I more talking diplomacy, since the last 15 years has pretty succinctly shown that our military isn't exactly the answer to solving such problems (and, in fact, is likely making them worse).Knife wrote:Sorry, not sold on Clinton being the super uber foreign policy person that in any way makes an elevation of foreign policy over domestic. I, for one, am not overly scared of shitbags trying to reclaim their sand pile half way across the globe to the point I'd sacrifice reform at home for a strong person to fight the evil jihadists.
The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
- Flagg
- CUNTS FOR EYES!
- Posts: 12797
- Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
- Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
TRR stop reporting posts in this thread you disagree with. Do that again and I will fucking mod you hard.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
-
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 30165
- Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
I will observe that it's easier for a reform president to hire good diplomats than it is for a 'good diplomacy' president to hire someone to care about reforming the home front for her.Flagg wrote:I more talking diplomacy, since the last 15 years has pretty succinctly shown that our military isn't exactly the answer to solving such problems (and, in fact, is likely making them worse).Knife wrote:Sorry, not sold on Clinton being the super uber foreign policy person that in any way makes an elevation of foreign policy over domestic. I, for one, am not overly scared of shitbags trying to reclaim their sand pile half way across the globe to the point I'd sacrifice reform at home for a strong person to fight the evil jihadists.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
- Civil War Man
- NERRRRRDS!!!
- Posts: 3790
- Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
One issue with that, though, is that stance actually makes Clinton the worse candidate in terms of foreign policy chops, considering that she is one of the more hawkish candidates in the campaign.Flagg wrote:I more talking diplomacy, since the last 15 years has pretty succinctly shown that our military isn't exactly the answer to solving such problems (and, in fact, is likely making them worse).Knife wrote:Sorry, not sold on Clinton being the super uber foreign policy person that in any way makes an elevation of foreign policy over domestic. I, for one, am not overly scared of shitbags trying to reclaim their sand pile half way across the globe to the point I'd sacrifice reform at home for a strong person to fight the evil jihadists.
"What Sort of Foreign Policy Hawk is Hillary Clinton?" from The New Yorker.
Link to the NYT magazine article referencedIt is often said, and it appears to be true, that Hillary Clinton is more hawkish on foreign policy than President Obama. But what sort of hawk is she? And, if she were to be elected to the White House, how would her approach differ from Obama’s? Thanks to two deeply reported pieces of journalism—one just released about Clinton, from Mark Landler, of the Times, and one from last month on Obama, by Jeffrey Goldberg, of The Atlantic—we now have more information to help us answer these questions.
Landler’s story, which will be published in print in Sunday’s Times Magazine, is headlined “How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk,” and it relies largely on the testimony of Washington officials and generals who have dealt with her over the years. Goldberg’s article, “The Obama Doctrine,” which was the cover story in the April issue of The Atlantic, is based on a series of long interviews with the President, and it presents Obama largely, though not exclusively, in his own words. For anyone who wants to understand the differences (and similarities) between Clinton and Obama, both pieces are must-reads.
The take-home for both of them is that Clinton is more comfortable using American military power than Obama, and that she shares little of his skepticism of the military and foreign-policy establishments. To the contrary, she gets along very well with generals and former generals, especially gruff-talking Irish ones, such as Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, who was an architect of the “surge” strategy that President George W. Bush ordered in Iraq, and whom Landler describes as “perhaps the greatest single influence on the way Hillary Clinton thinks about military issues.”
In his account of Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, which lasted from 2009 until 2013, Landler reports that, during the administration’s internal deliberations over Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, she consistently supported the most interventionist option that was on the table. Even in dealing with China, she favored a robust approach. In 2010, after the North Korean military sank a South Korean navy vessel, she supported a Pentagon proposal to send a U.S. aircraft carrier into the Yellow Sea, which lies between North Korea and China, telling her aides, “We’ve got to run it up the gut!”
Obama overruled the idea. In the Atlantic article, he comes across as constantly concerned about being railroaded by the Pentagon and hawkish officials, including Clinton, into approving risky military actions. While he isn’t averse to using deadly force—witness the drone-assassination program—he is extremely wary of being drawn into extended military campaigns. One of Obama’s intellectual inspirations, Goldberg informs us, is Brent Scowcroft, the foreign-policy realist who served as George H. W. Bush’s national-security adviser. (In a post in 2014, after Obama gave a big speech at West Point, I described the President as “a reluctant realist.”)
The hawk-versus-realist dichotomy, while useful, shouldn’t be viewed too literally. Obama, for all his doubts, approved a mini-surge in Afghanistan, the deployment of American airpower to facilitate the removal of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, and an expansion of the semi-covert war against Islamist extremists in North Africa. Clinton, for all her tough talk, has never had to make the final call to send U.S. forces into combat, or to justify the deaths that often result. But, even taking these qualifications into account, Landler and Goldberg’s reportage suggests that Clinton would be a very different Commander-in-Chief than Obama has been.
In seeking out the roots of Clinton’s positions, Landler doesn’t dwell on her formative years, the late nineteen-sixties, when she went from being a Midwestern Goldwater girl to an antiwar liberal activist. (A 2008 Salon piece about this period is still worth consulting.) After mentioning the strange tale Clinton has told about inquiring into joining the Marines in 1975, while she was living in Arkansas, Landler goes into her years as First Lady, when the contacts she had with the military officers who ran many of the day-to-day operations in the White House “deepened her feeling for them.” He also discusses her eight years as a U.S. senator for New York.
In October, 2001, a month after the 9/11 attacks, she visited Fort Drum, the sprawling Army base in upstate New York. There, she met General Buster Hagenbeck, who was in charge of the 10th Mountain Division. Having seen Clinton only in her role as First Lady, the general wasn’t prepared for the woman who presented herself at his office. “She sat down,” Hagenbeck told Landler, “took her shoes off, put her feet up on the coffee table and said, ‘General, do you know where a gal can get a cold beer around here?’ ”
In late 2002, Clinton joined the Senate Armed Services Committee, turning down the opportunity to join the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whose vacant Senate seat she had won, had long sat on. “After 9/11, Clinton saw Armed Services as better preparation for the future,” Landler writes. “For a politician looking to hone hard-power credentials—a woman who aspired to commander in chief—it was the perfect training ground.”
Under the tutelage of uniformed officers like Hagenbeck and Keane, whom she also got to know in 2001, Clinton turned herself into an expert on military matters. She didn’t always take their advice. In 2007, when she was getting ready to run for President, she opposed the Iraq surge, which Keane strongly supported. But she valued the generals’ knowledge, and their combat experience. “She likes the nail-eaters—McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane,” one of her aides told Landler. “Real military guys, not these retired three-stars who go into civilian jobs.”
In April, 2015, just before Clinton announced her Presidential candidacy, Keane gave her a long briefing on Syria, in which he advocated the establishment of a no-fly zone over parts of the country—an option Obama had rejected. When Clinton went out on the campaign trail, she called for a no-fly zone. “I’m convinced this president, no matter what the circumstances, will never put any boots on the ground to do anything, even when it’s compelling,” Keane told Landler. “That’s an issue that would separate the President from Hillary Clinton rather dramatically. She would look at military force as another realistic option, but only where there is no other option.”
Goldberg’s piece takes up Obama’s thinking about Syria in some depth, and specifically the decision, in 2013, not to bomb President Bashar al-Assad’s forces after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Syria had used chemical weapons against rebel forces—an action that Obama had previously said would draw a strong U.S. response. “Syria, for Obama, represented a slope potentially as slippery as Iraq,” Goldberg writes. Obama was also unnerved by the fact that the British Parliament had voted against military action in Syria. He feared possible civilian casualties, and was aware that a retaliatory missile strike wouldn’t eliminate Assad’s chemical weapons. Moreover, he didn’t believe that Syria’s civil war threatened vital U.S. interests.
Obama’s U-turn on Syria infuriated some of America’s Arab allies, and it alarmed some U.S. officials and former officials, who believed that it damaged the credibility of the United States. Goldberg quotes Leon Panetta, who served under Obama as C.I.A. director and Secretary of Defense, to this effect. He also reports that Clinton, who by the summer of 2013 had left the State Department, agreed with the critics of Obama’s decision. “If you say you’re going to strike, you have to strike. There’s no choice,” she remarked privately.
In making this statement, Clinton was echoing a foreign-policy playbook that has ruled Washington for decades, and that Obama told Goldberg he was proud to have broken with. “The playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses,” the President said. “Where America is directly threatened, the playbook works. But the playbook can also be a trap that can lead to bad decisions.” Inside the White House, Goldberg reports, Obama went further, arguing that “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.”
If Clinton does become President, at some point she is likely to face a dilemma similar to the one that Obama faced in 2013. She will also be obliged to tackle a larger question that Obama, in his interviews with Goldberg, spent a lot of time tussling with: in the twenty-first century, what is America’s role in the world?
At this stage, it might be unwise to make bold predictions about how a President Hillary Clinton would deal with these issues. She must be keenly aware that there is little enthusiasm in the country for more interventionism. And entering the Oval Office places a burden on Presidents that can alter their views. But, based on what we now know, there isn’t much doubt where she would be coming from. “Hillary is very much a member of the traditional American foreign-policy establishment,” Vali Nasr, a foreign-policy strategist who advised Clinton on Afghanistan and Pakistan when she was Secretary of State, told Landler. “She believes, like presidents going back to the Reagan or Kennedy years, in the importance of the military—in solving terrorism, in asserting American influence.”
Link to the Atlantic article referenced
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
As with other issues, many consider saying that Hillary is a "hawk" to be yet another sexist attack.
Women being told that they are "too aggressive" has been historically a sexist attack against women since it implies that women as supposed to be docile, meek, and quiet.
Women being told that they are "too aggressive" has been historically a sexist attack against women since it implies that women as supposed to be docile, meek, and quiet.
- Terralthra
- Requiescat in Pace
- Posts: 4741
- Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
- Location: San Francisco, California, United States
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
I don't think that historically, women have historically been accused of leveraging military power abroad in a neo-colonial attempt to preserve American hegemony at the expense of innocent lives in literally a dozen countries, as a sexist attack. Maybe I'm wrong?
Once again, Lord MJ, it's very frustrating that you appear to be serving as a mouthpiece for unnamed persons. Either speak for yourself, admit that the positions you're apparently relaying are your own, or invite these other people to come post here.
Once again, Lord MJ, it's very frustrating that you appear to be serving as a mouthpiece for unnamed persons. Either speak for yourself, admit that the positions you're apparently relaying are your own, or invite these other people to come post here.
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Your mistaking the context on the argument. Accusing a woman of being "too hawkish" is similar to saying a women is "too strong."Terralthra wrote:I don't think that historically, women have historically been accused of leveraging military power abroad in a neo-colonial attempt to preserve American hegemony at the expense of innocent lives in literally a dozen countries, as a sexist attack. Maybe I'm wrong?
Once again, Lord MJ, it's very frustrating that you appear to be serving as a mouthpiece for unnamed persons. Either speak for yourself, admit that the positions you're apparently relaying are your own, or invite these other people to come post here.
There is also the angle of litterally anything that Hillary is attacked for that is par for the course among politicians is sexist because you are attacking a woman for doing the same things that men do.
Examples both from the media and the Interwebs:
"She's hawkish" - "Well male politicians (including Democrats) have been hawkish to, why single her out? - Sexist!"
"She is too in bed with wall street and special interests" - "Well Obama, Gore, and George W Bush did the same thing - Sexist!"
"She is non-specific about her positions and flip flops" - "Well isn't that what all politicians do, why single her out? I think there is a hint of sexism here."
"Hillary is going to have to earn Bernie's supporter's votes. What assurances can she make to Bernie to earn his endorsement?" - "Isn't she entitled to the endorsement and support by virtue of being the Democratic nominee? Why all these new rules? Has it been this way for previous nominees? Have previous nominees had to make assurances? This is the exact type of thing that women have had to go through when ascending to positions of authority before. Sexism"
I can go on an on. Somehow the media and seemingly the general populace (albeit only anecdotally) have somehow managed to inject Hillary's gender into every issue. And that narrative seems to catch on.
- Civil War Man
- NERRRRRDS!!!
- Posts: 3790
- Joined: 2005-01-28 03:54am
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
If that's the case, there is no point in continuing discussion, because any examination of any of Clinton's political beliefs or actions as a government official can be construed as a sexist attack. Saying that we're not allowed to examine the consequences of the foreign policy experience that her supporters trumpet as one of her greatest achievements is nothing more than an ad hominem designed to shut down discussion.Lord MJ wrote:As with other issues, many consider saying that Hillary is a "hawk" to be yet another sexist attack.
Women being told that they are "too aggressive" has been historically a sexist attack against women since it implies that women as supposed to be docile, meek, and quiet.
Accusing Clinton of "shouting" while she's on the campaign trail is sexist. Calling her "too aggressive" for speaking forcefully is sexist. Calling her a hawk for consistently supporting military intervention overseas is a critique of the policies she supports.
Those criticisms are only applicable if the person they are accusing of being sexist is not also criticizing male politicians who are guilty of the same things.Lord MJ wrote:"She's hawkish" - "Well male politicians (including Democrats) have been hawkish to, why single her out? - Sexist!"
"She is too in bed with wall street and special interests" - "Well Obama, Gore, and George W Bush did the same thing - Sexist!"
"She is non-specific about her positions and flip flops" - "Well isn't that what all politicians do, why single her out? I think there is a hint of sexism here."
"Hillary is going to have to earn Bernie's supporter's votes. What assurances can she make to Bernie to earn his endorsement?" - "Isn't she entitled to the endorsement and support by virtue of being the Democratic nominee? Why all these new rules? Has it been this way for previous nominees? Have previous nominees had to make assurances? This is the exact type of thing that women have had to go through when ascending to positions of authority before. Sexism"
I can go on an on. Somehow the media and seemingly the general populace (albeit only anecdotally) have somehow managed to inject Hillary's gender into every issue. And that narrative seems to catch on.
As for the last one, as far as I'm concerned she is not entitled to the support of Bernie's supporters if she wins, and Bernie's not entitled to the support of her supporters if he wins. Part of the problem today is that the Democratic establishment feels that they can safely ignore the concerns of their base because they believe they are entitled to their base's support by virtue of being not Republican. It's up to candidates to convince voters that voting for them is in their best interest. If you are running for office and can't come up with a good reason for someone to vote for you, and instead have to rely on getting them to vote against your opponent, you are not as strong a candidate as you purport to be.
- Napoleon the Clown
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
- Location: Minneso'a
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
So does anyone else realize the general idiocy of Democrats that think independents/unaffiliated voters shouldn't have a say in picking a candidate from whichever party they're more likely to vote for? I mean, Democrats and Republicans both rely on independent voters. How is "We don't want your opinion" going to convince someone to vote for you?
On foreign policy, Secretary Clinton's resume could be credited to Ronald Reagan without anyone doubting it. Arms deals, South American coups, interventionism in the Middle East... Same shit, different names. If foreign policy is a big factor? If perpetual war is something you oppose? Well, Hillary Clinton isn't the candidate for you. Because, once again, she has a foreign policy record that mirrors Ronald "Iran-Contra" Reagan. That so many Democrats are willing to ignore her actual record must bring a sense of comfort to conservatives on this board, knowing that it's not just their "side" that is comfortable with horrific acts that make life awful for people outside the US. That the Democratic front-runner has already done a lot of the shit Trump claims he will do speaks ill of Democrats in this country. I know I've become firmly convinced that the Democratic party most certainly is not a progressive party.
Now, as to gun control? She's been pretty consistent on that subject. Her voting history on gun control is pretty solidly in favor of gun control. She wouldn't be railing against it without Sanders in the running. She probably wouldn't be talking about gun control nearly as much, and certainly wouldn't be capitalizing on Sandy Hook, but she wouldn't be trying to appeal to gun owners. On guns, she's more liberal than Sanders. On energy... Well, she's a lot more comfortable with nuclear power.
Flagg's insistence on putting (I) in front of Sanders' name makes me want to put (R) in front of Clinton, since she was a Goldwater Girl and thus Republican. Because obviously people never end up changing political parties. Just ignore that Sanders consistently caucused with the Democrats and has said that he'll be part of the Democratic party hereafter, regardless of what the results of the primaries are. But nah, changing parties is fake.
On foreign policy, Secretary Clinton's resume could be credited to Ronald Reagan without anyone doubting it. Arms deals, South American coups, interventionism in the Middle East... Same shit, different names. If foreign policy is a big factor? If perpetual war is something you oppose? Well, Hillary Clinton isn't the candidate for you. Because, once again, she has a foreign policy record that mirrors Ronald "Iran-Contra" Reagan. That so many Democrats are willing to ignore her actual record must bring a sense of comfort to conservatives on this board, knowing that it's not just their "side" that is comfortable with horrific acts that make life awful for people outside the US. That the Democratic front-runner has already done a lot of the shit Trump claims he will do speaks ill of Democrats in this country. I know I've become firmly convinced that the Democratic party most certainly is not a progressive party.
Now, as to gun control? She's been pretty consistent on that subject. Her voting history on gun control is pretty solidly in favor of gun control. She wouldn't be railing against it without Sanders in the running. She probably wouldn't be talking about gun control nearly as much, and certainly wouldn't be capitalizing on Sandy Hook, but she wouldn't be trying to appeal to gun owners. On guns, she's more liberal than Sanders. On energy... Well, she's a lot more comfortable with nuclear power.
Flagg's insistence on putting (I) in front of Sanders' name makes me want to put (R) in front of Clinton, since she was a Goldwater Girl and thus Republican. Because obviously people never end up changing political parties. Just ignore that Sanders consistently caucused with the Democrats and has said that he'll be part of the Democratic party hereafter, regardless of what the results of the primaries are. But nah, changing parties is fake.
Sig images are for people who aren't fucking lazy.
- Flagg
- CUNTS FOR EYES!
- Posts: 12797
- Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
- Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
NtC:
Yeah, closed primaries are stupid.
Yeah, closed primaries are stupid.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Do you realize your idiocy? From the standpoint of pretty much everything ever written the Independents are a party. Hell, you can literally register as "No Party" to get in on Semi-Closed votes. Find a good enough Independent candidate that doesn't have to turn tale to Democrat or Republican and actually make Independents worth their salt and LOCK OUT THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS and maybe the Democratic and Republican parties will give the two shits you want them to. And hey, if you pull that off, then we'll have a three party General Election where, again, EVERYBODY VOTES.Napoleon the Clown wrote:So does anyone else realize the general idiocy of Democrats that think independents/unaffiliated voters shouldn't have a say in picking a candidate from whichever party they're more likely to vote for? I mean, Democrats and Republicans both rely on independent voters. How is "We don't want your opinion" going to convince someone to vote for you?
- GrandMasterTerwynn
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 6787
- Joined: 2002-07-29 06:14pm
- Location: Somewhere on Earth.
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Now why are closed primaries stupid? The primary election contests are a way for the members of each political party to choose who gets to represent them in the general election. Yes, it may produce more partisan politicians, but the parties (okay, mostly the Democrats) have developed mechanisms that (to varying degrees of success) attempt to moderate the influence of the more radical supporters of their party.Flagg wrote:NtC:
Yeah, closed primaries are stupid.
Arguably, an open primary opens up each party to sabotage from the other (for example, conservatives might vote for Sanders in a safely red state because they feel that they're helping the guy they're actually voting for in November ... either by keeping the Democratic nomination competitive enough to bleed Clinton, or by trying to set up a contest between their guy and someone they perceive as a non-credible candidate. On the other side, liberals might vote for Trump in an open primary just to set Clinton up with a non-credible opponent.)
If independent voters wanted a say, they could either register with the GOP or the Democrats and vote in the primaries of either party. Or they could put their power together and drive though a credible third-party run (either from one of the pre-existing rump parties, or by gathering around a Ross Perot or a 1911-era Teddy Roosevelt.) Clearly, they're powerful enough to throw a spanner into the works of both major parties this election cycle, so this idea has some merit. And on the plus side, if successful, this new party will eventually kill one of the two incumbent parties ... probably the GOP, given the oil-and-water nature of their current coalition.
Tales of the Known Worlds:
2070s - The Seventy-Niners ... 3500s - Fair as Death ... 4900s - Against Improbable Odds V 1.0
2070s - The Seventy-Niners ... 3500s - Fair as Death ... 4900s - Against Improbable Odds V 1.0
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Except 'INDEPENDENT' covers people who are too left for the Dems, the people too right for the GOP, and the centrists in the middle. Hardly a cohesive group to form a party. The only thing that they have in common is not really being a fan of the two parties existing.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Problem is that two private organizations are responsible for producing the two candidates we all vote for.GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Now why are closed primaries stupid? The primary election contests are a way for the members of each political party to choose who gets to represent them in the general election. Yes, it may produce more partisan politicians, but the parties (okay, mostly the Democrats) have developed mechanisms that (to varying degrees of success) attempt to moderate the influence of the more radical supporters of their party.Flagg wrote:NtC:
Yeah, closed primaries are stupid.
Arguably, an open primary opens up each party to sabotage from the other (for example, conservatives might vote for Sanders in a safely red state because they feel that they're helping the guy they're actually voting for in November ... either by keeping the Democratic nomination competitive enough to bleed Clinton, or by trying to set up a contest between their guy and someone they perceive as a non-credible candidate. On the other side, liberals might vote for Trump in an open primary just to set Clinton up with a non-credible opponent.)
If independent voters wanted a say, they could either register with the GOP or the Democrats and vote in the primaries of either party. Or they could put their power together and drive though a credible third-party run (either from one of the pre-existing rump parties, or by gathering around a Ross Perot or a 1911-era Teddy Roosevelt.) Clearly, they're powerful enough to throw a spanner into the works of both major parties this election cycle, so this idea has some merit. And on the plus side, if successful, this new party will eventually kill one of the two incumbent parties ... probably the GOP, given the oil-and-water nature of their current coalition.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
- Terralthra
- Requiescat in Pace
- Posts: 4741
- Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
- Location: San Francisco, California, United States
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Two private organizations are responsible for producing two of the candidates for whom we may vote. There are several others. This election year ought to demonstrate exactly how fragile either political party's hold on a large enough voting bloc can be.
- MKSheppard
- Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
- Posts: 29842
- Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
I did my patriotic duty as a WARBOY to vote for Immortan Don.The Romulan Republic wrote:Well, the Nazi recently won New York by a huge margin, but I honestly have no idea how he's polling in today's states.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
You're actually talking about a known cycle in history. I mean, I should just be able to say the word 'whig' and walk off here. Parties and tenuous times are not unknown.Terralthra wrote:Two private organizations are responsible for producing two of the candidates for whom we may vote. There are several others. This election year ought to demonstrate exactly how fragile either political party's hold on a large enough voting bloc can be.
- Flagg
- CUNTS FOR EYES!
- Posts: 12797
- Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
- Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
The reason closed primaries are stupid is because it cuts out anyone who doesn't want to join a particular party from having a say in whom they'll be voting for for various offices in the actual election. Now, you can say, and it's a perfectly legitimate argument, that if you want to help choose who gets the Democratic or Republican nomination, you join the party and don't check off "no affiliation" expecting to be able to vote in either primary.GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Now why are closed primaries stupid? The primary election contests are a way for the members of each political party to choose who gets to represent them in the general election. Yes, it may produce more partisan politicians, but the parties (okay, mostly the Democrats) have developed mechanisms that (to varying degrees of success) attempt to moderate the influence of the more radical supporters of their party.Flagg wrote:NtC:
Yeah, closed primaries are stupid.
Arguably, an open primary opens up each party to sabotage from the other (for example, conservatives might vote for Sanders in a safely red state because they feel that they're helping the guy they're actually voting for in November ... either by keeping the Democratic nomination competitive enough to bleed Clinton, or by trying to set up a contest between their guy and someone they perceive as a non-credible candidate. On the other side, liberals might vote for Trump in an open primary just to set Clinton up with a non-credible opponent.)
If independent voters wanted a say, they could either register with the GOP or the Democrats and vote in the primaries of either party. Or they could put their power together and drive though a credible third-party run (either from one of the pre-existing rump parties, or by gathering around a Ross Perot or a 1911-era Teddy Roosevelt.) Clearly, they're powerful enough to throw a spanner into the works of both major parties this election cycle, so this idea has some merit. And on the plus side, if successful, this new party will eventually kill one of the two incumbent parties ... probably the GOP, given the oil-and-water nature of their current coalition.
But where this breaks down is that the 2 parties that actually control things nationally have essentially made it impossible for there to be a non-binary party system in this country. So while no, I don't have sympathy for the ignorant "rebels without a party" who think they can check off "unaffiliated" and vote in any parties primary, since the system that we have has been put in place by the parties themselves, they shouldn't be allowed to close the doors. So while they may be private entities, they are private entities that control every branch of government.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
- Flagg
- CUNTS FOR EYES!
- Posts: 12797
- Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
- Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Damn, missed this.Knife wrote:Problem is that two private organizations are responsible for producing the two candidates we all vote for.GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Now why are closed primaries stupid?Flagg wrote:NtC:
Yeah, closed primaries are stupid.
Yeah, basically what Knife said, only I'd add that the 2 private organizations control every branch of government and have hobbled the ability for new parties to challenge or supplant them from the outside.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
They're literally private organizations. I mean, you want to take that to it's logical conclusion they haven't always had 50+ votes for the people. They used to have about one third the amount they do now and not even all the resulting delegates were bound. The candidates had to spend the private convention cajoling the unbound delegates to vote for them.Flagg wrote: Damn, missed this.
Yeah, basically what Knife said, only I'd add that the 2 private organizations control every branch of government and have hobbled the ability for new parties to challenge or supplant them from the outside.
I mean...you want to take that private organization to it's logical conclusion...let's roll back time.
- Flagg
- CUNTS FOR EYES!
- Posts: 12797
- Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
- Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Yeah, they are private organizations that through legislation have given themselves preferential treatment and control the entire fucking government. And it's not like states with open primaries don't exist. There's precedent.Gaidin wrote:They're literally private organizations. I mean, you want to take that to it's logical conclusion they haven't always had 50+ votes for the people. They used to have about one third the amount they do now and not even all the resulting delegates were bound. The candidates had to spend the private convention cajoling the unbound delegates to vote for them.Flagg wrote: Damn, missed this.
Yeah, basically what Knife said, only I'd add that the 2 private organizations control every branch of government and have hobbled the ability for new parties to challenge or supplant them from the outside.
I mean...you want to take that private organization to it's logical conclusion...let's roll back time.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Pass a federal law and seize all political parties large or small for the public good then.Flagg wrote: Yeah, they are private organizations that through legislation have given themselves preferential treatment and control the entire fucking government. And it's not like states with open primaries don't exist. There's precedent.
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Well dang. Sanders is going down in flames. He'll grab Rhode Island and Conn, but Penn is going Hillary and he really needed that one. He is done, shame. Hope he keeps attacking Hillary on the left though.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
- Flagg
- CUNTS FOR EYES!
- Posts: 12797
- Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
- Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Why, when all you need to do is just mandate open primaries? That's like swatting a fly with 20mt thermonuclear weapon.Gaidin wrote:Pass a federal law and seize all political parties large or small for the public good then.Flagg wrote: Yeah, they are private organizations that through legislation have given themselves preferential treatment and control the entire fucking government. And it's not like states with open primaries don't exist. There's precedent.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
- Gandalf
- SD.net White Wizard
- Posts: 16362
- Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
- Location: A video store in Australia
Re: The 2016 US Election (Part II)
Even for those who don't scream "Arab terrorist," I've seen it in the context to just drive home the fact that he's different, at every possible point. His name sounds odd to one's Anglo ears, and it's another way of attempting to discredit someone based on that oddness. Bean laid out my point more generally, but I wanted to address this specific bit.Flagg wrote:Meh, that was very racist to scream ARAB TERRORIST!!!Gandalf wrote:It reminds me a lot of the people who kept saying "Barack HUSSEIN Obama*" regardless of the context.
*Or other versions which kept bringing his middle name in.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist
"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist
"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin