Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vader

The Next President

Recommended Posts

Whistleblowers are offered immunity from prosecution for providing the public with information about the illegal or unethical practices of a public or private entity. Obama's administration does not consider Snowden a whistleblower, leaving him with the choice of either living in exile or becoming a political prisoner. The Sanders administration would carry on this legacy of oppression and intimidation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More to come, I want to play some games and have other things to do aside from go back over all this stuff from the last half year. And twenty years.

 

My two biggest issues are:

  • Clinton being the central figure devising and pushing our disastrous "lead from behind" strategy in Libya that killed thousands, reduced the country to ashes, and basically made the democratic process impossible there. If I can help it, I never want to vote for someone who says shit like, "We came, we saw, he died," about military adventurism against a non-hostile power.
  • Clinton repeatedly asserting that it'll be impossible to pay for Sanders' healthcare and education plans, but then suggesting that the way to stabilize the Middle East is to occupy it for sixty years, like we did with Germany, Japan, and Korea. Sure, that costs nothing and is totally the appropriate use of America's military power.

Honestly, Clinton's record with foreign policy is such an abject mess of neocon bullshit that I would rather have someone with no preconceived notions about the "right" way for the US to interact with the rest of the world, so that they could assemble a team of advisors who're able to craft a foreign policy that doesn't demand overlooking the deaths of thousands of brown people so that Levis can keep its worker wages in Haiti at 31 cents per hour.

 

He says we need to create another organization like NATO to combat the Islamic State, but doesn't want American troops fighting the Islamic State -- those are two contradictory goals. So #WhichBernie will make the decision when he's in office?

 

I don't see this as contradictory. The most urgent way to stop ISIS is to cut off their ability to funnel oil through Turkey and into the black market. A treaty organization that includes Turkey with other US "allies" like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, which are all the source of substantial donations to ISIS, will allow for a unified economic and foreign policy, beyond just military deployments and diplomatic favors, to close those loopholes. We emphatically shouldn't be putting any more boots on the ground against ISIS, and hopefully Sanders' plans involve the cessation of drone strikes across the board, but we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see this as contradictory. The most urgent way to stop ISIS is to cut off their ability to funnel oil through Turkey and into the black market. A treaty organization that includes Turkey with other US "allies" like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, which are all the source of substantial donations to ISIS, will allow for a unified economic and foreign policy, beyond just military deployments and diplomatic favors, to close those loopholes. We emphatically shouldn't be putting any more boots on the ground against ISIS, and hopefully Sanders' plans involve the cessation of drone strikes across the board, but we'll see.

 

A huge part of NATO is its military arm, made up of human resource contributions from the armed forces of its members. It's currently led by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO Allied Command Operations, four star USAF General Phillip Breedlove. In the wake of Libya, it's undeniable that NATO is a military organization. Drawing a parallel to it brings everything that implies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A huge part of NATO is its military arm, made up of human resource contributions from the armed forces of its members. It's currently led by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO Allied Command Operations, four star USAF General Phillip Breedlove. In the wake of Libya, it's undeniable that NATO is a military organization. Drawing a parallel to it brings everything that implies.

 

Yes, but restraint of military force is as applicable to NATO's function as the use of military force. The desire for a new NATO that folds Russia and the Arab League into its ranks, to help prevent them from acting at cross purposes with Western powers, and that puts other countries in the Middle East at the forefront of any potential policing actions is a lot more complex and nuanced than just wanting more boots on the ground in Syria—which is literally Clinton's explicit plan for "defeating" ISIS, the exact same failure of policies that have defined the last fifteen years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your points are valid to an extent, but I still feel that establishing a new NATO necessarily includes establishing a new international military force, which will end up deployed in the Middle East. Even if it's just for "military training," such an organization would require the deployment of US forces in the Middle East. Stronger diplomacy with Russia and Iran, a pivot towards sensible counterterrorist policies, and an end to drone strikes (drone strikes that Sanders has reservations about, but ultimately supports) would go much further than forming a group with a list of members that would make it as paralyzed as the UN Security Council.

Also, to nitpick, I very strongly dislike the euphemism "boots on the ground." It's an easy way to dehumanize soldiers and minimize the sacrifices that are made in the name of a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, to nitpick, I very strongly dislike the euphemism "boots on the ground." It's an easy way to dehumanize soldiers and minimize the sacrifices that are made in the name of a nation.

By the way, related to this, yesterday Republicans were attacking a representative in Illinois for not standing up for our troops.

 

Except that one, she was a veteran herself.

 

Also she's a double-amputee, having lost her legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, to nitpick, I very strongly dislike the euphemism "boots on the ground." It's an easy way to dehumanize soldiers and minimize the sacrifices that are made in the name of a nation.

 

I've only ever picked it up from conversations with my handful of friends who are veterans—rather, expanding it out from "BOG" because I feel silly using military initialisms. I wasn't aware that it was seen to have the dehumanizing connotations that you ascribe to it, just that it includes the many "advisors" and "contractors" that now constitute a military presence in foreign countries without being "soldiers," per se. I'll try to exercise more caution, I guess!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, to nitpick, I very strongly dislike the euphemism "boots on the ground." It's an easy way to dehumanize soldiers and minimize the sacrifices that are made in the name of a nation.

We also have special forces troops on the ground, but I guess they don't count...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As opposed to my off topic last post, this is a Facebook link / video embed so I dunno how it'll work out for people clicking it. But it's about the $15 an hour thing, a guy giving his testimony on where he's been, how he's served the country, and where he's at.

 

https://www.facebook.com/1518274855144200/videos/vb.1518274855144200/1518831441755208/?type=2&theater

 

This is the kind of person I fight most for. It's the kind of person Sanders fights for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only ever picked it up from conversations with my handful of friends who are veterans—rather, expanding it out from "BOG" because I feel silly using military initialisms. I wasn't aware that it was seen to have the dehumanizing connotations that you ascribe to it, just that it includes the many "advisors" and "contractors" that now constitute a military presence in foreign countries without being "soldiers," per se. I'll try to exercise more caution, I guess!

Yeah, it's not a huge deal -- like I said, it's a nitpick -- but it's a popular term that rubs me the wrong way. I don't like the way that it removes the humanity from an expression that implies a human force. Instead of having an occupying force, or a military presence, or staging an invasion, we "have boots on the ground." It's a euphemism that, to me, hides the purpose of a military maneuver and attempts to cover the human part of the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary has always supported whatever positions are convenient or popular at the time. Sometimes that means she ends up on the right side and sometimes the wrong side, but I can't seem to get a handle on at what point her agenda dictates her actions. She's basically the Mitt Romney of the Democratic party, mainly in that her positions are a watered down version of the more extreme candidates and has survived on this idea that somehow she is more electable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary has always supported whatever positions are convenient or popular at the time. Sometimes that means she ends up on the right side and sometimes the wrong side, but I can't seem to get a handle on at what point her agenda dictates her actions. She's basically the Mitt Romney of the Democratic party, mainly in that her positions are a watered down version of the more extreme candidates and has survived on this idea that somehow she is more electable.

I really, really must stress that her support is usually verbal only. I'm sure people will find the outlier or two where she actually did more than just say something for an election's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really, really must stress that her support is usually verbal only. I'm sure people will find the outlier or two where she actually did more than just say something for an election's sake.

Well it's hard to respond to that with examples without them seeming like outliers, but if you take a look at the positions outlined on her site and look at her positions on those issues 10-20 years ago they line up with what was popular at the time. I've heard all manner of justifications for why this might be the case, but I just can't ignore how focus grouped her entire political platform is. She's clearly a talented politician, but beyond that I don't think anyone can say concretely what exactly she stands for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I kept thinking about during the most recent debate when Hillary was advocating for an expansion of Obamacare rather than a shift to single payer that you can't make republican governors take the medicaid money offered to them if they want to prove a point (which they've shown that they do), and in a state like Oklahoma who is slashing medicaid budgets, what good does an expansion of Obamacare do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I kept thinking about during the most recent debate when Hillary was advocating for an expansion of Obamacare rather than a shift to single payer that you can't make republican governors take the medicaid money offered to them if they want to prove a point (which they've shown that they do), and in a state like Oklahoma who is slashing medicaid budgets, what good does an expansion of Obamacare do?

 

If you can't close the medicaid gap by raising the ceiling on who medicaid covers, you can lower the floor for ACA qualifying coverage. That population is still probably only going to be able to afford bad policies with high deductibles (healthcare coverage that's just awful but ticks off the "they're insured" box has proliferated under ACA, from what I understand), but that expansion of Obamacare would still be meaningful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CdJ158dWoAA8ZGo.jpg

 

Edit - Going to tack on that 88% of Congress is going through election this year as well. So y'know. To anyone who says Sanders won't be able to get anything done without Congress' approval or help... uh. Just vote for the appropriate people. A solution. Imagine that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey just a note: Sanders plugs should be moved to a new thread (suggested title: "feel the bern"). This one is about Trump, so unless you are talking about Sanders in relation to Trump I don't know if it belongs here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression this was an election thread.

Nah see title and OP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I have to limit my intake of politics in order to keep a crushing depression from completely overwhelming me (some cool background: at the ACLU, it was one of my duties to compile a list of every single news mention related to ACLU issues in the state of CA and across national media, and it burned me out so hard that I think I have permanent scars from the political bullshit and general 'mundane evil" of it all).

 

But... I do find something peculiar about Trump. Particularly the supporters who want Sanders first, and would vote for Trump over Clinton...

 

I've heard this a few times, I've read about it... I just... 

 

All of it makes me want benevolent robots to control all aspects of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I have to limit my intake of politics in order to keep a crushing depression from completely overwhelming me (some cool background: at the ACLU, it was one of my duties to compile a list of every single news mention related to ACLU issues in the state of CA and across national media, and it burned me out so hard that I think I have permanent scars from the political bullshit and general 'mundane evil" of it all).

 

But... I do find something peculiar about Trump. Particularly the supporters who want Sanders first, and would vote for Trump over Clinton...

 

I've heard this a few times, I've read about it... I just... 

 

All of it makes me want benevolent robots to control all aspects of government.

 

I get it, though, in the abstract. They're people who don't believe that our political system works and want someone to fuck it up. If that person fucks it up for the better, that's great, but if they fuck it up for the worse, it's still an improvement on business as usual. It makes me wonder if the Democratic Party's national machine is going to shift over the next few years to court disaffected and anti-establishment voters like the Republican Party's has (albeit with horrifying results).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Trump supporters are poor and uneducated white voters who feel disenfranchised by our current system. There is a subset of Sanders supporters who feel similarly, but they tend to blame the billionaire class and corporate elites rather than immigrants and people of color (which I will point out is a more accurate and more healthy target for their anger). 


As for what Danielle said about people who are going to vote for Sanders in the primary and Trump in the general if Clinton is the nominee... there is a common notion across many cultures that a society can reach a point where it becomes so corrupt, it is better to burn everything to the ground than to try to fix the structures and institutions that already exist. I think that might be what is motivating these Trump voters with a Sanders preference.


As a Peruvian American, I am particularly sensitive to how dangerous this ideology of institutional cleansing is. A leftist guerilla group in Peru called Sendero Luminoso held a similar philosophy, and was born among wealthy, light-skinned students and professors at Peruvian universities who felt the best way to help the poor in their society was to start a burn-all revolution, and I use the term "burn" quite literally. They torched parishes, charitable organizations, and the farms of non-compliant peasants — all of whom they saw as tools of Peru's corporate oligarchy. While poor Peruvians were initially supportive of the revolution, they were quickly disillusioned as you can imagine. It began an era where the constitution was revoked and right-wing totalitarianism became the leading political philosophy — quite the opposite of what these revolutionaries wanted.

 

I should point out— Sandero Luminoso was right about the symptoms, even if they were dead wrong on the cure. Peru is a corporate oligarchy, where the divide between rich and poor is far worse than it is even in the united states. I volunteered for several months in a part of the country where poverty was particularly extreme, and also happened to be one of the regions hardest hit by the leftist guerilla group. These guys were princes.

 

In any case, my exposure to this recent history has made me suspicious of movements among affluent leftists who think they know the best way to help the poor. I tend to think it is better to mend and improve existing institutions than to try to burn them all down, and that listening to what marginalized communities want rather than imposing your own agenda on what is best for them is a much better approach, even if it doesn't lead to outcomes you are totally happy with.

 

I think about this a lot when I overhear conversations from some people who express frustration that less than 10% of Black voters in the South backed Sanders. Maybe, just maybe, this is a sign of a failure in Sanders' platform rather than stupidity on the part of these voters. And maybe not. But it's worth listening and paying attention rather than throwing shade.

 

I guess all of this is to say that if you want to support Sanders in the primaries, support him. He seems like an authentic guy with some good ideas. I would also caution people about thinking that voting for Trump is going to help anything. The Republican Party is currently pretty terrible to be sure, but the health of our democracy depends on a robust, reasoned multiparty system. Sacrificing one of the major parties to racist ideologues is one of the worst things that could happen to our political system. An incremental approach to improving society is one worth considering, and I would argue is the approach that is ultimately preferable in most circumstances.

 

Even if the revolution isn't going to come this election cycle, I would really urge everyone to still work to keep pushing that needle in the right direction, even with a somewhat flawed choice like Clinton, rather than surrendering to Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×