Science Forums President Vote (2016)

[Delta1212]

Except if we win then you simply turn trump to Hillary, and republicans to democrats. And vice versa.

 

Incubators for the state? Wtf..... Sorry for the language but where the hell do you live????

Of the mixed governments I've lived through, there have been two Democratic presidents with Republican Congresses and one Republican President with a Democratic Congress.

 

Congress has shut down the government three times during that period. Twice during the first Dem President/GOP Congress and once during the second Dem President/GOP Congress.

 

 

 

You are allowed to disagree with the Democrats and favor Republican positions on issues, for sure. Objectively, however, one party has been more obstructionist than the other. Democrats in Congress have a recent track record of cooperating, or attempting to cooperate, with Republicans far more than Republicand in Congress do.

 

That doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but agreeing with one side doesn't change the tactics that side has been using to pursue its goals, and disagreeing with the other side doesn't make them equivalent in all respects in how they go about implementing their own agenda.

 

I'm not pretending that both sides have not engaged in obstruction, but the degree to which each side has done so, and the methods by which they've gone about it, are decidedly asymmetrical.

[MonDie]

There are actually multiple third-party candidates in the race, but only the Libertarian party is on the ballot in all fifty states and they're sucking more votes from Clinton than Trump. They are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, appealing to both ends of the spectrum.

I want Jill Stein, but I won't vote for her because she won't win. They're only on the ballot in 44 states for this election anyway, but they might be too progressive as well. If we assume that (a) the Green is more progressive than the Democrats and (b) the Democrats and Republicans are both becoming more progressive with time, then the Green party will always be an outlier. At least the Libertarians represent a recombination of conservative and liberal values.

The Green Party doesn't accept campaign contributions from corporations, but Bernie Sanders also says we need to get big money out of politics. He gave Hillary Clinton a decent run in the Democratic primaries despite what seems to have been unfair treatment by the Democratic National Convention.

 

I think Hillary Clinton is more or less a conservative that happens to be female. She was outspokenly against gay marriage fifteen years ago even though she was for womens' rights at the same time. Her disinterest in the cause was revealed when, during the primaries against Bernie Sanders, she mistakenly praised the Reagan administration's (lack of) work on AIDS.

The State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, worked to promote fracking here and abroad as a sustainable alternative to coal. In the end we learned that these fracking wells were leaking loads of methane into the water supply and the atmosphere, especially the "super-emitters", because the energy companies care more about digging more wells than fixing the leaky ones. On the plus side however, these wells do not leak much sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, and fracking could be better than coal if we would fix the wells known as "super-emitters". I'm just doubting that the time spent promoting fracking over coal was time well spent.

She also condoned the coup of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, who wanted Honduras to join the Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA) started by socialist Hugo Chavez. She condoned the coup of what seemed to be a socialist leader making a power grab, and she pushed for a "legitimate" re-election in Honduras to replace the ousted leader. However Manuel Zelaya was also an environmentalist, and corrupt officials in the new, coup government are systematically killing off environmentalist activists.

On the other hand, I'm not sure Gary Johnson is much better. I don't know his track record on womens', gay, or ethnic rights like Clinton's, and I can't tell you how informed he is about these matters because he's too focused on drugs. Furthermore, I'm unimpressed with his knowledge of science, and he appears to be against a carbon tax just like he's against the minimum wage and government spending. On the upside however, the Libertarian party is non-interventionist, something the major party candidates cannot lay claim to.

The worst criticisms of Jill Stein seem to be that she's sympathetic to anti-vaxxers or the idea that radio waves cause cancer. However I haven't seen her say anything that is clearly incorrect, and I'm not about to punish her for not seeing things as black and white, yes or no. There is some weak evidence that radio waves may contribute to cancer, and we know that the radio waves from your cell phone alter glucose metabolism in the brain. Maybe it's nothing... Anyway, the Green party is even more progressive than the Democratic party, making them an outlier. Having them compete with Democrats for votes will only help the Republicans. At best the Green Party nominee should be seen as a back-up progressive candidate who can step up in the event of some crisis that leaves the Democratic candidate utterly un-electable and decommissioned.

Edited November 3, 2016 by MonDie

[Delta1212]

Republicans aren't getting more progressive with time. They may on certain issues as the next generation grows up, but they've been pulling further right in a lot of areas for a while.

 

As far as Hillary's Reagan comments go, I don't think those were a mistake. One thing I noticed immediately watching the Democratic primary debates, especially the first one, was that Hillary was already playing to a general election audience as much as she was to the Democratic base. She was already running for President more than the Democratic nominee.

 

In addition to praising Reagan, she was also the only person on stage in the first debate who referenced God. I think I counted five or six mentions, a couple of which were in the repeated phrase "God-given talents" or something similar.

 

As far as her being conservative goes, conservative and liberal, in American political terms, are fairly relative concepts, as are where given issues falls along that particular axis.

 

Her current views in the current political climate are, I think, considerably to the left of the average self-described conservative. Now, with things being what they are, that may still make her more conservative than much of the left wing of the Democratic Party is especially comfortable with, but "more conservative than me" and "conservative by comparison with the rest of American politics" are very, very different things. In comparison with most American politicians, Hillary is decidedly progressive.

 

Restricting that analysis to "sane" politicians might make her come across as much more conservative, but that's really stacking the deck.

 

 

Follow-up: Also, while I would personally love a candidate a bit further to the left on a number of issues, I'm not sure that Jill Stein is actually all that great of a candidate. Because she doesn't have a realistic chance to win, she occupies a sort of "generic leftist" space that is attractive if you support more left-leaning policies.

 

But if she were an actual serious candidate with a real chance to win, I'm not so sure how happy about that ai would be. A win for liberalism just getting someone with certain of her policies on the ballot yes, and I'd obviously vote for her over someone like Trump, but there have to be better, more qualified and competent people with liberal views who could run.

 

I just don't think she could actually do the job if elected, and I don't like the idea of symbolically voting for a stand-in for policy positions that I don't think would make a good president if they actually won.

[Raider5678]

Republicans aren't getting more progressive with time. They may on certain issues as the next generation grows up, but they've been pulling further right in a lot of areas for a while.

If moving farther away from your ideal idea of a government means we aren't getting more progressive, then that would mean that Democrats aren't either. Just pointing that out, for example if Donald Trump wins, then screw it, everybody's going all in on blocking some of the things he wants to do, heck, probably even me. Except if Hillary got elected people would still do the same thing.

[Delta1212]

If moving farther away from your ideal idea of a government means we aren't getting more progressive, then that would mean that Democrats aren't either. Just pointing that out, for example if Donald Trump wins, then screw it, everybody's going all in on blocking some of the things he wants to do, heck, probably even me. Except if Hillary got elected people would still do the same thing.

I think you may be confusing progressivism with... whatever the opposite of obstructionism is? Genuinely can't think of a good word there. Cooperatism or something, maybe.

 

In any case, blocking something that someone wants to do is not inherently anti-progressive if the thing in question is a regressive policy, nor is advancing an agenda of any kind a progressive act.

 

Progressivism as a political ideology stands in contrast to conservatism and is associated with left-wing politics and policy positions.

 

Although, frankly, I think the GOP has actually gotten less conservative, which I would be more sympathetic to in some areas, and actually gone regressive, both economically and especially socially.

 

In my ideal republic, we'd have a give and take between an idealistic progressivism that pushes us to do better and a pragmatic conservativism that keeps us from accidentally breaking those things that already work well.

 

Unfortunately, the GOP has completely ceded the ground of pragmatic conservatism in a process that has gone on for a couple of decades now and is currently extremely reactionary rather than particularly conservative. Meanwhile, the Democrats have moved in and attempted to fill both roles. The results have been less than stellar.

 

As I said, while I lean left on probably most issues, especially socially, there are conservative principles that I am sympathetic too, and I think we need a strong, stable conservative party to champion those positions and that outlook, even in those cases where I don't fully agree with it.

 

The problem we have is that we don't currently have such a party. Trump is the culmination of all of the problems that have been plaguing the GOP of late. He is not actually particularly conservative but is extremely reactionary. Election year anti-the-other-side rhetoric tends to heat up on both sides, but if you go back over the last few years, you will find the Democrats saying "this is what we want to do" and the Republicans saying "This is what we want to undo" or "This is what we want to stop others from doing" at very disproportionate rares.

 

Likewise, Donald Trump is defined more by what he is against and who he is fueling with than by anything that he is specifically for.

 

We're at a point in time where we desperately need people to come together and while I definitely don't think Hillary Clinton is the best positioned person to pull that off, I challenge anyone who has been paying attention to this election to state with a straight face that Donald Trump has given any indication so far during this campaign that "reconcile with those who are opposing me" is something that would even occur to him to put on a to-do list let alone actually pull off.

[steveupson]

I'm still feeling the Bern so that's why I'm pragmatic about this. There's a 50/50 chance the Senate will split 50/50 and if Kaine is the tie breaker then Sanders will chair the Senate Finance Committee, which has to be a step in the right direction.

[Raider5678]

I'm still feeling the Bern so that's why I'm pragmatic about this. There's a 50/50 chance the Senate will split 50/50 and if Kaine is the tie breaker then Sanders will chair the Senate Finance Committee, which has to be a step in the right direction.

I'm not feeling the Bern.

[Phi for All]

In my ideal republic, we'd have a give and take between an idealistic progressivism that pushes us to do better and a pragmatic conservativism that keeps us from accidentally breaking those things that already work well.

 

This is a great balance. Unfortunately, I think many who would agree are being manipulated by capitalist concerns preaching that a good conservative should be voting for oil subsidies, and denying climate change that might restrict profit through regulation (for instance). People who would agree with your ideal approach are being steered away from applying it, being told that fossil fuels are part of what already works well and isn't an area where we can do better.

 

Personally, I think many conservatives are more easily manipulated through fear. I don't know anyone who doesn't like owning the streets so they can drive on them whenever they need to without paying a fee to a private company, yet so many people who identify as conservatives complain about socialism. They love the parks, they love the museums, they love that the widowed mother of four won't go hungry, but they don't like socialism. They feel the pain of having wages reduced while CEO's of insurance companies make an average yearly American salary EVERY DAY. They anguish over not being able to send a smart child to college while Europeans attend for free. They feel the anxiety over defending their families by becoming part of the gun culture that threatens it most. But they refuse to feel the Bern.

 

Sad. Frustrating.

[Raider5678]

Personally, I think many conservatives are more easily manipulated through fear. I don't know anyone who doesn't like owning the streets so they can drive on them whenever they need to without paying a fee to a private company, yet so many people who identify as conservatives complain about socialism. They love the parks, they love the museums, they love that the widowed mother of four won't go hungry, but they don't like socialism. They feel the pain of having wages reduced while CEO's of insurance companies make an average yearly American salary EVERY DAY. They anguish over not being able to send a smart child to college while Europeans attend for free. They feel the anxiety over defending their families by becoming part of the gun culture that threatens it most. But they refuse to feel the Bern.

 

Sad. Frustrating.

Its slightly more complicated then that, but you got the idea.

[Phi for All]

Its slightly more complicated then that, but you got the idea.

 

Uncomplicate it for me. Why do you approve of things like the People owning the streets and parks, and funding programs to make sure fellow People don't starve, but then you say you don't approve of socialism. It makes it look like you don't understand.

[Delta1212]

 

Uncomplicate it for me. Why do you approve of things like the People owning the streets and parks, and funding programs to make sure fellow People don't starve, but then you say you don't approve of socialism. It makes it look like you don't understand.

It sounds like he was agreeing with you in general but saying that it is slightly more complicated, which of course it is. It always is.

[Raider5678]

Uncomplicate it for me. Why do you approve of things like the People owning the streets and parks, and funding programs to make sure fellow People don't starve, but then you say you don't approve of socialism. It makes it look like you don't understand.

Pretty much what delta said. You should see the NRA news letter. Its horrifying.