General US Politics

[Tryhard]

look at how fucking ridiculous trump conducts himself

->but what about how corrupt hillary is?!

look at how corrupt hillary is

->but what about how ridiculous trump is?!

good

Every Republican leader seems to be strongly condemning the comments, so there is some impact to this one. Trump might even give a real apology beyond sorry-not-sorry?

imo the most telling thing here is why this controversy is getting so much play since Trump has already said so many (many, many) abhorrent things.

It’s regarding a voting group the GOP actually needs a significant portion of, white women.

A hot mic recording is hard to deflect using the same-old false equivalence arguments (though they certainly are trying). “Grab them by the pussy” is a clear quote that indicates intent toward sexual assault. “I did try and fuck her. She was married.” is also pretty bad, though I thought his past adulteries were already well known (but no direct audio quotes from him?)

Everything about the situation, including those trying to downplay it, is literally the definition of rape culture.

I kinda doubt it. Like Trump said himself, he could go out and shoot someone and he wouldn't lose supporters. He already did the whole Hillary second ammendment thing as well as many others so this isn't strictly the only thing that supporters are going to bend over backwards to apologise or downplay for. They're just going to say that he is an "alpha male" or that "this is how guys talk" which I've already seen multiple times. Edited October 8, 2016 by Tryhard

[-Cynthia-]

The "WikiLeaks dump" contains information that she knew about US Military Weapons being shipped to Jihadist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Where? All I can find is Assange saying that this happened, but people say lots of things.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/hillary-clinton-sold-weapons-isis/

[CyborgZeta]

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/784772476903522304

These emails just further remind me how disgusting politics can be.

Edited October 8, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[XeKr]

I don't see how his comments in the tape will effect actual policy decisions that impact people. You yourself pointed out that Trump has already said abhorrent things, so what's one more?

Many people are saying that it’s bad optics (to put it mildly..).

Elections are about more than policy, as especially apparent this cycle. Women are a majority of the electorate (so the GOP can't ignore them) and this direct quote, with video/audio, is simply offensive in general. Not just hearsay/conspiracy from whatever media. Cognitive dissonance is powerful but this is exactly the kind of thing that (traditionally) affects turnout. “feels” regarding a candidate. The vulgarity possibly also matters, given thepartyoffamilyvalues and all. Another perspective is, strong Trump supporters (the GOP base) might even be inclined to not vote for those who disavow, which has significant downballot implications. The implied actions that Trump has made a habit of, based on those statements, are additionally problematic beyond just his words.

I also discussed a few other reasons earlier why this time is perhaps different (or more like Khan/Curiel) compared to his previous comments.

And just because sexual assault, white nationalism, etc are normalized during this election doesn’t mean they aren’t deplorable.

“Revealing” was probably the more neutral term but we all have our biases.

(emphasis added)

It's not pretend. It is the morally better choice. Voting your conscience is the only moral way to vote. Tying morality to consequences is fundamentally flawed. Virtue-based ethics are far superior.

“Far superior” in what sense?

As far as I’m aware, objective morality is not philosophically settled. We can certainly relitigate the arguments ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/ to start) , which I’m sure will be very productive. >_>

You’re not a deontologist or consequentialist, fine, but I’m not sure what else there is to say.

I guess I can clarify a bit, I personally find tactical voting arguments to be the most attractive, regardless of morality, and would probably use a vote-swapping site if I lived elsewhere (oh yeah, add that to the earlier comment). Though by nature they understandably have niche appeal. And it doesn’t personally bother me if others want to cast the “moral” vote if they choose. However, I would hope their reasons involve more critical thought than #bothsides (a marked difference is potential scotus candidates, for one example) or simply the desire to feel a blazing sense of justice and goodness (or even spite) in themselves. Also I hope they recognize that others have made the exact same arguments for 3rd parties before. There’s a few thinkpieces out there about former Nader supporters if one is curious how that went.

Less an appeal toward changing one’s position, more just self-reflecting on one’s position.

I kinda doubt it. Like Trump said himself, he could go out and shoot someone and he wouldn't lose supporters. He already did the whole Hillary second ammendment thing as well as many others so this isn't strictly the only thing that supporters are going to bend over backwards to apologise or downplay for. They're just going to say that he is an "alpha male" or that "this is how guys talk" which I've already seen multiple times.

tbh I also found it strange that this got so much play, given his history, which is the main reason I thought it would be interesting to ponder why in particular. Anyone thinking “this time will surely end his candidacy” is overreacting, certainly.

But also this time, Republican leaders are using strongly worded statements like “repugnant”, “vile”, and “inexcusable” instead of (as much) political dancing and deflecting like usual. More are retracting endorsements, which hasn’t really happened before. To my knowledge, Trump hasn’t given an apology before (if it can be called that).

Also, is this isn’t primaries where Trump’s numbers went up after he said outrageous things wrt Mexicans and McCain. There’s been a few incidents where statistical data suggests he has lost votes, most notably when attacking Curiel (an appointed judge), the Khans (a gold star family), and Machado (bait was timed well, and this probably mixed in with the other debate stuff).

Of course, the Republican nominee will get at least 40-45%, but anyone politically oriented could have told you that before the election regardless of either candidate.

Possibly the most troubling part is that this controversy overshadows the fact that a polished white nationalism campaign could apparently win the presidency.

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/784772476903522304

These emails just further remind me how disgusting politics can be.

There’s some talk about doctored documents (at least 1 shown to be?) but it might just be misdirection (standard bad apple stuff).

Regardless, the memo reads like standard politics so that seems unlikely. What were you expecting? Is this your first election?

If your claim is that politics shouldn’t be this way, the response is that it’s been tried, resulting in lost elections. Policy is irrelevant if you lose. Democracy is great. ^_^

Edited October 8, 2016 by XeKr

[Crysta]

How Trump and his administration view women will certainly play a part in how they deal with policy issues of critical importance for women. And that's not even getting into the fact that he's not going to be dealing with just men in his workplace and the guy clearly has boundary issues and believed because he's a celebrity he'd get consent.

Clinton has fucked up and will fuck up again, but I don't see the wisdom in voting someone who shows how incompetent he is on a weekly basis just because we haven't given him the steering wheel yet. It's the metaphorical equivalent of knowing the giant iceberg is there but happily ramming into it anyway because at least it's different.

Though in the same stride if someone's conscience prevents them from voting either candidate I'm not going to blame them for a Trump presidency because that doesn't really make any sense. I'll blame it on the people who did vote for him in spite of all the ample warnings of how terrible he'd be and I suspect the feeling is mutual.

EDIT: I guess the tl;dr version is I'm pretty confident Clinton will fuck up considerably less even when considering her track record - in part due to experience and in part due to having smarter friends. Her mistakes are pretty standard politician shit we've managed to survive.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Crysta

[Sunwoo]

Meh, neither candidate is great (and to be fair, no politician is great in particular), but one thing I do have to say is this. I hear a lot of people bringing up Clinton and everything she's fucked up on while being in power. And, yeah, she has fucked up. But here's the thing: how do we know Trump isn't going to fuck up? How do we know he's not going to make even bigger mistakes when he finally gets power? What if the only thing that's been keeping him from making the same (or worse) mistakes other politicians have made is just that he hadn't been in politics?

Not to mention, the things he does NOW, as a candidate, reflect on what he will do if he is president. He's not going to go from the way he is now to presidential just because he's elected. We have seen how he reacts to people insulting him, so what is he going to do when he's president and the next person who insults him just happens to be the prime minister of a country that may not like us or is outright hostile to us? Of course, it's going to happen, the president is going to get insulted and the president should have the temperament to deal with that happening. Which is not something I feel Trump has.

[eclipse]

Meh, neither candidate is great (and to be fair, no politician is great in particular), but one thing I do have to say is this. I hear a lot of people bringing up Clinton and everything she's fucked up on while being in power. And, yeah, she has fucked up. But here's the thing: how do we know Trump isn't going to fuck up? How do we know he's not going to make even bigger mistakes when he finally gets power? What if the only thing that's been keeping him from making the same (or worse) mistakes other politicians have made is just that he hadn't been in politics?

Not to mention, the things he does NOW, as a candidate, reflect on what he will do if he is president. He's not going to go from the way he is now to presidential just because he's elected. We have seen how he reacts to people insulting him, so what is he going to do when he's president and the next person who insults him just happens to be the prime minister of a country that may not like us or is outright hostile to us? Of course, it's going to happen, the president is going to get insulted and the president should have the temperament to deal with that happening. Which is not something I feel Trump has.

. . .is this an endorsement of Clinton, a well-deserved facepalm at Trump, or something else? I think the anti-Trump side of SF is far stronger than the pro-Trump side, so this is preaching to the choir.

[Phoenix Wright]

Wikileaks dump of Podesta (Clinton Campaign Chairman) emails today. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784498891936915456

This one relating to Clinton's paid speeches is particularly enlightening: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

You can either pay attention to things that matter, or you can keep pretending that Trump saying mean things is more important.

the speech is bad, but when read in context it really isn't that bad. the "private vs public" positions could have used a better choice of phrase. she is clearly talking about making compromises to get something done that you may not want done. she gives the example of lincoln, and another huge example is lbj.

policy, at the end of the day, is up to congress. the president has a hand in the process, and trump would ruin the job undoubtedly. if you're really saying that trump being a shitbag doesn't matter, you're not just being biased, you're being delusional.

also, billy bush is beta af. that video was both disgusting to listen to and cringey.

(emphasis added)

It's not pretend. It is the morally better choice. Voting your conscience is the only moral way to vote. Tying morality to consequences is fundamentally flawed. Virtue-based ethics are far superior.

says...who? the experts in the field are heavily divided on this--what makes you an authority on normative ethics?

http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/

Not directly related but some additional background info:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-russia-is-demonized-and-sanctioned-the-american-petrodollar/5402592?print=1

The "WikiLeaks dump" contains information that she knew about US Military Weapons being shipped to Jihadist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

you claim to not know what i'm talking about when gaddafi is trying to go to a gold-backed standard yet the very first link has it in the title? what???

second link is literally just citing the first one. all in all, unreliable sources with dubious evidence. i don't buy it.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[euklyd]

. . .is this an endorsement of Clinton, a well-deserved facepalm at Trump, or something else? I think the anti-Trump side of SF is far stronger than the pro-Trump side, so this is preaching to the choir.

There is a pretty strong "having either elected would be equally catastrophic" undercurrent, which is what I think Boron is trying to address.

To add onto what Boron said: the way Trump has conducted his campaign, especially the way he has squandered basically any real leverage/advantage he had over Clinton (literally figuratively spinning gold into rubbish), suggests to me that a Trump presidency would do the same or worse with any geopolitical windfalls.

There's a pretty pithy (couple of pages, at most) Forbes article that illustrates the point pretty well. It's from a few months back, but it's just as relevant today.

It's not just "Trump doesn't have the temperament to deal with insults," it's that he doesn't seem to possess the temperament to deal with anything, good or bad.

[Sunwoo]

. . .is this an endorsement of Clinton, a well-deserved facepalm at Trump, or something else? I think the anti-Trump side of SF is far stronger than the pro-Trump side, so this is preaching to the choir.

It's me speaking my mind about what I think of this election and some people in general.

[-Cynthia-]

In case anyone was thinking that a Trump presidency would be free of corruption because he hasn't held political office (I'm not sure why people thought that to begin with but anyway):

[Water Mage]

In case anyone was thinking that a Trump presidency would be free of corruption because he hasn't held political office (I'm not sure why people thought that to begin with but anyway):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0DMOBBOJ0U

I though Trump being corrupt was a well-known fact long before he even became a president.

Did people forget the scandals surrounding him?

Also, regarding the the audio recording of Trump, people talking about “rude words” and “vulgar language” are missing the point. It is in no way shape or form shocking that Trump said the word “pussy” at some point in his life. The outrage is because Trump bragged about attempting to sleep with a married woman, bragged about cheating on his own wife, and most importantly bragged about groping women without their consent and getting away with it because he’s “a star.” No one cares that Trump said rude things. He does that all the time. The outrage is because he bragged about sexual assault.

[Just call me AL]

I though Trump being corrupt was a well-known fact long before he even became a president.

Did people forget the scandals surrounding him?

Either that or no focus (by the media or otherwise) was given to Frump's scandals in the first place.

[Tryhard]

tbh I also found it strange that this got so much play, given his history, which is the main reason I thought it would be interesting to ponder why in particular. Anyone thinking this time will surely end his candidacy is overreacting, certainly.

But also this time, Republican leaders are using strongly worded statements like repugnant, vile, and inexcusable instead of (as much) political dancing and deflecting like usual. More are retracting endorsements, which hasnt really happened before. To my knowledge, Trump hasnt given an apology before (if it can be called that).

Also, is this isnt primaries where Trumps numbers went up after he said outrageous things wrt Mexicans and McCain. Theres been a few incidents where statistical data suggests he has lost votes, most notably when attacking Curiel (an appointed judge), the Khans (a gold star family), and Machado (bait was timed well, and this probably mixed in with the other debate stuff).

Of course, the Republican nominee will get at least 40-45%, but anyone politically oriented could have told you that before the election regardless of either candidate.

Possibly the most troubling part is that this controversy overshadows the fact that a polished white nationalism campaign could apparently win the presidency.

Yeah I guess in regards to imploding in reference to the Khans and such, but I meant his ardent supporters aren't likely to be swayed or think its a big deal. Maybe I'm wrong with that point, but it is not really surprising that it was this in particular that got Republicans against him because of it not fitting their fundamental Christian tendencies. I think it wouldn't have been so bad (or even particularly noteworthy considering Trump) if it didn't have a distinctive sexual assault feel to it.

That said, they need a new slogan - Trump Pence 2016: Grabbing America by the pussy.

You know it's going to be brought up tonight.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Tryhard

[XeKr]

What, like 40% of the electorate doesn’t believe in evolution? That’s breeding a political climate where evidence, fact, logic doesn’t matter and anything is possible. (and yeah, Clinton surely “benefits” too, mind)

Trump is the only candidate immoral enough to directly bring up Bill’s scandals, which is ironic because he’s also the one for which it’s the most hypocritical.

It’s technically “good” politics (as in, between nonzero vs. zero chance of winning), as Clinton can definitely mess this up if she tries to deflect without seriousness and empathy (or fully engages). She’s had >20 years to prepare though. And I’m not sure there’s any way a wife who forgives her husband for cheating (and who was accused of sexual assault) comes off worse than someone who actually cheated himself (and who was accused of sexual assault. Also with a 13 year old. And other worse anecdotes regarding character).

Though it looks like the plan is going high, and let Trump self-immolate.

edit: clarity

Edited October 11, 2016 by XeKr

[CyborgZeta]

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3990#efmAE8AKdARdAV3

Interestingly, it appears someone in Hillary's campaign was afraid she wouldn't be able to win unless Trump was her opponent. Looks like he got his wish.

[Crysta]

oh my god there's someone out there who still uses webtv

that aside that pretty much mirrors my thoughts during the primary, up until the part about thinking she wouldn't stand a chance against any of the other presented republican alternatives: they were all pretty horrible except Kasich imo

edit: actually i did like graham now that i remember he was in it for a short while lol

Edited October 11, 2016 by Crysta

[XeKr]

Everyone knows bedwetting is one of the cornerstones of the left. ;P

[Moblin Major General]

Everyone knows bedwetting is one of the cornerstones of the left. ;P

Does that mean liberals are 33% psychopaths?

[XeKr]

Does that mean liberals are 33% psychopaths?

The American liberal is a species either high on hopium or crashing from it.

(I think the MacDonald triad has fallen out of favor these days.)

(political bedwetting might be different than physical enuresis maybe)

(stop making me explain jokes)

(This just in, Dems in mass panic about Trumps NBC/WSJ +4 polling swing in single day post-debate. House is gone. Everything is lost. Alien invasion imminent per Podesta.)

Edited October 11, 2016 by XeKr

[Time the Crestfallen]

I thought this was a good read.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

Which was surprising, considering how Cracked normally handles Trump articles. Maybe because they talk about why he's popular rather than the man himself.

[blah the Prussian]

I thought this was a good read.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

Which was surprising, considering how Cracked normally handles Trump articles. Maybe because they talk about why he's popular rather than the man himself.

Hey! I'VE been talking about that!

More seriously, yeah, I don't really disagree with this. I think that what Trump has done is get these people moving as a political force; he's created class consciousness of the worst kind. Trump is Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus, and, suffice it to say, that doesn't bode well for American democracy.

[Res]

Thanks for sharing that, it was a great read! I'd read a similar article before, but it wasn't as long and didn't make as many points.

[The Geek]

So, here's something that I've started thinking about. Trump has started actively burning bridges between himself and the GOP. So if all the Democrats hate him, and the majority of the Republicans hate him, how is Trump even going to accomplish anything if he becomes president? Pretty much the entire Congress is going to hate his guts.

[eclipse]

Normally, I tell people to avoid the comments section of an article. However, I think that both the Cracked article and the comments section have some amazing food for thought. My favorite comment (credit Mouse1066):

This is possibly the best article I've ever read on Cracked. We have a serious demonization problem in the US, in that instead of listening to those we disagree with and trying to understand them, we compete to see who can denounce them most emphatically, thus advertising our own virtue. Cracked, I'm sorry to say, is very guilty of this. This article, on the other hand, was a genuine attempt at promoting understanding across political divides. We need more people like David Wong, striving to spread understanding.

This rings true, whether it be in politics, or other topics in Serious Discussion.