4 ms·

I think it's probably this. The primary strategy by the Democratic Party and by establishment circles has been to make Trump seem as unpalatable as possible, h

I think it's probably this. The primary strategy by the Democratic Party and by establishment circles has been to make Trump seem as unpalatable as possible, hoping to make him so much less desirable than the historically untrusted establishment candidate that she may pull off a win at the ballot box. Since the first-past-the-post electoral system functions to magnify strategic voting and minimize voting for values, the impression that Trump is a more dangerous and despicable candidate (traded by campaign dollars and personal connections to create information bubbles over the electorate), this strategy is not only effective but also smart. In the end we've got two candidates we really don't want, a complete lack of examination of policy, and a 'default' to an establishment candidate seeking further erosion of civil liberties, checks and balances and civilian participation in government.

matt4077 10y ago
Trump is simply unacceptable, there's no establishment conspiracy required. In fact I thought the major media outlets waited far too long to give up the pretense of normalcy. It's only the last few weeks that journalists get to write the by-now established fact that he's a lunatic. But I share the concern about HC, considering she's just far too conservative on major issues especially with regards to encryption/"national security" etc. She's not corrupt, or evil or crooked or lying or smelling as sulfur, she's just (imho) wrong. Let's hope there will be people around her who can have a positive impact on her thinking.
- wernercd 10y ago
  > She's not corrupt, or evil or crooked or lying or smelling as sulfur, she's just (imho) wrong. If she's not... why did she delete thousands of emails that were illegally on a private server? Why did she lie about the source of protests and then leave American's to die? For someone who isn't corrupt/evil/crooked... she sure does do a lot of corrupt/evil/crooked shit.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    > If she's not... why did she delete thousands of emails that were illegally on a private server? Because she was covering up criminal behavior. You don't have to be evil to cover up criminal behavior. It's a very rational thing to do. > Why did she lie about the source of protests and then leave American's to die? She didn't want Americans to understand that their intelligence and military communities had supported extremist forces in Libya to oust a geopolitical opponent, and that these extremist forces themselves aren't particularly welcoming to America or its values. She didn't want comparisons to 9/11 and the Saudi support for those attacks on our home country. She left Americans to die because she and the administration could not muster the support to mobilize, against international law, troop movements across borders as the activity in Libya had until that point been special operations and irregular warfare. It would have been difficult to breach international law to engage an enemy in the CIA annex to the State Department buildings - bases that on the record didn't exist. All of this is very rational. Al Capone, similarly, was a very rational person, and not "evil" whatsoever. A rational person looks after themselves, their interests and the activities and events they stewart.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      It's been well established that this protest narrative came from the CIA, who had genuine reason to believe it, although it turned out false. And of course there were emails somewhere of people predicting violence or complaining about embassy security. It's the same as those italian scientists put on trial because somebody somewhere predicted an earthquake that they didn't predict. I bet if you go through all the mail the US government gets, you'll find predictions of CERN turning into a black whole and swallowing the known universe. Does that mean the Air Force should bomb Switzerland?
      - jwtadvice 10y ago
        It's been well established that Clinton knew that this narrative of what happened was completely false when she announced it to the public. This is standard leadership in America. I think it's unfair to skewer her in a biased way when most public diplomacy is just as duplicitous. For example, the misinformation out of the Bush Administation linking in the American publics' minds Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks. Republicans largly supported this falsehood and the Bush Administrations executive privilege to tell it. It was well known that the attacks (between 9/11 and 9/12 in Benghazi) where extremist salafi. The protest over the videos were in a completely different country. The intelligence community and the leadership knew this. I don't want to comment on the next paragraph as I don't understand it or how it is supposed to relate to the topic.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  For me and I think for most of the people hoping for change this election (Obama ran against Clinton in 2008 with the slogan 'Change') Clinton is also unacceptable. I think that's the difference between the media outlook on the two candidates. Neither are acceptable. But I'm still waiting for journalists to write the by-now established fact that she's a lunatic. Unfortunately I do not think that the people slotted for appointments inside the Clinton campaign are likely to have a positive aspect with regard to national security thinking, civil liberties, etc as they are primarily the same folks who are currently running national security policy today. Hoping for a radical change to policy and from appointments from a Clinton administration seems particularly silly and divorced from reasonable expectation. In any case, it sounds like we have a consensus: the outlook for this election on core issues looks particularly dim.
  - kn0where 10y ago
    It's important to remember that, more than ever, we have two very different Americas voting. America #1 thinks America is frighteningly conservative and wants to enact sweeping progressive reforms. America #2 thinks America is frighteningly liberal and wants to take lasting steps to repeal liberal policies, saving conservative moral values and existing ways of life from supposed extinction. Both campaigns know this fact. Trump's strategy is to target #2. Clinton's strategy is to target both #1 and #2, so of course liberals (such as myself) do not view her as progressive enough, and of course conservatives view her as too progressive, because while Clinton is pushing a "stronger together" message, the truth is that neither of the two Americas wants to come together with the other. Ultimately, Clinton's messaging is most strongly resonating with voters who aren't sure which of the two Americas they belong to. It's abundantly clear that Clinton will win this election, simply because people hate Trump more, but Democrats can't keep broadening their base without angering the left (i.e. Bernie supporters), and Trump's electorate could very well bring him (or another candidate) to victory in 2020 if the Democrats can't hold onto both the far left and the center right.
- makomk 10y ago
  The major media outlets waited just long enough to make sure that Trump had a relatively clear run to the Republican nomination, ensuring that by the time all this came out voters would be forced to choose between him and Hillary Clinton.

matt4077 10y ago

Trump is simply unacceptable, there's no establishment conspiracy required. In fact I thought the major media outlets waited far too long to give up the pretense of normalcy. It's only the last few weeks that journalists get to write the by-now established fact that he's a lunatic. But I share the concern about HC, considering she's just far too conservative on major issues especially with regards to encryption/"national security" etc. She's not corrupt, or evil or crooked or lying or smelling as sulfur, she's just (imho) wrong. Let's hope there will be people around her who can have a positive impact on her thinking.

wernercd 10y ago
> She's not corrupt, or evil or crooked or lying or smelling as sulfur, she's just (imho) wrong. If she's not... why did she delete thousands of emails that were illegally on a private server? Why did she lie about the source of protests and then leave American's to die? For someone who isn't corrupt/evil/crooked... she sure does do a lot of corrupt/evil/crooked shit.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  > If she's not... why did she delete thousands of emails that were illegally on a private server? Because she was covering up criminal behavior. You don't have to be evil to cover up criminal behavior. It's a very rational thing to do. > Why did she lie about the source of protests and then leave American's to die? She didn't want Americans to understand that their intelligence and military communities had supported extremist forces in Libya to oust a geopolitical opponent, and that these extremist forces themselves aren't particularly welcoming to America or its values. She didn't want comparisons to 9/11 and the Saudi support for those attacks on our home country. She left Americans to die because she and the administration could not muster the support to mobilize, against international law, troop movements across borders as the activity in Libya had until that point been special operations and irregular warfare. It would have been difficult to breach international law to engage an enemy in the CIA annex to the State Department buildings - bases that on the record didn't exist. All of this is very rational. Al Capone, similarly, was a very rational person, and not "evil" whatsoever. A rational person looks after themselves, their interests and the activities and events they stewart.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    It's been well established that this protest narrative came from the CIA, who had genuine reason to believe it, although it turned out false. And of course there were emails somewhere of people predicting violence or complaining about embassy security. It's the same as those italian scientists put on trial because somebody somewhere predicted an earthquake that they didn't predict. I bet if you go through all the mail the US government gets, you'll find predictions of CERN turning into a black whole and swallowing the known universe. Does that mean the Air Force should bomb Switzerland?
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      It's been well established that Clinton knew that this narrative of what happened was completely false when she announced it to the public. This is standard leadership in America. I think it's unfair to skewer her in a biased way when most public diplomacy is just as duplicitous. For example, the misinformation out of the Bush Administation linking in the American publics' minds Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks. Republicans largly supported this falsehood and the Bush Administrations executive privilege to tell it. It was well known that the attacks (between 9/11 and 9/12 in Benghazi) where extremist salafi. The protest over the videos were in a completely different country. The intelligence community and the leadership knew this. I don't want to comment on the next paragraph as I don't understand it or how it is supposed to relate to the topic.
jwtadvice 10y ago
For me and I think for most of the people hoping for change this election (Obama ran against Clinton in 2008 with the slogan 'Change') Clinton is also unacceptable. I think that's the difference between the media outlook on the two candidates. Neither are acceptable. But I'm still waiting for journalists to write the by-now established fact that she's a lunatic. Unfortunately I do not think that the people slotted for appointments inside the Clinton campaign are likely to have a positive aspect with regard to national security thinking, civil liberties, etc as they are primarily the same folks who are currently running national security policy today. Hoping for a radical change to policy and from appointments from a Clinton administration seems particularly silly and divorced from reasonable expectation. In any case, it sounds like we have a consensus: the outlook for this election on core issues looks particularly dim.
- kn0where 10y ago
  It's important to remember that, more than ever, we have two very different Americas voting. America #1 thinks America is frighteningly conservative and wants to enact sweeping progressive reforms. America #2 thinks America is frighteningly liberal and wants to take lasting steps to repeal liberal policies, saving conservative moral values and existing ways of life from supposed extinction. Both campaigns know this fact. Trump's strategy is to target #2. Clinton's strategy is to target both #1 and #2, so of course liberals (such as myself) do not view her as progressive enough, and of course conservatives view her as too progressive, because while Clinton is pushing a "stronger together" message, the truth is that neither of the two Americas wants to come together with the other. Ultimately, Clinton's messaging is most strongly resonating with voters who aren't sure which of the two Americas they belong to. It's abundantly clear that Clinton will win this election, simply because people hate Trump more, but Democrats can't keep broadening their base without angering the left (i.e. Bernie supporters), and Trump's electorate could very well bring him (or another candidate) to victory in 2020 if the Democrats can't hold onto both the far left and the center right.
makomk 10y ago
The major media outlets waited just long enough to make sure that Trump had a relatively clear run to the Republican nomination, ensuring that by the time all this came out voters would be forced to choose between him and Hillary Clinton.