumptions that:
I know it's such because I used to berate former Nader voters with exactly the same argument. So why indulge it?
And here's a question for you: If the candidate of one's choice is not chosen by one's state's electoral college delegates, and if the Supremes decide to Bush the next recount, why are you putting so much mental energy into getting one voter to reconsider the logical inconsistencies of my, er, "his" vote?
Left unconsidered (as usual): the fact that money is robbing us of a democracy.
(I do apologize if that sounds rhetorical and pat, without detail or substance. I have a lot of mental keyboard abuse accumulated that isn't so thumbnailed, which I would be interested in hearing opinions from others, including yourself. Here is not the forum, though.)
I will concede that your points on the Fourth Turning are worth discussing, but that would go on for some time. I did, in fact, record an interview as a guest to a podcast discussing Strauss & Howe's theory recently. (I'd link, but it's behind a pay wall for subscribers only.)
Nutshell summary: I very much doubt any of the candidates running now could be the next leader during the predicted coming events, based on elements of S&H's theory. If anything, the pres elected in Nov. would likely be the precursor, either immediate or penultimate, to the next Washington, Lincoln or Roosevelt.
Reply
Leave a comment