The Second Debate - 2016

[cherrypoptart]

Just out of curiosity how would Jeb have been more dangerous than Trump or Clinton?

[cherrypoptart]

Wow, this is exactly the point I was trying to make a while back, that Trump might actually be good for our relationship with Russia. I didn't go so far as Jill Stein is going, but her point is spot on, though I will admit it's obvious to me that Russia is playing games now with our election with all their posturing about nuclear war and bringing their children home and such. But the fact is that Trump does seem to have a better relationship with the Russians than Hillary. Why is that? And is that a point in Trump's favor? If it's not then why not?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/jill_stein_hillary_clintons_declared_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html

"On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia."

I think the best policy in Syria right now is obviously to keep Assad in place. I'm not certain but I think Trump sees that too, and if Trump works with the Russians to make that happen by betraying the "rebels" who have already betrayed us anyway by working with al-Qaeda and ISIS, then I don't see how it's a bad thing especially if the Russians with Trump's backing can put pressure on Assad to not only help completely destroy ISIS but stop with their own terrorist actions against Israel and elsewhere.

I also can't help but notice the media gives ample play to Johnson but almost none to Stein, obviously because Johnson will siphon off more potential Trump voters and Stein would be more likely to steal would-be Hillary supporters. But the media is already exposed as corrupt so that's not really any surprise I suppose.

[D.W.]

But the fact is that Trump does seem to have a better relationship with the Russians than Hillary. Why is that? And is that a point in Trump's favor? If it's not then why not?

Umm, because Trump is a novice and by all evidence thus far, easily manipulated / riled up.  Also, he's likely to be SO contentious / disruptive domestically that Russia will have a free hand to do whatever they want.  What's not to love? 

Are they opposed to Hillary?  Ya, because she's going to at a minimum keep giving them crap if not come down on them harder. 

I think, "Confusion to my enemies", about sums it up.

[cherrypoptart]

How has Hillary seriously opposed them up to now though? How as President would she be getting in their way?

They already have Crimea. She gave them the uranium deal. The only thing I can think of on the table at the moment is Syria and if she is insisting that Assad be deposed while Trump might be more inclined to let him stay.

I suppose there is Iran but Obama already gave everything away to them so I don't see how that's it either.

And if the Russians are still so bad why was it okay for Hillary to be trying to hit the reset button with them (and failing) but it's wrong for Trump to see if his Russian reset button is as defective as hers turned out to be?

Is it something we can just admit already, that Trump will have a better relationship with Russia than Hillary? Or is that a negative against Trump because with that better relationship the Russians will surely take great advantage of him to our detriment?

And if I remember correctly it was Obama himself who mocked Romney in regard to Russian relations, zinging him with, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” So are the Democrats admitting that Obama (and Hillary as Secretary of State) took the cold war out of the freezer and put it back on the table for dinner?

[AI Wessex]

Just out of curiosity how would Jeb have been more dangerous than Trump or Clinton?

Dangerous isn't a word I would use with him, more likely his blandness and lack of ambition would threaten progress in critical areas.

Wow, this is exactly the point I was trying to make a while back, that Trump might actually be good for our relationship with Russia.

Interesting that you're parroting the Russian equivalent of Trump, who says that electing Hillary will lead to a nuclear WWIII.  Glad to see that you're plugged into the Kremlin's thought leaders about US global policy.  They *love* Trump as much as you do.

How has Hillary seriously opposed them up to now though?

If I can follow your thinking (not sure, but I'll give it a try), Trump would be good because he would have a good working relationship with Russia, whereas Hillary is bad because you think she has had a good working relationship with Russia.  The difference is pretty clear to some, but not to all.

[D.W.]

I said "giving them crap" not getting in their way.  Uranium deal?  Put half our arsenal on a boat and give it to them, I don't much care.*  Why do you?  Syria, I'm with you on.  Unless the "strategy" is to continue keeping the middle east a train-wreck for as long as possible (which is... *A* strategy, I guess) I don't understand not rolling over on that one.  It has ZERO to do with Russian relations thought and everything to do with our public not being on board with another occupation in another sand box. 

Crimea... that one is at least about Russia.  The problem is, we (the U.S. as a nation) don't care.  Cold, but true.  The problem is our internal propaganda is that we DO care.  External propaganda as well.  So when our actions demonstrate we don't care there is a disconnect.  Both at home and abroad. 

Again, I don't think we are honestly fearful of it coming to war with Russia.  However I think we see it as A:  not our problem, B:  a bad precedent to set that we will enforce the sovereignty of others and C:  implying it is (still?) our job to constrain Russia.

*Correction:  I DO care to the extent that I believe we can secure them better from theft.

[cherrypoptart]

Well I think I agree with you both, Al and DW.

I'm not saying I know the answers so that makes it easier to agree because I wasn't asking something I already know.

Crimea is a sore spot but nobody in America really cares. I do and so does the administration, I think, and rightfully so, but there isn't really anything we can do about it and I don't even think we're really trying anymore.

Syria is it.

And I agree with you Al that Russia is playing in our politics with their ridiculous nuclear war funny business.

[Fenring]

It's not an illusion that either Trump or Clinton will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017.

An example of the illusion would be "don't vote for Bernie, he can't win." Or in the case of right now, Johnson. Johnson doesn't actually have much of a chance, and wouldn't even if the press gave him a field day, but that only means he's not a fantastic candidate. But even so if he was given a fair deal, so to speak, he might pull enough of the vote to screw one of the parties over. And then the other side would realize that they, too, could field a competing candidate with their voters and split that vote too. So rather than a third candidate ruining an election for one party (which is what happens), a third and fourth candidate would create a de facto four party system, since both votes would be split. Imagine, for instance, if, late in the primaries, both Trump and Sanders broke away from the parties and ran as independents. And let's say the GOP and Dem candidates were Clinton and Cruz (or Bush, even). Now you have a four way race where, honestly, I feel like any of them could have won it. But the 'illusion' here comes from the idea that wasting your vote on anyone but the two 'obvious' candidates is a waste. If they are bad candidates they should be rejected, period. If no one else runs against that deserves it then the country is screwed, but it leaves open a niche for a strong third party candidate to come along and secure those votes. Right now that can't happen because people have been brainwashed into thinking they have no choice but to prevent the worse of the two from getting into power. Well I don't think that's how it has to be.

[Fenring]

Just out of curiosity how would Jeb have been more dangerous than Trump or Clinton?

Any member of PNAC is automatically a massive warmonger. Pretty simple. These are the guys who planned Iraq 2.0 five+ years before it happened, and who called for a "new pearl harbor" to galvanize the American resolve the go to war abroad. If you think W was the architect of any of that, think again. It was his brother and a few others.

[Wayward Son]

Could someone please explain how, if using a private e-mail for government business is such an obvious crime that Hillary should be thrown in jail just for doing so (as Trump apparently contends), why Colin Powell (who also used a private e-mail account for government business) is still walking free? 

If this was a serious question, rather than attempt to protect Hillary, you may have started by looking at their dates of service and the level of technology in the State Department at the time each was in office, which alone answers why Colin Powell's use of private email - on occasion - is something completely different than diverting all government communications to a private server.  Or one could look at the specific changes in IT policy that were put in place over time that make it clear that Clinton was operating in a different environment.

Or one could honestly ask, if any other government employee could have diverted their entire work related email load through a personal server?  And if they could have gotten away with it.

So you're saying that the environment Clinton was working in was unique, not one that was extant before she took the job.

However, even though what she did was "unique," it is still obvious to many--like Trump--that it was a crime worthy of a prison sentence.

And they base this on the precedents of other crimes--even though you have admitted it was in a unique environment.

Do you see how the two ideas don't fit together?

Did Hillary break the rules by not using the government e-mail server for government correspondence?  Yes, of course.

Does this reach the level of criminality that makes it "obvious" that she should serve jail time?  Well, no.

The closest comparison is Colin Powell's use of non-government (and doubtlessly just as unsecure) e-mail for non-government e-mails.  But, of course, we only have his word on it (just like we had Hillary's that no classified information were in her e-mails), so I don't find that definitive.  All other comparisons was merely analogous, with very specific differences.

The FBI found she did not have any intention of mistreating classified material.  And so far, there has been no evidence of an actual security breach.  And the FBI did not believe it reached the level of a crime.

So it is not obvious that she committed a crime worthy of jail.

You can talk about how these two events differ, but you still haven't talked about how Clinton's unique acts were so obviously egregious that there is no question that she should be incarcerated, when the closest similar act is ignored.

This is why the claims that "people have been thrown in jail for lesser offenses" and "she's obviously guilty" sounds so hollow.  Because it wasn't so just a few years before they found out that Hillary had done so. 

They sound hollow, because they cause you cognitive dissonance.  That's the only reason.

Sorry, it's hollow because I can recognize the cognitive dissonance of those calling for her jailing. 

While some people may have a double standard, your mistake is in thinking that only a double standard can explain why someone might think what some of us think. Did you...I dunno...read my thread on the Bush admin? It's funny you should forget about that when it comes to this issue and try to reduce the Hillary question to one of merely taking partisan sides.

I am glad that someone is still upset about the similar egregious loosing of e-mails by the Bush Administration, Fenring, I would still like the phrase "Of course she should be punished for deleting those thousands of e-mails" to be amended with "just like those in the Bush Administration were punished for deleting 22 million e-mails."  But the second part always seems to be left off.

[rightleft22]

I see no compelling evidence that nominating Trump in this election would directly cause death

Trump taps in the the collective shadow of America. Historically when a leaders core support comes from the shadow, ( and even a very small part of the collective become enthralled), very destructive things happen.

Part of the reason reasoning with trumps followers can be so difficult is that the shadow is not about reason.

As Trump himself has said He could kill someone and get away with it.

A shadow left in the dark cant be seen  and not seem made conscious.

If this happening wasn't so scary it would be fascinating to see it play out.

[AI Wessex]

In all of the hatred and anger that Trump is exposing and encouraging, it's actually pretty hard to see exactly what this cohort of (mainly white male) people are so angry about.  They never had good jobs, they never paid much in taxes, very few of them ever fought in a war or even joined the army.  He's got about 40% of the vote right now, comprising about 50,000,000 voters.  What are they so mad about, and what would they do to change things if they could?

[cherrypoptart]

You wouldn't care to hazard a guess?

Is there nothing you think Obama is doing wrong that Hillary will continue doing wrong as well?

And if you can't think of anything that fits that description how about anything that a reasonable person of another political persuasion might disagree with that Obama is doing now that Hillary will continue doing as well?

[AI Wessex]

You wouldn't care to hazard a guess?

Is there nothing you think Obama is doing wrong that Hillary will continue doing wrong as well?

And if you can't think of anything that fits that description how about anything that a reasonable person of another political persuasion might disagree with that Obama is doing now that Hillary will continue doing as well?

Obama is fairly mainstream.  Trump is so wacko that the GOP had to build a special fringe for him to stand on, and most in the GOP are as afraid of him as Democrats are.

[Greg Davidson]

In all of the hatred and anger that Trump is exposing and encouraging, it's actually pretty hard to see exactly what this cohort of (mainly white male) people are so angry about.  They never had good jobs, they never paid much in taxes, very few of them ever fought in a war or even joined the army.  He's got about 40% of the vote right now, comprising about 50,000,000 voters.  What are they so mad about, and what would they do to change things if they could?

Here's a good explanation that addresses your question http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/.  I will summarize with the section headings, but I strongly recommend anyone read this - it makes about the best argument that I have yet heard:

6. It's Not About Red And Blue States -- It's About The Country Vs. The City
5. City People Are From A Different *censored*ed Planet
4. Trends Always Start In The Cities -- And Not All Of Them Are Good
3. The Rural Areas Have Been Beaten To *censored*
2. Everyone Lashes Out When They Don't Have A Voice
1. *censored* Are Heroes

[cherrypoptart]

As I wrote my response on another thread I noticed it provides one answer to your question also, Al.

One answer, and it's just one among many, is simply the 2nd Amendment.

Obama and Hillary have a view of it that is diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the Trump supporters, and for many of them that is reason enough to support him over her.

I understand many Hillary supporters don't take the 2nd Amendment seriously, not in terms of protecting the right of the individual to keep and bear arms which many don't even believe is a valid interpretation anyway, but plenty of Americans do take that seriously and they believe that taking it away is a threat to everything, literally.

Remember the thing that made George Washington so special at the time? It was that he left office peacefully. That's something that can't be taken for granted. It couldn't be taken for granted then, and it certainly can't be taken for granted now. Even if you think that would never happen in America, that an elected official in charge of the military would refuse to give up power, you have no way to guarantee that, certainly no way to guarantee it not knowing what the country or the world will look like in twenty years, or fifty, or two hundred. The 2nd Amendment is that guarantee.

Okay, you may think all of that's foolish but that's the way plenty of Trump supporters see it. That's how seriously they take it. It's not just something for here and now. It's a bequeathment to our posterity just as our ancestors handed it down to us. That's just not something you mess around with.

[DJQuag]

I read that article the other day, Greg, and was about to post a link to it in reply to Al's question. It does give great insight.

[AI Wessex]

Remember the thing that made George Washington so special at the time? It was that he left office peacefully. That's something that can't be taken for granted. It couldn't be taken for granted then, and it certainly can't be taken for granted now.

That is so wacko that I can't even think of a rational response.  I gather you think Obama is going to -- what?  Declare marshal law? Confiscate all weapons?  I remember a physics teacher who wrote on a test paper that the student's answer to a question was not only not right, it wasn't even wrong.  You're somewhere out in that distant mental universe circling a dense dark star.

Greg, DJQuag, I'll read it.  Thanks for suggesting it.

[cherrypoptart]

I already answered that question by noting that the worry isn't just for now but in perpetuity. We have no idea what America's leaders whose great grandparents haven't even been born yet are going to be like and what some of them might want to do.

Al, what is it exactly you think should be able to get done regarding gun control that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is stopping? What's the end game?

[DonaldD]

It's hypothetically just as likely that those weapons will be used to keep someone in power, if it just so happens that the office holder's supporters are the better armed, and he or she is aware of that...

[AI Wessex]

I read that article the other day, Greg, and was about to post a link to it in reply to Al's question. It does give great insight.

Read it.  I understand what he's saying and can't argue with any of it, only crawl under my bed and wait for the apocalypse that will return America to its colonial past when everybody was happy, healthy and loved their lives.

[AI Wessex]

Al, what is it exactly you think should be able to get done regarding gun control that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is stopping? What's the end game?

As the Heller dissent pointed out, the 2A does not address self-defense.  That was left to the states to decide for themselves.  Odd that Originalists like Scalia relied on cherry-picking state Constitutions and discarded drafts of the 2A to support his argument.  Not to mention that DC is not a state, so isn't covered by the 2A.

The "end game" is reasonable regulation that balances personal freedoms with public benefit, which it always has been.  Heller created a right that makes it much harder to get there.