Re: Politics and Current Events

[reboot]

Wow, so Ted Cruz dropped out. I thought he'd take it all the way to the convention, and am a bit surprised. I guess this Trump thing is really happening.

I was surprised too. I figured it would be a fight to the bitter end with him and Kasich. I cannot decide if it is a good or a bad thing that the nominee is Trump instead of Cruz. Cruz scared me more but that is like ranking your pain a 9 vs a 10 - both are horrible.

[WJMorris3]

Ted Cruz dropped out because of his campaign not being viable anymore, but I think he should have been forced to carry it to full term.

[Werel]

I think there is a case to be made for saying dynasties aren't inherently good, but I guess I'm just not seeing how they're inherently bad or even that surprising/new/noteworthy. Is the idea that political family dynasty = oligarchy? But if that's the case, America has been an oligarchy from the very beginning. But that seems to me a pretty wide definition of oligarchy, and I'm flummoxed how you could really avoid that, short of just doing away with representational government and forcing everyone to do a term in governmental office.

It's just always struck me as an... odd thing to focus on. But I might be missing something.

Hmm, good question. I agree that political dynasties are nothing new, but I also think of lots of lousy things as "nothing surprising/new/noteworthy." I think the general public disdain for dynasty politics has something to do with...

a) It runs contrary to the idea that America is a meritocracy (which I think is a thing lots of people still believe? Strongly, even?)
b) It feels too close to monarchy and/or linear succession for a lot of folks' tastes
c) The places where transitions of power are still strongly and overtly dynastic are not usually places most people think of as models of good governance (e.g. the Philippines)
d) It reminds everyone that our government is actually an oligarchy (and has been from the beginning, like you said) rather than a representative democracy, and that gives people the sads

Plus, I admit I feel a little uncomfortable putting Bill and Hilary together in the same way you might the Sr and Jr Bushes; yes, they're married, but is it really the same kind of nepotism as a parent-child? We have plenty of married couples at my job where one partner got hired after the other; I dunno, there's something about the "dynasty" angle that suggests, to me, that Hilary has never succeeded on her own merits.

It may not be the same kind of nepotism, but the type of person who's uncomfortable with dynasty politics isn't going to be that interested in the finer shades of different kinds of nepotism. With couples at your job, yep, that's normal nepotism-- it may be vaguely, qualitatively different than a parent securing a job for their child, but the bottom line of it is that someone was prioritized for hiring because of who their family is. It doesn't necessarily mean that the second spouse hired is not qualified for their job (just like the "dynasty" angle doesn't mean Hillary is unqualified for the presidency)-- it just means they had an insurmountable advantage over equally qualified people. And I guess a lot of folks, especially social progressives, are pretty uncomfortable with supporting systems of insurmountable unearned advantages, especially those which rest on who you were born to/who you fuck.

Me, I just find it depressing and boring that we can't come up with a more interesting public-facing narrative than "haha let's not even pretend anymore that this whole shebang isn't controlled by a very small, very closed circle of very rich people." Like, y'all managed to put a fun cool young black face on the status quo for 8 years; can we get another vaguely interesting figurehead pulled from outside the shallowest old-money pools? Or maybe we could at least acknowledge that American politics is almost entirely a dynasty game instead of pretending otherwise? Could we just do one of those things, instead of telling little kids from non-connected families that they could be president someday, because it is sadder when they find out about that than when they find out about Santa Claus?

[Wondering]

Sorry, I should have clarified that Kennedy wasn't a dynasty, but could have been since Robert Kennedy was assassinated during the campaign season for the Presidential election.  

Oh, Bobby Kennedy. Gotcha.

I dunno, there's something about the "dynasty" angle that suggests, to me, that Hilary has never succeeded on her own merits.  

But Hillary Clinton would not be where she is if she had not been married to a president. Maybe should would have been a senator, maybe. But more likely of Arkansas than New York if Bill had never been president. She would not have run in 2008 and thus wouldn't have been made secretary of state. And she wouldn't have the party clout to keep all other establishment comers out now.

A fact that's going to hurt us massively because, unlike a lot of other folks here who think it's a given someone as terrible as Trump will never be elected, I don't. I thought he'd never get the GOP nomination, but he has. And Hillary Clinton does not have the likeablity, charisma, or speaking talent to beat Trump. Obama does; he would have beat Trump. But she's pretty terrible at getting anyone who's not already establishment Dem to want her. If not for her clout, the Dems could have nominated someone else. Someone who could beat Trump. Someone people in general would want to vote for.

[WJMorris3]

Sorry, I should have clarified that Kennedy wasn't a dynasty, but could have been since Robert Kennedy was assassinated during the campaign season for the Presidential election.  

Oh, Bobby Kennedy. Gotcha.

I dunno, there's something about the "dynasty" angle that suggests, to me, that Hilary has never succeeded on her own merits.  

But Hillary Clinton would not be where she is if she had not been married to a president. Maybe should would have been a senator, maybe. But more likely of Arkansas than New York if Bill had never been president. She would not have run in 2008 and thus wouldn't have been made secretary of state. And she wouldn't have the party clout to keep all other establishment comers out now.

A fact that's going to hurt us massively because, unlike a lot of other folks here who think it's a given someone as terrible as Trump will never be elected, I don't. I thought he'd never get the GOP nomination, but he has. And Hillary Clinton does not have the likeablity, charisma, or speaking talent to beat Trump. Obama does; he would have beat Trump. But she's pretty terrible at getting anyone who's not already establishment Dem to want her. If not for her clout, the Dems could have nominated someone else. Someone who could beat Trump. Someone people in general would want to vote for.

Y'mean like Bernie?

[Wondering]

No, Bernie Sanders is too far left for Americans in general to want to vote for.

[BasedBuzzed]

He's a New Deal type Democrat if I recall correctly, so no more radical than Roosevelt, and he runs well against Trump: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

He shares many of Trump's points (or, consistently pounds on points Trump has adlibbed at certain moments) on trade, interventionism, Israel-Palestine, money in politics, healthcare and the like, so he might be able to channel the disenfranchised blues and reds who are utterly through with the establishment. But polls have failed us before, so I'm not sure if this theory holds up in practice.

[caliseivy]

Ted Cruz dropped out because of his campaign not being viable anymore, but I think he should have been forced to carry it to full term.

I see what you did there

[reboot]

Ted Cruz dropped out because of his campaign not being viable anymore, but I think he should have been forced to carry it to full term.

I see what you did there

Me too. Well played, WJMorris, well played

[Wondering]

He's a New Deal type Democrat if I recall correctly, so no more radical than Roosevelt, and he runs well against Trump: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

He shares many of Trump's points (or, consistently pounds on points Trump has adlibbed at certain moments) on trade, interventionism, Israel-Palestine, money in politics, healthcare and the like, so he might be able to channel the disenfranchised blues and reds who are utterly through with the establishment. But polls have failed us before, so I'm not sure if this theory holds up in practice.

I don't think it's necessarily useful to compare the political climate of FDR -- which included the Depression and WWII -- to that of now. Back then, the Dems were the party of racism, and some of the strongest opposition FDR faced was from his own party. The GOP was much more progressive then. In fact, FDR would have been a Republican like Teddy Roosevelt if the New York Republican party hadn't essentially told him, "Well, we've already got someone in this position, so we don't need you, despite your family and ambitions." And then the NY Dems courted him instead. He was able to get lots of Republican votes because of his connection to Teddy Roosevelt. The political climate is different now.

Also, I'm partially talking about who people want to vote for, not necessarily who they will vote for. I don't want to vote for Clinton or Sanders, but I will.

[reboot]

Also, I'm partially talking about who people want to vote for, not necessarily who they will vote for. I don't want to vote for Clinton or Sanders, but I will.

I feel the same. I am enthused by neither of them and I think both would make bad presidents, albeit for different reasons, but neither would be as bad as Trump. My choice is vote for one of them or no one, and I want complaining rights, so that means voting.

[bomaye]

Team Political Dynasty says "Hello from Canada."

[Wondering]

Good job not posting the photo of Trudeau and the panda cubs!

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/canada-fears-photo-of-prime-minister-with-pandas-could-worsen-american-refugee-crisis

[Wondering]

States that complain about the federal government overreaching and not respecting states' rights. When they are passing laws that prohibit counties and cities from enacting their own municipal laws.

Oh, irony.

[WJMorris3]

So Mike Webb is a conservative, faith-based candidate for Congress in Virginia, and yesterday, he launched an attack on Facebook against one of his rivals.

Oh, but Kate, what you think he do *after*, hmmmm?

[Wondering]

Well, Sanders appears to be turning out no better than Trump in not condemning things that should be condemned, so I think I'll be crossing him off my list as one of the good guys.

And so much of it misogynist, too. Bernie bros who would rather vote Trump than Clinton? Yeah, I see you now.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/democrat-bernie-sanders-revolt/

[Guest]

Well, Sanders appears to be turning out no better than Trump in not condemning things that should be condemned, so I think I'll be crossing him off my list as one of the good guys.

And so much of it misogynist, too. Bernie bros who would rather vote Trump than Clinton? Yeah, I see you now.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/17/politics/democrat-bernie-sanders-revolt/

While I may dislike my senators (they supporte SOPA/PIPA among other abhorrent bills), they do make an excellent point here. No, I don't think Bernie should drop out -- it sends a message imo -- but as Bernie supported myself, we have to do better that kinda behavior is unacceptable. We have to be strong, but not stoop to Trump-level pettiness, bullshit like this is obviously not cool. This isn't at all what Bernie stands for. Though reading through the article it sounds like it's a fucking mess on all accounts from Nevada's convention just being an unorganized mess. Though, to be honest, I'm not surprised it's young people that are rising up like this, in just about every political revolt or whatever, it's always been the young no matter what, pretty much. People everywhere are pissed, sure, but that's no excuse to be awful.

They're right though, this amount of disgusting vitriol is not good and will fuck up the chances of not having a president drumpf. It's just... ugh, it's baffling to me.

[Wondering]

It is bad. The Democrats appear to be falling apart and tearing into each other. The Democrat citizens, not the candidates. The ones who are going to vote in November.

And the Republicans are starting to unite behind Trump, especially in the wake of him naming 11 conservative judges he'd pick from to nominate for Supreme Court. That's exactly what mainstream conservatives want to hear.

[Guest]

It is bad. The Democrats appear to be falling apart and tearing into each other. The Democrat citizens, not the candidates. The ones who are going to vote in November.

And the Republicans are starting to unite behind Trump, especially in the wake of him naming 11 conservative judges he'd pick from to nominate for Supreme Court. That's exactly what mainstream conservatives want to hear.

Ugh.



Normally I don't like being so melodramatic about this, but we are in trouble.

[BasedBuzzed]

>Bernie bros
They tried to pull the same with Obama (in truth, you can probably crib together a piece about Clinton supporters of that campaign being racists on social media, Obama supporters acting misogynist, and Jew-baiting around Sanders during this campaign):
http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-bros-obama-boys-echoes-2008-medias-clinton-sanders-pundit-clash-2300707

On the other end of the aisle, also without a condemnation from Clinton:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/16/woman-told-police-wendell-pierce-tried-to-enter-her-hotel-room.html

[Wondering]

>Bernie bros
They tried to pull the same with Obama (in truth, you can probably crib together a piece about Clinton supporters of that campaign being racists on social media, Obama supporters acting misogynist, and Jew-baiting around Sanders during this campaign):
http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-bros-obama-boys-echoes-2008-medias-clinton-sanders-pundit-clash-2300707

Sure, but we're now talking about people doxxing the head of Nevada's Democrat Committee; we're living in a gamer gate world now. And, more importantly, the option if the Dems couldn't unite then was McCain. The option now is Trump. There's no comparison there.

On the other end of the aisle, also without a condemnation from Clinton:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/16/woman-told-police-wendell-pierce-tried-to-enter-her-hotel-room.html

I think that's a false comparison. One person doing something because they're a Clinton supporter is not a group of people doing something in the name of Sanders or Trump. I don't think it's necessary for a candidate to publicly denounce a one-off by a supporter. A movement by a faction of supporters to harrass or dox other people's supporters or a Jewish journalist who wrote a piece on Melania? That requires condemnation by the person whose name they're doing it in.

Also, personally, I never counted Clinton among the good guys/gals.

[reboot]

There are no good guys or gals in this race, it seems. Just worst case scenario and less bad scenario.

Clinton is going to struggle to work with Congress and the Republicans are going to be after her with real or imagined scandals for 4 years straight. Assuming she can win at all. She is not even a popular candidate with Democrats

Sanders' can't do math and his economic plans are impossible even with a 90% tax on the wealthy, which would never happen because taxes need to pass Congress. Not that it matters because he will never get elected. He will not be able to peel off any Republican supporters or centrist Independents, who would maybe vote for Clinton, but will sit out the race if it is Sanders vs Trump.

Trump would be a shit show on all levels. Definitely worst case. As in I might try to work in another country if he gets elected because what he would do would piss me off so much that my head might explode

[Guest]

Trump would be a shit show on all levels. Definitely worst case. As in I might try to work in another country if he gets elected because what he would do would piss me off so much that my head might explode

But that's what he'd want, I think. The more people that leave, the less opposition there is to his stupidity and dare I say, evil. So, to keep it short, I ain't goin' nowhere.

[reboot]

Trump would be a shit show on all levels. Definitely worst case. As in I might try to work in another country if he gets elected because what he would do would piss me off so much that my head might explode

But that's what he'd want, I think. The more people that leave, the less opposition there is to his stupidity and dare I say, evil. So, to keep it short, I ain't goin' nowhere.

I would probably go somewhere worse, because it would keep me from falling into the trap of thinking the US was falling apart. Nothing like a place that is actually falling apart to keep things in perspective and the thought, "It could be worse, it could be ISIS or Shabaab in charge."

[Guest]

I would probably go somewhere worse, because it would keep me from falling into the trap of thinking the US was falling apart. Nothing like a place that is actually falling apart to keep things in perspective and the thought, "It could be worse, it could be ISIS or Shabaab in charge."

Right, though what I meant was that until Trump sends out death squads to hunt down ethnic minorities the U.S. -- which is highly unlikely, the man is still human and has an image to uphold despite being a fucking bigot -- I'm going nowhere. But even then, I'll stick around and fight against tyranny and for my country.

Other than that highly unlikely scenario, we will probably stay relatively the same. The nation isn't falling apart and will not fall apart unless the populace let's it, how else did Rome fall, ya know? ;D

EDIT: I have no idea *why* the forum decided to hiccup so bad so as to post this three times.

[Sponsored content]