US Politics Thread

[britbox]

Unusually, I agree with about 50% of what you say here, Teddy. I agree on Elizabeth Warren, as I think many do, and I believe her time will come sooner than you think. Your view of change is too bleak for my taste, however. Cities like Detroit and Baltimore, for example, would resent your depiction of them. There is much renewal happening. I agree that the government needs a top-down change. That includes how much the 1% pay of their share, and Trump won't change that. As to foreign policy, Trump shouldn't worry you less than Clinton. She's an experienced diplomat. He's a thin-skinned 3am tweeter who holds onto a grudge like a pit bull, and he wants to get into bed with all the wrong people. (I don't care how much of a russophile you are: Putin is vile.)

Thanks Federberg.

 

[Moxie]

Thanks Federberg.

I just realized that was you, not Teddy. No wonder it was so succinct and that I agreed with much of it. But still, I have to question that you think Clinton is scarier on foreign policy that Trump, even if you're not all about Russia like Teddy is. You think she's a warmonger? Do you think Trump is going to make such good friends around the world? I'm not clear what worries you about Clinton.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You've pose the wrong question. Millions of people will vote for Trump because he's the candidate for the Republican party. Remember that we have some 230 million eligible voters in this country, and around 50% will vote, so, yes, millions of votes will go to the Republican candidate. Many will feel they have no other choice. This is not, however, a mandate, I don't believe. The question is: what is the state of the Republican party that they allowed such a candidate to prevail? The answer is long and complicated and has involved much gnashing of teeth in the party itself. Much of it has to do with the disaffection towards the gridlock in government, and the Republicans have a lot to answer for there, too. In retrospect, it seems that if Bernie Sanders were the other option, we'd be looking at a different landscape. However, I disagree with you that Clinton won't make a good president. She is more qualified for the job than nearly anyone ever, based on resume. And she has a history of reaching across the aisle. Though so did Obama, and that didn't help much.

Thing is, I don't care much for politics, so I do believe I'm posing the right question, as I couldn't care less about the state of the Republican party. I do however, care about the state of humanity. And millions of people WILL vote for Trump because they are Trump supporters (I'm sure the total number of people who flat out like him is easily in the millions). People want to vote for an unqualified sexual predator who openly and daily advocates violence, racism and misogyny. It's pretty sad.

 

[britbox]

I agree on Elizabeth Warren, as I think many do, and I believe her time will come sooner than you think. Your view of change is too bleak for my taste, however. Cities like Detroit and Baltimore, for example, would resent your depiction of them. There is much renewal happening. I agree that the government needs a top-down change. That includes how much the 1% pay of their share, and Trump won't change that. As to foreign policy, Trump shouldn't worry you less than Clinton. She's an experienced diplomat. He's a thin-skinned 3am tweeter who holds onto a grudge like a pit bull, and he wants to get into bed with all the wrong people. (I don't care how much of a russophile you are: Putin is vile.)

I know this was directed to teddy, but I'm interested in your view of Putin. Why do you regard him as vile?

 

[Moxie]

Thing is, I don't care much for politics, so I do believe I'm posing the right question, as I couldn't care less about the state of the Republican party. I do however, care about the state of humanity. And millions of people WILL vote for Trump because they are Trump supporters (I'm sure the total number of people who flat out like him is easily in the millions). People want to vote for an unqualified sexual predator who openly and daily advocates violence, racism and misogyny. It's pretty sad.

You're preaching to the choir in me to say that it's sad. I'm just trying to address the division in our political system that allows for people to make that choice. For some, there are reasons other than that they approve of his message. It's pathetic, but it's something.

 

[Moxie]

I know this was directed to teddy, but I'm interested in your view of Putin. Why do you regard him as vile?

Authoritarian, invasion of Crimea, little-man complex, homophobe...

 

[britbox]

Authoritarian, invasion of Crimea, little-man complex, homophobe...

Crimea is historically Russian. One life lost in the change of hands of Crimea from Ukraine to Russia. Something tells me it was the will of the people of Crimea. Contrast that with half a million lives lost in Iraqi regime change.

 

[DarthFed]

Thing is, I don't care much for politics, so I do believe I'm posing the right question, as I couldn't care less about the state of the Republican party. I do however, care about the state of humanity. And millions of people WILL vote for Trump because they are Trump supporters (I'm sure the total number of people who flat out like him is easily in the millions). People want to vote for an unqualified sexual predator who openly and daily advocates violence, racism and misogyny. It's pretty sad.

There are still tons and tons of openly racist people in this country. That will probably always be the case. Trump was always going to appeal to them regardless of what party he was running as. But my theory is that he has appealed to the "closet" racists the most, he has played on their "fears" and given a strong voice to them. That's what has caused the over-the-top support.

I do think all the videos and sexual assault chatter will end up being his undoing. Many people will still vote for him because they've already committed to it in their heads, many will vote for him simply because he is the Republican candidate, but there will be a lot of people who now can't bring themselves to vote for him after this.

 

[Moxie]

There are still tons and tons of openly racist people in this country. That will probably always be the case. Trump was always going to appeal to them regardless of what party he was running as. But my theory is that he has appealed to the "closet" racists the most, he has played on their "fears" and given a strong voice to them. That's what has caused the over-the-top support.

I do think all the videos and sexual assault chatter will end up being his undoing. Many people will still vote for him because they've already committed to it in their heads, many will vote for him simply because he is the Republican candidate, but there will be a lot of people who now can't bring themselves to vote for him after this.

There has been a backlash after the 2 terms of Barack Obama, and the rather swift cultural changes, like marriage equality. I don't believe it's so much overt racism with a lot of people as much it is an assumption of white privilege, if you take the distinction. (Not that either notion is very nice, but I am giving a bit of a pass to cultural assumptions.) Trump has played on what are really economic problems to create racial and ethnic divides. It was an incredibly cynical tactic. It worked for a while, but, as you say, his grotesque exposure of his feelings about his own privilege and his stated behavior towards women will finally be his undoing.

 

[Moxie]

Crimea is historically Russian. One life lost in the change of hands of Crimea from Ukraine to Russia. Something tells me it was the will of the people of Crimea. Contrast that with half a million lives lost in Iraqi regime change.

Iraq was a huge mistake, and George W. Bush's debacle, for what seemed like no more reason than avenging his father. Obama has been trying to sweep that mess up ever since.

I'm not convinced that all of Crimea is happy with Putin. But, other than that, you're happy with him?

 

[britbox]

Iraq was a huge mistake, and George W. Bush's debacle, for what seemed like no more reason than avenging his father. Obama has been trying to sweep that mess up ever since.

I'm not convinced that all of Crimea is happy with Putin. But, other than that, you're happy with him?

All of Crimea doesn't have to be happy with Putin.... just more than those who or not. Rather like most places around the world. If I was a Russian, I'd be happy with him. Russia is in a far better state now than before he took charge...

 

[britbox]

Obama has been trying to sweep that mess up ever since.

Is this the same Obama who pledged to close Guantanamo bay? How's that going after 8 years in charge?

 

[Moxie]

All of Crimea doesn't have to be happy with Putin.... just more than those who or not. Rather like most places around the world. If I was a Russian, I'd be happy with him. Russia is in a far better state now than before he took charge...

Wait, they didn't vote him in. He marched in with an army. You really OK with that? And Putin has manipulated his "elected" status, putting a puppet in for his interim. Also he's a thin-skinned, barely-veiled brown shirt. I'm surprised that none of that disturbs you.

 

[Moxie]

Is this the same Obama who pledged to close Guantanamo bay? How's that going after 8 years in charge?

These are two different questions. That's a cheap deflection, and also a mindful forgetting of who OPENED Guantanamo Bay. It bears remembering that the President can't do everything by himself. Obama has been blocked at nearly every turn by an obstructionist Congress. Members have walked in stating that their primary agenda was making him a one-term President, even given all of the real problems facing our country. That he's gotten so much done, and how well the economy has recovered is actually a bit of a miracle, given the obduracy of his opposition. Remember that we are a justice short on the Supreme Court, since February, and Congress refuses to even hear his candidate, who is by all accounts a very reasonable, moderate option.

 

[britbox]

Wait, they didn't vote him in. He marched in with an army. You really OK with that? And Putin has manipulated his "elected" status, putting a puppet in for his interim. Also he's a thin-skinned, barely-veiled brown shirt. I'm surprised that none of that disturbs you.

He didn't march in with any army. Crimea hosts the Russian fleet. The Ukraine allowed up to 25,000 Russian military to be stationed there. They were already there... not marched in.

and yes, they did have an election... and resoundingly voted to return to Russia. Hardly a surprise.

 

[britbox]

These are two different questions. That's a cheap deflection, and also a mindful forgetting of who OPENED Guantanamo Bay. It bears remembering that the President can't do everything by himself. Obama has been blocked at nearly every turn by an obstructionist Congress. Members have walked in stating that their primary agenda was making him a one-term President, even given all of the real problems facing our country. That he's gotten so much done, and how well the economy has recovered is actually a bit of a miracle, given the obduracy of his opposition. Remember that we are a justice short on the Supreme Court, since February, and Congress refuses to even hear his candidate, who is by all accounts a very reasonable, moderate option.

I couldn't care less who opened Guantanamo Bay @Moxie - you're confusing me with a Republican voter. Outside of the US, nobody really cares much about tribal rhetoric along party lines.... they just see actions (or non-actions in this case) by the US administration, regardless of which colour rosette they wear at an election... it doesn't appear to matter to people overseas... as there is barely a shift in foreign interference.

For the record, I actually think Obama curtailed quite a lot of American aggression overseas... as much as he could.... "as much as he could" being the frightening phrase.... the president who couldn't even close an army base associated with torture and criminal activity. As for Hillary, she couldn't even give a shit about such things.... so mild kudos for Obama for trying at least....

 

[Moxie]

I couldn't care less who opened Guantanamo Bay @Moxie - you're confusing me with a Republican voter. Outside of the US, nobody really cares much about tribal rhetoric along party lines.... they just see actions (or non-actions in this case) by the US administration, regardless of which colour rosette they wear at an election... it doesn't appear to matter to people overseas... as there is barely a shift in foreign interference.

For the record, I actually think Obama curtailed quite a lot of American aggression overseas... as much as he could.... "as much as he could" being the frightening phrase.... the president who couldn't even close an army base associated with torture and criminal activity. As for Hillary, she couldn't even give a shit about such things.... so mild kudos for Obama for trying at least....

You don't know anything about what Hillary Clinton gives a shit about. I'm not confusing you will a Republican voter. I'm well-aware that you come at this from the outside. But it isn't parochial to understand that Obama has been mistaken for a Muslim, and accused of being soft on terrorists. I think it's amazing that he hasn't closed Gitmo, too, but you might try understanding why it's not just a matter of Presidential decree.

 

[Tennis Fan]

You've pose the wrong question. Millions of people will vote for Trump because he's the candidate for the Republican party. Remember that we have some 230 million eligible voters in this country, and around 50% will vote, so, yes, millions of votes will go to the Republican candidate. Many will feel they have no other choice. This is not, however, a mandate, I don't believe. The question is: what is the state of the Republican party that they allowed such a candidate to prevail? The answer is long and complicated and has involved much gnashing of teeth in the party itself. Much of it has to do with the disaffection towards the gridlock in government, and the Republicans have a lot to answer for there, too. In retrospect, it seems that if Bernie Sanders were the other option, we'd be looking at a different landscape. However, I disagree with you that Clinton won't make a good president. She is more qualified for the job than nearly anyone ever, based on resume. And she has a history of reaching across the aisle. Though so did Obama, and that didn't help much.

Spot on. I don't see Hillary's "deeds" as bad as Trump's. I'm sorry anyone who can't handle a decent discourse should be eliminated from consideration to any high office, IMO.

 

[Federberg]

Thanks Federberg.

Lol! What am I missing here?

 

[britbox]

Lol! What am I missing here?

Heh, heh - Moxie answered my post with a case of mistaken identity... so was reciprocating!