U.S. Presidential debate

[Jester]

Show me where Stalin is buried and I'll show you a Communist Plot.

Khrushchev did say we will bury you!

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Show me where Stalin is buried and I'll show you a Communist Plot.
~Edgar Bergen

Red herring.

Also, communists don't "plot" anything. Our views, basis and goals should be quite well understood & transparent by now; bourgeois propaganda/McCarthyism to deem any resistance to discrimination, oppression, exploitation and inequality as some sort of "plot", not withstanding.

No sense of humor and failure to recognize a pun.

I have a sense of humor, it's just a different one from yours.

And I get the joke. It's cute, if a bit corny.

[eppie]

.

You didn't break the glass ceiling, Hillary. You broke the fucking glass FLOOR, so now we will all fall into the abyss of Trumpism. In short, thanks for fucking nothing.

But on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Trump could do more damage to the world than GW Bush did. It is easy to see this as a completely new thing in politics but as said before don't forget also Reagan and GWBush were elected. The damage those two brought to the world Trump can only dream of doing.

But yes, about your internal politics, I learned not to care. It is already frustrating enough that uneducated redneck hordes from the US through voting seem to have more to say about things in my country than myself.
If you people think it is fine to shoot eachother that is not my problem. If you think it is normal the government decides if you can have an abortion or want euthenasia go for it.
If you think taxes are bad but it is ok your government tells you what to do regarding social issues....if it makes you happy.


Trump is a populist but he is not an extreme republican.....half of that party were into the lie of the war on Iraq.....that now caused complete chaos in the whole world......again, I just don't see Trump being able to do that same kind of damage.
I fully understand your frustration though.....just thinking about people that vote ''against the elite'' for a superrich tax evading guy that literaly will do anything to protect his own interests, and honestly think he will do something for them...

[Lissa]

.

You didn't break the glass ceiling, Hillary. You broke the fucking glass FLOOR, so now we will all fall into the abyss of Trumpism. In short, thanks for fucking nothing.

But on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Trump could do more damage to the world than GW Bush did. It is easy to see this as a completely new thing in politics but as said before don't forget also Reagan and GWBush were elected. The damage those two brought to the world Trump can only dream of doing.

But yes, about your internal politics, I learned not to care. It is already frustrating enough that uneducated redneck hordes from the US through voting seem to have more to say about things in my country than myself.
If you people think it is fine to shoot eachother that is not my problem. If you think it is normal the government decides if you can have an abortion or want euthenasia go for it.
If you think taxes are bad but it is ok your government tells you what to do regarding social issues....if it makes you happy.


Trump is a populist but he is not an extreme republican.....half of that party were into the lie of the war on Iraq.....that now caused complete chaos in the whole world......again, I just don't see Trump being able to do that same kind of damage.
I fully understand your frustration though.....just thinking about people that vote ''against the elite'' for a superrich tax evading guy that literaly will do anything to protect his own interests, and honestly think he will do something for them...

I don't know if you paid any attention to some of the things Trump said Eppie, but there are a few things that he stated that are fairly scary.

For instance, "Why have nuclear weapons if you're not going to use them?" That's not a direct quote, but it's pretty close. No US presidential candidate has *EVER* made a comment like that before Trump (and we've had some crazy ones). Given that the US has the second most nuclear weapons in the world with a president stating something like that as a candidate should scare the shit out of everyone.

[FireIceTalon]

[quote='FireIceTalon' pid='212646' dateline='1478727170'].

You didn't break the glass ceiling, Hillary. You broke the fucking glass FLOOR, so now we will all fall into the abyss of Trumpism. In short, thanks for fucking nothing.

But on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Trump could do more damage to the world than GW Bush did. It is easy to see this as a completely new thing in politics but as said before don't forget also Reagan and GWBush were elected. The damage those two brought to the world Trump can only dream of doing.

I wish this were the truth. G W Bush and Reagan were goons, but honestly they were just stupid and pretty much your average American conservative, ideologically speaking. Trump isn't merely stupid, he is an extremely dangerous individual with very reactionary and unprecedented rhetoric and ideas - to the point where even certain members of his own party do not want to work with him. If you watched his campaign at all you would see he makes those other two look quite moderate in comparison. When G W Bush got elected, I wasn't scared. Disappointed, yes. Scared, no.

With Trump in the White House, this potentially spells danger on our very civil rights and much progress that has been made in the last 60 or so years is quite possibly now in jeopardy. This wasn't the case with the other candidates you mentioned, as much as I hated them I never felt this type of anxiety about them like I do Trump.

Trump is a populist but he is not an extreme republican

His politics in many instances, are reactionary even by most Republican standards. He has enough personal traits and his ideology is very closely in line with that of a Fascist. It's pretty safe to say he is one. All one has to do is watch his campaign and the rhetoric he spewed at his rallies. When GW Bush was in office a lot of liberals cried the blues and called him a Fascist. It's pretty funny cause he is nothing of the sort. However, the dreaded F-word fits Trump almost to a T. He would almost be very much at home in the Tea Party.

But like I said before, I blame this on the liberals. I already know what laughably predictable scapegoats they will use to explain this too: Wikileaks, Russia, the media, negative reporting on Hillary, Comey, etc.....I'll tell you right now, it was none of them. I've said time and again, this is what happens when you pander to identity politics and abandon class politics. Thus, the Right will inevitably find inroads to the working class and shift their politics to the right. Trump was able to appeal to a broken system and a ruling elite that didn't care about the little guy, where as Hillary continue the usual liberal tagline of appealing to identity politics and was thus viewed as a guardian of the system, which she most certainly is. Trump of course is also, but he was able to deflect that perception away quite brilliantly. If he were up against Bernie though, it almost certainly would be a very different story.

I'm not a Bernie fan, but he would have wiped the floor with Trump, since he was able to do a similar thing as he was able to put class politics back on the table but from the bourgeois left side of things. Liberals are crying hysterically right now, but their tears are deserved and they have no one to blame but themselves for this mess. Meanwhile, socialists can only facepalm, shake our heads, and say "we told ya so" for the umpteenth millionth time.

I just don't see Trump being able to do that same kind of damage.

I do. And then some. It truly is very dark times right now. I hate Hillary and the liberals, but this guy getting in office is just about the worst thing that could have happened. I think I'm gonna go invest into the distributor of Xanax.

[kandrathe]

But on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Trump could do more damage to the world than GW Bush did.

I agree to a point. Trump's err may be in being too hands off, letting things in the world boil over, when we could be helping to turn down the heat. He wants the US to exit South Korea, Japan, and scale back our global hegemony. Scary, but not the propagandized rhetoric of launching nukes, or proliferation. His Reaganesque poser on nukes is rhetorical. If you are unwilling to use nukes, why risk having them. In fact, it is US policy to retaliate, if attacked. Why is it assumed, with Reagan, or now Trump, that he's talking about first strike? If he were conversely in favor of eliminating the US possession of nukes, another large faction of Americans would be fearful of being disarmed.

It is easy to see this as a completely new thing in politics but as said before don't forget also Reagan and GWBush were elected. The damage those two brought to the world Trump can only dream of doing.

In retrospect, Reagan's tough stance on the Soviets brought down the wall, led to detente, nuclear arms talk, and demilitarization. The only "wars" we participated in barring Grenada, were the ongoing typical US cold war black ops interventionism via 3rd world proxy (Iraq v. Iran, Afghanistan v. Soviets, South American right wing dictators v. Socialist/Leftist revolutionaries, etc.) This was an existing pattern for American interventionist policy since we had to pull our heads out of the sand and get sucked into WWII. There was down side blow back from our participation in some of those conflicts, but it is hard to calculate the alternatives in the what-if-scenario generator of my imagination. The Contras did lose, Grenada remains a democracy freed from the coup by PRG, Afghans were not defeated by the Soviets, Iran and Iraq are still rivals, although due to the GWI, II, the majority Shia participate more fully in their government. I'd say Saddams ability, and willingness to use chemical, and biological weapons is directly related to cozy clandestine relations with the US, France, Japan, Germany, and some others.

But yes, about your internal politics, I learned not to care. It is already frustrating enough that uneducated redneck hordes from the US through voting seem to have more to say about things in my country than myself. If you people think it is fine to shoot each other that is not my problem. If you think it is normal the government decides if you can have an abortion or want euthanasia go for it. If you think taxes are bad but it is ok your government tells you what to do regarding social issues....if it makes you happy.

I'm careful to not throw about the elitist slur of "uneducated". We do have 10-12 years of government mandated compulsory free education. The quality is sometimes contested, but rubrics are nationalized and standardized, albeit lower than what most want. In my state, we set the standards higher, and have our own testing regime to ensure teaching/learning quality. Whether or not a person chooses to be a redneck, and act like a fool is by choice, and not due to the existence of prejudicial movie stereotypes like "Deliverance". However, driving through parts of the rural Ozarks, and Allegheny regions will give you pause ( if not paws).

What is he likely to do? I think;

• Reform immigration
• Review/repeal regulation hurting business growth
• Opt out of treaties and trade deals where he feels the US is hurt
• Stay out of international conflicts
• Ignore the UN
• Reform a top heavy federal bureaucracy
• Push more governance back to states
• Appoint 3 or 4 members to the Supreme court
  

Some others, but again, in the US, the Congress writes the laws, he just gets to veto the bad ones. None of the above list will be as bad as people fear, nor as extreme as the fringes may want. Our process of law making is pretty good at cooking up a lukewarm middle of the road concoction objectionable to almost everyone.

Since he'll want to govern with the help of the Republicans, he'll want to negotiate to stay in their good graces. The Democrats will become the opposition party, whose responsibility is now to fight hard to moderate and stop legislation objectionable to their constituencies. In the Senate, many things require 2/3 majority to pass. They will get a voice.

Trump is a populist but he is not an extreme republican.....half of that party were into the lie of the war on Iraq.....that now caused complete chaos in the whole world......again, I just don't see Trump being able to do that same kind of damage.

I'm hopeful he will be more moderate and disciplined in governing. Words have power too. His blunt "bigoted" rhetoric is emboldening the bigoted fringe. As I've said before, I don't think Trump is a full-on racist, but, if you are a racist, Trump is your guy. He is clearly guilty in the campaign of some dubious statements and positions on immigrants from the Islamic world, and across our southern border. These things embolden the small group of full-on racists and bigots to writhe out of the manure pile to spew their vileness. In a free society, it's an opportunity to expose them to the sun light of truth, and allow us to educate them better. e.g. Some friends in Tennessee are mounting a furious boycott campaign to to little restaurant owned by the local "Make America White Again" guy running for congress. Speech is free, but you also get to live with the consequences of what you say.

I fully understand your frustration though.....just thinking about people that vote ''against the elite'' for a super rich tax evading guy that literally will do anything to protect his own interests, and honestly think he will do something for them...

I didn't vote for him for a multitude of reasons, but my list starts with character and integrity, then I get to a history of wise moral decision making, and finally experience preparing them for the position. Neither Trump, or Clinton passed step one, for me.

Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there -- Guardian Article or Jonathan Pie if you like...

He was the wrong man, with a message that resonated with enough people who clamored for change. The kind Obama vaguely promised but failed to deliver. Our recovery in the US over the past 8 years has been focused at the top 1 to 5% of household incomes. In 2008-09, we all lost much, (or everything for some). Only the top wealthiest people got it all back.

The desire unmet was to "SMASH THE MACHINE." and "DRAIN THE SWAMP."

[FireIceTalon]

All his disgusting rhetoric not withstanding, I am flabbergasted that so many women voted in this "pussy grabbin" misogynist who has sexually assaulted several women, and raped a 13 year old girl in the 90's. Just this in itself makes his a election a true low point for America in a long time. Its truly sickening.

[kandrathe]

All his disgusting rhetoric not withstanding, I am flabbergasted that so many women voted in this "pussy grabbin" misogynist who has sexually assaulted several women, and raped a 13 year old girl in the 90's. Just this in itself makes his a election a true low point for America in a long time. Its truly sickening.

Assuming it is all true. Which it seems is not so.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-...e-lawsuit/

The video of his banter with Billy Bush is sleazy, but again, it could be braggadocios male posturing. I think he is a scumbag. But, convictions need evidence to be more than allegations. Bill Clinton faced the same allegations by many women before his election, and I thought he was likely a scumbag as well.

[eppie]

All his disgusting rhetoric not withstanding, I am flabbergasted that so many women voted in this "pussy grabbin" misogynist who has sexually assaulted several women, and raped a 13 year old girl in the 90's. Just this in itself makes his a election a true low point for America in a long time. Its truly sickening.

This is not only a problem in the US by the way. Nowadays people everywhere vote based on emotions and not based on facts. Everything in our society is working that way, especially the media. And yes if your not smart enough to see that the media and big industry is just trying to influence your mind you don't even see the problem with doing so.

Take the crowd against vacination programs. They don't vaccinate their kids, leading to other kids (too small te get vaccinated) die of measels or so......all because those people read on internet that you can get autism from vaccinations....something for which there is no evidence.
It is very normal for people to disagree with a professor in a certain field just because of some feeling they have and they don't even see the issue with that.

[Alram]

All his disgusting rhetoric not withstanding, I am flabbergasted that so many women voted in this "pussy grabbin" misogynist who has sexually assaulted several women, and raped a 13 year old girl in the 90's. Just this in itself makes his a election a true low point for America in a long time. Its truly sickening.

Karl Marx got his maid pregnant (He was married at the time.) In other words, Marx personally exploited the working class. Incidentally, he never paid her any wages.

[FireIceTalon]

All his disgusting rhetoric not withstanding, I am flabbergasted that so many women voted in this "pussy grabbin" misogynist who has sexually assaulted several women, and raped a 13 year old girl in the 90's. Just this in itself makes his a election a true low point for America in a long time. Its truly sickening.

Karl Marx got his maid pregnant (He was married at the time.) In other words, Marx personally exploited the working class. Incidentally, he never paid her any wages.

Oh yes, the bourgeois slander/ad hominem card. If you can't argue against the economic theories, no problem! Just simply slander the man who established them since discrediting the man means the theory is discredited (even if such things have no bearing on economics). Fucking brilliant!!

One problem, though: economic theory (and especially communism) isn't some celebrity, gossip magazine. It seems pro-cappies treat their information on historical figures the same way they as they do with their economic system: entirely with SPECULATION. I wouldn't expect anything less. Not to mention this slander comes from someone who is probably more wealthy than Marx ever was (probably everyone here is).

https://www.marxists.org/subject/marxmyt...rticle.htm

Communism could have been a theory developed by the most ruthless, bloodthirsty, chauvinistic horrible human being to ever exist, and it would STILL be a good idea that is worth trying to achieve since it contradicts these injustices. Would it make the person a hypocrite? Sure. Does it make that person good? Nope. But the theory itself remains valid and still good. Personal character has no bearing on the economical theory itself.

I could care less if Marx shagged his maid or not, and even if I did there is no conclusive evidence that he did. Are you implying that you couldn't be sexually attracted to a maid? If so, thats quite elitist if you ask me.

[Alram]

Actually, I was just replying in kind. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Red Hairdo]

Things went wrong the moment the only options were Trump and Hillary. Either one being elected are two horrible kinds of wrong. Lies, corruption, hypocrisy, inconsistency and whatnot barely touch the surface of all the problems related to either one rising to power. The moment only the two could win was the moment both the world and the US would bear a great loss. Then again, that sums up US history (and many other countries') as a whole.

[eppie]

Things went wrong the moment the only options were Trump and Hillary. Either one being elected are two horrible kinds of wrong. Lies, corruption, hypocrisy, inconsistency and whatnot barely touch the surface of all the problems related to either one rising to power. The moment only the two could win was the moment both the world and the US would bear a great loss. Then again, that sums up US history (and many other countries') as a whole.

Not being a particular Hillary-fan I also don't think this almost comparing her to Trump is fair. To me Hillary seems exactly the same as most of the presidents and presidential election losers of, say, the last 6 elections.

Seriously, horrible kinds of wrong?? To me this just shows that the republican mud slinging campaign has worked perfectly: many people honestly believe that electing Hillary would have been more or less the same as election Trump.

[kandrathe]

Seriously, horrible kinds of wrong?? To me this just shows that the republican mud slinging campaign has worked perfectly: many people honestly believe that electing Hillary would have been more or less the same as election Trump.

Not being on the Trump side, but I think due to her indebtedness to special interests she would have been much worse than what we have in Barack Obama. Choosing Trump wasn't the same as, or even the lesser of the same type of evils. Choosing Trump was wholly the opposite of choosing Hillary.

According to lefty journalist Neal Gabler, "From the perspective of Bernie Sanders’ forces, she gave speeches to fat cats, is a military hawk who voted for the Iraq War, grovels for money, gets counsel from squirrely Wall Street bankers and rigged the delegate selection."

Then, there is left wonk David Brooks of the NYT, "At least in her public persona, Clinton gives off an exclusively professional vibe: industrious, calculated, goal-oriented, distrustful. It’s hard from the outside to have a sense of her as a person; she is a role."

Or, as I think of her, a noble lefty warrior playing perfectly the role of a noble lefty warrior. On the self interest side, Trump's win is less bad for me (I think), but we shall see.

I work for a private non-profit university. I feel Hillary would have continued the Obama administrations growing burden on higher education. Since the 2009 recession, due to normal trends in baby boom ripples, and economic forces, enrollment in post-secondary education is down. The hardest hit areas are the arts and humanities. At my university, STEM programs are growing in double digits, but those liberal arts are truly suffering. I'm opposed to the notion that higher education should be focused upon purely vocational attainment. Yet, the federal ratings of educational attainment are linked directly to getting a high paying job tying it strongly to a return on investment. It means, the government is driving students into business, and STEM professions, and away from teaching, social work, and other lower paying "service" jobs. Forget entirely any degree, like Art, or Philosophy, that is non-vocational and purely self actualizing. Greed is good, in the federal DOE eyes it seems. Higher pay = more taxes.

The federal department of education, through rule making, are very actively going after for-profit education, and the side effect is it hurts all of higher education with the regulatory burden. It is true, though, that there are "bad actors", especially in for-profit education, who enroll lots of students, provide mediocre education, graduate < 30% and their drop outs end up with huge debts they cannot repay. The feds remedy to the few bad actors is to make every institution hop though increasingly onerous regulatory hoops. I know. I've been the hoop hopper for my school for a decade now.

Public schools can appeal to their state's tax payers to fund their increased costs, or raise tuition prices. Wealthy private schools have deep endowments. But, there are thousands of private, non-profit institutions that are in deep pain due to trends in lower enrollment, and the need to implement costly federal regulation changes.

Then also, such as the recent, almost passed California Senate Bill 1154, there are some seeking to de-legitimize, and eradicate religion in higher education entirely. I know you, and many on the Lounge are not religious, or are maybe even opposed to it. But hopefully you'd understand the need to defend the right of free expression ( a guarantee provided by our US Constitution's Bill of Rights) for everyone. We may not like, or agree with what some people say, or believe, but we'd uphold the UNHCR right of free conscience and religious expression.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Currently, students in the US are awarded financial aid, or are allowed to take out direct student loans (only from the federal government). The student then has the freedom to spend this aid at the school, and in the program of their desire. The way some legislators seek to take control is to instead award the aid to the institution, which precludes the government from funding many institutions due to the establishment clause. It would put government, rather than student choice, in direct control of choosing which schools, and degree programs succeed, or shut down.

[Ashock]

Things went wrong the moment the only options were Trump and Hillary. Either one being elected are two horrible kinds of wrong. Lies, corruption, hypocrisy, inconsistency and whatnot barely touch the surface of all the problems related to either one rising to power. The moment only the two could win was the moment both the world and the US would bear a great loss. Then again, that sums up US history (and many other countries') as a whole.

Not being a particular Hillary-fan I also don't think this almost comparing her to Trump is fair. To me Hillary seems exactly the same as most of the presidents and presidential election losers of, say, the last 6 elections.

Seriously, horrible kinds of wrong?? To me this just shows that the republican mud slinging campaign has worked perfectly: many people honestly believe that electing Hillary would have been more or less the same as election Trump.

Difficult to sling mud effectively, if you only have one outlet to get that mud to the people - Fox news. OTOH, Marxists have let's see....MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS and numerous printed so called "publications", that have been (and still are) slinging mud on Trump ever since he became the Rep nominee. The truly amazing fact is that Trump won DESPITE everything that has been thrown at him and despite EVERYTHING that the mainstream media has been supressing about Clinton.

If that does not give someone food for thought, then they are as blind as a mole. This condition can be very closely duplicated by burying one's head in the sand.

[kandrathe]

Difficult to sling mud effectively, if you only have one outlet to get that mud to the people - Fox news. OTOH, Marxists have let's see....MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS and numerous printed so called "publications", that have been (and still are) slinging mud on Trump ever since he became the Rep nominee. The truly amazing fact is that Trump won DESPITE everything that has been thrown at him and despite EVERYTHING that the mainstream media has been supressing about Clinton.

If that does not give someone food for thought, then they are as blind as a mole. This condition can be very closely duplicated by burying one's head in the sand.

There is that small town in Macedonia. There are so many outright lies flying around social media. By default now I don't believe anything until I investigate it myself. For example; the current buzz that Steve Bannon is anti-Semitic. I'm not any fan of Brietbart's click bait, but we need to be accurate about people before we denounce them. I'd say he's definitely a schmuck, and an old white curmudgeon, and like Trump. And, like Trump, he's attractive to Alt-Right. But, given the alt-rights choices, who'd they have to support? Trump.

But... Yes. The NYT, WP, most major news outlets. Here is the best we can hope for so far in any objective journalism critique; http://shorensteincenter.org/news-covera...primaries/

There will be more scholarly analysis to come I'm sure.

[Red Hairdo]

By default now I don't believe anything until I investigate it myself.

Skepticism, at least to some degree, is always something very important to have. So props for that.

[Jester]

For example; the current buzz that Steve Bannon is anti-Semitic. I'm not any fan of Brietbart's click bait, but we need to be accurate about people before we denounce them. I'd say he's definitely a schmuck, and an old white curmudgeon, and like Trump. And, like Trump, he's attractive to Alt-Right. But, given the alt-rights choices, who'd they have to support? Trump.

The Alt-Right is really not being forced into supporting Breitbart and Trump by the lack of credible alternatives. That is a silly narrative. They are genuinely enthusiastic about both, and the sentiment has been well-reciprocated.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The Alt-Right is really not being forced into supporting Breitbart and Trump by the lack of credible alternatives. That is a silly narrative. They are genuinely enthusiastic about both, and the sentiment has been well-reciprocated.

Do you have any evidence of Bannon, or Trump courting the alt-right? I'm not suggesting they have no choice. Bannon has given them little reason to complain, other than hiring Jewish, minorities, and openly LGBTQ conservative people who share his nationalistic anti-globalist agenda. He's a "patriot" in the worst sense of the word.

Putting the shoe on the other foot, no one (except maybe the alt-right) ever seriously thought Obama courted, or curried favor with Hamas.