Campaign 2016

[the captain]

I would prefer a president who was an avowed atheist

Amen to that.

I am so turned off by the (presumably false) religiosity of our elected officials. Somehow, the least religious people in this country are the most educated, yet this batch of attorneys and businesspeople who make up our legislature and our executive officials somehow are all deeply religious--and mostly Christian? Barf. It's pandering. It's bad for the truly religious and it's bad for those of us with no religion. It's a sham. And while I could vote for someone of most any religion as long as they weren't claiming to hear voices from the almighty or taking ancient magic books as literal truth, I'd prefer to vote for someone who will make decisions on objective reality.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Unsuprisingly, the Wikileaks dump has shown a desire on the part of DNC members to undermine Sanders' election bid.

[SMiLE Brian]

Hey it's the American way these days, too bad Trump is such a moron or else Hillary wouldn't have a chance.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Unfortunately, I don't think the American voter can afford to underestimate the potential Trump has. I also think that Hillary was always the slam dunk for the Dems - she quite perfectly represents their ideals.

[SMiLE Brian]

Yeah it's a rough climate in the USA and Trump is taking full advantage of that with his Mussolini-lite act of controlling the chaos.

[Emily]

The most recent emails are mainly from late May, after the primaries were a foregone conclusion and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sanders were pretty much open enemies.
I'm not particularly defending DWS, but I don't think it's evidence of the "coronation" of which people speak.
Also, I wonder CSM, who you mean by "the Dems" when you say that Clinton "perfectly represents their ideals."
Do you mean the DNC? Or registered Democrats at large? Or the elected Democrats at the federal level? Or the elected Democrats across the board? Or some other segment?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The most recent emails are mainly from late May, after the primaries were a foregone conclusion and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sanders were pretty much open enemies.
I'm not particularly defending DWS, but I don't think it's evidence of the "coronation" of which people speak.
Also, I wonder CSM, who you mean by "the Dems" when you say that Clinton "perfectly represents their ideals."
Do you mean the DNC? Or registered Democrats at large? Or the elected Democrats at the federal level? Or the elected Democrats across the board? Or some other segment?

I'm not sure of the coronation of which people speak but it's another example of what I consider to be the rather shameful way that Sanders was treated, by and large, particularly in comparison to the other two candidates in this run-up.

By the Dems, I suppose I'm referring to the DNC as well as elected mainstream Democrats.

[Emily]

The most recent emails are mainly from late May, after the primaries were a foregone conclusion and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sanders were pretty much open enemies.
I'm not particularly defending DWS, but I don't think it's evidence of the "coronation" of which people speak.
Also, I wonder CSM, who you mean by "the Dems" when you say that Clinton "perfectly represents their ideals."
Do you mean the DNC? Or registered Democrats at large? Or the elected Democrats at the federal level? Or the elected Democrats across the board? Or some other segment?

I'm not sure of the coronation of which people speak but it's another example of what I consider to be the rather shameful way that Sanders was treated, by and large, particularly in comparison to the other two candidates in this run-up.

By the Dems, I suppose I'm referring to the DNC as well as elected mainstream Democrats.

I agree for the most part.
I certainly agree that Clinton's representative of the ideology of the DNC and most national and state-level elected Democrats. Local elected and party members in general, it's not so clear.
The "coronation" is the claim that Clinton was "given" the nomination. That, I don't agree with. That the DNC tried to undermine Sanders, I do agree with.

By the other two candidates, do you mean Trump and Clinton or Clinton and another Democrat? Trump was treated pretty badly by his party, though I think he deserved it, and worse.

[Emily]

BTW, is Canada in need of guest-workers? I might be looking in mid-November :-)

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I certainly agree that Clinton's representative of the ideology of the DNC and most national and state-level elected Democrats. Local elected and party members in general, it's not so clear.
The "coronation" is the claim that Clinton was "given" the nomination. That, I don't agree with. That the DNC tried to undermine Sanders, I do agree with.

In that case, I think we are in full agreement.

By the other two candidates, do you mean Trump and Clinton or Clinton and another Democrat? Trump was treated pretty badly by his party, though I think he deserved it, and worse.

I mean Trump and Clinton. I agree that Trump was treated badly by his party but, for the most part, the criticism that he has received by the mainstream media who have given his platform a huge amount of airtime has amounted to mere head-shaking of the "I can't believe he really said that" variety*. I suppose I am thinking of overall treatment of all three candidates - not just the treatment given by the parties themselves.

* EDIT: Like anything, of course, there are exceptions to this point.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

BTW, is Canada in need of guest-workers? I might be looking in mid-November :-)

 

I wonder might be the reason for that!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

In other news, while the tragic events in Kabul and Munich were widely reported, I had to search high and low for the equally tragic reports that a US air strike killed around 80 Syrian civilians the other day. While this air strike was an accident, you can imagine the response if the reverse occurred. Furthermore, when you consider the fact that about 90% of those killed by drone attacks are innocent civilians anyway, this was barely different than the types of attacks that occur on a regular basis in the region. Again, quite remarkable that this story was comparably silenced and I say that quite confidently because as soon as I saw reports I went to look on mainstream sites and it was nowhere to be found.

[Emily]

I certainly agree that Clinton's representative of the ideology of the DNC and most national and state-level elected Democrats. Local elected and party members in general, it's not so clear.
The "coronation" is the claim that Clinton was "given" the nomination. That, I don't agree with. That the DNC tried to undermine Sanders, I do agree with.

In that case, I think we are in full agreement.

By the other two candidates, do you mean Trump and Clinton or Clinton and another Democrat? Trump was treated pretty badly by his party, though I think he deserved it, and worse.

I mean Trump and Clinton. I agree that Trump was treated badly by his party but, for the most part, the criticism that he has received by the mainstream media who have given his platform a huge amount of airtime has amounted to mere head-shaking of the "I can't believe he really said that" variety*. I suppose I am thinking of overall treatment of all three candidates - not just the treatment given by the parties themselves.

* EDIT: Like anything, of course, there are exceptions to this point.

The media is such a can of worms. And it can be viewed from a few angles. I think it's clear Sanders didn't get as much coverage as Clinton or Trump. I think they just about encouraged Trump and let him make false claims over and over without calling him on them. The covered Clinton a lot, but I think the coverage for the most part is biased against, so I don't know how to compare that to the ignoring of Sanders. I guess if you're Trump, you think all media is good media, but I'm not convinced.
In any case, I think very few members of the media have done reputable jobs.

[Emily]

In other news, while the tragic events in Kabul and Munich were widely reported, I had to search high and low for the equally tragic reports that a US air strike killed around 80 Syrian civilians the other day. While this air strike was an accident, you can imagine the response if the reverse occurred. Furthermore, when you consider the fact that about 90% of those killed by drone attacks are innocent civilians anyway, this was barely different than the types of attacks that occur on a regular basis in the region. Again, quite remarkable that this story was comparably silenced and I say that quite confidently because as soon as I saw reports I went to look on mainstream sites and it was nowhere to be found.

I saw that, but yes, it got very little coverage.
As do ISIS attacks on Muslims.
I've been puzzling over my feelings on drone attacks and US involvement to any degree. The UK and France basically set up long-term instability in the Middle East; then in the last few decades, the US blew the delicate balance sky high. So, we have no moral standing in what happens there. And even if in theory we did, I don't trust the US in practice to make choices on the right principles. However, ISIS really is awful for most Middle Easterners, particularly Shi'a but also Sunni who don't believe "right". And the vulnerability of much of the Middle East to ISIS was created by the US, so from that perspective, it would be wrong to walk away.
Regarding drones, if we are going to get involved militarily, are drones worse than a ground war or bombing? That's not a challenge. I just haven't thought that through and don't have an opinion.
What are your thoughts on both the ethical conundrum and on comparative military methods, if military action is taken?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

In other news, while the tragic events in Kabul and Munich were widely reported, I had to search high and low for the equally tragic reports that a US air strike killed around 80 Syrian civilians the other day. While this air strike was an accident, you can imagine the response if the reverse occurred. Furthermore, when you consider the fact that about 90% of those killed by drone attacks are innocent civilians anyway, this was barely different than the types of attacks that occur on a regular basis in the region. Again, quite remarkable that this story was comparably silenced and I say that quite confidently because as soon as I saw reports I went to look on mainstream sites and it was nowhere to be found.

I saw that, but yes, it got very little coverage.
As do ISIS attacks on Muslims.
I've been puzzling over my feelings on drone attacks and US involvement to any degree. The UK and France basically set up long-term instability in the Middle East; then in the last few decades, the US blew the delicate balance sky high. So, we have no moral standing in what happens there. And even if in theory we did, I don't trust the US in practice to make choices on the right principles. However, ISIS really is awful for most Middle Easterners, particularly Shi'a but also Sunni who don't believe "right". And the vulnerability of much of the Middle East to ISIS was created by the US, so from that perspective, it would be wrong to walk away.
Regarding drones, if we are going to get involved militarily, are drones worse than a ground war or bombing? That's not a challenge. I just haven't thought that through and don't have an opinion.
What are your thoughts on both the ethical conundrum and on comparative military methods, if military action is taken?

I'm afraid I'm not expert enough to know what is better myself between ground war and air attacks. I do know that the drone tactic has essentially amount to nothing more than a terrorist campaign that has had more of an effect in creating terrorists rather than eliminating them.

I agree that ISIS is awful. Their tactics are deplorable and unfortunately they represent a genuine threat - and much more so in that part of the world than in this one, but it's awful no matter where it is taking place. In my view, there are guerrilla forces who, I think, could be very successful in bringing down ISIS, particularly in Turkey but the West has been actively supporting their suppression and no doubt the recent troubles in Turkey haven't helped their cause either. I do think that, at the moment, at least, the ethical decision as well as the most effective decision, would be to support these guerrilla forces. However, if we continue down the path of supporting terrorist generating policies that contribute significantly to global instability, that may become less of an option. But right now I think it would be effective.

[Emily]

That's interesting. I'll have to go learn more about that. Are you referring to Kurds, or to other groups?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

That's interesting. I'll have to go learn more about that. Are you referring to Kurds, or to other groups?

I believe the vast majority are Kurds, yes. I should say that these groups also exist in Syria.

[Emily]

That's interesting. I'll have to go learn more about that. Are you referring to Kurds, or to other groups?

I believe the vast majority are Kurds, yes. I should say that these groups also exist in Syria.

thanks. Will go read!

[Emily]

I'll note that that was a strategy taken in Central America and Cuba. Much of it failed, but I'm guessing part of that is because in those cases, the US-supported Guerrillas were working against the majority and in some cases were artificially generated, which I don't think would be the case with ISIS.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'll note that that was a strategy taken in Central America and Cuba. Much of it failed, but I'm guessing part of that is because in those cases, the US-supported Guerrillas were working against the majority and in some cases were artificially generated, which I don't think would be the case with ISIS.

Yes, in many of those cases, the US was supporting and in some cases, directly establishing military juntas, which in my view, is something quite a bit different from the kind of guerrilla movements in Turkey and Syria.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The most recent emails are mainly from late May, after the primaries were a foregone conclusion and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sanders were pretty much open enemies.
I'm not particularly defending DWS, but I don't think it's evidence of the "coronation" of which people speak.
Also, I wonder CSM, who you mean by "the Dems" when you say that Clinton "perfectly represents their ideals."
Do you mean the DNC? Or registered Democrats at large? Or the elected Democrats at the federal level? Or the elected Democrats across the board? Or some other segment?

I'm not sure of the coronation of which people speak but it's another example of what I consider to be the rather shameful way that Sanders was treated, by and large, particularly in comparison to the other two candidates in this run-up.

By the Dems, I suppose I'm referring to the DNC as well as elected mainstream Democrats.

I 100% agree, and just a reminder of why I'm going to vote independent again like in the last 2 elections. IMHO a vote for the 'lesser of two evils' is still a vote for evil.  Some may scoff and say I'm 'wasting my vote'. No, I'm just going in with a clear conscience.

[bluesno1fann]

The most recent emails are mainly from late May, after the primaries were a foregone conclusion and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sanders were pretty much open enemies.
I'm not particularly defending DWS, but I don't think it's evidence of the "coronation" of which people speak.
Also, I wonder CSM, who you mean by "the Dems" when you say that Clinton "perfectly represents their ideals."
Do you mean the DNC? Or registered Democrats at large? Or the elected Democrats at the federal level? Or the elected Democrats across the board? Or some other segment?

I'm not sure of the coronation of which people speak but it's another example of what I consider to be the rather shameful way that Sanders was treated, by and large, particularly in comparison to the other two candidates in this run-up.

By the Dems, I suppose I'm referring to the DNC as well as elected mainstream Democrats.

I 100% agree, and just a reminder of why I'm going to vote independent again like in the last 2 elections. IMHO a vote for the 'lesser of two evils' is still a vote for evil.  Some may scoff and say I'm 'wasting my vote'. No, I'm just going in with a clear conscience.

What do you think about the idea of voting for the Greens this time round?

[Tab Lloyd]

I think the Green Party is the only sane alternative. This whole argument that a vote for a third party is a vote for fascism is a canard. Hillary just wants to win no matter what and has no real agenda other than please vote for me! She's a bigger Hawk than Trump and in choosing Kaine, a decent dude I'm sure but a big supporter of Big Money and the Too Big To Fail Crowd. The Dems are just shoveling more of the same and counting on the anyone but Trump vote. Jill Stein would appear to be the only sane, coherent choice left. Come on Bernie stand up and stand up!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The most recent emails are mainly from late May, after the primaries were a foregone conclusion and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sanders were pretty much open enemies.
I'm not particularly defending DWS, but I don't think it's evidence of the "coronation" of which people speak.
Also, I wonder CSM, who you mean by "the Dems" when you say that Clinton "perfectly represents their ideals."
Do you mean the DNC? Or registered Democrats at large? Or the elected Democrats at the federal level? Or the elected Democrats across the board? Or some other segment?

I'm not sure of the coronation of which people speak but it's another example of what I consider to be the rather shameful way that Sanders was treated, by and large, particularly in comparison to the other two candidates in this run-up.

By the Dems, I suppose I'm referring to the DNC as well as elected mainstream Democrats.

I 100% agree, and just a reminder of why I'm going to vote independent again like in the last 2 elections. IMHO a vote for the 'lesser of two evils' is still a vote for evil.  Some may scoff and say I'm 'wasting my vote'. No, I'm just going in with a clear conscience.

What do you think about the idea of voting for the Greens this time round?

I'm definitely leaning that way.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The most recent emails are mainly from late May, after the primaries were a foregone conclusion and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Sanders were pretty much open enemies.
I'm not particularly defending DWS, but I don't think it's evidence of the "coronation" of which people speak.
Also, I wonder CSM, who you mean by "the Dems" when you say that Clinton "perfectly represents their ideals."
Do you mean the DNC? Or registered Democrats at large? Or the elected Democrats at the federal level? Or the elected Democrats across the board? Or some other segment?

I'm not sure of the coronation of which people speak but it's another example of what I consider to be the rather shameful way that Sanders was treated, by and large, particularly in comparison to the other two candidates in this run-up.

By the Dems, I suppose I'm referring to the DNC as well as elected mainstream Democrats.

I 100% agree, and just a reminder of why I'm going to vote independent again like in the last 2 elections. IMHO a vote for the 'lesser of two evils' is still a vote for evil.  Some may scoff and say I'm 'wasting my vote'. No, I'm just going in with a clear conscience.

Understandable. But in my view voting for Clinton could very well be the most ethical decision in some cases. Chomsky, I think, makes the most persuasive point on this issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qFWGE1oDoA