General US Politics

[Crysta]

Evan McMullin is the only 'independent' candidate I genuinely like out of the bunch... and he's just the true conservative running LOL. My feelings in regards to Johnson and Stein are pretty much the same as Phoenix's.

I get the feeling a lot of their appeal stems from the fact that they're not Clinton or Trump, which isn't much better than voting Clinton or Trump because you don't like the other (in fact I may argue that it's worse, but I'm lazy).

Edited October 6, 2016 by Crysta

[Radiant head]

All i'm asking is WHY is Hillary to the right of Nixon. You claimed that but you never said why she's to the right of Nixon. Do respected political analysts say she's to the right of Nixon? Or is that just something people who dislike her for whatever reason claim on the internet? If you claim such a thing, people will want to know your reasoning.

BTW, her platform is to the left of Obama's. Even if she were to the right of Nixon, claiming that the democratic party would keep moving to the right, to the point of reaching Trump's levels (lol), is not a reasonable line of thought. Specially considering my third point in that post, that you never answered

obama is pretty right wing too. nixon, obama, and clinton all support the current neoliberal project of wrecking third world nations and propping up the class power of biophagous finance. either way, political platforms are not binding in literally anyway, and kind of meaningless outside of rhetoric.

maybe it's not a "reasonable point" but only time will tell, and the current trajectory doesn't look far off.

as for your third point, see barry goldwater. he was considered extreme right candidate for his time when he ran against lbj, but his ideas have been absorbed into the gop, from reagan to trump.

[eclipse]

I know there is a thread dedicated about the election, but I wanted to make a separate thread specifically about the Third Party Candidates.

This is EXACTLY the sort of question that belongs in that thread. Hence why I'm merging the topics.

Don't pull this shit again.

EDIT: Right, poll. TC, if you want the poll to go poof, lemme know. I think it's pertinent, given the main candidate pool. Also, I think that Clinton and Trump will be equally disastrous, so my vote will reflect this.

Edited October 6, 2016 by eggclipse

[Crysta]

They're centrists/moderates, considered only 'radical leftists' because our Republican party doesn't really know what that means and it's easier to score political points by throwing that label around.

Personally I don't see it as a problem. I don't insist on ideological purity.

[blah the Prussian]

I really hate the "left" and "right" designations because people misuse them and not everything is a dichotomy. I think both major parties are far too "right" in authoritarianism. I just want to combine the Republicans' small government (whether they actually do it is debatable) with the Democrats' stand on most social issues.

In two election cycles, I might just start writing my own name in.

I somewhat agree with this, because the left and right dichotomy has a habit of grouping ideas together. For,example, in my case, it's hard for me to be put on the scale, as I'm politically reactionary, socially liberal, and economically Keynesian.

[Nobody]

obama is pretty right wing too. nixon, obama, and clinton all support the current neoliberal project of wrecking third world nations and propping up the class power of biophagous finance. either way, political platforms are not binding in literally anyway, and kind of meaningless outside of rhetoric.

maybe it's not a "reasonable point" but only time will tell, and the current trajectory doesn't look far off.

as for your third point, see barry goldwater. he was considered extreme right candidate for his time when he ran against lbj, but his ideas have been absorbed into the gop, from reagan to trump.

As someone who lives in a third world country, please do tell how "neoliberalism" is wrecking us. As far as I know, what brought my own country to its current recession combined with high inflation was protectionism (i.e the opposite of free trade) and fiscal irresponsability (i.e. big, out of control deficits), as well as loosening of fiscal policy (i.e lowering interest rates when there was an inflationary push). You see, i'm all for welfare and higher taxes on the rich. I'm all for the USA increasing taxes on people with higher incomes, starting an universal heathcare program and streghtining other forms of welfare but you yourself are clearly not a moderate or pragmatic. The "neoliberal" escape goat without pointing out what exactly is wrong and why it's wrong is not a rational view point. Following your line of thinking, the USA is and has always been a right winged country, as are the entirety of western europe including Scandinavia. Clinton is not right winged, neither is Obama. Edited October 6, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[Rezzy]

As someone who lives in a third world country, please do tell how "neoliberalism" is wrecking us. As far as I know, what brought my own country to its current recession combined with high inflation was protectionism (i.e the opposite of free trade) and fiscal irresponsability (i.e. big, out of control deficits), as well as loosening of fiscal policy (i.e lowering interest rates when there was an inflationary push). You see, i'm all for welfare and higher taxes on the rich. I'm all for the USA increasing taxes on people with higher incomes, starting an universal heathcare program and streghtining other forms of welfare but you yourself are clearly not a moderate or pragmatic. The "neoliberal" escape goat without pointing out what exactly is wrong and why it's wrong is not a rational view point. Following your line of thinking, the USA is and has always been a right winged country, as are the entirety of western europe including Scandinavia. Clinton is not right winged, neither is Obama.

Don't feel obligated to answer, but what third world country do you live in? It will give me a better idea of what example you're talking about.

[Rukina]

[Regarding the poll from the merged thread.]

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are miles ahead of our current third party candidates and one of them is going to be in the White House so I won't consider voting for a third party candidate this time.

Donald is to temperamental to run our country. Some of his plans for the future, including the state of the art wall he wants to build and have Mexico pay for, could end up causing a lot of trouble to say the least. Hillary isn't perfect but she is the most suitable candidate for the job. I also think she is more appealing than any of the other candidates currently running in this election.

[The Geek]

I think there are a few steps that need to be taken before third parties become even a little bit feasible. For one thing, we either need to stop the "winner take all" electoral vote system, or just get rid of the electoral college altogether. Because with our current system, no third party candidate is even going to get a single electoral vote, and even if they win one state, all that could possibly do is make the two main party candidates tie, leaving the election up to the House.

Honestly, at this point we should just put more of our focus on Congressional elections, since Congress are the ones who actually get stuff done or at least they're supposed to, anyway. Just make sure we get good people in Congress (or at least the best we can hope for) and then vote for the presidential candidate you think would be most likely to cooperate with the Congress you're hoping we'll get.

[Alertcircuit]

I'm too left leaning (specifically on climate change) to vote for a Libertarian, especially one that believes climate change isn't a problem because we'll all die eventually anyway. Stein's power-hungry with barely any more experience than Trump.

So none of them are appealing enough to bring me out of the fold.

[DarkDestr0yer61]

I should clarify, when I mentioned something earlier about throwing away my vote. It's not because I was expecting the Third Party candidate to have any chance. The idea behind voting for them is for it to be a protest vote. The throwing it away part is because I'm not sure what is more important to me. Protest voting, or voting against the candidate who can beat Donald Trump.

This is EXACTLY the sort of question that belongs in that thread. Hence why I'm merging the topics.Don't pull this shit again.EDIT: Right, poll. TC, if you want the poll to go poof, lemme know. I think it's pertinent, given the main candidate pool. Also, I think that Clinton and Trump will be equally disastrous, so my vote will reflect this.

That "Don't pull this shit again" part is a bit harsh. I mainly wanted to see the discussion AND the poll. As far as I know, I can't make a poll in someone else this thread. I wasn't trying to "pull" something.

I'm not questioning your decision, I just think your wording is a bit rude.

[Yojinbo]

gary johnson is an idiot ("what is aleppo?"), and jill stein is crazy, so no.

[not specifically in response to you, I'm just picking out this post as an example].

The way I see it most people who consider voting 3rd party are doing it because neither the democrats nor the republicans have anything decent to offer, now and in the near future - not because they're totally convinced by Johnson or Stein. They're not hoping for one of them to become president but to bring in some competition against two oversized, corrupt and power-greedy parties that care about the common people less and less [only a fool would think that Trump is any different]. It's very feasible that the long-term benefits of such a strategy outweigh the cons, which are that either Trump or Hillary are going to be president [which is inevitable anyway] or that Stein or Johnson actually do become president [which will not happen anyway].

So while it's true that neither the Green Party nor the Libertarians actually have a decent alternative to offer I agree that voting them isn't a waste and that it may actually be a better choice than to not vote at all [which is what I'd probably do if I were a US citizen].

while you do have a point, foreign policy is probably the most important thing for the united states to get right currently. don't get me wrong, domestic issues are still huge, but what a trump or a johnson would do actually kinda scares me. especially when you consider the current leadership of china, russia, n. korea, etc.

Hillary is the worst when it comes to foregn policies.

Her role in the whole "arabian-spring" hoax is absolutely disgraceful. For that alone she should never be let in a position of power, let alone the US president.

[Phoenix Wright]

Hillary is the worst when it comes to foregn policies.

Her role in the whole "arabian-spring" hoax is absolutely disgraceful. For that alone she should never be let in a position of power, let alone the US president.

at the risk of sounding foolish, huh? what are you talking about specifically?

[Rezzy]

at the risk of sounding foolish, huh? what are you talking about specifically?

The Arab Spring refers to I want to say the spring of 2011 when multiple north African countries including Egypt and Libya overthrew their governments.

[blah the Prussian]

at the risk of sounding foolish, huh? what are you talking about specifically?

Presumably referring to the decision to bomb Libya and give weapons to the Free Syrian Army, the latter case leading to a bunch of their soldiers defecting to ISIS and al Nusra. A fuck up, to be sure, and her foreign policy will continue to be absolutely abysmal, but also not as bad as Trumps.

[Crysta]

Speaking of Trump, his debate preparation is going well!

Trump’s campaign did place a two-minute countdown clock in front of their candidate on Thursday. He repeatedly blew past that time limit anyway.

“I said forget debate prep. I mean, give me a break,” Trump said at one point. “Do you really think that Hillary Clinton is debate-prepping for three or four days. Hillary Clinton is resting, okay?”

Yet even without the duress of an opponent, independent moderators and anything but softball questions from supporters, Trump struggled to drive any type of cohesive message, either about himself as a change agent or Clinton’s shortcomings.

And so, after a little more than a half-hour of easy banter and questions (“When you become president can you assure us you will clean house?”), Carr wrapped up by hailing Trump as “the next president.”

It's bad enough that this guy has a very feasible chance of becoming the next president and we may have to listen to him for another four years, but he's guaranteed to appoint advisers just as incompetent and self-serving as he is. Someone needs to tell him he's waltzing into another verbal slaughter and he did horribly the first time.

Then get fired.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Crysta

[Phoenix Wright]

The Arab Spring refers to I want to say the spring of 2011 when multiple north African countries including Egypt and Libya overthrew their governments.

you're right, though it began in tunisia, i believe. there were also large-scale changes in jordan and other middle eastern countries. but specifically i was asking about it being a "hoax," and what clinton had to do with that.

Presumably referring to the decision to bomb Libya and give weapons to the Free Syrian Army, the latter case leading to a bunch of their soldiers defecting to ISIS and al Nusra. A fuck up, to be sure, and her foreign policy will continue to be absolutely abysmal, but also not as bad as Trumps.

so, i didn't know she was to blame for that. but also, what does this have to do with the arab spring being a "hoax."

[blah the Prussian]

you're right, though it began in tunisia, i believe. there were also large-scale changes in jordan and other middle eastern countries. but specifically i was asking about it being a "hoax," and what clinton had to do with that.

so, i didn't know she was to blame for that. but also, what does this have to do with the arab spring being a "hoax."

If I could hazard a guess, probably the idea that most of the rebels were pro democracy when some of them were fundamentalist. It was a poor choice of words, but it was a terrible choice giving weapons to a bunch of groups we know very little about; its Afghanistan all over again.

[Yojinbo]

It was a hoax because mainstream media and politicians tried to sell the idea that the so-called arab spring was about supporting pro-democratic movements in various countries in north africa and the middle east. What actually happened was that the USA/EU/NATO-axis as well as Saudi-Arabia simply enforced their ideology of regime change in the middle east and elsewhere - like Saddam Hussein and Iraq before, Gaddafi was killed and Libya leveled because they tried to untie the domestic petrol trades from the US Dollar. Egypt had a violent miltary dictature installed to prevent the [democratically elected, anti-saudi] muslim brotherhood from becoming too powerful. Protests by the shiite majority in bahrain have violently been crushed by saudi military and terrorists -misleadingly called "rebels" by the mainstream media- have been armed in Syria. To this day they're trying to sell the lie that Assad is just as bad a guy as IS and that there are 'moderate' rebels operating in Syria that have democratic interests.

And to link that point back back to the main topic of this thread - virtually all of is happened during Clinton's era as foreign minister.

[Nobody]

Tunisia did become a democracy, though.

[UNLEASH IT]

It was a hoax because mainstream media and politicians tried to sell the idea that the so-called arab spring was about supporting pro-democratic movements in various countries in north africa and the middle east. What actually happened was that the USA/EU/NATO-axis as well as Saudi-Arabia simply enforced their ideology of regime change in the middle east and elsewhere - like Saddam Hussein and Iraq before, Gaddafi was killed and Libya leveled because they tried to untie the domestic petrol trades from the US Dollar. Egypt had a violent miltary dictature installed to prevent the [democratically elected, anti-saudi] muslim brotherhood from becoming too powerful. Protests by the shiite majority in bahrain have violently been crushed by saudi military and terrorists -misleadingly called "rebels" by the mainstream media- have been armed in Syria. To this day they're trying to sell the lie that Assad is just as bad a guy as IS and that there are 'moderate' rebels operating in Syria that have democratic interests.

And to link that point back back to the main topic of this thread - virtually all of is happened during Clinton's era as foreign minister.

It's funny how Libya is still in a state of civil war but everyone stopped talking about it completely after Gaddafi died.

[Yojinbo]

Tunisia did become a democracy, though.

Tunisia also happens to be the only "arab-spring" country that Hillary kept her bloodthirsty hands out of ... but of course that's just mere coincidence.

[Phoenix Wright]

It was a hoax because mainstream media and politicians tried to sell the idea that the so-called arab spring was about supporting pro-democratic movements in various countries in north africa and the middle east. What actually happened was that the USA/EU/NATO-axis as well as Saudi-Arabia simply enforced their ideology of regime change in the middle east and elsewhere - like Saddam Hussein and Iraq before, Gaddafi was killed and Libya leveled because they tried to untie the domestic petrol trades from the US Dollar. Egypt had a violent miltary dictature installed to prevent the [democratically elected, anti-saudi] muslim brotherhood from becoming too powerful. Protests by the shiite majority in bahrain have violently been crushed by saudi military and terrorists -misleadingly called "rebels" by the mainstream media- have been armed in Syria. To this day they're trying to sell the lie that Assad is just as bad a guy as IS and that there are 'moderate' rebels operating in Syria that have democratic interests.

And to link that point back back to the main topic of this thread - virtually all of is happened during Clinton's era as foreign minister.

i don't think this idea is supported by evidence. are you talking about the video that claims gaddafi was trying to switch to a gold standard or something? lol

assad is bad. gaddafi and mubarak were bad for the libyan and egyptian people. are you seriously trying to defend world "leaders" that have murdered their own people?

It's funny how Libya is still in a state of civil war but everyone stopped talking about it completely after Gaddafi died.

to be fair, it's generally understood that the middle east and north east africa are in general disarray. resources for news coverage are limited.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Tryhard]

assad is bad. gaddafi and mubarak were bad for the libyan and egyptian people. are you seriously trying to defend world "leaders" that have murdered their own people?

assad is bad, but the people who are fighting his forces are worse and when the US attacks these forces or arm the opposition, they are helping IS/islamic terrorist groups by doing so

which means it is moral confusion that the US engages in, as such: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/17/middleeast/syria-claims-coalition-airstrike-hit-regime-forces/

Edited October 7, 2016 by Tryhard

[Yojinbo]

I don't know about any video that talks about gaddafi's attemps to bring back the gold standard. I'm talking about his opposition to the petrodollar.

assad is bad. gaddafi and mubarak were bad for the libyan and egyptian people. are you seriously trying to defend world "leaders" that have murdered their own people?

Are you missing my point on purpose?