U.S. Election: It's Gonna Be a Huge Thread, It's Gonna Be the Best Thread!

[mormont]

28 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

What makes you think I am a Trump supporter? 

Nothing. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is, at this stage, one of those two will be President. Worrying about Clinton's potential for concealment is legitimate, but the other guy isn't any better. In fact he's much worse. Trump, as you note, simply will not admit to being wrong even when caught in a lie. He obscures and obfuscates his net worth, while boasting about it constantly in public. He even brags about making all his staff sign non-disclosure agreements so he can keep things secret! His record shows he'll deny, dissemble, cover up, and still tell you to your face that he's the most honest man you've ever met.

I agree that whoever wins will likely be a one-term Pres. Trump will be fantastically unpopular. It's also believable that Clinton will simply step aside for age reasons. But impeachment? Possibly for Trump if his party decide not to back him, but it's never going to happen for Clinton.

[James Arryn]

12 hours ago, Inigima said:

I am a Sanders fan, though it seems pretty clear that Clinton will be the nominee. I'm not totally comfortable with Clinton's centrist politics, and I live in a safely Democratic state (Maryland) and should be able to write in a protest vote for Sanders. I'm not a believer these days in voting for the least bad option; I believe that's how you ensure a continuous parade of shitty middle of the road candidates.

I have heard, and despise, the self-serving argument from Clinton supporters that it's my privilege that allows me to take that position. I regard it as my right, as it is that of others, to advocate for and support policies I actually believe in, and I think to claim otherwise is a cynical argument from self-interest.

And yet, I think I might vote for Clinton in the general if (when) she clinches the nomination. A President Trump might actually destroy the world. I don't trust Trump not to kick off nuclear war. I don't trust Trump not to utterly destroy the global economy, even inadvertently, as with his recent comments about reducing the national debt. I think he might bring about a return of something akin to the Japanese internment camps under FDR, and as much as I hate it when goyim politicians invoke the Holocaust, I think it's important to reject incitements to anti-religious violence and I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that Trump could bring about even state-sponsored anti-Muslim violence in some way, if not the same as WWII Germany. In many ways I don't care for Clinton's politics, but keeping the presumptive Republican nominee out of office this year might genuinely be the single most important thing, as opposed to every other year when party flaks claim it but it isn't true.

The Trump-Hitler stuff is interesting. Though there are a great many similarities, I'd have to say I think Hitler was more sincere, especially when discussing autarky and to a lesser extent nativism...Hitler walked the talk.

 But I think the much more worrying comparisons are found, not in the individuals themselves, but in the collective thinking that's forming the bedrock of their support...THAT is eerily similar; relative outsider appealing to extreme dissatisfaction with conventional options, xenophobia, social scapegoat syndrome, shockingly personal rhetoric directed at adversaries, promotion of violence/qualifying same as necessary defense and then turning around and citing said violence as evidence of need, arbitrary belief that they won't be as extreme as they say they will on certain issues and/or will be constrained by law, sense that their willingness to speak offensively about certain elements of society is refreshing/needed challenge to political timidity, enthusiastic support of broadly stated but unspecified plans to identify, classify and ultimately deport significant unwelcome groups of folk because of danger they represent to 'true' citizenry...it just goes on.

It's always been wrong to believe 'it could never happen here', but especially given the fact that the US now faces nothing remotely approaching the critical mass of political and economic disfunction that was the Weimar Republic, I think Trump's run ought to throw some soberingly cold water on that idea. Nothing will ever exactly replicate history, but the footmarks of the steps that allowed that history to happen there and then can be retraced anywhere, and that's the part where society is responsible.

[Maester Drew]

12 hours ago, mormont said:

I'd put it this way:

I'm not a US voter and I don't have to make the choice. But there are times in all our lives when refusing to pick the lesser of two evils is a principled stance worth making, and times when it's a way of salving our conscience over our unwillingness to make a hard decision. Or to put it the other way: there are times when picking the lesser of two evils is pragmatic and sensible, and times when it's just maintaining a harmful status quo.

Choosing the lesser of two evils, is still choosing evil though.

12 hours ago, mormont said:

So now, you have to make that distinction I referred to above. That's an individual decision. For some of you, that individual decision probably won't matter much in the grand scheme of things, because your state isn't in play.

That's me.  I'm a Texan, born n' raised. My state is safely Republican, so no matter how I vote in November, Texas will go to the Republican candidate. Besides, this will be my first time voting in a Presidential Election, and I want it to mean something, that's why I'll be writing in Bernie's name six months from now.

[The guy from the Vale]

2 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

Choosing the lesser of two evils, is still choosing evil though.

That's me.  I'm a Texan, born n' raised. My state is safely Republican, so no matter how I vote in November, Texas will go to the Republican candidate. Besides, this will be my first time voting in a Presidential Election, and I want it to mean something, that's why I'll be writing in Bernie's name six months from now.

I wouldn't be so sure about Texas not mattering in the end. I played around with 538's demographic model, and one not too wildly implausible configuration (basically, Latino and White Non-Graduate turnout way up, Black and White Graduate turnout a bit down, Latinos far more often voting Dem, Whites with a College degree going a bit more to the Democrats, and Whites without a college degree going for Trump)  suddenly turned Texas into a better prospect for the Dems than Iowa or Ohio.

[alguien]

1 hour ago, Maester Drew said:

Choosing the lesser of two evils, is still choosing evil though.

I guess I'm just trying to figure out how HRC is evil, and the only thing I can come up with is her tendency to support small-scale military intervention.

She's led fights on LGBT and women's rights long before it was popular. She basically created the Violence Against Women department in the DoJ and passed the first Human Rights resolution for LGBT in the UN. She passed CHIPs, giving healthcare to 8 million impoverished kids (a fact white folks tend to forget when they're puzzled over her minority support).

She's for increasing the minimum wage. She's for national healthcare. She supported numerous bills to better regulate banks while she was in the Senate.

Maybe it's that she got paid to give a rah-rah speech to an investment firm? I'm pretty skeptical of the claim that this would allow for some kind of quid pro quo, especially since the fee is pretty minimal for someone of Clinton's stature.

I understand why some prefer Sanders, but I don't understand the Clinton hate. Frankly, I'd be ecstatic if anyone, let alone a woman, with this kind of resume was elected into high office.

[Shryke]

6 hours ago, Triskan said:

I think that this anti-Trump group, should it coalesce, would be doing so with no illusions about winning in 2016.  It would be to in part undermine Trump and stay pure and in part to start building on something for 2020. 

I think it would be more to try and avoid having the GOP brand tied too much to Trump, for now and for the future, to avoid getting murdered downticket.

Because Clinton and others are already making the smart play here and tying Trump to everyone in the Republican party and that's not good for them giving polling on Trump.

[James Arryn]

52 minutes ago, alguien said:

I guess I'm just trying to figure out how HRC is evil, and the only thing I can come up with is her tendency to support small-scale military intervention.

She's led fights on LGBT and women's rights long before it was popular. She basically created the Violence Against Women department in the DoJ and passed the first Human Rights resolution for LGBT in the UN. She passed CHIPs, giving healthcare to 8 million impoverished kids (a fact white folks tend to forget when they're puzzled over her minority support).

She's for increasing the minimum wage. She's for national healthcare. She supported numerous bills to better regulate banks while she was in the Senate.

Maybe it's that she got paid to give a rah-rah speech to an investment firm? I'm pretty skeptical of the claim that this would allow for some kind of quid pro quo, especially since the fee is pretty minimal for someone of Clinton's stature.

I understand why some prefer Sanders, but I don't understand the Clinton hate. Frankly, I'd be ecstatic if anyone, let alone a woman, with this kind of resume was elected into high office.

I recognize that this speaks as much to the American mentality as it does to HRC, but being prone to favour (skipping euphemisms) waging illegal wars in other people's countries really truly ought to be a very big deal. 

Doesn't move the needle compared with Trump, who seems pretty jingoistic himself, but the fact that it's offered here as a marginalized concession arrived at by groping for some kind of basis for critique is pretty awful, IMO.

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

I recognize that this speaks as much to the American mentality as it does to HRC, but being prone to favour (skipping euphemisms) waging illegal wars in other people's countries really truly ought to be a very big deal. 

Doesn't move the needle compared with Trump, who seems pretty jingoistic himself, but the fact that it's offered here as a marginalized concession arrived at by groping for some kind of basis for critique is pretty awful, IMO.

Eh. That's a stretch for what he's talking about. Although it can be included there.

But really, this is just complaining that the US is a global superpower.

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Eh. That's a stretch for what he's talking about. Although it can be included there.

But really, this is just complaining that the US is a global superpower.

I don't agree that it's a stretch. 'Intervention' is and always has been a euphemism, since Harcourt first coined the term 150 years ago, describing it as...

'a high and summary procedure that can sometimes snatch a remedy beyond the reach of law. As in the case of revolution, its essence is its illegality and its justification is its success'

...which definition has never needed altering. Even after Kouchner sought to establish parameters whereby it's illegality is superseded by it's necessity, a review of all it's manifestations supports Harcourt's warning that it is almost impossible to be made available to imperial powers without it therefore being used as another extension of political aims by other means. Even the best instances since, say, 1991 have...as Clausvitz says must happen...escalated from localized concerns to greater extensions of a nation state's will.

This does not mean illegal wars abroad cannot 'succeed', and/or be of greater benefit than cost. But it's an inherently dubious proposition almost invariably 'scored' by the acting states based only on how it reflected their interests, and should be approached with extreme caution, cynicism and suspicion. A world leader who represents a pattern of wanting to act in this manner is a dangerous element. It's not a minor quibble.

Global superpower being defined as militarily capable and active in pursuing national self interest in other regions at the cost of other people's lives is, yeah, complaint worthy IMO. That the building temperature has been set at very hot for a long time doesn't mean that there's a new room temperature. But, further, Obama has lead a superpower without seeming to be as pro-'intervention' as HRC, so it's not just the nature of the beast, either.

[Maester Drew]

2 hours ago, alguien said:

She's led fights on LGBT and women's rights long before it was popular. She basically created the Violence Against Women department in the DoJ and passed the first Human Rights resolution for LGBT in the UN. She passed CHIPs, giving healthcare to 8 million impoverished kids (a fact white folks tend to forget when they're puzzled over her minority support).

*snort* Back in 2004, Hillary defined marriage as between one man and one woman. She later expressed her support for marriage equality... in 2013. That ain't "long before it was popular"

2 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

I wouldn't be so sure about Texas not mattering in the end. I played around with 538's demographic model, and one not too wildly implausible configuration (basically, Latino and White Non-Graduate turnout way up, Black and White Graduate turnout a bit down, Latinos far more often voting Dem, Whites with a College degree going a bit more to the Democrats, and Whites without a college degree going for Trump) and Texas suddenly turned into a better prospect for the Dems than Iowa or Ohio.

I said this a while back, but there aren't enough registered Hispanic voters to truly make Texas a swing state. Furthermore, remember all that broo ha ha back in 2012 about voter ID laws? Texas was one of the states to impose such laws which really affected minority communities including Hispanics.

Now, I ain't saying my state will never become purple or even blue once more, all I'm saying is that it won't be this election. If Texas was to become a swing state, I'd say it'll be 2020 or 2024 when we start seeing that happen.

 

Addendum: For more info on the possibility of Texas becoming blue;

• Hispanics Won't Turn Texas Blue -Politico
• Democrats Unlikely to Expand the Electoral Map in 2016 - Observer
• Can Democrats Turn Texas and Arizona Blue by 2016? -New York Times

[Shryke]

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I don't agree that it's a stretch. 'Intervention' is and always has been a euphemism, since Harcourt first coined the term 150 years ago, describing it as...

'a high and summary procedure that can sometimes snatch a remedy beyond the reach of law. As in the case of revolution, its essence is its illegality and its justification is its success'

...which definition has never needed altering. Even after Kouchner sought to establish parameters whereby it's illegality is superseded by it's necessity, a review of all it's manifestations supports Harcourt's warning that it is almost impossible to be made available to imperial powers without it therefore being used as another extension of political aims by other means. Even the best instances since, say, 1991 have...as Clausvitz says must happen...escalated from localized concerns to greater extensions of a nation state's will.

This does not mean illegal wars abroad cannot 'succeed', and/or be of greater benefit than cost. But it's an inherently dubious proposition almost invariably 'scored' by the acting states based only on how it reflected their interests, and should be approached with extreme caution, cynicism and suspicion. A world leader who represents a pattern of wanting to act in this manner is a dangerous element. It's not a minor quibble.

It is a stretch because intervention is not a euphemism for illegal wars. An intervention, for instance, can be legal by whatever definitions exist for such things with US domestic or international law.

Whatever warning you are talking about here is rather besides the point you initially made, which wasn't that it could be abused.

Because seriously, the intent was clearly to paint the idae of intervention in the worst possible light by narrowing it's definition down alot.

 

 

Quote

Global superpower being defined as militarily capable and active in pursuing national self interest in other regions at the cost of other people's lives is, yeah, complaint worthy IMO. That the building temperature has been set at very hot for a long time doesn't mean that there's a new room temperature. But, further, Obama has lead a superpower without seeming to be as pro-'intervention' as HRC, so it's not just the nature of the beast, either.

Obama is slightly less pro-intervention but don't kid yourself. He just moved alot of the US's action into drones and other more "precise" but less obvious stuff.

But more generally the US as a superpower doesn't exist without pursuing national interests globally. It's practically the definition thereof. You can get more and less and smarter and stupider along these lines but it's fundamental to the concept. US foreign policy is not gonna abandon these ideas without a fundamental and severe restructuring of what the US is, what is wants to do, how much power it wields and how the entire world of foreign relations works. And the changes would probably not be for the better for either the US or it's allies.

[Shryke]

9 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

*snort* Back in 2004, Hillary defined marriage as between one man and one woman. She later expressed her support for marriage equality... in 2013. That ain't "long before it was popular"

 

There's more then just marriage to LGBT rights yo.

[Maester Drew]

6 minutes ago, Shryke said:

There's more then just marriage to LGBT rights yo.

Like serving in the military? Oh wait, her husband gave us "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I'm just glad that was repealed.

[ThinkerX]

13 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

Like serving in the military? Oh wait, her husband gave us "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I'm just glad that was repealed.

Worth pointing out, back in the 90's, 'don't ask, don't tell,' was about the best that could be hoped for in that department. 

[James Arryn]

25 minutes ago, Shryke said:

It is a stretch because intervention is not a euphemism for illegal wars. An intervention, for instance, can be legal by whatever definitions exist for such things with US domestic or international law.

Whatever warning you are talking about here is rather besides the point you initially made, which wasn't that it could be abused.

Because seriously, the intent was clearly to paint the idae of intervention in the worst possible light by narrowing it's definition down alot.

 

 

Obama is slightly less pro-intervention but don't kid yourself. He just moved alot of the US's action into drones and other more "precise" but less obvious stuff.

But more generally the US as a superpower doesn't exist without pursuing national interests globally. It's practically the definition thereof. You can get more and less and smarter and stupider along these lines but it's fundamental to the concept. US foreign policy is not gonna abandon these ideas without a fundamental and severe restructuring of what the US is, what is wants to do, how much power it wields and how the entire world of foreign relations works. And the changes would probably not be for the better for either the US or it's allies.

Intervention IS a euphemism for illegal war...even according to the man who first used the term, as stated. Even proponents of it admit that much...generally the discussion becomes whether or not an illegal war can be just. US domestic law wouldn't be a factor...the relevant law is chapter VII of the UNC, which specifically does not make allowance for 'a nation(s) deliberate decision to introduce military force into existing conflicts', even for real or pretended humanitarian reasons, except at the 'formalized invitation of the global community' (meaning, unsurprisingly, the UN itself) at which point it would no longer qualify as an 'intervention'.

Although Pearson brilliantly sought to split the atom a la 'peacekeeping', thereby sidestepping the illegality by not being stimulated by foreign interests, but rather at the behest of both parties in order to preserve an agreed upon peace, as DeWaal notes you must first have a peace, and you absolutely cannot become an active party or pursue political aims; you cannot simultaneously pursue humanitarian/peace keeping goals and political/self-interests. Once you start doing the latter, you are no longer doing the former;

"The truth is that no intervention can be apolitical, and humanitarian action cannot substitute for political strategy. The political decisions that led to the urban war against General Mohamed Aidid, whose militia shot down Black Hawk helicopters on October 3, 1993, were taken during the “humanitarian” phase. A second truth from Somalia is that once an intervening force begins to fight, it can do nothing else. The moment the UN and the United States went to war against General Aidid, the international forces ceased to have any humanitarian role."

edit: experiencing wifi issues, trying to get in before losing what I wrote. Quickly, re: Obsma, I am not fooling myself, neither do I approve of his actions, but the very fact that there is variance show that it is not necessarily inherent in simply being. I do agree that imperial powers will almost always distinguish themselves as such by their actions, and I agree the US is unlikely to stop being itself just because, but that is neither absolution nor a reason to stop criticizing. As to the benefit, hard to say...but at best we're getting back to the point of this thread; the lesser evil. Unlike this thread, though, the alternative is not necessarily a Constant Donald.

[ThinkerX]

At this point, with Clinton starting to focus on Trump, I am starting to wonder...

 

Does Sanders have a legitimate shot at taking California?  If so, by how much of a margin?  Because I recollect a blurb somewhere that's where his campaign crew was setting up shop at.

 

Note that I do not believe even a major victory in that state will secure Sanders the nomination, or even come close to it.  But a decisive Sanders victory in California might be interesting, in terms of implications.

 

[alguien]

5 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

*snort* Back in 2004, Hillary defined marriage as between one man and one woman. She later expressed her support for marriage equality... in 2013. That ain't "long before it was popular"

"I view marriage as a life-long commitment between husband and wife" -Bernie Sanders, 1982.

(The guy who opposed gay marriage in his own state until 2006, favoring civil unions.)

And there is plenty more to LGBT rights than gay marriage. Clinton marched with the pride parade in NYC since 2000 every year she was a senator, and championed anti-hate legislation during that time as well. 

One of the first things she did as secretary of state was to make sure all her LGBT employees and their partners had full access to benefits. After which, she led the UN to pass the first LGBT rights legislation ever. From her 2011 speech: 

Quote

Gay people are born into, and belong to, every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths. They are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes. And whether we know it or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors. Being gay is not a Western invention. It is a human reality.

So yes, I would say she's always been a committed ally in this fight. As is Senator Sanders. 

[alguien]

Edit: Nevermind. Already been addressed. 

[alguien]

6 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I recognize that this speaks as much to the American mentality as it does to HRC, but being prone to favour (skipping euphemisms) waging illegal wars in other people's countries really truly ought to be a very big deal. 

Doesn't move the needle compared with Trump, who seems pretty jingoistic himself, but the fact that it's offered here as a marginalized concession arrived at by groping for some kind of basis for critique is pretty awful, IMO.

I agree that it isn't a small deal. But I'd also point out that there's a difference between, say, a preemptive invasion of Iraq and ordering air-strikes at the request of a multi-national coalition. I would expect HRC's foreign policy approach to be similar to Obama's or her husband's. Hell, even Sanders has supported military intervention on several occasions. 

And no, not every intervention is an illegal war. Unless you think the US has been engaged in illegal wars for the entirety of it's existence, in which case you're arguing semantics and wishing we weren't a superpower. 

[James Arryn]

14 minutes ago, alguien said:

Whereas before, it was just straight up forbidden to be gay in the military. You get that he did that to allow gay people to stay in, right?

I mean, I suppose you could stay in before if you never told anyone that you were unnatural.

It's not a total black mark against Clinton, but it's pretty clearly the kind of classic compromise a politician makes with something that's not a priority but still on the agenda. And like most classic political compromises, it ends up making no one happy. Homosexual soldiers are told they must hide like they are somehow wrong for being gay, homophobes have their stance that homosexuality is shameful confirmed, but they're stuck with them and now they have to wonder which secretgayz are amongst them, and the brass are handed a ticking bomb.

I'd call it a push at best. He could have done more if it had been important, or he at least could have found a compromise that didn't affirm the idea that it's something best reserved for dark closets, but at least he did something, and more would have probably expended a lot of political currency.