The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[The Romulan Republic]

Donald's a more destructive influence because his candidacy has encouraged bigotry, xenophobia, and violence on a grand scale, shown that you don't have to have a smidgen of tact or decorum to be a viable Presidential candidate, and helped legitimize xenophobia, bigotry, authoritarianism, and political violence as part of the mainstream in American politics.

But this primary has certainly shown that the Democratic Party has some serious internal issues when it comes to corporate money, establishment bias, and general sleaze.

[Grumman]

Donald's a more destructive influence because his candidacy has encouraged bigotry, xenophobia, and violence on a grand scale, shown that you don't have to have a smidgen of tact or decorum to be a viable Presidential candidate, and helped legitimize xenophobia, bigotry, authoritarianism, and political violence as part of the mainstream in American politics.

Oh, he "encouraged" and "legitimised" xenophobia, bigotry, authoritarianism and political violence. Well Clinton voted for these things. When she voted for the Patriot Act, she voted for authoritarianism. When she voted for the Iraq War, she voted for xenophobia and political violence.

Sanders, on the other hand, voted against both the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. If Congress comes up with some idiotic idea that America should invade Iran, I trust that President Sanders would refuse to sign it. I don't trust President Clinton to do the same.

[Simon_Jester]

Are you arguing that Sanders is better than Clinton? Or are you arguing that Clinton is no better than Trump? If you don't clarify that question, your arguments are pointless.

If you counter a "Clinton is better than Trump" argument by saying "that's not true because Sanders is better than Clinton," you are at best guilty of a gross non sequitur.

So please, before you go further, could you actually spell out whether you are saying "Sanders is better than Clinton" or whether you are saying "Clinton is not better than Trump?"

[Grumman]

Are you arguing that Sanders is better than Clinton? Or are you arguing that Clinton is no better than Trump? If you don't clarify that question, your arguments are pointless.

Simon, there are literally only two paragraphs there. The first one contains an argument that Clinton is no better than Trump. The second one contains a preemptive counter-argument against the idea that Clinton shouldn't be judged by her shitty voting record because everyone else is just as bad.

(Just to clarify, this is a new paragraph, in which I will be discussing a new idea)

The idea that Clinton should be President should demand that she be compared to her best opponent, not her worst. If Zombie Adolf Hitler entered the race, that would not justify an argument that since Donald Trump didn't murder ten million people and doesn't want to eat your brains, Clinton's supporters should drop everything and vote Trump for President.

[jwl]

It's also really silly to compare Bernie's behavior on the topic with Hillary's (or Bill's), because the latter has been a prominent Democrat for a very, very long time. So of course the Clintons will have a more established history of supporting/endorsing lower-level Democrats, because they've been integral components of the DNC machine for ... what, thirty years? It's extremely disingenuous to hold Bernie to that standard. It's like if a new poster joins these forums today and you immediately get mad at him for not having contributed as much to the board as Thanas; it's a completely unreasonable comparison.

Yes but that poster wouldn't be running for mod, would they?

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, there are literally only two paragraphs there. The first one contains an argument that Clinton is no better than Trump. The second one contains a preemptive counter-argument against the idea that Clinton shouldn't be judged by her shitty voting record because everyone else is just as bad.

Then your first paragraph is foolish, because the argument "Clinton voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War" could equally well be used on an overwhelming majority of everyone who was in Congress between Sept. 11, 2001 and December 2004. And for that matter, you could use it on a majority of the American population. Because at the time both the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq enjoyed widespread popular support, a fact which we tend to try and toss down the memory hole for some reason. So you're not only arguing that Clinton is no better than Trump, you're arguing that 70% or 80% of all of Congress is no better than Trump. Or, conversely, that Trump is no worse than most politicians who were in office from 2000-2004.

Your argument, if applied consistently, leads to absurd conclusions.

The idea that Clinton should be President should demand that she be compared to her best opponent, not her worst. If Zombie Adolf Hitler entered the race, that would not justify an argument that since Donald Trump didn't murder ten million people and doesn't want to eat your brains, Clinton's supporters should drop everything and vote Trump for President.

This argument is also foolish. Clinton will never compete against both Sanders and Trump in the same race. Clinton is now running against Sanders. She will lose, or win. Either way, the winner then crosses swords with Trump.

I don't get a three way election where I decide whether Trump, Clinton, or Sanders is the next president. That is simply not happening. It is therefore wrong to counter "Clinton is preferable to Trump" with "Sanders is preferable to Clinton." Both those statements can be true at the same time, they don't contradict each other. One does not counter the other. Moreover, such an argument does no good whatsoever, because if I ever get a choice involving "Clinton or Trump," then "Sanders" will no longer be a meaningful option in that choice.

By all means, compare Clinton to her best present opponent and judge her inferior to Sanders. Or compare her to some future opponent she might be facing in the future- Trump. But in the present, Trump isn't actually one of her opponents. And in the future, Sanders won't be her opponent. Because one or the other of them won't be running in the general election.

So even if we apply your principle of comparing people to their best opponent, you cannot compare a person to people they aren't actually competing against at that time.

[Flagg]

It's also really silly to compare Bernie's behavior on the topic with Hillary's (or Bill's), because the latter has been a prominent Democrat for a very, very long time. So of course the Clintons will have a more established history of supporting/endorsing lower-level Democrats, because they've been integral components of the DNC machine for ... what, thirty years? It's extremely disingenuous to hold Bernie to that standard. It's like if a new poster joins these forums today and you immediately get mad at him for not having contributed as much to the board as Thanas; it's a completely unreasonable comparison.

Yes but that poster wouldn't be running for mod, would they?

Got to it before I could, damn you.

I just think it's hilarious that Sanders supporters nitpick every "wrong" Hillary (and they usually include Bill) Clinton has done, yet they absolutely refuse to admit that Sanders, by joining the Democratic Party just in time to run in their primary for money and media exposure, is essentially a sellout political whore. If Clinton had done something like this there'd be a Republican led Congressional investigation!

[Channel72]

Simon, there are literally only two paragraphs there. The first one contains an argument that Clinton is no better than Trump. The second one contains a preemptive counter-argument against the idea that Clinton shouldn't be judged by her shitty voting record because everyone else is just as bad.

Then your first paragraph is foolish, because the argument "Clinton voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War" could equally well be used on an overwhelming majority of everyone who was in Congress between Sept. 11, 2001 and December 2004. And for that matter, you could use it on a majority of the American population. Because at the time both the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq enjoyed widespread popular support, a fact which we tend to try and toss down the memory hole for some reason. So you're not only arguing that Clinton is no better than Trump, you're arguing that 70% or 80% of all of Congress is no better than Trump. Or, conversely, that Trump is no worse than most politicians who were in office from 2000-2004.

Well, in 2008, the fact that Obama didn't vote for the Iraq War helped to propel him into the national spotlight. Those who stood apart from the crowd during the post-9/11 war cries were eventually noted and recognized for their stance.

That said, yeah - in general, dismissing Clinton's 2016 candidacy because she voted for Bush-era nonsense is pointless. Hillary Clinton is basically just a mediocre career politician, with a few positive highlights. But, as Bernie Sanders said, Clinton would be, on her worst day, a much better President than any possible Republican candidate. And for that, she will get my vote.

[Soontir C'boath]

An appeal to popularity is not exactly a compelling argument anyway given it's a fallacy and all that. The elected leaders and the majority of American people were wrong to support the war given it's false premises. The fact that we would not be willing to accept this on Hillary's part to make a point about Trump is hilariously disappointing.

[Lord MJ]

I just think it's hilarious that Sanders supporters nitpick every "wrong" Hillary (and they usually include Bill) Clinton has done, yet they absolutely refuse to admit that Sanders, by joining the Democratic Party just in time to run in their primary for money and media exposure, is essentially a sellout political whore. If Clinton had done something like this there'd be a Republican led Congressional investigation!

They refuse to admit that because it's a ridiculous argument. In our political system in order to run for President with a candidacy that could legitimately go anywhere, you have to either run as a Democrat or a Republican. Bottom line. Unless you are insanely rich like Bloomberg (and even then.)

Money and media exposure are essential components of a presidential run. And unless you are already famous you won't get the media exposure, and since we don't have a decent public campaign finance system you don't get the money.

Even if say Bernie wanted to run an Independent general election campaign, the system requires that he first run in the Democratic or Republican primaries to get the necessary exposure so that an independent campaign is even viable.

I don't believe Larry Lessig was an affiliated Democrat when he announced his presidential run, but he decided to run as a Democrat for the exact same reasons. But I guess that makes him a sellout whore.

President of the United States only tenured partisans need apply.

[Soontir C'boath]

An appeal to popularity is not exactly a compelling argument anyway given it's a fallacy and all that. The elected leaders and the majority of American people were wrong to support the war given it's false premises. The fact that we would not be willing to accept this on Hillary's part to make a point about Trump is hilariously disappointing.

By the way, I believe I can articulate the reason why I hate this shitty reasoning, because Simon is basically saying we have legitimized the Iraq war because Trump is worse!

I mean holy fuck! A war is better than Trump, and it's fine because the American people was ok with it!

This is why the lesser of two evil argument simply does not work. It fucking warps your mind to what is acceptable.

[Lord MJ]

An appeal to popularity is not exactly a compelling argument anyway given it's a fallacy and all that. The elected leaders and the majority of American people were wrong to support the war given it's false premises. The fact that we would not be willing to accept this on Hillary's part to make a point about Trump is hilariously disappointing.

By the way, I believe I can articulate the reason why I hate this shitty reasoning, because Simon is basically saying we have legitimized the Iraq war because Trump is worse!

I mean holy fuck!

This is why the lesser of two evil argument simply does not work. It fucking warps your mind to what is acceptable.

I honestly don't think Hillary's actual vote matters much. It is one of the most annoying things in political discourse hearing all the bellowing about he/she voted for something. I actually care more about did Hillary favor the Iraq war or not. And given both her hawkishness as well as her standing on the Senate floor and advocating for the war, you can legitimately criticize Hillary for supporting the war. If the only thing we knew about Hillary's support for the war was her floor vote then my reaction would be "meh."

It's the same issue with Bernie Sanders voting for the crime bill, my reaction to that is "meh" espescially when he used his own bully pulpit to actually sound alarm bells about potential problems the bill has down the road.

Bellyaching about people's votes when the actually legislative process is much more complex than that (committees, backroom deals, floor speeches, more committees, more backroom deals, etc) seems to be little more than reducing complicated political processes into terms that simple minded people can understand

[Soontir C'boath]

Sanders voted for the bill because there were at least legislation in there that could have really helped people as well. There's not much can be said about a vote to go to war...

[jwl]

An appeal to popularity is not exactly a compelling argument anyway given it's a fallacy and all that. The elected leaders and the majority of American people were wrong to support the war given it's false premises. The fact that we would not be willing to accept this on Hillary's part to make a point about Trump is hilariously disappointing.

I think it is worth making the point that the democrat elected leaders (including Hillary) and the general public didn't know the premises were rather dubious. As far as they were concerned, the CIA had their hands on very compelling evidence that Saddam Hussain had WMDs.

[Soontir C'boath]

An appeal to popularity is not exactly a compelling argument anyway given it's a fallacy and all that. The elected leaders and the majority of American people were wrong to support the war given it's false premises. The fact that we would not be willing to accept this on Hillary's part to make a point about Trump is hilariously disappointing.

I think it is worth making the point that the democrat elected leaders (including Hillary) and the general public didn't know the premises were rather dubious. As far as they were concerned, the CIA had their hands on very compelling evidence that Saddam Hussain had WMDs.

Yes, because no one truly bothered to fact check and just went along for the ride.

[jwl]

An appeal to popularity is not exactly a compelling argument anyway given it's a fallacy and all that. The elected leaders and the majority of American people were wrong to support the war given it's false premises. The fact that we would not be willing to accept this on Hillary's part to make a point about Trump is hilariously disappointing.

I think it is worth making the point that the democrat elected leaders (including Hillary) and the general public didn't know the premises were rather dubious. As far as they were concerned, the CIA had their hands on very compelling evidence that Saddam Hussain had WMDs.

Yes, because no one truly bothered to fact check and just went along for the ride.

Nobody had the opportunity to fact-check apart from the Bush administration, the information was confidential.

[Lord MJ]

I would also add that while there are a lot of how should I say "unruly" Bernie Supporters out there (isn't that the case with any major candidate in any major election in the US?), it seems that Hillary supporters I talk to just toss logic and reason out the window. Examples of this:

* What I just mentioned regarding votes. Judging Hillary's vote for the Iraq War in the same vein as Bernie's vote for the crime bill. Completely omitting all the details that go on behind the scenes in both cases and screaming about bias and double standards when that is pointed out.

* About Bernie supporting gun manufacturers from lawsuit if a weapon they produced is used in a homicide and that no other industry enjoys that kind of protection. Well if it doesn't make any sense to make a manufacturer liable for the use of their weapons by someone (unless they had reasonable knowledge that the person they sold it to would use it in a violent act), then the question about other industries is irrelevant.

* Clinton has a history of using carrots and sticks to secure endorsements and favors, which drives in large part endorsements she has received in the primary. Particularly among Black leaders whom pretty much got on the bad list for supporting Obama in 2008, but Hillary in her "graciousness" treated the fact that Obama being the first black president represented an "extenuating circumstance" and gave Black leaders the "opportunity" to get "back in the fold" in supporting Hillary in 2016. Sounds pretty shady. But since we are looking at Hillary that way, we need to treat Bernie's support in the same manner otherwise it's a double standard and bias according to Clinton supporters. Wait what? No what Clinton supporters are saying we need essentially amounts to committing what is known as a "neutrality bias" which would actually produce inaccurate results and comparisons.

The worst part about it is that when you point out these problems with Clinton supporters, the response is to point to the unruly Bernie supporters. Which is once again a logical flaw.

Both campaigns have their intelligensia and their unruly idiots (as do all campaigns.) If the Bernie intelligensia says that the Hillary intelligensia is uniformed and has logical flaws in their reasoning, it is NOT a valid counterargument to say "We're uniformed? Look at the unruly idiots on your side!" *


* The exception to this could be Trump supporters since Trump is deliberately courting and fanning the flames of the unruly supporters on his side. So you could in this case criticize Trump and his camp by pointing to the his unruly supporters.

[Soontir C'boath]

I think it is worth making the point that the democrat elected leaders (including Hillary) and the general public didn't know the premises were rather dubious. As far as they were concerned, the CIA had their hands on very compelling evidence that Saddam Hussain had WMDs.

Yes, because no one truly bothered to fact check and just went along for the ride.

Nobody had the opportunity to fact-check apart from the Bush administration, the information was confidential.

Not necessarily. There was a 92 page report that had doubts about WMDs, but many who voted didn't bother to read it in full beforehand.

Reading the NIE report, there are just so many "if"s and assumptions made in it, that the initial paragraph of the report stating Saddam is producing WMD again was frankly overblown.

[Soontir C'boath]

* What I just mentioned regarding votes. Judging Hillary's vote for the Iraq War in the same vein as Bernie's vote for the crime bill. Completely omitting all the details that go on behind the scenes in both cases and screaming about bias and double standards when that is pointed out.

Then please provide Hillary's reasoning, dealings, etc for voting for the war.

[Soontir C'boath]

For the record, the Iraq resolution was voted by the Senate, 77-23 with 22 Democrats and one Republican opposing and in the House, 296-133 with 6 Republicans and 126 Democrats, and Sanders voting no on it.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's also really silly to compare Bernie's behavior on the topic with Hillary's (or Bill's), because the latter has been a prominent Democrat for a very, very long time. So of course the Clintons will have a more established history of supporting/endorsing lower-level Democrats, because they've been integral components of the DNC machine for ... what, thirty years? It's extremely disingenuous to hold Bernie to that standard. It's like if a new poster joins these forums today and you immediately get mad at him for not having contributed as much to the board as Thanas; it's a completely unreasonable comparison.

Yes but that poster wouldn't be running for mod, would they?

Which refutes my point how, exactly? Nothing about your bizarre riposte invalidates what I was saying in any way. Let's continue with the analogy. If a new poster showed up and wanted to run for mod, it would still be unreasonable to ask, "Why haven't you been contributing to the board for the past 10 years"? Because it makes no god-damn sense to do so. It's not my problem if you are too disconnected from reality to see this.

I just think it's hilarious that Sanders supporters nitpick every "wrong" Hillary (and they usually include Bill) Clinton has done, yet they absolutely refuse to admit that Sanders, by joining the Democratic Party just in time to run in their primary for money and media exposure, is essentially a sellout political whore. If Clinton had done something like this there'd be a Republican led Congressional investigation!

What makes you think I'm a Sanders supporter? Where in my post did I nitpick anything "wrong" about Hillary or Bill? Oh, wait, I forgot that you don't actually read anyone else's posts before spewing your irrelevant vitriol all over the place.

[Simon_Jester]

An appeal to popularity is not exactly a compelling argument anyway given it's a fallacy and all that. The elected leaders and the majority of American people were wrong to support the war given it's false premises. The fact that we would not be willing to accept this on Hillary's part to make a point about Trump is hilariously disappointing.

Clinton was wrong to support the war and wrong to support the Patriot Act.

But if I say that this means there is no difference between putting her in office and putting Trump in office...

Then I am so wrong, it is more wrong than both of those wrongs put together.

An appeal to popularity is not exactly a compelling argument anyway given it's a fallacy and all that. The elected leaders and the majority of American people were wrong to support the war given it's false premises. The fact that we would not be willing to accept this on Hillary's part to make a point about Trump is hilariously disappointing.

By the way, I believe I can articulate the reason why I hate this shitty reasoning, because Simon is basically saying we have legitimized the Iraq war because Trump is worse!

No, I'm actually not.

My point is that it is obviously false to say that Trump is preferable to literally every American politician who supported the Iraq War in 2002. Such a claim is completely bonkers. Crazy. Nuts. Seven beers short of a six-pack. It is just plain not true on any level.

A LOT of people supported the war. Not all of them were bad people. Not all of them would make actively bad presidents. Especially not compared to Donald Trump, who is the poster child for 'unfit for public office' on so very very many levels.

This is why the lesser of two evil argument simply does not work. It fucking warps your mind to what is acceptable.

If "HAVING SUPPORTED THE WAR IS UNACCEPTABLE! IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED!" overrides your judgment to the point where you are willing to step aside and let Trump walk into the White House because the alternative is a Democrat who voted for the war...

...Your judgment is more warped than any level of 'lesser of two evils' argument could possibly make it.

Would you also advocate moving in with a convicted burglar, because the other possible choice for a roommate is guilty of misdemeanor reckless driving or something?

I honestly don't think Hillary's actual vote matters much. It is one of the most annoying things in political discourse hearing all the bellowing about he/she voted for something. I actually care more about did Hillary favor the Iraq war or not. And given both her hawkishness as well as her standing on the Senate floor and advocating for the war, you can legitimately criticize Hillary for supporting the war. If the only thing we knew about Hillary's support for the war was her floor vote then my reaction would be "meh."

Now to be fair, if people want to talk about Clinton's ONGOING record with regards to the war, that's fine. That reflects on her judgment and beliefs in a way that a single instance of voting in favor of something that a majority of Democratic politicians of the time also favored... does not.

I would also add that while there are a lot of how should I say "unruly" Bernie Supporters out there (isn't that the case with any major candidate in any major election in the US?), it seems that Hillary supporters I talk to just toss logic and reason out the window. Examples of this:...

* About Bernie supporting gun manufacturers from lawsuit if a weapon they produced is used in a homicide and that no other industry enjoys that kind of protection. Well if it doesn't make any sense to make a manufacturer liable for the use of their weapons by someone (unless they had reasonable knowledge that the person they sold it to would use it in a violent act), then the question about other industries is irrelevant.

Come to that, it isn't even true. If dependents of a murder victim tried to sue a car manufacturer because someone used a car to run over the victim, they'd be laughed out of court. Likewise, no one's ever going to sue Hillerich and Bradsby over a murder committed with a Louisville Slugger. And pharmaceutical companies aren't going to have to pay up just because somebody slipped a lethal dose of a prescription medication into an unwitting victim's drink.

It's pretty well established that even when dealing with potentially deadly items that we know can be used as weapons, responsibility for wrongful deaths caused by murder lies squarely with the murderer.

Gun manufacturers reasonably could be sued for making guns that fire randomly and kill people by accident, or that otherwise lack common safety features.

[Soontir C'boath]

Actually it's your judgement that is warped, because Hillary has already shown she is willing to commit to an action affecting hundreds of thousands of lives if not millions, while Trump insofar has been full of hot air on the campaign trail that blows in any direction. Heck, her hawkish nature as acknowledged earlier should be a cause for concern on her actions abroad. She's not a wildcard as Trump would be in such matters.

While there was a majority in the Senate by 8 people, 29 for and 21 against in the Senate, your narrative doesn't work as well in the House where 126 Democrats opposed with 81 for.

[ArmorPierce]

An appeal to popularity is not exactly a compelling argument anyway given it's a fallacy and all that. The elected leaders and the majority of American people were wrong to support the war given it's false premises. The fact that we would not be willing to accept this on Hillary's part to make a point about Trump is hilariously disappointing.

I think it is worth making the point that the democrat elected leaders (including Hillary) and the general public didn't know the premises were rather dubious. As far as they were concerned, the CIA had their hands on very compelling evidence that Saddam Hussain had WMDs.

The premise was always dubious. Anyone that supported the war demonstrated a lack of critical thinking skills and independent though. In my mind, supporting the Iraq war would automatically disqualify you for being president.

I require the politician I support to engage in fact and evidenced-based decision making. Not just throw support to one policy or another because someone told them to and that it's the right decision.

And yes, I actually do think that people who supported the Iraq war are bad people, or at best careless people.

I recall at that point, it appeared that most members of this board were in favor of the Iraq war, much to my dismay (or at least they were the most vocal about it).

[Lord MJ]

While there still needs to be validation of this "Anonymous Lawmaker" there has been enough talk from other not anonymous lawmakers to show just how serious money in politics is.

The video does make a good point though. The members of congress are every bit the victims as they are corrupt. Even a well intentioned congressman can turn corrupt by simple virtue of the incentive system.

Also mentions the basic effects of human nature that you are likely to be shaped and influenced by the people giving you millions of dollars.

In that vein, it could be said the very existence of Hillary Clinton's campaign is damaging the country largely because it has gotten the Democratic party to be in denial that money in politics is corrupting (despite previously saying it is corrupting) in order to prop up Hillary.

Donald Trump would be damaging to the country if he is elected. Hillary Clinton is damaging to the country by the simple virtue of the existence of her campaign.