|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
suspicion of hillary on the left is largely based on indiscriminate suspicion of the corporate world and also a surface level understanding of elite motivation and beliefs. basically, corporations are evil and those who have any contact with them must also be minions. it is based on a simple class conflict model of the world, in which the rich people are engaged in conspiracy, rather than being simply natural products of a legal and economic system etc. it is a very jews rule everything view without the jews but the same level of depth. there is no awareness of multi level motivation and complexity.
look at a guy like soros. arch villain of both the alt right and left. guy is sincerely interested in crisis of capitalism idea and also concerned with repeated financial crisis and inequality. looking at the world with the simple class conflict model would totally not have this information.
hillary herself has actually engaged with corporate management and strategy in her platform to at least point to lack of long term thinking. this is a critical issue but a class conflict model would not be able to even represent it.
ideology on both left and right have this tendency to impose a simple, easy to moralize model onto the world. the right has these simplified boogieman of moochers, unions etc and the left dont even have people in the model, just ideological labels. see value in markets? you might be a neoliberal corporate scum. one's ontological conception of the world is i think quite close to the source of political ideology and affect epistemic heuristics
persuading this sort of left will be much harder than some naive and protective people believe. there is a large space for simple language of class warfare and conspiracy in america. real economic stress is the fire needed to lit this combustible structure.
|
Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's a HUGE step towards unifying the Democratic party, considering Liz Warren is basically the female version of Bernie Sanders.
|
Warren has been pushing for campaign finance reform since she got into the senate. I hope she pushes the DNC and Clinton to make it a top priority. It is a bipartisan issue that the majority of voters wants fixed ASAP. And I don’t think voters are going to see it as hypocritically to be accepting donations under the current rules while pushing to reform them.
|
On June 10 2016 21:29 Velr wrote:
Clinton is just the definition of a career politician AND at the same time isn't driven by some "big agenda" (which Sanders is/was).
This just seems really strange to me, it looks like she just wants power no matter what policies are "en vogue".
Still way better than Trump.
You judge from a vague impression and because that's what the right media repeats since 20 years. That's not based on anything concrete. Hillary has been consistently a centre left politician, with rather coherent views. That she is driven largely by personal ambition is obvious, as are all those guys (you don't get there otherwise) but there is no reason to doubt she doesn't believe in a certain vision (probably very close to Obama's, actually). The difference with a Sanders is simply that his platform is revolutionary while Hillary is a progressive, and because he is much more radical, he looks much more driven. That's not even necessarily true.
What are the deep personal motive from people is not what politics should be about. If Obama wanted to be there because he has a problem with the size of his penis, or because his dad was too demanding, or because he has areal conviction about people matters actually really little. It's about agendas, platforms, and visions of what to do.
The whole discussion about Clinton is based on some vague public image that she is "too cold". That's it. I think politics should be about more important things than that.
|
On June 10 2016 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's a HUGE step towards unifying the Democratic party, considering Liz Warren is basically the female version of Bernie Sanders.
I think a ticket Clinton Warren would be a really good plan to win Sanders supporters. And Warren is a great, great woman.
|
But I want Warren in the senate and not the VP spot. She has way more power to regulate and deal with banks in the Senate.
|
On June 10 2016 22:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's a HUGE step towards unifying the Democratic party, considering Liz Warren is basically the female version of Bernie Sanders. I think a ticket Clinton Warren would be a really good plan to win Sanders supporters. And Warren is a great, great woman.
I agree with both of those statements. Liz Warren is one of the only other antiestablishment names with recognition and traction besides Bernie Sanders (and Trump obviously)... most third-party names like Jill Stein just aren't known very well yet.
Plus, Warren is pretty badass when it comes to speaking and being passionate... a lot more energy and witty remarks than Hillary imo. She wouldn't be weak in debates.
|
On June 10 2016 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 22:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 10 2016 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's a HUGE step towards unifying the Democratic party, considering Liz Warren is basically the female version of Bernie Sanders. I think a ticket Clinton Warren would be a really good plan to win Sanders supporters. And Warren is a great, great woman. I agree with both of those statements. Liz Warren is one of the only other antiestablishment names with recognition and traction besides Bernie Sanders (and Trump obviously)... most third-party names like Jill Stein just aren't known very well yet. Plus, Warren is pretty badass when it comes to speaking and being passionate... a lot more energy and witty remarks than Hillary imo. She wouldn't be weak in debates.
I don't know what "anti-establishment" means, if not some vague notion that all politician are crooked except X and Y. Sanders and Warren are member of the house, how is that anti-establishment? Was Obama anti-establishment, and if not, why less than Warren?
Trump is anti-establishment in the sense that he is not a politician at all, and has no idea what he talks about. That's not a quality.
The idea that "it's all the same" because the "establishment" wants this or that is contradicted by recent history. The two last administrations were supposedly both "pro-establishment", and the outcome of their policies was wildly different on basically every single subject.
That being said, yes, Warren is passionate and has displayed as much integrity in her career as one can get. Would be a fantastic choice.
|
On June 10 2016 22:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's a HUGE step towards unifying the Democratic party, considering Liz Warren is basically the female version of Bernie Sanders. I think a ticket Clinton Warren would be a really good plan to win Sanders supporters. And Warren is a great, great woman.
Country is not ready for a double woman ticket, it's barely ready for one woman. It would be a horrible move politically to take warren as her vp. Just like in tv shows there's always one token Asian guy and it's all good, but as soon as you get more than one? You've crossed the threshold. Maybe in a few decades but not now
|
Anti-establishment is sort of a meaningless buzzword at this point. People throw it around to complain about the political parties or if they perceive that the candidate is going to listen to special interests that they disagree with. It’s the new “Washington outsider”.
|
On June 10 2016 22:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 10 2016 22:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 10 2016 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's a HUGE step towards unifying the Democratic party, considering Liz Warren is basically the female version of Bernie Sanders. I think a ticket Clinton Warren would be a really good plan to win Sanders supporters. And Warren is a great, great woman. I agree with both of those statements. Liz Warren is one of the only other antiestablishment names with recognition and traction besides Bernie Sanders (and Trump obviously)... most third-party names like Jill Stein just aren't known very well yet. Plus, Warren is pretty badass when it comes to speaking and being passionate... a lot more energy and witty remarks than Hillary imo. She wouldn't be weak in debates. I don't know what "anti-establishment" means
I think the word is typically used to characterize someone in politics who doesn't currently fit cleanly into the mainstream, traditional Democratic or Republican parties/ agendas. Those seen as outsiders, who are also viewed as attempting to overhaul the party's identity. Revolutionary, etc.
|
PARK CITY, Utah — At this time four years ago, Mitt Romney summoned the leading figures in the Republican Party to this mountain resort at the start of his general-election campaign. He was then the standard-bearer of a party united and seemingly confident about its future.
Today, the GOP is divided and anxious, and as many of these same people gather with Romney once again, they now represent a party in exile, retreating to the political wilderness of Deer Valley and powerless in what has become the party of Donald Trump.
Romney will open his annual ideas festival here Thursday evening with the Republican Party newly riven by issues of race, following Trump’s accusations against a federal judge of Mexican heritage. The controversy has escalated concerns about Trump’s electability and the possible fallout from his candidacy on other GOP candidates.
Romney has been the most visible spokesman for the “Never Trump” movement. But the guest list includes both those hostile to Trump as well as some of his allies — including Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, some of Trump’s top fundraisers, and endorsers such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
The Experts and Enthusiasts summit, or E2, is not a “Stop Trump” confab by design. Still, the gathering of mostly Republican business and political leaders is sure to showcase their desperation for a viable candidate other than Trump and serve as a reminder of the futility of their efforts so far to defeat him.
“I’m not interested in going and being part of a crowd and following,” said John Rakolta Jr. of Michigan, a national finance co-chairman of Romney’s campaigns who is not supporting Trump. “This is a time to really dig deep and have those debates about what direction we should be going in. I’m not looking for everybody agreeing.”
The E2 summit is the first of what will be many events in which Republican elites begin to talk and think about a post-Trump era, in the event that he loses to presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Many of the roughly 300 people assembling at the five-star Stein Eriksen Lodge Deer Valley for three days of colloquiums and seminars will be thinking about who might lead their party after November.
Source
|
On June 10 2016 21:29 Velr wrote:
Clinton is just the definition of a career politician AND at the same time isn't driven by some "big agenda" (which Sanders is/was).
This just seems really strange to me, it looks like she just wants power no matter what policies are "en vogue".
Still way better than Trump.
that is a very plausible sentiment.
I sometimes get the feeling that government is better served by people simply trying to pragmatically implement whatever's in vogue, than ideologues pushing an agenda.
|
Well, by that logic, Angela Merkel is the best cancellor/president ever...
I would highly question that basing your politics on opinion polls leads to good policy, it may leads to getting votes (once you are president), but it isn't exactly what i would call a sound agenda or plan.
Clinton was lucky this year, there was no serious contender and she still had trouble securing the nomination, despite the media basically ignoring her opponent for half the race.
Imho a true leader should have some vision for the future and "sell" that future (and ideally then also act on it).
|
On June 10 2016 22:24 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 22:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 10 2016 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's a HUGE step towards unifying the Democratic party, considering Liz Warren is basically the female version of Bernie Sanders. I think a ticket Clinton Warren would be a really good plan to win Sanders supporters. And Warren is a great, great woman. Country is not ready for a double woman ticket, it's barely ready for one woman. It would be a horrible move politically to take warren as her vp. Just like in tv shows there's always one token Asian guy and it's all good, but as soon as you get more than one? You've crossed the threshold. Maybe in a few decades but not now
I'm not an expert in American history, but I think there is plenty of precedent of single-gender tickets.
|
On June 10 2016 23:03 Velr wrote:
Well, by that logic, Angela Merkel is the best cancellor/president ever...
I would highly question that, basing your politics on opinion polls leads to good policy, it may leads to getting votes (once you are president), but it isn't exactly what i would call a sound agenda or plan.
Clinton was lucky this year, there was no serious contender and she still had trouble securing the nomination, despite the media basically ignoring her opponent for half the race.
Imho a true leader should have some vision for the future and "sell" that future (and ideally then also act on it).
it's certainly far from optimal; it's more a trend impression I get: that uncompromising ideologues, who push an agenda regardless of whether it works well in practice, cause more overall problems, and perform worse overall.
|
Yes, but compromising ideologues are actually the people that can push a country towards a certain direction.
Maybe Clinton just totally sucks at selling her ideology, being "pragmatic" is a nice attribute, but its not a description of what you actually would want to do and should not be your main selling point. I doubt anyone is questioning that she is pragmatic.
But she runs basically on "being pragmatic and like Obama but even more/better"...
Well luckily for her neither the Dems nor Reps could push a truely good candidate, so it should be enough...
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-trumps-foreign-policy-really-scares-neocons/2016/06/09/86614ac6-2cac-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na
There,the truth has been said.
Clinton is more reckless when it comes to foreign policy then trump.
And I guess that is why the neo conservative republican establishment doesn't rally behind trump en masse.
They actually do want Clinton to become president because in the end Clinton has exactly the same agenda. Clinton is one of them.
The only differences are small isues when it comes to domestic policy.
I do feel that this is an opportunity for trumps campaign.
Maybe they need to start focusing a bit more on this issue. Start picturing Clinton as a hawk and trump as the more sensible guy who will make a deal (a good deal even,lol)
There are plenty examples in the past of foreign policy backed by Clinton with below average results.
I do realize that foreign policy is not on the top of the agenda when it comes to the American elections,but its still an issue and trump has a chance here to appeal more to sanders supporters then Clinton.
Am becoming a bit more optimistic about trump again,not everything is lost yet.
Obama,s endorsement was a heavy hit off course,giving Clinton a huge boost. But it was to be expected and its still a long way till November.
Obama did it very smart,waiting a long time and giving Bernie and his supporters all the respect and time they needed to come to peace with a Clinton candidacy.
The ball is now with the republicans,they have to make a move and they should not wait to long with it.
Trump cant do much himself at the moment, he needs the unconditional support of all the prominent republicans.
Hope to see that in the next 2 weeks,the clock keeps running.
Is it pay wall?
I didn't have to pay:s
Link still works fine for me.
Maybe its behind pay wall based on what country you are in? would be weird but can not think of other explanation for now.
|
Folks who pretend to know how Trump would govern beyond some very general precepts are playing the part of fortune-teller. If Trump's past dealings with foreign entities are any indication, the title of "most reckless" would certainly go to him, but viewing platform policy this way is not very productive.
|
The link is behind a paywall i think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
