US Politics Thread

[britbox]

Frankly mate, I'm not sure how you don't hear the ambiguity in the comment when you hear it live. It's very clear he knew he was close to the line as he said it

Indeed... but such a flippant remark in that context shouldn't be taken remotely seriously. A bad attempt at a feeble joke.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not sure how on earth you equate those words to suggesting an assassination attempt on Hillary Clinton. Good Grief.

I don't know how you interpret it otherwise. Were you thinking that "a well-organized militia" would rise up against her?

 

[Federberg]

https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10157249295185716
^yes but mate.. this isn't you and me joshing in a pub. This is a Presidential candidate speaking to a crowd. This is a man speaking to an audience part of which was chanting "lock her up", and who cheered when an associate of his said that she should be shot. This is a man who would like to represent the ideals and uphold the constitution of his country. Can you seriously tell me that's ok, knowing there are nutters out there that could take him at his word? Really?

 

[Federberg]

 

[britbox]

Maybe Hillary should request extra security. After all, Ambassador Stevens at Benghazi requested extra security over 300 times at Benghazi.

 

[Moxie]

Even you said it just previously, BB. He's not presidential. I don't know how many careless, irresponsible, inciteful remarks he gets to make and some people still give him a pass. He's not running for president of the student council.

 

[Moxie]

Maybe Hillary should request extra security. After all, Ambassador Stevens at Benghazi requested extra security over 300 times at Benghazi.

This is the one I never get: do you actually believe that the Secretary of State is responsible for the bureaucratic decisions about security at every embassy in the world? I'm pretty sure that's below the pay grade of the SOS.

 

[britbox]

Even you said it just previously, BB. He's not presidential. I don't know how many careless, irresponsible, inciteful remarks he gets to make and some people still give him a pass. He's not running for president of the student council.

But the thing is Moxie... he gets slaughtered for flippant remarks. Hillary spends a lifetime covering up for actions that have caused far more serious damage.

 

[britbox]

This is the one I never get: do you actually believe that the Secretary of State is responsible for the bureaucratic decisions about security at every embassy in the world? I'm pretty sure that's below the pay grade of the SOS.

Bureaucratic decisions about security? Seriously? He was in a war zone not asking for an extra clerk to join the typing pool.

The Ambassador's direct boss is the Secretary of State. Who else is he supposed to ask? It wasn't below her pay grade... it was her direct responsibility... she was his direct manager. Now, she might have thought it below her pay grade... but that's another thing.

I find it obscene how people cling to a few comments yet flippantly dismiss "little" inconveniences like loss of life.

 

[britbox]

Even you said it just previously, BB. He's not presidential. I don't know how many careless, irresponsible, inciteful remarks he gets to make and some people still give him a pass. He's not running for president of the student council.

I don't think people do give him a pass as such. The problem with your election is that you're asking people to pick between Hannibal Lector and Norman Bates.

 

[Federberg]

Bureaucratic decisions about security? Seriously? He was in a war zone not asking for an extra clerk to join the typing pool.

The Ambassador's direct boss is the Secretary of State. Who else is he supposed to ask? It wasn't below her pay grade... it was her direct responsibility... she was his direct manager. Now, she might have thought it below her pay grade... but that's another thing.

I find it obscene how people cling to a few comments yet flippantly dismiss "little" inconveniences like loss of life.

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of State is directly responsible for the security disposition at embassies? Come on mate, be serious. If anyone should be questioned about that it has to be either the heads of the intelligence services or the President himself. I can well understand how some of those people might have kept their heads down, but that's where the direct responsibility points. Yes, the State Department wanted to keep Benghazi as a low profile zone, the way you do that is to have lots of "diplomats" who are under cover operatives, the idea that the Secretary of State could stop that from happening is hopelessly naive

It's interesting though how you talk about people flippantly dismissing loss of life, yet you are dismissing comments from a Presidential candidate. Sure attempts at her life have not happened yet, but do we really have to wait to acknowledge the menace in Trump's comments?

Let me be clear... as I find myself a little irritated that some of these forums might think that I'm a Clinton supporter. I find the idea of dynastic politics in the US to be awful. But we don't have an apples and apples comparison here mate. You have a candidate - Clinton - who you may or may not like (I don't particularly like her), but who is basically a typical politician from one of the major parties, and a demagogue - Trump - who is definitely not trying to inspire the better angels of American democratic traditions. I posted a link from a news outlet yesterday where an analysis of the candidates untruths had been conducted. There is no comparison. Virtually every other word Trump utters is either ill informed or a blatant lie, and sure people might notice, but generally people (not so much the press) make excuses for him. It reminds me of the Brexit campaign, and it's a symptom of the loss of belief in democracy and Western civilisation in the last decade. I just find the whole thing quite scary. I'm with the Republican's who say that they might not like Clinton, but there are bigger issues at stake here. As a basic principle I would vote for the candidate that would at least uphold the principles of American democracy. Given the fact only one of the candidates is willing to do that, I would have only one choice

 

[Moxie]

I don't think people do give him a pass as such. The problem with your election is that you're asking people to pick between Hannibal Lector and Norman Bates.

No, between Bozo the Clown and Hillary Clinton.

 

[britbox]

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of State is directly responsible for the security disposition at embassies? Come on mate, be serious. If anyone should be questioned about that it has to be either the heads of the intelligence services or the President himself. I can well understand how some of those people might have kept their heads down, but that's where the direct responsibility points. Yes, the State Department wanted to keep Benghazi as a low profile zone, the way you do that is to have lots of "diplomats" who are under cover operatives, the idea that the Secretary of State could stop that from happening is hopelessly naive

It's interesting though how you talk about people flippantly dismissing loss of life, yet you are dismissing comments from a Presidential candidate. Sure attempts at her life have not happened yet, but do we really have to wait to acknowledge the menace in Trump's comments?

Let me be clear... as I find myself a little irritated that some of these forums might think that I'm a Clinton supporter. I find the idea of dynastic politics in the US to be awful. But we don't have an apples and apples comparison here mate. You have a candidate - Clinton - who you may or may not like (I don't particularly like her), but who is basically a typical politician from one of the major parties, and a demagogue - Trump - who is definitely not trying to inspire the better angels of American democratic traditions. I posted a link from a news outlet yesterday where an analysis of the candidates untruths had been conducted. There is no comparison. Virtually every other word Trump utters is either ill informed or a blatant lie, and sure people might notice, but generally people (not so much the press) make excuses for him. It reminds me of the Brexit campaign, and it's a symptom of the loss of belief in democracy and Western civilisation in the last decade. I just find the whole thing quite scary. I'm with the Republican's who say that they might not like Clinton, but there are bigger issues at stake here. As a basic principle I would vote for the candidate that would at least uphold the principles of American democracy. Given the fact only one of the candidates is willing to do that, I would have only one choice

The principles of American democracy are based on their constitution, no? Which candidate is looking at changing that again?

No, I don't expect Hillary to be hands on with security details but I expect her to have her eye firmly on the ball in a warzone. It was a chaotic situation... not like dealing with the Ambassador of Trinidad and Tobago.

Also, her unsecure email server included emails of the Ambassador's location...

I'm sorry, she was incompetent as a Secretary of State. That doesn't detract from the fact that Trump talks like a buffoon but safe pair of hands is something she certainly isn't.

 

[Moxie]

But the thing is Moxie... he gets slaughtered for flippant remarks. Hillary spends a lifetime covering up for actions that have caused far more serious damage.

I would really like you to tell me what you mean by this, and that you're not just buying into the long-term campaign of slander. Republicans recently admitted to a smear campaign:

'"It is politically fraught, obviously, to say they will not support their party’s presidential nominee. But based on my discussions, I’m willing to bet a good portion of the elected Republicans who claim minimal allegiance to “the nominee” will wind up voting for Clinton in the privacy of their voting booths while rooting for Trump’s complete humiliation. “We’re just going to have to swallow it,” said Mark Salter, the longtime chief of staff and confidant of John McCain. “He’s just unfit for the office,” referring to Trump. As for Clinton, he said, “I mean, the worst thing you can say about her is, she’s kind of a hack.”

Ed Rogers, a Republican lobbyist and veteran of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses, calls himself a “not yet Republican,” meaning he is “not yet” ready to support Trump and has in fact moved in the opposite direction since Trump clinched the nomination last month. Rogers, a longtime business partner of the former Mississippi governor and R.N.C. chairman Haley Barbour, acknowledged that the Republicans tend to exaggerate Clinton’s flaws as a trade prerogative. “The Clintons have never been the demons ideologically that we’ve made them out to be,” Rogers told me. “From a character standpoint, they’re pretty bad, but Hillary isn’t the frightening offensive character that Trump is.”' - Mark Liebovich, NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/magazine/will-trump-swallow-the-gop-whole.html?_r=0
The whole article is mainly about the state of the GOP. It's long, but very interesting. The quotes above aren't particularly complimentary, but they do come from Republican insiders, so that comes with a grain of salt. Even still....

 

[Moxie]

The principles of American democracy are based on their constitution, no? Which candidate is looking at changing that again?

No, I don't expect Hillary to be hands on with security details but I expect her to have her eye firmly on the ball in a warzone. It was a chaotic situation... not like dealing with the Ambassador of Trinidad and Tobago.

Also, her unsecure email server included emails of the Ambassador's location...

I'm sorry, she was incompetent as a Secretary of State. That doesn't detract from the fact that Trump talks like a buffoon but safe pair of hands is something she certainly isn't.

Which candidate would you say is looking to change our Constitution? I don't think either. I would, however, say that Trump is speaking to something very outside of the spirit of our democracy and open society. He favors exclusion and promotes factionalism over unity.

 

[Asmodeus]

I'm not sure many of you understand the underlying premise of the Constitution. The best way to view the Constitution is that the people give the government the right to exist and they can take that right whenever they choose. T's comment, which he clarified today, runs along the lines that if government (he focused on Hillary because she supports this view) wants to take away indelible rights then the people have the right to react. We may have to accept the fact that one day the erosion of basic rights may require a revolution. He comments were geared towards that line of thinking.

Of course, H's supporters, especially the media, have made his comments about her. It's always about her. Just look at her campaign slogan, "I'm with her."

Also, these unfit to serve comments, in my opinion, are just a further example that the global elite is becoming unhinged. So when I hear a globalist such as John McCain say he won't back T simply clarifies this view. Where leftists want to promote international organizations where boarders are porous and nationalities become meaningless (they're more concerned with promoting equality around the world), the right also wants porous boarders (merely to move labor freely) where they create an international security apparatus. Both views are inherently incorrect.

Trump is not a great candidate, is inexperienced, and is more of a marketer who gets easily distracted by unimportant chatter. What he has managed to do, whether he realizes it or not, is that many in this country, and in fact western Europe, are dissatisfied with elites because they feel that elites have sold them out. If you can't recognize that, and feel a flawed candidate such as H who also has higher negatives than positives is a good thing, then you miss the point of why securing national identity is so important.

 

[Moxie]

I'm not sure many of you understand the underlying premise of the Constitution. The best way to view the Constitution is that the people give the government the right to exist and they can take that right whenever they choose. T's comment, which he clarified today, runs along the lines that if government (he focused on Hillary because she supports this view) wants to take away indelible rights then the people have the right to react. We may have to accept the fact that one day the erosion of basic rights may require a revolution. He comments were geared towards that line of thinking.

Of course, H's supporters, especially the media, have made his comments about her. It's always about her. Just look at her campaign slogan, "I'm with her."

Also, these unfit to serve comments, in my opinion, are just a further example that the global elite is becoming unhinged. So when I hear a globalist such as John McCain say he won't back T simply clarifies this view. Where leftists want to promote international organizations where boarders are porous and nationalities become meaningless (they're more concerned with promoting equality around the world), the right also wants porous boarders (merely to move labor freely) where they create an international security apparatus. Both views are inherently incorrect.

Trump is not a great candidate, is inexperienced, and is more of a marketer who gets easily distracted by unimportant chatter. What he has managed to do, whether he realizes it or not, is that many in this country, and in fact western Europe, are dissatisfied with elites because they feel that elites have sold them out. If you can't recognize that, and feel a flawed candidate such as H who also has higher negatives than positives is a good thing, then you miss the point of why securing national identity is so important.

You are correct that we are a government of the people and by the people. Our Constitution insists that the government serves us, not the other way around.

I don't agree with you that Clinton has any intention of taking away indelible rights, nor does Trump, as far as I can tell. Our system of checks and balances would prohibit that from any one leader. I'm not sure what erosion of basic rights you're speaking to. I think you should define terms on "global elite." It's rather a hackneyed go-to for the dissatisfied. It can't just mean "white male privilege," because our current President is mixed-race, from a middle-class background, and our Democratic candidate is a woman, also from a middle-class background. If it bothers you that they are politicians...well, it's a job, and they are qualified, and I would argue vocationally inclined, to do it. I'm not sure who you think is "unhinged," since you also admit that Trump is "inexperienced" and "easily distracted by unimportant chatter." You might find it appealingly other-than "elitist" that he's not experienced in politics, but he was born rich and is a member of the "elite." It could also be argued that people shouldn't apply for jobs that they have no resume for. It's not even clear that Donald Trump is qualified in his own field, let alone to be the leader of the free world.

As I pointed out above, even the Republicans have admitted that they've created some of the negatives that dog Mrs. Clinton. She is not a "flawed" candidate. Or certainly not as "flawed" as her detractors make out. Her negatives are, at least in part, manufactured by the opposition. She is enormously more qualified for the job than her opponent. It is well-worth recognizing the dissatisfaction in this country that made Bernie Sanders a viable candidate, and made Donald Trump the Republican nominee. However, it's not time to pull in with an unqualified loose-cannon. We are not on the brink of disaster. Hillary Clinton is listening to the people. Donald Trump isn't even listening to his advisors. He keeps firing them. Presumably because he can't fire himself.

 

[Ricardo]

You are correct that we are a government of the people and by the people. Our Constitution insists that the government serves us, not the other way around.

I don't agree with you that Clinton has any intention of taking away indelible rights, nor does Trump, as far as I can tell. Our system of checks and balances would prohibit that from any one leader. I'm not sure what erosion of basic rights you're speaking to. I think you should define terms on "global elite." It's rather a hackneyed go-to for the dissatisfied. It can't just mean "white male privilege," because our current President is mixed-race, from a middle-class background, and our Democratic candidate is a woman, also from a middle-class background. If it bothers you that they are politicians...well, it's a job, and they are qualified, and I would argue vocationally inclined, to do it. I'm not sure who you think is "unhinged," since you also admit that Trump is "inexperienced" and "easily distracted by unimportant chatter." You might find it appealingly other-than "elitist" that he's not experienced in politics, but he was born rich and is a member of the "elite." It could also be argued that people shouldn't apply for jobs that they have no resume for. It's not even clear that Donald Trump is qualified in his own field, let alone to be the leader of the free world.

As I pointed out above, even the Republicans have admitted that they've created some of the negatives that dog Mrs. Clinton. She is not a "flawed" candidate. Or certainly not as "flawed" as her detractors make out. Her negatives are, at least in part, manufactured by the opposition. She is enormously more qualified for the job than her opponent. It is well-worth recognizing the dissatisfaction in this country that made Bernie Sanders a viable candidate, and made Donald Trump the Republican nominee. However, it's not time to pull in with an unqualified loose-cannon. We are not on the brink of disaster. Hillary Clinton is listening to the people. Donald Trump isn't even listening to his advisors. He keeps firing them. Presumably because he can't fire himself.

this is one-sided simplistic narrow minded rubbish, and you've done well to make it a lengthy one.

"she is enormously more qualified for the job than her opponent"?
"shouldn't apply for jobs they have no resume for?"
"leader of the free world?"

only if you are mildly intelligent Moxie. You are punching above your weight speaking about these issues, showing total lack of level-headedness. Now step back, take a deep breath, be quiet and learn

 

[Ricardo]

Are you suggesting that the Secretary of State is directly responsible for the security disposition at embassies? Come on mate, be serious. If anyone should be questioned about that it has to be either the heads of the intelligence services or the President himself. I can well understand how some of those people might have kept their heads down, but that's where the direct responsibility points. Yes, the State Department wanted to keep Benghazi as a low profile zone, the way you do that is to have lots of "diplomats" who are under cover operatives, the idea that the Secretary of State could stop that from happening is hopelessly naive

It's interesting though how you talk about people flippantly dismissing loss of life, yet you are dismissing comments from a Presidential candidate. Sure attempts at her life have not happened yet, but do we really have to wait to acknowledge the menace in Trump's comments?

Let me be clear... as I find myself a little irritated that some of these forums might think that I'm a Clinton supporter. I find the idea of dynastic politics in the US to be awful. But we don't have an apples and apples comparison here mate. You have a candidate - Clinton - who you may or may not like (I don't particularly like her), but who is basically a typical politician from one of the major parties, and a demagogue - Trump - who is definitely not trying to inspire the better angels of American democratic traditions. I posted a link from a news outlet yesterday where an analysis of the candidates untruths had been conducted. There is no comparison. Virtually every other word Trump utters is either ill informed or a blatant lie, and sure people might notice, but generally people (not so much the press) make excuses for him. It reminds me of the Brexit campaign, and it's a symptom of the loss of belief in democracy and Western civilisation in the last decade. I just find the whole thing quite scary. I'm with the Republican's who say that they might not like Clinton, but there are bigger issues at stake here. As a basic principle I would vote for the candidate that would at least uphold the principles of American democracy. Given the fact only one of the candidates is willing to do that, I would have only one choice

oh yeah 'LOOK Trump is telling people to shoot her!!" wow, let's just focus on the semantics only...... instead of the real crimes committed by Clinton you so dearly support, despite the fact that you hypocritically claimed not to be her 'fan'.

Cheap trick puss, think people can't see it? you need to pull your head of the sand, because we see it from miles away the kind of crap you are pulling. You obviously want to gloss over the fact that Clinton has used her political power to free herself from being trialled for the crimes committed, she now gets free pass for the real crimes...... not the kind of semantics, verbal bs from Trump but crimes that a lot of people would be locked up or 'shot' for.

You are simply an immoral hypocrite.

 

[Federberg]

^First of all... indelible or inalienable?

I think you both (@Asmodeus and @Moxie) make great points. But a number of things...

1) I don't believe Clinton has ever said that she wants to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. All she has said, and the polls show that the majority of gun owners agree with her, is that it's not unreasonable for gun purchasers to be properly vetted before they are permitted to buy. As some have observed, it's ridiculous that a person can be on the 'no fly' list but they're still able to buy guns. This is one of the problems I have with Trump, he has lied blatantly. It's very simple to listen to Clinton's speeches about this issue to get the facts, but that doesn't suit his purposes. In any case, - and I'm no constitutional expert - Clinton would not be able to eliminate the 2nd Amendment even if she wanted to. You would need a two thirds majority of the legislature, and at least 40 States agreeing with the change. That is clearly an impossible task. Trump would know this if he studied up on the constitution, and notice I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming ignorance, but the reality is that he probably is aware, and what it comes down to again is rallying the base by... lying.

2) Are the global elite becoming unhinged? I would say not. This is just the scripted response from Trump supporters when he gets called on some of the ridiculous things he says. But I do acknowledge, given the Brexit experience, that truth is not an effective weapon in the current climate. This was never so clearly demonstrated as when Gove commented that "I think we're all a bit tired of the so called experts!"

3) I do agree that some of Clinton's flaws are magnified by what has been a remarkable 2 decades of persistent and very consistent accusations thrown in her direction. Speaking to Republicans I'm friends with (oddly enough, I'm not sure I have any personal relationships with anyone who supports the Dems), they have all privately conceded that the whole Clinton-hate thing is a bit overdone. By the way some of these people have held office, albeit mainly at the state level. What I will say though is that some of the email revelations are frankly disturbing. There's a hint of patronage there that shouldn't really exist in a functioning democracy, but perhaps we're all a bit naive!

4) I think we all need to respect why Brexit, and Bernie and Trump have been such effective campaigns. This is something my colleagues and I studied for years in banking, and to be honest we thought the Occupy movements and the riots in London a few years ago was the start of the unravelling of the status quo. At that point the establishment was able to head it off, but as I remarked to a friend then... I didn't think it was over. Capitalism or what we like to call capitalism effectively ended when the Berlin wall came down. In it's place we have seen the rise of a corrupt version. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, because the Western model could pat itself on the back following the collapse of communism and we (the people) became quite contented and amused ourselves by reading books like Fukuyama's "The end of history". What we have now is actually more correctly described as a plutocratic system. For two decades the returns to capital have grown exponentially even as the returns to labour have stagnated. For the first time in generations young adults are earning on average less than their parents in real terms. Back when we started looking at the charts in our macro discussion groups we all acknowledged that this state of affairs was unsustainable. The last time we had this type of situation a corrupted version of Marxism was created and history tells the story about what happened there. I don't know what the endgame is, but this has to change. Bernie and Trump are the American rebellion against the status quo, Brexit was in large part the British version. I say this because the parliamentary system in the UK is in many ways anti-democratic. You simply, as a voter, cannot easily get your political desires fulfilled via the ballot box in the UK. That's what made the referendum such an effective protest against the establishment. For once you could vote, and your decision could not be frustrated by the first past the post system in the UK. I guess in Presidential elections a similar thing occurs (albeit less extreme) with the electoral college system. Anyway, a big part of the reason why the returns to labour have been stagnant is that multi-national corporations have been able to arbitrage away labour costs by exporting jobs to low cost centres. This is why specifically the lower middle class have been badly hurt by globalisation, so it's not a surprise that immigration is such a hot topic. Ironically this protest movement couldn't be happening at a worse time. I believe we are just about to see the globalisation dividend for developed economies as poorer nations which have grown rapidly in the last few decades start to import the sorts of products that western economies specialise in. Now would be the worst time to pull away from globalisation so it's going to be interesting to see what happens when the dust settles.

5) I do think the choice between Trump and Clinton is a tough one. I'm highly sceptical about a lot of her economic policies, but then I'm not a huge fan of a lot of traditional Republican economic policy as well. For the comments Trump has made (and I really don't care if he means it or not), the divisiveness, racism, misogyny and the dangerous ignorance, I think that Americans will do themselves a huge disservice if they vote this guy. He simply doesn't have the temperament for this type of work. I shudder at the thought of a foreign dignitary upsetting him and him making comments that could precipitate an international incident. The guy isn't even a real Republican for goodness sakes, he's hijacked a major political party and is going to ruin the careers of a lot of politicians. Worst of all he purports to represent the aspirations of the forgotten middle when he is part of the problem in the first place! It's like a bad dream

Anyway, that's my two pennies worth. As for you Ricardo... kiddo... you're as thin skinned as Donald Trump with absolutely nothing to back it up. This is an adult conversation. Remember, don't participate unless you have your helper with you