Ten Days Now: Election, etc Open Thread

It just ”appeared” to me as though disagreeing people on certain subjects (aside from the bad behaviour) would be seen as trolls, per definition, which in some cases they are but in some cases they may not be. (as in: Clinton not being the Best Person Ever etc)

Clinton is not the Best Person Ever, but she doesn’t have to be. To borrow an analogy from Ill Doctrine, in electing a President we are doing the equivalent of hiring a plumber. Sometimes a plumber has to stick their hands into a backed-up toilet, and that’s gross to see and think about, but that’s just how it is. Sometimes politicians have to do things that we, as ordinary people, find distasteful, and that’s just how it is.

The fact that Clinton is expected to be either the Best Person Ever or just flat-out disqualified is an example of the double-bind in which women routinely find themselves. She is playing the politics game on a pro level, but playing the politics game on a pro level is incompatible with the stereotype of women being the keepers of morals and domestic tranquility. She is in a position where she is susceptible to criticism for both any error on the political stage, and for any error on the feminine morality stage. Since it’s impossible to do both, there is no happy medium where she can satisfy everyone.

The fact that Trump is as close to the Presidency as he is given that he is a grossly immoral and grossly unqualified candidate is a lesson in misogyny. He is not being held to the same impossible standard as Clinton. Yes, we can say that people are criticizing him, and in fact I just did it, but something like 40% of America would rather have a serial sexual assaulter and thin skinned reactionary than a highly-qualified woman who isn’t quite perfect.

Many of the criticisms of Clinton are just concern trolling, or tone policing, or gender policing, and the ones that aren’t one of those categories need some explanation. Why do we need to talk about how Clinton is imperfect because of her ties to Wall Street, but not talk about how terrifying it would be to have Trump with his finger on the button? Clinton isn’t perfect, but she doesn’t have to be. She only needs to be better than Trump.

@EJ

I guess that could be the case? But the FBI director is on a 10-year term, and they are not routinely removed from office when a new President comes in. Clinton could technically remove him at will, but it would look weird and vindictive if she did it, so I don’t think she will. AFAIK only one FBI director has ever been removed prior to the end of the term, and I doubt Clinton would make Comey the second one.

Just to refresh everyone’s memory, here’s Gert’s 1st post in the thread in response to Kat. A post he later claimed was polite.

That said, I’m hopeful that we can vote Hillary in — and insist that she stick with the progressive agenda that Bernie pretty much made her adopt.

Yup. That’s sooooooo going to happen, after the DNC ruined any chances of Bernie Sanders becoming the nominee!

I pity the American electorate for having nothing more than a choice between two evils: a misogynistic clown and a super hawkish establishmentarian!

Good luck with that…

Based on his past asshattery (anti-Semitism, ableism and general pomposity) and snide tone of this post, IP told him to fuck off and I said it was finally time to get on the same page and brand Gert a troll once and for all. For whatever reason, he ignored IP and focused his ire on me. Perhaps because he perceived IP as male and knew I was a woman? Idk.

This was his response to me.

@weirdfucker:

You mean, anytime someone here expresses an opinion that deviates from the Clinton orthodoxy by a nanometer has to be branded a ‘troll’?

This ‘community’ hardly surpasses the level of “debate” found at Wonkette, but hey, at least it has weirdfucker as a safeguard.

Brand me a troll, treat me as one and I’ll start behaving like one.
You twit…

That’s when he admitted his intent to troll. He also turned my name into an insult and called me a twit. I didn’t notice before, but it’s interesting that he chose Wonkette as his example of poor debate. I don’t know much about the site, but I believe it’s feminist or at least take a female focused view of politics. I’m thinking he acted like a mansplaining douche and got his ass handed to him there before he decided to inflict his presence on us.

After pointing out that he’s been trollish from the start he responded this way.

@weirdfucker:

Listen “sweetie” (you condescending twat), go complain to David and do your worst.

Meanwhile I’ll continue to prick the illusory balloons of a few here, re. your wretched election and Murrica’s place in the world.

I’m honestly baffled as to how anyone could have come to the conclusion that Gert simply made a mild criticism of Hillary Clinton or US policies and all of us mean meanies bullied him away.

If mild mannered and wishy washy Harry Reid is on the warpath over this, you know Comey fucked up. Here’s a Guardian article on it
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/30/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-fbi-director-comey-emails

I keep seeing headlines asking if Clinton is going to lose over this even though there’s no evidence it’s hurt her yet. It’s kind of pissing me off. Media outlets won’t get as many eyeballs over an election where Clinton sails to victory, so they have to use headlines to whip the public up into a frenzy and tighten up the election. That’s an incredibly irresponsible thing to do when we’re risking a Trump presidency.

Yep, this is the old political trick of getting your opponents investigated multiple times for various things. If you’ve managed to get enough investigations going…

1. They might actually find something illegal, and get your opponent jailed or taken off the ballot. This is one of the best outcomes for the person starting the investigations. Call this 7 points.

2. They don’t find anything actually illegal, but there was something suspicious. This counts as, say, 3 points.

3. They don’t find anything at all, but the investigation makes the news cycle. 1 point (partisan only, maybe).

4. Investigation fizzles, news reports ignore it completely. 0 points.

Theory is, since most of the results of the investigations are positive for the person calling for them, it makes sense to ask for official investigations of anything that might possibly be suspicious.

Fortunately it doesn’t work on all people, especially those who see through the rhetorical trick of “Candidate has been investigated 30 times, there must be something actually illegal there!” coming around these days.

I believe Gingrich was one of the earlier proponents of official investigation requests as campaign tactic. It’s been around far longer than that.

@JS: I don’t know. I see a lot of people on MSNBC comments spouting the ‘if there’s smoke, there’s fire’ line. I know it’s utter bull, but they seem to find it convincing.

Yep, unfortunately a current standard political tactic in various places. “If we keep investigating, I know we’ll find something!”

@joekster (Bearded Beta)
Currently TTIP alongside TTP is currently in the “shadow cabal” stage of planning, nothing passed just blueprints and groundwork. That’s not a joke, most of the stuff here is things behind closed doors away from public view and criticism.

@Axe

Also, I like how Brownback is the go to example for Republican, gubernatorial shittery. His is always the 1st name to come outta people’s mouths (or keyboards) in these conversations.

His name’s easier for me to remember. I just use the mnemonic ‘Sam Brownshirt’ and it pops right up.

@Joekster

Turns out, when you set people free to pursue their own interests, they mostly decide their own interests rely on taking advantage of each other.

To my knowledge, none of the founders was very big on setting people free to pursue their own interests. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

Ultimately, they were overly-optimistic about the ability of people to pull together for the common good all on their own.

You seem to have a very rosy view of them; I find this isn’t uncommon among certain demographics, but I still find it damned annoying. The whole point of things like the electoral college and the requirement of owning property to vote (and being white and male) is to make sure that the peons didn’t get a say, because the wealthy aristocrats who were writing the Constitution knew some of the things the plebs said about them. Letting people pull together for the common good is totally antithetical to what they were trying to achieve (and to a great extent did, although it’s been worn down some over the years).

@Joekster

George Washington, for example, was one of the richest people on the continent, thanks to his marriage to Martha. the unremitting backbreaking labour of hundreds of enslaved African Americans.

Who were most certainly not ‘free to pursue their own interests’.

However, there is another side to it, and there were (at least a few) among the founders who seem to have truly believed in the ‘better angels’ of humanity.

Bully for them. I don’t care. I’m looking at what they actually did, and for that matter wrote, and I’m less than impressed.

seems is explicitly designed to keep the plebeians out of politics as much as possible.

I am not actually making assumptions here, I am going by the stated purpose and desire of the founders of this country. E.g., from a letter by John Adams to James Sullivan:

But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule. But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…

I trust I don’t need to provide quotes to attest to their reluctance to have Black or Native people participate in government?

@Kat
This feels like a comedy sketch.

This feels like a comedy sketch.

I’ve been hesitating this joke for a long time because it’s kinda obscure but…

Years ago, Finnish radio comedy group Alivaltiosihteeri made a sketch on “Email of Lönneberga”, from Astrid Lindgren’s Emil of Lönneberga. It wasn’t related to anything political, just word play.

Lately I’ve imagined the American Conservative as Emil’s father, the angry middle-aged white guy yelling:

“EEEEEEEEEEMAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”