Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Gavagai]

@Mr. Cairo

I'm for gay marriage and for legalization of all drugs but consider these issues to be of very low priority. I suspect those American libertarians who align themselves with Republican Party have similar sense of priorities and compromise on these aspects of their views.

[gsorel]

So as to tweak Commodore's reactionary cockles:

The Myth of Cosmopolitanism

"But it’s a problem that our tribe of self-styled cosmopolitans doesn’t see itself clearly as a tribe: because that means our leaders can’t see themselves the way the Brexiteers and Trumpistas and Marine Le Pen voters see them.

...

They can’t see that their vision of history’s arc bending inexorably away from tribe and creed and nation-state looks to outsiders like something familiar from eras past: A powerful caste’s self-serving explanation for why it alone deserves to rule the world."

Ross Douthat @ nytimes.com

[Bobchillingworth]

I can't see the endless rightwing furor of Hillary's emails as anything other than rank hypocrisy. Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and a host of other Bush administration officials used private email accounts hosted on RNC servers, which were not only not secure and in violation of government regulations, but also a major breach of ethics. Has there ever been any noise from the Republicans about leading them away in fetters? Of course not.

Bernie Sanders looked the other way while his campaign repeatedly stole privileged donor information from the HRC campaign instead of reporting the vulnerabilities to the DNC (which was responsible for fixing them). Donald Trump... do I really need to get into all of the ways he has flouted the law and been afforded special courtesies not available to the "common Joe"? FFS, just this week his campaign sent out illegal fundraising emails to members of European parliaments- emails which were identical to ones sent out by a Trump Super PAC which he is legally prohibited from coordinating with. Obviously he'll never face any sort of punishment for it.


Does any of that make Hillary's own actions better? No. That would be illogical. But to claim that the emails make her singularly unfit to serve as commander-in-chief... I find that really contemptible, and a shallow excuse to reject her if one is unwilling or unable to articulate their true objections.



As for the endless other endless anti-Hillary conspiracies... where there's smoke, there's mirrors. She's not a perfect individual, but we're electing a president, not a unicorn. The media can run as many breathless guilt-by-association stories as they want (and then turn around and report on Hillary's "likeability problem" after decades of unsubstantiated innuendo), but that doesn't change the fact that she hasn't done anything criminally wrong. All the wishful thinking in the world won't change that. And if "hasn't done anything criminally wrong" sounds like a low standard... get over it? The quest for political purity is quixotic and benefits only the worst candidate in any competition between flawed individuals.

[Commodore]

Isn't Clinton the most investigated presidential candidate ever? Why have none of the allegations ever stuck? (Excepting the email server thing - which seems more likely to spring from a desire to ensure embarrassing personal stuff didn't get in the papers rather than MASSIVE CORRUPTION).

No matter the intent, the problem here is the actions that Hillary undertook with the email server were major security violations. Many of my friends or colleagues working in the government/military would be immediately be fired or face jail time for doing less than that no matter why they did it (Accidentally left a flashdrive in your pocket driving on-base? Terrorist.) Hillary not facing the same consequences therefore says "Oh well you're special because you're important, we won't be too hard on you this time", a courtesy not afforded to the common Joe.

This issue alone along with the response from Hillary's camp of "C'mon it's no big deal stop obsessing over it" has solidified many people I know unto a #NeverHillary side.

While completely true about the fired-or-jail for a little person, I don't think that's a reason to get excised. Important people are special, always have been, and much as I abhor breaking some laws (Willie Clinton's Lolita Express, etc) it's completely normal for rulers to have different laws than peasants.

It's another reason to avoid voting. Deluding yourself into thinking you are a citizen, not a subject, leads to a lot of heartburn and foolishness (the proud nail gets hammered down). You have it good as a subject, better than almost any subject in the world.

[wetbandit]

You have it good as a subject, better than almost any subject in the world.

For so long as your sovereign deigns necessary then.

If you don't want to vote, any number of studies will support the fact that your one vote doesn't matter. That sentiment and your recent comment shouldn't support the proposition that a person should abdicate their political responsibility entirely, which you seemingly suggest with your last post. The franchise is but one part of active political involvement. Municipal, county, and state government require political involvement and an informed populace to function for the public benefit. I daresay the actions of local and state political entities impact any given American's life as much as, if not more than, the federal government.

Every person has the right to not participate. I don't think it is a position worth celebrating.

[Commodore]

As I said, I'll make exceptions for local elections. Four orders of magnitude more power in every vote.

[Gazglum]

Commodore, do you think that the world would be better run if the vote were taken away completely? I think that experience shows that without SOME kind of check, people become lazy and stupid. That's what people are like.

From an outside perspective, the current American election is a clear choice between a flawed, competent, not particularly pleasant person vs a dangerous sociopath, and that is exactly the kind of time when it is very important to exercise a right to vote. Voters are the corrective when a system becomes unhinged, you're the white blood cells. To my mind, not voting is like shutting down your immune system.

In Australia we have compulsory voting, which has a host of its own problems. Elections are always won in the centre, and our parties are therefore a lot more beige and less beholden to their base. But I think that might also protect Australia during a period of heavy instability, so maybe its for the best, even if its philosophically troublesome.

[Gavagai]

From an outside perspective, the current American election is a clear choice between a flawed, competent, not particularly pleasant person vs a dangerous sociopath, and that is exactly the kind of time when it is very important to exercise a right to vote.

I need to point out that Trump only became possible due to democratic voting. Republican elites were strongly against him, it was strong support from rank-and-file voters what won the primaries for him. If nomination process in Republican party was less democratic (like it used to be before), you would have Rubio or Bush #3 instead of Trump.

A more general observation is that during this elections money officially ceased to be an issue for national level campaigns. Sanders showed that you can collect a competetive amount of money just by crowdfunding; Trump showed that you can win primaries pretty much without serious spending at all. On the other hand, I don't see it working on state level and below in foreseeable future. What is going to happen in US is that you will have a constant standoff between a populist President and an oligarchic Congress.

[Bobchillingworth]

Primary spending is a very different beast from general election spending. IIRC in 2012 Obama and Romney spent (or had Super PACs spend for them) over a billion dollars combined. Trump didn't need to spend much because he recieved millions in free airtime from an insatiable press, plus had the substantial "anti-Trump" vote split between several candidates for the critical early states. As for the Democrats, Sander's funding off of small donations was impressive, but really just continuing an art Obama had already perfected. Given that he didn't actually win the primary, I wouldn't consider his campaign particularly didactic.

[Commodore]

Commodore, do you think that the world would be better run if the vote were taken away completely? I think that experience shows that without SOME kind of check, people become lazy and stupid. That's what people are like.

People are lazy and stupid. I'd say the votes aren't much of a check, at least in the US. If they were, you'd see a policy of government actually favoring citizens over noncitizens and corporations. You'd see Manus Island, random example. And Saddam would still be in power but the region would be less miserable. I thought you were Remain? See above compatriots for the case against voters.

From an outside perspective, the current American election is a clear choice between a flawed, competent, not particularly pleasant person vs a dangerous sociopath, and that is exactly the kind of time when it is very important to exercise a right to vote.

I wouldn't call Trump "not particularly pleasant", just very Noo Yawk in delivery...

Honestly, Trump is a very, very mild figurehead for nationalism/populism/citizen power. More a Berlusconi than a Mussolini. I'd want absolutely nothing to do with the *actual* peasant revolts that might follow on the current trajectory. This set of West-wide populist revolts are very very friendly compared to historical models.