US election 2016

[Rayvin 5131]

[Dr Gloom 21566]

On a slightly different note, for those of you who don't think like me, what do we expect the outcome of a Hillary election will be? I guess this is aimed at Gloom and Renton; how do you think she will bring about the progressive change that will satisfy the apparently quite large number of people in the States who have had enough of the system?

Sorry, only just saw this.

 

I genuinely see her as trying to enact some progressive, social change. She's said she's going to close tax avoidance loopholes. She's proposed a "fare share" surcharge which will increase taxes on the very wealthy and on corporations. She's cutting taxes on small businesses and providing tax relief for lower earners and she's vowed to protect obamacare. This all sounds like the right stuff to me. Nothing revolutionary but a pretty sensible alternative to what Trump is pitching and not necessarily the voice of someone trying to protect elites. Trump, for all his bluster on trade and reinvigorating the rust belt, has a tax plan that the 1% would be far happier with.

[Rayvin 5131]

Does that not sound like all the same nonsense we normally get, and which makes absolutely no difference though? Is it just that I'm too jaded to see the benefit here? Will those things be enough to bring the Trump backers back from the brink?

Edited November 8, 2016 by Rayvin

[Dr Gloom 21566]

Does that not sound like all the same nonsense we normally get, and which makes absolutely no difference though? Is it just that I'm too jaded to see the benefit here? Will those things be enough to bring the Trump backers back from the brink?

What, taxing the rich more than the poor? Isn't that the cornerstone of socially progressive politics?

 

I think possibly the biggest thing at stake for the future of America is her choice of a Supreme Court justice over Trump's.

[Dr Gloom 21566]

She acknowledges the environment is a issue as well, unlike her climate change denier opponent, and she has promised to invest in clean energy while reducing oil consumption.

[Rayvin 5131]

What, taxing the rich more than the poor? Isn't that the cornerstone of socially progressive politics?

 

I think possibly the biggest thing at stake for the future of America is her choice of a Supreme Court justice over Trump's.

 

So your view is that she'll put in charge a progressive Justice, and will tax the wealthy more - and that this will stem the tide of populism. Fair enough... not convinced I have to say Thinking about it, I'm not sure what she could possibly do within the framework she adheres to.

[Dr Gloom 21566]

It's actually insane that the climate change wasn't discussed once during any of the three debates because of all the time devoted to email servers and pussy grabs. At least she acknowledges it's an issue though

[Dr Gloom 21566]

So your view is that she'll put in charge a progressive Justice, and will tax the wealthy more - and that this will stem the tide of populism. Fair enough... not convinced I have to say Thinking about it, I'm not sure what she could possibly do within the framework she adheres to.

It's not that black and white. The main thing at stake is what kind of country America wants to be. Is it going to be a pro life backwater where women are punished for having an abortion, as trump suggested? which defends the rights of all its people to buy ak47s without background checks.

 

She's a far more credible candidate on so many levels.

[Happy Face 29]

Re-post, but the "This American Life" on Clinton this week is interesting.

 

Audio

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/601/master-of-her-domain-name

 

Transcript

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/601/transcript

 

Brilliant mind that grasps concepts she's passionate about immediately.

Strong politician pushing for the rights of the lowest in society to be protected

Pragmatic politician introducing provisions to ensure laws that could harm people don't hurt too much

Political animal happy to avoid a vote completely if it will reflect poorly on her or her stated position but her lobbyists insist it must pass

 

...and all on one same issue.

 

She's a technophobe who can't use a PC and insists on using an outdated blackberry rather than learn any other technology and refused to have any additional phones though most in DC do.

 

Her email issues were due to ignorance and institutional failings, only reflecting similar problems Colin Powell and thousands of others in the state department experience.

 

But then, anyone else with her access who failed to protect classified information would get short shrift using ignorance as an excuse.  They wouldn't necessarily be in jail, but they would possibly be out of work.

[Dr Gloom 21566]

@@Rayvin

 

And what is this "framework that she adheres to" that you speak of? Have you actually scrutinised what each candidate is proposing? It seems to me that this idea that Hillary only cares about the establishments' interests is based largely on her being paid to give talks to investment banks, combined with her dishonesty over things like the emails and the idea that she's a dodgy character after reports of misuse of the Clinton foundation's funds.

 

I don't know what the future for populism holds. It may be that trump failing is exactly why the GOP needs. Perhaps the party's moderates will then be able to reassert control if they can point to the fact the angry alt-right candidate failed?

 

There are lots of angry white voters who have been emboldened by Trump's rhetoric but once you look past the bigotry, most of these wwc voters would be far better served voting for the other candidate. I doubt Hillary will ever speak to these people despite that fact. Maybe she can appeal to a broader base on the left if she works closely with Sanders. Giving him a top job in government would help there.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 5131]

@@Rayvin

 

And what is this "framework that she adheres to" that you speak of? Have you actually scrutinised what each candidate is proposing? It seems to me that this idea that Hillary only cares about the establishments' interests is based largely on her being paid to give talks to investment banks and some reports about misuse of the Clinton foundation's funds.

 

I don't know what the future for populism holds. It may be that trump failing is exactly why the GOP needs. Perhaps the party's moderates will then be able to reassert control if they can point to the fact the angry alt-right candidate failed?

 

There are lots of angry white voters who have been emboldened by Trump's rhetoric but once you look past the bigotry, most of these wwc voters would be far better served voting for the other candidate. I doubt Hillary will ever speak to these people despite that fact. Maybe she can appeal to a broader base on the left if she works closely with Sanders. Giving him a top job in government would help there.

 

I think it's too late for Sanders to be of any use, he's being seen as a sell-out now. The framework I meant was Neoliberalism, just trying to mix it up a bit

 

I think if Trump loses badly, the GOP might manage to do what you've proposed. But if he doesn't, if it's close, then this is going to rumble on unresolved. What we really need is someone on the left to come along with policies that speak past identity politics (which the left has found itself ridiculously hamstrung with) and just talks about improving things for people of all genders, races and creeds - someone rational, credible, and with left wing values. That person, I think, would obliterate the centre and the right.

 

Instead though, we're getting a total idiot, and a dyed in the wool Neoliberal, the former who can see the perverseness of the system and who is capitalising on it with a load of standard right wing xenophobia and bigotry, and the latter who either can't see it's failings or who just doesn't care.

 

Either way, it'll be Clinton, so we'll get to see if I'm right or wrong one way or another.

[Park Life 71]

This is the geezer the Republicans feared more than Trump.

 

https://www.randpaul.com/about-rand

[Gemmill 43228]

Sounds good. The upshot of the last one was that Europe (especially Germany) is sending the surplus back to Wall Street instead of re-investing it in Europe.

I'm a bit scared of getting into it tbf. Think it might be a hard slog.

[Park Life 71]

I'm a bit scared of getting into it tbf. Think it might be a hard slog.

Just skip the bits you understand.

[Park Life 71]

Trump files lawsuit against early voting in Nevada.

[Dr Gloom 21566]

I think it's too late for Sanders to be of any use, he's being seen as a sell-out now. The framework I meant was Neoliberalism, just trying to mix it up a bit

 

I think if Trump loses badly, the GOP might manage to do what you've proposed. But if he doesn't, if it's close, then this is going to rumble on unresolved. What we really need is someone on the left to come along with policies that speak past identity politics (which the left has found itself ridiculously hamstrung with) and just talks about improving things for people of all genders, races and creeds - someone rational, credible, and with left wing values. That person, I think, would obliterate the centre and the right.

 

Instead though, we're getting a total idiot, and a dyed in the wool Neoliberal, the former who can see the perverseness of the system and who is capitalising on it with a load of standard right wing xenophobia and bigotry, and the latter who either can't see it's failings or who just doesn't care.

 

Either way, it'll be Clinton, so we'll get to see if I'm right or wrong one way or another.

If neoliberalism is a framework for taxing the rich to invest in jobs and healthcare for the poor then perhaps it's not as bad as you think?

 

That's the point Renton already alluded to, it's just a label. Hillary gets a load of stick from eveyone here for representing the establishment but when you cut though a lot of the criticism, much of which is baseless, she could actually be a force for good for ordinary Americans. Or she won't fuck them up the arse as much as Trump will, at least.

[Dr Gloom 21566]

Trump files lawsuit against early voting in Nevada.

Playing the sore loser card before he's even lost. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Happy Face 29]

Our forecast has Clinton favored in states and congressional districts totaling 323 electoral votes, including all the states President Obama won in 2012 except Ohio and Iowa, but adding North Carolina. However, because our forecasts are probabilistic, and because Clinton’s leads in North Carolina and Florida especially are tenuous, the average number of electoral votes we forecast for Clinton is 302, which would be equivalent to her winning either Florida or North Carolina but not both.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

[NJS 4281]

Our forecast has Clinton favored in states and congressional districts totaling 323 electoral votes, including all the states President Obama won in 2012 except Ohio and Iowa, but adding North Carolina. However, because our forecasts are probabilistic, and because Clinton’s leads in North Carolina and Florida especially are tenuous, the average number of electoral votes we forecast for Clinton is 302, which would be equivalent to her winning either Florida or North Carolina but not both.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-election-update-theres-a-wide-range-of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

302 - Florida is 273 - one more surprise switch and she's fucked.

[Meenzer 15198]

I spent four years getting a degree in this language and I can assure you it's really very difficult.

 

[Renton 20618]

 

Horror-Clown und sexmonster?

[Meenzer 15198]

German knows lots of words. German has the best words.

[Rayvin 5131]

If neoliberalism is a framework for taxing the rich to invest in jobs and healthcare for the poor then perhaps it's not as bad as you think?

That's the point Renton already alluded to, it's just a label. Hillary gets a load of stick from eveyone here for representing the establishment but when you cut though a lot of the criticism, much of which is baseless, she could actually be a force for good for ordinary Americans. Or she won't fuck them up the arse as much as Trump will, at least.

Neoliberalism is the framework for turning everyone into consumers first, people second; cutting back the welfare state; maximising profits and the ultimate belief that the markets can do no wrong. She does stand for it because it's the framework that all major political parties in Western countries operate on.

 

What does the bit about it just being a label mean, exactly? Nazism is just a label, does that mean it's not descriptive of a very real thing?

 

Anyway my point isn't about aptitude. You and I both agree that she's a better candidate than Trump. The problem is that we have widespread populist anger at the Neoliberals. Hillary is a Neoliberal. She won't be able to have a positive impact on peoples lives unless she abandons Neoliberalism and heads back to something closer to socialism. What you have described as her policies are a move in that direction, but I sorely doubt they will be enough. That said, if you believe that they'll be enough to persuade tens of millions of disaffected Americans that the centre is right again, fair enough.

 

If she doesn't though, we get a rerun of this in 4 years time with someone potentially more dangerous than Trump.

[Rayvin 5131]

The other alternative is that actually, they're all just misogynistic racists and that Neoliberalism has nothing to do with it. That's safer. I hope it's that.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Rayvin

[Dr Gloom 21566]

Neoliberalism is the framework for turning everyone into consumers first, people second; cutting back the welfare state; maximising profits and the ultimate belief that the markets can do no wrong. She does stand for it because it's the framework that all major political parties in Western countries operate on.

 

What does the bit about it just being a label mean, exactly? Nazism is just a label, does that mean it's not descriptive of a very real thing?

 

Anyway my point isn't about aptitude. You and I both agree that she's a better candidate than Trump. The problem is that we have widespread populist anger at the Neoliberals. Hillary is a Neoliberal. She won't be able to have a positive impact on peoples lives unless she abandons Neoliberalism and heads back to something closer to socialism. What you have described as her policies are a move in that direction, but I sorely doubt they will be enough. That said, if you believe that they'll be enough to persuade tens of millions of disaffected Americans that the centre is right again, fair enough.

 

If she doesn't though, we get a rerun of this in 4 years time with someone potentially more dangerous than Trump.

 

if neoliberalism is all about cutting the welfare state then perhaps she's bucking the trend. that's what i mean about a label. you're making sweeping generalisations and pigeon holing all politicians together. clinton isn't as far to the left as i'd like my political leaders to be, but her social policies are more progressive than the shite we've had to endure from the tories the past 6 years and a shit heap better than her opponent.

 

have a look for yourself here https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

 

a lot of it sounds alright to me.