|
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
On November 09 2016 08:23 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:03 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 08:01 Paljas wrote:On November 09 2016 07:50 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 07:47 Jormundr wrote:On November 09 2016 07:45 oneofthem wrote:
obama has a lot of work to do with that 'trust in government' project.
it's absolutely hilarious how the far left don't dare to bash obama even on his signature issues, but readily indulge in character assassination vs HRC even using issues where she is nominally on her side.
can't win You have a HRC victim complex the size of DJ Trump's NPD. it is true though. leftists understand that obama is too popular to win, so they tackle the issues. hillary? can get trashed. not sure what qualifies as "far left" for you, but people who support obama certainly are not part of it. people who think the central conflict is neoliberalism corporate power vs them. i know it well enough. Tell me, what's the central conflict to you ? USA vs Russia ?
holding the powerful accountable within the constraints of soft liberalism of individual autonomy. (vs strict property libertarianism)
in more concrete terms, i see the u.s. liberal insistence on rule of law as incomplete but a good leverage against genuine threats of brute power, rampant in societies that lack liberal values. there is a risk that the world becomes china in 50 years time, and it will be a world of trumps.
long term, environmental and technological issues.
I'm the kind of guy that you would label as far left, and I actually disagree with you. Obama came off as a great president from where I stand. Politics is not all black and white, there is a lot of grey and, considering that, he made the most with what he had.
good. give hillary a fair shot and she would turn out good in your eyes as well.
|
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal.
|
On November 09 2016 08:27 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think the concept of a 'central conflict' makes much sense, sounds like religious prophecy.
I don't think conflict is the right word, but the essential question is how you distribute wealth in a liberal economic system, especially with globalization, industrialization and digitalization creating vast amounts of labour-independent wealth.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2016 08:27 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think the concept of a 'central conflict' makes much sense, sounds like religious prophecy.
it's a descriptive thing. most people organize politics with a central conflict.
|
On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal.
If you're referring to Kentucky and Indiana, those states were going to be red anyways. I'd wait for the big swing states before you can be relieved or scared.
|
On November 09 2016 08:29 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:23 WhiteDog wrote:On November 09 2016 08:03 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 08:01 Paljas wrote:On November 09 2016 07:50 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 07:47 Jormundr wrote:On November 09 2016 07:45 oneofthem wrote:
obama has a lot of work to do with that 'trust in government' project.
it's absolutely hilarious how the far left don't dare to bash obama even on his signature issues, but readily indulge in character assassination vs HRC even using issues where she is nominally on her side.
can't win You have a HRC victim complex the size of DJ Trump's NPD. it is true though. leftists understand that obama is too popular to win, so they tackle the issues. hillary? can get trashed. not sure what qualifies as "far left" for you, but people who support obama certainly are not part of it. people who think the central conflict is neoliberalism corporate power vs them. i know it well enough. Tell me, what's the central conflict to you ? USA vs Russia ? holding the powerful accountable within the constraints of soft liberalism of individual autonomy. (vs strict property libertarianism) long term, environmental and technological issues. Show nested quote +
I'm the kind of guy that you would label as far left, and I actually disagree with you. Obama came off as a great president from where I stand. Politics is not all black and white, there is a lot of grey and, considering that, he made the most with what he had.
good. give hillary a fair shot and she would turn out good in your eyes as well.
So you have a "conflict" without opponents ? Conflict is the nature of politics.
|
On November 09 2016 08:31 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:27 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think the concept of a 'central conflict' makes much sense, sounds like religious prophecy. it's a descriptive thing. most people organize politics with a central conflict.
I don't think that actually describes it any more, it seems like more and more people actually organise their whole political behaviour around single issues, which are often not even central in any factual sense, it's unhealthy.
|
Best site to track results? Guardian was my personal fave during primaries.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal.
rural divide, also trump states.
though if the margin is too big she's in a bit of trouble.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 09 2016 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
she is not a warhawk, but more of a moralistic foreign policy person with a bit too much trust of the military brass's understanding of military power. between foreign policy nihilism and recognition of democratic values, the world needs the latter at this particular point. whehter she can execute the long plan is another matter, but she's got the right people to influence her in that direction.
She isn't a warhawk of the John Rambo McCain variety, in that she doesn't seek to start every war that the country could feasibly start. She is clearly biased towards aggression, which is status quo for the US but a bad status quo that is proving to be increasingly unsuitable for the modern era. And she doesn't have any particularly good judgment, and she takes the approach of regressing towards the "generic American position" on those issues - perhaps, as you say, those advocated by the military brass. Which isn't the worst possible option but it's misguided for a wide range of reasons and in need of someone who will push towards a more sane policy even in the face of opposition. Obama deserves credit for being reasonable on that front but he is decidedly not a FP person. I'd want a more FP-minded Obama in charge on the FP front.
|
LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Took the morning off for this, 00.30 here 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2016 08:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 08:27 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think the concept of a 'central conflict' makes much sense, sounds like religious prophecy. it's a descriptive thing. most people organize politics with a central conflict. I don't think that actually describes it any more, it seems like more and more people actually organise their whole political behaviour around single issues, which are often not even central in any factual sense, it's unhealthy.
well yea it's just central to them, but a lot of these people tie their issue back to 'neoliberal corporations'.
|
On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal.
They're states Republicans would even win if the anti-christ was on the ballot. It's a little jarring yeah but 4000 people and it's freaking Kentucky.
The only Democrats they've voted for in a long long time have been southern boys themselves.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
she is not a warhawk, but more of a moralistic foreign policy person with a bit too much trust of the military brass's understanding of military power. between foreign policy nihilism and recognition of democratic values, the world needs the latter at this particular point. whehter she can execute the long plan is another matter, but she's got the right people to influence her in that direction.
She isn't a warhawk of the John Rambo McCain variety, in that she doesn't seek to start every war that the country could feasibly start. She is clearly biased towards aggression, which is status quo for the US but a bad status quo that is proving to be increasingly unsuitable for the modern era. And she doesn't have any particularly good judgment, and she takes the approach of regressing towards the "generic American position" on those issues - perhaps, as you say, those advocated by the military brass. Which isn't the worst possible option but it's misguided for a wide range of reasons and in need of someone who will push towards a more sane policy even in the face of opposition. Obama deserves credit for being reasonable on that front but he is decidedly not a FP person. I'd want a more FP-minded Obama in charge on the FP front.
she's changed a bit on this issue of military power's limits. elevating people like mike mullen etc would be good.
people can learn from history, and she has.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 09 2016 08:36 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
she is not a warhawk, but more of a moralistic foreign policy person with a bit too much trust of the military brass's understanding of military power. between foreign policy nihilism and recognition of democratic values, the world needs the latter at this particular point. whehter she can execute the long plan is another matter, but she's got the right people to influence her in that direction.
She isn't a warhawk of the John Rambo McCain variety, in that she doesn't seek to start every war that the country could feasibly start. She is clearly biased towards aggression, which is status quo for the US but a bad status quo that is proving to be increasingly unsuitable for the modern era. And she doesn't have any particularly good judgment, and she takes the approach of regressing towards the "generic American position" on those issues - perhaps, as you say, those advocated by the military brass. Which isn't the worst possible option but it's misguided for a wide range of reasons and in need of someone who will push towards a more sane policy even in the face of opposition. Obama deserves credit for being reasonable on that front but he is decidedly not a FP person. I'd want a more FP-minded Obama in charge on the FP front. she's changed a bit on this issue of military power's limits. elevating people like mike mullen etc would be good. people can learn from history, and she has.
This is a somewhat generic assertion and I'd like to hear more about which issues she has shown that she has learned from.
|
On November 09 2016 08:36 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal. They're states Republicans would even win if the anti-christ was on the ballot. It's a little jarring yeah but 4000 people and it's freaking Kentucky. The only Democrats they've voted for in a long long time have been southern boys themselves.
technically speaking New Hampshire is at 32 votes Trump, 25 votes Clinton atm according to NYT
1% reporting (3 of 300 precincts)
|
Edit: Nvm I misunderstood.
|
United States42959 Posts
On November 09 2016 08:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:36 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 08:34 LegalLord wrote:On November 09 2016 08:15 oneofthem wrote:
she is not a warhawk, but more of a moralistic foreign policy person with a bit too much trust of the military brass's understanding of military power. between foreign policy nihilism and recognition of democratic values, the world needs the latter at this particular point. whehter she can execute the long plan is another matter, but she's got the right people to influence her in that direction.
She isn't a warhawk of the John Rambo McCain variety, in that she doesn't seek to start every war that the country could feasibly start. She is clearly biased towards aggression, which is status quo for the US but a bad status quo that is proving to be increasingly unsuitable for the modern era. And she doesn't have any particularly good judgment, and she takes the approach of regressing towards the "generic American position" on those issues - perhaps, as you say, those advocated by the military brass. Which isn't the worst possible option but it's misguided for a wide range of reasons and in need of someone who will push towards a more sane policy even in the face of opposition. Obama deserves credit for being reasonable on that front but he is decidedly not a FP person. I'd want a more FP-minded Obama in charge on the FP front. she's changed a bit on this issue of military power's limits. elevating people like mike mullen etc would be good. people can learn from history, and she has. This is a somewhat generic assertion and I'd like to hear more about which issues she has shown that she has learned from.
She favoured intervention in Iraq in 2003 and diplomacy in Iran in 2013.
|
Some 15 percent of Americans who cast a ballot on Tuesday said it was their first time voting in a presidential election, according to an early reading from the Reuters/Ipsos national Election Day poll, up from 9 percent of voters who said so in 2012.
The poll of nearly 35,000 people also showed that 13 percent of voters had waited until the final week of the presidential race to make up their mind between the candidates, who include Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, up from 9 percent who said so in 2012.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation announced in late October that it was looking at more emails connected to its investigation of Clinton’s use of a personal email server while secretary of state. FBI Director James Comey later said that the new trove of emails did not affect his earlier decision to not bring a criminal case against Clinton.
Source
On November 09 2016 08:38 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:36 Probe1 wrote:On November 09 2016 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know it's just the first 1%'s coming in but seeing Trump leading in all of these early results is surreal. They're states Republicans would even win if the anti-christ was on the ballot. It's a little jarring yeah but 4000 people and it's freaking Kentucky. The only Democrats they've voted for in a long long time have been southern boys themselves. technically speaking New Hampshire is at 32 votes Trump, 25 votes Clinton atm according to NYT
Oh you.
|
On November 09 2016 08:34 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:33 Nyxisto wrote:On November 09 2016 08:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 08:27 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think the concept of a 'central conflict' makes much sense, sounds like religious prophecy. it's a descriptive thing. most people organize politics with a central conflict. I don't think that actually describes it any more, it seems like more and more people actually organise their whole political behaviour around single issues, which are often not even central in any factual sense, it's unhealthy. well yea it's just central to them, but a lot of these people tie their issue back to 'neoliberal corporations'.
The problem is you tackle things without actually acknowledging the content of those things. When people points out "neoliberalism", they refer to the fact that the state and the daily life of citizens is now structured around specific objectives and rules - like a firm, toward the realization of "projects", where the ressources are managed like any kind of firm manage its own ressources (through accountability, efficiency, etc.). It's not some kind of conspiracy theory against "corporations", but actual practice that are / were observed and that dictates many aspect of modern governance.
On November 09 2016 08:38 Fildun wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 08:31 oneofthem wrote:On November 09 2016 08:27 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think the concept of a 'central conflict' makes much sense, sounds like religious prophecy. it's a descriptive thing. most people organize politics with a central conflict. I'm sorry, but I haven't seen many people organize politics like that. Who are the people you're referring to?
Politics is the management of disagreements/conflicts to me. The common good or "peace" is found by debate and law rather than the elimination of the opposing power, but it's still a conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
