Proxy fight in Nebraska: this is "unity"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Gordon_4:
How does two people from two families, running decades apart, qualify as a dynasty?

When Chelsea Clinton goes on television-- because that's just something she can do-- she gets asked whether she's running for office, and is often overtly encouraged to do so. Why? Because she's a Clinton. How is that not dynastic?

The DNC treated its 2016 primary like a coronation, and-- this was literally something their campaign strategists agonized over trying to find other alternatives-- Hillary's rationale for running was "it's my turn".

The real protagonist of this book is a Washington political establishment that has lost the ability to explain itself or its motives to people outside the Beltway.

In fact, it shines through in the book that the voters' need to understand why this or that person is running for office is viewed in Washington as little more than an annoying problem.

In the Clinton run, that problem became such a millstone around the neck of the campaign that staffers began to flirt with the idea of sharing the uninspiring truth with voters. Stumped for months by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president, Clinton staffers began toying with the idea of seeing how "Because it's her turn" might fly as a public rallying cry.

This passage describes the mood inside the campaign early in the Iowa race (emphasis mine):

"There wasn't a real clear sense of why she was in it. Minus that, people want to assign their own motivations - at the very best, a politician who thinks it's her turn," one campaign staffer said. "It was true and earnest, but also received well. We were talking to Democrats, who largely didn't think she was evil."

Our own voters "largely" don't think your real reason for running for president is evil qualified as good news in this book. The book is filled with similar scenes of brutal unintentional comedy.

Seanchaidh:
snip

The Clinton campaign was convinced that Obama won in 2008 not because he was a better candidate, or buoyed by an electorate that was disgusted with the Iraq War. Obama won, they believed, because he had a better campaign operation - i.e., better Washingtonian puppeteers. In The Right Stuff terms, Obama's Germans were better than Hillary's Germans.

Funnily enough, this is not dissimilar to how a lot of Hillary supporters see Trump's victory.

crimson5pheonix:

Seanchaidh:
snip

The Clinton campaign was convinced that Obama won in 2008 not because he was a better candidate, or buoyed by an electorate that was disgusted with the Iraq War. Obama won, they believed, because he had a better campaign operation ? i.e., better Washingtonian puppeteers. In The Right Stuff terms, Obama's Germans were better than Hillary's Germans.

Funnily enough, this is not dissimilar to how a lot of Hillary supporters see Trump's victory.

Not dissimilar, indeed. Trump's Germans Russians were better than Hillary's Germans. ;)

... I must say, the Soviet anthem kicks our national anthem in the ass. Definitely wouldn't if I knew what the words meant (read as: paid any attention to the translation), though. Meaning or an explicit message tends to detract from an anthem. (Seriously, the Hymn of the USSR must sound like the worst kind of generic pablum to people who actually know Russian.)

Seanchaidh:

crimson5pheonix:

Seanchaidh:
snip

The Clinton campaign was convinced that Obama won in 2008 not because he was a better candidate, or buoyed by an electorate that was disgusted with the Iraq War. Obama won, they believed, because he had a better campaign operation ? i.e., better Washingtonian puppeteers. In The Right Stuff terms, Obama's Germans were better than Hillary's Germans.

Funnily enough, this is not dissimilar to how a lot of Hillary supporters see Trump's victory.

Not dissimilar, indeed. Trump's Germans Russians were better than Hillary's Germans. ;)

... I must say, the Soviet anthem kicks our national anthem in the ass. Definitely wouldn't if I knew what the words meant (read as: paid any attention to the translation), though. Meaning or an explicit message tends to detract from an anthem. (Seriously, the Hymn of the USSR must sound like the worst kind of generic pablum to people who actually know Russian.)

Which is why you pick a better song :D

American Tanker:

Lisker84:
How did this turn into a "death to Jill Stein" discussion?

Because Saelune. Still hasn't moved forward from November of last year.

Because nothing said since then has disproven the obvious 'you dun goofed' facts. You don't get to forget until you undo the damage. Maybe not even then. That's the price you pay.

FalloutJack:

American Tanker:

Lisker84:
How did this turn into a "death to Jill Stein" discussion?

Because Saelune. Still hasn't moved forward from November of last year.

Because nothing said since then has disproven the obvious 'you dun goofed' facts. You don't get to forget until you undo the damage. Maybe not even then. That's the price you pay.

It's not a goof, though. The politics of Trump being president (which is to say, the effect on future elections) rather than Clinton tend to counterbalance the policy of Trump being president (much of which he won't actually be able to do). Plenty of people who couldn't Donald Trump also just couldn't Hillary Clinton; that's genuine. And a lot of people who couldn't Hillary Clinton couldn't Hillary Clinton so much that they could Donald Trump. 9% of Democrats voted for Donald Trump. The states were accurately measured as to their feelings about the two candidates. People were put off mostly by true things about Hillary Clinton. She's very establishment. She thinks it's fine to lie about her positions. She has excruciating trouble admitting mistakes. She is very well paid by Wall Street and other wealthy interests-- including big oil. Her family's legacy is one of trade deals which screwed over the bargaining power of American workers and domestic policy which grew our prison populations with non-violent offenders, consolidated our banks and allowed them to freely mix commercial and investment banking, consolidated our media companies so that we have just a few owning nearly all of television, "reformed" welfare to kick people off rather than do something about the lack of good jobs for them, and... CHIP. Yay, CHIP. The one bright spot.

Enduring this crisis moment may be preferable to prolonging the slow wasting away of the Democratic Party. Trump is a symptom of the problems with this country, not their cause. To be sure, he's creating some more problems, but they are easily solved once he's out: just overturn what he did. And stop relying on the Supreme Court for so much of the Democratic agenda: we don't actually need Roe v. Wade to make abortion legal, you know? That's just how it happened.

Reforming the Democratic Party rather than persisting in the illusion that neoliberalism can still do the trick-- that the people will continue to be satisfied with crumbs enough to elect Democratic presidents and maintain parity sometimes in Congress, avoiding horrific GOP agendas about half the time (and then doing little to push back on those agendas once in power)-- will allow the Democratic Party to be resurgent, powerful, and committed to a bold agenda rather than just barely able to pass Republican crap like the Affordable Care Act and then lose a bunch of Congressional elections. That's worth some pain, and it's a lot less likely to happen without some very public realizations that Democratic politicians have a problem. What better way to show that than to lose to a lying reality TV star who has the worst approval rating numbers in history?

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Don't you think three paragraphs of unimportant rehash to try and make a point unfound is pushing it a little?

Seanchaidh:
To be sure, he's creating some more problems, but they are easily solved once he's out: just overturn what he did.

I want to address this line specifically because while it's basically true, I find it problematic.

Firstly and generally, I feel like promising to just overturn everything the prior administration accomplished is a bad precedent to set. For one thing, presidential administrations are always, always cyclical; Republicans hold it for a few terms, then Democrats hold it for a couple terms. People are just more likely to vote against the party that has been in power the past eight years than they are to vote for them.

What that means is that if you set "repeal everything those assholes did" as your primary policy talking point, you run the risk of setting up a kind of legislative death cycle where every law the previous administration passed is undone within the decade and replaced with new laws that are themselves undone a couple terms later. That kind of uncertainty is anathema to the legal profession and to businesses that rely on things continuing to work the way they currently work in order to make investments. Look at how the AHCA drama has made several Obamacare insurers pull out of the insurance market; they don't want to commit because there's no certainty as to what US healthcare will look like in 2018.

Secondly and more specifically: while passing a controversial law is very difficult, repealing a law, especially a law that gives entitlements to any segment of society, is really freaking hard. Look at the Republican healthcare effort; they soared into office with control of both houses and the presidency, and promptly fell flat on their face when they realised that they didn't really know what "repeal and replace Obamacare" actually meant in substantive policy terms. Not to mention that the ACA's popularity has been increasing steadily ever since its future was put in jeopardy, because people get more politically active when their personal entitlements are threatened. Who's to say the same process won't repeat itself with Republican tax reform in four or eight years? The Democrats will find themselves in the uncomfortable position of basically having to undo extremely generous tax cuts that were doled out to extremely wealthy and influential segments of society. That's morally laudable, but it's also hard.

And thirdly; promising to repeal a bad law in four or eight year's time is no substitute for not having the law in the first place. Trump's immigration policies have already seen families broken up, with parents deported and their US-born children sent into the foster care system. If the AHCA passes, then by the time the Democrats are in a position to repeal it, hundreds of people from the most vulnerable segments of society will have already died from not being able to afford proper medical care. You can promise to repeal those shitty policies in four year's time, but you can't give those people their lives back.

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Don't you think three paragraphs of unimportant rehash to try and make a point unfound is pushing it a little?

Any number of paragraphs will only be pushing it a little until you acknowledge how wrong you are. :)

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
To be sure, he's creating some more problems, but they are easily solved once he's out: just overturn what he did.

I want to address this line specifically because while it's basically true, I find it problematic.

Firstly and generally, I feel like promising to just overturn everything the prior administration accomplished is a bad precedent to set. For one thing, presidential administrations are always, always cyclical; Republicans hold it for a few terms, then Democrats hold it for a couple terms. People are just more likely to vote against the party that has been in power the past eight years than they are to vote for them.

What that means is that if you set "repeal everything those assholes did" as your primary policy talking point

It should certainly not be a primary policy talking point. On that I very much agree.

bastardofmelbourne:
you run the risk of setting up a kind of legislative death cycle where every law the previous administration passed is undone within the decade and replaced with new laws that are themselves undone a couple terms later. That kind of uncertainty is anathema to the legal profession and to businesses that rely on things continuing to work the way they currently work in order to make investments. Look at how the AHCA drama has made several Obamacare insurers pull out of the insurance market; they don't want to commit because there's no certainty as to what US healthcare will look like in 2018.

As well they shouldn't; we might just stop needing health insurance providers altogether.

bastardofmelbourne:
Secondly and more specifically: while passing a controversial law is very difficult, repealing a law, especially a law that gives entitlements to any segment of society, is really freaking hard. Look at the Republican healthcare effort; they soared into office with control of both houses and the presidency, and promptly fell flat on their face when they realised that they didn't really know what "repeal and replace Obamacare" actually meant in substantive policy terms. Not to mention that the ACA's popularity has been increasing steadily ever since its future was put in jeopardy, because people get more politically active when their personal entitlements are threatened. Who's to say the same process won't repeat itself with Republican tax reform in four or eight years? The Democrats will find themselves in the uncomfortable position of basically having to undo extremely generous tax cuts that were doled out to extremely wealthy and influential segments of society. That's morally laudable, but it's also hard.

It's hard if wealth and conventional influence are as useful as they are now currently in Congress. I don't think it is as difficult if we elect the right kind of people to Congress. That's kind of the point of swearing off of corporate and billionaire donations. That's why the Justice Democrats PAC is organizing a bunch of primary challenges against corporate Democrats. That's also why the word "tea party" is still heard more often in the media than Justice Democrats, even though the presence in Democratic town halls calling for a progressive agenda is both objectively more newsworthy and much larger than anything the tea party did.

bastardofmelbourne:
And thirdly; promising to repeal a bad law in four or eight year's time is no substitute for not having the law in the first place. Trump's immigration policies have already seen families broken up, with parents deported and their US-born children sent into the foster care system. If the AHCA passes, then by the time the Democrats are in a position to repeal it, hundreds of people from the most vulnerable segments of society will have already died from not being able to afford proper medical care. You can promise to repeal those shitty policies in four year's time, but you can't give those people their lives back.

It's no substitute, but the kind of death spiral I see if we don't endure this is much more severe than the one you've described: neoliberalism -> right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> probably worse right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> nuclear winter -> Caesar's Legion -> ewoks -> Futurama's Nixon -> cylons -> another nuclear winter -> A Canticle for Liebowitz parts I and II -> neoliberalism -> right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> right-wing populism

It's not pretty. We absolutely need to destroy the influence of money in politics right the fuck now before worse (more competent) than Trump comes along singing about how only he can fix the (correctly described as) broken system. The American Empire is way too close to being ripe for a Julius Caesar moment and it will only become moreso as we descend into the dismal moral abyss of elections that give us a choice between Goldman Sachs or Goldman Sachs. Waiting for "the right time" is not an option.

@American_Tanker: What? I did not even mention Stein. Sanders is a far greater problem than Stein could even wish to be. And "moved on from November"? Uh, Trump is still in office. And something as major as the US Presidential election is not something you just "move on from". We still havent "moved on" from Washington's Presidency. Kind of how history works.

Seanchaidh:

It's no substitute, but the kind of death spiral I see if we don't endure this is much more severe than the one you've described: neoliberalism -> right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> probably worse right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> nuclear winter -> Caesar's Legion -> ewoks -> Futurama's Nixon -> cylons -> another nuclear winter -> A Canticle for Liebowitz parts I and II -> neoliberalism -> right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> right-wing populism

It's not pretty. We absolutely need to destroy the influence of money in politics right the fuck now before worse (more competent) than Trump comes along singing about how only he can fix the (correctly described as) broken system. The American Empire is way too close to being ripe for a Julius Caesar moment and it will only become moreso as we descend into the dismal moral abyss of elections that give us a choice between Goldman Sachs or Goldman Sachs. Waiting for "the right time" is not an option.

We may severely disagree on how to get there, but believe it or not, I want to get to the same place that you do.

Seanchaidh:
It's no substitute, but the kind of death spiral I see if we don't endure this is much more severe than the one you've described: neoliberalism -> right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> probably worse right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> nuclear winter -> Caesar's Legion -> ewoks -> Futurama's Nixon -> cylons -> another nuclear winter -> A Canticle for Liebowitz parts I and II -> neoliberalism -> right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> right-wing populism

Wait, at the end of Canticle the world is destroyed in a nuclear holocaust (again) while a bunch of Catholics leave Earth in a spaceship. Where are the neoliberals/populists in that scenario?

Seanchaidh:
It's not pretty. We absolutely need to destroy the influence of money in politics right the fuck now before worse (more competent) than Trump comes along singing about how only he can fix the (correctly described as) broken system. The American Empire is way too close to being ripe for a Julius Caesar moment and it will only become moreso as we descend into the dismal moral abyss of elections that give us a choice between Goldman Sachs or Goldman Sachs. Waiting for "the right time" is not an option.

Eh...it's not directly comparable to Rome, but yes, the US electoral system needs massive reform.

1. Strictly limit campaign donations or enforce egalitarian campaign rules along the French model.
2. Reform the Electoral College with proportional representation instead of winner-takes-all, or abolish it altogether and replace it with a bipartisan federal electoral commission.
3. Strictly enforce election standards country-wide to prevent partisan governors from selecitvely restricting their constituent's ability to vote. Set a minimum number of polling booths based on population density, allow same-day registration and voting, force states with voter I.D. laws to actually issue voter I.D.s for that purpose.
4. Introduce compulsory voting and set a small fine for failure to comply. Institute preferential voting for representatives and senators.
5. Set greater transparency standards for candidates, including laws requiring that they disclose their tax returns, the results of regular mental and physical examinations, the identity of their donors, and their conflicts of interest.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
It's no substitute, but the kind of death spiral I see if we don't endure this is much more severe than the one you've described: neoliberalism -> right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> probably worse right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> nuclear winter -> Caesar's Legion -> ewoks -> Futurama's Nixon -> cylons -> another nuclear winter -> A Canticle for Liebowitz parts I and II -> neoliberalism -> right-wing populism -> neoliberalism -> right-wing populism

Wait, at the end of Canticle the world is destroyed in a nuclear holocaust (again) while a bunch of Catholics leave Earth in a spaceship. Where are the neoliberals/populists in that scenario?

That's part III. Parts I and II are recovering from the first nuclear holocaust-- reruns of the dark ages and then late middle age/renaissance.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
It's not pretty. We absolutely need to destroy the influence of money in politics right the fuck now before worse (more competent) than Trump comes along singing about how only he can fix the (correctly described as) broken system. The American Empire is way too close to being ripe for a Julius Caesar moment and it will only become moreso as we descend into the dismal moral abyss of elections that give us a choice between Goldman Sachs or Goldman Sachs. Waiting for "the right time" is not an option.

Eh...it's not directly comparable to Rome, but yes, the US electoral system needs massive reform.

1. Strictly limit campaign donations or enforce egalitarian campaign rules along the French model.
2. Reform the Electoral College with proportional representation instead of winner-takes-all, or abolish it altogether and replace it with a bipartisan federal electoral commission.
3. Strictly enforce election standards country-wide to prevent partisan governors from selecitvely restricting their constituent's ability to vote. Set a minimum number of polling booths based on population density, allow same-day registration and voting, force states with voter I.D. laws to actually issue voter I.D.s for that purpose.
4. Introduce compulsory voting and set a small fine for failure to comply. Institute preferential voting for representatives and senators.
5. Set greater transparency standards for candidates, including laws requiring that they disclose their tax returns, the results of regular mental and physical examinations, the identity of their donors, and their conflicts of interest.

I liked your longer list! Although I don't agree with all of it.

Seanchaidh:

That's part III. Parts I and II are recovering from the first nuclear holocaust-- dark ages and then late middle age/renaissance.

Neoliberals don't want nuclear war ...they want international tension to sell more arms, while on the other hand the talk aboutthe global village and sing praises of the megacorporations that now have extraterritoriality.

It's a delicate balance between paranoia of security and how the next big thing in the arms trade will stop those pesky [insert enemy here] ... all while not destroying the continent Google has turned into a gigantic billboard that's viewable from space, and running their Renraku Arcology style 'labour accommodations' and printing and paying their employees in their own currency they have invented#...

#Valid in only certain retailers and only for certain products.

Authoritarians and military drafts get in the way of cheap labour. Countries start imposing tariffs. Regulations. Shooting corrupt politicians. It's bad for business.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Seanchaidh:

That's part III. Parts I and II are recovering from the first nuclear holocaust-- dark ages and then late middle age/renaissance.

Neoliberals don't want nuclear war ...they want international tension to sell more arms, while on the other hand the talk aboutthe global village and sing praises of the megacorporations that now have extraterritoriality.

It's a delicate balance between paranoia of security and how the next big thing in the arms trade will stop those pesky [insert enemy here] ... all while not destroying the continent Google has turned into a gigantic billboard that's viewable from space, and running their Renraku Arcology style 'labour accommodations' and printing and paying their employees in their own currency they have invented#...

#Valid in only certain retailers and only for certain products.

Authoritarians and military drafts get in the way of cheap labour. Countries start imposing tariffs. Regulations. Shooting corrupt politicians. It's bad for business.

Certainly. Right-wing populists don't mind war, though-- at least, their leaders have a track record of not minding it. And if the left in the United States is co-opted by neoliberal cosmopolitans who think the 1% controlling everything is fine just so long as the 1% has the statistically proportionate amounts of people from every category on the General Social Survey, we'll be electing a lot of right-wing populists. Because neoliberal cosmpolitans don't have nearly enough of a positive economic vision because they are very well paid not to have one.

Seanchaidh:
That's part III. Parts I and II are recovering from the first nuclear holocaust-- dark ages and then late middle age/renaissance.

Gotcha.

Seanchaidh:
I liked your longer list! Although I don't agree with all of it.

Sorry, I...I edit my posts a lot, usually when I think I've said something stupid. I try to do it quickly so people don't notice.

I can't even remember what was in the longer list. Something about hats?

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
That's part III. Parts I and II are recovering from the first nuclear holocaust-- dark ages and then late middle age/renaissance.

Gotcha.

Seanchaidh:
I liked your longer list! Although I don't agree with all of it.

Sorry, I...I edit my posts a lot, usually when I think I've said something stupid. I try to do it quickly so people don't notice.

I can't even remember what was in the longer list. Something about hats?

Transparency standards, Puerto Rican suffrage, and Presidential mental health exams.

Notifications always show the first version that is submitted. So when people get notified of my replies, they get to see a bunch of broken quote tags and more awkward, unclear, or self-sabotaging phrasing. Nice system, that.

Seanchaidh:

Certainly. Right-wing populists don't mind war, though-- at least, their leaders have a track record of not minding it. And if the left in the United States is co-opted by neoliberal cosmopolitans who think the 1% controlling everything is fine just so long as the 1% has the statistically proportionate amounts of people from every category on the General Social Survey, we'll be electing a lot of right-wing populists. Because neoliberal cosmpolitans don't have nearly enough of a positive economic vision because they are very well paid not to have one.

I've sung praises for free trade and hyperconsumerism, however you need a progressive tax system and welfare to keep it running. Wealthy people do not keep money in banks. Poor, working and middle class do.

One of thd primary benefits of liberal markets is the fact that it does help mollify the distinct disadvantage of traditionally marginalized people. Big businesses tend to be all for things like trans equality, ending discrimination in contracts... precisely because it increases the talent pool alone. And at this point we need all the help we can get on those ftonts.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Culture is garbage and a brighter future can be had when people stop using it as a crutch to define themselves and others. Art should be chaotic, and regardless of the historian in me, regardless of thr love of various aesthetics born of the past yhat transformed into massive defineable movements ... I still think Brett Whiteley was right when he said thst art should br contemporaneous and it is ultimately an indictment of the transformative process of creation when we fall in love with what was rather than the majesty and horror of what is, what's on the horizon, how can it be shaped as if a muse of the will to find beauty and power in the ever present and a near now... and as Nietzsche put it; "Only chaos can birth a dancing star..."

And to me hyperconsumerism is the ticket to true creative intent going into a world thst will have 9.5 billion souls sharing a single terrestrial sphere by 2050. I don't want people to wear saris for cultural reasons. I want them to wear it because they think it's elegant or chic. Cool. Hip. 'Them' ... if only for a week before they're swanning about the place in something new.

You can only get such a future when you throw open doors.

That being said, you have to temper consumption with social conscience. Universal Healthcare, progressive tax systems, liberalising drug laws so addicts aren't transformed into criminals, effective welfare systems that help money do what it is meant to .... circulate as quickly as possible amongst as many hands as possible. I refuse to call it a 'balance' ... because capitalist systems work better with progressive taxes and good welfare systems. So they should flat out be seen as the norm of any risk-reward self interest driven economy.

So a part of me points to liberal markets and is willing to say; "Capitalism has been a force for good, but it can be better."

(edit) If you were to ask me what a good vision of the future was ..; I would still say the megacorp has a place in it if it treats their workers as if stakeholders in the company, not dispensable human labour that you can break and then toss out onto the street. All workers should be given shares in the company they labour for, and that will give them more individual and collective power to manipulate its direction and reduce the corruptibility of the top officers and board members within them than any trade union will.

Also help block mergers that end up eating into their company pensions that leave labourers with no money or healthcare as they hurtle towards the twilight of their lives, and instead starts monetarily benefitting the workers and appealing to them before there is the go ahead. The workers don't like shortsellers playing silly buggers with their company and distorting the value of their holdings? They can collectvely push for sustainable div yields that benefit them in an active capacity.

Infinitely better than people who charge you money to pretend to defend you after being defanged by both corporate and government. Cut out the middle man of the worker and the means of production, and cut out the immunity of boards and corporate officers to being ousted by those who make the company successful.

Seanchaidh:
Notifications always show the first version that is submitted. So when people get notified of my replies, they get to see a bunch of broken quote tags and more awkward, unclear, or self-sabotaging phrasing. Nice system, that.

Oh. I wasn't aware it was such a hassle. I'll try to avoid it in future, then.

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Uhh, Search, old buddy? I don't want to be mean, but your views on the matter are Much Ado About Nothing. You may understand The Importance of Being Earnest, but even as we make A Long Day's Journey Into Night, this is not 1984 where browbeating is the way to go. You may opinionate, but Sense and Sensibility calls you back unerringly to the Heart of Darkness, the truth that the mass mistake was made and never to be forgot. For The Iceman Cometh, and with it I have Great Expectations that Crime And Punishment will finally come to bear, hopefully before we reach Slaughterhouse-5.

(Short Version: No Dice.)

FalloutJack:
Uhh, Search, old buddy? I don't want to be mean, but your views on the matter are Much Ado About Nothing.

You think losing to Trump again is nothing. OK, good luck with that.

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:
Uhh, Search, old buddy? I don't want to be mean, but your views on the matter are Much Ado About Nothing.

You think losing to Trump again is nothing. OK, good luck with that.

Considering there wouldn't even be a first Trump loss if certain groups hadn't sat with thumbs up butts because their Lord and Savior wasn't the nominee, you really shouldn't be throwing stones when it comes to getting Trump elected.

Edit: I figured out what bothers me so much about your stance regarding the election of your hated "establishment" politicians because they're not perfect. It's the sheer privileged arrogance of the stance. You don't care if we have Trump for 4+ years because you are perfectly well off enough and fit in the right demographics that you're not truly affected. Your ideological purism is more important to you than the hardship and discrimination people will face under a right-wing populist government.

Avnger:

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:
Uhh, Search, old buddy? I don't want to be mean, but your views on the matter are Much Ado About Nothing.

You think losing to Trump again is nothing. OK, good luck with that.

Considering there wouldn't even be a first Trump loss if certain groups hadn't sat with thumbs up butts because their Lord and Savior wasn't the nominee, you really shouldn't be throwing stones when it comes to getting Trump elected.

Hillary Clinton's campaign obviously didn't want my vote, which is why she and her campaign did a great many of the things they did.

1)Gleefully touted the endorsement of war criminals Henry Kissinger and John Negroponte
2)Shut the lights off on anti-war protesters during Podesta's convention speech
3)Took truckloads of money from Wall Street, Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma, Health Insurance, etc.-- some went to campaign, some went to charity, and some went to personal bank account.
4)Declined to disavow various and very harmful 'bipartisan' aspects of her husband's Presidential legacy (crime bill, deregulation of finance and telecom, kicking people off of welfare)
5)Hired Debbie Wasserman Schultz as 'honorary chair' immediately after her resignation-in-disgrace from DNC
6)Said nearly nothing about what she wanted to do as President.
7)Propped up and normalized the military coup in Honduras, in fairly clear violation of US law (but it's fine because President Obama never called it a military coup).
8)Advocated taking military actions which would increase tensions with Russia in order to help Al Qaeda "moderate rebels" in Syria.
9)Vacuous slogans contemptuous of the intellect of the American people.
10)And her only defense is that Trump is worse. Indeed, that's the only defense anyone ever offers.

The way to win is to build a coalition by building a policy platform and by building trust that your representatives will follow through (for example by not taking huge payments from the people who want the opposite policies), not WHINE about people who didn't like your BOUGHT AND PAID FOR VACUOUS SHELL OF A CANDIDATE-- a candidate who, yes, is at least marginally better than the immediate alternative... for four years. But who also props up an edifice that absolutely must crumble before we have a real chance to end this retarded cycle of misery and more misery where the people at large have apparently no input on policy, just which faces they get to watch on television happily screwing them.

Avnger:
Edit: I figured out what bothers me so much about your stance regarding the election of your hated "establishment" politicians because they're not perfect. It's the sheer privileged arrogance of the stance. You don't care if we have Trump for 4+ years because you are perfectly well off enough and fit in the right demographics that you're not truly affected. Your ideological purism is more important to you than the hardship and discrimination people will face under a right-wing populist government.

Yeah, you got me. I don't make enough income currently for the individual mandate to affect me. WHAT PRIVILEGE.

What bothers you is that you don't have a good answer to my arguments, just bullshit identity accusations as above.

Avnger:

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:
Uhh, Search, old buddy? I don't want to be mean, but your views on the matter are Much Ado About Nothing.

You think losing to Trump again is nothing. OK, good luck with that.

Considering there wouldn't even be a first Trump loss if certain groups hadn't sat with thumbs up butts because their Lord and Savior wasn't the nominee, you really shouldn't be throwing stones when it comes to getting Trump elected.

Edit: I figured out what bothers me so much about your stance regarding the election of your hated "establishment" politicians because they're not perfect. It's the sheer privileged arrogance of the stance. You don't care if we have Trump for 4+ years because you are perfectly well off enough and fit in the right demographics that you're not truly affected. Your ideological purism is more important to you than the hardship and discrimination people will face under a right-wing populist government.

I don't understand this perspective. Surely you can resonate with, say, the Fretilin rebels who chose liberty and suffering to fight against Indonesian occupation rather than just a coercive 'peace' of the masses that took from them everything?

Arguably a certain amount of hardship is worth a certain aspiration towards something better? Whether or not that threshold was met merely accepting more corporatism over 4 years of conservative American stupidity (and corporatism). To be honest, as a foreigner looking in ... 'ideological purism' is preferable to capitulation for 'more of the same' that has and will continue to degrade the living conditions of people worldwide. Another Clinton would still mean dead civilians in Yemen. And it will continue to mean dead people in places like Yemen, or police abuse, or big pharma blocking any attempt to buy cheaper alternatives leading to thousands of bankruptcies and preventable deaths.

4 years of strife seems like a perfectly apt response to 30 years of economic disenfranchisement. Consistency of ethics-- sorry-- 'ideological purism' is preferable to capitulation to economic fate... because that economic fate is pretty fucking horrible.

I maintain as I always have that Clinton is better than Trump. But not necessarily more Clintons after a Clinton. And as a foreigner looking in, I completely resonate with that idea. As much as I would have preferred s Clinton... I can never make the argument that no amount of temporary suffering is worth any amount of longterm wellbeing. Sometimes the medicine has to be worse than the disease before you can get well again.

You don't go into chemo because cancer is more painful. You go into chemo because there is something beyond the cancer.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I don't understand this perspective. Surely you can resonate with, say, the Fretilin rebels who chose liberty and suffering to fight against Indonesian occupation rather than just a coercive 'peace' of the masses that took from them everything?

Ah, but the majority of voters did not chose Trump, and presumably the majority of the ones who did weren't doing so to show how evil he is.

If someone chooses to be a martyr for political progress, more power to them. If someone is happy that lots of other people will be martyrs, whether they want to be or not, and dismisses any argument that their suffering perhaps should have been avoided, that's quite another thing.

Thaluikhain:

Ah, but the majority of voters did not chose Trump, and presumably the majority of the ones who did weren't doing so to show how evil he is.

If someone chooses to be a martyr for political progress, more power to them. If someone is happy that lots of other people will be martyrs, whether they want to be or not, and dismisses any argument that their suffering perhaps should have been avoided, that's quite another thing.

Right, but democracy ceases the moment politicians should demand votes regardless of how indefensible their position is simply because of the potentiality of suffering. It's incumbent on politicians to minimise the pain, not hold people's welfare to ransom. It's not wrong for people to abstain, simply because it's been 4 decades now that that excuse has been enough for the career political class to return, time and again, to office.

How long did you think it would be till a reality tv star, a grossly inept and unqualified person, coming into office simply because Democrats constantly say to them "We *deserve* your vote" ...? Particularly after they fuck over the one guy they've been waiting for for a quarter of a century?

Fuck that noise.

As much as Clinton is better than Trump... by most Western standards they are both completely evil cunts that deserve to be taken behind the nearest shed and shot. Regardless of Trump or Clinton thousands were going to die. So bloodshed or bloodshed. Pick. One of the only positives I saw in a Trump nomination during the campaign is he promised not to mass murder innocent foreigners in other lands.

That is how high the bar has been set. Apparently a hurdle buried below their feet is still so insurmountable for the holes they keep digging themselves into.

That promise never lasted, but hey... Clinton has gotten millions killed indirectly through actions she has orchestrated and voted for. And her political career thus far doesn't suggest she would stop once in high office. What exactly does the rest of the world think about a Clinton administration? At least Trump was just going to kill his own citizenry through disastrous policy changes.

Which would be nice in a U.S. president to basically not kill foreigners. It's not a very high bar to set. We haven't got there yet. Basically in the last 70 years. All of them have killed millions and singlehandedly created the justifications we now have to kill millions more. 'Bout time people said 'no' to a butcher-in-chief. Frankly I take it as a good sign that a large number of Democrat voters just said "No..." regardless ... because it at least tells me that it's not just everybody else fed up with it. It's Americans that are fed up with it. And that gives me hope for a candidate in the future. If Democrat voters are so disillusioned at this point... they should just abstain until democrats do better to cater to their demands.

(Edit) I mean Kissinger as key advisor... you go to Henry when you need a 'good' war. He was the butcher partly responsible for the slaying of a third of the East Timorese people. Genocide. That's just one accolade to his questionable persona. One of the reasons people think there are bipedal reptilians controlling our fate, is because people like him are of such questionable humanity. Why the hell should people have expected anything but another Iraq with Hillary?

People talk about the suffering that could have been averted with a Clinton... but sure as shit there are numerous places in the world that may think otherwise. I definitely don't blame fmr democrat voters for considering that another foreign intervention is just not worth it. And that's just *one reason*. Henry Kissinger is the U.S.' best excuse to have the death penalty, what does it say when Clinton has buddy-buddy photoshoots with him chuckling ever onwards? Besties forever, apparently.

(Edit of an edit)For the same reasons that Avnger uses to justify how former Democrats abstaining is somehow a moral failing and 'ideological purism' one can also make the argument that perhaps they have a conscience better than mine or their own. That some people see monsters as they are... not self-interest of their myopic notions of their temporary station. Maybe there are reasons 29% Latinos voted Trump, and why fewer registered Latinos bothered in the first place when she laughed together with Kissinger and Obama celebrated Kissinger's bloodsoaked history.

Do people not get this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I can't bring myself to blame former Democrats, or better yet Independent voters, for not simply voting Clinton. The argument that Clinton won't make you as miserable may possibly be not worth propping up those that cavort with people that aided evidently minor things like genocide and running CIA shadow wars... Maybe a lot of voters don't like that sickening feeling you get in your stomach where you know this is wrong and evil is still evil even if it's lesser in other people's eyes?

So yes ... on principle I can't fault a person that refused to vote Clinton. On principle it may even be worth losing the 2020 vote for Trump yet again if Democrats don't change their ways ... and sure as Hell the *entire world* might be thankful when both parties self-immolate in that potential constitutional crisis. Avnger calls it 'ideological purism', I call it 'consistency of ethics' ...

But then again... as I said, a foreigner looking in.

Though I will add, as a citizen of a former British imperial vassal state who has travelled the world to see other former British colonies ... few are crying about not being British subjects anymore. One of the key differences of opinion between East and West. Empire isn't worth it... and as much as a Clinton vote would have been better for Western interests as a whole... it's also blatantly obvious that that price tag comes with the same old thing of propping up Wahhabists in Africa and the Middle East, sending mercenaries and CIA spooks into Syria and beyond, and continued Western blindness to rising and renewing British colonialism in the 21st century of shooting up natives with private military contractors opposed to their oil interests in Africa.

For once... God help us, if they are even real... how about we try our hand at racheting down international tensions? Just once. Let's give liberty a chance to shine and make natural allies a thing for once. That's all I know I'm asking in a U.S. president and this is the first election campaign, ever, to give me hope that Americans actually feel the same way.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
snip

Seanchaidh:
snip

I promise I'm going to respond to you all. It might not be till tomorrow as I've been travelling. My phone does awful things to writing escapist comments if they're longer than a 2-3 sentences.

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:
Uhh, Search, old buddy? I don't want to be mean, but your views on the matter are Much Ado About Nothing.

You think losing to Trump again is nothing. OK, good luck with that.

Jumping to the wrong conclusions and on the wrong bandwagon with misinformation and falsehoods again. Oh, you're just jealous of my witty retort. Get Thee To A Punnery!

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:
Uhh, Search, old buddy? I don't want to be mean, but your views on the matter are Much Ado About Nothing.

You think losing to Trump again is nothing. OK, good luck with that.

Jumping to the wrong conclusions and on the wrong bandwagon with misinformation and falsehoods again. Oh, you're just jealous of my witty retort. Get Thee To A Punnery!

Ah, that's what you consider wit. Fascinating.

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:

You think losing to Trump again is nothing. OK, good luck with that.

Jumping to the wrong conclusions and on the wrong bandwagon with misinformation and falsehoods again. Oh, you're just jealous of my witty retort. Get Thee To A Punnery!

Ah, that's what you consider wit. Fascinating.

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:

You think losing to Trump again is nothing. OK, good luck with that.

Jumping to the wrong conclusions and on the wrong bandwagon with misinformation and falsehoods again. Oh, you're just jealous of my witty retort. Get Thee To A Punnery!

Ah, that's what you consider wit. Fascinating.

And you've been calling your conspiracy theories arguments. How droll.

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:

Jumping to the wrong conclusions and on the wrong bandwagon with misinformation and falsehoods again. Oh, you're just jealous of my witty retort. Get Thee To A Punnery!

Ah, that's what you consider wit. Fascinating.

And you've been calling your conspiracy theories arguments. How droll.

It's not a conspiracy when it's out in the open and legal. What I've described is how the system works. Politicians serve Wall Street. Politicians get money from Wall Street because Wall Street likes what they do. This is how you get all the pernicious effects of bribery with none of the legal consequences.

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:

Ah, that's what you consider wit. Fascinating.

And you've been calling your conspiracy theories arguments. How droll.

It's not a conspiracy when it's out in the open and legal. What I've described is how the system works. Politicians serve Wall Street. Politicians get money from Wall Street because Wall Street likes what they do. This is how you get all the pernicious effects of bribery with none of the legal consequences.

Back on Obama already? For shame, Search. You had way more credibility before you went on that tangeant.

FalloutJack:
Back on Obama already? For shame, Search. You had way more credibility before you went on that tangeant.

Why do you focus on Obama specifically?

Nearly all of them do that, it's an endemic problem.

Sonmi:
Snip

The real question is why did HE focus on Obama? Please direct your questions to the party responsible.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here