General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 464

The court is going to matter in the next ten years more than the previous ten in terms of human rights and privacy.

 

He's still there.

 

The point of my post was: On the ground, there has not historically been a difference between administrations in terms of black people being murdered by representatives of the state. Structural racism doesn't actually work like that, particularly as it pertains to the anti-black nature of state power more generally, so this idea that Trump will be worse does not resonate with me. Instead, the argument being put forth by liberals is actually a form of abuse by way of gaslighting people of color who are subjected the very power relations both parties agree upon. So, if you're arguing that a vote for Hillary or some other liberal candidate represents a politics of survival for black people, you are, in actual fact, wrong. It represents the same political economy of black death. The only thing that changes is liberals get to feel good about voting, as well as bullying/abusing people of color.

 

Emanuel to boost police force by 500 officers, promote hundreds

 

Make him C&C. What could go wrong?

 

Historically there hasn't been a difference because historically it hasn't been a federal election level issue. Now it is. And one candidate is openly calling himself the 'law and order' candidate while espousing rhetoric about how dangerous and unamerican non-white people are.

Historical context is a key factor in figuring out what happens in the future. But ignoring what's being said and proposed in the present as if it's not any different than the past is folly, IMO. One candidate is talking about systemic racism. The other is saying individuals are 'choking' in big moments. Oops, just a human mistake, no structural problem here.

 

hamilton is a manufactured cultural phenomenon that has only actually been experienced by the rich people of new york & surrounding areas & which has never actually been critically appraised by someone who is, y'know, a rap critic

 

I changed my mind. Voting hillary now because without my vote in CT Trump will put Milo on the supreme court

 

"One last note on Wolin as the theoretician of our present. Beginning with the Bicentennial, Wolin anticipated the vogue of Founders fetishism, our contemporary culture’s ongoing celebration of the men who made the republic. But as Nick Xenos pointed out to me the other night, Wolin saw something more particular. Where journalist, scholars, and middle-aged men kvelled over the wisdom of Washington and the genius of Jefferson, Wolin saw, as early as 1976, that it would be another, less heralded, often maligned, name from that era, who truly would articulate the values and commitments that would come to define our age: Alexander Hamilton."

Sheldon Wolin: Theoretician of the Present

 

I imagine his opinions would be a lot of jiggery pokery

 

He's not even an American citizen damn Trump

 

If you want to get into the idea of strawmen, Dom started this by saying "imagine how dangerous it will be under trump" with a link about a disabled man murdered while reading with the implication that yes, it will be dangerous, but it is already dangerous. you then escalated it to "it will be much more dangerous under trump," something dom didn't say, which of course carries the implication of "the current state is preferable to this hypothetical state." that's what is being responded to. no one is saying that it wouldn't be worse under trump, but the undercurrent of "it would be sooooo bad under trump" almost always seems to be "well, it might suck, but it could be 3000 people dead since ferguson instead of 2000" or "if we elect anyone other than trump, such as this person who is campaigning as a continuation of this legacy of not ending the brutality and death but also not making it worse, then we have done something moral"

a vote for hillary is absolutely a vote for the status quo and it's kind of funny to hear you say otherwise. hillary is pretty clearly campaigning as the continuation of the obama regime, which hasn't exactly taken radical steps to resolve the problem.

for all the talk about how a vote for anyone other than hillary is a vote helping trump in this thread, you sure seem skittish about admitting that you were talking about voting for her when you said "it would be worse under trump"

 

holy shitlol

 

The current state is preferential to the hypothetical state. You can say that while still pointing out that the current state isn't acceptable. But the solution to the problem isn't to make it worse.

You can't simply 'end' police killings with federal action regardless of who's in office, but you can take steps to try and curb it while incentivizing state and local governments to do their jobs and address the issues.

All I'm pointing out when I say that yes, it will be worse under trump, is that saying the situation is bad now without acknowledging it may be getting much worse in the near future under one candidate is misleading people who may not know any better into a false equivalency of the two major candidates.

But, yes, you're damn right id rather not see more people die if it can be helped. That extra 1000 people might seem inconsequential in this argument, but I disagree with the idea that they're possibly expendable in the name of principles. In other words, I'm with Tate in buying into the idea that Trump is an especially dangerous candidate.

 

This is key. There are a lot of good reasons to vote for Clinton (as well as good reasons not to), but I don't think any of those reasons are rooted in any kind morality.

I think everyone here agrees that Trump cannot be president. For the record, I don't think he will be. But I feel like criticism of Clinton is being equated to support for Trump, and nothing could be further from the truth.

Honestly Clinton could change the current of this election with one speech. A speech about the realities about carrying out foreign policy initiatives during a time of tumultuous geopolitics. A speech about how, sometimes, she has and will continue to make decisions that will result in the deaths of innocent people, and still have the moral flexibility to be able to sleep at night. She needs to talk about the state of modern political discourse compared to the political terrain of her youth and the 90s.

She needs to talk about times when she has been wrong, and how it's impossible to have the experience she has without having a long record of being wrong. Even issues where she believes the democratic party has been wrong.

One speech about what she has learned after 25 years of American politics would go a long way in shutting down a lot of her critics.