NuggzTheNinja wrote: On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?
Because if Trump becomes President there'll be a big wall blocking them from getting into Mexico.
While this and all of the other joke replies are cute, it doesn't address the reality - the people who would leave and go to Canada because, they claim, Trump is a racist would not be caught dead living with Mexicans. Latte liberal elitist racism is still racism after all.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?
Because if Trump becomes President there'll be a big wall blocking them from getting into Mexico.
While this and all of the other joke replies are cute, it doesn't address the reality - the people who would leave and go to Canada because, they claim, Trump is a racist would not be caught dead living with Mexicans. Latte liberal elitist racism is still racism after all.
You are trying to spin this in to something it isn't. Liberals who claim they would leave if Trump was elected are probably going to go to a country that is Liberal. Which Mexico is not.
You are trying to spin this in to something it isn't. Liberals who claim they would leave if Trump was elected are probably going to go to a country that is Liberal. Which Mexico is not.
I should also point out the admittedly fewer posts out there of "conservatives" saying the same thing. As in, some of the idiots out there are saying if Sanders or Clinton were elected, they'd move to Canada.
"Moving to Canada" is just a saying at this point though. It's not as though it's a carefully weighed emigration decision it's just a way of saying you don't like a thing that might happen.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?
Because if Trump becomes President there'll be a big wall blocking them from getting into Mexico.
While this and all of the other joke replies are cute, it doesn't address the reality - the people who would leave and go to Canada because, they claim, Trump is a racist would not be caught dead living with Mexicans. Latte liberal elitist racism is still racism after all.
Strong contender for most idiotic post of 2016 right there.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?
Because if Trump becomes President there'll be a big wall blocking them from getting into Mexico.
While this and all of the other joke replies are cute, it doesn't address the reality - the people who would leave and go to Canada because, they claim, Trump is a racist would not be caught dead living with Mexicans. Latte liberal elitist racism is still racism after all.
Strong contender for most idiotic post of 2016 right there.
What, you didn't know that liberals are secretly racist?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?
Because if Trump becomes President there'll be a big wall blocking them from getting into Mexico.
While this and all of the other joke replies are cute, it doesn't address the reality - the people who would leave and go to Canada because, they claim, Trump is a racist would not be caught dead living with Mexicans. Latte liberal elitist racism is still racism after all.
Strong contender for most idiotic post of 2016 right there.
What, you didn't know that liberals are secretly racist?
There is a lot of racism amongst liberals, they just don't associate their ideas with rascism. Liberal Hawkism is generally driven by racism (saving brown people from their brown life styles) and neoliberalism (saving brown people through control of their economies because they can't make the right decisions) can be fairly rascist. American Liberals enjoy removing agency from foreigners of darker complexion so that they can learn to enjoy the glories of modern western secularism.
Lets not pretend here that liberalism is only kind hearted innocent do gooding.
Ouze wrote: Well, if a successful actor says ignoring a problem is the best way to handle it, how can you argue with that?
#facebookwisdom
Not to argue with the quote itself, but if you've seen the interview where Freeman said that to Mike Wallace, the very strong undertone there was that when we talk about things in terms of race, we will continue doing things in a racial manner. Remember he does go on to decry February as Black History Month, even going so far as to asking Mike, "Which month do you want?" (in reference to having a Jewish History Month). What I personally took out of it, which not everyone will, is that the manner in which we speak to each other, or speak about issues will result in we as a society remaining stuck on a problem, or solving it and moving on.
FREEMAN: You're going to relegate my history to a month?
WALLACE: Come on.
FREEMAN: What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month? Come on, tell me.
WALLACE: I'm Jewish.
FREEMAN: OK. Which month is Jewish History Month?
WALLACE: There isn't one.
FREEMAN: Why not? Do you want one?
WALLACE: No, no.
FREEMAN: I don't either. I don't want a Black History Month. Black history is American history.
WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until ...?
FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man. And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You're not going to say, "I know this white guy named Mike Wallace." Hear what I'm saying?
Yeah, I watched that interview. I strongly suspect Freeman's words were directed specifically at Wallace and how he was trying to start a pity party or something.
I'd wager if given a podium to opine about the issue he'd come out different.
Well, I don't agree with his last line, but I did agree with all of the middle parts. I'm not a big fan of black history month either - it feels cheap and meaningless.
I'd wager if given a podium to opine about the issue he'd come out different.
IIRC, he has spoken about that interview, and about racial issues... and his message isn't much different. It's not the "dont talk about it" message, but rather the message of respect "me" as a person... I'll have to see if I can find something tomorrow.
whembly wrote: Buckle up ya'll... the DoJ just doesn't grant immunity deals willy nilly (to the IT email administrator)... something's up.
Not according to Rep. Castro.
Rep. Joaquin Castro, the twin brother of HUD secretary Julian Castro, claimed this morning on CNN that Hillary Clinton had been cleared by the Justice Department:
I'm unsure if Castro just mixed up his talking points or is just applying the latest spin. Regardless, the likelihood of Hillary being indited even if there were anything illegal is slim at best and zero if she receives the Democrat nomination.
Here's an interesting question. If Hillary were to be indited, would President Obama pardon her on the way out of office in fashion similar to what President Ford did for President Nixon?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?
Because if Trump becomes President there'll be a big wall blocking them from getting into Mexico.
While this and all of the other joke replies are cute, it doesn't address the reality - the people who would leave and go to Canada because, they claim, Trump is a racist would not be caught dead living with Mexicans. Latte liberal elitist racism is still racism after all.
I mean, I'd go to Canada because I prefer the cold to the heat, but hey, maybe it's actually just that I'm incredibly racist.
Sure, it's a reality that the people that would go to Canada would go because they're racist, I'm just not sure that it's *this* reality.
skyth wrote: I love the false narrative from conservatives that trying to help someone that is 'brown' is some how racist.
Its actually a liberal narrative, you should look more into it. There are many liberals (especially amongst anthropologists, feminists [non-imperialist], political scientists and even historians) that argue against the notion that brown people need to be saved from their own lives. What looks like do gooding is actually removing agency from people which turns them into things that can't make choices rather than individuals that make difficult decisions or simply are within the grip of life that effects us all. Often people are inproving their over all life in their own distinct cultures before they receive the intervention of modern western secular liberalism via military force. Liberals in America love to get on board with saving other countries because it makes them feel like they were successful at home already.
Its okay to criticize Western liberalism, they are not perfect. Doesn't make Western conservativism some how better, it has its own problems too. Seriously I don't get why Western liberals believe they have all the right answers for everybody everywhere regardless of individual cultures and histories.
Edit: Interesting that if you criticize the right you become liberal and if you criticize the left you become conservative for convenience. Easier I suppose to immediately dismiss something without needing to think about it.
skyth wrote: I love the false narrative from conservatives that trying to help someone that is 'brown' is some how racist.
And that they somehow they are too dumb to understand how Democrats are constantly pulling the wool over their eyes so and vote for them en masse. If only they were smart enough to listen to the Republican talking points...
whembly wrote: Buckle up ya'll... the DoJ just doesn't grant immunity deals willy nilly (to the IT email administrator)... something's up.
Not according to Rep. Castro.
Rep. Joaquin Castro, the twin brother of HUD secretary Julian Castro, claimed this morning on CNN that Hillary Clinton had been cleared by the Justice Department:
I'm unsure if Castro just mixed up his talking points or is just applying the latest spin. Regardless, the likelihood of Hillary being indited even if there were anything illegal is slim at best and zero if she receives the Democrat nomination.
Here's an interesting question. If Hillary were to be indited, would President Obama pardon her on the way out of office in fashion similar to what President Ford did for President Nixon?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?
Because if Trump becomes President there'll be a big wall blocking them from getting into Mexico.
While this and all of the other joke replies are cute, it doesn't address the reality - the people who would leave and go to Canada because, they claim, Trump is a racist would not be caught dead living with Mexicans. Latte liberal elitist racism is still racism after all.
Strong contender for most idiotic post of 2016 right there.
What, you didn't know that liberals are secretly racist?
While this isn't generally detectable on explicit measures of racial bias, implicit measures show that Whites in NY and NJ (very liberal states) are actually very biased.
And I'm glad to see I'm missing nothing of importance by having certain posters on ignore
Offering or giving help to someone isn't racist. At least not even close to the same category as keeping them from voting, keeping them from getting jobs, or assuming they are criminals or freeloaders just because of the color of their skin.
While this isn't generally detectable on explicit measures of racial bias, implicit measures show that Whites in NY and NJ (very liberal states) are actually very biased.
And I knew there was a reason I had D on ignore. Glad to see I'm missing nothing of importance.
The problem with that measurement is that it doesn't distinguish urban areas from rural areas.
Pennsylvania, for example, might be a blue state, but that's because it has two strong blue anchors (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) with a vast sea of red in between.
@whembly: funny, I watched the democratic debate last night and didn't see a single mention of size of dicks, endless shouting matches, yelling "liar" back and forth, vows to round up and deport 11 million people, turning sand to glass, promoting the use of torture, or hunting down families of terrorists. Maybe we have different criteria of what constitutes clown shows.
While this isn't generally detectable on explicit measures of racial bias, implicit measures show that Whites in NY and NJ (very liberal states) are actually very biased.
And I knew there was a reason I had D on ignore. Glad to see I'm missing nothing of importance.
The problem with that measurement is that it doesn't distinguish urban areas from rural areas.
Pennsylvania, for example, might be a blue state, but that's because it has two strong blue anchors (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) with a vast sea of red in between.
There are plenty of problems with this measure, agreed. But, at a very coarse grain size, it approaches the problem of implicit racism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Offering or giving help to someone isn't racist. At least not even close to the same category as keeping them from voting, keeping them from getting jobs, or assuming they are criminals or freeloaders just because of the color of their skin.
Who is trying to keep people from voting or employment based on race? Or saying that all _______________ are criminals or freeloaders?
Gordon Shumway wrote: @whembly: funny, I watched the democratic debate last night and didn't see a single mention of size of dicks, endless shouting matches, yelling "liar" back and forth, vows to round up and deport 11 million people, turning sand to glass, promoting the use of torture, or hunting down families of terrorists. Maybe we have different criteria of what constitutes clown shows.
Oh, don't get me wrong... Trump turned the GOP's debate to a Clown Show times a bajillion.
But, let's not ignore what the Democrat debates has become too...
Gordon Shumway wrote: @whembly: funny, I watched the democratic debate last night and didn't see a single mention of size of dicks, endless shouting matches, yelling "liar" back and forth, vows to round up and deport 11 million people, turning sand to glass, promoting the use of torture, or hunting down families of terrorists. Maybe we have different criteria of what constitutes clown shows.
Oh, don't get me wrong... Trump turned the GOP's debate to a Clown Show times a bajillion.
But, let's not ignore what the Democrat debates has become too...
Frankly, they are boring. The headline to come out of last nights debate was when Clinton tried to interrupt Sanders and he said, "excuse me, I'm talking". But see, I want boring when it comes to policy and political debate and discussion but I know I am in a slim minority there. It's why I find Ryan interesting even though I can't stand his policy conclusions/ideas, at least that is what he is interested in. Clinton is a bad politician because she is largely a policy wonk. She would rather be drafting policy speeches than shaking hands and talking to the media. She isn't good with people. She probably doesn't even like kissing babies (that might be a bit far, everybody likes babies) She doesn't much inspire with soaring or scathing rhetoric and when she tries, she comes off as either disengenuous or shrill. I'm totally fine with that.
It was a deliberate trap for Sanders. He should of deflected like Clinton did, though I doubt her good buddy Cooper would of let him get away with it. No answer would of been the right answer and Cooper knows Sanders would be compelled to answer because he is trying to build legitimacy towards minorities. So predictably Sanders ended up with a pretty bad gaffe that will likely hurt him in some way.
Very smart of the Democrat establishment to do it. Just like Republicans did during the GOP debate last week in Detroit. Which seemed to be pretty successful for them.
Seriously I don't get why Western liberals believe they have all the right answers for everybody everywhere regardless of individual cultures and histories.
What "Western liberal" has ever made such a claim?
skyth wrote: I love the false narrative from conservatives that trying to help someone that is 'brown' is some how racist.
Assuming that brown people are all fundamentally incapable of succeeding on their own, and thus in need of our help, isn't racist?
It's the traditional White Man's Burden spun into altruism.
"someone that it 'brown'" =/= "brown people"
Yeah, the white man's burden is racist, but stating that helping anyone of colour automatically becomes white man's burden is daft.
Right, if you are helping someone who is non-White because they need help, then White Man's Burden would not apply. If you say specifically that Brown people need help, that is absolutely White Man's Burden.
You need to look at the language the people use when they discuss these issues. "I want to help the poor" isn't WMB, regardless of what percentage of those poor are non-White. "I want to help the non-Whites because they're poor" is absolutely WMB, and fits perfectly Sanders' position quoted in that viral YouTube clip.
skyth wrote: I love the false narrative from conservatives that trying to help someone that is 'brown' is some how racist.
Assuming that brown people are all fundamentally incapable of succeeding on their own, and thus in need of our help, isn't racist?
It's the traditional White Man's Burden spun into altruism.
There's a difference between arguing that Africa is in trouble and could use help because we've fethed the continent over and arguing that Africa is in trouble and could use some help because all Africans are Untermenschen.
Seriously I don't get why Western liberals believe they have all the right answers for everybody everywhere regardless of individual cultures and histories.
What "Western liberal" has ever made such a claim?
Negatory, its pretty heavily favored by neoliberalist too, such as Clinton. Liberal Hawkish, the "humanitarian " use of military force to "liberate" people from their governments and barbaric cultures is very popular amongst Western liberals. Hence why liberals jumped on board with the invasion of Afghanistan to liberate Afghan women from their plight under Islam. Or why they jumped on board with the invasion of Iraq because the people there obviously needed American help to fix their horrible lives.
The idea that American minorities are always disadvantaged and whose decisions were never made under their own volition. Thus robbing them of agency.
Your asking for names to ideology. Western liberals often create NGOs to save people in their native countries but then create stipulations if they get that aid. For instance trying to get Muslim women to either walk away from their religion or to push western secular ideals on them in the name of education. Thus making the western way the right way. The preeminence of secular democracy being the correct form of governance amongst Western liberals as if you couldn't have a christian, jewish, muslim..etc etc form of democracy and have it work just fine for people living in it. How about the liberal fallacy of choice being the litmus test for freedom. Such as what you wear or where you can move throughout life , ignorant that some choices will always be out of your hands. Yet they act upon this false ideal to criticize muslim or Arab governments as wrong because they do not allow people to wear or act however they feel.
I'm not the only one here that has criticized western liberalism. An it doesn't mean it comes from a desire to slander it because I'm a conservative for which I probably am not or atleast in this forum I so far have been called a conservative and a liberal...
Easy E wrote: Here is what I am learning today. Potentially implicit systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism.
Check. Got it.
The former actually gets implemented, nothing potential about it. The second is just hot air. And to make matters worse, the former gets ignored by those who claim to be politically correct.
Both are bad. Which is worse? I think both are equally abhorrent.
FWIW the point BrotherGecko is making is hardly an obscure one. There's certainly an argument to be made that we in the West are attempting to push our political ideas on the rest of the world; it's entirely orthodox post-colonial theory.
The important thing is that we have moved on from talking about having open racists, grand wizards, and the KKK endorse Trump, blacks being attacked at his rallies, people shouting "get these [see forum posting rules] out of here", and future marines getting kicked out of their programs because of their conduct at these rallies. We are now taking about the true menace to our post-racial America: the liberals who only want to make things better for everyone else because they are racists.
Easy E wrote:Here is what I am learning today. Potentially implicit systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism.
Check. Got it.
Don't sensationalize to derail a point.
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Easy E wrote: Here is what I am learning today. Potentially implicit systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism.
Check. Got it.
Cite where anybody said that implied systematic racism is much worse than clear explicit stated racism?
Thank you, nobody has tried to compair the too. Though one doesn't make you more innocent then the other.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:FWIW the point BrotherGecko is making is hardly an obscure one. There's certainly an argument to be made that we in the West are attempting to push our political ideas on the rest of the world; it's entirely orthodox post-colonial theory.
Exactly! Thank you!
It isn't hard to grasp. It is a fairly common theory and there is nobody but ones own self to blame if they can reflect on their own ideology or actually learn about its results or practices because they are too lazy, or assume they are in the right or believed some how mission has been accomplished.
And who might it be that teaches post-colonial theory? Why I believe that would be those radical liberals indoctrinating our loved ones minds in those liberal arts colleges and universities throughout the homeland about moral relativism and whatnot. More white mans burden.
Is that the, "I've never heard of that, therefore it doesn't exist," defence?
Why do I have to defend anything? Perhaps the accuser should provide some evidence first.
I get the distinct feeling that you wouldn't accept evidence. I discussed the liberal support of an invasion of Afghanistan (specifically to save people from their own life style), the liberals that supported invasion of Iraq (specifically to liberate people from their own life styles), the very fact that post-colonialsim as a school of thought exists in academia as a criticism of western liberalism even exists. How about liberal hawkism that assumes military intervention is what the beleaguered brown people of the world need to save them (Libya). Neoliberalism, that sees nothing wrong with destruction of pesky non-secular cultures in the name of globalization. The liberal quote Sanders made at the last debate that robs minorities of their agency in favor of the helping hand of white liberals.
Are you using the tactic of asking for citations* so you can get me to refuse to waste my time so you can claim victory?
* I see no reason to give you a litany of books you will never read and immediately dismiss. Websites you can nitpick in order to dismiss or any other media. I've given you topics of discussion and you have google.
I figured I would opset a few by countering the narrative with reality. Didn't think it would break into childlish yahbuts, sensationalism, denialism an outright arrogance by ignorance. Not everyday you get to say something so liberal it has to be dismissed as conservative propaganda to return to the comfort zone of assuming conservativism is the root of all problems.
Actually, I think the main problem here is that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are such wide brushes, and most political beliefs really don't fit neatly into them. A problem I often see.
Liberal Hawkish, the "humanitarian " use of military force to "liberate" people from their governments and barbaric cultures is very popular amongst Western liberals.
And Western conservatives, especially those residing in the USA. After all that was one of the central arguments for the invasion of Iraq.
Hence why liberals jumped on board with the invasion of Afghanistan to liberate Afghan women from their plight under Islam. Or why they jumped on board with the invasion of Iraq because the people there obviously needed American help to fix their horrible lives.
The phrase "jumped on board" implies that there is a board on which to jump. If it wasn't being held by "Western liberals", as they needed to jump on it, then who was holding it?
Liberal Hawkish, the "humanitarian " use of military force to "liberate" people from their governments and barbaric cultures is very popular amongst Western liberals.
And Western conservatives, especially those residing in the USA. After all that was one of the central arguments for the invasion of Iraq.
A whataboutism doesn't clear western liberals of responsibility. They (not all) were still a part of it an simply adjusted the justification to align it better with ideology.
Hence why liberals jumped on board with the invasion of Afghanistan to liberate Afghan women from their plight under Islam. Or why they jumped on board with the invasion of Iraq because the people there obviously needed American help to fix their horrible lives.
The phrase "jumped on board" implies that there is a board on which to jump. If it wasn't being held by "Western liberals", as they needed to jump on it, then who was holding it?
A whataboutism doesn't clear western liberals. Western conservatives, specifically neoconservatives (not all), created the arguement and liberals (not all) joined it with the only real grievance being multateralism instead of unilateralism. Read Michael McDonald's Overreach, he will lay it out in painstaking detail for you.
Is that the, "I've never heard of that, therefore it doesn't exist," defence?
Why do I have to defend anything? Perhaps the accuser should provide some evidence first.
I get the distinct feeling that you wouldn't accept evidence. I discussed the liberal support of an invasion of Afghanistan (specifically to save people from their own life style), the liberals that supported invasion of Iraq (specifically to liberate people from their own life styles), the very fact that post-colonialsim as a school of thought exists in academia as a criticism of western liberalism even exists. How about liberal hawkism that assumes military intervention is what the beleaguered brown people of the world need to save them (Libya). Neoliberalism, that sees nothing wrong with destruction of pesky non-secular cultures in the name of globalization. The liberal quote Sanders made at the last debate that robs minorities of their agency in favor of the helping hand of white liberals.
Are you using the tactic of asking for citations* so you can get me to refuse to waste my time so you can claim victory?
* I see no reason to give you a litany of books you will never read and immediately dismiss. Websites you can nitpick in order to dismiss or any other media. I've given you topics of discussion and you have google.
I figured I would opset a few by countering the narrative with reality. Didn't think it would break into childlish yahbuts, sensationalism, denialism an outright arrogance by ignorance. Not everyday you get to say something so liberal it has to be dismissed as conservative propaganda to return to the comfort zone of assuming conservativism is the root of all problems.
It's a very easy get out for you to assume I won't look at your evidence so you won't bother to present any, so I am guilty.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?
Because if Trump becomes President there'll be a big wall blocking them from getting into Mexico.
While this and all of the other joke replies are cute, it doesn't address the reality - the people who would leave and go to Canada because, they claim, Trump is a racist would not be caught dead living with Mexicans. Latte liberal elitist racism is still racism after all.
And what makes you think that a disinclination to move to Mexico is because "I dislike Mexicans" as opposed to "Mexico is a poor country" or "the weather is awful" or "English is not their official language" or any other plethora of non-racist reasons for not wanting to move to a country?
As a liberal, I was behind the invasion of Afghanistan because the country refused to turn over Osama after 9/11. Giving shelter for that magnitude of criminal is grounds for military force.
Is that the, "I've never heard of that, therefore it doesn't exist," defence?
Why do I have to defend anything? Perhaps the accuser should provide some evidence first.
I get the distinct feeling that you wouldn't accept evidence. I discussed the liberal support of an invasion of Afghanistan (specifically to save people from their own life style), the liberals that supported invasion of Iraq (specifically to liberate people from their own life styles), the very fact that post-colonialsim as a school of thought exists in academia as a criticism of western liberalism even exists. How about liberal hawkism that assumes military intervention is what the beleaguered brown people of the world need to save them (Libya). Neoliberalism, that sees nothing wrong with destruction of pesky non-secular cultures in the name of globalization. The liberal quote Sanders made at the last debate that robs minorities of their agency in favor of the helping hand of white liberals.
Are you using the tactic of asking for citations* so you can get me to refuse to waste my time so you can claim victory?
* I see no reason to give you a litany of books you will never read and immediately dismiss. Websites you can nitpick in order to dismiss or any other media. I've given you topics of discussion and you have google.
I figured I would opset a few by countering the narrative with reality. Didn't think it would break into childlish yahbuts, sensationalism, denialism an outright arrogance by ignorance. Not everyday you get to say something so liberal it has to be dismissed as conservative propaganda to return to the comfort zone of assuming conservativism is the root of all problems.
It's a very easy get out for you to assume I won't look at your evidence so you won't bother to present any, so I am guilty.
Fair enough, I apologize for the assumption. Here are some readings that are good. I mostly specialize in foreign policy of the Middle East and North Africa so there will be a running theme to region.
Anthropolgist Lila Abu-Lughod is a sharp critic of western secular liberalism while being as much as if not more of a critic of western conservativism. Try "Do Muslim Women Need Saving?"
Historian Charles Tripp does a good job of showing the who and what involved from a clinical perspective but you can see the effects of western liberal policies that serve egos over realities.
Ervand Abrahamian is another historian that writes from the part of the world effected by liberal and conservative policies.
I mentioned Michael McDonald's Overreach, as solid indictment of American and European foreign policy, its justifications, who was part of the justifications all leading up to Iraq and during.
Within their writings are citations of other writing for even more reading but those where next to me on my book shelf.
This entire argument was spawned from the arrogant idea of liberals being somehow immune to rascism. The point is, western liberalism has yet to escape rascism. It may not desire to be rascist but in practice it has create institutional rascism that effects people from all over the world. The problem stems from the (apparent) lack of desire to confront these issues in favor of shifting blame to more overt issues out side of the ideology of western liberalism. Issues such as focusing on right wing rascism or right wing miltitary intervention which allow western liberalism to avoid talking about left wing rascism or left wing military intervention. Rarely does military intervention improve the lives of those being intervened and rarely are the people to be liberated asked if that is what they want. It is simply assumed from a position of morale authority that they want what we will offer after the bombs have stopped falling.
skyth wrote: As a liberal, I was behind the invasion of Afghanistan because the country refused to turn over Osama after 9/11. Giving shelter for that magnitude of criminal is grounds for military force.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Actually, I think the main problem here is that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are such wide brushes, and most political beliefs really don't fit neatly into them. A problem I often see.
But in reality, Liberal and Conservative are both terms that have a fairly specific meaning.... Hell, Libertarians are about as pure Liberal as you can possibly be, and yet, in their ignorance, they will bring out the pitchforks and torches if you call them such.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Actually, I think the main problem here is that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are such wide brushes, and most political beliefs really don't fit neatly into them. A problem I often see.
But in reality, Liberal and Conservative are both terms that have a fairly specific meaning.... Hell, Libertarians are about as pure Liberal as you can possibly be, and yet, in their ignorance, they will bring out the pitchforks and torches if you call them such.
The thing is, they fall into the 'There is no need to help out the 'other' ' that is prevalent in conservative thinking.
Prestor Jon wrote: Cruz won Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma is a closed primary with voting not caucus format.
Yes, that's what I said. "Trump has only lost two primaries, and one of those was Texas."
Of course it's changed since that was posted, Saturday's results are a strong sign of a wobble in Trump's position, and it seems the party has finally decided to bite the bullet and accept Cruz as their Trump alternative.
TheMeanDM wrote: So Sanders wins 2 states and Clinton wins 1...but it's about a wash due to delegates and %.
Is this good or bad for either candidate?
The two states that Sanders won favoured him strongly, given the demographics. He won them, but if he was on track to win the nomination he would have been winning them by a lot more.
Think of it like a bike race where Sanders is better on the flats and Clinton is better on the hills. Whenever there's a stretch of road on the flat Sanders gains ground, but not much. He's not behind by much, but as the race goes on there's going to be a lot more mountain that doesn't suit Sanders. If it was really a touch and go thing, you'd expect Sanders to be well ahead in delegates right now, because so far the mix of flat and hills have suited him.
Anything can happen, of course, and in terms of delegates it's not so far that Clinton has it. But we're at the point where something big would have to happen.
whembly wrote: Cruz, by contrast, can only rally the righties. His strength isn't to convince new voters. So, in my opinion... compared to Rubio, Cruz is going to have a hell of a time rallying the troops and fend of the Clinton attacks.
Yeah, and that's the strategy the Cruz campaign is openly talking about - that you can win just by maximizing the vote among strong conservatives. It isn't actually a bad theory if you just look at Republican vote counts in the last few election cycles. But what the theory misses is the impact a hard line candidate has on voting counts for the other side. That is, it is all good and well to say 'if only Romney/McCain was more exciting to strong conservatives'... but that's missing the effect that a hardline candidate would have had on encouraging even more liberal voters to turn out for Obama.
Same thing here, with the sheer 'meh' of Clinton brings to the campaign trail, a fairly dull Republican candidate would have been a strong favourite. But if Cruz does as he says, and sticks to hardline policies to really encourage his base, well that's likely to have an equally strong, or even stronger effect of encouraging liberals to get out and vote 'against' Cruz.
FWIW: I thought Mitt Romney would have been an excellent 'moderate' President.
Yeah, I thought that too, until he ended up having to run as part of the current Republican party. His push out to the hard right to win over the base in the primary pretty much scuppered his campaign.
Ahtman wrote: Of course the Dems are having their own problems with someone people like versus someone the elite of the party want, but this isn't the first time Super-delagates have been an issue and nothing has come of that either.
You know Clinton is straight up leading in pledged delegates and the vote count? Her advantage in super-delegates is strong, but if things continue as they it will also be entirely unecessary, because she's well ahead without them.
You know at sporting matches and some idiot will wear an outfit like that, and they're all excited before the game. Then their team has a terrible night and is getting pounded, and the TV will show that same supporter again, only now they're sitting there slumped over and really sad, but still in that ridiculous outfit. Well hopefully that's what happens to that idiot.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Actually, I think the main problem here is that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are such wide brushes, and most political beliefs really don't fit neatly into them. A problem I often see.
But in reality, Liberal and Conservative are both terms that have a fairly specific meaning.... Hell, Libertarians are about as pure Liberal as you can possibly be, and yet, in their ignorance, they will bring out the pitchforks and torches if you call them such.
The thing is, they fall into the 'There is no need to help out the 'other' ' that is prevalent in conservative thinking.
Not really... True conservatism would say "there's no need to help out people, because America was great before we had those things." Libertarians take the Liberal view of "help should come from the people, not the government as people only give up as few rights as necessary to have a State."
Classical Liberalism is a more literal interpretation of Locke. A better example of how Libertarians fit into the Conservative ideology, is in their views on income taxes and mandated taxes in general. The usual thing I see on FB from the libertarians on my friends list is the meme stating "the US had no income tax until 1903, and yet we still had a standing army, roads and a postal service"
TheMeanDM wrote: Clinton pretty much side stepped and twisted the "Do you support fracking" by saying "Under these conditions I do not..." which means YES she does support it.
Bernie the straight shooter: "No"
There’s a difference between ‘straight shooting’ and simplistic political rhetoric. Clinton said she wouldn’t support fracking if the local area rejected it, if there was a known environmental risk, or if the chemicals being used weren’t disclosed. That’s a nuanced position that makes perfect sense, but doesn’t work as easy as Sanders’ very simple ‘no’.
Essentially Sanders position, to differentiate from Clinton’s, would be that if a place wanted fracking, there was no environmental impact, and the process was fully disclosed by the company, Sanders wouldn’t let it happen anyway. Which is very silly, of course, but that’s what happens when you give very simplistic answers to reasonably complicated issues.
I think the biggest irony of this campaign is that people have declared they’re sick of politicians making easy promises, and so they’re flocking to the candidates giving them very easy answers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: While this and all of the other joke replies are cute, it doesn't address the reality - the people who would leave and go to Canada because, they claim, Trump is a racist would not be caught dead living with Mexicans. Latte liberal elitist racism is still racism after all.
You're assuming that the only reason people would prefer Canada over Mexico is the skin colour of the locals. As if living standards and crime rates play no part in where people might prefer to live.
Do I really need to spend any time pointing out ridiculous that assumption was? It's pretty clear you thought you had a 'gotcha' to score a point againt them liberals, and that stopped you spending any time thinking about whether your argument made a lick of sense. Please don't do that. Stop trying to win, start trying to make arguments that work.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Actually, I think the main problem here is that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are such wide brushes, and most political beliefs really don't fit neatly into them. A problem I often see.
But in reality, Liberal and Conservative are both terms that have a fairly specific meaning.... Hell, Libertarians are about as pure Liberal as you can possibly be, and yet, in their ignorance, they will bring out the pitchforks and torches if you call them such.
The thing is, they fall into the 'There is no need to help out the 'other' ' that is prevalent in conservative thinking.
Not really... True conservatism would say "there's no need to help out people, because America was great before we had those things." Libertarians take the Liberal view of "help should come from the people, not the government as people only give up as few rights as necessary to have a State."
The thing is, both positions (Conservative and Libertarian) take the stance that there is no ethical requirement to help someone else.
BrotherGecko wrote: ... neoliberalism (saving brown people through control of their economies because they can't make the right decisions) can be fairly rascist.
Okay, these terms can get tricky because 'liberal' has two very different meanings. You used ‘neoliberalism’ but then described something that’s not neoliberalism in the slightest. it’s actually using the classic meaning of ‘liberal’, which is about economic freedom, ie let the markets do as they please. It refers to the resurgence of classical microeconomics as the dominant basis for assessing policies, instead of the Keynesian economics that had dominted prior to that. So the term really had nothing at all to do with what you were talking about.
I comment on that because your whole post is really very broad, sweeping and not particularly accurate. I agree that there’s racism everywhere, I saw a thing the other day where Bill Maher was saying the most racist kind of claptrap, and then saying it can’t be racist because he’s liberal. But in terms of describing of actual intellectual groups you were trading in very broad and quite contrived generalisations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: @whembly: funny, I watched the democratic debate last night and didn't see a single mention of size of dicks, endless shouting matches, yelling "liar" back and forth, vows to round up and deport 11 million people, turning sand to glass, promoting the use of torture, or hunting down families of terrorists. Maybe we have different criteria of what constitutes clown shows.
Sure but everyone said the Republican debate was a clown show, so it's important to say that about the Democratic debate as well. You don't have to prove it, you just have to believe it.
The thing is, both positions (Conservative and Libertarian) take the stance that there is no ethical requirement to help someone else.
That will happen within most political ideologies. What matters in the examples you and I have presented, is in how the reasoning comes about.
Locke's ideas of Liberalism means that a person's work is "property" and thus a worker negotiates his property for money (wages)
Conservatives fall back on more of a Hobbesian view, where there's a "social contract" in place that dictates when a person works, they get wages.
It's largely the same thing from the grand scheme of things, but the manner in which the view comes about is important, because it also reflects on other principles that actually do differ.
sebster wrote: You know Clinton is straight up leading in pledged delegates and the vote count? Her advantage in super-delegates is strong, but if things continue as they it will also be entirely unecessary, because she's well ahead without them.
Of course, but not in a way that would give her a clear mandate. I exaggerated a bit, but it also doesn't change the (sort of) popular support for Bernie, though I imagine much of it is from non-party members. Either way it won't stop the whole thing from being a momentary controversy that blows over fairly quickly until the next election. Since I have been alive almost every time there has been an national election Super Delegates are an issue and then they aren't until the next time.
BrotherGecko wrote: I get the distinct feeling that you wouldn't accept evidence. I discussed the liberal support of an invasion of Afghanistan (specifically to save people from their own life style…
Yeah, this is pretty much the ridiculousness that leftist ideology disappeared in to in the late 70s, a kind of self-righteous open mindedness that ends up being comical and scary in equal measures. Moral and cultural relativism taken to the point of self-parody.
I mean holy crap, there is nothing racist about saying Afghanistan under the Taliban was a horrible mess. To describe wanting to remove corrupt and malevolent warlords as ‘wanting to save people from their own lifestyle’ is ridiculous. I could pass your comment on to some Afghanis living here and back in Afghanistan, just to get some really colourful language asking you to never, ever talk about that country again, but I’m not all that interested in upsetting them just to prove a point in an internet debate.
I mean, yeah, it's a fair point that racism and ignorance about the rest of the world can, potentially, lead to wrong headed intervention, even when there’s good intentions. But to take that point to such an extreme that you’re willing to call the Taliban the ‘lifestyle’ chosen by Afghanistan is absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: The question is, who is Rubio going to sell give his delegates to?
If they're worth anything, because it's a close run thing at the end, then you'd have to think they will go to Cruz, or to no-one. The question is what price Rubio will be able to extract for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Of course, but not in a way that would give her a clear mandate. I exaggerated a bit, but it also doesn't change the (sort of) popular support for Bernie, though I imagine much of it is from non-party members. Either way it won't stop the whole thing from being a momentary controversy that blows over fairly quickly until the next election. Since I have been alive almost every time there has been an national election Super Delegates are an issue and then they aren't until the next time.
Well, no. Sanders has a very vocal supporter base on the internet, but in terms of people actually turning up and voting Clinton is ahead by a far margin. It seems there's something of a Howard Dean style bubble forming around Sanders, supporters are just sure he's the most popular option, despite the polls and the electoral results.
I mean, I agree that if super-delegates ended up deciding this then it will be very bad, but there's no sign of that at this point.
sebster wrote: I agree that if super-delegates ended up deciding this then it will be very bad, but there's no sign of that at this point.
I don't believe I said that they would decide, just that they will be complained about. Do you think this will be the one election where people don't? Considering how much the internet gives megaphones to minor issues I can't imagine that it won't.
Ahtman wrote: I don't believe I said that they would decide, just that they will be complained about. Do you think this will be the one election where people don't? Considering how much the internet gives megaphones to minor issues I can't imagine that it won't.
You said it was someone the people like vs someone the elites want. Which would imply that Sanders was more popular among the people, except he's actually won less votes, more people are choosing Clinton. Anyway, pretty pedantic at this point
But I agree that people will complain, probably quite a lot. Whether it ends up producing people who will vote for no-one once they've lost their preferred candidate, I don't know. A fair few people decided Gore was just the same as Bush, and got a fair surprise, do they have 16 year old memories?
Well, no. Sanders has a very vocal supporter base on the internet, but in terms of people actually turning up and voting Clinton is ahead by a far margin. It seems there's something of a Howard Dean style bubble forming around Sanders, supporters are just sure he's the most popular option, despite the polls and the electoral results.
I mean, I agree that if super-delegates ended up deciding this then it will be very bad, but there's no sign of that at this point.
I think that the visual evidence, the size of Sanders rallies compared to most Clinton rallies shows that there is quite a bit of support.... But that doesn't mean jack crap in the face of people actually getting to the polls. Remember there was that "rally" that clinton had, where she claimed to have had "hundreds" of supporters filling a school gym that it turned out maybe 50 people showed up, and her staffers forced all the cameras to shoot only from a particular angle to make it look like it was actually full. Of course, someone still snuck a shot or two from beyond the designated areas and showed what a farce that was.
I will say though, with the disparity in the polls, it goes to show the age old truth: young people don't really vote in high numbers. Or at least, in this campaign, in high enough numbers to matter for the candidate they claim to support.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think that the visual evidence, the size of Sanders rallies compared to most Clinton rallies shows that there is quite a bit of support.... But that doesn't mean jack crap in the face of people actually getting to the polls. Remember there was that "rally" that clinton had, where she claimed to have had "hundreds" of supporters filling a school gym that it turned out maybe 50 people showed up, and her staffers forced all the cameras to shoot only from a particular angle to make it look like it was actually full. Of course, someone still snuck a shot or two from beyond the designated areas and showed what a farce that was.
I will say though, with the disparity in the polls, it goes to show the age old truth: young people don't really vote in high numbers. Or at least, in this campaign, in high enough numbers to matter for the candidate they claim to support.
I think there's kind of a weird duality in youth voters. They show up in much smaller numbers than older voters, but the ones who do engage with politics tend to really get in to it. So not that many young people vote, but the ones who do are also much more likely to turn up at rallies.
And I think that's kind of the dynamic that's defined the Democratic race so far. Its a race between a candidate that a lot of people are really excited about, and a candidate that a % more people are happy to vote for, even if they're not anywhere near as excited about it.
People who've been really confident of Sanders chances have been looking at the enthusiasm he's generated, while forgetting that a really enthusiastic vote is worth the same as any other vote. As you say, it doesn't mean jack crap compared to actually getting people to the polls.
Hillary has a lot of BIG MONEY backing her, she has the DNC under DWS as well as the MSM behind getting her in.
But People are tired of her kind of politics, most vote for her as they have answered, "They wish to see a female President" -Bad reason, she is as corrupt as any man.
Or the sad reason of having fallen for that she is the "likeliest" candidate
Sanders has the grassroots campaign going, and the momentum is growing, he has won in states that were Hillary territory.
Sanders has experience, and with out all the baggage of Clinton. We have yet to finish March primaries, and then we have April/May and June, and Hillary has just 193delegates over Bernie, he may well catch and or pass her between now and the last March rounds. then the other three months with some huge delegate counts.
Bernie is staying in, he has out-raised her in February by 15million or so, maybe 13million, but still, he has gotten much in donations to keep going.
Do not swallow the pablum spewed by the propaganda machine known as the Main Stream Media.
Ahtman wrote: I don't believe I said that they would decide, just that they will be complained about. Do you think this will be the one election where people don't? Considering how much the internet gives megaphones to minor issues I can't imagine that it won't.
You said it was someone the people like vs someone the elites want.
I also said I was exaggerating. I could have, and should have, been more clear.
Let us now address the greatest American mystery at the moment: what motivates the supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump?
I call it a “mystery” because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump’s fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but “blue-collar” is one they persistently overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted to “engage” a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with this imaginary person’s responses to his questions.
When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement, they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable of powering a movement like Trump’s, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
Trump himself provides rather excellent evidence for this finding. The man is an insult clown who has systematically gone down the list of American ethnic groups and offended them each in turn. He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants. He wants to bar Muslims from visiting the United States. He admires various foreign strongmen and dictators, and has even retweeted a quote from Mussolini. This gold-plated buffoon has in turn drawn the enthusiastic endorsement of leading racists from across the spectrum of intolerance, a gorgeous mosaic of haters, each of them quivering excitedly at the prospect of getting a real, honest-to-god bigot in the White House.
All this stuff is so insane, so wildly outrageous, that the commentariat has deemed it to be the entirety of the Trump campaign. Trump appears to be a racist, so racism must be what motivates his armies of followers. And so, on Saturday, New York Times columnist Timothy Egan blamed none other than “the people” for Trump’s racism: “Donald Trump’s supporters know exactly what he stands for: hatred of immigrants, racial superiority, a sneering disregard of the basic civility that binds a society.”
Stories marveling at the stupidity of Trump voters are published nearly every day. Articles that accuse Trump’s followers of being bigots have appeared by the hundreds, if not the thousands. Conservatives have written them; liberals have written them; impartial professionals have written them. The headline of a recent Huffington Post column announced, bluntly, that “Trump Won Super Tuesday Because America is Racist.” A New York Times reporter proved that Trump’s followers were bigots by coordinating a map of Trump support with a map of racist Google searches. Everyone knows it: Trump’s followers’ passions are nothing more than the ignorant blurtings of the white American id, driven to madness by the presence of a black man in the White House. The Trump movement is a one-note phenomenon, a vast surge of race-hate. Its partisans are not only incomprehensible, they are not really worth comprehending.
* * *
Or so we’re told. Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years. But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called left-wing.
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about ... trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those companies’ CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the government would “start competitive bidding in the drug industry.” (“We don’t competitively bid!” he marveled – another true fact, a legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.
Thus did he hint at his curious selling proposition: because he is personally so wealthy, a fact about which he loves to boast, Trump himself is unaffected by business lobbyists and donations. And because he is free from the corrupting power of modern campaign finance, famous deal-maker Trump can make deals on our behalf that are “good” instead of “bad.” The chance that he will actually do so, of course, is small. He appears to be a hypocrite on this issue as well as so many other things. But at least Trump is saying this stuff.
All this surprised me because, for all the articles about Trump I had read in recent months, I didn’t recall trade coming up very often. Trump is supposed to be on a one-note crusade for whiteness. Could it be that all this trade stuff is a key to understanding the Trump phenomenon?
* * *
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic power brokers, what they call “free trade” is something so obviously good and noble it doesn’t require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There’s a video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico and that they’re all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we’ve had in this country since the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about the need to “stay competitive” and “the extremely price-sensitive marketplace.” A worker shouts “feth you!” at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can “share” his “information”. His information about all of them losing their jobs.
* * *
Now, I have no special reason to doubt the suspicion that Donald Trump is a racist. Either he is one, or (as the comedian John Oliver puts it) he is pretending to be one, which amounts to the same thing.
But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair, with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington’s free-market consensus have brought the rest of America.
It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he’s telling a tale as much about economic outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump’s followers are bigots, no doubt, but many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters, instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.
Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect of Trump was his “attitude,” the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned, “immigration” placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one concern: “good jobs / the economy.”
“People are much more frightened than they are bigoted,” is how the findings were described to me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey “confirmed what we heard all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that their kids don’t have a future” and that “there still hasn’t been a recovery from the recession, that every family still suffers from it in one way or another.”
Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. “These people aren’t racist, not any more than anybody else is,” he says of Trump supporters he knows. “When Trump talks about trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs.”
“They look at that, and here’s Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he’s representing emotionally. We’ve had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we’ve had to fight them to get them to represent us.”
Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties – chose long ago to turn its back on these people’s concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a “creative class” that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn’t need to listen to them any longer.
What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who’s dipped a toe outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies have taken their toll. As Trump says, “we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart. Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World.”
Trump’s words articulate the populist backlash against liberalism that has been building slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will be required to take seriously its demented ideas.
Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trumpism is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.
“People are much more frightened than they are bigoted,”
Quite.
... And understandable.
....One doubts however that Trump is actually going to do anything to really stop things like the exporting of jobs.
Well, given Trump's record of using overseas factories to produce his lines, I would say the likelihood of him doing anything to undercut global outsourcing is exactly 0%. Of course, he will likely push for things that favor his interests and I can only imagine crony capitalism reaching new heights.
The thing is, both positions (Conservative and Libertarian) take the stance that there is no ethical requirement to help someone else.
Thats also the policy of the US government. Based on lots of case law, the government has no obligation to help you in any way.
Both parties are like that. They only care about their special interests.
Don't worry, in an enlightened HRC administration, her friends on WS will be taken care of.
Inversely the Trump Economic Plan will be the best plan ever. If he gives the military illegal orders will some enterprising colonel (because its always a colonel) turn around and perform a coup? If we're going banana republic lets do it right.
What I am worried about as an American-Chinese is his trade plans for China. China is a bit like Russia in that we do not like it when other countries mess with our sphere of influence and I fear that his attempts at playing strong with China will result in a black eye for the USA. Trump's promises for a stronger presence in the Pacific are a danger to the delicate balance of power that the countries maintain.
If Trump's rule does lead to the collapse of the USA's economy, that should leave Taiwan ripe for the taking though.
The thing is, both positions (Conservative and Libertarian) take the stance that there is no ethical requirement to help someone else.
Thats also the policy of the US government. Based on lots of case law, the government has no obligation to help you in any way.
Both parties are like that. They only care about their special interests.
I would disagree about this. It is part of the Democratic position that social safety nets are a good thing and needed. Compare that to the Republican position that we should do away with them...
And I think that's kind of the dynamic that's defined the Democratic race so far. Its a race between a candidate that a lot of people are really excited about, and a candidate that a % more people are happy to vote for, even if they're not anywhere near as excited about it.
People who've been really confident of Sanders chances have been looking at the enthusiasm he's generated, while forgetting that a really enthusiastic vote is worth the same as any other vote. As you say, it doesn't mean jack crap compared to actually getting people to the polls.
Then you have people like me. i'm all for Sander's policies. However, I realize that there is no way he'll get any traction on them if elected. I'd rather go with Hillary who will move things towards that goal based on what can be achieved. Plus Hillary has the political ability to get things done. I'm not sure Sanders would have that ability.
BrotherGecko wrote: ... neoliberalism (saving brown people through control of their economies because they can't make the right decisions) can be fairly rascist.
Okay, these terms can get tricky because 'liberal' has two very different meanings. You used ‘neoliberalism’ but then described something that’s not neoliberalism in the slightest. it’s actually using the classic meaning of ‘liberal’, which is about economic freedom, ie let the markets do as they please. It refers to the resurgence of classical microeconomics as the dominant basis for assessing policies, instead of the Keynesian economics that had dominted prior to that. So the term really had nothing at all to do with what you were talking about.
I comment on that because your whole post is really very broad, sweeping and not particularly accurate. I agree that there’s racism everywhere, I saw a thing the other day where Bill Maher was saying the most racist kind of claptrap, and then saying it can’t be racist because he’s liberal. But in terms of describing of actual intellectual groups you were trading in very broad and quite contrived generalisations.
In Iraq we very much went in to impose an open economy amongst other objectives. There was an attempt to privatize much of Iraq's nationalized industry (Paul Bremer tried to do it to their oil industry.) Establish neoliberals supported these measures that were not successful. Neoliberalism isn't a liberal concept at the social level but amongst liberal policy makers (at least in the US) it can be popular. Neoliberalism can create or support rascist economic concepts overtly, systemically or plain unknowingly. It isn't specifically going to but crap happens, the idea is to root it out when able.
I mostly try to generalize at the ideological level. You can't generalize at the person level. People pick up an drop ideology or harvest only part of it which makes it very complicated. Liberals wouldn't be the people who are liberals but in the royal they as an ideology. If something is proposed by A liberal and other liberals either support it in full or part you would probably need to address the issue as just liberals with maybe the caveat of some but not all.
Bill Maher is arrogance at its most distilled state.
sebster wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote: I get the distinct feeling that you wouldn't accept evidence. I discussed the liberal support of an invasion of Afghanistan (specifically to save people from their own life style…
Yeah, this is pretty much the ridiculousness that leftist ideology disappeared in to in the late 70s, a kind of self-righteous open mindedness that ends up being comical and scary in equal measures. Moral and cultural relativism taken to the point of self-parody.
I mean holy crap, there is nothing racist about saying Afghanistan under the Taliban was a horrible mess. To describe wanting to remove corrupt and malevolent warlords as ‘wanting to save people from their own lifestyle’ is ridiculous. I could pass your comment on to some Afghanis living here and back in Afghanistan, just to get some really colourful language asking you to never, ever talk about that country again, but I’m not all that interested in upsetting them just to prove a point in an internet debate.
I mean, yeah, it's a fair point that racism and ignorance about the rest of the world can, potentially, lead to wrong headed intervention, even when there’s good intentions. But to take that point to such an extreme that you’re willing to call the Taliban the ‘lifestyle’ chosen by Afghanistan is absurd.
I've spent sometime in Aghanistan and spent a lot of time there talking to Afghanis. My buddy is pen pals with most of the Afghans we worked with an keeps me up to date on how their lives are going. I'm not blind or oblivious to what they have and are going through. However, I wasn't actually referring specifically to the Taliban and should of made that more clear. There was a lot of assumption that all of the Afghans cultural practices were due to the Taliban imposing it upon them amongst liberal elites in the US and Europe. They assumed that once the Taliban lost power the Afghanis would rush head long into the greatness of a secular liberal democracy. They never considered that maybe the Afghans like Islam and like their culture (pre-Taliban) largely as it was. Furthermore, Afghanistan is a complex place with a diverse and complex culture that will not fully agree on what exactly do they want and need.
This isn't to support cultural relativism which is probably an over sensitive reaction to the fear of appearing racist. Somethings in a culture are bad an absolutely should be pushed for their abolishment, though with the people behind it not a foreign force doing it for them.
I don't even subscribe to these theories or schools of thought. I just stay mindful of them as there are nuggets of goodness in a lot of things. I didn't go to Afghanistan with a gun to hug it out with the Taliban lol. As I've explained I was annoyed by the snide remarks to push the narrative liberals can't be rascist.
Kilkrazy wrote:@BrotherGecko,
Thank you for the info about your readings. I do get some of what you're talking about, and I shall look into those writers.
The thing is, both positions (Conservative and Libertarian) take the stance that there is no ethical requirement to help someone else.
Inversely the Trump Economic Plan will be the best plan ever. If he gives the military illegal orders will some enterprising colonel (because its always a colonel) turn around and perform a coup? If we're going banana republic lets do it right.
You can feel the big green weenie...and you can feel the big green weenie....big green weenies for everybody!!!!
Best slogan every for a military coup. Now every civilian can wake up and have to prelube themselves for the daily feth feth games.
The thing is, both positions (Conservative and Libertarian) take the stance that there is no ethical requirement to help someone else.
Thats also the policy of the US government. Based on lots of case law, the government has no obligation to help you in any way.
Both parties are like that. They only care about their special interests.
I would disagree about this. It is part of the Democratic position that social safety nets are a good thing and needed. Compare that to the Republican position that we should do away with them...
.
Anecdotally, the conservatives and Libertarians I know are more in favor of privatizing much of the safety net, not removing it altogether. The govt does things in a bloated, beaurucatic inefficient, costly manner that is fraught with unintended consequences and funds it all by confiscating money out of our paychecks under threat of imprisonment. If the govt did less and took less of our money and got out of the way of charitable organizations then people would have more money to donate and private groups would be able to use that money more effectively and efficiently. The govt that supplies the safety net, that often ensnares the people it's intended to help into generational codependency and the inability to fend for themselves, is the same govt that prevents churches and charities from handing out food to the homeless/hungry because those organization don't have the wherewithall to fill out all the red tape obtacles the govt puts in their way to prevent them from doing good things because it interferes with the govt claiming moral authority to be the sole arbiter of what is good.
Conservatives don't want to not help people, they want to not be forced to fund govt programs that don't accomplish their stated goals but constantly require increased budgets and more authority.
would disagree about this. It is part of the Democratic position that social safety nets are a good thing and needed. Compare that to the Republican position that we should do away with them...
Yet the Democratic position also actively supports open borders, which eliminates the safety net of jobs for millions of citizens who want to work.
They also apparently can't tell when their drinking water goes from clear to brown, that that is a bad thing...
Compare HRC policies to Trump policies. They are almost identical.
would disagree about this. It is part of the Democratic position that social safety nets are a good thing and needed. Compare that to the Republican position that we should do away with them...
Yet the Democratic position also actively supports open borders, which eliminates the safety net of jobs for millions of citizens who want to work.
They also apparently can't tell when their drinking water goes from clear to brown, that that is a bad thing...
Compare HRC policies to Trump policies. They are almost identical.
They are trying to get the Hispanic vote, so they duplicated what the water looks like in Mexico
Gordon Shumway wrote: @whembly: funny, I watched the democratic debate last night and didn't see a single mention of size of dicks, endless shouting matches, yelling "liar" back and forth, vows to round up and deport 11 million people, turning sand to glass, promoting the use of torture, or hunting down families of terrorists. Maybe we have different criteria of what constitutes clown shows.
You forgot to mention that White people cannot be poor and do not live in the ghetto.
The thing is, both positions (Conservative and Libertarian) take the stance that there is no ethical requirement to help someone else.
Thats also the policy of the US government. Based on lots of case law, the government has no obligation to help you in any way.
Both parties are like that. They only care about their special interests.
I would disagree about this. It is part of the Democratic position that social safety nets are a good thing and needed. Compare that to the Republican position that we should do away with them...
.
Anecdotally, the conservatives and Libertarians I know are more in favor of privatizing much of the safety net, not removing it altogether. The govt does things in a bloated, beaurucatic inefficient, costly manner that is fraught with unintended consequences and funds it all by confiscating money out of our paychecks under threat of imprisonment. If the govt did less and took less of our money and got out of the way of charitable organizations then people would have more money to donate and private groups would be able to use that money more effectively and efficiently. The govt that supplies the safety net, that often ensnares the people it's intended to help into generational codependency and the inability to fend for themselves, is the same govt that prevents churches and charities from handing out food to the homeless/hungry because those organization don't have the wherewithall to fill out all the red tape obtacles the govt puts in their way to prevent them from doing good things because it interferes with the govt claiming moral authority to be the sole arbiter of what is good.
Conservatives don't want to not help people, they want to not be forced to fund govt programs that don't accomplish their stated goals but constantly require increased budgets and more authority.
Privatization just boils down to only helping people because they are people like us rather than helping people in general. Plus privatizatoon means there are even less resources to help people with. It's been tried in the past and didn't work as people will not 'donate' enough to help. This just supports my position that Republicans see no ethical duty to help other people.
In Iraq we very much went in to impose an open economy amongst other objectives. There was an attempt to privatize much of Iraq's nationalized industry (Paul Bremer tried to do it to their oil industry.) Establish neoliberals supported these measures that were not successful. Neoliberalism isn't a liberal concept at the social level but amongst liberal policy makers (at least in the US) it can be popular. Neoliberalism can create or support rascist economic concepts overtly, systemically or plain unknowingly. It isn't specifically going to but crap happens, the idea is to root it out when able.
Good reading list earlier, and you are right that post-colonial policies (Liberal or Conservative) can lead to racism, implicit and explicit. If you were arguing against "Liberals can not be racist", of course you are correct. Liberals can be racist as well.
However, let's not create a false equivalence between scale and intent in this current political climate. It is relatively clear that Trump's (and Republican) policies are more closely aligned to the rascist side on the "Sliding Scale of Racism" than Democratic policies.
Can we agree on that point or am I still not getting it?
This just supports my position that Republicans see no ethical duty to help other people.
But Democrats feel its ok to use guns to force someone else to do it. Got it.
Just like Republicans believe in using guns to force people to contribute to a religion they may not follow
All hyperbole aside, Liberals believe that if you are part of a society, you have an ethical and moral duty to help out others. I have no problem with law enforcement action against people who refuse to do that, the same as I have no problem with law enforcement action against (or as you say using guns to force) people who run red lights.
In Iraq we very much went in to impose an open economy amongst other objectives. There was an attempt to privatize much of Iraq's nationalized industry (Paul Bremer tried to do it to their oil industry.) Establish neoliberals supported these measures that were not successful. Neoliberalism isn't a liberal concept at the social level but amongst liberal policy makers (at least in the US) it can be popular. Neoliberalism can create or support rascist economic concepts overtly, systemically or plain unknowingly. It isn't specifically going to but crap happens, the idea is to root it out when able.
Good reading list earlier, and you are right that post-colonial policies (Liberal or Conservative) can lead to racism, implicit and explicit. If you were arguing against "Liberals can not be racist", of course you are correct. Liberals can be racist as well.
However, let's not create a false equivalence between scale and intent in this current political climate. It is relatively clear that Trump's (and Republican) policies are more closely aligned to the rascist side on the "Sliding Scale of Racism" than Democratic policies.
Can we agree on that point or am I still not getting it?
I had no desire to push the idea of them being equivalent just the awareness that it can and does exist amongst liberal policies. Certainly you would combat the overt first and formost because it immediately effects lives. Systematic is much harder to identify and root out.
So yah I agree with you. I think you sufficiently have capped the point, thank you.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im not sure how I feel about the government enforcing ethic and morals.
Right there with you buddy.
It should be 'the people' be the driver to enforce ethics & morals to the government. Not the other way around.
Not sure how you square this with Republican sympathies, particularly when it comes to issues like abortion. Since the country is majority Pro-Choice, according to your logic the Republicans should stop trying to use the levers of government to enforce their morals on the populace.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im not sure how I feel about the government enforcing ethic and morals.
Right there with you buddy.
It should be 'the people' be the driver to enforce ethics & morals to the government. Not the other way around.
Not sure how you square this with Republican sympathies, particularly when it comes to issues like abortion. Since the country is majority Pro-Choice, according to your logic the Republicans should stop trying to use the levers of government to enforce their morals on the populace.
Or gay marriage.
Or immigration.
Or the military.
Or drug use.
If you want to follow that path you end up libertarian and with the removal of borders.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im not sure how I feel about the government enforcing ethic and morals.
Right there with you buddy.
It should be 'the people' be the driver to enforce ethics & morals to the government. Not the other way around.
Not sure how you square this with Republican sympathies, particularly when it comes to issues like abortion. Since the country is majority Pro-Choice, according to your logic the Republicans should stop trying to use the levers of government to enforce their morals on the populace.
I've made my feelings known on abortion and I don't want to rehash it in detail in this thread (the danger of having this thread locked).
But, suffice to say, you can be atheist and pro-life.
You can be "for" having a regulated abortion right and not have your state/federal government subsidize the practice.
@whembley: I believe to a certain extent that the US government is the US people.
The US has broadened what it means to be a person, so it would probably be more accurate to say that the US Government is now a combination of people (as normally defined) and corporations.
The truth has been reviled! Ghost Roosevelt for President-2016! No one needs to ask how big His Hands are!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote:
Just like Republicans believe in using guns to force people to contribute to a religion they may not follow
Please back that up.
All hyperbole aside, Liberals believe that if you are part of a society, you have an ethical and moral duty to help out others. If you disagree, they will call the Jem Hadar, er the IRS, and then you will die er go to prison
fixed your typo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im not sure how I feel about the government enforcing ethic and morals.
You live in Jerry Brown's California. You love it...or else.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im not sure how I feel about the government enforcing ethic and morals.
Right there with you buddy.
It should be 'the people' be the driver to enforce ethics & morals to the government. Not the other way around.
Not sure how you square this with Republican sympathies, particularly when it comes to issues like abortion. Since the country is majority Pro-Choice, according to your logic the Republicans should stop trying to use the levers of government to enforce their morals on the populace.
Sounds like a good idea. I am tired of the "Hell my Party has gone B%TSH%T CRAZY" Party also trying to tell me what to do.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: I believe to a certain extent that the US government is the US people.
"to a certain extent"... meaning they're representative of the people, since 'the people' gave consent to be governed.
Recognize the distinction.
You have the individual...
You have a group of individual in a society... as in 'the people'...
Then you have the various groups of governments (local, regional, states, feds...).
They're all distinct with different wants, needs and agendas. Right?
So, what is Ethics?
moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
What is morals?
a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
We're dealing with what one individual or groups of individuals believes in...
If one person or groups believes in something, then it's a moral thing for that person/group to fight for said beliefs. It's a MORAL thing for them to engage the government to push said belief on everyone.
What does that mean if a different person or group disagrees?
See the conundrum of skyth's statement:
...you have an ethical and moral duty to help out others. I have no problem with law enforcement action against people who refuse to do that...
Also:
Citizens United broadened what it means to be a person, so it would probably be more accurate to say that the US Government is now a combination of people and corporations.
Not quite buddy.
First, Citizens United is really about a private entity wanted to show a critical movie on Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season. So, the makers of Citizens United's 1st Amendment prevailed over the existing laws at the times that were seen as 'incumbent protection' laws.
That led to changes to BCRA laws that gave rise to superPACs and stuff.
And take money from poor people for "greenhouse gases"
No need for scare quotes on that one.
Yes, nations tax people. To do stuff. Shocking, I know...
So we're both agreed they tax poor people for for "greenhouse gases" but its ok right? The people least able to afford it, but screw those guys they should just buy a Prius, and put up solar panels. What do you mean my solar panels are subsidized? It should be, because I 'm good. Not like those factory worker peasants. They drive gas guzzlers. They're bad.
Nonsense both parties sucketh, and both parties have their good points. One sided "our side is good their side is bad" is just logically asinine. *
*I am not speaking about any particular poster here. Except for Malfred. And maybe cat lovers. Ok especially cat lovers. They got no reason to live.
@whembley: I'm afraid your point may have eluded me again. Instead of trying to lead me there through a line of questioning, maybe it would be more helpful to just state your point. Cuz all I'm getting so far is that you don't believe that law enforcement should enforce any laws that require a citizen to help other people out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for Citizens United, I realized my mistake on that after posting, and didn't get my edit in on time. Sorry
In any case, my main point was that in the US, corps are people too, so its not quite so simple as saying government = people because many if not most government officials represent corporate interests as much if not more so than their individual constituents.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: I'm afraid your point may have eluded me again. Instead of trying to lead me there through a line of questioning, maybe it would be more helpful to just state your point. Cuz all I'm getting so far is that you don't believe that law enforcement should enforce any laws that require a citizen to help other people out.
That's my argument.
Hence my snark "you will be made to care".
Besides... what statuatory laws exists that requires a 'citizen to help other people out'??? And no, paying your taxes isn't that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for Citizens United, I realized my mistake on that after posting, and didn't get my edit in on time.
In any case, the point being that in the US, corps are people, so it may once have been true to a degree that the government = the people, but its not quite that simple these days.
US corps are people is a legal fiction that's needed.
Otherwise, it'd be extremely difficult to write laws and enforce it on Corporation.
Furthermore, I don't believe it's EVER been true that the government = the people. Just look at the Declaration of Independence:
...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted amongMen, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: I'm afraid your point may have eluded me again. Instead of trying to lead me there through a line of questioning, maybe it would be more helpful to just state your point. Cuz all I'm getting so far is that you don't believe that law enforcement should enforce any laws that require a citizen to help other people out.
That's my argument.
So no taxes used to fund the fire brigade, schools, the police or emergency health care?
EDIT: And if you're not talking about taxes, what then? Maybe laws that require one to help in the case of an emergency? Some countries have them, Finland does. I think that's a good thing.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: I'm afraid your point may have eluded me again. Instead of trying to lead me there through a line of questioning, maybe it would be more helpful to just state your point. Cuz all I'm getting so far is that you don't believe that law enforcement should enforce any laws that require a citizen to help other people out.
That's my argument.
So no taxes used to fund the fire brigade, schools, the police or emergency health care?
EDIT: And if you're not talking about taxes, what then? Maybe laws that require one to help in the case of an emergency? Some countries have them, Finland does. I think that's a good thing.
I'll be honest, I hear fire brigade and I have this image of column of tanks painted bright red with sirens and horns going...
@whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people out.
To another point, I am seeing Southerners by droves vote for a Yankee, a NY Yankee. Ladies and Gentlemen, the South has fallen.
Not just Southerners. Evangelicals are also voting in droves for our "Christian" (wink, wink) billionaire friend from the north. The religious right may well have fallen, as well.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people out.
No worries.
Paying your taxes is a "duty". There's nothing altruistic about it.
To me, that's distinctly different than "helping your neighbor". You should help your neighbor as it's the right thing to do. However, the government should stay the feth out and not use LEO to "make" you help your neighbor.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people out.
IME, Good Samaritan laws protect a person who is genuinely trying to help from litigation. Ie, old fat lady chokes on a doughnut and has a heart attack, falling unconsious and a "good samaritan" renders CPR, and in the process breaks a couple ribs. The person giving life saving care, the CPR in this case, shouldn't face any punishment for attempting to help someone.
I have heard, though not seen or experienced it, but I have heard of police giving tickets to people who are observing an event that they could render aid, but aren't, and are doing so in such a manner that they are obstructing others from helping, including trained personnel (EMTs, fire fighters, po-po, etc.)
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people out.
IME, Good Samaritan laws protect a person who is genuinely trying to help from litigation. Ie, old fat lady chokes on a doughnut and has a heart attack, falling unconsious and a "good samaritan" renders CPR, and in the process breaks a couple ribs. The person giving life saving care, the CPR in this case, shouldn't face any punishment for attempting to help someone.
I have heard, though not seen or experienced it, but I have heard of police giving tickets to people who are observing an event that they could render aid, but aren't, and are doing so in such a manner that they are obstructing others from helping, including trained personnel (EMTs, fire fighters, po-po, etc.)
Yeah, I was referring to the latter, rather than the former.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people out.
No worries.
Paying your taxes is a "duty". There's nothing altruistic about it.
To me, that's distinctly different than "helping your neighbor". You should help your neighbor as it's the right thing to do. However, the government should stay the feth out and not use LEO to "make" you help your neighbor.
Taxes are the way governments get people to help other people. For example, you are paying taxes to provide healthcare for people on Medicaid and Medicare. If you don't want to help and refuse to pay taxes, your gonna get in trouble. The government is already in the business of forcing people to help their neighbors out. Whether you agree or not that they should collect these taxes is one thing, but just because it's not voluntary doesn't mean it's off the table for discussion.
Again, I dont pretend to know what skyth meant by law enforcement action against people who refuse to help other people out, but I think tax collection enforcemnt is Prime Example #1 of this exact kind of government behavior.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: sorry, my response got messed up by an accidental double post.
I'd argue that paying your taxes does count as regards our discussion. Ref other statutes, there are Good Samaritan laws that potnentially hold people liable for not helping out in certain circumstances, but I don't pretend to know what skyh means when he says he would support law enforcement actions against people who refuse to help other people
The idea was referring to paying taxes. Was in response to Frazz's comment about people with guns (ie IRS) forcing you to follow the law.
IME, Good Samaritan laws protect a person who is genuinely trying to help from litigation. Ie, old fat lady chokes on a doughnut and has a heart attack, falling unconsious and a "good samaritan" renders CPR, and in the process breaks a couple ribs. The person giving life saving care, the CPR in this case, shouldn't face any punishment for attempting to help someone.
I have heard, though not seen or experienced it, but I have heard of police giving tickets to people who are observing an event that they could render aid, but aren't, and are doing so in such a manner that they are obstructing others from helping, including trained personnel (EMTs, fire fighters, po-po, etc.)
Duty to Rescue is a thing that exist in many countries (apparently not in USA, though.) It is a legal requirement to render assistance in a medical (or possibly other) emergency, as long as it doesn't cause danger to the person helping.
IME, Good Samaritan laws protect a person who is genuinely trying to help from litigation. Ie, old fat lady chokes on a doughnut and has a heart attack, falling unconsious and a "good samaritan" renders CPR, and in the process breaks a couple ribs. The person giving life saving care, the CPR in this case, shouldn't face any punishment for attempting to help someone.
I have heard, though not seen or experienced it, but I have heard of police giving tickets to people who are observing an event that they could render aid, but aren't, and are doing so in such a manner that they are obstructing others from helping, including trained personnel (EMTs, fire fighters, po-po, etc.)
Duty to Rescue is a thing that exist in many countries (apparently not in USA, though.) It is a legal requirement to render assistance in a medical (or possibly other) emergency, as long as it doesn't cause danger to the person helping.
There are Duty to Rescue laws in 10 US states (Google search, not personal expertise), but they seem pretty forgiving as to whom these laws apply, and in what circumstances.
TheMeanDM wrote: As a medical professional (nurse, etc) we have that duty.
If I were just a "civillian", we do not have a duty....
Yep. But in many countries civilians have that duty as well.
jasper76 wrote: There are Duty to Rescue laws in 10 US states (Google search, not personal expertise), but they seem pretty forgiving as to whom these laws apply, and in what circumstances.
People here in the US, I would argue, have been far more litigious when it came to Joe Blow trying to save Gramma Jane and ended up paralyzing her because they didn't know what they were doing.
Therefore the Good Samaritan laws...to help encourage more people to lend that hand if they can with (less!) fear of litigation should something go awry.
Seems to be a major difference between writing the law as a carrot (you are not going to be held liable for damages made in an effort to help) and using it as a stick (you must help or suffer the consequences).
Incentivizing the desired behavior with the carrot approach is definitely my preference.
CptJake wrote: Seems to be a major difference between writing the law as a carrot (you are not going to be held liable for damages made in an effort to help) and using it as a stick (you must help or suffer the consequences).
Incentivizing the desired behavior with the carrot approach is definitely my preference.
That's what we have in the UK. There isn't a compulsory help law, but the law says that first aiders making a genuine attempt to help casualties won't be prosecuted if something goes wrong.
The SunSentinel, which once endorsed Jeb!, refuses to endorse any remaining GOP candidates (including hometown Rubio), stating "We cannot endorse businessman Donald Trump, hometown Sen. Marco Rubio or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz because they are unqualified to be president." Pretty scathing article from their Editorial Board. Bad news for Rubio.
The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board is not going to make an endorsement in Florida's March 15 Republican presidential primary because the kind of person who should be running is not in the race.
We cannot endorse businessman Donald Trump, hometown Sen. Marco Rubio or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz because they are unqualified to be president. Ohio Gov. John Kasich is the best of the bunch, but if you measure a candidate by the caliber of his campaign, Kasich's lack of traction and organization make a vote for him count for little.
ADVERTISING
We showed our cards a year ago, before the extraordinarily large field of Republican candidates shaped up. We favored the adult in the room, Jeb Bush, a smart, experienced and principled conservative. But the nation wasn't ready for another Bush, and our former governor wasn't ready for the anti-establishment edge in today's Twitter-fueled campaign era.
So now, here's how we see the choices:
Donald Trump
If you're angry, like so many voters are, vote for Trump. If you want to send a message to the Republican establishment and the Washington elite — and you feel voting for Trump will poke a stick in their eye — knock yourself out. Trump's celebrity and trajectory could well propel him to the White House in November.
Compare candidates in the Sun Sentinel Voter Guide
Compare candidates in the Sun Sentinel Voter Guide
Maybe you think Trump doesn't really mean all the over-the-top things he says about Mexicans, Muslims, McCain and more. After all, this guy authored "The Art of the Deal" and knows negotiations start with an extreme position. He's already said he's willing to cut a deal on one of his hard-line immigration stances — mass deportations.
But if you believe Trump doesn't really mean everything he says, then you believe he is fooling everyone. So you're buying a pig in a poke.
And what if you're wrong?
Part of Trump's appeal is that he's willing to change his mind, that he's not in lockstep with the rules that make Washington dysfunctional. He's taken positions other Republicans have run from, such as funding Planned Parenthood's non-abortion health services and calling the Iraq War a mistake. To get things done, he says you've got to be flexible.
But conservative Republicans exhausted by the Obama Administration fear Trump is too willing to compromise and too bendable on core values. He has been both pro-choice and pro-life, for and against a ban on assault weapons, and for and against bringing in Syrian refugees. That he wrote checks to Hillary Clinton's last presidential campaign is a final straw.
Trump also is absurdly vague on how he would "make America great again." We all know Mexico is never going to pay for that wall and we're never going to round up and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. When asked to explain how he will implement his bombastic pronouncements, Trump's complete lack of government experience shows.
Supposedly, Trump is a good businessman, but we know folks in Tampa who lost huge sums of money on Trump Tower Tampa, which never broke ground. His list of failures goes on: Trump Shuttle, Trump Vodka, Trump Magazine, Trump University, Trump Steaks and Trump Mortgage. You might think the Trump brand suggests quality, but history proves you wrong.
Trump would shake up Washington, no question. He might even unite Republicans and Democrats against a common enemy — himself. But given his smug, erratic, often petulant demeanor, do you really trust him with the keys to our nuclear arsenal?
The presidency is serious business, not reality television. Trump may be entertaining, but he lacks the experience and temperament to be president. He does not deserve your vote.
Marco Rubio
If you think Marco Rubio can unite the Republican Party under a winning banner, vote for him. But remember that he has almost no experience and has done little but run for office. Then, when he gets in office, he doesn't go to work very much. He holds the worst attendance record in the U.S. Senate.
Because Rubio has failed to do his job as a senator, broken the promises he made to Floridians and backed away from his lone signature piece of legislation on immigration, we cannot endorse him for president.
Without question, Rubio has a great personal story and tremendous political skills. He is smart and knows the issues beyond the talking points, no matter that one rote debate performance.
But Rubio is not the new-age Republican he claims to be. His positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, gun control, government surveillance and Cuba are those of yesteryear. And unlike Trump, Rubio is reliant on big donors who will expect big favors down the road.
Rubio's strongest suit appears to be foreign policy, but his neoconservative views should give voters pause. In an October interview about ISIS, for example, he advocated a no-fly zone over Syria that would take down any Russian jets there, too. Asked if he thought a military conflict with Russia would scare the American people, he said, "Sure. But the consequences of not doing anything would scare them even more."
Let us be clear: war with Russia is the last thing this war-weary nation wants and it was alarming to hear Rubio so cavalierly roll the dice. Fortunately, more considered minds from the U.S., Russia and other powers last month negotiated a cessation of hostilities in Syria's civil war.
We recognize that Rubio and Ted Cruz are the party's best shot at stopping Trump. If Rubio can secure Florida's winner-take-all primary, and certain other cards play out, perhaps Trump won't cross the finish line and another candidate can emerge at a brokered convention.
But a vote for Rubio should be more than a protest vote.
Rubio lacks the experience, work ethic and gravitas needed to be president. He has not earned your vote.
Ted Cruz
If you want someone who won't compromise on social issues, who will stand strong for limited government and will make his decisions based on the Bible, your choice is clear: Ted Cruz.
Cruz is unequivocal. He is anti-establishment and anti-Washington. And he is so determined to kill Obamacare that he was willing to shut down government for 16 days, America's economy be damned.
In talking tough against ISIS, Cruz promises to carpet-bombing Syrian villages, which betrays his ignorance of smart-bomb technology, let alone our nation's military strategy. Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that wanton bombing is categorically "not the way that we apply force in combat. It isn't now, nor will it ever be."
In the push for needed tax reform, Cruz promises to replace the Internal Revenue Service with a tiny office in the Treasury Department that will process tax returns submitted on postcards.
And in the face of Washington gridlock, Cruz has alienated almost everyone he's worked with, leading Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham to half-jokingly say that if someone killed Mr. Cruz "on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you."
Cruz scares us. He also should scare Republicans who want to win in November. Cruz has not earned your vote.
John Kasich
If you consider yourself a mainstream Republican, Ohio Gov. John Kasich is your man. He's a solid conservative who's fought public services unions, opposed same-sex marriage and battled to limit abortion rights. He supports a path to legalization — though not citizenship — for undocumented immigrants. He has strong credentials in government at the state and federal levels. And he's popular with those who know him best, boasting a 62 percent approval rating among Ohioans.
If he could survive the primary, Kasich would prove a strong candidate in November. Recent polls show he averages a 7.4 lead over Hillary Clinton, which is larger than the leads posted by Rubio, Cruz or Trump.
But while Kasich is the most qualified of the four candidates left standing, he lacks presidential presence. And he doesn't have a chance of winning because the Republican base is in rebellion and he got out of the gate too late to build a viable campaign organization.
Perhaps in a more-rational election year, the Sun Sentinel would endorse John Kasich. But we can't urge you to vote for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination.
Duty to Rescue is a thing that exist in many countries (apparently not in USA, though.) It is a legal requirement to render assistance in a medical (or possibly other) emergency, as long as it doesn't cause danger to the person helping.
When I lived in Germany I was told by the "head start" trainers (whose job it is to give Americans a sort of quick/dirty version of "what you need to know" kind of stuff. It included getting a local driving license, the differences in buying a handy, getting cable/internet, tipping practices, the bus system, etc.) that the law in Germany regarding "duty to rescue" went something like
-You have a "duty" to stop and render aid only if the risk to yourself/property is minimal or non-existent.
-If you are able to safely stop and render aid, you are protected from litigation (the US style Good Sam law) in the event of injury caused from rendering aid.
But they did say that the first part, the "duty" was really much more of a "strong suggestion" as there was no punitive component for not stopping to give aid.
@jasper... great piece from the Sun Sentinel.
I think they hit Rubio kind of on the nail: he NEEDS big money, which means they get to fill out his Madlib cards with the positions he takes (and is a big part of why I have called him an empty suit in this thread)
But overall today has been a loss for him right? Won by 10 delegates there, lost by 27 delegates in Mississippi. So it's a net loss today as Hillary gained 17 delegates further lead...right? If we ignore momentum, story, narrative, etc. In straight numbers it wasn't a good day? Or am I misunderstanding how delegates work.
Apparently when invented, the Germans could not conceive of a proper german word for "mobile telephone" so they came up with the term 'handy." As of when I was there from 09-12, the word is still kind of the standard, but I'd say upwards of around 40% of the time, you may also see the more british "mobile" being used.
Apparently when invented, the Germans could not conceive of a proper german word for "mobile telephone" so they came up with the term 'handy." As of when I was there from 09-12, the word is still kind of the standard, but I'd say upwards of around 40% of the time, you may also see the more british "mobile" being used.
That is both a relief and not nearly as interesting. I don't think mobile phones where a big thing yet when my Brother was stationed in Germany so it didn't come up much. Of course we are old. So very old.
Ahtman wrote: I also said I was exaggerating. I could have, and should have, been more clear.
Nah, my bad. I read that and knew what you meant, and after that I was just trying to clarify what we'd been saying, and it ended up more like I was nitpicking. Again, my bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shasolenzabi wrote: Do not swallow the pablum spewed by the propaganda machine known as the Main Stream Media.
Please don't use gibberish like 'Main Stream Media'. It makes you sound like a Republican in the 90s. We all know where that path took their party.
Anyhow, Clinton's likely win has nothing to do with anything in any conventional media. Instead it's a simple reading of the results so far and the expected results ahead. In each case you look at the demographics in the state, and ask how well Sanders will need to do to be on an even run with Clinton, and in every state Sanders has been behind that standard.
That’s it. It’s simple delegate maths – the states he’s won he hasn’t won by enough, and the states he’s lost he’s typically lost by a lot more than he can accept.
Even with the surprise win in Michigan, the surprise win in Mississippi meant Clinton went further ahead in delegates. That’s Sanders problem – he’s winning some states just, and losing big elsewhere.
The one thing Sanders can take forward is that he probably gained a lot of ground in Michigan in the last few days, after the debate. If that’s true then it’s likely his position attacking Clinton on trade agreements might be his best way forward.
I mean, the position is utter gibberish, but this is politics, you don’t win by saying things that make sense, you win by saying things that win votes.
It’s a good article in one sense. It does a very good job of rejecting the very dismissive charge of racism that many people have used. Looking at Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric, and seeing how that will appeal to people with a lot of economic insecurity is good work.
But from there, the author really screws it up in the last third of the article. He mentions the poor efforts to explain the value of trade, but does nothing to recognise how difficult those explanations can be, especially to the people who are most at risk of being negatively affected. And then after barely touching on that, he lurches in to just assuming that trade must be bad, that following trade policies meant turning your back on working class people. It’s the kind of sleight of hand you see too often in The Guardian, and it’s frustrating because it so often ruins what would otherwise be really good work.
Frazzled wrote: Don't worry, in an enlightened HRC administration, her friends on WS will be taken care of.
The level of unreality in political debate is sometimes beyond satire.
This is how much Wall Street loves Clinton and the Obama administration's financial reforms. This is how much they think they'll get out of her, compared to a Republican opponent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Then you have people like me. i'm all for Sander's policies. However, I realize that there is no way he'll get any traction on them if elected. I'd rather go with Hillary who will move things towards that goal based on what can be achieved. Plus Hillary has the political ability to get things done. I'm not sure Sanders would have that ability.
Yeah, and I think that's the kind of grizzled realpolitik you see among a lot of Clinton voters. It's not the kind of attitude that gets people along to rallies, but they still vote and so far they've voted in greater numbers for Clinton than Sanders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: I've spent sometime in Aghanistan and spent a lot of time there talking to Afghanis. My buddy is pen pals with most of the Afghans we worked with an keeps me up to date on how their lives are going. I'm not blind or oblivious to what they have and are going through. However, I wasn't actually referring specifically to the Taliban and should of made that more clear. There was a lot of assumption that all of the Afghans cultural practices were due to the Taliban imposing it upon them amongst liberal elites in the US and Europe. They assumed that once the Taliban lost power the Afghanis would rush head long into the greatness of a secular liberal democracy. They never considered that maybe the Afghans like Islam and like their culture (pre-Taliban) largely as it was.
Ah, I see your point now, and it’s a very good one. Sorry if I came off as rude.
This isn't to support cultural relativism which is probably an over sensitive reaction to the fear of appearing racist. Somethings in a culture are bad an absolutely should be pushed for their abolishment, though with the people behind it not a foreign force doing it for them.
Sometimes. There are successful examples of nation building. There’s lots of screw ups as well, and a lot that sit somewhere in-between.
I think the issue is that we often ask the wrong question – people debate whether it is right or wrong to change another culture, and typically the debate is won by people arguing we must attempt the change (all you need is a few stories of human rights abuses, esp to children).
But the much, much better question is whether we are capable of changing another culture. Whether we are willing to spend the lives and money for the decades it will take to make lasting change. The answer to that is almost always no, but because it’s never the question we ask…
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Yet the Democratic position also actively supports open borders, which eliminates the safety net of jobs for millions of citizens who want to work.
Trade also creates jobs. Its amazing how cyclical economic nonsense is. We're seeing this wave of populist anti-trade rhetoric that's almost exactly mirroring the wave that grew up in the depression.
It's exactly as wrong now as it was then, but hey, easy answers.
Compare HRC policies to Trump policies. They are almost identical.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im not sure how I feel about the government enforcing ethic and morals.
You will probably just need to get used to it, because government is a function of society, and every society that's ever existed has mutually agreed ethics and morals that it enforces. That's pretty much what makes it a society.
Everyone will accept, of course, that murder is wrong and needs punishment, and use government to enforce that moral. The only question is exactly what morals are enforced, and whether somethings are better left alone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Or, do you believe that 'the people' is distinct and separate from 'the government'?
The government acts on behalf of the people. That's what democracy is.
From here I'm guessing you want to argue that it doesn't reflect the people's interests as well as it should, at which point I'll direct you to a certain Churchill quote, and then we can call it a night
[user]A pure democracy is like ancient Athens where all the adult male citizens would go to the agora, listen to speeches, then vote on a law. Of course there were only a few thousand of them, and the state was a lot simpler than a modern country, needing less 'governing' so this was practical.
The USA is a representative democracy in which you vote to select a representative per 100,000 or whatever number of citizens. Your reps then consider and vote on laws.
This does not make "the government" an alien occupying force.
Kilkrazy wrote: [user]A pure democracy is like ancient Athens where all the adult male citizens would go to the agora, listen to speeches, then vote on a law. Of course there were only a few thousand of them, and the state was a lot simpler than a modern country, needing less 'governing' so this was practical.
The USA is a representative democracy in which you vote to select a representative per 100,000 or whatever number of citizens. Your reps then consider and vote on laws.
This does not make "the government" an alien occupying force.
I agree. The point I was making about it not being a 'pure' democracy concerns the presidential election.
When it comes down to the vote in November, why isn't it a straight forward popular vote?
Why do electoral colleges have to get involved?
Yes, a popular vote would have given us President Gore in 2000
but leaving aside that nightmare scenario
I still think that every vote should count, and it should be a straight forward contest.
I think that is because historically it would have been impossible to organise a popular election for President and complete it within any reasonable amount of time, given the space and communication problems in the late 18th century. Therefore instead of electing the president, you elected representatives to do it for you.
Unfortunately, I think that points more to Clinton's weaknesses than Bernie's strengths. She's not a very good campaigner.
Still, cheering to see a real socialist like Bernie getting somewhere in the US! And normalizing relationships all over the place. Wonderful stuff, I guess the Cold War really is finally over!
The impression I get of Hilary is that she is a smart operator and very experienced, but she doesn't have the reality distortion charisma field that her husband has got.
Of course, if she got the nomination, she can then deploy Clinton as the potential first First Husband, which will surely have an impact on the campaign..
Da Boss wrote: Unfortunately, I think that points more to Clinton's weaknesses than Bernie's strengths. She's not a very good campaigner.
The big concern for Clinton is that if Sanders can win in blue states running on a populist message, perhaps Trump can, as well.
I've seen some polls showing that Trump is drawing from the Democrats, while Clinton is drawing from Republicans, in a head to head. It's sad that the two "front running" candidates are that despised by their own party. Makes you wonder wtf is going on.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Technically, it's a constitutional republic or something, and not a 'true' democracy in the purest sense, due to the checks and balances built in.
Not my words, but the words of somebody on dakka (can't remember who) many months ago
And we're doing it again.
Anyhow, yeah, you probably did hear that from someone on dakka. People on dakka say it from time to time, it's kind of become a running joke. Thing is, it's wrong, and pointing out its wrong, time after time, it still keeps getting posted.
The US is both a republic, and a democracy. Republic just means you don't have a herefitary ruler as your formal head of state, it might be an elected president, it might be a dicator, as long as there's no king or queen to pass their position down to their children, it's a republic.
Democracy means that the ultimate power rests with the people and is exercised through a vote. This could mean through some form direct democracy (everyone votes individual issues) or representative democracy (people elect leaders, who decide and vote on issues).
So yes, the US is a republic. It's also a democracy. This whole thread, 326 pages of it, is about US elections. Elections. Democracy. Is what it is.
What is interesting me is that Sanders is winning the state's that go Democratic in the general, while Hilary is winning states that typically go Republican in the general. I am not sure what this says about Clinton as a candidate in the General, but it is interesting to me.
If the Democrats are not careful, they could have a similar crisis in the party as the Republicans are having now. Maybe in a the next decade to a generation (25 years). They need to start thinking about how they are going to change with their base, and move the mainstream narrative with it.
Hillary has been up double-digit %'s in a number of states and Sanders has come through to win or virtually tie.
And that's kind of the point. No-one is saying Sanders or his base should stop playing, but there's a big difference between keeping your ticket to give yourself a chance, and putting all your savings in to one big hope of winning the powerball.
There needs to an endgame meaning to what Sanders is doing other than winning the nomination. Because most likely won't happen, and it'd be really wasteful to let his surprise campaign lead to nothing in the future. The real left has been in the wilderness for so long, they really need to be looking to build something lasting.
I don't know if I'm more amazed that some Republicans care so little about reality they'd attack a veteran over veterans, or the really obvious 'standing' pun.
But overall today has been a loss for him right? Won by 10 delegates there, lost by 27 delegates in Mississippi. So it's a net loss today as Hillary gained 17 delegates further lead...right? If we ignore momentum, story, narrative, etc. In straight numbers it wasn't a good day? Or am I misunderstanding how delegates work.
Yes by the numbers it wasn't great for Sanders; although we can't ignore the story on this. Michigan was projected to go to Clinton and if she had won it it would prove her game is strong. But Sanders stole this in a big upset leaving Clinton's campaign scratching their head. This shows there is more weight to Sanders' campaign, and his message, then they are giving him credit for. This all proves it is still too early for Clinton to call it hers and think she can start running for president, she hasn't earned it yet.
Nostromodamus wrote: As a Michigan resident, I've seen a lot more ads for Sanders than I have for Clinton. I wonder if something that simple had a big effect?
I think Sanders won Michigan in large part due to his anti-NAFTA, anti-trade agreement bona fides, which he put on display in the last Democratic debate.
I don't know if I'm more amazed that some Republicans care so little about reality they'd attack a veteran over veterans, or the really obvious 'standing' pun.
The article I found about it has the Republicans response effectively being "Why are you annoyed about this when you should be annoyed about the veterans" LINK
Nostromodamus wrote: As a Michigan resident, I've seen a lot more ads for Sanders than I have for Clinton. I wonder if something that simple had a big effect?
I think it helps.
Also, as Jasper said, I think his anti-NAFTA stance helped him here as well.
Da Boss wrote: Unfortunately, I think that points more to Clinton's weaknesses than Bernie's strengths. She's not a very good campaigner.
The big concern for Clinton is that if Sanders can win in blue states running on a populist message, perhaps Trump can, as well.
I've seen some polls showing that Trump is drawing from the Democrats, while Clinton is drawing from Republicans, in a head to head. It's sad that the two "front running" candidates are that despised by their own party. Makes you wonder wtf is going on.
I don't believe that Hillary is really that hated by her own party. There are a lot of Democrats who like Bernie more without hating her, and then there are the Rand Paulites of the left, young white men all fired up for their darling Bernie and wrathful towards any contenders, but they'll either mellow out when he endorses her or they won't vote just like they never do. There has also been a concerted effort to smear her in the last year, which gained a bit of traction, but once the primary is over and the Democrats start countering the message, I think her favorability numbers will climb back up pretty fast. It helps that most of the attacks against her have been painfully transparent and impotent, making the Republicans look like children crying "wolf".
Still, it would be nice if she had some warmth of personality.
I don't fall under a partical political party. I'm a pretty conservative fellow, but I hate the Libertarian stick your head in the sand stance on foreign policy.
I'm libertarian when it comes to the government getting involved in lifestyle issues like what you ingest, who you lay with, whether you must carry babies to term, etc. But that's about as far as it goes. Total Libertarianism is too cruel for the "have nots" in society for me to get behind.
My experience with Libertarians (friend's dad runs for various public offices on the Libertarian party of Canada ticket) is that they generally have no ability to discern fact from fantasy.
Things like voluntary taxes would work. Immigration is bad for society. Guns make us safer.
We would all be land-owning millionaires, if not for the durn government keeping us down.
Generally speaking, in my experience Libertarian policy is cowboy masturbatory fantasy at best, and dangerous dismantling of society at worst.
Where does the line between libertarianism and anarchism get drawn? I have never seen a satisfactory answer on this one and, historically, it seems they are two sides of the same coin. And I would guess in the modern setting there is overlap, but I have a hard time envisioning self proclaimed libertarians identifying with anarchism and vice versa. But they both oppose coercive power systems and formalized government. American libertarians seem to have accepted property ownership and capitalism and largely ignore the coercive governmental systems that make those two things tick in the real world.
ProtoClone wrote: Yes by the numbers it wasn't great for Sanders; although we can't ignore the story on this. Michigan was projected to go to Clinton and if she had won it it would prove her game is strong. But Sanders stole this in a big upset leaving Clinton's campaign scratching their head. This shows there is more weight to Sanders' campaign, and his message, then they are giving him credit for. This all proves it is still too early for Clinton to call it hers and think she can start running for president, she hasn't earned it yet.
That Sander's won is driving the media narrative, but is actually meaningless because delegates are awarded on a proportional basis. Both candidates ended up with just about the same number of delegates.
The real issue is that Clinton was up by around 20% in polling, so we’re looking at an amazing swing. If it was just bad polling in one state, then it’s a weird blip (a very weird blip in a campaign already well underway), but that’s all it will end up being. It’ll enter electoral folklore and be mentioned anytime someone is miles behind in polls, but that’s all, but be forgotten about as Clinton continues on her merry way to the win.
But the other possibility is that maybe the polls were right… last week when they were asked. If that’s true, and Sanders actually managed to win a 25% swing by attacking Clinton on trade, then maybe that opens the door to a strategy that could see him overcome Clinton. And it’s likely that the issue won’t have the same impact outside of Michigan, but if it’s worth 20% in Michigan it might be worth 10% in a lot of other states, and that makes the campaign very close.
It’d be amazing if it were true, that a candidate somehow found and sustained a 10% gain this late in the campaign. But Michigan was extraordinary one way or another, so let’s find out.
Still working out my political views in the US system, but when I am able to register to vote it'll be as an independent.
I was independant for 20 years, and it's the way I align, but depending on your state, you should know you'll (probably) get screwed out of primary voting and caucuses.
I finally switched this year so I could go to Iowa caucuses (out of curiously, certainly not because I was excited about a candidate). Turns out they are very, very boring and full of old people.
Still working out my political views in the US system, but when I am able to register to vote it'll be as an independent.
I was independant for 20 years, and it's the way I align, but depending on your state, you should know you'll (probably) get screwed out of primary voting and caucuses.
I finally switched this year so I could go to Iowa caucuses (out of curiously, certainly not because I was excited about a candidate). Turns out they are very, very boring and full of old people.
Hold the phone...Iowa caucuses...? (caucai?)
I thought I was the only Haskeye state rep round these parts!
Some tough questions that go unanswered....by both.
I especially thought Sanders had an opportunity pass him by when he kept talking about not being involved in regime change in latin america...instead of explaining or apologizing for his 1985 remarks about Ortega and Castro...as well as how "his" socialism is different than the ideas of latin american socialists.
Clinton was put on the spot a few times too....but I don't think as badly as Sanders was.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think he could have flipped the script a bit and said something like Ortega and Castro were impressive in the same way that Trump is impressive...huge personalities that have to resort to intimidation, etc to get their way.
jmurph wrote: Where does the line between libertarianism and anarchism get drawn? I have never seen a satisfactory answer on this one and, historically, it seems they are two sides of the same coin. And I would guess in the modern setting there is overlap, but I have a hard time envisioning self proclaimed libertarians identifying with anarchism and vice versa. But they both oppose coercive power systems and formalized government. American libertarians seem to have accepted property ownership and capitalism and largely ignore the coercive governmental systems that make those two things tick in the real world.
Generally speaking, Libertarians do agree there needs to be some government. Obviously most think we need a strong military (but no taxes or bureaucracy to support it) and other things that somehow, magically get paid for.... But with anarchists, obviously the goal is abolition of ALL government. So there's that.
As far as practical, grounded in reality opinions, I have no idea. As others have pointed out, Libertarians seem to have their heads up in the clouds idealistically, or perhaps up a much darker place.... who knows?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Generally speaking, Libertarians do agree there needs to be some government. Obviously most think we need a strong military (but no taxes or bureaucracy to support it) and other things that somehow, magically get paid for.... But with anarchists, obviously the goal is abolition of ALL government. So there's that.
I think in practice libertarianism tends be something along the lines of ‘government is bad, mumble mumble, right wing paradise!’. While anarchism is more along the lines of ‘government is bad, mumble mumble, left wing paradise!’
As far as practical, grounded in reality opinions, I have no idea. As others have pointed out, Libertarians seem to have their heads up in the clouds idealistically, or perhaps up a much darker place.... who knows?
I read a nice phrase today, 'the luxury of irresponsibility'. Libertarian ideas have close to zero real world functionality or use, but it doesn't matter because they've never been anywhere close to actual power or influence. They'll happily wander off in to debates about whether a person should be allowed to sell themselves in to slavery, because that's the kind of abstract logic level that libertarianism works at, and they never have to ruin all that fun by worrying about how to operate government in the real world.
I watched it while at the gym. Not sure what you mean by "disastrous," although the results I've been seeing today have basically come out to "Sanders mostly told the truth, Clinton mostly lied."
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Generally speaking, Libertarians do agree there needs to be some government. Obviously most think we need a strong military (but no taxes or bureaucracy to support it) and other things that somehow, magically get paid for.... But with anarchists, obviously the goal is abolition of ALL government. So there's that.
I think in practice libertarianism tends be something along the lines of ‘government is bad, mumble mumble, right wing paradise!’. While anarchism is more along the lines of ‘government is bad, mumble mumble, left wing paradise!’
As far as practical, grounded in reality opinions, I have no idea. As others have pointed out, Libertarians seem to have their heads up in the clouds idealistically, or perhaps up a much darker place.... who knows?
I read a nice phrase today, 'the luxury of irresponsibility'. Libertarian ideas have close to zero real world functionality or use, but it doesn't matter because they've never been anywhere close to actual power or influence. They'll happily wander off in to debates about whether a person should be allowed to sell themselves in to slavery, because that's the kind of abstract logic level that libertarianism works at, and they never have to ruin all that fun by worrying about how to operate government in the real world.
What politics books have you been reading?
You are aware that the founders of the USA, created one of the most, if not the most libertarian nations on earth?
Giving your citizens the right to free speech (1st amendment) and the right to bear arms to back up those rights (2nd amendment) is one of the most libertarian things you can do IMO. So I don't know where you're getting this idea from that libertarians have never been in power or influence!
Giving your citizens the right to free speech (1st amendment) and the right to bear arms to back up those rights (2nd amendment) is one of the most libertarian things you can do IMO. So I don't know where you're getting this idea from that libertarians have never been in power or influence!
Liberal yes, libertarian? Not really.... except maybe up to around 1804
It didn't take long for even the founding fathers to take a look at things the way they were, and realize some changes and additions needed to be made. Everything that's been done, from Washington denying the title "King" to the Louisiana purchase, to the rules and regulations regarding the admittance of a territory as a state in the union, has been done in the name of bettering the country.
I watched it while at the gym. Not sure what you mean by "disastrous," although the results I've been seeing today have basically come out to "Sanders mostly told the truth, Clinton mostly lied."
As far right as whembly tends to lean, anything short of the DNC announcing the party's dissolution is "disastrous"
Giving your citizens the right to free speech (1st amendment) and the right to bear arms to back up those rights (2nd amendment) is one of the most libertarian things you can do IMO. So I don't know where you're getting this idea from that libertarians have never been in power or influence!
Liberal yes, libertarian? Not really.... except maybe up to around 1804
It didn't take long for even the founding fathers to take a look at things the way they were, and realize some changes and additions needed to be made. Everything that's been done, from Washington denying the title "King" to the Louisiana purchase, to the rules and regulations regarding the admittance of a territory as a state in the union, has been done in the name of bettering the country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Louisiana purchase is often seen as an early example of American colonialism, but from a strategic view, it made perfect sense. America had a quasi-war with France, not that long before (as always Britain saves the day when Nelson sinks the French Fleet ) so there was a fear that Louisiana could be used as a base by the French for future wars against the USA.
I watched it while at the gym. Not sure what you mean by "disastrous," although the results I've been seeing today have basically come out to "Sanders mostly told the truth, Clinton mostly lied."
As far right as whembly tends to lean, anything short of the DNC announcing the party's dissolution is "disastrous"
I watched it while at the gym. Not sure what you mean by "disastrous," although the results I've been seeing today have basically come out to "Sanders mostly told the truth, Clinton mostly lied."
Hillary's flat out said the mother of one of the Benghazi victims was wrong. Very callous...
Hillary's answer to emailgate was wrong... claimed "It was not in any way disallowed", which is full-on BS.
Hillary equating the Bush v. Gore SC case like 9/11... wut? (For the record, Gore still lost the unofficial recount).
Sander's high praise of Communist/Dictatorial regimes such as Cuba and Nicaragua.
Both claiming that they'll refuse to deport illegals.
Why is Sanders getting backlash for his not so negative comments re: Cuba and Nicaragua? Aren't we normalizing relations with Cuba? And Nicaragua was pretty complicated with the US doing some shady stuff, so I don't know that is a great path to start going down. Plus, he never tried to claim he wasn't a firm lefty, so some support for Communists isn't a huge shock.
Heck, I disagree with Sanders on his pitch (that dog don't hunt in Texas!), but I do respect that he is an upfront, true believer. It amazes me that he doesn't get more Democrat support. Which just goes to show that the Democrats aren't really as far left as some claim. And that Clinton doesn't get called out on her misrepresentations. A lot.
The Louisiana purchase is often seen as an early example of American colonialism, but from a strategic view, it made perfect sense. America had a quasi-war with France, not that long before (as always Britain saves the day when Nelson sinks the French Fleet ) so there was a fear that Louisiana could be used as a base by the French for future wars against the USA.
Yes, but the purchase does represent a sort of power that most Libertarians think that the Feds shouldn't have.
It definitely made sense as an expansion, because in the 1750s, Benjamin Franklin joked in a letter that the American population doubled every 20 years... The reality wasn't far off. It was actually just short of 25 years for a population doubling in the early years. And with there being no industrial revolution yet, agrarian economies still reigned supreme. That means farms producing food, that means people need space, and so on.
"The Sandinsistas were an environmentalist group in Nicaragua that were protesting the American companies that were poisoning their people.
The Contra's forbade them from meeting and drove them into the hills killing them.
Reagan wanted the rocket fuel the the Pennwald corp was making there among other war goods and refused to sell the Sandinsistas weapons, this forced them to buy weapons from Cuba.
Reagan then labeled them Communist. that was a lie. So when the mod. ask him the difference between Nicaragua and his Democratic socialism the question was based on a lie that the Reagan's told us and could not be answered."
Not up on my latin american history..I was still young when this was going on...but...sounds legit.
I heard a bit of the debate. It sounds like both candidates gave as good as they got. Hilary was definitely on the attack, but what I heard was mostly battered away by Sanders. Granted, I did not hear it all.
You can tell that Sanders is incredibly "on-message" all of the time, and is a very skilled debater and politician. However, Hilary's attack often fed into Sanders demagoguery. I'm suddenly not so sure she can dismantle Trump style demagoguery in a debate.
TheMeanDM wrote: "The Sandinsistas were an environmentalist group in Nicaragua that were protesting the American companies that were poisoning their people.
The Contra's forbade them from meeting and drove them into the hills killing them.
Reagan wanted the rocket fuel the the Pennwald corp was making there among other war goods and refused to sell the Sandinsistas weapons, this forced them to buy weapons from Cuba.
Reagan then labeled them Communist. that was a lie. So when the mod. ask him the difference between Nicaragua and his Democratic socialism the question was based on a lie that the Reagan's told us and could not be answered."
Not up on my latin american history..I was still young when this was going on...but...sounds legit.
You forgot all the coke smuggling to Black Americans and Iranian arms shipments. A trifecta of everything America hated, and yet Reagan is still glorified by the Right. Astounding to me. I guess he talked tough, at least when he wasn't confusing his acting career with real life
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You are aware that the founders of the USA, created one of the most, if not the most libertarian nations on earth?
Giving your citizens the right to free speech (1st amendment) and the right to bear arms to back up those rights (2nd amendment) is one of the most libertarian things you can do IMO. So I don't know where you're getting this idea from that libertarians have never been in power or influence!
You are aware that there's a difference between having a society with some libertarian style freedoms, and having a libertarian society? Just as having social security for unemployed people doesn't make you socialist, having free speech and guns doesn't make you libertarian.
Go read the actual policy platform of the Libertarian Party. If you can get through without giggling I'll give you a dollar. A shiny gold one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Anyone watched the Democrat townhall last night?
From my twittah feed... it looked disasterous...
Have you considered that says more about your twitter feed than it does about the actual debate?
jmurph wrote: Why is Sanders getting backlash for his not so negative comments re: Cuba and Nicaragua? Aren't we normalizing relations with Cuba? And Nicaragua was pretty complicated with the US doing some shady stuff, so I don't know that is a great path to start going down. Plus, he never tried to claim he wasn't a firm lefty, so some support for Communists isn't a huge shock.
There's been a long issue on the left with having a certain kind of blindness towards awful regimes as long as they claim socialist values. Up until the fall of the Soviet Union there was still a faction of the left that continued to try and defend the purges (claiming they were exaggerated, or necessary).
Sanders support for the Sandinistas plays in to that, as his support came in spite of the thousands of people that were being disappeared, that were known about at the time. It shows he had the same blindspot that affected so many on the left.
That said, I don't think it's particularly relevant to Sanders today, or really to the left wing in general - a lot has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union. But that's kind of how presidential debates work, a lot of stuff gets dragged up from decades ago. It's really about as relevant as Obama's Ayers thing, or Trump's changed position on abortion. But that's how politics works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Sanders and Clinton are both fething kooks.
Here's Clinton's comment from a couple of debates ago that really sums up what is happening; "And I just want to make one point. You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week."
And now, as it was always going to, that's flowed through to Republican supporters here. Just as Rubio, Cruz and Trump have rejected policy discussion and substance, and instead just relied on personal attack devoid of any actual meaning, now you're doing the same.
whembly wrote: Sanders and Clinton are both fething kooks.
Here's Clinton's comment from a couple of debates ago that really sums up what is happening; "And I just want to make one point. You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week."
And now, as it was always going to, that's flowed through to Republican supporters here. Just as Rubio, Cruz and Trump have rejected policy discussion and substance, and instead just relied on personal attack devoid of any actual meaning, now you're doing the same.
It's a trap.
She has only one policy.
Empowering the Clinton legacy.
Sanders? Socialist loon with an admittingly heart of gold it appears.
Don't get me wrong, Trump's a goddamn freakshow. He's going to govern like an Obama.
Cruz is full-on righty. It's either going to Trump or Cruz. Pick your poison.
Kasich is that real moderate GOP governor who doesn't inspire. Making a VP plug...
Sanders? Socialist loon with an admittingly heart of gold it appears.
except for that bit where he's not actually socialist....
But, we'll give you that.... Look at the guy's voting record. Everything he's campaigning about, he's voted in that same way. He's the ONLY candidate to actually support veterans by voting FOR VA legislation.
I know it must seem a dead horse by now, but the Republican party absolutely CAN NOT call itself the military/veteran friendly party, so long as it continually votes down any and all legislation that supports vets. We already know they are the party of warmongers who love nothing more than to send other people's kids off to be killed or maimed, they literally do not have to pay for it.
whembly wrote: Sanders and Clinton are both fething kooks.
Here's Clinton's comment from a couple of debates ago that really sums up what is happening;
"And I just want to make one point. You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week."
And now, as it was always going to, that's flowed through to Republican supporters here. Just as Rubio, Cruz and Trump have rejected policy discussion and substance, and instead just relied on personal attack devoid of any actual meaning, now you're doing the same.
It's a trap.
She has only one policy.
Empowering the Clinton legacy.
Sanders? Socialist loon with an admittingly heart of gold it appears.
Don't get me wrong, Trump's a goddamn freakshow. He's going to govern like an Obama.
Cruz is full-on righty. It's either going to Trump or Cruz. Pick your poison.
Kasich is that real moderate GOP governor who doesn't inspire. Making a VP plug...
Rubio's lost his chance.
Really, that's it, empowering her own legacy? That's weird because if you go to her website and actually read her policy positions (I know it sounds weird, coming from the far right like you do, but she actually has specific policy laid out for most of the issues right now) you might actually have a leg to stand on here. And here I thought you were politically informed. I will never vote for Trump, or Cruz or Rubio, but at least I know what their policy positions are (what little they have actually released at this point other than vague talking points) because I take the time to do so. Hell, I seem to know more of Trump's policy positions than he does.
whembly wrote: Sanders and Clinton are both fething kooks.
Here's Clinton's comment from a couple of debates ago that really sums up what is happening;
"And I just want to make one point. You know, we have our differences. And we get into vigorous debate about issues, but compare the substance of this debate with what you saw on the Republican stage last week."
And now, as it was always going to, that's flowed through to Republican supporters here. Just as Rubio, Cruz and Trump have rejected policy discussion and substance, and instead just relied on personal attack devoid of any actual meaning, now you're doing the same.
It's a trap.
She has only one policy.
Empowering the Clinton legacy.
Sanders? Socialist loon with an admittingly heart of gold it appears.
Don't get me wrong, Trump's a goddamn freakshow. He's going to govern like an Obama.
Cruz is full-on righty. It's either going to Trump or Cruz. Pick your poison.
Kasich is that real moderate GOP governor who doesn't inspire. Making a VP plug...
Rubio's lost his chance.
Really, that's it, empowering her own legacy? That's weird because if you go to her website and actually read her policy positions (I know it sounds weird, coming from the far right like you do, but she actually has specific policy laid out for most of the issues right now) you might actually have a leg to stand on here. And here I thought you were politically informed. I will never vote for Trump, or Cruz or Rubio, but at least I know what their policy positions are (what little they have actually released at this point other than vague talking points) because I take the time to do so.
It's her default.
@Ensis: I'd vote for Sanders before Clinton. With a smile.
The Clintons have a pretty consistent, and well defined set of policies going back to Bill Clinton's first term. And as Gordon Shumway points out, they're all there for you to read if you want to.
Don't get me wrong, Trump's a goddamn freakshow. He's going to govern like an Obama.
Cruz is full-on righty. It's either going to Trump or Cruz. Pick your poison.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I really feel like the process you're going through is realising how weak the Republican choices are, and then committing to hating the Democratic alternatives even more.
Kasich is that real moderate GOP governor who doesn't inspire. Making a VP plug...
Kasich is a strong conservative who's playing as a moderate in this election. Remember he was a senator before he was a governor. Go look at his senate record, there's no hint of moderation.
I'm not sure if he's just hanging in for the VP, or genuinely believes that he'll win through a contested convention. The play for that now seems to be that he'll win Ohio, giving him credit as the man who stopped Trump winning outright. Rubio loses Florida and drops out. Then in the a three way race at the convention, people will pick him over Trump and Cruz. It's not that unreasonable when read like that, but still, the idea that a contested convention will end up favouring the guy who turns up with a bare handful of delegates seems kind of crazy.
Rubio's lost his chance.
Rubio never really built a core of voters, largely because he never developed a ground game. This was exacerbated by his positioning as the acceptable middle ground. It ended up meaning he positioned himself, possibly by accident, as everyone's second choice. And that meant the field had to winnow much more quickly, and it meant if anyone else showed strength against Trump, that person would quickly take Rubio's anti-Trump position, and that would be the end of him. Obvious in hindsight, of course, at the time it wasn't so clear. Except for neglecting to build a ground game, that was always a clear mistake.
Yeah, I'm not sure if I made it clear enough, or you misread or what, but you probably wouldn't want to be admitting that your thought process was what I said
I basically said that given the mediocrity of the Republican candidates, you'd committed to convincing yourself that the Democrats must be worse, in order to justify the vote you'd already decided on.
Heh... well played:
Spoiler:
That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.
Yeah, I'm not sure if I made it clear enough, or you misread or what, but you probably wouldn't want to be admitting that your thought process was what I said
I basically said that given the mediocrity of the Republican candidates, you'd committed to convincing yourself that the Democrats must be worse, in order to justify the vote you'd already decided on.
Nope, I got ya and it's a little self-depreciation on my part.
Hey... I ain't perfect... only handsome.
Heh... well played:
Spoiler:
That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.
Indeedeo. Based on d's response, I'm guessing it got some play in facebook.
whembly wrote: Nope, I got ya and it's a little self-depreciation on my part.
Hey... I ain't perfect... only handsome.
Ah, cool
Anyhow, here's a terrific little thought bubble from one of the 538 contributors in the blog on the debate. I was surprised didn't start up any more discussion, it seems extremely perceptive to me.
"...Politics was driven by local concerns for a long time. But the nationalization of party politics has changed that. If GOP voters think it’s most important to oppose Obama (or Clinton), and Democratic voters think it’s more important to oppose George W. Bush or Trump or Cruz or whomever, then issues like ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida may not be as important. This kind of nationally competitive politics, with less emphasis on pork-barrel spending to stimulate and sustain local economies (previously a bipartisan favorite), might be partly what’s driving the sense among angry voters that they’re getting a raw deal. Nationalized politics is fueled by ideas and anger. Obviously this can work pretty well to get people out to vote. But maybe it eventually backfires because it doesn’t help voters put food on the table."
That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.
That isn't witty at all. It's actually very stupid because it's based on the lie that socialism means taking your individual stuff. Workers owning the means of production means that the people who work the machinery should own the machinery and the products of their labour instead of having it taken from them in return for a wage that is less than the worth of what they make. "Private property" doesn't mean your couch or your jacket or any of that nonsense. It means land, factories, resources. Important things fundamental to the economic system, not whatever chaff it puts out.
That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.
That isn't witty at all. It's actually very stupid because it's based on the lie that socialism means taking your individual stuff. Workers owning the means of production means that the people who work the machinery should own the machinery and the products of their labour instead of having it taken from them in return for a wage that is less than the worth of what they make. "Private property" doesn't mean your couch or your jacket or any of that nonsense. It means land, factories, resources. Important things fundamental to the economic system, not whatever chaff it puts out.
So, under socialism as you describe it, who allocates the products of the factories and farms? Products such as the sign in the picture for example?
Is there some kind of suspension of the constitutional right to free speech when you go to a Trump rally?
I can't wrap my head around how people think that just because it is a (supposedly) " private" event that you are prohibited from expressing any kind of oppositional view....that somehow, you lose your freedom of speech when you walk through the door.
I have seen any number of people (elsewhere in the interwebz) responding with that fallacy.....
This is especially brought up when there is violence (like the sucker punched guy) at Trump rallies.
Expressing your opinion, and even giving the finger as a symbolic gesture, are protected under our Freedom of Speech.
Does not mean "freedom from consequences" though, of course.
Sometimes the consequences of your speech are legal, sometimes illegal.
He was assaulted. That was a direct result (consequence) of his action.
That assault is against the law, and said person should be charged as such.
That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.
That isn't witty at all. It's actually very stupid because it's based on the lie that socialism means taking your individual stuff. Workers owning the means of production means that the people who work the machinery should own the machinery and the products of their labour instead of having it taken from them in return for a wage that is less than the worth of what they make. "Private property" doesn't mean your couch or your jacket or any of that nonsense. It means land, factories, resources. Important things fundamental to the economic system, not whatever chaff it puts out.
So, under socialism as you describe it, who allocates the products of the factories and farms? Products such as the sign in the picture for example?
TheMeanDM wrote: Is there some kind of suspension of the constitutional right to free speech when you go to a Trump rally?
I can't wrap my head around how people think that just because it is a (supposedly) " private" event that you are prohibited from expressing any kind of oppositional view....that somehow, you lose your freedom of speech when you walk through the door.
I have seen any number of people (elsewhere in the interwebz) responding with that fallacy.....
This is especially brought up when there is violence (like the sucker punched guy) at Trump rallies.
Expressing your opinion, and even giving the finger as a symbolic gesture, are protected under our Freedom of Speech.
Does not mean "freedom from consequences" though, of course.
Sometimes the consequences of your speech are legal, sometimes illegal.
He was assaulted. That was a direct result (consequence) of his action.
That assault is against the law, and said person should be charged as such.
So there is "fault" on both sides.
There really isn't much 1st Amendment protection at a private event. Trump and Co can kick you out for the same reason Dakka can ban you.
TheMeanDM wrote: Is there some kind of suspension of the constitutional right to free speech when you go to a Trump rally?
I can't wrap my head around how people think that just because it is a (supposedly) " private" event that you are prohibited from expressing any kind of oppositional view....that somehow, you lose your freedom of speech when you walk through the door.
I have seen any number of people (elsewhere in the interwebz) responding with that fallacy.....
This is especially brought up when there is violence (like the sucker punched guy) at Trump rallies.
Expressing your opinion, and even giving the finger as a symbolic gesture, are protected under our Freedom of Speech.
Does not mean "freedom from consequences" though, of course.
Sometimes the consequences of your speech are legal, sometimes illegal.
He was assaulted. That was a direct result (consequence) of his action.
That assault is against the law, and said person should be charged as such.
So there is "fault" on both sides.
Well in a few of these cases they've not given up their right to free speech, but their right to be black.
Just turning up and being black is grounds for security to kick you out and for a 78 year old man to punch you in the face before professing that next time they'll need to kill him because they don't know that he isn't ISIS. I wish I was making this up
Sure...they can kick you out...but people are arguing that you can't even protest...because its "private".
As I said...the constitution isn't magically suspended is it...?
The Constitution prevents Government from restricting your speech, it doesn't apply to private individuals or events.
If there was a law saying you cannot protest at Trump rallies, then it would be a constitutional matter. But a private event can enforce private rules and ask you to leave if you break them. Similar to Dakka being able to kick you out for your speech.
For the protesters side of things: I doubt that we are going to a lot, if any, cases where protesters would be arrested for their speech. So even then it wouldn't be a Constitutional issue. They could probably be arrested for trespassing after they were asked to leave the private event or for causing a disturbance after they were asked to leave.
That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.
That isn't witty at all. It's actually very stupid because it's based on the lie that socialism means taking your individual stuff. Workers owning the means of production means that the people who work the machinery should own the machinery and the products of their labour instead of having it taken from them in return for a wage that is less than the worth of what they make. "Private property" doesn't mean your couch or your jacket or any of that nonsense. It means land, factories, resources. Important things fundamental to the economic system, not whatever chaff it puts out.
So, under socialism as you describe it, who allocates the products of the factories and farms? Products such as the sign in the picture for example?
Citizen's councils and committees are a decent choice. It isn't like we don't already have social and economic sciences so nobody would be fumbling in the dark. For less important things such as the sign it would be up to whoever made it, wouldn't it?
It's a private event arranged by a private party at a private facility paid for with private money. And with the way our elections are set up he is still "just" participating in a private inter-party election to become a private parties candidate for public office.
It's not an event arranged by a public body or anything like that.
I'm not saying that it isn't weird, and I'm certainly not defending Trump or the morons assaulting people, just explaining why "freedom of speech" doesn't apply.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Fair points from both of you, but at the very least, does the public have the right to know who's paying for these events?
I don't know how elections are governed in the USA, but in the UK, you always get to know who's putting the money up.
If we wanted to know who was ponying up the dough we wouldn't go through so much trouble making laws that obfuscate where money comes from for candidates. This system is for sale but if you have to ask about the price you probably can't afford it.
Aaaaaaaand the anti-Trumpers are getting their ducks in a row:
BREAKING: @marcorubio communications director @AlexConant tells us Rubio supporters in Ohio should vote for @JohnKasich.@ThisHour
— John Berman (@JohnBerman) March 11, 2016
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Fair points from both of you, but at the very least, does the public have the right to know who's paying for these events?
I don't know how elections are governed in the USA, but in the UK, you always get to know who's putting the money up.
If we wanted to know who was ponying up the dough we wouldn't go through so much trouble making laws that obfuscate where money comes from for candidates. This system is for sale but if you have to ask about the price you probably can't afford it.
I'll say one thing for America - at least you guys don't have the House of Lords, the 2nd largest, unelected decision making chamber in the world!
It's a disgrace to British democracy, and most people buy their way in
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll say one thing for America - at least you guys don't have the House of Lords, the 2nd largest, unelected decision making chamber in the world!
It's a disgrace to British democracy, and most people buy their way in
Is it just me, or has Trump gone from funny to frighting in the last two weeks? If he wins then I truly worry for the world. If he loses its worrying enough for the US that he has managed to get so much support openly preaching such frightening views.
Steve steveson wrote: Is it just me, or has Trump gone from funny to frighting in the last two weeks? If he wins then I truly worry for the world. If he loses its worrying enough for the US that he has managed to get so much support openly preaching such frightening views.
He's been frightening since day one.
I know he's leading now... but, don't worry, he won't win. Sanders or Clinton simply curb stomps Trump.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll say one thing for America - at least you guys don't have the House of Lords, the 2nd largest, unelected decision making chamber in the world!
It's a disgrace to British democracy, and most people buy their way in
Wow. I did not realize it was still unelected.
It's supposed to be a balance against the lower house as the House of Lords are not beholden to popular vote and playing politics. It does work as the Commons can force stuff through without the House of Lords if need be, although it is more difficult. The House of Lords can create law, but if the commons disagree then it's going nowhere. It's not as undemocratic as people claim, and has worked for us for a long time. They are a good break preventing the tyranny of the majority if nothing else. I would call the electoral college system much more of a worry myself.
Steve steveson wrote: Is it just me, or has Trump gone from funny to frighting in the last two weeks? If he wins then I truly worry for the world. If he loses its worrying enough for the US that he has managed to get so much support openly preaching such frightening views.
He's been frightening since day one.
I know he's leading now... but, don't worry, he won't win. Sanders or Clinton simply curb stomps Trump.
From the outside he seemed more like a clown with no chance with a few redneck supporters we could look down on. Not any more...
From the outside he seemed more like a clown with no chance with a few redneck supporters we could look down on. Not any more...
If I'm not mistaken, many of Trump's supporters aren't rednecks. They're right-wingers from places other than the South who are unhappy with the Republican Party being essentially a Southern party.
He has support because he says things that both Republican and Democratic politicians have agreed aren't allowed to be said. Free trade agreements have not been good for most Americans. Nobody is really prepared to do too much about all the paperless immigrants because they're a great source of cheap labour without rights or protections that can be exploited and helps drive down wages in general. Sure, some politicians will sometimes drum up some hate to get elected but their corporate funders gain too much from the situation to end or solve it, however you think that should be done.
Trump or someone like him has been brewing for a while now. He might not get the nomination or win the election but there are plenty of people observing him and taking notes. The Republican Party itself is in a huge crisis and may not survive this. They have been cultivating racism and fury among the disenfranchised and the fearful whites who have seen a slow dismantling of white supremacy by liberalism, class consciousness and demographics and are now reaping what they have sown. Dog whistle tactics don't work when your rival will simply call the dog by its name.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll say one thing for America - at least you guys don't have the House of Lords, the 2nd largest, unelected decision making chamber in the world!
It's a disgrace to British democracy, and most people buy their way in
Wow. I did not realize it was still unelected.
It's supposed to be a balance against the lower house as the House of Lords are not beholden to popular vote and playing politics. It does work as the Commons can force stuff through without the House of Lords if need be, although it is more difficult. The House of Lords can create law, but if the commons disagree then it's going nowhere. It's not as undemocratic as people claim, and has worked for us for a long time. They are a good break preventing the tyranny of the majority if nothing else. I would call the electoral college system much more of a worry myself.
The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.
From the outside he seemed more like a clown with no chance with a few redneck supporters we could look down on. Not any more...
If I'm not mistaken, many of Trump's supporters aren't rednecks. They're right-wingers from places other than the South who are unhappy with the Republican Party being essentially a Southern party.
He has support because he says things that both Republican and Democratic politicians have agreed aren't allowed to be said. Free trade agreements have not been good for most Americans. Nobody is really prepared to do too much about all the paperless immigrants because they're a great source of cheap labour without rights or protections that can be exploited and helps drive down wages in general. Sure, some politicians will sometimes drum up some hate to get elected but their corporate funders gain too much from the situation to end or solve it, however you think that should be done.
Trump or someone like him has been brewing for a while now. He might not get the nomination or win the election but there are plenty of people observing him and taking notes. The Republican Party itself is in a huge crisis and may not survive this. They have been cultivating racism and fury among the disenfranchised and the fearful whites who have seen a slow dismantling of white supremacy by liberalism, class consciousness and demographics and are now reaping what they have sown. Dog whistle tactics don't work when your rival will simply call the dog by its name.
It's mainly driven by the dissatisfaction of the current-state-politics. Or, in other words...
Steve steveson wrote: Is it just me, or has Trump gone from funny to frighting in the last two weeks? If he wins then I truly worry for the world. If he loses its worrying enough for the US that he has managed to get so much support openly preaching such frightening views.
I'd posit there's an exceedingly good chance he will win. If just the number of "underemployed" voted for him he'd stomp HRC like a bad habit.
Frightening views: -The Middle class has been screwed. (same view as HRC and Bernie). -Iraq was bad (same as HRC and Bernie) -Better healthcare (same as HRC but not enough for Bernie) -Illegal immigrants bad. Not sure why that is frightening. -Muslims bad. OK you got me on that one. I'm surprised its taken this long for politicians to rise up to prominence on this. Its no different than is happening in Europe. Frankly we've been more patient. Europe gets a few illegals in and their high mindedness goes out the door. Interesting that I don't see the UK letting in all the Calais immigrants.
From the outside he seemed more like a clown with no chance with a few redneck supporters we could look down on. Not any more...
He's drawing Reagan democrats as well. As his tide rises, more will hear him and he will gain more support. After all Bernie, is just the lamer, less behaired Democratic version.
All I can say is excellent. Finally Canada will be repaid for its many and varied evilz. Blame Canada!
Steve steveson wrote: Is it just me, or has Trump gone from funny to frighting in the last two weeks? If he wins then I truly worry for the world. If he loses its worrying enough for the US that he has managed to get so much support openly preaching such frightening views.
I'd posit there's an exceedingly good chance he will win. If just the number of "underemployed" voted for him he'd stomp HRC like a bad habit.
Frightening views:
-The Middle class has been screwed. (same view as HRC and Bernie).
-Iraq was bad (same as HRC and Bernie)
-Better healthcare (same as HRC but not enough for Bernie)
-Illegal immigrants bad. Not sure why that is frightening.
-Muslims bad. OK you got me on that one. I'm surprised its taken this long for politicians to rise up to prominence on this. Its no different than is happening in Europe. Frankly we've been more patient. Europe gets a few illegals in and their high mindedness goes out the door. Interesting that I don't see the UK letting in all the Calais immigrants.
All of Islam is bad, let's deliberately bomb civilians, giant feth you wall is a good idea, people who disagree with Drumpf and are assaulted deserve the violence, that haircut and makeup. Terrifiying.
Hillary Clinton seems to need some reminding about what happened in the early days of the AIDS epidemic.
The Democratic presidential candidate made polarizing, inaccurate -- not to mention offensive -- comments on Friday about the role that the Reagans, specifically Nancy Reagan, played in combatting the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s.
Speaking to MSNBC during the televised funeral for Reagan, who died on Sunday at the age of 94 from congestive heart failure, Clinton claimed that Nancy and her husband "started a national conversation" about the AIDS epidemic when "nobody would talk about it."
She said:
"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s. And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan -- in particular Mrs. Reagan -- we started a national conversation. When before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something that I really appreciate with her very effective, low key advocacy but it penetrated the public conscious and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this too.'"
Yet, as Teen Vogue wrote this week, Reagan actually turned her back on thousands of people, many of whom identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), as they died from the virus during her time as first lady.
Similarly, The Guardian reported last year that the former first lady withheld help from close friend Rock Hudson when he reached out to the White House while dying of complications related to AIDS in1985.
The Associated Press also points to a 2011 PBS documentary in which historian Adilla Black credited (with a caveat) Nancy Reagan's friendship with Hudson and attorney Roy Cohn, who also died from complications related to the disease, for inspiring her to "encourage her husband to seek more funding for AIDS research."
"I think she deserves credit for opening up the AIDS money," Black told PBS. "But I could never say that without saying they never would have waited this long if it was redheaded sixth graders."
"In the history of the AIDS epidemic, President Reagan's legacy is one of silence," said Michael Cover, former associate executive director for public affairs at Whitman-Walker Clinic, in 2003. "It is the silence of tens of thousands who died alone and unacknowledged, stigmatized by our government under his administration."
Even Chad Griffin, the President of The Human Rights Campaign, which endorsed Clinton for president earlier this year, spoke out on Twitter against her comments:
While I respect her advocacy on issues like stem cell & Parkinson's research, Nancy Reagan was, sadly, no hero in the fight against HIV/AIDS
So, Hillary, let's stick to the facts and avoid romanticizing the memory of the Reagan's role in fighting against HIV/AIDS, shall we?
Adding from lgbtqnation UPDATE: Hillary Clinton has apologized via the following statement:
While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, I misspoke about their record on HIV and AIDS,” Clinton said in a statement. “For that, I’m sorry.”
The Reagans also lost a close friend to AIDS, actor Rock Hudson, who died two years before Reagan’s speech. And documents obtained by Buzzfeed News earlier this year revealed that Hudson appealed to Nancy Reagan for help obtaining treatment before his death. She declined to assist.
“Nancy and Ron Reagan were a functional team in the Presidency,” wrote AIDS activist Kenneth Bunch, aka Sister Vicious Power Hungry B—-, according to the Guardian. “They are both responsible for the death of thousands from HIV in the LGBT community due to their inaction in the 1980’s. So I understand the anger in the LGBT community toward Nancy. I feel that anger as well.”
Lets examine that: While I am not defending Trump these arguments don't really hold well.
All of Islam is bad,
***Well last night he said there was a problem. Is there not a problem? This was bound to occur when PC dictates one could even call jihadists terrorists.
let's deliberately bomb civilians,
***Dude we invented firebombing civilians. That means you too Canadian (RAF ring a bell). We're really good at it.
giant feth you wall is a good idea,
***It is a good idea. Just like Mexico secures its own Southern border. Getting Mexico to pay for it is not going to happen.
people who disagree with Drumpf and are assaulted deserve the violence,
***Protesting in the middle of a rally is going to have that occur.
that haircut and makeup. Terrifiying
***You got me on that one.
Frazzled wrote: Lets examine that: While I am not defending Trump these arguments don't really hold well.
All of Islam is bad,
***Well last night he said there was a problem. Is there not a problem?
Not with all of Islam. The vast (VAST) majority of islamic peoples are ordinary citizens like you and I.
let's deliberately bomb civilians,
***Dude we invented firebombing civilians. That means you too Canadian (RAF ring a bell). We're really good at it.
RCAF thankyouverymuch It was a bad idea then and it's an even worse idea now. Do YOU support such an action?
giant feth you wall is a good idea,
***It is a good idea. Just like Mexico secures its own Southern border. Getting Mexico to pay for it is not going to happen.
I disagree. Your economy would grind to a halt without the cheap disposable labour undocumented immigrants provide. In addition, I'm skeptical that the cost to build and maintain the wall would be less than the "cost" of undocumented immigrants anyway.
people who disagree with Drumpf and are assaulted deserve the violence,
***Protesting in the middle of a rally is going to have that occur.
Mob violence is A-OK with you now? IIRC, you were against that sort of stuff in the Ferguson threads.
that haircut and makeup. Terrifiying
***You got me on that one.
All of Islam is bad,
***Well last night he said there was a problem. Is there not a problem?
No problem with Islam (by which is actually meant the Middle East) can be separated from the material context of the groups of people we're talking about. That superpowers have used the region for proxy wars for decades is not something that can be simply ignored. The Islamic State would not exist without the collapse of Iraq, for example.
The rest of your post is similarly low-level devil's advocacy, just because you invented firebombing doesn't mean that it isn't a morally horrible suggestion that you kill anyone who might have a blood relation to anyone deemed a "terrorist", the bit about Islam was simply what stood out the most.
Former Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, a key witness in the email probe who struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department, has told the FBI a range of details about how her personal email system was set up, according to an intelligence source close to the case who called him a “devastating witness.”
The source said Pagliano told the FBI who had access to the former secretary of state’s system – as well as when – and what devices were used, amounting to a roadmap for investigators.
"Bryan Pagliano is a devastating witness and, as the webmaster, knows exactly who had access to [Clinton's] computer and devices at specific times. His importance to this case cannot be over-emphasized," the intelligence source said.
The source, who is not authorized to speak on the record due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said Pagliano has provided information allowing investigators to knit together the emails with other evidence, including images of Clinton on the road as secretary of state.
The cross-referencing of evidence could help investigators pinpoint potential gaps in the email record. "Don't forget all those photos with her using various devices and it is easy to track the whereabouts of her phone," the source said. "It is still boils down to a paper case. Did you email at this time from your home or elsewhere using this device? And here is a picture of you and your aides holding the devices."
A source close to Pagliano did not dispute the basic details of what was provided to the FBI, but said the highly skilled former State Department IT specialist had met with the bureau on a "limited basis" and was at best a "peripheral" player in the investigation.
At a Democratic debate Wednesday evening, Clinton brushed off the question when asked by the moderator whether she would withdraw from the presidential race if faced with criminal charges.
Univision’s Jorge Ramos asked, "If you get indicted, will you drop out?" Clinton responded, "My goodness. That is not going to happen. I'm not even answering that question."
She then added her now standard explanation that nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time. While technically correct, the distinction appears misleading. The January 2009 classified information non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton says she understood that classified information could be marked and unmarked, as well as verbal communications.
Classification is based on content, not markings.
The intelligence source said the FBI is "extremely focused" on the 22 “top secret” emails deemed too damaging to national security to publicly release under any circumstances, with agents reviewing those sent by Clinton as well her subordinates including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills.
"Mrs. Clinton sending them in this instance would show her intent much more than would receiving [them],” the source said. "Hillary Clinton was at a minimum grossly negligent in her handling of NDI [National Defense Information] materials merely by her insisting that she utilize a private server versus a [U.S. government] server. Remember, NDI does not have to be classified." According to the Congressional Research Service, NDI is broadly defined to include “information that they have reason to know could be used to harm the national security.”
It was emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate “creation” and “control” of the private server used for her official government business is the subject of intense scrutiny. Pagliano knows key details as to how the private server was installed and maintained in her home.
The 22 “top secret” emails are not public, but in a Jan. 14 unclassified letter, first reported by Fox News, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III notified Congress of the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies identifying "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).
That indicates a level of classification beyond even "top secret," the label previously given to other emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate's handling of the government's closely held secrets.
Pagliano's lawyer offered no on-record comment for this report. Clinton recently told CBS, “I'm delighted that [Pagliano] has agreed to cooperate, as everyone else has. And I think that we will be moving toward a resolution of this.”
The FBI has not commented beyond the public statements of FBI Director James Comey, who recently told Congress: “I can assure you is that I am very close personally to that investigation to ensure that we have the resources we need, including people and technology, and that it’s done the way the FBI tries to do all of its work: independently, competently and promptly.”
The intelligence source described the morale of agents as "very good and nobody is moping around which is the first sign a big case is going south."
The reporter's source must be leaking this in order to keep the pressure on the DOJ AG Lorretta.
The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.
No, it does nothing of the sort. If anything it gives the majority in the large states much more power than they would in a strait majority or IRV system.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll say one thing for America - at least you guys don't have the House of Lords, the 2nd largest, unelected decision making chamber in the world!
It's a disgrace to British democracy, and most people buy their way in
Wow. I did not realize it was still unelected.
Apologies for going OT, but Americans should thank their lucky stars that their ancestors turned their backs on British 'democracy,' because the House of Lords is a insult to anybody who believes in democracy.
There is almost 900 members. That's more than the religious comittee in Iran that advises the Ayatollah!
Only the Chinese communist party's politburo has more unelected lawmakers than the house of lords!
Members of the Lords are either Bishops or peers. Peers being the desendents of the Lords and Barons that used to rule England.
Lloyd George kicked ass 100 years ago, when he took on the Lords, and in recent years, their power has been curbed.
BUT if you make a big financial donation to one of Britain's main political parties, then chances are you'll end up in the Lords, with the power to make laws over the nation!
What price democracy when you can just buy your way in?
The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.
No, it does nothing of the sort. If anything it gives the majority in the large states much more power than they would in a strait majority or IRV system.
Definately incorrect on straight majority and even dubious on IRV system.
The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.
No, it does nothing of the sort. If anything it gives the majority in the large states much more power than they would in a strait majority or IRV system.
Definately incorrect on straight majority and even dubious on IRV system.
We talked about this about a week ago.
Indeed we did... doesn't mean you're right.
To quote myself
Co'tor Shas wrote: Continuing on my last post, getting rid of EC would actually give big states less power.
If you think in terms of 1D vote and 1R vote canceling out (which, for a strait majority with only two candidates, it very much does) it's quite interesting. In NY, obama won, and thus got all the deligates (100%), but if you cancel out the votes, only 28.601% of the votes matter. In CA it's 23.75% for Obama, in FL it's 0.88% for Obama, and in TX it's 16.02% for Romney.
Edit: here's another good example. Obama won by 23.42% of the EC, but a mere 3.93% of the popular.
(on bottom, first dropdown "United States presidential election, 2012" and then the last sub-dropdown "state results")
I used the very easy (for a graphing calculator) formula (winner-looser)/(winner+looser)*100% to figure out the percentage left. The (winner-looser) finds the number of votes more that the winner got, and (winner+looser) finds total votes.
Correct me if I'm failing to miss something here but states wouldn't matter at all if the electoral college were disbanded. 1 person, 1 vote. Add them up to see who wins. Why would states even come into play? I think I would be much better this way as now all the news ever focuses on is the horse race, which is much easier to do with the electoral college. More polls, better polls (because they can get much more granular at the state level) means more time can be spent on them instead of, you know, the stuff people actually should be basing their decisions on.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Correct me if I'm failing to miss something here but states wouldn't matter at all if the electoral college were disbanded. 1 person, 1 vote. Add them up to see who wins. Why would states even come into play? I think I would be much better this way as now all the news ever focuses on is the horse race, which is much easier to do with the electoral college. More polls, better polls (because they can get much more granular at the state level) means more time can be spent on them instead of, you know, the stuff people actually should be basing their decisions on.
I also feel the need to observe that coming into this thread twice a week to bring up British politics seems poor form. Is the House of Lords really relevant to the (interesting) discussion at hand?
I like this topic. We can see the true face of people in plain sight, and keep it for posterity later.
Wonder how much time this will keep on. I'm not really surprised it's going that way, to be honest - this is just a natural consequence of what happened before, after all.
So, after the Republican show, how do you expect Trump to react? Even in the case he would lose, I don't know why but I'm not seeing him swallowing his loss like this. He really looks like a guy who will never accept any sort of defeat. Do you think he could hurt really bad both sides if he was running as independant (actually, I'm thinking the Republican would be more hurt than the Democrats in that case)?
It doesn't make sense for Republicans or Democrats that liked Reagan to support Trump. Of course no one has ever really accused the US of having smart voters lately so it shouldn't be a surprise.
Okay, 1st, I was pleased to see Bernie come out swinging and dominate at the CNN/Univision debate, he was more strong than ever, even more so than the Flint Debate, got the amazing standing ovation, the MSM as usual tried to spin it Hillary's way, but having watched, he actually thrashed her, and was almost like Rorschach in that prison scene
On the one hand, that's a good thing... on the other, how else are the police supposed to practice riot control for when the Cubs win the world series??
On the one hand, that's a good thing... on the other, how else are the police supposed to practice riot control for when the Cubs win the world series??
Maybe the realized the odds of that happening and decided it was a waste of money to prepare for it?
The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.
Disagree.
As a voter in a large state I know my vote will not affect whoever Texas nominates. The EC is an outdated system that makes a swing-state voter end up being harassed by tons of campaign ads. It discourages votes and lets people lose the popular vote and still win.
40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.
This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.
d-usa wrote: 40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.
This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.
It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...
On the bright side, I'm finding this discussion all very interesting, our party leadership setup in the UK is somewhat different and it's interesting to learn about this.
d-usa wrote: 40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.
This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.
It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...
Big cities only matters then.
Right now my vote means jack. i might as well take a dump on the street, write "Hillary Clinton" on the side walk with it, put it on Instagram, and tag @WhiteHouse on it. Because that is just as effective as voting.
This goes for every single person not voting Republican in Oklahoma. There is zero reason for us to even cast a vote. It's a waste of gas and it's a waste of money to even print the ballots.
Every popular vote counts if you get rid of the electoral college.
There are undoubtedly a fairly large number of Republican voters in NYC, no??? Just as D can "waste" his vote in Oklahoma on a Dem candidate, right now a right leaning New Yorker's vote is wasted because all the EC votes go to one side, "everyone" knows that NY is a blue state.
I agree with d-usa, in a straight vote for vote race, with no Electoral College, elections would be more interesting. I really think that the split of left leaning and right leaning voters is much closer to 50/50 than you appear to.
d-usa wrote: 40% of voters in Oklahoma don't mean jack under the EC. The state is red and everybody knows it and there is zero reason for any presidential candidate to care for this state. If the EC was gone our votes could make a difference and suddenly this state matters.
This goes for pretty much every single state that isn't a swing state. The EC means that a handful of states actually matter, and that's it.
It'd be the same story with straight line votes d...
Big cities only matters then.
Right now my vote means jack. i might as well take a dump on the street, write "Hillary Clinton" on the side walk with it, put it on Instagram, and tag @WhiteHouse on it. Because that is just as effective as voting.
This goes for every single person not voting Republican in Oklahoma. There is zero reason for us to even cast a vote. It's a waste of gas and it's a waste of money to even print the ballots.
Every popular vote counts if you get rid of the electoral college.
And its the opposite in California. Right wing votes really only matter for local and state elections here, but we're worth jack squat in presidential elections.
What does the name of an Italian mapmaker have to do with the electoral college? . The name came before the electoral college by eleven years if my math is right: 1776 to 1787.
And what are the first three words of the Constitution?
The next bit is just as good: "in order to form a more perfect UNION", funny it doesn't say "in order to form a more perfect conglomeration that is somewhat proportionally represented in a general election". It rolls off the tongue so much nicer.
And what are the first three words of the Constitution?
That's not what I'm asking.
We are 'The United States of America'.
Thats 50 mini-countries.
Each of these "mini-countries" voters should have a "say" in the Presidential Elections... no?
Full straight elections means the candidates only need to focus on tiny regions of the US, such as: 1 New York 2 Los Angeles 3 Chicago 4 Houston 5 Philadelphia 7 San Antonio 8 San Diego 9 Dallas 10 San Jose
Any candidate that kicks ass there would be well on their way in winning the popular vote.
Feth the other parts of the country
Good luck...
Hence why we're a Republic and not a direct democracy.
Each of these "mini-countries" voters should have a "say" in the Presidential Elections... no?
Yes, each state should and does have a say. So that isn't an issue. However, each person does not have a say. Getting rid of the electoral college doesn't suddenly make swing-state populations vanish.
