Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vader

The Next President

Recommended Posts

After Tim Kaine (pro-life, informed consent) and Ken Salazar (TPP), I'm just waiting for Clinton's pick for Secretary of State. If it's Victoria Nuland, protege of Clinton and scion of the Kagan clan, we can be sure that the Forever War will last another four years, at least, and probably open up some new fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ramping up in Syria seems more a response to Russia than a political maneuver for an upcoming election, or at least I would hope that is the case.  Obama is a shrewd politician, but I think entangling the US in another foreign conflict for political gain isn't something he would do, but then again I could be wrong.  I don't think HIllary gains anything from being seen as more of a hawk, and that kind of thing could just as easily backfire.  The battle for Syria at the moment lies with Turkey, after the coup attempt and our refusal to extradite Gulen without concrete evidence Russia is making a string play for closer ties with them for a number of reasons.  With Turkey being a NATO member, we basically have to back their play against ISIL, regardless of how brutal it is going to be (just like the situation playing out with Saudi Arabia right now) to rebuff Russia.  Putin has figured out that if he puts pressure on NATO in the right way there is a chance the US will become stretched too thin and NATO's other members won't be able or willing to fill in the gaps

 

In other words, international geopolitics is complicated, and the middle east is fucked for the forseeable future regardless of how the US presidential election goes.

 

To be clear, I don't think that the U.S. is planning to have a more apparent presence in Syria just for an election; I just think that the  Democrats may be timing things and presenting them in such a way where they can leverage the move for more political gain. I have a hard time believing that this photograph of a little boy in Aleppo is inherently special compared to the photos of war that have been taken over the past few years. Then the other day I heard on the news that Assad is using chemical weapons again. It seems like the effort to gain public support for war has gotten a bump and I do suspect that it is orchestrated. It doesn't matter I suppose. It just makes me feel slightly more in control when I point this out. Gives me a head-start in considering what my own opinion is before the media-spin really starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like that's the kind of contentless rant that people on the internet condemn when it comes from the various conservative/hate groups around the internet, but written prettier? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like that's the kind of contentless rant that people on the internet condemn when it comes from the various conservative/hate groups around the internet, but written prettier? 

 

Well, laying aside that quality of writing is important, in and of itself, and the relentless devaluation of well-written prose in favor of "content" is one of the most unfortunate things to see the internet largely champion... No, I don't agree. I think that looking at Trump's campaign and writing an intimately framed essay about the experience of being Trump, especially since Trump's personal and professional lives are the main plank on which he's built his support, has value in the way that railing about welfare queens or Benghazi isn't.

 

Really, what do you critique about Trump? His "policy" seems to be a mix of his latest briefing from advisors and whatever inbuilt preconceptions have floated to the surface of his subconscious. He'll contradict himself, talk about amnesty and building bridges with Mexico, and none of his supporters care. There's nothing to critique about Trump besides Trump, and Keillor does so unflinchingly and yet with a sort of weary compassion that makes for good writing, above all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, what do you critique about Trump? His "policy" seems to be a mix of his latest briefing from advisors and whatever inbuilt preconceptions have floated to the surface of his subconscious. He'll contradict himself, talk about amnesty and building bridges with Mexico, and none of his supporters care.

 

This is something I think about often, especially when I read things like the Kellor piece.  It's a pretty solid takedown, but to be honest it's preaching to the choir.  No one who would be impressed by that article would even consider voting for Trump, and those that don't aren't doing so for intellectual reasons.  When you see interviews with trump supporters, when they are confronted with the contradictions that swirl around trump's promises, they don't at the end of the discussion decide to drop their support.  Supporting Trump is like getting drunk-- you don't do it for any reason that makes intellectual sense, you know it'll probably have negative consequences, and you just don't care.   You did it because you wanted to, nothing more.  I get the argument certainly that a Trump presidency is a something that should be considered in a profound way, but the people and sympathies that support him are simply not engaging with their decision in that way.

 

I think this article is a great example of the reason why liberal, or even moderate commentators have been unable to create a crack in trump's armor.  They are trying to make a case against trump in a way that would compel them personally to vote against trump, but not in a way that would compel a trump supporter to vote against him.  While I personally enjoyed the read, I don't really see it as any more than another on an ever growing pile of soon to be ignored hit pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to break up the gnashing of teeth for a moment, but last weekend there was a big anime convention in the Netherlands and I spotted this, the greatest cosplay, in the crowd.

 

14088620_1795276607410611_21216735226157

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think evaluating any and all writing on the subject of Trump solely by how many trump voters it's likely to convert is not very useful or respectful, especially since that number will generally hover pretty close to zero. Things that help us understand and express the phenomenon, things that arm us rhetorically to deal with him and his ilk in the future, and things which help relieve the massive anxiety around this election and find a future to believe in have a place in our lives. No one's going to write the magic bullet, but I have a hard time believing that having all this reasoned thought and discourse about what's going wrong is worse than not having it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, laying aside that quality of writing is important, in and of itself, and the relentless devaluation of well-written prose in favor of "content" is one of the most unfortunate things to see the internet largely champion... No, I don't agree. I think that looking at Trump's campaign and writing an intimately framed essay about the experience of being Trump, especially since Trump's personal and professional lives are the main plank on which he's built his support, has value in the way that railing about welfare queens or Benghazi isn't.

 

Really, what do you critique about Trump? His "policy" seems to be a mix of his latest briefing from advisors and whatever inbuilt preconceptions have floated to the surface of his subconscious. He'll contradict himself, talk about amnesty and building bridges with Mexico, and none of his supporters care. There's nothing to critique about Trump besides Trump, and Keillor does so unflinchingly and yet with a sort of weary compassion that makes for good writing, above all.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that if someone wrote something like that about Hillary, with a lot of supposition about how she must be feeling right now, the liberal internet (and I think at least some people on this thread) would be pissed and call it a hit piece. *shrug*  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what I'm saying is that if someone wrote something like that about Hillary, with a lot of supposition about how she must be feeling right now, the liberal internet (and I think at least some people on this thread) would be pissed and call it a hit piece. *shrug*  

 

Yeah, but they wouldn't write one because they are too busy trying to get justice for Vincent Fleck.

lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think evaluating any and all writing on the subject of Trump solely by how many trump voters it's likely to convert is not very useful or respectful, especially since that number will generally hover pretty close to zero. Things that help us understand and express the phenomenon, things that arm us rhetorically to deal with him and his ilk in the future, and things which help relieve the massive anxiety around this election and find a future to believe in have a place in our lives. 

 

I can see the article and those like it have benefit, but only for selfish reasons and only in a specific circumstance,  That isn't to say those reasons are bad, but to pretend like they are more than that I think isn't beneficial.  When you say rhetorically arm yourself against him--against whom?  for what purpose?  To what end?  I enjoyed the article likely as much as many others will, but it doesn't really serve any greater need than a pat on the back.  I mean if you read the piece it does nothing to further enhance the understanding of trump's support, a motivated voting base that surely won't die with his candidacy.  It doesn't really seek to even describe the situation beyond suppositions about the man himself.  it's a hit piece, plain and simple, it's value is cathartic but to say that it has any benefit for the understanding or dealing with right wing movements in the future is a jump I just can't make.

 

As an example of what I'm talking about, plenty of conservative thinkers and writers have written just as savage takedowns of the man and his candidacy, and those articles have had largely the same impact in conservative circles.  On one side you have people condemning trump for not truly representing conservative values and fearmongering, on the other you have people diminishing him as narcissistic, and in the middle is this large swath of support that no one really seeks to understand.  All these well written articles from either side, whose intent must be to have some sort of negative effect on Trump's support, after all why else would they be written, have had no such success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a lousy way to talk about art and thought. The point of thinking is that we don't know where it will lead, don't know how it will be useful. Unless you can make an argument for it being actually detrimental, this seems like a really shitty response to something that many people seem to find meaningful and insightful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a lousy way to talk about art and thought. The point of thinking is that we don't know where it will lead, don't know how it will be useful. Unless you can make an argument for it being actually detrimental, this seems like a really shitty response to something that many people seem to find meaningful and insightful.

 

Fair enough, but I'm not talking about art and thought generally, I'm talking about that article.  The article that rants about Trump's character, seeks to define him as second rate, and generally wave a middle finger in his direction.  If you dislike Trump's politics you like the article.  The meaningfulness and insight of the article are not only informed by, but require a specific bias.  It's the kind of article that can be easily, readily identified as mudslinging if those biases don't exist.  If you like it, you like it, there's nothing wrong with it, just as it's perfectly legitimate to have a negative reaction to a piece of writing that is fundamentally negative.

 

In other news the debate moderators have been chosen, for whatever that is worth.  I haven't been able to find any hard information on whether Johnson or Stein will be invited to attend, but It doesn't seem to be looking that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I was struck by the sorrow of the piece. I find it weird seeing it framed as a take down or hit piece or whatever. Is it character assassination to say that Trump probably doesn't actually want to be president? Is it negative to say that his campaign draws more energy from resentment rather than aspiration? These seem like a very narrow way to interpret a piece of writing but, okay, whatever. I think it's worthwhile to understand that people don't always want things for the reasons they say they want them, and we often end up pursuing things we don't really want at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when Hillary was leading by 10 "points", I was getting my hopes up that there is some sanity still in the U.S., but hell, it's was just temporary, wasn't it? Trump's catching up fast without even having to do much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electorally, Clinton has it basically locked up. Almost every state that is at all in play would have to swing his way, and he has basically no ground game, and the Clinton campaign is still in the locker-room lacing up with teams upon teams of some of the best political actors in the country working with thousands across the nation, and Trump's been out in the ring yelling and flinging poo with some of the political actors least effective at building a broad base of support. We haven't even seen the gloves on yet, let alone off. Labor day is her real campaign kick-off, til now she's been letting him create and hand her ammunition all by himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to stop looking at FiveThirtyEight and having panic attacks. I know she's still likely to win but it's ridiculous to me that it's even this close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to stop looking at FiveThirtyEight and having panic attacks. I know she's still likely to win but it's ridiculous to me that it's even this close.

 

I'm not usually a "media conspiracy" guy, but polls at least are showing that most news companies are desperately trying to make this into a real horse race to keep the next two months of news from being "Seasoned politician destroys amateurish billionaire at politics." Case in point: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/06/nbcs-corrected-version-cnn-poll-clinton-four-point-lead-trump.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not usually a "media conspiracy" guy, but polls at least are showing that most news companies are desperately trying to make this into a real horse race to keep the next two months of news from being "Seasoned politician destroys amateurish billionaire at politics." Case in point: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/06/nbcs-corrected-version-cnn-poll-clinton-four-point-lead-trump.html

 

 

Yeah, I know. Paul Krugman posted an opinion piece for the New York Times this week basically calling out the NYT and other media for basically grading Trump on a curve and calling him presidential whenever he manages to not say something blatantly horrible. Obviously it's being done to make the race look closer and boost their ratings but it's done at the expense of hurting the country. Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not usually a "media conspiracy" guy, but polls at least are showing that most news companies are desperately trying to make this into a real horse race to keep the next two months of news from being "Seasoned politician destroys amateurish billionaire at politics." Case in point: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/06/nbcs-corrected-version-cnn-poll-clinton-four-point-lead-trump.html

 

I don't think you you really need to frame it as a conspiracy to notice a huge discrepancy over how most media covers the polls compared to a site like election.princeton.edu which takes a considered, academic approach to analyzing the polls. Even fivethirtyeight is pretty bad at this point (their data is good, but the articles analyzing the polls are often incredibly disingenuous and/or misleading).

 

Also hey, Matt Lauer was really bad last night huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's comforting to know that the press has just been misinterpreting the polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if a 6 point lead is commanding in terms of electoral results, those numbers being anywhere NEAR each other has me very worried. That 40-odd percent won't disappear when this election is over

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  

×