Qwiss! wrote:

Its been that way since I can remember anyway, its just that for this election cycle it seems both sides have just given up trying to hide how terrible they both are. The sad thing is people just accept it and still vote for one or the other. There will be more people voting out of opposition than real support I reckon.

Well Trump represents a major challenge to Republican orthodoxy, while Sanders came pretty close to knocking off Clinton. I don't think it's about "accepting it" - when the rules are what they are, and you have two incredibly powerful parties, there's not a lot you can do about it. If there were ranked voting or a parliamentary system things would look pretty different right now.

i think a lot of people in the US would like to do away with the 2 party system, but it isnt practical right now. i know a bunch of people who want to vote for gary johnson, but they wont risk it because we live in a swing state. in 2000, bush won florida by 537 votes, and ralph nader got 97,000 votes. so, if you were a conservative democrat in 2000 who didnt like al gore and decided to vote for nader, you basically created the 2000-2008 george bush nightmare. obviously not every vote for nader was a vote that would have otherwise gone to gore. there were over 138,000 non-repub/non-dem votes in florida alone. but none of the 3rd party candidates actually had a chance to win. gore had no charisma and was about as exciting as a pile of rocks, but it hurts to think about how different the country might look today. we wouldnt have alito and john roberts on the supreme court, to start.

if you hate the 2 party system, you should work to destroy it between election cycles. its not like its going to just magically change in 1 election cycle. its going to take years and years. if you go to the polls in november and vote for a non-dem/repub candidate as some sort of protest, you have to understand that by doing that, you are potentially harming one of the 2 major candidates. i doubt its going to matter this year based on the tenor of the election and clinton's lead, but it could matter.

it will take an incredible amount of effort. you basically need to have numerous noteworthy independents be willing to form a third party. the two party system is obviously flawed. each party is hosting at least 2 different parties within, and the centrist portions of the parties are struggling with pleasing the more extremist elements, namely what remains of the Tea Party and the Bernie movement. It will be hard for either party to pivot towards these extremes, but if independents focus on these niches, then voters can move there. Neither party would willingly drive these splits though.

You'll never get a consistent third party with first-past-the-post voting systems, that's also why we have Labour-Tory in the UK. You'll need to revamp the process with a listed choice system, which is certainly doable if their is political will for it. I don't see that happening in the United States short of another economic or political crisis though

Qwiss! wrote:

mdgoonah41 wrote:

i think a lot of people in the US would like to do away with the 2 party system, but it isnt practical right now. i know a bunch of people who want to vote for gary johnson, but they wont risk it because we live in a swing state. in 2000, bush won florida by 537 votes, and ralph nader got 97,000 votes. so, if you were a conservative democrat in 2000 who didnt like al gore and decided to vote for nader, you basically created the 2000-2008 george bush nightmare.

Nope. More registered democrats voted for Bush than Nader. Nader voters aren't responsible for anyone but Nader if he gets elected. This sort of extremely anti-democratic rhetoric you are furthering is a massive part of the problem with American politics. People have no obligation to vote for someone they don't support or believe in.

it is the reality of the situation, im not saying it is fair or right in an ideal world. its just the reality of it. if you go to the polls this november and vote for gary johnson or jill stein, you are essentially throwing away your vote, because neither candidate has a chance to win. making that vote, and johnson getting 2% of the vote instead of 1%, what does that accomplish? look, i agree with you. i have a degree in political science and i spent 6 months writing an extremely lengthy paper about campaign finance and the impact it has on elections in the US. the system sucks, and it is not really productive to have only 2 voices in the debate. that said, the winner of the presidential election, and the down ballot elections, will make a lot of decisions over the next 4 years that can and likely will have a huge impact on the country. the thought of donald trump controlling the nuclear arsenal or getting to push policy on immigration is fucking terrifying. i agree that the system sucks, and that i wish it could be realistically changed. but it wont happen this year. and if disgrunted democrats decide to vote for a third party instead of clinton, it could have incredible ramifications for the country as a whole. im not advocating a really restrictive system. i hate the 2 party system. i also would like to avoid nuclear armageddon, if possible.

You are right when you say it takes years to change the 2 party cycle but it will never happen if you keep falling into the trap of voting for parties and candidates you don't actually believe. It would take people actually voting for 3rd party candidates and building them up over a couple of election cycles to get any real representation for them in debates etc.

the problem is, as i mentioned above, the ramifications of the vote for a 3rd party candidate. if republicans maintain control of the senate and trump wins the white house, he will fill the empty supreme court seat with a conservative justice, and the court will again lean right, which threatens the sanctity of gay marriage and abortion rights. right now, kennedy is the swing vote and tends to lean left on social issues. hes also 80. if he passes away in 2 years, trump could then put a hardline conservative on the court and the court could undo 40 years of progress for womens rights.

that, to me, is more terrifying and potentially disastrous than continuing the 2 party system in this country. i wish things were different, but the reality is, this election is probably the most important of my short lifetime, and could have huge ramifications for the next 30-40 years.

It's a trap, yes, a very real one that we are well and truly stuck in. Ignoring it and voting third party won't accomplish anything in November.

You are very, very wrong.

have to agree with coombs on this one.

the supreme court is the most important institution in the united states. filling the current vacancy shifts the entire landscape of the judicial system and potentially the way of life for huge chunks of the US population over the next generation.

if the potential number of republicans and democrats who decided to vote 3rd party was identical, then there would be no harm in voting 3rd party. but if the number isnt identical, and it wouldnt be identical, then it could have a huge impact on who wins the election. that, to me, is vitally important, especially if you live in a swing state

Qwiss! wrote:

mdgoonah41 wrote:

if you go to the polls this november and vote for gary johnson or jill stein, you are essentially throwing away your vote, because neither candidate has a chance to win.

Voting for someone who doesn't win isn't "throwing your vote away". Voting for someone you don't agree with because people tell you you have to is throwing your vote away.

mdgoonah41 wrote:

that, to me, is more terrifying and potentially disastrous

Thats the trap.

This, I have to agree with qs here. No offence to you MD or Coombs but what you're displaying are symptoms of a Battered Housewife syndrome, you're appeasing Clinton's horseshit for no other reason than to prevent Trump from coming into power. You're handing her a carte blanche as any sane liberal American will want to avoid the other outcome, which is why she as the inevitable one doesn't have to fear anything at all and won't have to compromise her own neocon foreign policies. If there was an actual alternative to the left of the Democrats she would have to be reined in lest she'll lose the actual left in the US.

There's also the fact that the points MD has listed are of subjective relative importance - e.g. many would rather gays not being allowed to marry for a couple years if the alternative is progressive Hillary going on another couple crusades around the world. That these two issues, the sanctity of the lives of people in the Middle East or a lingering crisis with Russia on one hand and same-sex marriage on the other, are talked about in a dichothomy is a travesty and shows how far the two party system has taken on a life of its own.

I think you have to be pragmatic about these things. I'd get no comfort in voting for someone I believe in over Hilary if as a result friends and family were being forcibly deported back to Mexico after a Trump victory or watch as a city is carpet bombed. As nice as it would be to have our actual views represented, having the greater of two evils in place can have some very real implications.

It's not pragmatic to suspend the actual issue which is why these two dickheads are the only choices in the first place. And you've missed my point by the way, while Trump would be a disaster in immigration and economic policies Hillary would likely be even worse than him in terms of foreign policies and military interventionism.

So no, referring to pragmatism in this situation makes it a false dichothomy, being practical and voting for Hillary would actually cause the carpet bombing that you're talking about.

Hillary will be worse than Obama, not Trump. Trump's isolationist rhetoric will turn violently warlike in foreign policy as soon as it becomes the path of least resistance for him, which, incidentally, would be as soon as he would take office.

I also think folks outside the US misunderstand how important progressive domestic policies are in regards to foreign policy. Getting people into the political process starts at the day to day, not in the middle east.

Every election is also about the next one. Two steps forward one step back is still a step forward.

Trump is far more volatile and capable much worse from a foreign policy perspective in my view.

Being worse than Obama is bad enough in my book. And it remains to be seen (or not) whether she won't be as bad as Trump. I don't have any illusions as to why Trump is pushing his isolationist rhetoric but unlike Hillary he does not have the ability and will to heave the war machine to the next level, as you say he's simply a megalomaniac that'll do whatever makes him look good whereas Hillary has fully and fanatically bought into the R2P ideology.

With regards to the next point.. again Coombs, with all due respect but "folks outside the US" make up 96% of humanity. I do understand that to Americans, who have to worry about ridiculous issues like medical bills to the amount of a small mortgage or five digit student loans, domestic policies are more relevant than foreign ones but for everybody else they aren't.

You're right, every election is about the next one as well, which means you have to put Hillary in her place now that you have the chance and build up an alternative so when a Jill Stein appears and inevitably fails, she'll serve as a corrective for Clinton to behave. Just look at the state of the DNC; to use Trump's rhetoric the Dems know exactly Hillary could shoot someone down on the middle of 5th Ave and the majority of the U.S. would still vote her into office.

goon wrote:

Trump is far more volatile and capable much worse from a foreign policy perspective in my view.

His volatility is exactly what makes him capable of causing less damage than Hillary. He might join hands with Putin or butt heads with him, Clinton however will 100% look to exacerbate the current Cold War like situation that we're all in. She caused and waged her own war in Libya even before she became president FFS, there's a lot to be said about Gaddafi but Libya under him became the wealthiest country in Africa by far. Couple years after Hillary decided that he needs to go (for no real reason) the country is overrun by ISIS and a myriad of other militias - Trump might be capable of this, Hillary is.

Fair enough, I'm not really well informed enough to counter to be honest.

The president wields a looney amount of military power that can legally go entirely unchecked by Congress. The policy situation is what allows these influence networks to operate so effectively and unilaterally. This is a problem whether it's Trump or Jill Stein in the whitehouse.

Yes, the President has a vast discretionary power as an executive, but that doesn't mean he or she can simply use it as an individual—Trump might be a loose cannon but he's not going to call for an invasion anywhere without an aligned bloc of US interests to build out the propaganda, institutional support, and electoral support he needs to do so. If he were to start wars at random, he might well be subject to impeachment.

I just don't buy the notion that the President's personality or temperament determines the imperial agenda to a great extent.

If anything, Clinton's polished public persona has been shaped by decades of justifying US aggression, whereas Trump's a relative newbie. We think of Clinton as personally being a centrist liberal who's willing to countenance atrocities because she's been representing a centrist party and countenancing atrocities for a long time—ie, she's become her job.

The president is a figurehead who, when it comes to the overall agenda of the nation, is allowed a little rein here and there and one or two big projects like Obamacare for the most recent instance to tag to his name.

I'm pretty sure Obama is fully buying into the American Exceptionalism horseshit but even I don't think he's a hawk like Bush before and Clinton after him, yet the situation in Afghanistan is way worse than it was when Bush left his office and there are far more drones murdering people in more than a dozen countries every day. If the POTUS really had the power to go unchecked as the commander-in-chief of the AF I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the case.

They got Nigel fucking Farage to speak at a Trump rally?

The best part is none of those at the rally had any idea who he was and apparently 90% of those attending had no idea what Brexit was either.

I'm sorry but both you guys (jones and burnsy) seem so, so far off base to me. The way the US is perceived from the outside  (negatively) is deserved, but Hillary Clinton is really not any worse than all of your fake-left politicians. We just have more guns.

You also misunderstand the machinations of our government, which runs on handshakes and corruption and cults of personality rather than some grand imperial conspiracy. These people are idiots. Hillary a polished persona? Give me a break. They're all a joke.

Afghanistan is worse off? No shit. Is Jill Stein going to make anything any better? Nope. Still harping on with unimaginative cookie-cutter "progressivism" that calls for great things while offering no way to achieve it. It's all so bland that a fuckwit like Trump is a genuine contender and intelligent people are justifying him, making excuses for him, acting like somehow he wouldn't be any worse than establishment Hillary...

Well you're mighty wrong. Simple as. I think, really, that folks want to see the US collapse domestically. I don't think that would benefit anyone, long or short term. People here will lash out like we've seen time and again, and you'll find electoral support for violence and war won't be hard to come by in a climate of accelerated hatred and fear. The situation now might be bad, terrible even, but it definitely could be worse. Maybe it will be no matter who wins, but to shrug and say 'oh well' isn't particularly productive.

Afghanistan worse off? Hillary a polished persona? These are the same contextless kinds of arguments used by the GOP. It's just not relevant stuff.

Oh and, technically, the President absolutely can start unilateral military whenever he or she wants. They can and they have. Trump must lose. It's as simple as that. He'll destroy lives, at a faster rate than Hillary, I'm certain of it. The perceived American imperialist conspiracy is just that, perceived. It's not as organized as that, and cult of personality, backroom deals, and corruption rule the day in the end.

Policy and education are the only way forward, nothing else will do much of anything at all. Not technology, not revolution, not economic collapse. If we don't get those crucial policies passed, if education is denied, the US is doomed.

I'll be honest, I think that those who constantly attack Hillary and, more often than not, let Trump off the hook, actually want to see the US crumble. That's not going to be good for anybody, long or short term, and it's certainly not going to be good for me or anyone I know or love.

It's not about the principle of the thing. That's just a way of backing ideology over the actuality on the ground. You've gotta cut your losses, compromise. That's part of life, not a "trap". The trap is the two-party system, not voting against Donald Trump...that's just common sense.

Coombs wrote:

Oh and, technically, the President absolutely can start unilateral military whenever he or she wants. They can and they have.

I've already acknowledged that's technically the case, and explained my belief that recent major military conflicts involving the US have not been initiated in this way. This "Trump can't have the nuke buttons" stuff is FUD, let's be honest. Trump, someone who's worked very cosily within the legal and commercial systems of the US for decades, is being presented without much evidence as a kind of deranged Emperor Nero. The reality would be more boring and more sinister, but would not involve him simply firing off transcontinental missiles.

Coombs wrote:

He'll destroy lives, at a faster rate than Hillary, I'm certain of it. The perceived American imperialist conspiracy is just that, perceived. It's not as organized as that, and cult of personality, backroom deals, and corruption rule the day in the end.

It's the backroom deals that led to Iraq—this was my point. And they are relatively highly organised and coordinated compared to other kinds of political action—that is to say, they often represent the culmination of a plan that has drawn in supporting interests and activity for many, many years.

The only reasonable point of view, to me, given the degree of speculation, is that Clinton's election would mean continuity in existing foreign policy (which she's been a part of for a very long time), whereas Trump's election would mean some kind of break.

I hope by now I've clearly stated that I would vote for Clinton over Trump in a heartbeat, but I certainly wouldn't allow the notions that US nationhood must be preserved or that US imperialism isn't coordinated.

Nation states are headed for a historical low point—perhaps stable, probably unstable—until such time as our populations learn to take back power from global interests, a process that will probably involve creating state-like structures across borders. There's no need to call for "revolution" (the days of "storming" things are over, for a start) or for collapse, but acknowledging empirically proven dynamics like rising inequality, the unpriced negative externalities of our instruments of exchange, and the legislative capture of our democracies is important.

Trump doubleheader of the day.

1. Donald J. Trump ‏

   [size=small]Heroin overdoses are taking over our children and others in the MIDWEST. Coming in from our southern border. We need strong border & WALL![/size]

2. Donald J. Trump ‏

   [size=small]Dwayne Wade's cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP![/size]

Haven't had a poll update from MDG lately.

Couple of articles from the Indy: firstly, Nazis and white nationalists on Twitter are growing very fast as a cohort and spend their entire time babbling about Trump's candidacy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-nationalist-movement-twitter-faster-growth-isis-islamic-state-study-a7223671.html

Second, this article says Trump's pulled ahead in the polls:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-donald-trump-ahead-hillary-clinton-new-polls-latest-a7225971.html

But I have no idea how reliable it is.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/773863947636203520

enjoy

That was painful to watch.

then this

at least gary johnson would get us weed to deal with the pain.

mike pence laughing at the donald at the 47 second mark. second time this on air. lol.

arsedoc md wrote:

https://twitter.com/politico/status/773863947636203520

enjoy

That's gonna win him votes though, right? First off he's getting massive coverage over it, extending his profile equal to ad money he hasn't got. Secondly, I think lots of Americans don't know what Aleppo is, and will find the outrage towards Johnson provocative and typical of the mainstream media. 

Absolutely.

I think there's enough out there now between her medical history and recent events to seriously discuss whether Hillary is healthy enough to take office.

Does anyone know what would happen if she dropped out due to medical issues? Would Kaine move up to become the main candidate for the democrats, or is it too late to register for the election?

Apparently it's too late in quite a few states. I assume that an exception would be made if she did drop out though.