Direct, indirect... Not looking to fight. Regardless, friends/family, and "even if", it wouldn't change anything to me. But I do think, indirectly let's say, that it does in fact help the opponent. Just like Johnson running takes votes away somewhere. The argument has been around forever, but most recently with Perot and Nader. But the fact is, simple math shows how it works out. That doesn't mean to play the blame game, but just pointing out the facts. 500 people stay home, and someone loses by 200 votes. Of course "indirectly" the race could have changed.

This writer is rude, that is NOT my intent towards anyone else. Same thing for Hillary. If the "never hillary" Sanders folks stay away because they don't like Hillary, or stay home or vote Stein or whatever - of course those votes could have went in her direction and of course they could have helped. And also, the Sanders camp supporters, the continual disparaging they do of Hillary, of course that harms her. I'm just being realistic.

And another portion is true, even though I don't see much of it here, it's all over the place. And that's folks of course holding the Trump supporters responsible for their vote. Some state things like "well, you vote in someone like that and you are responsible for....".

So don't anyone take it the wrong way. I would say the same to my wife. I would still be best friends with any of my friends here regardless.
-----

Sorry, I was on Twitter. I felt it was necessary to dispel the widely-held myth, adored by #NeverTrumpers, that somehow attacking Trump relentlessly does not aid Hillary Clinton, and that they are not choosing Hillary Clinton by choosing to be NeverTrump.

All choices have consequences. By supporting Trump, I am responsible for the consequences of a Trump victory -- and those consequences could indeed be dire.

But a childish morally-unserious fantasy has infected the #NeverTrump not-so-intellgentsia, that they can agitate for Hillary Clinton -- by relentlessly disparaging Trump -- and somehow, they are not responsible for the consequences of the Hillary presidency they are bucking for.

They've dreamed up this self-pleasing, responsibility-evading dreamscape in which those who plump for Trump are responsible for the outcomes of a Trump presidency, but, for no explanation thusfar discoverable, they are not responsible for the outcomes of the Hillary presidency they're agitating for.

I tried to explain to them that there is no such thing as a consequence-free choice -- all choices have consequences, both on the upside and the downside -- and both the upside and downswide consequences must be considered by any adult, intellectually-serious person in making his choice.

But they like this idea that, like little children, they are free to gambol and play in the fields and this does not even perturb the leading edge of a butterfly's wing, and so they just keep teling me "No you're wrong" without saying why I'm wrong.

Which, seriously, is a rather important part of any argument beginning with the words "You're wrong."

I ask people: When you knocked Obama in 2012, and wrote posts and comments noting his flaws, did you think you were doing nothing to improve Mitt Romney's chances of winning the presidency?

If so-- why the fuck did you bother?

Of course, this is silly; everyone knows that when one buys ads attacking a candidate, one is helping that candidate's opponent win.

The #NeverTrumpers are filling their blogs, magazines, and Twitter timelines with nonstop political advertising (free) against Trump, and maintain, just because they say so and because it pleases them to think so, this does exactly nothing to help Hillary, and they are therefore not responsibe for her election.

Or let me put it this way: I am not hoping for Trump to get into some serious international snafu by supporting him. Yet I know that is a very real possibility if he's president.

Should this happen, I can't just say "But I didn't want trump to screw up so badly."

People would say -- no, but you knew the risks in supporting him, and you supported him anyway; you are therefore morally responsible for this.

Yet the #NeverTrumpers claim that the obvious, inescapable outcome of their position -- that Hillary Clinton will be the president -- is not their responsibility, just because they didn't intend that as a pirmary matter.

No, but they were completely aware it was the natural and inevitable consequence of their position.

So why would a Trump supporter be responsible for a foreign policy catastrophe he didn't even know for a fact would happen, when a #NeverTrumper claims to be innocent of the Hillary Presidency they know beyond a shadow of any doubt is the direct and inescapable consequence of the NeverTrump posiition?

They're responsible for it. They don't want to be, but they are.

Rest here - http://ace.mu.nu/archives/364874.php