| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think just claiming "centrist", unless you actually sit in the middle of a majority of issues, lacks nuance and appreciation of how things are in this country. A lot of people who are politically apathetic think that they're centrist, but when you break it down by issue, they actually skew much more to the edges per that issue. An actual centrist would always trend towards the middle.
Libertarians aren't centrist. They're actually pretty extreme in their views, it's just that some of their views end up on the left and some on the right. I think where they end up on the left is more by accident of our political system though than anything else, due to the alliances that the right has had to make over the years to stay competitive.
Libertarians can really be summed up with the concept "the government shouldn't tell us what to do, except when absolutely necessary." Which sounds appealing, but then you have to ask the question... when is it absolutely necessary?
Should the government tell us what to do to avoid large numbers of people don't fall into horrible poverty?
Should the government tell us what to do to avoid large numbers of needless deaths?
The answer in a lot of cases for Libertarians is "No". Many Libertarians believe that people should be allowed to make their own choices, even if it results in horrible poverty or death. Instead of the government regulating the amount of lead in paint, we should just use the reviews and comments section of Home Depot's website.
I personally will never buy into that. It too easily ignores the damage to the commons, which is how you end up with things like (we don't need to debate these, just examples) anti-vaxxers, polluted rivers/lakes and poor air quality. The counter argument is usually that "well, we don't have a perfect market system", but it ignores the long history of human behavior that just doesn't care about the damage to the commons.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for government regulation of everything. I think the Libertarian mindset is useful as a check against over-regulation and bad regulation. We should constantly be reevaluating the governments policies and questioning whether it's doing good or harm.
I took that quiz, I'm 98% with Jill Stein/Bernie Sanders and 97% with Clinton. Johnson was 70% and Drumpf was 36%.
I took the quiz came up;
Hilary 92%
Bernie 90%
Stein 88%
Johnson 85%
Trumpster fire 27%
I didn't really dig too deep into the additional options and priority slider tho.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Requiring a 'balanced federal budget' is itself inherently 'irresponsible'. You need to be able to borrow to deal with economic slowdowns, natural disasters, wars, et cetera.
At that, so long as the economy is growing faster than loaned interest you are better off using debt to leverage growth.
All that being said... for the past ~50 years Democrats have consistently decreased the deficit while Republicans have consistently increased it. Thus, claims of no difference between the parties on this issue fly in the face of the data.
I don't believe anyone said "requiring." I appreciate the value of deficit spending during a downturn.
However, when the national debt is getting to a worrying % of GDP -- which it is here in the U.S. -- balancing the budget needs to be on the table. What I'm saying is neither major party has any credibility on that front.
As for the Democrats decreasing the debt and the Republicans increasing it...I"m not sure exactly what that means. Democratic Administration? Democratic Congress? Both? And I say this as a Democrat...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes down to it, expecting one person -- even the POTUS -- to fix everything is silly.
The system is broken. That doesn't change the fact that the 2016 presidential election is binary. Even if Clinton is as corrupt as people claim (I'm not sure she's any worse than your typical politican, but that's another thread), Trump is so glaringly unfit to be president I'd vote for just about *anyone* else.
Stuff on Bernie not conceding
I agree with thejeff on this. I think Bernie is done, and I think if he wasn't than we would not have given the endorsement we did. Bernie did really good in the grand scheme of things, and caused Hillary to probably move more left than she is truly comfortable with.
After all, even if this is just some weird ploy to be heard on the convention floor, he still loses since Hillary is beating him on delegates/super-delegates. Short of a major disaster for Hillary of some sort, most of the people who support her are not going to switch sides right now
I just have been noticing a lot of equivalent commentary by folks. There is very much a sense of denial over Bernie endorsing Clinton, especially amongst the hardcore Bernie supporters.
I used to think that Congress was the main body that governed, the POTUS was just the rudder that steers the ship.
Don't think it's ever been like that. Even whe nthe same party holds both houses and the presidency.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point I'm sort of scratching my head whenever people mention the Trump/Hillary dichotomy.
Hillary: "She's a criminal! A flip-flopper! She promises whatever people want to hear in order to get what she wants!"
In other words she's a politician.
Trump: "He always says what's on his mind! He tells it like it is! He has big ideas and no plans to compromise on them!"
In other words he has no idea what he's doing.
Yes, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the status quo, and the status quo sucks.
But that doesn't mean that ANY change is a good change. Corrupt competence is better than pure incompetence, and it's hard to claim Trump is "pure" anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One note: Yes, Hillary has more delegates and such, enough to vote to get her way... but, clearly, a very sizable part of her political party has other ideas. You don't bring a party together by running roughshod over people just because you can, and she'd probably do well to address the concerns of Sanders' supporters on at least some issues. If you can't find a good balance between the people who currently agree with you and the people who don't, you're probably not fit to be President in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, so this thread became an addition to Comrades thread. Not unexpected knowing this forum.
Never understood why they call Trump Drumpf. Like, when I write or talk about Hillary I don't call her B#%$@ to be condescending to her even though I don't like her. Hell, I liked Sanders more.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never understood why they call Trump Drumpf. Like, when I write or talk about Hillary I don't call her B#%$@ to be condescending to her even though I don't like her. Hell, I liked Sanders more.
Because everyone knows the best way to point out how petty and xenophobic a guy is, is to make fun of his funny-sounding foreign family name.
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue, and is not going to let Clinton or Sanders govern any more than Obama. That means a presidency about foreign policy and executive orders, because that's what the president can do without Congress. From that perspective, Clinton is definitely the more qualified candidate. It's not that I don't agree with Sanders as to what we need to accomplish (if not specifics as to how), but Sanders has almost no foreign policy chops, and Clinton does. I also like Clinton for taking a more hawkish military attitude while not going full bore "Make the Middle East glow in the dark" like Ted Cruz, and balancing the need go deal with ISIS with acceptance of Syrizn refugees trying to escape those murderers. On the executive order front, I expect a continuation of Obama, which is probably the best we can hope for. I don't see much of what Sanders wants to do being doable by executive order. The more I think about it, the more I do trust Clinton, which is why I voted for her in the primary.
Never understood why they call Trump Drumpf. Like, when I write or talk about Hillary I don't call her B#%$@ to be condescending to her even though I don't like her. Hell, I liked Sanders more.Because everyone knows the best way to point out how petty and xenophobic a guy is, is to make fun of his funny-sounding foreign family name.
Depends if you do consider him that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never understood why they call Trump Drumpf. Like, when I write or talk about Hillary I don't call her B#%$@ to be condescending to her even though I don't like her. Hell, I liked Sanders more.Because everyone knows the best way to point out how petty and xenophobic a guy is, is to make fun of his funny-sounding foreign family name.
Well, sorta but also sorta not.
It comes from a John Oliver/Last Week Tonight bit where he talks about Trump's comments made to somebody or another that they should be "Proud of their Jewish heritage" and they were "hiding" behind an Americanized name.
So John Oliver pointed out that by that logic, he should still be Drumpf. Of course, that doesn't have the same ring to it, and Trump values his name as the vast majority of his net worth, so he's a hypocrite and a funny, harmless way to "hurt" him would be to disassociate the name "Trump" that has become synonymous with wealth and power, from the man Trump who is decidedly more flawed and...you know what, the man explains it better himself.
It's a pretty solid piece of satire, though its use as a "Battlecry" or insult is very silly.
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue, and is not going to let Clinton or Sanders govern any more than Obama. That means a presidency about foreign policy and executive orders, because that's what the president can do without Congress. From that perspective, Clinton is definitely the more qualified candidate. It's not that I don't agree with Sanders as to what we need to accomplish (if not specifics as to how), but Sanders has almost no foreign policy chops, and Clinton does. I also like Clinton for taking a more hawkish military attitude while not going full bore "Make the Middle East glow in the dark" like Ted Cruz, and balancing the need go deal with ISIS with acceptance of Syrizn refugees trying to escape those murderers. On the executive order front, I expect a continuation of Obama, which is probably the best we can hope for. I don't see much of what Sanders wants to do being doable by executive order. The more I think about it, the more I do trust Clinton, which is why I voted for her in the primary.
She's already facing an uphill battle with Putin, but I agree that Sander's foreign policy was a bit weak.
Never cared for Oliver. Did like Stewart oddly enough.
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue, and is not going to let Clinton or Sanders govern any more than Obama. That means a presidency about foreign policy and executive orders, because that's what the president can do without Congress. From that perspective, Clinton is definitely the more qualified candidate. It's not that I don't agree with Sanders as to what we need to accomplish (if not specifics as to how), but Sanders has almost no foreign policy chops, and Clinton does. I also like Clinton for taking a more hawkish military attitude while not going full bore "Make the Middle East glow in the dark" like Ted Cruz, and balancing the need go deal with ISIS with acceptance of Syrizn refugees trying to escape those murderers. On the executive order front, I expect a continuation of Obama, which is probably the best we can hope for. I don't see much of what Sanders wants to do being doable by executive order. The more I think about it, the more I do trust Clinton, which is why I voted for her in the primary.She's already facing an uphill battle with Putin, but I agree that Sander's foreign policy was a bit weak.
So's Obama. I don't think anyone could handle Russia easily or neatly right now.
Fighting a winter war with Russia is always bad unless you have zombies or Kaiju.
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue, and is not going to let Clinton or Sanders govern any more than Obama. That means a presidency about foreign policy and executive orders, because that's what the president can do without Congress. From that perspective, Clinton is definitely the more qualified candidate. It's not that I don't agree with Sanders as to what we need to accomplish (if not specifics as to how), but Sanders has almost no foreign policy chops, and Clinton does. I also like Clinton for taking a more hawkish military attitude while not going full bore "Make the Middle East glow in the dark" like Ted Cruz, and balancing the need go deal with ISIS with acceptance of Syrizn refugees trying to escape those murderers. On the executive order front, I expect a continuation of Obama, which is probably the best we can hope for. I don't see much of what Sanders wants to do being doable by executive order. The more I think about it, the more I do trust Clinton, which is why I voted for her in the primary.
By your reasoning, Hillary is one of the last people I want in the White House. Clinton may have lots of experience with foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that it has lead her to make the right decisions. Generals have commented that she was almost universally the most hawkish person in the room when she was Secretary of State. Considering one of the biggest complaints about Obama from the left is his proliferation of drone strikes, and she is considered markedly more likely to advocate use of military force, a lot of people consider her foreign policy to be a hindrance more than an asset.
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue...
I was under the impression that was a real possibility?
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue...I was under the impression that was a real possibility?
Maybe in 2020. Not sure about this year...
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue...I was under the impression that was a real possibility?
No. Its too gerrymandered for there to be a change until the next census.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never understood why they call Trump Drumpf. Like, when I write or talk about Hillary I don't call her B#%$@ to be condescending to her even though I don't like her. Hell, I liked Sanders more.Because everyone knows the best way to point out how petty and xenophobic a guy is, is to make fun of his funny-sounding foreign family name.
Actually, his family originally was named Drumpf. The exact time of the change doesn't seem to be clear (the best guesses are either in the 1600's or his grandfather's time).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighting a winter war with Russia is always bad unless you have zombies or Kaiju.Or Finns.
This is true Rysky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, instead of calling Clinton by an epithet, we should just call her "Rodham"? :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Trump: "He always says what's on his mind! He tells it like it is! ..."
...
I cringe whenever I see that.
Because in a campaign season containing the likes of Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz, Trump still manages to be the most dishonest candidate in the running.
Though I'm more inclined to think that it's less deliberate lies and more that he just spouts off what he thinks his supporters want to hear (with the horrible ramifications of that) without any regard to reality.
Hillary may be closest we'll ever come to being able to vote for a Reptilian, but she's still a better option than Trump, who at best has no g$+*$&n clue what he's doing.
(Disclaimer: I voted for Sanders in the VA primary. I never expected him to win the nomination, though (barring an incredible disaster on Hillary's part). Having leverage at the convention is the best he can ever hope for.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue, and is not going to let Clinton or Sanders govern any more than Obama. That means a presidency about foreign policy and executive orders, because that's what the president can do without Congress. From that perspective, Clinton is definitely the more qualified candidate. It's not that I don't agree with Sanders as to what we need to accomplish (if not specifics as to how), but Sanders has almost no foreign policy chops, and Clinton does. I also like Clinton for taking a more hawkish military attitude while not going full bore "Make the Middle East glow in the dark" like Ted Cruz, and balancing the need go deal with ISIS with acceptance of Syrizn refugees trying to escape those murderers. On the executive order front, I expect a continuation of Obama, which is probably the best we can hope for. I don't see much of what Sanders wants to do being doable by executive order. The more I think about it, the more I do trust Clinton, which is why I voted for her in the primary.By your reasoning, Hillary is one of the last people I want in the White House. Clinton may have lots of experience with foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that it has lead her to make the right decisions. Generals have commented that she was almost universally the most hawkish person in the room when she was Secretary of State. Considering one of the biggest complaints about Obama from the left is his proliferation of drone strikes, and she is considered markedly more likely to advocate use of military force, a lot of people consider her foreign policy to be a hindrance more than an asset.
Well, I am a Blue Hawk, so I want her to advocate more liberal use of military force. The Iraq War may have been handled poorly, but one thing we were actually succeeding at was tearing down Baghdadi's militia. If we hadn't drawn down when we did in 2010, it's most unlikely he would have been able to form ISIS. If we'd given our advisers a heavier hand in the operations of the Iraqi Army after pulling out our combat troops, they might not have fallen into the pit of ineffectual corruption that they did, and may have actually done better against ISIS. If we'd been quicker to arm and provide air support to the Kurds in conjunction with supporting the Iraqi Army, ISIS might not have gotten so far. If we'd given the Iraqi Army the air support they were begging for when they first starting asking for it, it might have shored up their morale. We didn't do any of that, and now we've got a deeply entrenched problem that's going to be a long, brutal slog to deal with, and it's unfortunately looking necessary that we're going to have to send in large numbers of ground troops now. The way I see it, Obama's problem is that he isn't hawkish enough, not that he's too hawkish.
Hmm, so this thread became an addition to Comrades thread. Not unexpected knowing this forum.
Never understood why they call Drumpf Drumpf. Like, when I write or talk about Hillary I don't call her B#%$@ to be condescending to her even though I don't like her. Hell, I liked Sanders more.
Fighting a winter war with Russia is always bad unless you have zombies or Kaiju.
I don't think it's inherently undoable, it's that Napoleon and Hitler both started out with some rather foolish assumptions as to how such a campaign would go. Furthermore, Hitler didn't deal with the British first (not that he could have, because an invasion of the Isles was logistically impossible for the German military to pull off), which required a large force and a lot of resources to be used against the Tommys (not to mention having to bail out the Italians), nor did Hitler properly exploit the massive anti-Stalin sentiment in Eastern Europe.
Does any of this even look feasible?
Very no.
This election cycle has not painted a particularly kind picture of the Sanders grassroots movement's ability to forecast the outcome of events around the campaign. It's kind of astonishing how unwaveringly incorrect they have been.
Yeah, nobody thought Trump could win the primary, and laughed at the very idea...
...now you all seem to laugh at the idea of him winning the general, and think it's going to be historic landslide?
You seriously underestimate how utterly horrible the average American is. He's run on a platform of hatred, bigotry, xenophobia, and insult after insult after insult...and his fans don't just like him, they absolutely love him.
I'm a little unnerved by the idea that Conservative Anklebiter doesn't think he's petty and xenophobic. Xenophobia is literally his biggest platform, with two major platforms being building a massive wall and not allowing immigrants of a religion he disagrees with. And petty? I don't know what else you call personally insulting anyone who comments against you. He called Weld an alcoholic. He called Fiorina ugly. He said one woman who disagreed with him was on her period. If these things aren't petty what do you call petty?!
This is being said by someone who would've taken anyone, even Cruz, loopy nut that he is, before Hillary Clinton. Trump is a fascist monster.
(...and I'm still voting third party, which should give you some small idea of exactly how much I dislike Hillary.)
I mean, dude, you can dislike Hillary more, but if you're really conservative, you should know he's pretty darn liberal for a Republican. He wants to impose ridiculous tariffs (like double digit percentages) and force companies like Apple to manufacture in the United States. That's not exactly "conservative" when it comes to market control, and will lead to a mass exodus of American corporations to do business and headquarter overseas.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I'm taking him very seriously. As should everyone else.
Yeah, nobody thought Trump could win the primary, and laughed at the very idea...
...now you all seem to laugh at the idea of him winning the general, and think it's going to be historic landslide?
You seriously underestimate how utterly horrible the average American is. He's run on a platform of hatred, bigotry, xenophobia, and insult after insult after insult...and his fans don't just like him, they absolutely love him.
I'm a little unnerved by the idea that Conservative Anklebiter doesn't think he's petty and xenophobic. Xenophobia is literally his biggest platform, with two major platforms being building a massive wall and not allowing immigrants of a religion he disagrees with. And petty? I don't know what else you call personally insulting anyone who comments against you. He called Weld an alcoholic. He called Fiorina ugly. He said one woman who disagreed with him was on her period. If these things aren't petty what do you call petty?!
This is being said by someone who would've taken anyone, even Cruz, loopy nut that he is, before Hillary Clinton. Trump is a fascist monster.
(...and I'm still voting third party, which should give you some small idea of exactly how much I dislike Hillary.)
I mean, dude, you can dislike Hillary more, but if you're really conservative, you should know he's pretty darn liberal for a Republican. He wants to impose ridiculous tariffs (like double digit percentages) and force companies like Apple to manufacture in the United States. That's not exactly "conservative" when it comes to market control, and will lead to a mass exodus of American corporations to do business and headquarter overseas.
Whom said I was votng for him?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say that or even indicate it - but you stated you might not think he is xenophobic and petty.
That is just mind boggling to me.
I'm not concerned with blocking the joke candidate, especially at the lowest level. And actually you can block at least the weirdest of the joke candidates - it's easy enough to write legislation spelling out minimum qualifications - the dog wouldn't be allowed to be president, for example: Neither 35 years old, nor a natural born citizen (or, to be technical a resident at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.)
Minimum qualifications I'm not too concerned with. That tends to be a natural part of leadership positions. And while a dog wouldn't qualify, there are a few trees that would :p
It's the issue of taking steps to try to block all possible unexpected candidates. That is part of a method of maintaining a system of power for what is, in this case, an increasingly nonfunctional political system. Stop and think about the chances of a third-party candidate as well; given their current chances of gaining the Presidency, what is the practical difference between being third-party and a write-in as far as outcome?
I suppose it's theoretically possible that tens of millions of people spontaneously decide to write in Bob from Kansas, with no political campaign pushing them to do so and Bob himself being completely unaware it's happening. Practically speaking though, it's not going to happen. If someone's going to win an election noticeably larger than the 12 people who elected the dog mayor, there's going to have to be an actual campaign. The press are going to ask Bob. Bob might as well either file the paperwork or say up front he'll refuse.
Practically speaking, our political system wasn't designed for tens of millions of voters to begin with. It was designed for late 1700s to early 1800s America. Some of the checks and balances put into the system, such as the division between branches of government or the write-in candidates, are either not functioning as well or simply broken because they do not scale well. The current two-party system and the increasing voter dissatisfaction with both parties are symptoms of a political system that is increasingly malfunctioning.
This is a weird hill to die on. The idea that a spontaneous write in campaign without support from the candidate will save from anything is ludicrous. Even with the candidate working at it, it's an uphill battle. Of all the hurdles with this, the candidate declaring his candidacy is the smallest problem.
I focus upon it because it is an easy way to demonstrate both how the current system has grown corrupt and how it is no longer properly functioning. I could use the other political parties instead, but that also requires muddling through some of their less-accepted or outright-insane political ideals. So rather than deal with the most complicated aspect of it, I choose the most broken example.
And assuming your Bob from Kansas example, what actually happens is that someone else recognizes the groundswell of support for Bob and some other Bob from Kansas files the proper paperwork and takes the seat because he's obviously the one they were voting for. Or all the Bobs in Kansas show up after the election, each claiming to be the victor.
And what stopped some other Bill Clinton from taking the seat back in the 1990s? The one who ended up in office is not the only one with that name from that State.
Your challenge to my example is too absurd to even be considered.
As for Trump, most of his supporters actually like him. I'm sure there are some, as always, who just think the others were worse, but he really does have lots of very enthusiastic supporters. Not a majority, even of the Republican base, but a plurality. Same with Clinton, of course, though I think her support is much broader, but less enthusiastic.
Trump may be trolling, but the vast majority of his supporters don't think so.
The vast majority of his opponents don't think he's trolling either. And he might not be. We will see.
Oh I'm taking him very seriously. As should everyone else.
I make a concerted effort don't you know. I didn't survive the Gulag Comrade sent me to on good behavior.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, nobody thought Drumpf could win the primary, and laughed at the very idea...
...now you all seem to laugh at the idea of him winning the general, and think it's going to be historic landslide?
You seriously underestimate how utterly horrible the average American is. He's run on a platform of hatred, bigotry, xenophobia, and insult after insult after insult...and his fans don't just like him, they absolutely love him.
Hindsight is 20/20. Prior to this primary there were numerous reasons to not think he would win. It turns out they were wrong, but if you applied the prediction of how he would win to any other presidential primary, you would not have successfully predicted who would win.
It's like looking at the NFL playoffs just before they start and looking at which team has the best chance. You wouldn't normally pick a wild card team. When a wild card team wins the Super Bowl, you look back and it seems obvious that they'd win, but it wasn't obvious before it happened. It does happen, but it's not common, and so people aren't dumb for not predicting it to happen.
I think it's possible for Drumpf to win. I do think it's unlikely.
It's not easy for a Republican to win the presidency right now. Yes, it does happen, but several large population swing states have to go the right way. A Republican can't win Ohio, Pennsylvania OR Florida, they have to win all 3. The reason it isn't easy is simple, demographics. States with big populations tend to have big cities. Big cities tend to vote Democrat.
The biggest cities in the country to vote Republican in 2012 were Phoenix (6), Fort Worth (16), Oklahoma City (27) and Salt Lake City (124).
In 2008, Salt Lake City voted for Obama.
He's running his campaign poorly. He has more staff in NY state than Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Florida combined, but his odds of winning NY are worse than any of those place. In addition, he doesn't even have that big of a staff for NY. His fundraising has been poor so far, largely because the Republican elite who normally fund these things don't trust him or don't like his ideas or just think he's wasting the money he does get, so they aren't donating.
Republicans tend to draw about 9-11% of the African-American vote. Reagan, who won in an electoral landslide, had 14%. That small shift correlates to a bigger shift among general voters.
Currently, Drumpf is polling at 0% with African-American voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Now, he's ahead in Ohio right now, but if that number holds true and is indicative of his %'s in other places, it doesn't bode well for his chances.
Finally, even if he is President, I've seen what his presidency will be like before. It played out in Minnesota when we elected Jesse Ventura. I predict their terms will be strikingly similar. Mostly, Drumpf will be in the news crying about how Congress won't do what he wants. It's going to suck for the rest of us, imagine the last Congress, but getting even less done.
... Or I should say, I don't think Party Platforms are anything more then lies told to fool voters.This is far too cynical.
They paid her, and she works for them.No, she doesn't. Certainly, money in politics is a problem, but it isn't the problem that you seem convinced it is.
Apologies Scott. I had attempted to address your points individually, but I just made a mess of the quotes. I used the two above quotes because I respect your opinion, but would like to clarify where my outlook differs on process, if not policy.
First, on cynicism:
adjective: cynical
1. believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.
I don't think it is at all out of line to question those who are ceded power in a society. Democracy is not built on trust, but accountability. This is especially true when that power is mixed with money, particularly in a capitalist society. I also note that the mixing of wealth and politics has produced serious problems around the world for thousands of years, and I would say that modern times and our country are no exception. I would also say that I view lobbying as a form of bribery, that has become accepted the way the church once accepted money for "indulgences". Modern politicians often act as Professional "pardoners" who allow the extremely wealthy to get over on the rest of society.
To be more specific, I would cite Hillary's use of 9/11 to justify accepting large amounts of money from wealthy Wall Street donors. As a New Yorker, and more importantly a citizen, I found that VERY offensive. Furthermore, I found her tale of going to Wall Street, and "telling those guys to knock it off!" to be preposterous, and also an insult to the intelligence of those listening. I find her associations with the Council on Foreign Relations to be completely inappropriate, and horrible for the majority of the US and world as a whole.
I think she is absolutely wrong on trade and globalization, and has been for decades. I would point out her close ties to Wal-Mart, and the rise of Chinese imports/outsourcing of US jobs. The Clinton administration, the Obama administration and by her own statements her administration were all characterized by gains going to the wealthy, while the middle class lost jobs and saw wages stagnate. Is this an accident or a coincidence?
I think she is absolutely wrong on supporting dictators from the Middle East to South America. "Mubarak was a close personal friend". I also find her unconditional support of Israel unconscionable, and against international law.
I think her zeal for militarism is revolting. Her supporting the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, as was her pushing for the invasion of Libya. I think her ties to various military figures, such as Petraus, and his boyz James Steele, (Comeny?) and others (Kissinger the war criminal) to be huge red flags.
I think her support for the prison industrial complex is also a national tragedy. I think her record on minorities is despicable. When I was wrongly arrested along with 1,800 others, before the 2004 RNC in NYC, she did nothing as my Senator.
I respect her for her push for single payer healthcare in the 90's. On the other hand, the "Obamacare" that she more recently supported, is a clear favor to the large insurance and pharmaceutical companies who drafted it, (and who some in the obama administration now work for). We were promised a single payer option...
I could go on, but I think everyone gets the idea. Hillary does not share my values, nor do I consider her progressive, liberal, or even a leftist. There is no way I would EVER vote for her to "represent" me.
|
And assuming your Bob from Kansas example, what actually happens is that someone else recognizes the groundswell of support for Bob and some other Bob from Kansas files the proper paperwork and takes the seat because he's obviously the one they were voting for. Or all the Bobs in Kansas show up after the election, each claiming to be the victor.And what stopped some other Bill Clinton from taking the seat back in the 1990s? The one who ended up in office is not the only one with that name from that State.
Your challenge to my example is too absurd to even be considered.
Actually, I think thejeff's challenge to your example demonstrated the absurdity of the argument you've been proposing. There are reasons that things work the way they do, as imperfect a system it may be.
Can you continue this tangent in PMs or another thread?
I could go on, but I think everyone gets the idea. Hillary does not share my values, nor do I consider her progressive, liberal, or even a leftist. There is no way I would EVER vote for her to "represent" me.
That's all well and good, but the it OVERWHELMINGLY likely that either she or Trump will be the next president. The practical reality is you can cast a potentially meaningful vote for the lesser of two evils, you can cast a meaningless protest vote, or you can abstain altogether.
The last two increase the chance that the greater of two evils wins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it is at all out of line to question those who are ceded power in a society. This is especially true when that power is mixed with money, particularly in a capitalist society. I also note that the mixing of wealth and politics has produced serious problems around the world for thousands of years, and I would say that modern times and our country are no exception. I would also say that I view lobbying as a form of bribery, that has become accepted the way the church once accepted money for "indulgences". Modern politicians often act as Professional "pardoners" who allow the extremely wealthy to get over on the rest of society.
I'm not going to argue that cynicism has no value. It plainly does. It's a necessary piece of anyone's critical thinking toolbox.
But a lot of people see cynicism as a beneficial outlook unto itself - as though a person who is more cynical is wiser.
Obama has spoken at length on the topic of keeping cynicism in check, tempered by both reality (always), and hope (where needed). Cynicism is fashionable. It makes one look superficially world-wise and "in-the-know." But almost all of the strongly cynical viewpoints I see on the internet, especially those that float around politics, base their cynicism on an understanding of the world that is simply counter-factual.
My boss and I were just lamenting this the other day (no, we don't work in politics, but we both have in the past). A lot of people look at the donations politicians receive and think, "Just look at all those favors they have to repay!" That's nonsense. No one in politics actually thinks that way. Is it possible that some corporations make smoke-filled backroom deals with some politicians, trading favors for PAC support? Yes, it is. But the vast majority of political donations take place simply because the people donating really want that person to become President (or a Senator, or a Representative, or whatever).
To be more specific, I would cite Hillary's use of 9/11 to justify accepting large amounts of money from wealthy Wall Street donors. As a New Yorker, and more importantly a citizen, I found that VERY offensive. Furthermore, I found her tale of going to Wall Street, and "telling those guys to knock it off!" to be preposterous, and also an insult to the intelligence of those listening. I find her associations with the Council on Foreign Relations to be completely inappropriate, and horrible for the majority of the US and world as a whole.
These are all super minor to me.
I think she is absolutely wrong on trade and globalization, and has been for decades. I would point out her close ties to Wal-Mart, and the rise of Chinese imports/outsourcing of US jobs. The Clinton administration, the Obama administration and by her own statements her administration were all characterized by gains going to the wealthy, while the middle class lost jobs and saw wages stagnate. Is this an accident or a coincidence?
Neither. They are the deliberate result of years of careful movement by various conservative interests in both the private and public sectors. Nothing shady or conspiratorial. If it's your belief that the Democratic Party as a whole has, among its goals, increasing wealth among the wealthy and making the middle and lower classes poorer, I'm here to tell you that you're simply wrong. Almost universally, those who dedicate their lives to working in the Democratic Party and left-wing politics genuinely want to improve the wealth disparity situation.
I could go on, but I think everyone gets the idea. Hillary does not share my values, nor do I consider her progressive, liberal, or even a leftist. There is no way I would EVER vote for her to "represent" me.
Then your definition of "progressive", "liberal", and "leftist" are out-of-step with the rest of the country. OnTheIssues, a non-partisan organization that tracks political statements and records, rates Clinton as a "hardcore liberal".
Your perception of her is based on a selective, not holistic, understanding of her political history, and simply isn't a realistic way to evaluate politicians or make voting decisions. If you're looking for someone who only makes choices you like, I encourage you to write your own name on your ballot for President. If you're looking to get things done, though, I encourage you to consider that democratic politics is fundamentally about compromise, and acknowledging that it's okay to not be happy with every outcome associated with the politicians that you support, but to still support them anyway because they remain the most practical path to accomplishing what you want accomplished.
...
But that's not the general election electorate. Now we can look at general election polling and we can see the same kind of data that predicted (or at least hinted at) a Trump primary win clearly shows him well behind in general.
Depends where you look:
"The broad discontent is reflected in the head-to-head contest, which has Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton tied at 40 percent. Mr. Trump’s standing has held steady for weeks at around 40 percentage points, while Mrs. Clinton has polled in the mid-40s in most public surveys."
Poll Finds Voters in Both Parties Unhappy With Their Candidates
One note: Yes, Hillary has more delegates and such, enough to vote to get her way... but, clearly, a very sizable part of her political party has other ideas. You don't bring a party together by running roughshod over people just because you can, and she'd probably do well to address the concerns of Sanders' supporters on at least some issues. If you can't find a good balance between the people who currently agree with you and the people who don't, you're probably not fit to be President in the first place.
And you don't bring people together by ignoring the results of the actual primary runs upon a whim. Clinton won the states she won, and she played by the rules to do so. And she won more of the Party vote than Sanders did.
You don't change the rules of the game simply because you're not happy with the result.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends where you look:
You should be looking at data in aggregate from sources with historically reliable modeling.