18 ms·

Don't worry, under Trump these long missed 'interrogation methods' will come back. (If you belief they stopped) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onp

by chme 10y ago

Don't worry, under Trump these long missed 'interrogation methods' will come back. (If you belief they stopped) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/29/donald-trump-istanbul-airport-attack-hillary-clinton/86504460/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/... People never learn...

doctorSpectro 10y ago
Trump is an obvious tool to railroad Hillary into office. Like a hurricane projecting so many joules of energy into an ocean of assholes, that their obnoxious storm surge washes away more credible, but presumptive opponents right of center. He'll never win, and that's the point.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  An obvious tool set up by the majority of the GOP primary electorate to screw their own party out of the presidential race? Or perhaps set up by conservative politicians, pundits, and donors who did what they could to attack Trump throughout the campaign, as some kind of reverse-psychology program because they wanted to screw themselves out of power? Set up by Trump himself, as a way to tarnish his own brand and guarantee that no one would want to do business with him in the future? One way or another, these conspiracy-theory explanations seem a bit counterproductive from the perspective of any of the actors who might reasonably have carried out the conspiracy. The simpler explanation – that Trump is an egomaniacal bully with little knowledge of world affairs, and that enough Republican voters tend to like that for him to honestly win the primary against a weak and crowded field – seems more plausible to me, but hey...
  - chme 10y ago
    I didn't read that as a conspiracy theory, but as a joke.
    - jacobolus 10y ago
      Poe’s Law and all that, but why would you set up a new throwaway account to make a weird confusing joke?
  - iamjeff 10y ago
    This is my first ever post/comment on this site and, strangely, it is in admiration of a uniquely articulate comment (one of many on HN, frankly)on a rather timely and intriguing topic. I am far removed from the events in the US (2016 presidential elections). However, I am appalled that (US) presidential politics can degenerate into openly racist dialogue from the ultimate representative of a mainstream political party. I honestly thought that, in a post-Obama period, "identitarian" politics had been definitively repudiated. But as the Brexit vote, the European immigration crisis, and Trump's insurgent campaign have demonstrated, I was very wrong. Although there is no conspiracy here, I am lost as to what it means and, quite honestly, I suspect so are many others.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      > "identitarian" politics had been definitively repudiated Sadly, everything creates its own reaction: the rise of a black person who contradicts all the negative stereotypes merely enrages those people for whom "white" is an important part of their identity. See also people getting angry about female Ghostbusters. The republican party spent so long sending coded racist messages to their supporters that those supporters have forgotten that they were supposed to speak in code.
      - iamjeff 10y ago
        And perhaps this is the real tragedy: that the GOP machine, in its quest to achieve its political aims (protect its congressional dominance, subvert the Obama presidency, engineer a presidential comeback post-2008/2012), fomented racial divisions that will likely change the party's very identity (I fail to see how the GOP remains the same post-Trump). Admittedly, there were similar warnings from the punditry class after the Tea Party revolt (hello 2008 mid-terms and Boehner & Co.), but this time, the divisions, disenfranchisement, and emergence of the alt-right seem a little too real to be wished away. I have seen similar events play out in my country and agree with your earlier sentiment, >everything creates its own reaction.
      - jawilson2 10y ago
        > See also people getting angry about female Ghostbusters Oh come on. From the reviews leaking out it sounds like Ghostbusters is a legit shitty movie. A spoiler for the ending is out there; go read it and tell me this isn't something a 5th grader would write. No, I haven't seen it, and I probably won't, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it is a female cast, but because it doesn't sound like something, based on the trailers and previews, that I would willingly spend money on. No one complained when the main protagonists of Star Wars VII were a woman and a black man. (Or did they? I don't know, I certainly don't remember hearing it if they did.)
  - doctorSpectro 10y ago
    Whatever, man.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      And now the other party proles are clamoring to remove the super delegates! The only remaining control the DNC had on choosing suitable candidates. And not runaway self-funded demagogues. See how well it worked for the GOP.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > And now the other party proles are clamoring to remove the super delegates! The only remaining control the DNC had on choosing suitable candidates. And not runaway self-funded demagogues. See how well it worked for the GOP. To be fair, even without that control mechanism, the DNC arguably is less vulnerable than the GOP. While both parties have state-to-state variation in how delegates are selected, the DNC uses basically proportional allocation in every state, whereas the GOP uses heavily disproportional mechanisms in most states (to the extreme of winner-take-all in some), which allows an early plurality in a crowded field to turn into commanding delegate lead (this seems to be by intent; its expected that connected insiders will have an early advantage, and this setup is would then get the primary competition over quickly and give the party more time to focus on the general election -- but its also easy to see how, with widespread dissatisfaction with party elites and an outsider candidate with strong name recognition and the ability to score early free media, it can backfire.)
- chme 10y ago
  Don't underestimate peoples ability to hurt themselves because of strong emotions.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Trump won the nomination by being the ultimate Republican. I mean, look at the 'wall' proposal: it's a nice simple authoritarian solution which people who are afraid of Mexicans taking their jobs can support. And he even promises to get foreigners to pay for it! None of this is remotely feasible, but that doesn't matter, because the "reality-based community" is passé. (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove passim) None of the other Republican candidates could attack him for racism without alienating their voters, because for years they've been obliquely signalling their approval of racism. None of them could attack him for not being realistic without suffering the same problem themselves.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    The wall have nothing to do with racism anymore than outer borders in the EU has. It's to do with emigration which is quite a different topic. None of the political candidates are fundamentally disagreeing with Trump. They mostly believe that illegal immigration should be stopped and that legal immigration is perfectly fine. The primary thing that separate Trump from either the Republicans or the Democrats in this discussion is his choice of words not his agenda. Even Hillary was for building a wall at one point.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago
Just a thought question for you: If there was a terrorist attack on US soil and polling showed a majority of people wanted to water board suspected terrorists, how convinced are you that Hillary Clinton would take a moral stand against resuming water boarding? My guess based on her past is that she would go with what the polls told her. In addition, her decision would receive a whole lot less media scrutiny than if Trump tried to do it. In fact, I could even see some media spinning that as a good thing for her: "Clinton shows that women are not squeamish about doing what is necessary to keep us safe".
- mseebach 10y ago
  > “As to waterboarding, you know, our country’s most experienced and bravest military leaders will tell you that torture is not effective. It does put our own soldiers and increasingly our own civilians at risk,” Clinton said. Rather, she said, “We do have to give law enforcement and intelligence professionals all the tools they need to do the job to keep America safe and they don’t need to resort to torture, but they are going to need more help.” This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a practical and tactical stand. So no, judging from that quote, all it would take is for someone "experienced and brave" to tell her it would be effective an a tool they need, and she's on board (as far as principles and morals go, at least). http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-brussels-response http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-brussels-respo...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a practical and tactical stand. There's a question here of whether the position was articulated because it is the main reason she opposes torture, or whether it is because it rebuts the main reason supporters of torture advocate that, morality aside, it must be accepted. Politically, there is utility to highlighting arguments which demonstrate that, even accepting your opponent's decision criteria, your policy is the correct one. So even if you believe it is always morally wrong to torture regardless of utility, it is useful (if you can defend it) to argue that torture is known to not be useful if the main reason your opponents argue for it is its utility.

by chme 10y ago

doctorSpectro 10y ago

Trump is an obvious tool to railroad Hillary into office. Like a hurricane projecting so many joules of energy into an ocean of assholes, that their obnoxious storm surge washes away more credible, but presumptive opponents right of center. He'll never win, and that's the point.

jacobolus 10y ago
An obvious tool set up by the majority of the GOP primary electorate to screw their own party out of the presidential race? Or perhaps set up by conservative politicians, pundits, and donors who did what they could to attack Trump throughout the campaign, as some kind of reverse-psychology program because they wanted to screw themselves out of power? Set up by Trump himself, as a way to tarnish his own brand and guarantee that no one would want to do business with him in the future? One way or another, these conspiracy-theory explanations seem a bit counterproductive from the perspective of any of the actors who might reasonably have carried out the conspiracy. The simpler explanation – that Trump is an egomaniacal bully with little knowledge of world affairs, and that enough Republican voters tend to like that for him to honestly win the primary against a weak and crowded field – seems more plausible to me, but hey...
- chme 10y ago
  I didn't read that as a conspiracy theory, but as a joke.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    Poe’s Law and all that, but why would you set up a new throwaway account to make a weird confusing joke?
- iamjeff 10y ago
  This is my first ever post/comment on this site and, strangely, it is in admiration of a uniquely articulate comment (one of many on HN, frankly)on a rather timely and intriguing topic. I am far removed from the events in the US (2016 presidential elections). However, I am appalled that (US) presidential politics can degenerate into openly racist dialogue from the ultimate representative of a mainstream political party. I honestly thought that, in a post-Obama period, "identitarian" politics had been definitively repudiated. But as the Brexit vote, the European immigration crisis, and Trump's insurgent campaign have demonstrated, I was very wrong. Although there is no conspiracy here, I am lost as to what it means and, quite honestly, I suspect so are many others.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    > "identitarian" politics had been definitively repudiated Sadly, everything creates its own reaction: the rise of a black person who contradicts all the negative stereotypes merely enrages those people for whom "white" is an important part of their identity. See also people getting angry about female Ghostbusters. The republican party spent so long sending coded racist messages to their supporters that those supporters have forgotten that they were supposed to speak in code.
    - iamjeff 10y ago
      And perhaps this is the real tragedy: that the GOP machine, in its quest to achieve its political aims (protect its congressional dominance, subvert the Obama presidency, engineer a presidential comeback post-2008/2012), fomented racial divisions that will likely change the party's very identity (I fail to see how the GOP remains the same post-Trump). Admittedly, there were similar warnings from the punditry class after the Tea Party revolt (hello 2008 mid-terms and Boehner & Co.), but this time, the divisions, disenfranchisement, and emergence of the alt-right seem a little too real to be wished away. I have seen similar events play out in my country and agree with your earlier sentiment, >everything creates its own reaction.
    - jawilson2 10y ago
      > See also people getting angry about female Ghostbusters Oh come on. From the reviews leaking out it sounds like Ghostbusters is a legit shitty movie. A spoiler for the ending is out there; go read it and tell me this isn't something a 5th grader would write. No, I haven't seen it, and I probably won't, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it is a female cast, but because it doesn't sound like something, based on the trailers and previews, that I would willingly spend money on. No one complained when the main protagonists of Star Wars VII were a woman and a black man. (Or did they? I don't know, I certainly don't remember hearing it if they did.)
- doctorSpectro 10y ago
  Whatever, man.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    And now the other party proles are clamoring to remove the super delegates! The only remaining control the DNC had on choosing suitable candidates. And not runaway self-funded demagogues. See how well it worked for the GOP.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > And now the other party proles are clamoring to remove the super delegates! The only remaining control the DNC had on choosing suitable candidates. And not runaway self-funded demagogues. See how well it worked for the GOP. To be fair, even without that control mechanism, the DNC arguably is less vulnerable than the GOP. While both parties have state-to-state variation in how delegates are selected, the DNC uses basically proportional allocation in every state, whereas the GOP uses heavily disproportional mechanisms in most states (to the extreme of winner-take-all in some), which allows an early plurality in a crowded field to turn into commanding delegate lead (this seems to be by intent; its expected that connected insiders will have an early advantage, and this setup is would then get the primary competition over quickly and give the party more time to focus on the general election -- but its also easy to see how, with widespread dissatisfaction with party elites and an outsider candidate with strong name recognition and the ability to score early free media, it can backfire.)
chme 10y ago
Don't underestimate peoples ability to hurt themselves because of strong emotions.
pjc50 10y ago
Trump won the nomination by being the ultimate Republican. I mean, look at the 'wall' proposal: it's a nice simple authoritarian solution which people who are afraid of Mexicans taking their jobs can support. And he even promises to get foreigners to pay for it! None of this is remotely feasible, but that doesn't matter, because the "reality-based community" is passé. (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove passim) None of the other Republican candidates could attack him for racism without alienating their voters, because for years they've been obliquely signalling their approval of racism. None of them could attack him for not being realistic without suffering the same problem themselves.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  The wall have nothing to do with racism anymore than outer borders in the EU has. It's to do with emigration which is quite a different topic. None of the political candidates are fundamentally disagreeing with Trump. They mostly believe that illegal immigration should be stopped and that legal immigration is perfectly fine. The primary thing that separate Trump from either the Republicans or the Democrats in this discussion is his choice of words not his agenda. Even Hillary was for building a wall at one point.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 10y ago

Just a thought question for you: If there was a terrorist attack on US soil and polling showed a majority of people wanted to water board suspected terrorists, how convinced are you that Hillary Clinton would take a moral stand against resuming water boarding? My guess based on her past is that she would go with what the polls told her. In addition, her decision would receive a whole lot less media scrutiny than if Trump tried to do it. In fact, I could even see some media spinning that as a good thing for her: "Clinton shows that women are not squeamish about doing what is necessary to keep us safe".

mseebach 10y ago
> “As to waterboarding, you know, our country’s most experienced and bravest military leaders will tell you that torture is not effective. It does put our own soldiers and increasingly our own civilians at risk,” Clinton said. Rather, she said, “We do have to give law enforcement and intelligence professionals all the tools they need to do the job to keep America safe and they don’t need to resort to torture, but they are going to need more help.” This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a practical and tactical stand. So no, judging from that quote, all it would take is for someone "experienced and brave" to tell her it would be effective an a tool they need, and she's on board (as far as principles and morals go, at least). http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-brussels-response http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/clinton-brussels-respo...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > This is not a moral or even a principled stand against torture. It's a practical and tactical stand. There's a question here of whether the position was articulated because it is the main reason she opposes torture, or whether it is because it rebuts the main reason supporters of torture advocate that, morality aside, it must be accepted. Politically, there is utility to highlighting arguments which demonstrate that, even accepting your opponent's decision criteria, your policy is the correct one. So even if you believe it is always morally wrong to torture regardless of utility, it is useful (if you can defend it) to argue that torture is known to not be useful if the main reason your opponents argue for it is its utility.