When Magical Thinking Turns Deadly

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,187
14,087
136
Sure.... the doctors/scientists know about these effective drugs and are lying about it. Homeopathic is just another word for "never tested nor explained nor verified by the scientific method". My brother's best friend rejected the science for homeopathy to treat his colon cancer and paid for the mistake with his life...... HIS LIFE. The woman who sold us our last house made the same mistake with her breast cancer and died within six months.... AND DIED WITHIN SIX MONTHS.

My grandmother too. Had cervical cancer which spread to her lungs after she rejected modern science-based medicine and took homeopathic remedies instead. By the time she finally went back to her oncologist at our urging, it was too late.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
68,591
26,192
136
My brother's best friend rejected the science for homeopathy to treat his colon cancer and paid for the mistake with his life...... HIS LIFE. The woman who sold us our last house made the same mistake with her breast cancer and died within six months.... AND DIED WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
Shoulda gone with 60x.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
In Europe, you cannot even buy Aspirin or Ibu in grocery stores like elsewhere, you need to get these in a pharmacy.
Everything is highly regulated, medications in general need to undergo thorough testing.

YET..there are still doctors prescribing homeopathic medicine ("this one is good, you can take it without a problem because it's homeopathic") and pharmacies selling homeopathic medicines. Doesn't make any sense.

I THINK that some people don't even know what "homeopathic" actually means...they think it means natural ingredients or something.
Actual "homeopathic" medicine is based on an an entirely unscientific theory, you could as well sell medicine based on the birth sign of people and claim it has a benefit. I don't know why this actually still exists. I THINK also it might be a way for doctors to "prescribe something" where it's safe there is no side-effects, aka placebo. My Ex would be the prime example who'd likely take homeopathic medicine "because it's so good" for the countless of conditions she thinks she has.

The amazing thing here, it might actually work for her...lol

And rest assured, she'd likely not have a clue what homeopathy actually is.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,187
14,087
136
In Europe, you cannot even buy Aspirin or Ibu in grocery stores like elsewhere, you need to get these in a pharmacy.
Everything is highly regulated, medications in general need to undergo thorough testing.

YET..there are still doctors prescribing homeopathic medicine ("this one is good, you can take it without a problem because it's homeopathic") and pharmacies selling homeopathic medicines. Doesn't make any sense.

I THINK that some people don't even know what "homeopathic" actually means...they think it means natural ingredients or something.
Actual "homeopathic" medicine is based on an an entirely unscientific theory, you could as well send medicine based on the star sign of people and claim it has a benefit. I don't know why this actually still exists. I THINK also it might be a way for doctors to "prescribe something" where it's safe there is no side-effects, aka placebo. My Ex would be the prime example who'd likely take homeopathic medicine "because it's so good" for the countless of conditions she thinks she has.

Yes, homeopathy is a very specific type of woo. It doesn't mean "natural medicine" which is a more general term. Homeopathy refers to the practice of putting a very tiny amount of whatever ails the person (i.e. poison oak) into a vial of water and having the person drink it. If there's too much of it, it will make the condition worse. Fortunately, it's such a tiny amount that the person may as well just be consuming water.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
Yes you are of course correct, anyway it's an abstruse if not absolutely idiotic theory which has no place in our time, imo.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,107
1,260
126
In Europe, you cannot even buy Aspirin or Ibu in grocery stores like elsewhere, you need to get these in a pharmacy.
Everything is highly regulated, medications in general need to undergo thorough testing.

YET..there are still doctors prescribing homeopathic medicine ("this one is good, you can take it without a problem because it's homeopathic") and pharmacies selling homeopathic medicines. Doesn't make any sense.

I THINK that some people don't even know what "homeopathic" actually means...they think it means natural ingredients or something.
Actual "homeopathic" medicine is based on an an entirely unscientific theory, you could as well sell medicine based on the birth sign of people and claim it has a benefit. I don't know why this actually still exists. I THINK also it might be a way for doctors to "prescribe something" where it's safe there is no side-effects, aka placebo. My Ex would be the prime example who'd likely take homeopathic medicine "because it's so good" for the countless of conditions she thinks she has.

The amazing thing here, it might actually work for her...lol

And rest assured, she'd likely not have the slightest clue what homeopathy actually is.

I hear these sorts of anecdotes every so often and it still makes me frustrated. Google and the internet, in tandem with dunning-kruger, has created issues for people getting proper informed health care. People googling their perceived medical issues and drawing their own conclusions, trying to self diagnose and prescribing their own protocols is idiocy. Put down the internet and go see a physician!

People are not qualified to self diagnose. Proper diagnosis is nuanced and requires experience and resources beyond google. The same goes for treatment, essence of nightshade is no substitute for chemotherapy.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,206
6,796
136
Can't help but see the connection between this belief in homeopathy and climate change deniers.

Both of those camps don't actually have any substantial scientific arguments for their position (even the climate deniers frequently rely on inaccurate or incomplete data). It's more about what they want to be true. I don't want to go through months of chemotherapy, so I'll believe that this easier but unproven remedy works. I don't want to give up my gas guzzler SUV, so I'll pretend that its CO2 output (or the refinery that produces its fuel) doesn't contribute to global warming.

They also tend to set themselves up as false counterculture rebels, as if they're fighting the system when they're really just trying to excuse their irresponsibility. No, I'm not averse to long, expensive hospital stays, I'm fighting Big Pharma! No, I'm not afraid of necessary changes in transportation and energy, I'm fighting eeeeevil government regulation. Do the pharmaceutical and regulatory fields have their problems? Of course. But rejecting science because it isn't convenient isn't sticking it to The Man, it's just foolish.

In both cases, this reliance on gut feelings over facts can cost real lives, whether it's in a matter of months or decades. We really need a society where we not only teach science, but the importance of science. Where people rightly reject homeopathy and other voodoo science unless there's empirical evidence that it holds up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
9,409
6,133
136
Sure.... the doctors/scientists know about these effective drugs and are lying about it. Homeopathic is just another word for "never tested nor explained nor verified by the scientific method". My brother's best friend rejected the science for homeopathy to treat his colon cancer and paid for the mistake with his life...... HIS LIFE. The woman who sold us our last house made the same mistake with her breast cancer and died within six months.... AND DIED WITHIN SIX MONTHS.

Effective medication has a scientific explanation for why it is effective. Homeopathic medication just says it works and have no explanation of how or why.

Bottom line, homeopathy is an effective evolutionary method of removing those with flawed thinking from the gene pool. It is faith healing and it bears a striking resemblance to anti-vaxxers.

I don't think Homeopathy has the answer everywhere but in some places its proven it works. For example I had a cyst that I had to go for a surgeon for.

But here is the flip side.. I'm a volleyball player and I instead of surgery for a torn shoulder ligament, (volleyball injury), I used a homeopathic oil and was playing again in 2 months with almost no pain, compared to surgery taking much longer to heal.

Apples to Apples.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
connection between this belief in homeopathy and climate change deniers.

As I said, I actually firmly believe that many "normal folks" don't even know the quack-theory which is behind Homeopathy.
You can go to a pharmacy, say in Germany (haven't keep attention here in Spain), and pharmacies usually have big signs like this:

ojqsgm.jpg


Or worse, your doc prescribes you homeopathic medicine. The customer/patient does not even get so far needing to establish some sort of abstruse belief, he/she thinks this is 100% legit since it's sold alongside and like conventional medicine.

It's possible there are some numbers of "alternative people" who know what homeopathy is and use it and reject conventional medicine, but I think the average folks don't know. They take the prescription from the doc or go to the pharmacy and find something (or have the pharmacist recommend a product)...without a clue that it's essentially a big sham.

To the guy with the sports injury: How can you know it was the homeopathic ointment that helped? Maybe you could have had the same result making a DIY mixture from ointment etc. bases you can get in a pharmacy, without ANY added "magic". Or maybe the injury would have healed on its own without you doing anything.
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,704
6,479
136
I don't think Homeopathy has the answer everywhere but in some places its proven it works.
Homeopathy has not been proven to work in some places beyond being a big fat placebo.
But here is the flip side.. I'm a volleyball player and I instead of surgery for a torn shoulder ligament, (volleyball injury), I used a homeopathic oil and was playing again in 2 months with almost no pain, compared to surgery taking much longer to heal.
That's not proof that it works. It's also anecdotal - hardly a valid metric for determining the validity of a treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
II hope this is you being sarcastic. Built into them? Seriously, like if they grew up in New England they would also be anti-vaxxer? Sounds more like a notion once common that the earth is flat to me. The South, and I mean no offense, doesn't get called backward for no reason, except, of course, in the South itself.

But then, who knows, you may have a case. You often appear to be half-baked at least.

Are you telling me that CBD is just a long running gag on your part? Has everything been a lie? :sob:

I wonder how many of these anti-anti vaxxers in this thread get a flu vaccine every year and are up to date on all their vaccinations like pneumovax, prevnar 13 and other vaccines depending on age and medical history for example Zostavax (shingles vaccine)?

I don't believe people should be forced to vaccinate (barring maybe some incredible life-as-we-know-it-threatening new disease) as long as they're fine not attending public schools, and I'll admit I only vaccinate as required by my college, but many anti-vaxxers go far beyond just exercising personal choice and instead push harmful bullshit about mercury levels and autism and other crap, and they're the same people likely to try homeopathic garbage or medicinal prayer on their children when they really need a doctor.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,187
14,087
136
Can't help but see the connection between this belief in homeopathy and climate change deniers.

Both of those camps don't actually have any substantial scientific arguments for their position (even the climate deniers frequently rely on inaccurate or incomplete data). It's more about what they want to be true. I don't want to go through months of chemotherapy, so I'll believe that this easier but unproven remedy works. I don't want to give up my gas guzzler SUV, so I'll pretend that its CO2 output (or the refinery that produces its fuel) doesn't contribute to global warming.

I agree that the two are quite similar, as is the anti-vax position. It's worth pointing out that global warming denialism is almost exclusively a creature of the political right, whereas anti-vax is shown by polls to be about even between right and left. I have no polls on homeopathy, but I would guess belief in it is more common on the left. The reason this point is so salient is because people should be made consciously aware of their hypocrisy when they complain about anti-science positions on the other side. Being anti-science is irrational regardless of your overall political orientation. If one finds oneself complaining about someone else rejecting a scientific consensus, one should consider whether they do the same in another context, and re-evaluate their position.

It reminds me of some Sanders supporters who claimed, without evidence, that the primary voting was rigged, then complained that Trump claimed the general election was rigged, also without evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bshole

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,134
5,985
126
Are you telling me that CBD is just a long running gag on your part? Has everything been a lie? :sob:



I don't believe people should be forced to vaccinate (barring maybe some incredible life-as-we-know-it-threatening new disease) as long as they're fine not attending public schools, and I'll admit I only vaccinate as required by my college, but many anti-vaxxers go far beyond just exercising personal choice and instead push harmful bullshit about mercury levels and autism and other crap, and they're the same people likely to try homeopathic garbage or medicinal prayer on their children when they really need a doctor.
I have many times carefully defined what I mean by the CBD because I refer to the condition affecting modern American conservatives and only in that context, which, I try often to clarify because of just the confusion you seem here to have. Conservatives have brains with enlarged portions of the of their amygdalae and and shrunken portions of their anterior ungulates, that theoretically connect to a heightened fear response with a corresponding inability to suppress fear affecting rational decisions. In a prehistoric situation, this defect in today's world conferred evolutionary advantage because dangers were frequent enough as to generally warrant an immediate if not well thought out flight. The conservative attitude is known to be affected by such things as stress, alcohol, or constant life in dangerous conditions. I see it as a genetic trait we all have aggravated by our life conditions. It is an inferior or backward way to live in a modern world where the other may not be a family member but a critically important neighbor whose life is a benefit to you.

In southern culture you see a lot of cultural pride and pride is the outer face of internalized feelings of inferiority. I theorize a lot of it is from the moral irresponsibility of being on the side of slavery and losing a war over that. One becomes egotistical and vane to compensate for that and it can infect ones culture.

But strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a CBD. It is only defective conditionally. It is part of a survival mechanism that is ancient. It is just improperly triggered because we create imaginary fears very easily the less logically trained we grow up as children. So everything I said is consistent with the notion that people who are backward tend to pass that on to their children. Naturally not all of it takes, especially today with contact with the greater world. You can even say that it is the age of information that has caused backward cultures all over the world to explode. The writing for their insularity is written on the wall for all to see.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,134
5,985
126
It reminds me of some Sanders supporters who claimed, without evidence, that the primary voting was rigged, then complained that Trump claimed the general election was rigged, also without evidence.
Hang on there woofe. What you call rigged I call asleep in ones liberal beer, completely with out populist message and unaware via intellectual arrogance that Clinton was a sure winner. Understand that when you say these things I hear shame and denial for supporting Clinton. I don't care now. It's water under the bridge but I fucking tried my best to warn the liberals who post here, to raves of deafness for the most part. You guys are as much to blame for Trump as the idiots who voted for him, in my opinion. I find it hard to forgive and this doesn't help me much.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
That seems to be more or less how I thought you defined CBD. Does it surprise you then that people with a larger fear response (due to a heritable "defect") might also tend towards anti-vaccine sentiments, something which are built almost entirely on an unfounded fear of side-effects/government mind control? I don't particularly believe it's entirely a conservative phenomenon in this case, there are plenty of hippies that follow religious modes of thought with similar attitudes towards vaccination, but the central cause would seem to be an overly-excitable fear response.

EDIT: Interesting regarding your comment on slavery/the South...

vaccineexemptions.jpg

http://www.realclearscience.com/jou...r_conservatives_more_anti-vaccine_108905.html

The Deep South is the most anti-anti-vaccine region in the country apparently, and the least likely place for people to claim exemptions for vaccinating their children. iirc they also tend to have the highest rates of certain diseases, and there are obvious potential racial factors (e.g. a racist white guy can justify forcing his children to be vaccinated if it means keeping them other folk from spreading disease), but kinda interesting still. My Texas family is more West Texas than East Texas, so maybe that's a factor. In any case, it's clearly Whole Foods liberals (Oregon and Vermont, lol) that actually beat conservatives on this issue.
 
Last edited:

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,206
6,796
136
I don't think Homeopathy has the answer everywhere but in some places its proven it works. For example I had a cyst that I had to go for a surgeon for.

But here is the flip side.. I'm a volleyball player and I instead of surgery for a torn shoulder ligament, (volleyball injury), I used a homeopathic oil and was playing again in 2 months with almost no pain, compared to surgery taking much longer to heal.

Apples to Apples.

I won't repeat what others have said, but I will say that the oil likely didn't do as much as you think.

I broke my arm in December, in two places with ligament damage. I wore a cast for all of... two weeks. After that, it was all physiotherapy -- and I'm mostly recovered (the ligament is the only thing still healing). As my physiotherapist explained, your body can do a lot of healing on its own, whether it's bone or muscle. The biggest challenge is sometimes just reconditioning your body, whether it's diet, exercise or both.

When there were oils and gels involved, it was only briefly to relax muscles during therapy sessions. Otherwise, the only medicine that really helped was over-the-counter pain pills. I know a broken arm isn't the same, but just know that your recovery may be due to your own body.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,134
5,985
126
That seems to be more or less how I thought you defined CBD. Does it surprise you then that people with a larger fear response (due to a heritable "defect") might also tend towards anti-vaccine sentiments, something which are built almost entirely on an unfounded fear of side-effects/government mind control? I don't particularly believe it's entirely a conservative phenomenon in this case, there are plenty of hippies that follow religious modes of thought with similar attitudes towards vaccination, but the central cause would seem to be an overly-excitable fear response.
No it doesn't surprise me at all. In the case of conservatives, the fear of the government or the devil can drive them nuts. In the case of liberals it is the lack of the development of a faith in a science based risk evaluation, lack of scientific understanding and education that causes monsters to appear at the edge of the map.. The very suggestion to women that their kids may be at risk from autism will cause them to fear because many do not have the skill set to do the math. However, you can reason with liberals and get them to change their minds because there fears are about something real that can be demonstrated not to exist via scientific data that disproves it. Conservatives see threat if fact itself. When you feel worthless you also feel the world is out to get you. And it is a genetic potential of all human beings that can be turned into a defect. It is not a defect itself or a heritable defect. That suggests a misrepresentation.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
I agree that the two are quite similar, as is the anti-vax position. It's worth pointing out that global warming denialism is almost exclusively a creature of the political right, whereas anti-vax is shown by polls to be about even between right and left. I have no polls on homeopathy, but I would guess belief in it is more common on the left. The reason this point is so salient is because people should be made consciously aware of their hypocrisy when they complain about anti-science positions on the other side. Being anti-science is irrational regardless of your overall political orientation. If one finds oneself complaining about someone else rejecting a scientific consensus, one should consider whether they do the same in another context, and re-evaluate their position.

It reminds me of some Sanders supporters who claimed, without evidence, that the primary voting was rigged, then complained that Trump claimed the general election was rigged, also without evidence.

Yep you caught me out. I accept the science that the world is warming and that man made CO2 is a contributor. The problem that I am having is the contention that the harm of a warming climate will outweigh the benefits. This represents a rather large shift in my thinking in the last few decades. I once denied that the climate was changing, then I denied that man was a substantial contributor and now I am down to this last objection. I of course realize that the my initial two denials were simply bias on my part but that last one couldn't be bias could it.... lol!

In my own defense I read articles like the one below (1-2% of gpd in 100 years) and the cost of a warming climate does not look that bad.

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paratus

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,187
14,087
136
Hang on there woofe. What you call rigged I call asleep in ones liberal beer, completely with out populist message and unaware via intellectual arrogance that Clinton was a sure winner. Understand that when you say these things I hear shame and denial for supporting Clinton. I don't care now. It's water under the bridge but I fucking tried my best to warn the liberals who post here, to raves of deafness for the most part. You guys are as much to blame for Trump as the idiots who voted for him, in my opinion. I find it hard to forgive and this doesn't help me much.

Nice way to duck my basic point. Some Sanders supporters literally claimed that the primary voting was rigged, the exact same way that Trump did in regards to the general. This is nonsense, and there is no defending it. It's childish to claim that every contest which doesn't go your way was rigged. It reminds me of people who always think that every time their sports team loses, the referees must have been paid off. However, although the psychology of it is the same, the consequences are far worse. Claiming that elections are rigged undermines public faith in our democracy. If people don't think they can get a fair outcome at the ballot box, what are their alternatives? The only one I can think of is to start shooting at people, aka the "Second Amendment remedy" that we so often hear about. The allegation was not only wrong. It was irresponsible, the way a child is irresponsible, spouting off without considering consequences.

Whatever you think you can "detect" of me, I have no remorse about voting for Clinton. You can offer all the "I told you so's" you want, but the real truth is, you have no idea if Sanders would have won the general election. Polls taken during the primaries are irrelevant. They never hold up. IMO, Sanders was too far left to win in the general. He would have been painted as an extremist by the right. Also, Sanders was never character assassinated like Clinton was because during the primaries, the republicans preferred to go up against Sanders. They purportedly had a large oppo file on him that they never made public. IMO, Sanders would not have even won the popular vote, let alone the election.

If you want to assign blame, assign some to people who lied about Clinton and/or exaggerated her faults. Clinton was slandered in this election worse than any American politician in recent memory. And some of it came from a bloc of Sanders supporters. I read some of the anti-Clinton stuff you posted. It sounded like it was ripped straight from the pages of breitbart. And I read you stating that you were seriously considering voting for Trump. Concluding that Trump and Clinton were even close is utter insanity.

This was an awfully close election. I wonder what the outcome would have been if a portion of Sanders supporters hadn't convinced themselves and others of the lie that Clinton was as bad as Trump. So right back at you. Thank you for Donald Trump.

Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe Sanders would have won. It's impossible to know what would have happened in a counter-factual scenario, the way you claim to know.

An excellent summary of the garbage that some Sanders supporters bought into which was a factor in bringing us the disaster of Trump:

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,187
14,087
136
Yep you caught me out. I accept the science that the world is warming and that man made CO2 is a contributor. The problem that I am having is the contention that the harm of a warming climate will outweigh the benefits. This represents a rather large shift in my thinking in the last few decades. I once denied that the climate was changing, then I denied that man was a substantial contributor and now I am down to this last objection. I of course realize that the my initial two denials were simply bias on my part but that last one couldn't be bias could it.... lol!

In my own defense I read articles like the one below (1-2% of gpd in 100 years) and the cost of a warming climate does not look that bad.

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf

You seem like a pretty rational person to me. You're almost always seem sensible and level headed. I don't know why you've held these faulty positions on this one issue, why you don't want to believe this. Only you know that. Whatever it is, it's probably also distorting your present views.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
You seem like a pretty rational person to me. You're almost always seem sensible and level headed. I don't know why you've held these faulty positions on this one issue, why you don't want to believe this. Only you know that. Whatever it is, it's probably also distorting your present views.

I grew up in fundamentalist christian family. That magic thinking does not go away over night and it pervades everything. IT IS FUCKING HARD HARD HARD to stop thinking like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: woolfe9998

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,187
14,087
136
I grew up in fundamentalist christian family. That magic thinking does not go away over night and it pervades everything. IT IS FUCKING HARD HARD HARD to stop thinking like that.

The fact that you realize not only that you have a bias, but what the actual source of the bias is, puts you miles ahead of the vast majority of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bshole

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,134
5,985
126
woolfe9998: Nice way to duck my basic point.

M: You caused me to miss your point. When I say the part I posted on I paid no attention to whatever else you said. All I saw was a massive denial that you caused Trump to get elected, one you are so obviously guilty about you're trying to put it on me.

Some Sanders supporters literally claimed that the primary voting was rigged, the exact same way that Trump did in regards to the general. This is nonsense, and there is no defending it. It's childish to claim that every contest which doesn't go your way was rigged. It reminds me of people who always think that every time their sports team loses, the referees must have been paid off. However, although the psychology of it is the same, the consequences are far worse. Claiming that elections are rigged undermines public faith in our democracy. If people don't think they can get a fair outcome at the ballot box, what are their alternatives? The only one I can think of is to start shooting at people, aka the "Second Amendment remedy" that we so often hear about. The allegation was not only wrong. It was irresponsible, the way a child is irresponsible, spouting off without considering consequences.

M: Nice rant. I agree. I never called the process rigged, It was the inevitable mechanical result of robots making robot programmed decisions, liberals acting out their brain defects.

w: Whatever you think you can "detect" of me, I have no remorse about voting for Clinton. You can offer all the "I told you so's" you want, but the real truth is, you have no idea if Sanders would have won the general election. Polls taken during the primaries are irrelevant. They never hold up. IMO, Sanders was too far left to win in the general. He would have been painted as an extremist by the right. Also, Sanders was never character assassinated like Clinton was because during the primaries, the republicans preferred to go up against Sanders. They purportedly had a large oppo file on him that they never made public. IMO, Sanders would not have even won the popular vote, let alone the election.

M: I don't blame you for voting for Clinton in the election. I am trying to forgive you for voting for her in the Primaries because all that you just said is speculation and she did in fact lose the election as I warned. I voted for her in the election. I had no other choice thanks to my fellow brain defective democrats. You got your way and you lost. I say Sanders would have won. I was right about Clinton so guess what, I believe I would have been right about Sanders. You have yet to get on the score board but you prefer your opinion. Fine by me. I just find much more reasons to believe me.

w: If you want to assign blame, assign some to people who lied about Clinton and/or exaggerated her faults. Clinton was slandered in this election worse than any American politician in recent memory. And some of it came from a bloc of Sanders supporters. I read some of the anti-Clinton stuff you posted. It sounded like it was ripped straight from the pages of breitbart. And I read you stating that you were seriously considering voting for Trump. Concluding that Trump and Clinton were even close is utter insanity.

M: I favor the fact that Germany does not allow free speech to Nazis, I see no difference between them and the right wing political assassination machine. I am probably way more extreme than you are.

w: This was an awfully close election. I wonder what the outcome would have been if a portion of Sanders supports hadn't convinced themselves and others of the lie that Clinton was as bad as Trump. So right back at you. Thank you for Donald Trump.

M: As I said, not me. I voted in the general for Clinton knowing full well it was a waste of my time since I live in the Mentally Gifted state.

w: Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe Sanders would have won. It's impossible to know what would have happened in a counter-factual scenario, the way you claim to know.

M: I think Sanders would have won. I dismiss all your counterpoints as not likely to have mattered.

W: An excellent summary of the garbage that some Sanders supporters bought into which was a factor in bringing us the disaster of Trump:

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

It's all water under the bridge. I just it a rock when I read your post. Love you. You are one of my favorite posters.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,187
14,087
136
LOL Moonbeam. You spent months dumping all over Clinton on a public discussion forum and you think I'm responsible for Trump. That matters way more than the one vote you ultimately cast for Clinton. Clinton lost 3 key swing states by less than .5% of the vote. Hmm, I wonder how many Sanders supporters sat out the election, voted for Stein, or even Trump because they believed their own bullshit, or the bullshit of other Sanders supporters, about Clinton. "Clinton can't beat Trump" was a self-fulfilling prophecy for Sanders supporters.

2020 lays ahead. There, we will have another dem primary. I don't know about you, but I don't intend on trashing the dem candidates I don't favor. It's enough to say why you support one candidate over another in terms of policy and experience. If defeating Trump is the priority, character assassination is counter-productive. I hope you'll consider that next time. Until then, we can agree to disagree about this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,134
5,985
126
LOL Moonbeam. You spent months dumping all over Clinton on a public discussion forum and you think I'm responsible for Trump. That matters way more than the one vote you ultimately cast for Clinton. Clinton lost 3 key swing states by less than .5% of the vote. Hmm, I wonder how many Sanders supporters sat out the election, voted for Stein, or even Trump because they believed their own bullshit, or the bullshit of other Sanders supporters, about Clinton. "Clinton can't beat Trump" was a self-fulfilling prophecy for Sanders supporters.

2020 lays ahead. There, we will have another dem primary. I don't know about you, but I don't intend on trashing the dem candidates I don't favor. It's enough to say why you support one candidate over another in terms of policy and experience. If defeating Trump is the priority, character assassination is counter-productive. I hope you'll consider that next time. Until then, we can agree to disagree about this one.
Do what you like but personally, I like to win and since I seem to have an eye for who won't I'm going to stick with those I think can. And one other thing, if you wouldn't mind. I didn't dump on Clinton for the reasons the Right did, but because she had a losing message and by fuck if I wasn't right just as right as I was that Trump would win the Republican primary the day he announced.