General US Politics

[CyborgZeta]

So WikiLeaks released a bunch of Democratic National Convention e-mails today, essentially confirming what we already knew. The DNC was actively working against Bernie Sanders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/22/on-eve-of-democratic-convention-wikileaks-releases-thousands-of-documents-about-clinton-the-campaign-and-internal-deliberations/

Edited July 22, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[Person123]

It's pretty pathetic that Sanders endorsed Hillary despite knowing the way the DNC stacked the deck against him. I remember at least Ron Paul stuck to his principles after being cheated out of the nomination back in 2012.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Alright, thanks for the answers guys! The never-ending bullshit both sides spew makes it hard to keep up with what's true and what's fabricated as a non-American.

So WikiLeaks released a bunch of Democratic National Convention e-mails today, essentially confirming what we already knew. The DNC was actively working against Bernie Sanders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/22/on-eve-of-democratic-convention-wikileaks-releases-thousands-of-documents-about-clinton-the-campaign-and-internal-deliberations/

Considering what I've seen on how the media is reporting on this election, I'll be surprised if this gets mentioned at all. The fact that Hillary is probably going to get away with it is a little vexing.

[Life]

Especially since he spewed all that '27 dollars per person donations!' bullshit and then just threw it down the fucking toilet and openly endorsed hillary.

hell I'm sure there's plenty enough millenials that are so pissed they'll even switch over to trump

Not really true, especially considering the emails that were just released.

Sanders has two options. Fight Hillary tooth and nail and end up sending voters to support Trump because he got so readily fucked by Hilary and the majority of the media (because god-forbid him suggest universal health-care when nations as far away as Canada have had that shit down pat since Tommy Douglas) or he can tell his voters to stay conservative and vote for Hillary just to keep Trump out of the White House.

So he hasn't spat in the face of his supporters. He got outgunned by the people who actually control the government and has no choice.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Not really true, especially considering the emails that were just released.

Sanders has two options. Fight Hillary tooth and nail and end up sending voters to support Trump because he got so readily fucked by Hilary and the majority of the media (because god-forbid him suggest universal health-care when nations as far away as Canada have had that shit down pat since Tommy Douglas) or he can tell his voters to stay conservative and vote for Hillary just to keep Trump out of the White House.

So he hasn't spat in the face of his supporters. He got outgunned by the people who actually control the government and has no choice.

That's what I was thinking. If he keeps fighting Hillary, then he divides the democratic party (not to mention the voters) and potentially makes it easier for Trump to win the election.

[blah the Prussian]

I mean Clinton should probably take cues from Jaques Chirac when he ran against Jean-Marie le Pen in 2002: "Vote for the crook instead of the Fascist."

[eclipse]

Clarification: Do you intend the individual factions within Republicans and what they largely have in common, or the Republicans as a whole as led by Trump? Because, honestly, particularly when taking into account both neocons and alt-rights there'd be a lot to specify in each case, while Trump's movement clearly holds a few specific values above them all.

Hmmm. . .

How 'bout both?

[CyborgZeta]

I mean Clinton should probably take cues from Jaques Chirac when he ran against Jean-Marie le Pen in 2002: "Vote for the crook instead of the Fascist."

Did Chirac actually say something like this?

[Nobody]

It's pretty pathetic that Sanders endorsed Hillary despite knowing the way the DNC stacked the deck against him. I remember at least Ron Paul stuck to his principles after being cheated out of the nomination back in 2012.

I'm sure Sanders would love having someone who disagrees almost 100% with him on most issues and would make America the laughing stock of the world as the president rather than someone who agrees with him in basically every non-economic issue (and is closer to him on economic issues compared to the other candidate), just because, oh no, the democratic party would rather have someone that has been a prominent member of it running rather than an outsider who joined it just to run for president.

Did Chirac actually say something like this?

No, that's what the french left did. People in America, specially the bitter Bernie supporters need to realize that when the alternative is someone dangerous and, i dare say, stupid, who understands nothing of how politics or economics work and is full of dangerous policies, you need to swallow your pride and accept the other infinitelly better (even if still bad) option. For the record, Chirac beat Le Pen by 82% to 18% Edited July 23, 2016 by Nobody

[tuvarkz]

Hmmm. . .

How 'bout both?

Alright, I'll start with Republicans under Trump for simplicity

Republicans as led by Trump are:

1-A cult of personality. This is a statement of fact. Regardless of the amount of people that will largely share the beliefs of Trump, he's the lynchpin of the movement he leads, and at least until new potential flagbearers rise up to the task, Trump's movement will not last in hegemony without Trump leading it. This is largely due to Trump's ego and force of personality that have caused people to rally under his banner.

2-Nationalist. Trump's movement will place the US first and foremost, and cares fairly little for other countries. It's fairly clear that under Trump, the US might abandon NATO should the other countries not match the fixated amount of military spending and such, and that no interest should be taken into account of other than the interests of America and its citizens. (Well, and Israel, but that's pandering that about every single candidate has made)

3-Careless about political correctness. Trump doesn't care about PC and will not change any decision or words just to avoid offending a group.

4-Meritocratic. His focus on the creation of jobs rather than increase of social benefits makes a very clear statement-People are going to be given the opportunity to achieve success, but they are going to have to work for it.

5-Flexible: Outside of his core plans (Building the wall, deportation of illegal immigrants, renegotiating trade deals, dealing with ISIS, other than ISIS reduce interventionism across the world, help the veterans, tax cuts to favor investment and growth of all business regardless of size) Trump has flip-flopped on a variety of issues, and rather than him being shaky on these, I believe that it's that Trump is willing to negotiate on issues that aren't his core stances, as long as said core stances are passed through.

I believe 1, 3, and 5 have been fairly noticeable about Trump so I won't explicitly source them.

On the Republicans as is (I'll be short about the more widely known republican factions)

Traditional conservatives: I believe that the link that Phoenix Wright provided earlier is more than accurate enough.

Evangelicals/Religious conservatives: This is the group that will take their Biblical teachings the most into account

Neoconservatives: This group's departure with traditional conservatism is based around a more globalist (Jeb Bush on immigration reform) and interventionist view (Marco Rubio on interventionism), as well as a departure from entirely sticking to traditional values (Kasich on gay marriage)

Alt Right (Although I will discuss this a bit more, this will be largely unsourced due to the heterogeneous nature of the alt-right itself)

-Acephalous: There is no functional leader of the alt-right movement, even if it the group as a whole supports Trump due to having the most points in common. (There's individual figures like Milo Yiannoupolos, but they don't necessarily have influence on the entirety of the group, and he is in fact disliked by the more religious members of the group for his sexual orientation). Outside of their core ideology, it will be often that there will be large differences of opininon on a variety of matters with a significant amount of support for each side.

-Factionalist and Unflexible: Once the group as a whole decides on a single issue, it will strongly reject an opposing opinion from those few that disagree with it, and will rarely be willing to negotiate on those same issues with other groups, even amongst the rest of the conservatives. Of course, this doesn't apply to stances the alt-right members are not entirely clear on. (This is easily spotted by the use of the term 'cuckservative' when describing other conservative groups in relation to stances that they are in disagreeance with)

-Against political correctness: While Trump will not care about following PC, the alt-right is actively against it, taking stances with the only purpose of provocation, particularly when they have data and statistics that support said stance (Milo Yiannoupolos's statements generally fit with this. Some members of the alt-right will express bigoted views openly, although the group cares little about excluding said individuals (or even criticizing them) and instead will be willing to engage in open debate about their ideas)

-Western culture supremacism: The alt-right will uphold western culture as the best culture and way of life in its diversity of tones (To note, to some members, the term 'white culture supremacism' may apply, depending on whether Eastern Europe and Latin America are included in this; but the term definitively excludes gang culture). This is backed by individual nationalism of the members, although they place the western cultural countries on a close second place, the rest of the world in a third spot in comparison. They are against international pacts or groups that will infringe upon what is seen as the individual sovereignity of each nation.

-Partial support of traditional values: The group as large will support a large amount of christian morality values, although the degree to which varies, particularly in regards to the faith itself. The atheist members of the alt-right will often agree with many of the christian values even if they reject the religious content entirely.

-Pragmatist in policy: While this does not extend entirely to abandoning factionalism, there's a common factor that when it is necessary, the group isn't against the use of violence or other methods when the end is justified (such as dealing with ISIS)

-Meritocracy: The alt-right cares little for social benefits and instead favors individuals working towards gaining benefits that they earn by their own effort and capabilities.

-Issues such as the environment, energy, abortion and LGBT rights are strongly discussed amongst the group and there will be people representing about every stance in them.

Note: Sargon of Akkad has made a fairly comprehensive enough video about the nature of the alt-right

[Person123]

Those bitter Sanders supporters are all riled up now because of the DNC email leaks, right before the convention too. Hopefully there are no large scale violent protests outside the convention. The RNC convention protests were far tamer than most people predicted, so maybe the DNC convention will go smoothly too.

[eclipse]

Hey, thanks!

I can sort-of agree on the meritocracy parts, but I believe that it must be balanced with social support from the government. I believe in working to have nice things, but a trip to the emergency room shouldn't leave people in massive debt.

I'm not sure what to think of the label "flexibile". If another candidate displayed the same flip-flopping behavior that Trump has, would he/she be called flexible, or indecisive? What if said candidate was in another party?

[tuvarkz]

Hey, thanks!

I can sort-of agree on the meritocracy parts, but I believe that it must be balanced with social support from the government. I believe in working to have nice things, but a trip to the emergency room shouldn't leave people in massive debt.

I'm not sure what to think of the label "flexibile". If another candidate displayed the same flip-flopping behavior that Trump has, would he/she be called flexible, or indecisive? What if said candidate was in another party?

I wholeheartedly agree with the part of the necessary social support. It's just that people shouldn't entirely depend on government funds if they could be working.

I believe the difference lays in what policies change and which aren't. If the candidate's most spoken arguments get changed around, it's a flip-flop, but if it is a non core issue, I believe it should be a sign of flexibility. If Trump suddenly stopped mentioning the wall or deporting illegal immigrants, or started speaking about a substantial increase in minimum wage or taxes, I'd think of it as a flip-flop. I'm a pro-lifer in most circumstances, but Trump changing his mind on abortion isn't something that will make me swap candidates when I find economy/foreign policy aspects far more important.

[CyborgZeta]

Feel free to have the mods delete this post if this isn't the right place, but the Clinton Cash movie is free to watch on YouTube until 11pm EST.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td2pyyCau30

[BBM]

when the #1 reason somebody might get elected to the most powerful post in the world is that they have a big ego, you know you're in for a bad time

Edited July 24, 2016 by BBM

[Tryhard]

Casualties of War, the Defense Department says. It's sad and kind of sickening, but terrorists hide in places where civilian casualties are inevitable. Unlike Dresden, there is no clear line between the usual snafus of urban combat and war crimes. If there were, our leaders still wouldn't face war crimes because that would force the US to scale down its involvement in global affairs, which screws a huge number of people over, especially Western Europe, Israel, South Korea, and Japan.

I'd argue that this is a war crime.

when the #1 reason somebody might get elected to the most powerful post in the world is that they have a big ego, you know you're in for a bad time

what do you expect? he says things that makes people feel, not make them think. i know almost nothing about how he plans to achieve what he says, and I don't think he even knows. and apparently that's effective.

but well, it's shit either way. if I could, i'd abstain and doodle on the vote, at least I'd get some entertainment out of it. Or put Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Tryhard

[Nobody]

I'd argue that this is a war crime.what do you expect? he says things that makes people feel, not make them think. i know almost nothing about how he plans to achieve what he says, and I don't think he even knows. and apparently that's effective.but well, it's shit either way. if I could, i'd abstain and doodle on the vote, at least I'd get some entertainment out of it. Or put Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

No, it's really not "shit either way", specially for someone who is iirc as leftist as you

Yeah, Hillary has some shaddy connections with wall street. She's still very liberal on social issues (more than Obama), she won't go cutting taxes on rich people, she won't go cutting the already precarious health system America got with Obama, she won't defund Planned Parenthood, i could go on forever. The "Hillary is just like Trump" mentality coming from left wing voters is imho simply irrational and the only person to win from it is Trump, and he knows it's the only way he could ever hope to win, considering America's current demographics.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Nobody

[Water Mage]

I'd argue that this is a war crime.what do you expect? he says things that makes people feel, not make them think. i know almost nothing about how he plans to achieve what he says, and I don't think he even knows. and apparently that's effective.but well, it's shit either way. if I could, i'd abstain and doodle on the vote, at least I'd get some entertainment out of it. Or put Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.

To be honest, that's what making me distrust Trump.

He's saying the things that people want to hear, and he is promising quick solutions. But I barely hear him talking about the distant future.

What are his plans for the future? How does he plan to deal with the negative consequences that comes with building a wall in the mexican border and barring mulisms from entering the U.S.?

[Tryhard]

No, it's really not "shit either way", specially for someone who is iirc as leftist as you

Yeah, Hillary has some shaddy connections with wall street. She's still very liberal on social issues (more than Obama), she won't go cutting taxes on rich people, she won't go cutting the already precarious health system America got with Obama, she won't defund Planned Parenthood, i could go on forever. The "Hillary is just like Trump" mentality coming from left wing voters is imho simply irrational and the only person to win from it is Trump, and he knows it's the only way he could ever hope to win, considering America's current demographics.

I'm socialist, so far more left than anything America has to offer.

Frankly, how am I supposed to have any confidence in Hillary when she has been proven to have no convictions that she will stick to - she has flipflopped on many issues and it was clearly because the popular vote dictated her views at the time. I don't care about where her politics lay because I have no idea if she would even stick to them. Not even getting into all the shady shit she's already done.

Granted, I would kinda like to see Trump get elected just so I could see the shitshow, but I wouldn't vote for Hillary. I wouldn't say she's "just like Trump", but she's awful in a different way.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Tryhard

[Nobody]

I'm socialist, so far more left than anything America has to offer.Frankly, how am I supposed to have any confidence in Hillary when she has been proven to have no convictions that she will stick to - she has flipflopped on many issues and it was clearly because the popular vote dictated her views at the time. I don't care about where her politics lay because I have no idea if she would even stick to them. Not even getting into all the shady shit she's already done.Granted, I would kinda like to see Trump get elected just so I could see the shitshow, but I wouldn't vote for Hillary. I wouldn't say she's "just like Trump", but she's awful in a different way.

Her voting record on senate has been consistently liberal. Even if she's a spineless politician who changes opinions all the time, what would she even gain by enacting policies as bad as trump's when that base is already represented and would never vote for her no matter what she did?

Would you abstein if you had to choose between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage?

[CyborgZeta]

considering America's current demographics.

On a national level, current US demographics don't favor Trump.

But thanks to the Electoral College, they're irrelevant to him winning. The demographics on individual state levels are not as diverse as they are on a national level, and Trump can get a win if he nabs certain states.

Who will win which states is anyone's guess at this point, but it is possible.

[Tryhard]

Her voting record on senate has been consistently liberal. Even if she's a spineless politician who changes opinions all the time, what would she even gain by enacting policies as bad as trump's when that base is already represented and would never vote for her no matter what she did?

Would you abstein if you had to choose between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage?

Are you saying that Hillary or Obama are left-wing? Because they're demonstrably not when the US is skewed as a right-wing nation. I suppose you have the same issue with Eclipse who said she would abstain too/support third party a couple of pages ago?

So is it me voting for a shit vote or a still shit, but slightly better vote? In which case, some fucking choice. Okay, I might vote for Hillary, but it's literally not giving any credit to her at all - and probably stubbornly. I'm just telling you that I would be more likely to just stay at home that day.

I don't really think Tony Blair/Nigel Farage is a good comparison, by the way. In the UK, we're voting for parties, not people, and in which case I would prefer Labour over UKIP. But if we're talking people, this would be after Tony Blair has gone along with Bush's disastrous War on Terror? I wouldn't be able to say with certainty, but I might. I abstained from the 2015 election because of my dissatisfaction with Labour.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Tryhard

[Nobody]

On a national level, current US demographics don't favor Trump.

But thanks to the Electoral College, they're irrelevant to him winning. The demographics on individual state levels are not as diverse as they are on a national level, and Trump can get a win if he nabs certain states.

Who will win which states is anyone's guess at this point, but it is possible.

Considering Florida is THE swing state, demographics are very much relevant.

Are you saying that Hillary or Obama are left-wing? Because they're demonstrably not when the US is skewed as a right-wing nation. I suppose you have the same issue with Eclipse who said she would abstain too/support third party a couple of pages ago?So is it me voting for a shit vote or a still shit, but slightly better vote? In which case, some fucking choice. Okay, I might vote for Hillary, but it's literally not giving any credit to her at all - and probably stubbornly. I'm just telling you that I would be more likely to just stay at home that day.I don't really think Tony Blair/Nigel Farage is a good comparison, by the way. In the UK, we're voting for parties, not people, and in which case I would prefer Labour over UKIP. But if we're talking people, this would be after Tony Blair has gone along with Bush's disastrous War on Terror? I wouldn't be able to say with certainty, but I might. I abstained from the 2015 election because of my dissatisfaction with Labour.

I mean, i'm not anyone to tell others what they should vote or believe in, so i wouldn't really say i have a issue with it, it's just something that puzzles me, so yeah, eclipse's opinion would also confuse me a lot, if she's a sanders supporter refusing to support clinton (i'm not sure if she is).

My country is furthest to the left of the UK and the US, believe it or not, so yeah, i know what actual left wing politics are, but Obama and Clinton are not right wingers, if that's what you're saying. They're at most centrists.

You see, the part i don't get is thinking clinton would be just a little less shitty than Trump, because he's possibly one of the worst kinds of shitty out there. In presidential systems you are, in the end, also voting for parties' platforms. A president can't do stuff their party disagrees with while easily getting away with it. They also depend on the parliament, which is actually why Obama couldn't do more, considering republicans hold both the senate and the house of representatives.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Nobody

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

speaking of Florida, the last time i checked Trump was winning that state.

i could be wrong now of course.

[Moblin Major General]

Are you saying that Hillary or Obama are left-wing? Because they're demonstrably not when the US is skewed as a right-wing nation. I suppose you have the same issue with Eclipse who said she would abstain too/support third party a couple of pages ago?

So is it me voting for a shit vote or a still shit, but slightly better vote? In which case, some fucking choice. Okay, I might vote for Hillary, but it's literally not giving any credit to her at all - and probably stubbornly. I'm just telling you that I would be more likely to just stay at home that day.

I don't really think Tony Blair/Nigel Farage is a good comparison, by the way. In the UK, we're voting for parties, not people, and in which case I would prefer Labour over UKIP. But if we're talking people, this would be after Tony Blair has gone along with Bush's disastrous War on Terror? I wouldn't be able to say with certainty, but I might. I abstained from the 2015 election because of my dissatisfaction with Labour.

How conservative are Torries? Are they Tea Party levels of jingoism or barely right? As an American, I can't really gauge British politics.