Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vader

The Next President

Recommended Posts

that makes me feel

 

really unwell

 

to see it so clearly laid out like that

 

man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that makes me feel

 

really unwell

 

to see it so clearly laid out like that

 

man

 

It certainly does seem like there's a substantial part of the Democratic Party that's willing to alienate and disillusion younger generations of voters just to win the present election for their preferred candidate. I don't really know if they don't realize that that's not sustainable or if they just don't care because they'll be out the door before the absence of those voters in the ranks of the party is really felt.

 

Brad Marshall is claiming that he was referring to someone else in that email about Sanders' atheism, of course. He doesn't, however, clarify how that makes any sense at all, so I'm going to go with "don't care" for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikileaks has released emails of DNC leadership (CEO, CFO, director and deputy director of communications) trying to out Sanders as an atheist before the KY and WV primaries because it "could make several points difference with my peeps" and suggesting that the governor of RI could head off a scandal with Sanders supporters because "she's one of ours." Fuck me, this election season is so terrible, even the "good guys" are part of a massively and shamelessly corrupt structure of cronyist politics. I almost have more hope of reform for the US government proper than for the DNC.

 

From an optics angle, that's a fucking disaster.  Jesus. 

 

 

 

But I think you can ask an interesting academic ethics question about whether or not the DNC should have been treating Sanders as anything other than a threat.  Sanders is not, and never has been, a registered Democrat (Vermont does not have registered party affiliation at all, technically).  While he's caucused with the Democrats since he joined the Senate, he's got a history of being actively antagonistic towards them within Vermont at times.  Bernie is a bit of a coinflip historically as far as being a political ally to the DNC goes.  With that as context, dDoes the DNC have any ethical obligation to treat all candidates for the Democratic nomination equally or fairly?  I honestly think the answer is no.  I think it's in their best interest to do so, but that's not the same as having an ethical obligation to do so. 

 

Edited to add: Unless of course the DNC bylaws establish an ethical framework that treating all candidates equally is in fact exactly what was expected, in which case throw my previous argument out.  I realized after I typed that out that it might be in their internal rules, but I honestly don't know off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think you can ask an interesting academic ethics question about whether or not the DNC should have been treated Sanders as anything other than a threat.  Sanders is not, and never has been, a registered Democrat (Vermont does not have registered party affiliation at all, technically).  While he's caucused with the Democrats since he joined the Senate, he's got a history of being actively antagonistic towards them within Vermont at times.  Bernie is a bit of a coinflip historically as far as being a political ally to the DNC goes.  With that as context, dDoes the DNC have any ethical obligation to treat all candidates for the Democratic nomination equally or fairly?  I honestly think the answer is no.  I think it's in their best interest to do so, but that's not the same as having an ethical obligation to do so. 

 

I think the question for me is, is the Democratic Party a party of policies or a party of personalities? If the Democratic Party is a party of policies, that wants to see certain legislature enacted and certain institutions funded, then it shouldn't matter whether their nominee has done time in the party echelons shouldn't matter one jot, because his policies are overwhelmingly the Democratic Party's policies.

 

However, and I think that this is sadly the case, if the Democratic Party is a party of personalities, it has every reason as an institution to resist Sanders' candidacy. He hasn't done the time, he doesn't know the right people, and he's not been vetted—not to be a presidential candidate, mind you, but to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, which is clearly something different. If what we are electing when we poll with the Democratic Party is a personified brand, then Hilary (#ImWithHer) was crowned before Bernie (#FeelTheBern) even had a chance. That's not a problem right now, strictly speaking, since I'm confident that Clinton will have no trouble getting elected against Mussolini-but-a-clown, but I think it'll be a problem as the DNC leadership ages and as technology makes these who-knows-who maneuvers a public embarrassment to a generation that doesn't understand (or doesn't have to understand) that they're how politics has always been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also displays some of the issues with our democracy, the parties are already gatekeepers as to who is able to have a 'serious' run for the White House, if a few people at the top of the parties are messing with the rules and prematurely favoring one candidate over another then the primaries are pointless and the parties should just go back to anointing candidates without voter input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it's a party of policies, you're talking about electing a loose cannon that may or may not tow the party line for any given bill. Not saying that I don't think that the Democratic Party is predominantly a party of personality, but I think Bernie was a threat to both sides of that coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also displays some of the issues with our democracy, the parties are already gatekeepers as to who is able to have a 'serious' run for the White House, if a few people at the top of the parties are messing with the rules and prematurely favoring one candidate over another then the primaries are pointless and the parties should just go back to anointing candidates without voter input.

 

To relate to another comment I made above, I think that much of the DNC (and the RNC) sees primaries and caucuses as public opinion polls rather than the will of their parties' constituents made manifest. For some, I imagine, an internet survey released to all registered members would work just as well as a formalized election.

 

Even if it's a party of policies, you're talking about electing a loose cannon that may or may not tow the party line for any given bill. Not saying that I don't think that the Democratic Party is predominantly a party of personality, but I think Bernie was a threat to both sides of that coin.

 

If the DNC doesn't trust Sanders to toe the party line, that's definitely an issue with personalities and not policies. Is there a reason why leftist Democrats would fall in line with centrist Clinton as president but centrist Democrats wouldn't fall in line with leftist Sanders, besides personalities and in-group signaling? I'm having trouble imagining a situation where Sanders doesn't support a $12.50/hr minimum wage from Congress because he wants $15.00/hr instead (or vice versa) but I grant that anything's possible after this year's events.

 

More to the point, which of Sanders' policies does the Democratic Party as a whole actually oppose, rather than just disagree on the particulars of timing and extent? The only one that comes to mind is that Sanders opposes the TPP, which Clinton also happens to oppose (for the moment). The rest of Clinton's platform has come to align with Sanders' platform quite closely. Is the concern that Sanders will change his mind, once he's in office? Is that not also a concern for Clinton, who has swung hard to the left during the primaries and is expected to swing back to the center for the election?

 

I guess I'm trying to draw a distinction between "Is this good for the party's members" and "Is this good for the party's leaders".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie's probably the most consistent in everything he says and does out of all the politicians I've ever followed. He's nothing if not predictable.

 

I'd hardly describe him as a loose cannon!

 

Though I can definitely see why the DNC would want to characterize him as such...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who caucused for him, I definitely saw him as a loose cannon, not so much because of his consistency with his own beliefs, but more of a "I'm going to do what I think is right and damn you if you say otherwise" sort of way. Maybe that was sold to me by the Democratic media but, if that's so, it shot them in the foot because that's what I wanted out of a candidate.

 

Edit:  To follow this idea up to Gormongous's reply, I see as Hilary the type to support the status quo and support any bills put forth by the Democratic party. Thus, even if you're only concerned about the policies and not the personalities, Hilary would be the safer choice. Once again, that could be just a weird impression based on marketing. I've done some research certainly, but not as much as many due to Washington's odd place in the primary process, combined with Superdelegates screwing up my caucus vote anyway.

 

Edit 2: In the end this is probably a meaningless distinction, since being a party of set policies, not wanting to change them, and thus electing a person who's more likely to be compliant with those predetermined policies is pretty much a party of personality anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less on the the DNC and what a garbage show they are, this is exactly the kind of thing that worries me over the next few months, that a series of scandals like this will continue to dog Clinton, just steadily chipping, chipping, chipping away at any faith people have in her or the DNC, making winning over the undecided nearly impossible allowing Trump to eek out a win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Less on the the DNC and what a garbage show they are, this is exactly the kind of thing that worries me over the next few months, that a series of scandals like this will continue to dog Clinton, just steadily chipping, chipping, chipping away at any faith people have in her or the DNC, making winning over the undecided nearly impossible allowing Trump to eek out a win.

 

I feel like the results from primaries for the last 10 years or so have been like this for both sides. It sucks, certainly, but I expect Trump is going to get the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who caucused for him, I definitely saw him as a loose cannon, not so much because of his consistency with his own beliefs, but more of a "I'm going to do what I think is right and damn you if you say otherwise" sort of way. Maybe that was sold to me by the Democratic media but, if that's so, it shot them in the foot because that's what I wanted out of a candidate.

Ah, I see what you're saying.

 

I always considered a "loose cannon" to mean someone who was unpredictable first, uncontrollable second, but I guess it could easily go the other way. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Tim Kaine, former governor and current senator of Virginia, has been announced as Clinton's pick for VP. I'm not as down as some on Kaine, if only because he's vocal on Congressional approval of military matters, but I do think that his history with abstinence-only education and informed consent for abortions must be embarrassing to those early endorsements from Planned Parenthood and NARAL, just as his vocal support of NAFTA and the TPP is worrisome for others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Tim Kaine, former governor and current senator of Virginia, has been announced as Clinton's pick for VP. I'm not as down as some on Kaine, if only because he's vocal on Congressional approval of military matters, but I do think that his history with abstinence-only education and informed consent for abortions must be embarrassing to those early endorsements from Planned Parenthood and NARAL, just as his vocal support of NAFTA and the TPP is worrisome for others.

 

I feel like a lot of Hillary supporters, meaning those who have been with her since the early primary days, are at the moment trying to stave off coming to the realization that she is a political animal first and foremost.  She knows there is no major candidate to the left of her now that Bernie is gone, so her days of needing to campaign to the left might be coming to an end, and while I'm no expert on Kaine picking him seems to be Clinton taking aim at all the republicans who can't stomach trump.  From hearing a lot of my friends talk I feel like they secretly hoped Clinton would suddenly turn into Warren once the general election got underway.

 

On a somewhat larger note than trump specifically, I read earlier today what is probably the most terrifying thing I have in a while and highly reccomend it to anyone I can.

 

https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.kg8x88lrk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a somewhat larger note than trump specifically, I read earlier today what is probably the most terrifying thing I have in a while and highly reccomend it to anyone I can.

 

https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/im-with-the-banned-8d1b6e0b2932#.kg8x88lrk

 

Man, I've been following the excesses of the alt right for a couple of years now and that article is still a kaleidoscopic haze of outrageous evil to me.

 

Unless of course the DNC bylaws establish an ethical framework that treating all candidates equally is in fact exactly what was expected, in which case throw my previous argument out.  I realized after I typed that out that it might be in their internal rules, but I honestly don't know off the top of my head.

 

It's not easy to find the DNC bylaws online, but the copy I found definitely indicates that impartiality between all campaigns is expected (and that it is the duty of the chairperson to enforce that impartiality):

 

Article 4: The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.

 

It still feels really weird to me that the mainstream reaction to these emails (as well as to others calling Sanders' campaign manager an ass, saying that Sanders will never be president, and trying to get an anti-Sanders article circulated "without attribution") has been that it's just politics and Sanders got played by the better politician. We get the system we deserve, I guess!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I just don't understand US politics &| trolls enough, but I don't get why that article by Laurie Pennie is being linked everywhere and what's the big reveal in it? It seems like it could have been written better without just labelling and insta-judging everyone around her, even if she went "behind enemy lines" and some of them deserve those labels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I just don't understand US politics &| trolls enough, but I don't get why that article by Laurie Pennie is being linked everywhere and what's the big reveal in it? It seems like it could have been written better without just labelling and insta-judging everyone around her, even if she went "behind enemy lines" and some of them deserve those labels.

 

Penny follows in the political gonzo-journalism popularized and coined by Hunter S. Thompson and on display in his political coverage in the 70s.  First person, obviously biased, experiential.  Does it trend towards the echo chamber?  Yeah, but I think there's still value in that view.  It isn't, "here is a journalism article about this event."  It's, "here are the experiences of a self described a radical queer feminist leftist in the company of the men who earn livings demonizing her very existence."  There were dozens of journalists present at that event, there should be plenty of pieces about it that are more traditional journalism.  I'm not sure that we need Penny, an ideological opposite of many of the people there, to pen one more.

 

To me the reveal, and value of it, was two fold.  That the alt-right and anti-feminism forces are now to a point of acceptability that they are throwing parties at the RNC.  Secondly, it's that even for the true believers, their job is a game.  It's a form of entertainment and sport, where points are earned and paychecks cashed.  And, Penny's protests aside, she's part of the game.  Which she denies in the story, but the existence of the story alone also places her within the game, whether she wants to play or not (I honestly can't decide if this is a wink and a nod or not, given her refusal to negotiate a beef with Roosh but contrasted with the obviously insulting comments she has to make about the people there, which is still kind of doing the beef thing).  The game element of it is the thing that most people believe is going on, but it rarely gets spoken of as plainly and directly as that article does.  And I'm honestly not sure how well a more traditionally written piece could actually talk about the game element of it.  Their personalities and reputations (Penny included) are all parts of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the reveal, and value of it, was two fold.  That the alt-right and anti-feminism forces are now to a point of acceptability that they are throwing parties at the RNC.  Secondly, it's that even for the true believers, their job is a game.  It's a form of entertainment and sport, where points are earned and paychecks cashed.  And, Penny's protests aside, she's part of the game.  Which she denies in the story, but the existence of the story alone also places her within the game, whether she wants to play or not (I honestly can't decide if this is a wink and a nod or not, given her refusal to negotiate a beef with Roosh but contrasted with the obviously insulting comments she has to make about the people there, which is still kind of doing the beef thing).  The game element of it is the thing that most people believe is going on, but it rarely gets spoken of as plainly and directly as that article does.  And I'm honestly not sure how well a more traditionally written piece could actually talk about the game element of it.  Their personalities and reputations (Penny included) are all parts of the game. 

 

Pretty much this.  The way the participants (at least as the author describes them) aren't making a point, or standing for anything but rather reveling in the conflict that surrounds them is what I find so unnerving.  She might be painting a less flattering version of events given her worldview, but she quite succinctly describes how society, or at least political thought, is slowly transforming into some high concept dystopian science fiction novel where appearance is all that matters and conflict exists for it's own sake.  The value of being politically minded of late seems less concerned with the actual ideological or practical motivations at play and entirely concerned with making sure that someone is fighting over something.  I think for many this might seem like making a mountain out of a molehill, but let's not forget that the official nominee of the political party that currently controls the congress of the most influential nation on earth at various points in his campaign called people motherfuckers, accused entire groups of criminality, regularly quotes dictators and white supremacists, praised the internment of Japanese citizens in world war 2, and during a debate made sure everyone knows he is well endowed.  It's easy to think this is one political campaign in one election year, but there is a very real possibility that everything we have seen so far will become not just the new normal, but expected and valued.  The value in the piece to me is what conversations I've had that follow it.  I mean without even speculating on a Trump presidency, how does a republican nominee, presidential or otherwise, follow Donald Trump?  Can you even be an influential member of that party without being as extreme as he is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schultz has resigned. Good riddance!

 

 

And only hours later she has found a place in the Clinton campaign, yay democracy.

 

At this point I am not sure what to do on election day, do i vote to be shot, or do I vote to be stabbed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And only hours later she has found a place in the Clinton campaign, yay democracy.

 

At this point I am not sure what to do on election day, do i vote to be shot, or do I vote to be stabbed?

In this particular instance I'm more worried about Arabs being tortured, immigrants being barred, and other sorts of things Trump has threatened to do to other people than I am about what happens to me. That's the issue I have with a lot of this "Clinton's basically the same as Trump!" rhetoric - I can't for a moment imagine someone who belongs to a group that Trump has directly threatened with death, torture, imprisonment, or the like saying anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Yuuup. like I get it. I do. Im not that excited about Hillary, but the sheer amount of unfettered oblivious privilege you need to have to have in order to look at Trump and Clinton and think "man they both suck" is so galling that I struggle to find words. Real people's lives would be measurably worse than they are now should Trump be elected. Like women going to jail for getting abortions for example. If Hillary isn't liberal enough for you, fine. whatever. But don't take your pettiness out on women, PoC and the lgbt community (heaven help anyone who falls into multiple of those categories)

Vote in your down ticket races! Those races should actually matter the most to you, but don't delude yourself into thinking that voting for trump will blow up the system and everything will be better for it. Real people's lives will be without exaggeration destroyed by a Trump presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Yuuup. like I get it. I do. Im not that excited about Hillary, but the sheer amount of unfettered oblivious privilege you need to have to have in order to look at Trump and Clinton and think "man they both suck" is so galling that I struggle to find words. Real people's lives would be measurably worse than they are now should Trump be elected. Like women going to jail for getting abortions for example. If Hillary isn't liberal enough for you, fine. whatever. But don't take your pettiness out on women, PoC and the lgbt community (heaven help anyone who falls into multiple of those categories)

Vote in your down ticket races! Those races should actually matter the most to you, but don't delude yourself into thinking that voting for trump will blow up the system and everything will be better for it. Real people's lives will be without exaggeration destroyed by a Trump presidency.

 

Again, there is an equal amount of privilege at work in saying "nothing Clinton does could possibly be as bad as anything Trump does." At this point, Trump has been directly responsible for zero lives destroyed, while Clinton's four years as secretary of state has been directly responsible for the destruction of millions of lives of men, women, and children of color in Libya and Syria, the sabotage of the economy and the hijacking of the government in Haiti, sending refugees back to Honduras where women and LGBT individuals are especially suffering from loss of their human rights, and so on. It's literally a "devil you know vs. devil you don't" situation, so I find it galling for it to be constantly implied to me that any hesitance to throw my support behind Clinton is a personal failing, coming out of pettiness and a lack of perspective. The fear of a Trump presidency is fundamentally the fear that the US government will do to US citizens what it has been doing (and what it will continue to do, I assume) to the rest of the world for decades. I understand that that's a fear that's worth keeping from coming to pass, because our government treats Latin America and the Arab world pretty terribly overall, but it's not "privilege" that's staying my hand here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true, that merely as a businessman, Trump hasn't been afforded the opportunities to engage in the morally awful practices of foreign policy that a secretary of state is responsible for. I fail to see how that makes people in the Middle East and Latin America safer under a Trump administration. We know that Trump has been signaling he wants to give Russia a freer hand in its foreign policy practices, and he seems uninterested in upholding diplomatic norms that have been in place since WWII to make the world relatively more peaceful. He has also openly advocated for torture, and doing horrible things not just to people that commit violent acts, but also against family members. Both of those directions strike me as increasing the amount of violence inflicted on peaceful people, not the other way around. Perhaps he is simply exhibiting campaign bluster, and we'll see a conventional Republican foreign policy agenda. That is still an agenda that for the last few decades has consistently been more ruthless and bloodthirsty than even the most hawkish alignments from Democratic candidates.

 

The wide expanse of the U.S. military-industrial complex being what it is, U.S. foreign policy is aggressively horrible and violent even under the reigns of relatively dovish leaders like Jimmy Carter. You need a much more radical transformation than just who is heading up that organization to change that. But I'd still rather have someone that engages in modern statecraft heading that up than someone who wants to take foreign policy in the direction of the Roman Empire. I can't think of an election where the notion of "both parties are equally awful" has been less true.

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  

×