You should do less of that and more campaigning for Obama. — Michael

I'll do it because you've told me to, but I think I probably should wait until he declares his candidacy for VP. Usually the presidential candidate picks his VP, but I guess this is a different sort of election.

The trick is to campaign for him so that the voters think he's declared his candidacy and vote for him, even though he hasn't because he's too proper to engage in such shameless and possibly unconstitutional shenanigans. Also I'm the Presidential candidate, so I approve his non-declaration-declaration.

Again, not denying that there was rigging involved, but you can't hand-wave the fact that there was strong (and a majority) support for Clinton.

And this faith in your two party system upholds the corrupt two party system.

Philosophically it's interesting, this utter lack of trust in the democratic process. Basically it feels like God has given you two parties, and there is no other way. You cannot do anything about it. So pin your hopes on the "primary" elections and that you can change this corrupt parties to your liking.

It's really something that people think before they notice just how easily voters can change the political environment and they don't have to vote for the old parties. — ssu

Not denying that a movement towards a third party isn't possible or isn't desirable. It's just not viable at this current time and you're naive to think otherwise. The 2018 midterm election alone has enabled national conversation around progressive ideas thanks to notable progressives winning primaries against establishment Democrats. If progressive want to enact immediate political change, and shift the overton window leftward, the most practical way of doing so is through the established organon of the Democratic Party. There is also the danger of fragmenting the liberal/Left voting bloc, and enabling a united Right voting bloc to win elections.

Again, not denying that there was rigging involved, but you can't hand-wave the fact that there was strong (and a majority) support for Clinton. — Maw

During the primaries, it was evident to me that Sanders had a better chance against Trump. Perhaps the majority of Democrats are gullible, and instead of going with the stronger candidate, went with who they were told to. Remember how Sanders ragdolled Clinton in their debates.

Imagine what he would've done to Trump.

No, I'm baffled. To undermine your base in the way they did, is about the most shady rat-bastard thing a political party could do. I don't see how they can be trusted with my vote. — Merkwurdichliebe

We're on a philosophy site. I assume everyone here is aware that the vast majority (very near all) of politicians are just narcissistic people, who, like the rest of us, just view their jobs as some thing they have to do before they can enjoy the weekend (or in congress' case, a few weeks off). Of course, they view themselves and their work as superior to the rest of us and our endeavors, but that doesn't mean they are willing to actually inconvenience themselves for the sake of improving society.

So, my vote is based on what the party/candidate SAYS they represent. Yes, I am aware they are mostly full of sh*t, but what are my choices? At least casting my vote in favor of what they SUPPOSEDLY stand for, shows what I want. And, by the time November rolled around in 2016 the one thing I wanted more than anything (politically) was NOT trump.

That's too bad. Race and gender are two of the worst criterion I can think of for supporting a candidate. Not that this hasn't been the case the whole time. I'm just saying. — Merkwurdichliebe

And I agree. you are talking ideally. I am working with the garbage the world gives me. I am not supporting them BECAUSE they are a women and black. However, many people will support them for those reasons alone, and some that are supporting them for other reasons might feel more inspired to actually go vote if the candidate appeals to them in other ways. It would be problematic not to consider that truth.

A white male (sorry Pete, straight) war veteran appeals to Trump's base more I'd think. Additionally no #metoo references is a bonus. — Benkei

Why would a trump supporter vote democrat? Democrats want a multicultural society. Democrats support more open borders. Democrats see benefits in socialism (general meaning, not arguing whether what they call socialism is actually socialism). Democrats generally do not see the U.S. as really great (it has done great things, but also terrible things).

Forget all 4 of those things, any 1 and trump supporters are out.

I feel sympathy towards those who have the genuine urge to take action (by voting) in order to make things better. It is unfortunate that we're left with the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. In the end, I think voting is futile and can effect no real systemic change.

what makes you think it's about these issues to begin with? It's a big marketing campaign about who's popular. There were barely any policies debates in the last election.

Not denying that a movement towards a third party isn't possible or isn't desirable. It's just not viable at this current time and you're naive to think otherwise. The 2018 midterm election alone has enabled national conversation around progressive ideas thanks to notable progressives winning primaries against establishment Democrats. If progressive want to enact immediate political change, and shift the overton window leftward, the most practical way of doing so is through the established organon of the Democratic Party. There is also the danger of fragmenting the liberal/Left voting bloc, and enabling a united Right voting bloc to win elections. — Maw

Yeah, you're right. The left has shifted further to the left, and Sanders, Corbyn, Mélenchon, and Haddad are examples of this. They're in a battle against a right that has shifted further to the right, exampled by Trump, Johnson, Rhys-Mogg, Le Pen, and Bolsonaro. Any leftist wasting their vote in this battle really isn't helping.

The left has shifted further to the left, — S

I see the left and right drifting apart at an exponential rate. Before we know it, it will be too late, and they will be radically charged. And that's a dangerous prospect, especially given the tyranny of the deep state.

I see the left and right drifting apart at an exponential rate. Before we know it, it will be too late, and they will be radically charged. And that's a dangerous prospect, especially given the tyranny of the deep state. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's only a dangerous prospect because of the risk of the more radical right gaining power. The more radical left would make changes that would be of benefit to people like us and our interests. And, as has been rightly pointed out, as things stand, the only realistic chance of getting closer to your actual interests, now, and in the foreseeable future, is not to waste your vote, but to vote for the leftist party which has the best chance of gaining power.

Basically, if Clinton wasn't left enough for you, and Sanders was knocked out, then tough shit. Clinton would've been better than Trump, and no, that's nothing like a choice between Stalin and Hitler.

You seem to be the whiny complaining sort that you objected to earlier. You haven't actually made a single criticism of any of Clinton's proposals. You've just expressed cynicism, in the modern sense, to an unreasonable excess. Instead of doing something sensible about it, you just whine and demonise and make hyperbolic remarks.

It's only a dangerous prospect because of the risk of the more radical right gaining power. The more radical left would make changes that would be of benefit to people like us and our interests. — S

Tell that to the survivors of the Soviet g.u.l.a.g.

Tell that to the survivors the Soviet g.u.l.a.g. — Merkwurdichliebe

Another hyperbolic remark. Funnily enough, by "more radical left", I didn't mean so extremely radical that Gulags are back on the table.

You seem to be the whiny complaining sort that you objected to earlier. You haven't actually made a single criticism of any of Clinton's proposals. You've just expressed cynicism, in the modern sense, to an unreasonable excess. — S

I really don't give two shits about what happens to the world or to me. And I like getting you slaves to the status quo, you talking sticks, worked up like this. That is bona fide, classic Diogenesean cynicism.

But that is what happens when either the right or left drift to their extremes

But that is what happens when the right and left drift to their extremes. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't predict Gulags on the horizon.

I disagree. We are soon to see either the rise of either a gulag or concentration system. Radicalism means doom for everyone.

I disagree. We are soon to see either the rise of either a gulag or concentration system. Radicalism means doom for everyone. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, Stalin gets my vote over Hitler. He has a better moustache.

Well, Stalin gets my vote over Hitler. He has a better moustache. — S

You should create a pole, that would be awesome.

pole — Merkwurdichliebe

:gasp:

I feel sympathy towards those who have the genuine urge to take action (by voting) in order to make things better. It is unfortunate that we're left with the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. In the end, I think voting is futile and can effect no real systemic change. — Merkwurdichliebe

I understand this sentiment completely. I am largely in the same boat. I just barely make the minimal effort of voting (and that is more because I have had too many arguments dismissed with "well you don't even vote" - terrible ad hom, but I got sick of dealing with it). That is why even though I spend a good deal of time studying history, politics, etc, voting is quick and easy.

what makes you think it's about these issues to begin with? It's a big marketing campaign about who's popular. There were barely any policies debates in the last election. — Benkei

You are right about the popularity contest. And I might even agree that very few people care to delve into the issues. But that does NOT mean that people don't THINK they care about the issues. They also will often strongly identify with certain causes or issues. I think of the issues more hazily as a type of emotional identification, for example - socialism has become an emotional identification that means "help the poor" to the left and "destroy the middle class" to the right.

Notice the 4 issues I mentioned (repeated below) are so vague and general that they would not even count as an "issue" in a debate. And yet, they highlight obvious differences. Despite the campaigns avoiding detailed discussion of the issues, surely EVERYONE (who cares) knows that democrats support the issues below while Trump has a strong view in the opposite direction, right? What am I missing? Are you saying democrats DO NOT want a multicultural society? Are you saying Trump has not said things that strongly imply {or directly state} he is against the democrats vision of a multicultural society?

Democrats want a multicultural society. Democrats support more open borders. Democrats see benefits in socialism (general meaning, not arguing whether what they call socialism is actually socialism). Democrats generally do not see the U.S. as really great (it has done great things, but also terrible things). — ZhouBoTong

because I have had too many arguments dismissed with "well you don't even vote" - terrible ad hom, but I got sick of dealing with it — ZhouBoTong

Don't be discourage by ad hom, it is likely an indication that your on the right track. In this case, again, it is a group morality, they can't accept you as a sovereign individual, they need you to belong to the system to which they subscribe. And the fact is that most, if not all, evangelistic voters don't even want you to vote (i.e. choose for yourself), but only to demonstrate that you think like them by voting for their pick. That's not a prescription, just the way I approach evangelistic voters.

That is why even though I spend a good deal of time studying history, politics, etc, voting is quick and easy. — ZhouBoTong

Then you have the key systemic change: improving yourself.

So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

Because the modern G.O.P. is perfectly willing to sell out America if that’s what it takes to get tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans may not think of it in those terms, but that’s what their behavior amounts to.

Krugman

I think Krugman misses one important point.

That is that this debacle, which is a culminating triumph for the Russian intelligence services, is simply a huge embarrasment for the US. The US government looks like naive fools. The US government doesn't want to look like this, so there is an urge to go forward and forget the whole thing.

I genuinely think that if it wouldn't be for Mr. Inept Trainwreck, there naturally wouldn't have been any Mueller report and then the official FBI report done under Comey's supervision, would have just stated that "yes, the Russians interfered in the US elections". Period. Nothing else. Move on folks, nothing to see.

Yet Agent Trumpov, the agent that simply could not keep his mouth shut when it was the only thing he had to do, gave us this farce by firing Comey and did the utmost to damage his Presidency by his open panic about the inquiry. Just how pathetic is it that in this report it clearly states that Agent Trumpov wanted to obstruct justice, but his staff simply would not follow his orders.

It’s a lot more than an embarrassment.

You’re watching the destruction of the office of the President of the United States, live and in real time. This is happening.

And the fact is that most, if not all, evangelistic voters don't even want you to vote (i.e. choose for yourself), but only to demonstrate that you think like them by voting for their pick. That's not a prescription, just the way I approach evangelistic voters. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ugh, I hear that. But my experience suggests many others operate similarly. My parents are republican and from the day I was born have never cast a single non-republican vote. I think this is common. I have friends who are democrats that take politics and sociology quite seriously, but they never actually THINK about anything (they have zero desire to actually engage with me in debate, and I am mostly on their side - it could be my jerk-ish personality, but they seem happy being my friend otherwise :grin: ). They just vote democrat then ONLY read material that is obviously pro-democrat, then get mad at everyone who votes differently.

Then you have the key systemic change: improving yourself. — Merkwurdichliebe

Can't argue with that. But now I will have that Michael Jackson song stuck in my head :groan:

Why would May invite Trump to visit the UK?

I don't understand.

well, it is America and Great Britain, after all. Those historical factors are supposed to outweigh the personalities involved (although in Trump's case, nothing can be more important than his ego.) But I expect there will be vast (and hysterical) street protests.