How does Kurt Eichenwald, in the same article . . .

[HughBeaumont]

. . . get to say:

The laughably unqualified Jill Stein of the Green Party

and

I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump, because they wanted a Trump presidency.

Now, don't get me wrong. Jill Stein WAS laughably unqualified.

But saying that while implying that there was nothing wrong with voting for Trump kind of renders your own argument laughable.

Anyone . . . and I MEAN ANYONE . . . who thinks "President Donald Trump" is a great idea is a selfish know-nothing dumbass who needs to get smarter quickly. STRAIGHT up. That includes my relatives and yours.

Donald Trump is the most unqualified presidential candidate in modern American history and he's proving such an assertion daily. Instead of studying up on a job he knows nothing about, he's getting into Twitter wars, planning "Victory Tours" and appointing a lop-sided extremist cabinet loaded with billionaires, climate change deniers, cash-and-carry larcenists, human-rights deniers and Islamophobes.

You don't get to yip about Jill Stein while crediting people who think there's nothing wrong with racism, sexism, homophobia and/or horrible economics with making a sound choice. HORSESHIT.

[Skinner]

1. He's not saying that he supports Trump or what Trump represents.

His point is whether one's vote actually promotes the outcome that the voter preferred.

If you believed that Trump was preferable to Clinton, and you voted for Trump in the election, then you voted in a manner that promoted your desired outcome.

If you believed that Clinton was preferable to Trump, and you voted for Jill Stein in the election, then you fucking failed.

[lillypaddle]

3. Nice explanation

I needed it, too.

[HughBeaumont]

6. He also says he has no problem with Trump voters. That's MY problem.

He makes good points in the rest of the article.

MY point is that I'm unbelievably SICK of Republicans; voters or candidates, being given a free pass for setting America on a rocket-ride path to ruin, and it's usually being done by people who rip on third party voting.

It's time to start calling out people who make damaging voting choices no matter WHO they are, and the lion's share of the blame should go to people who thought elevating an unqualified know-nothing with no governmental experience was a great idea. STOP giving these people the benefit of the doubt already!

[Skinner]

8. If you completely remove his comment from the context of the article then I would agree with you.

But in context his point is clear. If a person wanted Trump to win and they voted for Trump, then they voted in a manner consistent with their desired outcome.

[sharp_stick]

10. Nicely Put n/t

[yallerdawg]

2. The point is:

If you voted for Trump because you supported him, congratulations on your candidate’s victory. But if you didn’t vote for the only person who could defeat him and are now protesting a Trump presidency, may I suggest you shut up and go home. Adults now need to start fixing the damage you have done.

[yodermon]

4. Eichenwald is a hack. He literally brags about verbally assaulting a stranger in the airport

as his opening anecdote for that article. How anyone could take him seriously after that astounds me.

[Skinner]

9. I agree that verbally assaulting a stranger is uncool.

But I have to agree with him that Stein voters can go ---- themselves. They failed to do the minimum necessary to keep Trump out of the White House (that is: vote for the only human being on the planet with a chance of beating him). Seeing some of them jump on the "Donald Trump is bad" bandwagon after they failed to help stop him really is sickening.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. he didn't verbally assault anyone. He said he almost did. nt

[Skinner]

13. I think it is fair to say he did *verbally* assault a stranger.

I interrupted him and said, “You’re lucky it’s illegal for me to punch you in the face.” Then, after telling him to have sex with himself—but with a much cruder term—I turned and walked away.

What he didn't do was physically assault a stranger.

[frazzled]

5. Do I detect ...

some offended Stein voters here?

He's saying that those who voted for Trump got what they wanted: Trump, and all that came with him. Those who voted for Stein also got Trump by doing so, so don't complain about it now.

[HughBeaumont]

7. Diiiiiiid you miss this part?

Now, don't get me wrong. Jill Stein WAS laughably unqualified.

No way, shape or form a Stein supporter. I'm one of the first to call her "Tofu Palin". I don't vote for people who rip on Democrats while giving Republicans a free pass. That's something she has in common with Trump and Johnson.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

11. maybe because you are quoting him with no context.

in the same article he also said' "I have an enormous problem with anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson—or who didn’t vote at all"

he made a point that if you wanted to stop Trump truly you would have voted for the ONLY person in the GE who could have stopped trump instead of wasting your precious self indulgent vote on Stein or Johnson.

[HughBeaumont]

14. But how does that reconcile with his first statement?

Does he HAVE a problem with Trump voters or does he NOT have a problem with them?

I've always maintained that the "desired outcome" of a Trump voter doesn't gel with the "not inconveniencing rich people" part of the GOP economic mantra. Also, most of the promises he made were either never going to happen in the context of a representative government or were logistically impossible.

The way to win, I guess, is to pull up to the voting block and unload a dumptruck of bullshit on them and play to their pet hates, however dishonest and unscrupulous that tactic may be. What was she ever supposed to do to reach these people?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. a person can make two seperate but equally valid points.

Yes, he does not approve of trump voters. Yes, he thinks if you agree with trumps policies and voted him in this is understandable because you like his policies. People like racist policies. Lots of people do. However, if you wanted to stop him and you wasted your vote, you are an idiot.

I get this, why don't you?

[Skinner]

16. There is some context missing in both quotes.

They actually come one right after the other in the text, and you can see the point he was making if you read the entire section. (My emphasis added.)

I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump, because they wanted a Trump presidency. I have an enormous problem with anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson—or who didn’t vote at all—and who now expresses horror about the outcome of this election.

His point is this: If you voted for Trump because you wanted a Trump presidency and all he stands for, then you voted in a manner that is consistent with your values. But if you voted for Trump and you are now expressing shock at what he stands for, then you did not vote in a manner that is consistent with your values. You failed.

And BTW, am I going to have to explain every out-of-context sentence in this article on an isolated basis, or can we just read the entire thing in context and get the point that Eichenwald is making?