|
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. |
On September 03 2016 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 07:42 Dan HH wrote:On September 03 2016 07:34 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 07:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:
[quote]
I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning?
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place. That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls. Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice. What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution. What policies do you think she's actually going to implement as a result of that plan? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ I know even you are not foolish enough to think she's going to actually implement all of that? I'm asking specifically, let's say 3 major policies she will implement, that Bernie couldn't/wouldn't have gotten done. Biggest one? Banking regulations. Remember the interview where Bernie was asked what he would do (since fighting Wall street was a major part of his campaign) and he had nothing, heck he even mentioned something that could not legally be done if I remember correctly. When a candidate has 0 clue how to deal with one of their biggest campaign points I think they are just fumbling in the dark. Well I guess 1 is more than none, are there particular regulations that you think will be effective or is it just the general idea of her passing something. And I presume you dismiss the idea that regulations are often used as a gatekeeper to allow only those with connections to avoid significant consequences, or find the loopholes?
The general idea that she has a clue what she is doing, that she isn't campaigning on starting a revolution, that at worst she is going to continue the line of Obama (which is already huge when compared to the rest of the world).
The fact that, unlike Bernie, she hasn't been shown to be full of empty promises with no idea how to back them up
I leave 'what to do' to actual experts since I have not nearly enough knowledge about economics to do it
|
On September 03 2016 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
We've seen Obama spend 8 years making concessions to Republicans in hopes of some reciprocity, it only comes on the stuff they want (and sometimes not even that).
So in actuality, it doesn't really matter who we elect, we're just fucked either way.
...yeah that actually sounds about right.
|
Hopefully this will be the last set of nominees where we have to deal with Baby Boomer candidates.
|
On September 03 2016 08:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 07:42 Dan HH wrote:On September 03 2016 07:34 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place. That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls. Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice. What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution. What policies do you think she's actually going to implement as a result of that plan? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ I know even you are not foolish enough to think she's going to actually implement all of that? I'm asking specifically, let's say 3 major policies she will implement, that Bernie couldn't/wouldn't have gotten done. Biggest one? Banking regulations. Remember the interview where Bernie was asked what he would do (since fighting Wall street was a major part of his campaign) and he had nothing, heck he even mentioned something that could not legally be done if I remember correctly. When a candidate has 0 clue how to deal with one of their biggest campaign points I think they are just fumbling in the dark. Well I guess 1 is more than none, are there particular regulations that you think will be effective or is it just the general idea of her passing something. And I presume you dismiss the idea that regulations are often used as a gatekeeper to allow only those with connections to avoid significant consequences, or find the loopholes? The general idea that she has a clue what she is doing, that she isn't campaigning on starting a revolution, that at worst she is going to continue the line of Obama (which is already huge when compared to the rest of the world). The fact that, unlike Bernie, she hasn't been shown to be full of empty promises with no idea how to back them up I leave 'what to do' to actual experts since I have not nearly enough knowledge about economics to do it
I think that says more than it was intended to. I don't have time to break down why at the moment, but hopefully someone else sees it and can break it down.
I'll just say that since you only came up with 1 of 3 and the 1 you pointed out is one you wouldn't know if it was just someone blowing smoke up your ass, it says volumes about how people got to supporting Hillary.
|
Caue who cares about Zkia funding etc.
House Republicans are preparing to reprimand Democratic lawmakers for their controversial “sit-in” protest over gun control, sources told POLITICO.
The exact language is still in flux, and multiple sources said discussions are ongoing. But Speaker Paul Ryan’s office and other leadership staff have been researching ways they can punish Democrats for their controversial occupation of the House floor to protest the chamber's lack of response to the Orlando, Florida shooting massacre.
GOP lawmakers are expected to discuss the matter next week upon returning from their summer recess. While no votes have been scheduled, some members have been given notice that the response could come to the floor in September.
One option that’s been floated is a resolution broadly stating a sentiment that such tactics shouldn’t be allowed and will be sanctioned somehow going forward. Others are hoping Republicans will publicly rebuke certain Democrats they say “intimidated” nonpartisan House staff during the late-June incident.
The latter response was used to admonish Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) after he yelled, “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during a 2009 joint session of Congress. But this situation involves multiple lawmakers, so the same tack may not work.
One Republican source familiar with the ongoing discussions said their intent is to maintain decorum in the future and “protect the permanent employees of the House, who the Democrats treated with contempt.” GOP leaders want to make clear that such actions are “not acceptable” and won't be tolerated.
Source
|
On September 03 2016 08:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 08:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 03 2016 07:57 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 03 2016 07:34 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 07:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote:Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS. So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders. Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her. And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party. Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!" So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS. I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning? Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place. But when you apparently consider Hillary a shitty candidate, what possible reasoning is it you have for rather voting Hillary than Trump other than him being a shittier candidate? This is not the primary anymore, we're not arguing about whether Clinton or Sanders is more electable. There are now two possible candidates that might be president, one is Clinton, the other is Trump. You think Clinton is a shitty candidate, yet you state that you might vote for her over Trump. Why? Because there is a difference between explicitly supporting someone, and reluctantly casting a vote for one of two candidates who has a feasible chance of winning. Because the "lesser of two evils" argument is put forth as if it was always between Hillary and the Republicans when it was really just a bunch of BS to say that it is so. Because you're looking at it from a very narrow perspective- we are in this situation so we have to make the best of it - without realizing that such an attitude is precisely what leads to that situation in the first place. Incidentally, if the Republican Party weren't everything I don't like about Hillary on steroids, I would vote for their candidate on principle even if I agreed with them less on the issues. As it is, that's not the case. So you're basically going to vote for Hillary because in this particular instance, seeing the republicans elected an even worse candidate, she is the lesser of two evils? I just think it's weird how you make a long post about how the lesser of two evils argument is BS yet you also basically state that you find yourself compelled to act based on it. To be clear, I don't have any problems with you or someone else voting third party because you find the principle of voting for your ideal candidate really important and that you think this current situation is going to be the eternal situation if stuff isn't 'shaken up' by a third party candidate looking like a legitimate contender. I don't have any problems with you thinking that Hillary was not the best candidate the democrats could muster and if you think that other candidates never really had a chance because of Hillary's cronyism, that's also fair enough. But I also think 'is not Donald Trump' is a really good argument for voting for someone when the only other candidate with a legitimate shot at winning 'is Donald Trump', even if this is essentially the very definition of 'lesser of two evils' kind of thinking. Again, the point is that it's a short-sighted approach. I see this argument applied every single election cycle in a way that just leads to increasingly terrible "lesser of two evils" candidates being put forward. It's true on its face but only if you look at it in isolation. If you look at why this situation arose it is very clear that the choice is coerced and the lesser of two evils argument is applied abusively - our candidate did some terrible shit to get to this situation but it's all good cuz lesser of two evils, yo.
So what other option is there?
Thanks to the 2 party system your only option is to vote for a less evil or to do anything else (not vote/3e party)
Doing the latter only makes it more likely for the 'greater evil' to win. And is not going to change the political situation unless the 'greater evil' is so bad that there is a revolution.
Its near impossible for another candidate to rise up in the face of 2 bad main party candidates because the entire electoral system is shit.
And its never going to change because the people who can change it are the ones benefiting from it.
|
On September 03 2016 08:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 08:16 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 07:42 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls. Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice. What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution. What policies do you think she's actually going to implement as a result of that plan? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ I know even you are not foolish enough to think she's going to actually implement all of that? I'm asking specifically, let's say 3 major policies she will implement, that Bernie couldn't/wouldn't have gotten done. Biggest one? Banking regulations. Remember the interview where Bernie was asked what he would do (since fighting Wall street was a major part of his campaign) and he had nothing, heck he even mentioned something that could not legally be done if I remember correctly. When a candidate has 0 clue how to deal with one of their biggest campaign points I think they are just fumbling in the dark. Well I guess 1 is more than none, are there particular regulations that you think will be effective or is it just the general idea of her passing something. And I presume you dismiss the idea that regulations are often used as a gatekeeper to allow only those with connections to avoid significant consequences, or find the loopholes? The general idea that she has a clue what she is doing, that she isn't campaigning on starting a revolution, that at worst she is going to continue the line of Obama (which is already huge when compared to the rest of the world). The fact that, unlike Bernie, she hasn't been shown to be full of empty promises with no idea how to back them up I leave 'what to do' to actual experts since I have not nearly enough knowledge about economics to do it I think that says more than it was intended to. I don't have time to break down why at the moment, but hopefully someone else sees it and can break it down. I'll just say that since you only came up with 1 of 3 and the 1 you pointed out is one you wouldn't know if it was just someone blowing smoke up your ass, says volumes about how people got to supporting Hillary.
Dude, I'm not an American citizen. I don't get to vote. I'm not going to spend the time your asking for to convince you when there is no way to actually convince you and no gain for me even if I did.
|
And its never going to change because the people who can change it are the ones benefiting from it.
Bruh... Do you not see how that undermines most, if not, all the progressive change Hillary promises
|
On September 03 2016 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
We've seen Obama spend 8 years making concessions to Republicans in hopes of some reciprocity, it only comes on the stuff they want (and sometimes not even that). That's not going to change under Hillary. She just has a lot more in common with moderate Republicans, so more of that stuff will get done.
And the logical conclusion to this is: Some things would get done under Hillary, nothing would get done under Bernie (or any other heavily progressive candidate). Because only things that Republicans can barely sort of accept will happen.
Or alternatively things would only get done if the Republican gridlock was removed, which again leans towards favouring Hillary than a progressive outsider.
|
On September 03 2016 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +And its never going to change because the people who can change it are the ones benefiting from it. Bruh... Do you not see how that undermines most, if not, all the progressive change Hillary promises
Good thing then that I don't expect Hillary to change the electoral system.
|
On September 03 2016 08:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Or alternatively things would only get done if the Republican gridlock was removed, which again leans towards favouring Hillary than a progressive outsider.
Well no, it favors trying to win elections at the local level and making sure that a president who actively opposes progressive change isn't elected (as opposed to one who's just kind of lukewarm on progressive change but is somewhat obligated to keep up airs to maintain political goodwill within her own party).
I.e. the choice between Hillary and Bernie doesn't really matter that much because neither are in a position to fix what's actually broken about the system.
|
On September 03 2016 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 08:25 GreenHorizons wrote:And its never going to change because the people who can change it are the ones benefiting from it. Bruh... Do you not see how that undermines most, if not, all the progressive change Hillary promises Good thing then that I don't expect Hillary to change the electoral system.
I was talking about changes outside the electoral system. She benefits from most of the things she's offering progressive change for, by your own reasoning, it would be foolish to believe she's going to get it done.
|
On September 03 2016 08:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 08:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 08:03 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 07:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 03 2016 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:On September 03 2016 07:44 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 07:42 Dan HH wrote:On September 03 2016 07:34 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place. That only works for people that don't consider that there's a significant enough difference in shittiness between the two, which is a minority as seen in polls. Way to miss the point. Yes, Hillary > Trump for most voters. But Hillary > Dem challengers was a coerced choice. What challengers? The only challenger was Bernie and I (and many others) prefer Hillary because she has a plan on how to implement her policies while Bernie was hoping America would stop being partisan in a giant revolution. What policies do you think she's actually going to implement as a result of that plan? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ I know even you are not foolish enough to think she's going to actually implement all of that? I'm asking specifically, let's say 3 major policies she will implement, that Bernie couldn't/wouldn't have gotten done. Biggest one? Banking regulations. Remember the interview where Bernie was asked what he would do (since fighting Wall street was a major part of his campaign) and he had nothing, heck he even mentioned something that could not legally be done if I remember correctly. When a candidate has 0 clue how to deal with one of their biggest campaign points I think they are just fumbling in the dark. Well I guess 1 is more than none, are there particular regulations that you think will be effective or is it just the general idea of her passing something. And I presume you dismiss the idea that regulations are often used as a gatekeeper to allow only those with connections to avoid significant consequences, or find the loopholes? The general idea that she has a clue what she is doing, that she isn't campaigning on starting a revolution, that at worst she is going to continue the line of Obama (which is already huge when compared to the rest of the world). The fact that, unlike Bernie, she hasn't been shown to be full of empty promises with no idea how to back them up I leave 'what to do' to actual experts since I have not nearly enough knowledge about economics to do it
The interview you're talking about is when they asked Bernie what to do with the banks and he said Dodd frank after spending weeks saying Dodd frank doesn't work.
Mostly it showed he had no idea what he was doing.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 03 2016 08:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 08:15 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 08:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 03 2016 07:57 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 07:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 03 2016 07:34 LegalLord wrote:On September 03 2016 07:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 03 2016 06:30 LegalLord wrote:Holy fuck, people still talk about Clinton as "the lesser of two evils" as if that is a real argument. Let me try to explain why that's just a whole lot of BS. So, let's go back to earlier in the election. Hillary Clinton was the massive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with no challengers that looked even remotely feasible as opposition. The entire party was also with her because she is just that great of a candidate, and the most electable one that we need to bring into the White House to keep those evil Republicans out. And just look at her record - Children's Defense Fund, favorite of all the worker's unions, pioneer on all social issues, and FP expert as Secretary of State. So was the story sold to the base that ultimately did choose to elect her, after a primary battle with a charming but ultimately unsuccessful party outsider, Bernie Sanders. Fast forward a few months. Turns out that all those things that make Hillary Clinton such a great candidate were a crock of shit. If you look into her record with some scrutiny you will find that she is far from the paragon of virtue she claims to be. She claimed to be the advocate for children, but some disagree. She claims to stand for union workers, but while the unions support her many of the workers themselves voted for Bernie Sanders because the unions were making deals for their own benefit more so than looking out for their workers. She says she is a pioneer on social issues, but just look on her rather famous flip-flop on gay marriage, along with many other issues that she flip-flops on for convenience. She was indeed the Secretary of State, but between her rather shitty foreign policy record and her extremely careless handling of emails I wouldn't call it a particularly great one. She campaigns on electability but has a worse approval rating than any candidate preceding her. And so we come to terms with what Hillary Clinton actually is: a person who makes deals and trades favors to gain power. She got an obscene amount of endorsements at the start, basically shutting out any possibility for an establishment candidate to challenge her (which is one reason O'Malley and others just never took off). Her only real challenge was a party outsider and ideologue who would generally never even have a chance to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and she had support from Medusa (DWS) and the DNC and used it to harm Bernie Sanders when the DNC is supposed to be neutral. And when the truth came out about the DNC in the recent leaks, she gave Medusa a nice golden parachute to thank her for her help. In short, Hillary trades favors with those in power to create the perception that she is such a good candidate and that she is not worth challenging, to deceive the "party regulars" and eliminate the competition within the party. Those who know Hillary from before this election know that that's exactly what happens. But, surprise surprise, that was validated yet again by all the happenings at around convention time. And guess what? Now it's too late to do a damn thing about it. We're stuck with a shitty candidate who played power games to get the nomination, and the best said candidate can put forward is "at least I'm better than a gaffe-prone reality TV star!" So yeah, maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump, in the same way that 90% of Bernie voters would vote for Clinton over Trump if they have no other options - vote third party, don't vote, etc. But the "lesser of two evils" argument is just a crock of BS. I'm sorry, I don't follow you at all. You start and end your post by stating that the 'lesser of two evils' argument is just a crock of BS. The middle of your post is full of reasons why Hillary is a bad candidate. And then the second-to-last thing you write is that 'maybe I'd vote for Clinton over Trump'. How are you reaching the conclusion that maybe you'd vote for Clinton over Trump if not for the lesser of two evils reasoning? Because it's a coerced choice. While on its face it may be true that I would rather vote Hillary than Trump there is a reason that there was no other choice in the first place. But when you apparently consider Hillary a shitty candidate, what possible reasoning is it you have for rather voting Hillary than Trump other than him being a shittier candidate? This is not the primary anymore, we're not arguing about whether Clinton or Sanders is more electable. There are now two possible candidates that might be president, one is Clinton, the other is Trump. You think Clinton is a shitty candidate, yet you state that you might vote for her over Trump. Why? Because there is a difference between explicitly supporting someone, and reluctantly casting a vote for one of two candidates who has a feasible chance of winning. Because the "lesser of two evils" argument is put forth as if it was always between Hillary and the Republicans when it was really just a bunch of BS to say that it is so. Because you're looking at it from a very narrow perspective- we are in this situation so we have to make the best of it - without realizing that such an attitude is precisely what leads to that situation in the first place. Incidentally, if the Republican Party weren't everything I don't like about Hillary on steroids, I would vote for their candidate on principle even if I agreed with them less on the issues. As it is, that's not the case. So you're basically going to vote for Hillary because in this particular instance, seeing the republicans elected an even worse candidate, she is the lesser of two evils? I just think it's weird how you make a long post about how the lesser of two evils argument is BS yet you also basically state that you find yourself compelled to act based on it. To be clear, I don't have any problems with you or someone else voting third party because you find the principle of voting for your ideal candidate really important and that you think this current situation is going to be the eternal situation if stuff isn't 'shaken up' by a third party candidate looking like a legitimate contender. I don't have any problems with you thinking that Hillary was not the best candidate the democrats could muster and if you think that other candidates never really had a chance because of Hillary's cronyism, that's also fair enough. But I also think 'is not Donald Trump' is a really good argument for voting for someone when the only other candidate with a legitimate shot at winning 'is Donald Trump', even if this is essentially the very definition of 'lesser of two evils' kind of thinking. Again, the point is that it's a short-sighted approach. I see this argument applied every single election cycle in a way that just leads to increasingly terrible "lesser of two evils" candidates being put forward. It's true on its face but only if you look at it in isolation. If you look at why this situation arose it is very clear that the choice is coerced and the lesser of two evils argument is applied abusively - our candidate did some terrible shit to get to this situation but it's all good cuz lesser of two evils, yo. So what other option is there? Thanks to the 2 party system your only option is to vote for a less evil or to do anything else (not vote/3e party) Doing the latter only makes it more likely for the 'greater evil' to win. And is not going to change the political situation unless the 'greater evil' is so bad that there is a revolution. Its near impossible for another candidate to rise up in the face of 2 bad main party candidates because the entire electoral system is shit. And its never going to change because the people who can change it are the ones benefiting from it.
The unfortunate simple answer is that right now there is no other solution- the only choices for this election cycle alone are Hillary, Trump, people who won't win, and not vote. I won't choose not to vote, and there is no point in wasting the vote on the third party. So it's one of the main two and it'll probably be Hillary. In isolation that is some form of support for the lesser of two evils argument. But on the other hand it's one that both parties make so there really is no other option.
However, in the longer term there is certainly going to be a better chance to make a difference. That requires that people act in such a way that they show party leadership that they cannot simply push a shitty candidate, and apply "lesser of two evils" again and again to get them elected; that that will cost them their voter base if they try it. That would probably require voting for the "greater" of two evils in at least one election cycle, though perhaps this isn't the right one seeing just to what extent the Republican Party is fucked up right now.
|
On September 03 2016 08:28 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 08:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Or alternatively things would only get done if the Republican gridlock was removed, which again leans towards favouring Hillary than a progressive outsider. Well no, it favors trying to win elections at the local level and making sure that a president who actively opposes progressive change isn't elected (as opposed to one who's just kind of lukewarm on progressive change but is somewhat obligated to keep up airs to maintain political goodwill within her own party).
Well, sure, but I'm also accounting for reasonable expectations, and within the realm of the Presidential elections.
|
On September 03 2016 08:32 LegalLord wrote:
However, in the longer term there is certainly going to be a better chance to make a difference. That requires that people act in such a way that they show party leadership that they cannot simply push a shitty candidate, and apply "lesser of two evils" again and again to get them elected; that that will cost them their voter base if they try it. That would probably require voting for the "greater" of two evils in at least one election cycle, though perhaps this isn't the right one seeing just to what extent the Republican Party is fucked up right now.
Isn't that what's happening to the Republican party right now? Trump represents a shitty enough candidate for a lot of traditional Republicans that they're jumping off the train.
The optimistic view is that the Republican party will somehow get its shit together after effectively imploding and force the same to happen to the Democratic Party in 2020. But that's exceedingly wishful thinking. It's more likely that we just get more of the same.
|
Apple boss Tim Cook expects the iPhone maker to repatriate huge offshore profits to America next year, paying billions of dollars in deferred taxes to the US Treasury.
In an interview with RTE radio, he gave a summary of the company’s 2014 tax affairs, saying: “We paid $400m [in tax] to Ireland, we paid $400m to the US. And we provisioned several billion for the US for payment as soon as we repatriated.
“Right now I would forecast that we repatriate next year. So it is not true that we would pay just $400m, or even just $800m, the number is materially larger.”
The revelation that Apple plans to repatriate some of its offshore profits and pay its huge US tax bills next year comes as a surprise given Cook’s previous refusal to countenance such a move.
Like many large US multinationals, Apple has for decades been pooling its non-US profits outside of America. Under loopholes in the tax laws, corporations can defer US taxes continually so long as income is not repatriated to America.
In July, Apple told investors its cash pile held offshore had reached $214.8bn (£162.2bn). This is the largest of any US company.
Cook’s surprise U-turn on repatriating foreign profits comes days after Apple was accused by competition regulators at the European commission of receiving state aid from Ireland.
The commission said billions of income had been allowed to pass through Apple’s Irish-registered companies untaxed. Both Apple and Ireland have insisted they will appeal against the decision. Meanwhile, some politicians in the US have described it as a political attack.
Until now, Cook had consistently said Apple would not repatriate profits to the US until Washington slashed the US tax rate.
Last December, in an interview for US television programme 60 Minutes, Cook said he would “love to” repatriate Apple’s offshore cash. Asked why he doesn’t, he said: “Because it would cost me 40% to bring it home. And I don’t think that’s a reasonable thing to do.”
He then attacked the US corporate tax regime, saying: “This is a tax code made for the industrial age, not the digital age. It’s backwards, it’s awful for America. It should have been fixed many years ago. It is past time to get it done.”
In its annual report, Apple does make large provisions for US taxes, which allows it to claim that it has an effective tax rate of 26% – much higher than many other tech firms.
Source
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 03 2016 08:34 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 08:32 LegalLord wrote:
However, in the longer term there is certainly going to be a better chance to make a difference. That requires that people act in such a way that they show party leadership that they cannot simply push a shitty candidate, and apply "lesser of two evils" again and again to get them elected; that that will cost them their voter base if they try it. That would probably require voting for the "greater" of two evils in at least one election cycle, though perhaps this isn't the right one seeing just to what extent the Republican Party is fucked up right now. Isn't that what's happening to the Republican party right now? Trump represents a shitty enough candidate for a lot of traditional Republicans that they're jumping off the train. The optimistic view is that the Republican party will somehow get its shit together after effectively imploding and force the same to happen to the Democratic Party in 2020. But that's exceedingly wishful thinking.
I expect this to last at least another decade. The causes of the modern shittiness of the parties did not develop in one election cycle and they won't be undone in one election cycle either.
|
Or to at least lessen as Baby Boomers seems to be having their last gasp of influence this election.
|
GOP rhetoric is pretty frightening to me. I'm about 50% convinced that there is going to be some type of mass violence from Trump supporters when he loses. It's getting hard for me to want to make long term plans that rely on a functioning society for anytime after election day.
Trump's whole "2nd amendment people could fix it", "only way I can lose is if the election is rigged", etc. are just appalling.
Then there's things like this starting to come from the GOP firebrands:
I mean, I know that the late 19th century had some more absurd US political things than are going on now, but still.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
