General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 29

his entire campaign is surreal.

 

I don't think the GOP has the level of demographic regard that people ascribe to them: I think they really only care about the upper-class and corporate America. They just mobilize on identity politics. I have a hard time believing that officials like Ted Cruz really believe that black Americans only suffer from lack of work ethic and dependence on government programs.

Also, if you're East Asian, your identity as an American minority is fairly important to white conservative America's message on black and brown laziness. The success of South and East Asians in American society is the only caveat to a political platform that is otherwise completely white supremacist.


I'm slowly warming up to the utility of a Trump presidency towards expediting real change in the world. While I would still begrudgingly prefer a Clinton presidency, Trump winning the election would fracture the two party system and ideology: Republicans would lose credibility as an even-remotely-ideological or "common sense" party and Democrats would lose party loyalty after they nominated a candidate wholly less favorable in a general election out of partisanship and servitude to corporations. I think the likelihood of a strong push to the left would be very strong in that case.

 

When Hillary gets in, supports a right-wing coup that kills thousands, enables Israel to continue their genocidal project against Palestinians, or lives up to none of the promises she made to communities of color, you'll be good with that? There is either solidarity or there isn't. One doesn't get to pay lip-service to intersectionality and solidarity across communities and borders, then proceed to put their lives in jeopardy. We all acknowledge the danger of Trump and the broader issue of white supremacy as something that implicitly devalues our lives, but oppression doesn't mean we get to abdicate our responsibilities as those who live in the imperial heartland to our brothers and sisters abroad. That isn't principled, it is just middle-class liberalism.

 

bobby knight, introducing trump at a rally, just said harry truman was one of the three best presidents of all time. and the whole crowd cheered.

 

Truman wasn't a bad president, so I don't think this is a real controversial statement. I'd be a heck of a lot more aggravated by the same being said about Reagan, which is all the more common at right-wing rallies.

 

It was his call to drop two atomic bombs. I would say that disqualifies him

 

i think calling the guy who nuked japan a top three president would qualify as controversial, but it was more surreal seeing truman's presidency as an applause line at a trump rally

 

It's the same joke-line that I hear when Republicans call themselves the "party of Lincoln." Oh yeah, that great conservative who created the Federal income tax and protections for national parks.

 

The arms race was very likely to be ended only by a demonstration of its gravity. While I am generally fascinated by and endeared to much of Japanese culture then and today, I can't think of a war participant in modern history more brutal and unrelenting than WW2 Japanese. The fact that Japan still largely denies its war crimes, particularly against China, is US-esque and is indicative of their disposition at the time the bombs were dropped.

Not that I support the dropping of the bombs: I certainly disapprove of the second. But I think revising history through a pacifist lens without context is slippery. I don't view Truman's approval of the nukes to be at the top of our country's greatest war crime atrocities or even the worst war crime of the second World War: to contextualize, approximately 200,000 were killed by both bombs combined. Meanwhile 300,000 were killed in the Rape of Nanking, which was a systemic and prolonged brutalization of a captured city. Japan was also infamous in their brutality towards POWs. There is a reason why resentment towards the country lingers stronger than it does towards Germany despite Germany being the primary antagonist.

 

tbh, while the first bomb was probably necessary, it's hard to give truman much credit for it considering he was totally clueless about the magnitude of destruction it would cause and didn't really give it a second thought morally

 

Yeah my guess is all the descriptions in the world from scientists weren't going to drive home what was actually going to happen when they dropped the first one. That's one of those things where you think you know how it'll be, and then it actually happens.

 

when i think about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings I start feeling sick. even if you argue that it was at least somewhat necessary (not an implausible argument), it's when people start saying "Reagan was a good president!" and forget the part where he almost repeated such a bombing because he was stuck in an imaginary cock measuring contest with Russia that i'm like alright come on now

 

regarding the electability convo, I was scared shitless of Rubio and thought he could win despite being a lizard man with shitty Reaganesque policies on crack

 

I was pretty brazenly confident that Trump was doomed to finish #2 once the field consolidated and he wasn't winning fringe pluralities. I was real confident that either Rubio or Cruz were gonna get the nom.

 

The atomic bomb was dropped to prevent the Soviets from establishing a foothold and influence in the region. The Japanese efforts were futile and they were close to surrendering, but the conditions of their surrender were not acceptable to the United States, who preferred it be unconditional. Also, a lot of the arguments in favor of its usage rest on the idea that World War 2 was the "good" war in the first place.

 

My friend had to work a Trump rally, felt disgusted to the soul

 

When Neoliberalism Was Young: A Lookback on Clintonism before Clinton

 

Boehner is no fan of Cruz

John Boehner talks election, time in office

 

This is a lesser of two evils argument because that's the shit system in place here and the numbers needed to dismantle it are clearly not there. I would love to elect a candidate that values all the things I do...but I can't let that vote give a hate-monger the chance to win. It's selfish.

Are you saying Trump and his bosses won't do all of the above and more? Every time someone discusses how "voting for Hillary would make them sick", they seem to forget about the most likely alternative. These are intelligent people who seem to be missing the big picture. Fuck we have people in this thread actually justifying a Trump presidency. Have people gone mad here?

You're right, I'm putting the needs of myself and my family above other causes. This mentality is ironically much closer to a Trump supporter than a true leftist...there's a candidate who's actively threatening my communities, I need to defend that first. My hands are tied, just like every other voting american.

 

The antagonism towards Japan was driven by racism and the attack on Pearl Harbor. To think we did our part to save further atrocities is non-sensical. The US had opportunities to intervene earlier in Europe, where mass genocide was already being committed, yet we did not intervene until provoked. The incentive to drop the bombs was primarily strategical as @Dominick said...rapidly ensure a foothold in a region which, unlike Europe, we were less likely to influence via diplomacy.

 

Is it naive and mathematically impossible to expect anything other than either a Trump or a Clinton victory? I know a lot of people are discussing voting third party, but I can't tell if banking my vote on such a strategy is impractical, or if it serves an actual chance to see a more progressive candidate elected. Cause right now I lean far more into the "better Clinton than Trump" camp than "better Stein than Clinton" or whatever because it strikes me as so damn unlikely

 

If you're voting third party on principle, go ahead. If your voting third party with hopes that they'll win, then yes, youre being naive.