Mighty Jalapeno wrote:So, I'm trying to understand the last two weeks of American politics.
The 2016 Democratic party just became the 1981 Republican party, and the 2016 Republican party just became Ayn Rand fanfiction? Am I close?
Was Ayn Rand a authoritarian ass hole? I thought she was just a selfish ass hole.
The GOP just went for the darker side of politics, Europeans know them right wing nationalists except Trump is also not very knowledgeable. He knows just enough to be extremely dangerous.http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... xxers.html
In other news, candidate Jill Stein panders to antivaccine groups.
Agreed. Rand and Trump are both assholes, but they're different kinds of assholes, and thus, would not get along at all, and neither would likely claim to follow the other if they were contemporaries. It's not so much that Trump is extreme right wing or anything...he's really not. He's taken distinctly leftist positions in the past before. It's that he's an unreliable person who doesn't so much hold positions as uses them.
Dammit, Stein. The anti-science bent of the green party is why I end up voting libertarian. Well, when the main two parties fail this badly at putting up reasonable candidates, anyway.
as ridiculous as imagining that Stein actually stands a chance of becoming president, in which case I could criticize you for not voting for her.
If Stein could actually win, would she still be a defendable vote? She doesn't strike me as a promising president - more like the eccentrics that serious Green parties harbour on the inside, but keep away from the ballot.
All minor parties tend to field somewhat less credible candidates, because, well, if you're a credible candidate, you end up at least joining with a major party for the presidential run, as Bernie did. They're all running doomed races, just to show the colors or whatever. If through some mishap they actually won, well...it'd probably be a mediocre presidency, with the odder positions mostly being tamped down by the need to work with congress. Johnson, while probably better in that he's more moderate, is still not ideal in many respects. He's still in essentially the same position, and a pretty similar outcome would happen if he were elected, and he's also deeply unlikely to be elected. Voting for either is essentially a protest vote to convey information.
KnightExemplar wrote:I'm curious to see how the pro-Trumpers will defend Trump's insane attack vs Khizr Khan however. Khan's speech was typical, but his family's sacrifice is supposed to be considered sacred. Its not like anyone in Trump's family served in the military. However, due to Khan's thick accent and clearly Muslim religion I'm worried that anti-Muslim sentiment will cause people to ignore the spat between Khan and Trump.
As has been noted by a number of people: there truly is only one "correct" way to respond to Khizr Khan: We thank you for your son's service and your family's sacrifice. That's it. He's a man who lost his son at war, there really isn't anything else you're supposed to say about him or his wife.
Yeah...definitely a blunder on his part. Trump should be much more careful to avoid coming across as insensitive/uncaring regarding the military. He's vulnerable there, I think. Mostly because he keeps making arrogant, stupid statements regarding conflicts and stuff he knows nothing about. The military and it's supporters are entirely okay with arrogance so long as it's justified/accurate, but when you're obviously wrong, bombast works against you. He's gotten off fairly easily so far, I think, solely because Dems traditionally have problems with appealing to the military, and Hillary is a particularly hated candidate among the military. Against a better candidate, he'd be shredded over it.
morriswalters wrote:If you choose to believe that your vote doesn't count if your candidate doesn't win then there is no real argument. But in aggregate, if sufficient numbers make excuses as to why voting doesn't matter, you get turnouts that are abysmal. This is best demonstrated in why new organizations don't report results anymore until the polls close in California. I have a second reservation in this cycle, which is, are there any truly safe states?
I can, in advance, determine that my state, Maryland, will vote democrat in the general. Yes, yes, there's some micro-chance that it could go red, but the odds of MD going red are not independent from every other state race. If we go red, it's because Trump is somehow doing implausibly well. If he is doing that well, he already is winning all the swing states by stupid margins.
There are safe states. It's incredibly predictable. If I can, beforehand, predict with essentially perfect certainty what my vote will actually do(nothing), then finding a way to utilize my vote better is completely rational.
Yes, if *everyone* thought the way I did, it'd cause interesting outcomes. GOOD. Then we'd finally get a shot at fixing the broken-ass system. Let's do that.