Layco wrote:Guys, ask yourselves why you aren't voting for Jill Stein; if the answer is that "she can't win", then ask yourself why she can't win. The answer? Because you won't vote for her because you think she can't win prima facie.
My answer for her is that I think Johnson is a somewhat better candidate. We match up better on the issues. Things like anti-vaxxing things are legitimately concerning for me, and Johnson realized his error on that, apologized, and changed, while Stein is still effectively courting their vote.
That's fairly major in my book, entirely apart from electability. Yeah, it's not entirely the same as believing in it herself, but it still means that if she somehow got into power that way, she'd be somewhat beholden to them. I definitely see the anti-GMO stuff as fearmongering, and I think this general area is something the Green base, such as it is, has problems with.
It is also true that she is unlikely to be elected, of course, but when comparing those two, while the Libertarians are ahead, the difference is not so great. Third and fourth place are leagues behind first and second. While I personally do not plan to vote for her, I do agree that reasons based on her beliefs are sounder than reasons based solely on electability.
Conservatives/Liberals (as they are called in the US) all want the same things... higher standard of living, ethical decision making (ethics across country share a lot of common ground), free and open democratic politics, and to feel that they are treated equally/fairly. The differences are that one side has been tricked by the Republicans and the other side has been tricked by the Democrats.
Sort of. But in the details, things break out differently. What is MEANT by ethical decision making, fair treatment, etc may differ significantly.
Partisan politics is a thing of the past - it will come back after societies are far more advanced and the only policy decisions to rule on are social issues, but that's a ways away.
Partisan politics have basically always been with us. It's a little optimistic to think we can dispense with them entirely. It's fair that we should be aware of our biases, but I don't expect people to abandon parties anytime soon. Parties do serve some legitimate functions. It's true that partisanship causes problems, but we shouldn't toss out the baby with the bathwater.
Xeio wrote: Soupspoon wrote:↶
Also I saw something about Trump saying he "might not win"... Is he worried? He certainly needs to galvanise his supporters, those not haemorrhaged away already, so easing back on the 'natural confidence' might be useful. (Not to say I'm predicting any particular result, myself; a week is a long time in politics, a fortnight more so...)
It makes me wonder if he's going to underperform his polling significantly. Telling his voters the process is rigged isn't going to be doing any favors, and beyond that does he have any ground game at all left with the RNC pulling out?
Probably not, I think. Polling has gotten generally a lot better, and partisanship is strong. Plus, I doubt that Trump's campaign is sufficiently organized to significantly skew polls pro-Trump, if they wished to do so. And I also don't see a lot of motivation for people to lie and say they are voting for Trump. So, polls are probably decently accurate. This is still bad news for Trump. Status Quo is not his friend at the moment. He needs the polls to be wrong, and in the other way, which seems also unlikely.
This is false: Saudia Arabia donated money to the Clinton Foundation -- which she wasn't even part of during her tenure as Secretary of State (which wouldn't matter, because they didn't donate anything while she was Secretary of State anyway).
Isn't that a bit naive? Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states shower money on everyone who has been nice to them - especially former American presidents. Of course it's a bribe. What else would it be? Every American president knows - if you're nice to Saudis and the Gulf, they'll help you set up your post-presidency career. You want to go into charity? They'll donate to your charity. You want to do consultancy, they give you fat contracts. You want to go into oil, they put your pals on a preferred vendor list. You want to start a circus, they book you for the first few years.
Now, it's possible
that Hillary Clinton objected to this, and only grudgingly went along as her husband called in his due favours. It's possible
that Saudi Arabia (and other donors) were completely unaware of Hillary Clinton's ambitions, and had no idea that she might become a powerful figure in her own right several whole years in the future. It's possible
that the Clintons never return a favour and only sucker smart and powerful people into handing them favours for nothing, decade after decade.
But the simplest explanation is that some of those people (like Saudi Arabia) gave the Clintons and their projects money because they received and expect preferential treatment. Not big betrayals of the national interest. A sympathetic ear for their concerns, softer gloves, less confrontations and more willingness to make a deal.
This, exactly. This is what it means when I say Hillary embraces slightly shady stuff. Not overt big stuff like having people murdered. That's crazy talk, and exists only because it makes for good conspiracy tales. It's the grey area of back and forth favors and the like. Stuff that falls short of an obvious quid pro quo agreement, but where it's fairly obvious that some favor is implicit.
It's a legitimate concern, but calling it stuff like war crimes or treason is annoying hyperbole. A *lot* of the anti-Hillary stuff starts with the former, and veers into the latter, which results in Hillary fans dismissing it all.