~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

[purplerat]

Didn't realize I was fighting anything. I think you're seeing red ever since I dared blemish the name Sanders.

Your posts indicate you're a Hillary hack whose a bit of a sore winner who can't help taking shots at Sanders due to some unresolved bitterness that the expected coronation didn't go off without a hitch.

Calling Sanders 'extremist' is just irrational, if extremist is a word that is supposed to have any meaningful application.

I'm using the meaning you inferred when you said that the line between moderate and extremist is extraordinarily fluid. If you can't deal with that applying to Sanders supporters then who do you think it should apply to? I'm assuming when you said it you must have had somebody in mind or were you just spewing rhetoric for the sake of spewing rhetoric?

I've simply pointed out the absurdity of your remark.

If you can't deal with people having sensible arguments that undermine your spewing of nonsense, that's your lookout.

If my remark was absurd it's only because the premise which you introduced was absurd to begin with.

Why can't you answer who these moderates flowing to extremist are? You're the one who introduced the idea, so was it just complete nonsense or not?

[crank]

And Colbert pulls a fast one: http://usuncut.com/politics/stephen-col ... d-mic-rnc/

In the article:

Colbert recently announced that former Daily Show host Jon Stewart would be joining him in for his coverage of the Republican National Convention this week in Cleveland. Both Stewart and Colbert have also agreed to team up to cover the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia next week.

This could be great, it might help Colbert gain back some of the cred getting ablated away by appearing on network TV, except it's going to be on network TV. How hard are they going to push at the constraints?

[any youtube video will have the youtube logo at bottom right, click on that and you will get the direct youtube link]

[proudfootz]

Your posts indicate you're a Hillary hack whose a bit of a sore winner who can't help taking shots at Sanders due to some unresolved bitterness that the expected coronation didn't go off without a hitch.

Calling Sanders 'extremist' is just irrational, if extremist is a word that is supposed to have any meaningful application.

I'm using the meaning you inferred when you said that the line between moderate and extremist is extraordinarily fluid. If you can't deal with that applying to Sanders supporters then who do you think it should apply to? I'm assuming when you said it you must have had somebody in mind or were you just spewing rhetoric for the sake of spewing rhetoric?

I've simply pointed out the absurdity of your remark.

If you can't deal with people having sensible arguments that undermine your spewing of nonsense, that's your lookout.

If my remark was absurd it's only because the premise which you introduced was absurd to begin with.

If my premise was absurd, was your crack at Sanders supporters meant as a joke?

It sure doesn't seem like that is the case, given the vehemence with which you defend it.

Why can't you answer who these moderates flowing to extremist are? You're the one who introduced the idea, so was it just complete nonsense or not?

The post you are getting all bent out of shape over was part of a humorous exchange with laklak that got stranded on the top of the page instead of immediately below the previous post.

It was my mistake to suppose members would make an effort to follow the thread attentively.

[purplerat]

I made it clear in my comment that it was no meant as a pejorative. The larger point was to highlight the error of using such rhetoric. If the prior exchange was a joke then it bordering on poe given the type of rhetoric used beforehand in this thread to try and label people who don't agree politically.

You further highlighted that by getting into name calling with me in regards to positions I've never even asserted.

[Mike_L]

A bellicose Russophobic imbecile and Game of Thrones fanboy could be the USA's next VP...

World War III Based on Game of Thrones?

By Finian Cunningham

Washington’s aggression towards Russia is already dangerously detached from reality. But possibly the next vice president in the White House brings an even more alarming element to decision-making – fantasy TV and NATO militarism.

Don't reach for the popcorn and snacks. This is for real folks.
This week, the Boston Globe reports that Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton is mulling the number two job in the White House for her old friend, former NATO Supreme Commander Admiral James Stavridis.

It turns out that Stavridis is a big fan of the hit TV drama, Game of Thrones. Not that there is anything wrong with that entertainment choice per se. Except, that is, when it is used as a policy-making reference material.

Indeed, in a recent opinion article, the retired US Admiral invoked the Medieval sword-wielding fantasy series as inspiration for why the NATO military alliance should be strengthened to fight off alleged Russian aggression.

Seriously, no kidding. American political power has long been suffused with delusional notions of "exceptionalism" and "manifest destiny" as the "leader of the free world". Now, it seems, the next occupants of the White House will be making strategic decisions about war and peace based on emotions derived from a TV drama about feudal intrigue and blood-curdling, warring tribes.
...

...
Clinton's presumptive administration is shaping up to be war hawks on steroids. Her Defense Secretary and head of the Pentagon is hotly tipped to be Michele Flournoy.
Flournoy, a Pentagon insider who vociferously touts the "Russian aggressor" mantra, has publicly called for a more direct US military intervention in Syria even that means a clash with Russian forces.

Clinton's reported choice of Admiral James Stavridis as vice president is thus fully consistent with a more hawkish White House.
...

...
In the same article, Clinton's presumed VP choice mentions Game of Thrones three times as providing insights for how NATO should build its forces in order to confront Russia.
...

Full text at:
http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160713/1042898961/world-war-game-of-thrones.html

[Oldskeptic]

The world needs to have a ban on all American travel until we can figure out what is going on.

Wow! No bigotry there against a whole shit load of people, 330 million strong, that you want to put altogether in the same basket.

Woosh.

Not advocating for it but when some politicians say that there needs to be a ban on Syrian refugees until we can figure out what is going on people like Willie71 tend to point their fingers and call that bigotry and racism.

[willhud9]

Its the other way around. Left and right become more ambiguous once you leave the US. There are just too many definitions of left and right outside the US.

No, communism is left, unregulated market is right.

What is an unregulated market and according to whom's definition?

What is communism and according to whom's definition?

Considering no nation in history has had either communism nor an unregulated market it makes precise definitions kind of impractical to pin down as theoretically from both perspectives they are supposed to be the best systems of economics. Furthermore, considering economics is but ONE tiny aspect of political theory, basing an entire left-right spectrum off of one economic model is not very reliable.

[Oldskeptic]

So, Bernie ran as a political outsider. A an anti-establishment revolutionary wanting to bring sweeping political and social changes to the US, and a whole lot of people loved him for it. But now, according to some of those same people he's a slightly left of center moderate?

One more question. If that graph isn't based on the situation in the US and is a universal standard then where would authoritarians such as Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Franco, Mussolini, Mao... be placed? Can't really get more authoritarian than Trump on that graph or farther to the right than Rubio. If that graph was really based on a universal standard Mussolini and Franco would be in the upper right corner. Mao and Stalin would be in the upper left. And Bernie, Hillary, Bush, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio would all be clustered around the center.

[willhud9]

Where does fascism fall on that chart? As much as Trump is despicable he is not a fascist.

[Oldskeptic]

Its the other way around. Left and right become more ambiguous once you leave the US. There are just too many definitions of left and right outside the US.

No, communism is left, unregulated market is right.

What is an unregulated market and according to whom's definition?

What is communism and according to whom's definition?

Considering no nation in history has had either communism nor an unregulated market it makes precise definitions kind of impractical to pin down as theoretically from both perspectives they are supposed to be the best systems of economics. Furthermore, considering economics is but ONE tiny aspect of political theory, basing an entire left-right spectrum off of one economic model is not very reliable.

When people use the term communism, unless they are in a philosophical discussion, they are talking about economies and distribution systems such as China and the USSR and its client states before the near universal collapse of "communism", so stop picking at nits. But, even though those nations had highly regulated/controlled markets/economies they also had completely uncontrolled shadow economies in the form of black markets.

[willhud9]

I dont see how Stalin is so far left. His economic's wasn't even close to communism. It was state controlled, but not publicly controlled. It was controlled by an elite oligarchy.

[willhud9]

Its the other way around. Left and right become more ambiguous once you leave the US. There are just too many definitions of left and right outside the US.

No, communism is left, unregulated market is right.

What is an unregulated market and according to whom's definition?

What is communism and according to whom's definition?

Considering no nation in history has had either communism nor an unregulated market it makes precise definitions kind of impractical to pin down as theoretically from both perspectives they are supposed to be the best systems of economics. Furthermore, considering economics is but ONE tiny aspect of political theory, basing an entire left-right spectrum off of one economic model is not very reliable.

When people use the term communism, unless they are in a philosophical discussion, they are talking about economies and distribution systems such as China and the USSR and its client states before the near universal collapse of "communism", so stop picking at nits. But, even though those nations had highly regulated/controlled markets/economies they also had completely uncontrolled shadow economies in the form of black markets.

But that is a shitty way of mapping the economic scaling then.

[laklak]

Yeah he towk funneh. He's hilarious, you'd probably like his other vids.

He don't talk no ways funny. Y'all's ones what talk funny. We'uns talk lots gooder'n all y'all.

[crank]

'gooder'??? Ha, ya ain't got shit fer brains, it's 'more gooder' you moran.

[laklak]

Well I'm the most gooderest of all.

[Willie71]

So, Bernie ran as a political outsider. A an anti-establishment revolutionary wanting to bring sweeping political and social changes to the US, and a whole lot of people loved him for it. But now, according to some of those same people he's a slightly left of center moderate?

One more question. If that graph isn't based on the situation in the US and is a universal standard then where would authoritarians such as Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Franco, Mussolini, Mao... be placed? Can't really get more authoritarian than Trump on that graph or farther to the right than Rubio. If that graph was really based on a universal standard Mussolini and Franco would be in the upper right corner. Mao and Stalin would be in the upper left. And Bernie, Hillary, Bush, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio would all be clustered around the center.

[Willie71]

Its the other way around. Left and right become more ambiguous once you leave the US. There are just too many definitions of left and right outside the US.

No, communism is left, unregulated market is right.

What is an unregulated market and according to whom's definition?

What is communism and according to whom's definition?

Considering no nation in history has had either communism nor an unregulated market it makes precise definitions kind of impractical to pin down as theoretically from both perspectives they are supposed to be the best systems of economics. Furthermore, considering economics is but ONE tiny aspect of political theory, basing an entire left-right spectrum off of one economic model is not very reliable.

this is what I've been trying to say. You just didn't understand.

[Willie71]

I dont see how Stalin is so far left. His economic's wasn't even close to communism. It was state controlled, but not publicly controlled. It was controlled by an elite oligarchy.

Read the FAQs again. This is all explained.

Stalin's economy wasn't a free market or capitalist was it? That's why he's left. The control of the populace is why he's on the authoritarian end if that scale.

[Willie71]

Where does fascism fall on that chart? As much as Trump is despicable he is not a fascist.

Ummm. Yes he is.

[Thommo]

This is giving the site a bad name.

Political compass does not even claim that these are scientific. Can we pretty please stop pretending?

ETA: Might not be that clear to people unfamiliar with EU politics, but this page is fairly illustrative of the politics of political compass these days:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk_eu_referendum2016

Notice how the average pro EU labour voter is supposed to be authoritarian right wing to extreme right wing? Notice how the text is based in no way on survey results, yet calls Nigel Farage a literal nazi?

Seriously, on what planet is the EU a right wing organisation?

ETA2: Here, by the way is the quote of how they justify ignoring the answers politicians give in place of providing their own answers instead (hint - acceptable in no way in any science research, ever, regardless of justification)

How can you determine where politicians are honestly at without asking them?

How can you tell where they're honestly at by asking them? Especially around election time. We rely on reports, parliamentary voting records, manifestos … and actions that speak much louder than words. It takes us a great deal longer than simply having the politician take the test — but it's also a far more accurate assessment. In our early experience, politicians taking the test often responded in ways that conflicted with their actions but conformed to the prevailing mood of the electorate.

We are occasionally asked about publishing the individual responses of politicians. We frown on this. The propositions are too vague to be considered statements of policy, and the individual responses are not significant in themselves. When summed to give an economic and social score, however, they provide an accurate profile of a mental state.