Campaign 2016

[Emily]

I've got to say, I'm a little frustrated by the whole take on the Iraq war by voters this year. In 2002-2003, I was apoplectic arguing with people at work and at home during the run-up to that war. The signs in front of restaurants announced "freedom fries," that they'd dumped their French wine and all kinds of other stupid things because the French didn't back it.
Just about EVERY DAMNED PERSON IN THIS DAMNED COUNTRY supported that stupid, stupid war. I left the country for 4 years expressly because I wanted to get away from the disgusting war fever that took over. Democrats and Republicans were all gung-ho. Now there's a witch hunt for the politicians who supported it. WTF? If you can blankety-blank change your mind, make mistakes, rethink, why can't they? Constituents DROVE lots of politicians to support the war. And lots of politicians and constituents believe that representatives should do what their constituents want them to do - that representatives' will should be overridden by their constituents' will.
Frankly, I'm really really really sick of the hypocritical and ignorant population of this country.

I agree. I was an active participant in the activism against the Iraq invasion before the invasion took place on the grounds that it violated international law. Indeed even back then I was participating on another Beach Boys forum where I expressed precisely these views. In my memory, there was an enormous demonstration against the war at the time, though maybe outside the country the opposition was larger. At any rate, because of my active participation in that discussion, the whole "we were innocent lambs misled by the brilliant, conniving Bush Administration" argument has never washed with me. That said, I am more sympathetic to ordinary citizens who were bombarded non-stop with distortions, propaganda, and misinformation. I'm less sympathetic to people who were in positions of power and actively participated in those distortions. Where I get frustrated is when the people who now see their support of the Iraq invasion as a mistake are nevertheless just as happy to support the next fiasco of a policy borne out of the exact same propaganda machine.

I suppose it's nice of you to be more sympathetic to the people who were not in power, but, like now, the information was there. Americans have a bizarre will to ignore reality. I'm not magical. There's nothing special about me that I could see through the non-stop distortions, propaganda, and misinformation other than I don't have a will to go along with it. I've been here, in this country, talking to these people my whole life and they willfully ignore the facts. I have no sympathy. Sorry. They are the ones who put the people in power in power. Reagan says "I'll cut taxes and revenue will go up!" Economists and anyone who isn't willfully believing a fantasy say, "absurd!", most Americans say "Yay! let's pretend it's true and vote for that guy!"  Bush says, "let the inspectors look for WMD!" They do. The inspectors say, "no WMD here!" Reasonable people say, "OK, good." Bush says, "Saddam is so evil he tricked the inspectors! War!" (Inspectors - "uh, no") Americans: "Yay! War!" Trump says "Mexicans and Muslims cause all your problems!" Reasonable people: "uh, no" Most Americans: "Build that wall!"
no sympathy

[thorgil]

This old "reactionary", as I have been called in another thread for disliking a lousy article, can't vote (not American).
But Billy and others, please vote Clinton. Yes, I don't like her either, but we haven't recovered from 8 years of Bush yet, and probably never will. Even 4 years of Trump would f*** us all up, and I mean all of us, not just Americans. Please don't play with fire. This is serious. Deadly serious.
Ah, kds and others, come on, you too. Please see the light and vote Clinton. She is right-wing enough for you anyway.

[the captain]

That reactionary comment really stuck in your craw, eh?

[thorgil]

You bet. I've been called many things in my life, but "reactionary" is a first. I understand it was not directly aimed at me, and rather at the whole group of the dislikers of that article, but I don't like being bundled into a straw man. I'm thin skinned that way.

[Douchepool]

Five minutes of Hillary and we'll be at war with Russia. But hey, at least you won't have Trump, right?

Where are you from, anyway, Mr. thorgil?

[the captain]

You bet. I've been called many things in my life, but "reactionary" is a first. I understand it was not directly aimed at me, and rather at the whole group of the dislikers of that article, but I don't like being bundled into a straw man. I'm thin skinned that way.

Am I the one who said it? Sorry to offend, if I did. I know I painted with a broad brush on the reaction to the race article (even though I disliked the article quite a bit, too).

[Emily]

You bet. I've been called many things in my life, but "reactionary" is a first. I understand it was not directly aimed at me, and rather at the whole group of the dislikers of that article, but I don't like being bundled into a straw man. I'm thin skinned that way.

Am I the one who said it? Sorry to offend, if I did. I know I painted with a broad brush on the reaction to the race article (even though I disliked the article quite a bit, too).

'Twas I, but it was not targeted at anyone who critiqued the article. Only those who were going on not about the actual points of the article but who were having an emotional knee-jerk to the fact that the article discusses race in proximity to Pet Sounds, causing multiple pages of tangential denunciations of academia, 'social justice warriors' and 'political correctness.'

The offending comment:

I agree that Pet Sounds is not a good album to use in the context of the article. I also agree that the article fails in its main thesis. But I think the reaction against the article in this thread is both disproportionate and misguided.  The article really isn't about the Beach Boys or Brian Wilson, or even Pet Sounds. Yes, that was thrown in as click-bait. But the article makes many valid points that are being dismissed for reactionary reasons.

[the captain]

You bet. I've been called many things in my life, but "reactionary" is a first. I understand it was not directly aimed at me, and rather at the whole group of the dislikers of that article, but I don't like being bundled into a straw man. I'm thin skinned that way.

Am I the one who said it? Sorry to offend, if I did. I know I painted with a broad brush on the reaction to the race article (even though I disliked the article quite a bit, too).

'Twas I, but it was not targeted at anyone who critiqued the article. Only those who were going on not about the actual points of the article but who were having an emotional knee-jerk to the fact that the article discusses race in proximity to Pet Sounds, causing multiple pages of tangential denunciations of academia, 'social justice warriors' and 'political correctness.'

So it could just as well have been from me...it just happened not to be.

[bluesno1fann]

Clinton's really no leftist....

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

[the captain]

Clinton's really no leftist....

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

I don't think any honest, informed observer would ever have said she is.

[thorgil]

Yes, I am against academia and have big reservations about some of the P.C. package, particularly the glee with which they'll censor anything on often flimsy ground. For the likes of Emily and the Capt., that makes me a reactionary.
Of course, for the likes of Douchepool I'm a "Red" European, which I think is more like the truth however.

I'll repeat that I'd vote Clinton if I could, though she is too far to the right for my tastes, and obviously my real choice would be Jill Stein. About Putin: he is nothing if not a pragmatist, would not wage war on the US just because they have a lady President for the first time.

[the captain]

Yes, I am against academia and have big reservations about some of the P.C. package, particularly the glee with which they'll censor anything on often flimsy ground. For the likes of ... the Capt., that makes me a reactionary.

Now you're making assumptions. My comment to Emily was based on what she said: if you "were going on not about the actual points of the article but ... having an emotional knee-jerk to the fact that the article discusses race in proximity to Pet Sounds, causing multiple pages of tangential denunciations of academia, 'social justice warriors' and 'political correctness,'" then I guess so. But if you were making actual points based on reason, then I wasn't. I don't care who believes what, so long as s/he backs it up with sound reason.

[Heysaboda]

"I am not a groper."  -- Donald Trump   

[Emily]

OK. Billy. Clinton's within the margin of error in Texas. This whole election could come down to you.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

No pressure! Either vote for cyanide or arsenic! Got to stick the knife in either the top socket nor the bottom socket!

Still voting for Stein...>I can't in good conscience vote for Trump nor Clinton.

I did notice more and more Republicans here are so disgusted by Trump that they are either turning to Johnson or abstaining...

[SurfRiderHawaii]

OK. Billy. Clinton's within the margin of error in Texas. This whole election could come down to you.

I was thinking the same thing. C'mon Billy. Pinch your nose and vote Clinton. Breaking the Republican stranglehold on Texas would have a huge impact. Stein is a wasted vote but a Clinton vote can open up Texas to 3rd parties in future!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I can't.

That said, I have successfully convinced many of my friends/co-workers who would've been voting for Trump to vote for Johnson, instead. If not for the whole Aleppo fiasco, would've had more. Good news is, everytime Trump opens his mouth, I have more ammo.

[HeyJude]

Here's a funny (certainly a "NSFW" type of thing), and I think fair, look at the third party candidates (mainly Stein and Johnson) from John Oliver from just a few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

I think he makes some good and important points. Namely, that people should absolutely vote their conscience. But he also digs deeper into the third party candidates' actual substance, and he finds something I agree with, which is that the *lack* of media coverage of these third party candidates actually probably *helps* them.

I feel the same about the third party candidates as I did about Ralph Nader. They seem to be (or profess to be) far more to the left which is absolutely to my liking, Stein and Johnson's substance is pretty minimal once you get past the surface. In the clip above, it shows Stein seemingly afraid to lose any voters, so she tries to *not* disavow things her potential voters bring up like 9/11 "Truther" stuff. Oliver also points out how her main policy pillar of clearing student debt is simply impossible. Meanwhile, Johnson's policies border on insane in a few cases.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Here's a funny (certainly a "NSFW" type of thing), and I think fair, look at the third party candidates (mainly Stein and Johnson) from John Oliver from just a few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

I think he makes some good and important points. Namely, that people should absolutely vote their conscience. But he also digs deeper into the third party candidates' actual substance, and he finds something I agree with, which is that the *lack* of media coverage of these third party candidates actually probably *helps* them.

I feel the same about the third party candidates as I did about Ralph Nader. They seem to be (or profess to be) far more to the left which is absolutely to my liking, Stein and Johnson's substance is pretty minimal once you get past the surface. In the clip above, it shows Stein seemingly afraid to lose any voters, so she tries to *not* disavow things her potential voters bring up like 9/11 "Truther" stuff. Oliver also points out how her main policy pillar of clearing student debt is simply impossible. Meanwhile, Johnson's policies border on insane in a few cases.

Unfortunately, though, John Oliver's presentation of Stein's position on clearing student debt was a distortion and his analysis was completely inaccurate. This video goes through a point-by-point refutation of Oliver's case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01YN0Unv9aA

I don't quite agree with the rhetoric that the speaker in this video uses and I certainly don't care for the 9/11 talk at the end, but the refutation of Oliver's other points is sound. Partly, Oliver's problem is that he's basing his opinion off of a Rolling Stone article that borrows from Slate's Jordan Weissmann's analysis and Weissmann is essentially a professional spokesman for the Clinton Administration.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Here's a funny (certainly a "NSFW" type of thing), and I think fair, look at the third party candidates (mainly Stein and Johnson) from John Oliver from just a few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

I think he makes some good and important points. Namely, that people should absolutely vote their conscience. But he also digs deeper into the third party candidates' actual substance, and he finds something I agree with, which is that the *lack* of media coverage of these third party candidates actually probably *helps* them.

I feel the same about the third party candidates as I did about Ralph Nader. They seem to be (or profess to be) far more to the left which is absolutely to my liking, Stein and Johnson's substance is pretty minimal once you get past the surface. In the clip above, it shows Stein seemingly afraid to lose any voters, so she tries to *not* disavow things her potential voters bring up like 9/11 "Truther" stuff. Oliver also points out how her main policy pillar of clearing student debt is simply impossible. Meanwhile, Johnson's policies border on insane in a few cases.

Unfortunately, though, John Oliver's presentation of Stein's position on clearing student debt was a distortion and his analysis was completely inaccurate. This video goes through a point-by-point refutation of Oliver's case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01YN0Unv9aA

I don't quite agree with the rhetoric that the speaker in this video uses and I certainly don't care for the 9/11 talk at the end, but the refutation of Oliver's other points is sound. Partly, Oliver's problem is that he's basing his opinion off of a Rolling Stone article that borrows from Slate's Jordan Weissmann's analysis and Weissmann is essentially a professional spokesman for the Clinton Administration.

+1
Thank you for that...beat me to the punch!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Partly, Oliver's problem is that he's basing his opinion off of a Rolling Stone article that borrows from Slate's Jordan Weissmann's analysis and Weissmann is essentially a professional spokesman for the Clinton Administration.

Yet another reason why I will not be swayed.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Partly, Oliver's problem is that he's basing his opinion off of a Rolling Stone article that borrows from Slate's Jordan Weissmann's analysis and Weissmann is essentially a professional spokesman for the Clinton Administration.

Yet another reason why I will not be swayed.

Gary Johnson has nothing in common with Bernie Sanders! He is just another Republican who smokes pot.

His views on Global Warming are alarming:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/gary-johnson-climate-change

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'm voting for Stein, not Sanders. I'm selling Sanders to my Republican friends who refuse to vote Clinton or Stein yet aren't happy with Trump

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I'm voting for Stein, not Sanders. I'm selling Sanders to my Republican friends who refuse to vote Clinton or Stein yet aren't happy with Trump

Of course you mean Johnson. Anybody but Trump is a good vote!

[HeyJude]

Clearing student debt is just not something that would ever gone done in the way Stein proposes. It's just preposterous. I think it's an important issue, and I think college should be free for everyone in the country. I don't think it's the *most* important issue, and I think Stein making the issue such a large part of her campaign platform is more about trying to field young voters than anything else. Which isn't a bad thing in and of itself. I think there are other more fundamental issues of economic disparity a truly liberal candidate should tackle *prior* to tackling student debt.

But I'm also pretty appalled that Stein is *so* desperate for votes that she won't repudiate positions taken by potential supporters. Her response to that 9/11 "Truther" in that town hall meeting was stunning. And beyond her being afraid to unequivocally call out that conspiracy theory for fear of losing votes, I found her response empty non-substantive. It's a lot of "we'll look into that" and "we need to get the full story." Really? Is there more story that she's really going to unearth on that issue?

If she thinks 9/11 was an inside job, I'd respect her more if she said so. I'm guessing she doesn't believe that, but if she can't 100% shoot down that stuff, it makes her look *really* bad.

Aside from all of that, I'm just really tired of the "they're both awful" arguments about the two major candidates. As I've often said, Hillary versus Trump is like getting kicked in the nuts versus getting your head chopped off. I don't like Hillary particularly, and my politics are far more to the left. I'm disappointed the Democratic party couldn't find someone with less baggage than Clinton. But there *is* a point where pragmatism has to come into play. The "Spoiler" thing is a *real* thing, as 2000 proved. If Nader had told his supporters to vote for Gore in *just* Florida, there would probably be thousands of Americans and Iraqis (and others) still alive today, because Al Gore likely would have gone into Afghanistan in 2001, but he would likely *not* have gone into Iraq in 2003. When the difference between the two "bad" choices is still *that* substantive, I think it's VERY important.

Even Noam freaking Chomsky, a Stein supporter, has said if you are in a swing state, you have to just hold your nose and vote for Clinton.

There are other elections where we have the luxury to make a protest vote or vote for a fringe candidate with no chance of winning. This current election has an even darker possibility looming if Trump wins than what occurred in 2000.

I like what Billy mentioned as far as, if you run across someone who you *know* will *never* vote for Hillary, if you can convince them to vote for someone other than Trump, that *does* help.