The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Seven billion people already know how to self-rule, they rule most of their own lives. Just like you do. You obey your own rules and stick to your own morality, you decide who you want as your friends and who you want to work for, you decide what to eat and what to drink, you decide whether to lie or cheat or steal or murder or not. 90% of your life is self-ruled.

I have noticed this circular path, Blaze. It tends to go like this: 1)People moan about the system. 2) I suggest an improved system. 3) It is pointed out that my suggestions do not deliver a perfect, Utopian solution. 4) Any imperfect solutions are regarded as valueless and discarded. 5) Goto (1.

[JOE SOAP]

It's amazing that even with the full support of the media, The Republican Party and the establishment, Clinton still failed to get elected against Trump. That's how weak a candidate she was.

Full support of the media? You mean the media that spent months merrily hammering Clinton about trustworthiness, and somehow equated all the shit Trump had done with her relatively low count of shit? Or how "they both lie" ignored the actual facts.

The 'trustworthiness' issue recently became larger and unavoidable mostly due to wikileaks' intractable Clinton content but in this election Clinton was evidently far better supported than Trump by the mainstream media, politics and financiers on both sides of the spectrum.

This article was published by progressive media criticism organization Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting -

"The media industry, which many claim is out to get Clinton, is actually made up mostly of donors to the Clinton Foundation. These donors are also actively supporting Clinton's campaign with donations and even fundraising. Indeed, while Clinton's potential conflicts of interest at the State Department are thought-provoking, her financial ties to Big Media are a concern in their own right. These close ties are especially unsettling on the heels of a primary season in which the corporate media attacked Bernie Sanders constantly, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was caught manipulating the media on Clinton's behalf.

It is understandable that many want to avoid criticizing Clinton, out of fear of giving the reckless, racist, authoritarian Donald Trump fodder to attack her. However, this type of suspension of critical thinking will not prevent a Trump presidency; Trump will attack Clinton no matter what "fodder" is or isn't provided. However, the backlash against any critique of Clinton's donor relationships may have long-term political consequences. Every time liberals do cartwheels trying to defend Clinton on this issue, they are undercutting their own fundamental arguments against Citizens United and the influence of the likes of the Koch brothers."

From Zero-Hedge - Koch Brothers Now Supporting "Often Confused" Hillary Clinton

"The Koch-led network of billionaires (who rely upon hiring academia and media for manipulating voters), and the Rove-led network of billionaires (who rely far more heavily upon garnering Wall Street money and Evangelical clergy for manipulating voters), have long been the two financial mainstays of the Republican Party. The Kochs have now made unmistakably clear that they want Hillary Clinton to become the next President (and, thus, academics and the media will overwhelmingly support Hillary). Previously, there was question as to whether the Kochs would go so far as to help a Democrat; but, now, there is no serious doubt about it: they already do (though as quietly as possible, and not in their own — often lying — mere words)."

[Ursula K]

Seven billion people already know how to self-rule, they rule most of their own lives. Just like you do. You obey your own rules and stick to your own morality, you decide who you want as your friends and who you want to work for, you decide what to eat and what to drink, you decide whether to lie or cheat or steal or murder or not. 90% of your life is self-ruled.

The flaw in your argument would be that it is only partly true and does not take into account when those partial truths of mine or yours collide with those of someone else. We all self-rule to an extent but we also do not all self-rule in the same way. There are laws I think are ridiculous but I am forced to follow them. Likewise, I follow some rules even though there are no laws enforcing them. We have limited choices, in friends, family, work, food.

That's the flaw. Not that you're wrong in saying we're all 90% self-ruled, that's probably true, but rathe that my 90% could be very different to your 90%.

[Grugz]

well, i just want to know what the cat he keeps on his heads called and why do we never see it move?

[Theblazeuk]

I have noticed this circular path, Blaze. It tends to go like this: 1)People moan about the system. 2) I suggest an improved system. 3) It is pointed out that my suggestions do not deliver a perfect, Utopian solution. 4) Any imperfect solutions are regarded as valueless and discarded. 5) Goto (1.

2) You suggest an entirely self-governing system enacted solely through individual action based solely upon theory that ignores all of the complexities of the world 3) everyone points out that such a world will not work on any level of scale beyond a small entirely self sufficient village with no external connections where everyone starts on a level playing field and somehow has no selfish bastards in it 4) go to 2

[Zarjazzer]

I admit it. I've been indulging in schadenfreude (oo-er missus).  Trawling through right on luvvie web sites and laughing my evil black heart out as the losers lament their loss. How could working class Yanks not be swayed by the political giants of er Jay Z and um, Katy Perry? Quite.  The demoflats should have stuck with Bernie Sanders who did quite well in the mid american towns. But they wanted their bit of history too much. Clinton failed miserably because she was Clinton, unconvincing and too reliant on Hollywood etc.

She could never escape from herself.

Now the world is stuck with a political pygmy for a president. Four more years... 

[Hawkmumbler]

Sharky's idealogy hinges on the theory that everyone has an integrated objective moral compass.

It doesn't take a genius to prove that that simply isn't the case and is tus utterly moot.

[TordelBack]

I admit it. I've been indulging in schadenfreude (oo-er missus).

Is it still schadenfreude if you share in the misfortune?

[Banners]

An American private prison company, Corrections Corp, has seen their share price rise an astonishing 42% today. The introduction of iso-blocks can't be far away.

[Zarjazzer]

I admit it. I've been indulging in schadenfreude (oo-er missus).

Is it still schadenfreude if you share in the misfortune?

As I felt a visceral thrill of evil the answer has to be yes.

[IAMTHESYSTEM]

Today has been a bad day. I'm sure glad I won't have to relive this day again- or this year.

[GordonR]

I admit it. I've been indulging in schadenfreude (oo-er missus).  Trawling through right on luvvie web sites and laughing my evil black heart out as the losers lament their loss. How could working class Yanks not be swayed by the political giants of er Jay Z and um, Katy Perry? Quite.  The demoflats should have stuck with Bernie Sanders who did quite well in the mid american towns. But they wanted their bit of history too much. Clinton failed miserably because she was Clinton, unconvincing and too reliant on Hollywood etc.

She could never escape from herself.

Now the world is stuck with a political pygmy for a president. Four more years... 

I think people are seriously kidding themselves on if they think Sanders would have beaten Trump. The Republicans pretty much swept the board - White House, Congress, Senate. 

Sanders' own state of Vermont put a Republucan into the governor's mansion. Where was Bernie's magic shield of political invincibility to stop that?

[SuperSurfer]

Look at the bright side, we won't be going to war against Russia any time soon.

I must say I'm quite amazed at how a lot of people (not here) seem to be baffled as to why Hilary Clinton is so disliked.

Someone where I work went against the tide of conversation today and summed up her own thoughts about Clinton with: "She likes war too much".

I'm also baffled to some degree at how people were so outraged at what the West inflicted on Iraq (rightly so) but are seemingly indifferent to what the US under Obama and Hillary (with the UK and France) inflicted on Libya. The footage of Clinton rejoicing over the death of Gadaffi was quite repulsive. The repercussions from that intervention have been horrific on so many levels, including contributing to the refugee/migrant crisis.

Trump talked bad. Clinton did bad.

"Post-truth politics"? When was politics about truth?

This John Pilger article is well worth a read:

INSIDE THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT: WAR, PROPAGANDA, CLINTON & TRUMP

"To the militarists in Washington, the real problem with Trump is that, in his lucid moments, he seems not to want a war with Russia; he wants to talk with the Russian president, not fight him; he says he wants to talk with the president of China.

In the first debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump promised not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict. He said, "I would certainly not do first strike. Once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over." That was not news.

Did he really mean it? Who knows? He often contradicts himself. But what is clear is that Trump is considered a serious threat to the status quo maintained by the vast national security machine that runs the United States, regardless of who is in the White House.

...Clinton has the form, as she often boasts. Indeed, her record is proven. As a senator, she backed the bloodbath in Iraq.  When she ran against Obama in 2008, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran. As Secretary of State, she colluded in the destruction of governments in Libya and Honduras and set in train the baiting of China.

She has now pledged to support a No Fly Zone in Syria - a direct provocation for war with Russia. Clinton may well become the most dangerous president of the United States in my lifetime - a distinction for which the competition is fierce.

Without a shred of evidence, she has accused Russia of supporting Trump and hacking her emails. Released by WikiLeaks, these emails tell us that what Clinton says in private, in speeches to the rich and powerful, is the opposite of what she says in public.

...Today, the greatest build-up of American-led forces since World War Two is under way - in the Caucasus and eastern Europe, on the border with Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, where China is the target.

Keep that in mind when the presidential election circus reaches its finale on November 8th,  If the winner is Clinton, a Greek chorus of witless commentators will celebrate her coronation as a great step forward for women. None will mention Clinton's victims: the women of Syria, the women of Iraq, the women of Libya. None will mention the civil defence drills being conducted in Russia.

...George Bush's press spokesman once called the media "complicit enablers".

Coming from a senior official in an administration whose lies, enabled by the media, caused such suffering, that description is a warning from history."

[Professor Bear]

Sanders' own state of Vermont put a Republucan into the governor's mansion. Where was Bernie's magic shield of political invincibility to stop that?

Clearly you missed the memos from the political establishment since May: Sanders supporters and Trump supporters are the same thing.  When Sanders didn't get the Democratic nomination, his supporters switched to Trump, so it's actually Sanders' fault that Trump won.  And also the fault of anyone who voted for a third party.  All their fault.

Clinton?  Utterly blameless.

[Theblazeuk]

There are actually a surprising (which admittedly would be anything greater than 1) number of Bernie voters who did switch to Trump after all of the fuss with the Dem PAC became more public. Logically it makes no sense. Logic does not enter into things as much as we hope, as is the case with 3rd-party voters. I get what they're attempting but just like over here, you can't pretend anything other than a wasted vote.

I am skeptical Sanders would have won, but then not entirely so either. It's easy to underestimate just how tainted Clinton is a candidate, to a great extent unfairly but you can see where and why these opinions are formed. She is the wife of a president who was disgraced in office. And due to sexual indiscretion, which plays badly amongst a huge section of Americans. The taint of deceit is even more All those disaffected that Obama didn't bring about Utopia are probably annoyed with her as well (again, illogically). She is part of one of America's great political dynasties, which isn't a problem for the Reps but doesn't earn any favours with the liberals - and certainly not with the (self-destructive) die-hard fans of Bernie.

I don't think Bernie would necessarily have convinced more swing voters to vote Dem than Rep.

But I am pretty confident everyone who voted Hilary would 1) still vote and 2) not vote Trump, and 3) Bernie would likely have got a good chunk of those missing 14,000,000 democrat voters who seemed not to bother showing up this time around. The turnout was really poor when you consider how many non-traditional voter Trump must have gathered, and most of that went missing from the democrat vote.

So.... I think the result would at least have been better.