U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

[Castel]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

No,no...read up...some of them, Kagan (the absolute hawkish of the neo-Von hawk brigade) in particular, are actually gushing about her f.p. citing specifics. I can buy that some are sane and want to avoid a Trumpocalypse, but to begin with neo-con admiration for Clinton precedes the Donald's rise, and to repeat, they cite specific concepts and in particular have played up when and how she differed with Obama.

 

Fair. Some of the things they cite at that fundraiser seem odd to attribute to Clinton alone (acting multilaterally on Libya) but Kagan does seem particularly hawkish on Russia and critical of Obama.

[Inigima]

Re: Clinton Foundation, and we've discussed this recently, per Politifact, roughly 87% of expenses are on program services. Not exactly a self-enrichment scheme. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to make a case that those program services are illegitimate somehow -- for example, the Trump Foundation and campaign have, famously, funneled its money back into Trump-owned businesses.

I don't believe you can make that case because I don't think it's true, but feel free to try. You will need to point to documentation, not just assert it. Compare and contrast with Trump, who has demonstrably done exactly that.

[James Arryn]

41 minutes ago, Castel said:

 

Fair. Some of the things they cite at that fundraiser seem odd to attribute to Clinton alone (acting multilaterally on Libya) but Kagan does seem particularly hawkish on Russia and critical of Obama.

Cheers. I think a lot of it is back-channel stuff. Many in her closest circles, people likely to have significant roles in her administration have been loudly cheering about how much 'tougher' she's going to be than status quo and quietly complaining about her frustrations with Obama's resolve to actually keep war a last resort (tone mine at the end there, but you get me.) And many of these people swin in the same waters as the Dubya drum beaters, so I assume a lot more is understood than we suppose. 

So, rightly or not, given that dynamic I can see any remotely aggressive action in Obama's administration being chalked up to Hillary winning one of the many policy tug of wars that comprise a tenure; no one else on his staff is particularly identified with hawkishness, so it's not an insane notion...though I agree this is speculative. But it's interesting to remember that in the period before Obama eclipsed Hillary's seeming predestination nation to be the Dem candidate after Dubya, even then some neocons were making conciliatory noises towards her views on f.p. 

The sense I get is that neo-cons think she, unlike Obama and even to a degree Bill, 'gets it'. Ie, that it's America's role to export American liberalism at gunpoint, with the concurrent benefits of increasing U.S. security and material gain, though ideally 'everyone wins' in that kinda modern white man's burden rationale. Remember, too, that Neo-cons almost universally self-identify as ~ liberals, but work within the GOP because they're the party of doers.

 

 

[Ariadne23]

20 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Re: Clinton Foundation, and we've discussed this recently, per Politifact, roughly 87% of expenses are on program services. Not exactly a self-enrichment scheme.

You know, I finally went and read up on all their programs a month or so back and was left feeling completely flummoxed as to how anyone could have a problem with the organization, which, as far as I can tell, does absolutely amazing work, improves the lives of millions of people, partners with the Gates Foundation, etc. It's really a shame that they're going to have to give it up. I get it, I guess, but it seems awfully unfair to Bill. I have to admit, if he was a woman, I'd be complaining about how terrible it is to wreck her life's work, a really impressive life's work, because she's married to a presidential candidate. OTOH, some of their donor connections are unsavory.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

No, no...read up...some of them, Kagan (the absolute hawkiest of the neo-Con chickenhawk brigade) in particular, are actually gushing about her f.p. citing specifics. I can buy that some are sane and want to avoid a Trumpocalypse, but to begin with neo-con admiration for Clinton precedes the Donald's rise, and to repeat, they cite specific concepts and in particular have played up when and how she differed with Obama.

Edit: on re-read the 'no, no read up' beginning of this post sounds unintentionally condescending, my apologies. 

Where? The most I've seen from them is talks largely in response to Trump, who they view as absolutely appallingly dangerous for his views on NATO.

The most praise I've seen is that they believe she's more likely to intervene in Syria then Obama is and will be hardline with the Russians (though I'd point out that Obama is already there on that front).

None of this makes her a neocon. None of this makes what Kagan or his ilk think true either.

Being more supportive of intervention then Obama does not make one a neo-con.

[OldGimletEye]

26 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Remember, too, that Neo-cons almost universally self-identify as ~ liberals, but work within the GOP because they're the party of doers.

Yeah, it's interesting that neo-cons did have their origins on the left to a large extent. They turned Trotksy's "Permanent Revolution" into "Permanent War". 

I really hope they don't gain much influence in Hillary's administration. This is the thing I worry about the most with regard to Hillary. And I certainly hope they aren't able to embed themselves back into the Democratic Party Foreign Policy Establishment.

I don't think Hillary is fundamentally a neo-con. But she is a little more inventionyish than I would like.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

No, no...read up...some of them, Kagan (the absolute hawkiest of the neo-Con chickenhawk brigade) in particular, are actually gushing about her f.p. citing specifics. I can buy that some are sane and want to avoid a Trumpocalypse, but to begin with neo-con admiration for Clinton precedes the Donald's rise, and to repeat, they cite specific concepts and in particular have played up when and how she differed with Obama.

Edit: on re-read the 'no, no read up' beginning of this post sounds unintentionally condescending, my apologies. 

Isn't the definition of a neo-con a [US political definition of] liberal who is rather hawkish on foreign policy? "The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s." according to one article. So they are democrat in most of their ideology except on defense and use of force to advance US interests. That does rather sound a bit Clinton-y, both of them in fact. And Blairite (New Labour).

Still I think the card carrying neo-cons would still be inclined to support most potential republican candidates over Hillary, just because the Republican congress is generally more hawkish, and when a Republican is in the white house the Republican congress will line up with any military endeavours that are proposed. Less certainty of that if there's a Democrat in the White House. So they mostly just don;t want Trump because of his crazy.

[butterbumps!]

6 hours ago, Ariadne23 said:

From the last thread, on the white working class rural men thing, what I'm seeing from briefly looking at the data is that these people are not actually worse off economically than urban men and women of all races that do not support Trump, but nevertheless perceive that they are. Is that what other people are seeing?

If that's the case, that people who used to have a double scoop are bitching about now having a single scoop like everyone else, I can see why there is a moral case for why we really should not GAF. It seems like that is the objection to carrying on about the stuff in the Cracked piece (in addition to the author's implicit condescension to those voters in stripping them of their agency and reasoning faculties)?

But, pragmatically, seeing as these people may otherwise go violent on us and could again threaten to stick us with a Trumpster-type for President, what do Democrats do to appeal to these voters, to tell a better, different story (especially now that we've welcomed so many 100 scoop fat cats into our party)? Are they really just irredeemable?

Yea, it seems the data points to most Trump supporters being fairly well off- at least, not the kind of poverty that's become the popular narrative.  Some do perceive doing worse, while some are actually entrenched in rural poverty.  And some of the poverty is due to dying industrial cities, per what the Cracked article appeared to be universalizing.   But it's been my impression for a while-- reaffirmed by that Vox piece-- that the better off majority of Trump supporters have coopted the narrative of the struggling rural person left behind as a kind of code that masks their socially unacceptable reasons for giving support.   

There is, and pretty much has always been, a problem of rural poverty in this country.   That's real, and it should continue to be dealt with.   I mean, i do GAF about trying to eradicate poverty-- how does the cycle end if we don't?   And not to go all Helen Lovejoy here, but there's kids involved in this-- their parents might be shitheels, but that doesn't mean they should go without proper education, nutrition, mental health access, or be unable to find a place in the economy, etc etc.

I'm not sure how to reach these people, though.  They seem to self-select their information sources, sources that seem to demonize anything with a liberal/ dem taint, even when the information could sincerely help these groups of people.   Continuing and improving policies meant to mitigate the effects of automation (such as retraining and relocation credits), improvements in health care (a lot of people go into major debt due to health care costs), and increasing infrastructure and the like seem like good ideas, but these people have to be made aware that such options are available in order to make use of them.  I'm not completely sure where the breakdown with this is-- are the programs not enough?   Are people not aware of the options, and are therefore not taking them?  I suspect that for some of the older generations, the idea of retraining and re-entering the workplace might be damn near impossible.

[Ariadne23]

11 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Continuing and improving policies meant to mitigate the effects of automation (such as retraining and relocation credits), improvements in health care (a lot of people go into major debt due to health care costs), and increasing infrastructure and the like seem like good ideas, but these people have to be made aware that such options are available in order to make use of them.  I'm not completely sure where the breakdown with this is-- are the programs not enough?   Are people not aware of the options, and are therefore not taking them?  

Re: Relocation, I think people who have spent their lives in one rural location where there parents and grandparents also spent their whole lives find the idea of moving somewhere else completely devastating. They just aren't going to do it, however much economic sense it might make. I guess that's why I think retraining for jobs that can be done remotely might be a good idea. That or somehow making a persuasive case that adopting a narrative of embracing change is a good thing to do.

ETA: Like pushing the idea that embracing change has been the American way since its founding? It at least has the advantage of being true?

[The Anti-Targ]

I think decentralising jobs that no longer need to be urbanised is one way of bettering the rural economy without demanding that people move into cities. To that end one of the best things that can be done for rural communities is good quality, reliable and affordable internet. If you have the internet you have access to the entire world, and that creates economic opportunities since you have a potential market of a few billion people.

[Boris the Blade]

2 hours ago, Lord Eddard said:

Who needs any conspiracy theories when the Clinton Foundation's shady business practices are there for everyone to see? It's a brilliant scheme for personal enrichment and it made Bill and Hillary into multi-millionaires.

And that it stinks to high heaven is not a wacko accusation of the right but the left itself was and is very worried that it "doesn't look good" in the public eye.

Does that excuse Trump's failings? No. But it sheds light on the greedy and corrupt character of the woman who in all likelihood will command the most powerful army in the world for the next four years. And that scares me.

Ah, but Trump's "charities/ foundation and campaign" aren't like slush funds and Trump hasn't called to commit war crimes through he systematic killings of civilian family members that may have family members that may have terrorist ties and says he would bring torture back and use it even if it doesn't get info out of them (which it doesn't) just because they "deserve it". Not to mention he said he wouldn't rule out nuclear weapon use. 

I mean he totally hasn't shown himself to be corrupt through his use of charities / foundation and even his campaign like a slush fund, he totally hasn't shown himself to be corrupt through having ties to the mafia, he totally hasn't shown himself to be corrupt by paying off an attorney to avoid being charged with fraud in yet another state for his con "university".

I see how it is, Clinton is corrupt and greedy, Trump has his "failings". Lol, oh the double standard continues.

 

[Inigima]

56 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

You know, I finally went and read up on all their programs a month or so back and was left feeling completely flummoxed as to how anyone could have a problem with the organization, which, as far as I can tell, does absolutely amazing work, improves the lives of millions of people, partners with the Gates Foundation, etc. It's really a shame that they're going to have to give it up. I get it, I guess, but it seems awfully unfair to Bill. I have to admit, if he was a woman, I'd be complaining about how terrible it is to wreck her life's work, a really impressive life's work, because she's married to a presidential candidate. OTOH, some of their donor connections are unsavory.

It's entirely ideological. ACORN did jack shit wrong too, and the Republicans dragged their name through the mud so badly that the organization was forced to shut down anyway. Once the right wing hate machine has decided a person or group is guilty of misconduct there's no convincing them otherwise, no matter how much evidence they're shown. See also: Benghazi hearings.

[Castel]

Just now, Inigima said:

It's entirely ideological. ACORN did jack shit wrong too, and the Republicans dragged their name through the mud so badly that the organization was forced to shut down anyway. Once the right wing hate machine has decided a person or group is guilty of misconduct there's no convincing them otherwise, no matter how much evidence they're shown. See also: Benghazi hearings.

At this point it's gone past the Right.

I don't believe that the Associated Press is a rightwing mouthpiece, in fact, they've always been well-received AFAIK, yet even they had their little moment of Clinton Foundation hysteria. 

The Right seems to shout it until it seeps into the rest of the world, then everyone splits the difference with words like "perception" and so on.

[OldGimletEye]

Quote

“The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” That passage, which framed a core part of the argument of our 2012 book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, was vilified by conservative commentators, called a rant and a parody.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/08/republicans-created-dysfunction-now-theyre-paying-for-it/

[Shryke]

51 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Isn't the definition of a neo-con a [US political definition of] liberal who is rather hawkish on foreign policy? "The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s." according to one article. So they are democrat in most of their ideology except on defense and use of force to advance US interests. That does rather sound a bit Clinton-y, both of them in fact. And Blairite (New Labour).

Still I think the card carrying neo-cons would still be inclined to support most potential republican candidates over Hillary, just because the Republican congress is generally more hawkish, and when a Republican is in the white house the Republican congress will line up with any military endeavours that are proposed. Less certainty of that if there's a Democrat in the White House. So they mostly just don;t want Trump because of his crazy.

I ... what?

No. The label has a bit of an odd history but anyone trying to sell you the idea that they are lefties is talking out of their ass. I mean, we are talking about the group most associated with the GWB administration.

Even wikipedia says this:

Quote

 

As the policies of the New Left made the Democrats increasingly leftist, these intellectuals became disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society domestic programs. The influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by Ben Wattenberg expressed that the "real majority" of the electorate endorsed economic liberalism but also social conservatism, and warned Democrats it could be disastrous to adopt liberal positions on certain social and crime issues.[35]

The neoconservatives rejected the counterculture New Left, and what they considered anti-Americanism in thenon-interventionism of the activism against the Vietnam War. After the anti-war faction took control of the party during 1972 and nominated George McGovern, the Democrats among them endorsed Washington Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson instead for his unsuccessful 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle.[36] During the late 1970s, neoconservatives tended to endorse Ronald Reagan, the Republican who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. Neocons organized in the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation to counter the liberal establishment.[37]

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

With regard to origins of the neo-cons, I don't think it matters. The main point is that, wherever they came from, they are not wanted within the modern American liberal establishment. Their history is interesting, but not completely relevant to where, I think, the majority of liberals are at on foreign policy. To think otherwise, would be kind of like saying that John McCain and Lindsey Graham don't have some highly interventionist views because the Old Right in the US had a tradition of non-interventionism - like Robert Taft for instance.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Sassy Trump-Drug Test

 

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

37 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I don't think any political affiliation has a monopoly on forming an opinion then screaming about it and holding onto it as fact no matter what. 

Seems a pretty common thing through all walks of life

I'm actually sympathetic to this view. I mean I can think time when the Left starts screaming about something and holds on to it as fact no matter what. But these have generally been just blowups on twitter or tumblr and failed to gain traction in Mainstream Media(tm). Certainly nothing on the scale of ACORN, Benghazi, or the Clinton Foundation.

Do you have any concrete examples?

[DanteGabriel]

28 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Ill knock off my bullshit as soon as you knock off your "Hillary can do no wrong" bullshit.

And no I do not know that only one political affiliation forms an opinion then runs with it no matter what.

Literally no one has said Clinton can do no wrong. I think the majority of Clinton-friendly posters have acknowledged she is too hawkish, too given to triangulation, too secretive, that she made significant mistakes in her tenure as SoS. But I think we just think that she is, on the balance, a reasonably competent Democrat who can be trusted on Supreme Court appointments and domestic economic and social welfare policies.

The second part is just goalpost-shifting. I believe the discussion was about conspiracy theories -- like the birther conspiracy, or the Clinton Foundation being a font of corruption, or, say, Operation Jade Helm is a liberal police state practice run! That was a fun one. Those are all provably wrong conspiracy theories that were popularized and advanced by Republican elected leaders.

Please find me some equivalent conspiracy theories from Democratic leaders.

[Shryke]

Re: The firebombing in NC, the candidates tweets are exactly what you thought they would be:

Clinton said the only reasonable and proper thing, Trump claims his opponent is a criminal.