US election soap opera intermission and Trump conspiracies - Page 2 - HotWhopper Chat HotWhopper Chat
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!

Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.

Where Australia's electricity comes from

This widget is updated every couple of minutes and shows why Australia is such a huge GHG emitter.

US election soap opera intermission and Trump conspiracies

2»

Comments

  • citizenschallenge, you lost me for good with "uppity Nader voters." Really?

    I just can't share in the Trumphobia. He has no possibility of getting my vote; neither does Clinton. Hell, I don't even believe that Trump is a real candidate. I think that he is a stalking horse for Clinton --that the whole thing is a set-up to get Hillary elected. So, I doubt that anything he says is a reliable indicator of what he might do if he manages to get elected.

    Now, something that is worth worrying about imv is the reaction of Trump supporters to a close, controversial loss.


    Good luck to you and yours. I think I'm done with this thread since I've said everything I wanted and learned nothing new.

  • BaerbelW  1:19PM: 
    A lot of the animosity towards Hillary Clinton seems to have been generated by the media - if what Bill Moyers describes in this article is accurate:
    http://billmoyers.com/story/last-night-3/

    Now that was a good article, puts an interesting light on the public perception.  Thanks for posting it, makes me ask myself how much of my own negativity is as much the constant reenforcement of the meme.
    Shades of "seepage"   :o

    Unfortunately now we have the latest WikiLeaks thing about Clinton making money off his foundation.  Although near as I've been able to tell, it's about Bill picking up lucrative speaking engagements - not anything ugly like syphoning off money from the foundation - so again it seems over-played.  But, there it is, play it Trump certainly is.
  • That a Secretary of State says something different in public than in private is part of the job description. What a Secretary of State says has real consequences. That you want to be more sure about what is right than in  normal conversion is nature. That you first want to discus consequences with experts is the job.

    As a private person I naturally see Saudi Arabia as one of the biggest human rights violators and sponsor of terrorism. If I were foreign minister I could and would not say that in public, but first try to limit the dependence of our economy on oil. 


    Precisely, Victor, I did point put the only really serious accusation in his gish gallop list was on a matter of national security - and no government plays that with an "open book" policy

    but that sort of logic simply bounces off CT'ers  

    the exchange also play to a phenomena you see quite a lot with CT'ers - and it is one of "unrealistic expectations"

    This is evident in climate change deniers, according to most - because we do not know everything about our climate - we know nothing

    they won't be convinced until someone puts a fully working miniature planet in a test lab in the same way twoofers  will only be convinced that a plane + office fires + gravity brought down WTC 1/2  if it can be repeated in an experiment

    both unrealistic expectations





  • edited October 2016

    It's a shame you've checked out of this discussion.  Would be interested in why I've offended you with my contempt for Mr. Nader and the dunderheads that gave him their vote and what his egomania wound up doing to our world as we know it. 

    Misanthroptimist 
    October 27  Flag
    citizenschallenge, you lost me for good with "uppity Nader voters." Really? 
    Would using "thoughtless" rather than "uppity" have made it any better?
    Here are a couple articles that will help explain why I feel as I do.  
    Mr. Nader’s Unforgivable Wrong

    http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/mr-naders-unforgivable-wrong/
    By RON KLAIN

     FEBRUARY 26, 2008 4:46 PMFebruary 26, 2008 4:46 pm
    With Ralph Nader’s announcement of a fourth (or maybe fifth) run for president, it is worth taking a minute to recall his most infamous previous campaign: his 2000 presidential bid. The rosy and imprecise glow of memory might lead one to remember it as a well-intentioned effort to make a point that simply went awry. But such a view is far, far more benign than the reality of the Nader 2000 campaign, and therefore a review of that effort is in order to put his current campaign in context. 
    When I made a passing, disparaging reference to Mr. Nader’s 2000 campaign in an earlier post on this blog, it drew a lot of negative comments, accusing me of wrongly blaming Mr. Nader for the Bush presidency. As a logical matter, in an election as close as 2000, and decided as oddly as it was, it is hard to point to any one thing as the “but for” cause of the result. 

    But the fact that the Nader vote was larger than the Gore-Bush margin of difference — not just in Florida, but also in New Hampshire — is grating and significant. So let’s just put it this way, as neutrally as possible: while there are several reasons why Al Gore was not sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001, one of them certainly is because Ralph Nader drew votes that would have given Mr. Gore the election — in not just one state, but two — making Katherine Harris, dimpled chads and the Supreme Court wholly irrelevant. 

    But, some Nader sympathizers object, who could have known back then that Mr. Nader’s campaign would help throw the presidency to George Bush? Who could have seen it coming? The answer is that Mr. Nader did, which is why he initially promised supporters that he would not campaign in swing states or take other steps that might make him the “spoiler” in the race – a promise he inexplicably broke, to the chagrin of many environmentalists, in the final weeks of the campaign. ...


  • The election system in the US is terrible and a reason for much of the disillusionment with US politics, but it is what it is. Do fight for it to change, but for now it is reality. As long as it is what it is a vote for a third party or not voting out of disillusionment may put someone in power who you do not want and makes America worse again.
  • CC - I think that it 's not just "unrealistic expectations" but that conspiracy theories also feature highly on the list of those who don't like Hillary Clinton (i.e. hinting at the possibility that DT might be a plant by Hillary Clinton to ensure her getting elected). Most likely we'd find example for all of the FLICC-characterstics explained in Denial101x:


    I also have a hard time understanding why anybody would ignore the good reasons given in endorsement articles like these for Hillary Clinton - esp. as they are from outlets which either only rarely published an endorsment at all or if they did in the past, basically never for the Democratic candidate. Are they all in on a conspiracy to get her elected?!?

    The Atlantic - Against Donald Trump

    USA Today breaks with tradition, rejects Trump

    AzCentral - Endorsement: Hillary Clinton is the only choice to move America ahead

    The San Diego Union-Tribune - Why Hillary Clinton is the safe choice for president

    Not voting or voting for a 3rd party candidate comes with the risk of a Trump presidency (and this is not just a risk for the United States but for the whole world as far as I'm concerned). Compared to Trump, Hillary Clinton is by far the safer choice as she - to name just one thing - is willing to surround herself with experts and is willing to listen to them (compared to DT who seems to have a bad case of Dunning-Kruger with "thinking" that he's the expert on everything and doesn't need let alone take advice from anybody).
    FLICC.jpg 61.3K
  • The election system in the US is terrible and a reason for much of the disillusionment with US politics, but it is what it is. Do fight for it to change, but for now it is reality. As long as it is what it is a vote for a third party or not voting out of disillusionment may put someone in power who you do not want and makes America worse again.


    I have heard it argued that the US election system / constitution / political institutions worked quite well 150 years ago, but is/are simply not fit for purpose in the 21st century

    specifically that it was designed around a concept of cooperation - especially between the executive and the legislature

    it seems that instead of cooperation the US has suffered from increasing polarisation in government in recent years  


  • tadaaa said:

    I have heard it argued that the US election system / constitution / political institutions worked quite well 150 years ago, but is/are simply not fit for purpose in the 21st century

    specifically that it was designed around a concept of cooperation - especially between the executive and the legislature

    it seems that instead of cooperation the US has suffered from increasing polarisation in government in recent years  


    Interesting observation.  Consider what made America so great.  

    America was the Land of Opportunity.  

    Vast stretches of what "we" took to be virgin land, filled with wildlife beyond description - vast plains, forests, mountains and water ways and shorelines, mineral riches and black gold beyond comprehension waiting for people who assumed they had a god given right to take it.  And always the welcome cheap immigrants to do the hard work, until some figured out how to make it big, while the others kept toiling.

    What Trump supporters ignore is that something unnoticed but big changed after WWII, though by the 1970s we learned (and those who paid any attention understood) that our consumption and population growth was overextending our planet's ability to support it.  

    Now in 2016 we are reaching the end of our rainbow - the things that used to drive the economy were all resources consumption oriented - new bonanzas, boom and bust, until another opportunity resource, new wide empty lands awaiting exploration and exploitation just beyond the next horizon.  

    Now the electorate and many politicians acts as though jobs are created by fiat, it's never worked that way.  Jobs are a reflection of resources availability as much as it is about consumption.

    Society has fully engulfed and saturated our planet, without appreciating that basic reality today's world doesn't make sense.  

    Unfortunately libertarians and tea party folks and right-wingers in general expect the opportunities of that past plentiful world.  It's utterly deluded.  I know I shouldn't get so vehement about it, and I appreciate that many leftie are plenty deluded themselves.  But nothing the Democrats have comes close to the Faith-based God-fearing Republicans, with their utter rejection of serious science in favor of farce driven with ruthless tactics.  Backed by their conviction that their own self-interest is all that supposed to matter in the world.

  • Here we are, the Friday before the big election. I can confidently predict that whomever takes FL will be the next President of the United States of America. As of this writing, Hillary has a very slight advantage in the polling data. It's a small, consistent (but in the MoE) lead.

    In essence, it doesn't matter which wins. America is pretty well screwed at this point and getting "screwed-er", no matter the winner. The winner will only determine the details of the screwing.
  • It does matter who wins. A lot.

    Then the USA really needs to get its act together and fight the spiral of corruption and inequality.
    citizenschallenge
  • It matters not just to America, it also matters to Australia (a great deal), Oceania as a whole, Asia, Europe, China, middle east, Russia and probably Africa, too.
  • I am rather afraid that in fact considering a president can be elected with about 28% of the people in the USA that this person who has to be the least qualified to hold office may just get elected. Mind the other person has issues as well. It is a really sad situation when both parties put up people who are not exactly liked.
  • I made the anti-establishment case to hold your nose and vote for Clinton. It makes an enormous difference, especially when it comes to climate change.
    http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2016/11/greens-progressives-clinton-trump.html

  • edited November 2016
    Victor, nice write up.  
    I found it interesting reading.  Since I've been buried in work (a bastard hip roof - really what it's called.  For good reason - but it turned out pretty good once the sweat and bit of blood was all said and done.  and other less exciting stuff in-between) .  I  really wanted to write a bunch this election cycle but life once again had other plans, been frustrating.  You did touch on many points that concern me so I decided it was perfect to fill in for my missing stuff. 

    http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/11/greens-progressives-think-before-voting.html

    How you like my treatment, any suggestions or critiques, requests are welcome.
    VictorVenema
  • A question for those in the US: why does it take so long for a person to vote? I see lines that are very long and reports that people have to wait in a queue for hours. It doesn't make sense to me. Is there a particular reason for this?

    That together with the lack of compulsory voting, doesn't strike me as being in the spirit of democracy. More third-world-ish.

    On the other hand, early voting is good, although I wonder if there is an option for postal votes. (If not, why not?)
  • That is on purpose. Voter suppression. Republicans do not believe in democracy. They believe in power.


    tadaaa
  • So the USA is very third-world-ish when it comes to voting and democracy. (I seem to remember noticing that at the last US presidential election, too. Was that when the law that recognised corporations as people came in?)

    What would you call the US system of government - a flawed democracy, a capitocracy, a corporatocracy, at times a criminocracy?

    As I understand it, not all states flout the law in that regard. Quite appalling the ones that do.

    (I'm not saying our Australian system is perfect, and I will say our elected leaders are very imperfect. Prime Minister Turnbull is a huge disappointment. So was Kevin Rudd in many respects though he did some things very well (such as preventing a recession during the global financial crisis, with the help of Wayne Swan). The current Labor leader, Bill Shorten has his faults too, but is exceeding my expectations at the same time. And there is cronyism throughout our system - in both major parties.)
  • It would not surprise me if Donald Thump actually gets elected.
    Why?
    Because just like the vote recently seen in England, the polls said we will not leave so i will do a protest vote.
    Result the country is going to go down the tube and the people who caused this left the ship as soon as possible.
    In the USA i fear there is going to be a similar voting pattern a protest vote will get this dumb ass Thump elected.
    Welcome to the worst idiot ever as leader of the western world people.
    I honestly do not feel very confident in the direction that western democracy is heading.
    There is a total disconnect between the direction of policy and what is needed how does this happen?
    Answer.
    Please put a person who has some science knowledge as your Representative.

    VictorVenema
  • john said:

    Please put a person who has some science knowledge as your Representative.

    Would that I could avail myself of such a choice! It's hacks, cranks, and crooks on my entire ballot -top to bottom among "major party" candidates. We even have a fake Amendment in "favor" of solar power here in FL (Amendment 1). The only reason I'll vote, if I do, is to vote against Amendment 1 and for the Medical Marijuana Amendment.

    But the candidates...no, thanks. I won't be party to putting any of their behinds in office.
  • This article pretty well sums up the view I've come to about American-style "democracy". I don't know if Americans would agree or disagree with all or parts of it. Nor do I have a clue about how one would or could go about fixing it. If if was an organisation with a hierarchy a fix would be painful, but relatively straightforward. But it's not a hierarchy - it's a lot of different vested interests working through states and corporations keen to preserve the status quo, and it's probably beyond repair.

    http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election/forget-clinton-and-trump--americas-democracy-is-broken-and-they-cant-fix-it-20161103-gshl3c.html
  • It is indeed beyond repair, imho. Bernie was probably our last shot at straightening things out civilly. Now, I think that things will limp on until AGW catches us or until there is bloodshed. The political class and economic elites seem to think that they are immune from any repercussions, whether imposed by the electorate or the laws of physics. That's almost always a tragic mistake.

    I shall watch all of this unfold from my self-sufficient home in the mountains...well, until there's no more TV.
  • Had Elizabeth Warren primaried Clinton she would have won the primary (we now know after the surprising good results of Sanders, the most progressive US Senator) and the general. If Clinton does not work hard to get money out of US politics she will lose in 4 years, maybe even when they again put up a monster like Trump as alternative.

    The young people in America are at least as progressive as Europe; they no longer watch television. Not passively watching one -sided manipulative emotional pictures, but reading about numbers and being able to look up information does wonders for your ability to think straight. (Disclosure: I ditched TV as soon as I left my parental home, best decision ever.) People blame social media for the inability of people to talk with each other, but the problematic people are mainly the old people watch propaganda at Fox "News".
  • I don't know that either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would have won, if they'd been the candidate. I'd say it will not be till climate change worsens even more that there'll be any candidate voted in who isn't centre (either centre right or centre left). That's probably about the best one can hope for in almost any democratic country. There could be more radical people voted in when climate change gets worse - either far right or far left, but more probably far right. Or am I being too pessimistic?
  • edited November 2016

    it seems that both countries who bought into the neoliberal economic claptrap, that emerged in the 80's and became THE dominant social and economic mantra are basket cases - with the same deep structural flaws

    low wages, poor infrastructure investment, emasculation of the politicians - who are subservient to "the market" and hence big business, an endemic culture of mendacious tax avoidance  etc etc

    and as pointed out upthread - the mask soon slips with these lunatics and it shows a distinctly authoritarian and anti democratic face




    citizenschallenge
  • tadaaa said:

    it seems that both countries who bought into the neoliberal economic claptrap, that emerged in the 80's and became THE dominant social and economic mantra are basket cases - with the same deep structural flaws

    low wages, poor infrastructure investment, emasculation of the politicians - who are subservient to "the market" and hence big business, an endemic culture of mendacious tax avoidance  etc etc

    and as pointed out upthread - the mask soon slips with these lunatics and it shows a distinctly authoritarian and anti democratic face

    Add to that the right-wing evangelical movement that highjacked religious passions and put it to the service of Republican political interests.

    Now we have a country where facts have become what you want them to be.  

    It occurs to me there are a huge amount of people these days in the USA who are, have been, home-schooled by religiously possessed parents - starting in the 80s.  Who wanted to created a bubble world isolated from outside influences.
    Guess it 'started' well before the 80s, but the 80s is where political interests realized they could create a powerful political force by marrying religious interests with political interests

    THE HISTORY OF HOMESCHOOLING, 1904-PRESENT
    Posted on May 4, 2015 by R.L. Stollar
    https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2015/05/04/the-history-of-homeschooling-1904-present/
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/20926-homeschooling-up-62-percent-over-a-decade

    Homeschooling is on the rise. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s recently released Digest of Education Statistics, between 2003 and 2012, the number of homeschooled children in the United States is estimated to have grown by nearly 62 percent. Moreover, despite stereotypes to the contrary, most homeschooling families are headed by well-educated parents earning middle-class incomes.

    On the basis of telephone and mail surveys, the Education Department estimates that in 2003 there were 1,096,000 homeschooled students in the nation. By 2012, that number had increased to 1,773,000, for a 61.8-percent rate of growth. As a percentage of all students in the country, homeschoolers jumped from 2.2 percent in 2003 to 3.4 percent in 2012.

    Past couple weeks I've spent many days on a construction site.  Playing carpenter as part of a crew, it's been another fascinating experience, even up to  Russ Limbaugh blaring outta one of the trucks during lunch.  Then today, oh lordie the afternoon full of christian radio music.  The nonstop insipid obsequious unctuous adulation for the Lord God On High, man if there were really a conscious God up there watching, I bet my paycheck that stuff would make her puke.  She likes those of us who engage this life she has bestowed on us for our short moment.  B)

    If you want to understand the Trump phenomena, which I fear is not over by a long shot, hell, we don't even know for sure - the kook actually could become President, the level of disconnect and paranoia and anger is so deep.

    The past few weeks I've been facing the reality that 'rationalists' people who appreciate this planet and her ways, people who understand and love science for what it can help teach us about the world around us.  We are in the minority.  I've always wanted to believe that deep down people really cared and wanted to learn about this life and planet around us.  But it ain't so.


    Back to tomorrow's US election, and the days after,

    Hang on, going to be a rocky ride, all the Republican, Trump and Democratic powers that be will be at each others throats and continue ignoring the really important stuff happening.  Meaning that Earths run away experiment continues full speed ahead.  While the politicians dither - and the masses ignore - and the scientists politely continue refining their Journal of Earth's Vitals as the heat continues rising and cascading consequences become ever more impressive.

    I'm old, got my little hide away while the water and economy lasts, I'm thinking in terms of years for me.    But I think what if I were younger and still full of piss'n vinegar, ready to face a good storm and determined to be around for a few decades?  

    We're getting close to crunch times, younger people that intend to make it through what will obvious be a few different waves of population reduction horrors, (location, pace, breath will vary but the tempo will be in one direction).

    What to do?  Who are the people you want to surround yourselves with?  Who are the one's you want to avoid?  Where are viable places to step off-sides from the Globalized Grid and make a stand?  Stuff to consider.  Learn about fundamental stuff.  Short wave radio would be good to learn about, satellite based communication certainly has its vulnerabilities.


    Regarding today's politics, fundamentally a healthy political system requires masses of people buying into a mutual understanding, a Social Contract.  In America that has been undermined by a deliberate effort that is not altogether unrelated to Climate Science Denial Campaign, in that the same ultimate power players have helped fund both.  Plus they use the same tactics of vicious overwhelming denunciation, doubt mongering, resentment fabricating, slander, ridicule and so on.

    So we have absolutists Christians who have convinced themselves nothing from outside their bubble can be trusted, it is all satan's doing, etc.  They don't want to listen, or hear, or think, or learn.  They fear others and believe in their guns and the inevitable need to use them against all who threaten what they believe.

    Peter.

    US Citizen, Colorado   =)  

  • Sou said:
    This article pretty well sums up the view I've come to about American-style "democracy". I don't know if Americans would agree or disagree with all or parts of it. Nor do I have a clue about how one would or could go about fixing it. If if was an organisation with a hierarchy a fix would be painful, but relatively straightforward. But it's not a hierarchy - it's a lot of different vested interests working through states and corporations keen to preserve the status quo, and it's probably beyond repair.

    http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election/forget-clinton-and-trump--americas-democracy-is-broken-and-they-cant-fix-it-20161103-gshl3c.html
    Amen.  
    Seems to me Paul McGeough  pretty well describes the situation.  Thanks for sharing the link. That was definitely worth reading.

    ... In hindsight, that the GOP deception held for so long is remarkable. As set out by The New Yorker's George Packer, it was an impossible construct:

    "[2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt] Romney, who belonged to a class that greatly benefited from cheap immigrant labor, had to pretend to be outraged by the presence of undocumented workers. Lower-middle-class Midwestern retirees who depended on Social Security had to ignore the fact that the representatives they kept electing, like [House Speaker] Paul Ryan, wanted to slash their benefits.

    "Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan returned to Indiana and Texas embittered at having lost their youth in unwinnable wars, while conservative pundits like Bill Kristol kept demanding new [wars] – but their shared contempt for liberal elites kept them from noticing the Republican Party's internal conflicts."

    Clear proof this deception had been seen through came in the madness of the March primaries, when a Trump supporter told The New York Times: "I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party." And from his buddy: "We're going to use Trump to either take over the GOP or blow it up." ...


Sign In or Register to comment.

Getting around, etiquette, guidelines and terms of use.

HotWhopper Chat Close