THE 2016 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I sat here 4 five minutes trying to think of anything to type.

Did the same thing this morning! The election is breaking our brains.

If Hilary said or President Obama said something like this during his campaign the Republicans would be in full outrage mode so I'm kind of bummed how the media isn't doing a more thorough job of detailing how fucked up this is.

My hope is Obama gives one of his classic Obama speeches tonight & Hilary follows tomorrow with a stirring, positive speech that starts moving this in the "really how is this even close" direction.

But I'm also holding out 4 a Trump meltdown during the debates.

9/26, first debate! clear your calendars!

Nick wrote:If Hilary said or President Obama said something like this during his campaign the Republicans would be in full outrage mode so I'm kind of bummed how the media isn't doing a more thorough job of detailing how fucked up this is.

It's disconcerting how so many R just brushing this off as politics as usual.

Obama's speech tonight was great. It's very rare that I feel an overwhelming sense of patriotism but he did that 4 me tonight.

Biden's speech embraced all the cliches of American exceptionalism, but I didn't give a shit, by the time he was finished with his speech I was ready to run straight through a cement wall. Fucking love Biden.

I argued with a Jill Stein supporter at the coffeeshop 4 15 minutes yesterday morning. He used the phrases "the primary was rigged" and "marginal differences". Then he brought up climate change and I noted that energy & climate policy is one of the starkest areas of contrast between the two nominees. Eight years of a Republican administration, particularly Trump, would likely be devastating 4 international progress on climate change. The next eight years R an amazing opportunity to work with Indian and Chinese leaders on addressing the climate crises in a unified, global manner. That fact, along with the Supreme Court appointments and social issues, should be more than enough to motivate anyone to stump strongly 4 Clinton.

There R only two major parties in this country. Of course they R both going to be bloated and not accurately represent all of your interests. Yes, the Democrats embrace of religion, American Exceptionalism, and blind patriotism is completely stupid, hypocritical, and cynical. But it is also pragmatic and I appreciate that, despite the fact that it makes me queasy. I understand that others R more idealistic than me and I respect their right to have different values, though I do not respect the decision to abstain or vote third party.

There has been a lot of discussion of people "voting their conscience" and candidates "earning my vote" this year. U can certainly choose to use your vote however U want. U can ascribe a moral dimension to your vote if U would like to. But ultimately that "moral choice" only serves yourself. There is no such thing as "protest abstention" in a representative Democracy where half of the electorate doesn't even vote. There R only the haves and the have nots. The Democrats this cycle R making all the overtures they can to progressivism without being truly progressive because progressivism hasn't won them elections recently. If young people, people of color, and women turn out in record numbers this cycle it can change the political calculus. Politicians will never bow down to interest groups that don't vote. Electing Democrats on the strength of turnout from marginalized groups is the only way to get those interests to the fore in the future, I believe.

Here infamous neoliberal stooge Noam Chomsky makes many of the same points as Chrondog.

http://bit.ly/2a2AQyL

https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-4-lev-lesser-evil-voting/

Also, isn't Dr. Stein an antivaxxer?

Thank U 4 the read Ted. I think that many leftists feel that to be anti-establishment U must also be a very narrow type of idealist. I don't C any contradiction in voting 4 Hillary Clinton AND being a leftist activist. As Chomsky argues, nothing undermines leftist goals more than allowing Republicans to dismantle everything they stand 4. It's hopelessly ungrounded thinking to postulate that "a Trump presidency would catalyze the left and lead to more long term change". Personally, I would label myself as more of a progressive liberal than a leftist, but I fundamentally reject the notion that U should undermine the usefulness of your own vote to simply build your credibility as an activist.

That's a wonderful post to read this Friday morning, Chrono!

I felt like Hilary's speech built momentum and she got on quite a roll (Join us!). We can get into intricacies of her policy throughout the next few months. But last night a party candidate represented the inclusiveness, ideas and hopefulness that will get my vote come November.

chrondog wrote:Then he brought up climate change and I noted that energy & climate policy is one of the starkest areas of contrast between the two nominees. Eight years of a Republican administration, particularly Trump, would likely be devastating 4 international progress on climate change. The next eight years R an amazing opportunity to work with Indian and Chinese leaders on addressing the climate crises in a unified, global manner. That fact, along with the Supreme Court appointments and social issues, should be more than enough to motivate anyone to stump strongly 4 Clinton.

It's pretty difficult to imagine anyone disagreeing with this! However, I wouldn't want to discourage any idealist or leftist from fighting 4 necessary environmental justice. The Democratic Party, as it exists, isn't able to advocate 4 environmental protection because of special interests. This is where a critique of neoliberalism becomes most urgent, I think. The shift into thinking that any and all solutions must take into account market logic will continue to have devastating environmental effects. The same goes 4 the most recent United Nations agreement (COP21). The only realistic option is, paradoxical as it may seem to some, a radical alternative. I agree with U though that given the reality of this election, it would be stupid to vote 4 anyone other than HRC if U R in a swing state.

chrondog wrote:There R only two major parties in this country. Of course they R both going to be overly and not accurately represent all of your interests. Yes, the Democrats embrace of religion, American Exceptionalism, and blind patriotism is completely stupid, hypocritical, and cynical. But it is also pragmatic and I appreciate that, despite the fact that it makes me queasy. I understand that others R more idealistic than me and I respect their right to have different values, though I do not respect the decision to abstain or vote third party.

I don't care about the appeal to American Exceptionalism but it is discouraging that nobody was able to challenge Hillary, from the Left, on foreign policy. Sanders was able to move the party, and Hillary, in a more progressive direction with domestic policy (debt-free college, medicaid expansion, etc) but was largely silent on foreign policy. That's really upsetting since Hillary falls in line with neo-conservatives. Given current realities, I could C her making some truly horrendous decisions that would create an unthinkable amount of devastation and suffering. With that in mind, it becomes very difficult to argue that the 'lesser of two evils' isn't still just evil.

chrondog wrote:There has been a lot of discussion of people "voting their conscience" and candidates "earning my vote" this year. U can certainly choose to use your vote however U want. U can ascribe a moral dimension to your vote if U would like to. But ultimately that "moral choice" only serves yourself. There is no such thing as "protest abstention" in a representative Democracy where half of the electorate doesn't even vote. There R only the haves and the have nots. The Democrats this cycle R making all the overtures they can to progressivism without being truly progressive because progressivism hasn't won them elections recently. If young people, people of color, and women turn out in record numbers this cycle it can change the political calculus. Politicians will never bow down to interest groups that don't vote. Electing Democrats on the strength of turnout from marginalized groups is the only way to get those interests to the fore in the future, I believe.

I don't entirely disagree with your analysis but I think it's difficult to place the entirety of the blame on the shoulders of young people, people of color, women, or any other marginalized group. Should young people vote more than they do? Of course! There R a lot of excuses as to why they don't, the biggest being that they R the most mobile and rootless of any demographic, which makes it slightly more inconvenient to register. That isn't a very legitimate excuse though.

Instead of emphasizing the irresponsibility of the progressive voting base though, more people should focus on the Democratic Party and their unwillingness to properly finance state and local elections. That is a major reason why Democrats lose mid-term elections. It's a major reason why, in the Midwest, Republicans control the state legislatures and governor's mansions. If U follow the money in this election the majority of the money earmarked 4 State elections is being funneled back into the Hillary Clinton Victory Fund with a flimsy promise that it will be re-allocated based upon specific needs.

Not enough people emphasize this dimension and it's upsetting. Instead, liberals just want to whine about 'idealist' voters who want to vote their conscience and preserve their moral purity. And honestly, what can be more toxic and nauseating. The only thing worse than 21st century hippies R the journalists and bloggers who make it their mission to shame them in order to prove how savvy and enlightened they R in comparison. Pick a better target, dorks!

Basically, Chrono, I agree with 90% of what U R saying. I might consider myself more of a leftist than a liberal progressive, but it would depend on circumstance and who I am arguing with. The reality is that neither ideology has much of a foothold in American electoral politics, so it is best to emphasize our similarities and agreements rather than our hypothetical grievances.

I learned a lot from Sanders campaign and it was truly an inspiring journey. Of course I am upset that he isn't going to be the candidate. There is a tribal dimension to politics that is going to cause a lot of Sanders supporters to be upset (nobody likes when their team loses) and that is what is going to motivate the #BernieOrBust faction. We can all put our political science hats on and pretend like this ugly dimension of politics shouldn't exist, but it does. Anyway, it's a very tiny fraction of his electorate that will either vote Stein or stay at home and we shouldn't worry about it. It is an exciting media narrative so they R going to highlight this conflict as much as they can to attract viewers to an imagined conflict.

What upsets me though, is when liberals scoff at how irresponsible these young activists R behaving. Sure, it might be upsetting and nauseating to argue with them. And U might have disagreements with their electoral tactics, political preferences, or ideology. But the reality is, we need more enthusiastic young people engaging in the political process. We need more people challenging the status quo, challenging the electoral process, pushing 4 campaign finance reform, demanding economic justice, advocating on behalf of necessary environmental reforms. So instead of lecturing them about the 'political realities of the American electoral system' with our noses held high, we should be encouraging them to continue their struggle and fight past this 2016 election by celebrating their effort and commitment to realizing a truly better world 4 all.

Ҩ wrote:The Democratic Party, as it exists, isn't able to advocate 4 environmental protection because of special interests. This is where a critique of neoliberalism becomes most urgent, I think. The shift into thinking that any and all solutions must take into account market logic will continue to have devastating environmental effects.

all global solutions to all problems will take into account market logic because money and exchange value is the driving force behind almost all human endeavor. this is perhaps one of my more unpalatable POVs to radicals, Marxists, and anti-capitalists. the American left isn't going to get Chinese and Indians and Indonesians and Nigerians to stop placing importance on market logic. some countries in the developing world R a hundred years away from being able to move away from concerns about basic human welfare. speaking the language of the world (money) is the best way to influence it in a positive direction. now all this is not to say that pure, laissez faire market logic must have PRIMACY in our policymaking, but injecting environmental protection directly into market logic is, in my mind, the most efficient course of action. that's why i (along with the Democratic Party Platform) support a carbon tax or "carbon pricing". we understand that environmental effects have direct, human consequences, and there should be a market cost to reflect that. as it stands, a natural gas power plant is being subsidized by the fact that its environmental damage is not affecting its balance sheet--it's affecting global mean temperatures. someone needs to pay 4 that damage and i think it should be the market actors who stand to profit, like fossil fuel companies. through policy we can align the concerns of the planet with the market.

Ҩ wrote:That's really upsetting since Hillary falls in line with neo-conservatives. Given current realities, I could C her making some truly horrendous decisions that would create an unthinkable amount of devastation and suffering. With that in mind, it becomes very difficult to argue that the 'lesser of two evils' isn't still just evil.

would U argue that Obama's foreign policy has been "evil"? i got into it with Jill Stein bro about this as well. he argued that Hillary's hawkishness at the State Department is what moved Obama to the right on foreign policy. i countered that "Obama is the President of the United States and U can't pass the buck on his foreign policy decisions to Clinton". Syria, Libya, Honduras, ISIS. these R Obama's decisions and his legacy must own them. drones, spying, and continued war has been the most disappointing aspect of Obama's presidency 4 me. but the notion that Obama is significantly to the left of Hillary is pretty frustrating to me--i just don't C that at all. i supported Obama over Clinton in 2008 because i thought he was slightly to the left of Clinton plus some other intangibles. i still think that today. i prefer Obama's policy preferences slightly to Hillary, but this is where the phrase "marginal differences" truly belongs.

Ҩ wrote:What upsets me though, is when liberals scoff at how irresponsible these young activists R behaving. Sure, it might be upsetting and nauseating to argue with them. And U might have disagreements with their electoral tactics, political preferences, or ideology. But the reality is, we need more enthusiastic young people engaging in the political process. We need more people challenging the status quo, challenging the electoral process, pushing 4 campaign finance reform, demanding economic justice, advocating on behalf of necessary environmental reforms. So instead of lecturing them about the 'political realities of the American electoral system' with our noses held high, we should be encouraging them to continue their struggle and fight past this 2016 election by celebrating their effort and commitment to realizing a truly better world 4 all.

the guy i was arguing with was certainly older than me, just to make that clear (i'm still only 26). i suppose i can't begrudge "young people" (of which i am one) too much 4 lacking significant perspective, but i think people get wrapped up in the "sexiness" of presidential elections and lose the forest 4 the trees. to me, it's possible make a choice about which presidential candidate to support in a day of research--the ideological and value differences between all FOUR of the candidates R so vast that it should be a no brainer 4 those with a coherent set of political values (though i suppose it's a huge stretch to assume anyone has those). instead we get wrapped up and twisted around making micro-distinctions and arguing over "the lesser of two evils" when people could be dedicating their time to studying municipal, county, state, and regional issues. they could be working directly on issues they care about. instead, there is a highly performative aspect 2"struggling with the moral decision of a presidential vote" that involves politicians with a huge ideological gulf between them.

chrondog wrote:

Ҩ wrote:The Democratic Party, as it exists, isn't able to advocate 4 environmental protection because of special interests. This is where a critique of neoliberalism becomes most urgent, I think. The shift into thinking that any and all solutions must take into account market logic will continue to have devastating environmental effects.

all global solutions to all problems will take into account market logic because money and exchange value is the driving force behind almost all human endeavor. this is perhaps one of my more unpalatable POVs to radicals, Marxists, and anti-capitalists. the American left isn't going to get Chinese and Indians and Indonesians and Nigerians to stop placing importance on market logic. some countries in the developing world R a hundred years away from being able to move away from concerns about basic human welfare. speaking the language of the world (money) is the best way to influence it in a positive direction. now all this is not to say that pure, laissez faire market logic must have PRIMACY in our policymaking, but injecting environmental protection directly into market logic is, in my mind, the most efficient course of action. that's why i (along with the Democratic Party Platform) support a carbon tax or "carbon pricing". we understand that environmental effects have direct, human consequences, and there should be a market cost to reflect that. as it stands, a natural gas power plant is being subsidized by the fact that its environmental damage is not affecting its balance sheet--it's affecting global mean temperatures. someone needs to pay 4 that damage and i think it should be the market actors who stand to profit, like fossil fuel companies. through policy we can align the concerns of the planet with the market.

I should have been more specific. I don't have a problem with policy solutions taking market logic into account, my problem is that it must take into account a specifically capitalist market logic that demands 4 the production of surplus-values that R unevenly distributed. There is always going to be money, exchange, and a marketplace, but it isn't a priori that the market place needs to be dictated by the axioms of capitalist production and exchange that benefits global elites and the capitalist classes.

I agree that 'carbon pricing,' and subsidizing alternative energy sources R important reforms that make a positive impact. Outside of some insane technological innovations these reforms won't impact rising temperatures nearly enough (and that isn't the only way that the capitalist market place effects the environment either). When U look at COP21, which has yet to be ratified, it is pretty clear that government elites R protecting their own economic advantages by placing the environmental burden on the working classes and the post-colonial world. If some developing countries R unable to meet the concerns of basic human welfare it is because they spent centuries being raped of their resources (and sometimes people), forced into an inequitable world-system that economically benefited their colonial rulers, and they continue to be plunged into an endless financial debt through IMF and World Bank austerity measures. Neoliberalism didn't begin in the West. It was the reaction by ex-colonial elites in the recently decolonized world to enact a capitalist counter-offensive that would allow 4 their countries to participate in the global marketplace. They succeeded, 4 the most part, and we R still witnessing its effects.

And I understand that this reality doesn't have an electoral home in American politics, and it never will. But that is still reality.

chrondog wrote:would U argue that Obama's foreign policy has been "evil"? i got into it with Jill Stein bro about this as well. he argued that Hillary's hawkishness at the State Department is what moved Obama to the right on foreign policy. i countered that "Obama is the President of the United States and U can't pass the buck on his foreign policy decisions to Clinton". Syria, Libya, Honduras, ISIS. these R Obama's decisions and his legacy must own them. drones, spying, and continued war has been the most disappointing aspect of Obama's presidency 4 me. but the notion that Obama is significantly to the left of Hillary is pretty frustrating to me--i just don't C that at all. i supported Obama over Clinton in 2008 because i thought he was slightly to the left of Clinton plus some other intangibles. i still think that today. i prefer Obama's policy preferences slightly to Hillary, but this is where the phrase "marginal differences" truly belongs.

I think Obama's foreign policy is close to the best we can hope 4 out of an American President, given the realities of American military power and influence and its constant need to assert its force. I agree with U though, whether or not Hillary was able to sway his decision making in Libya or not, it was still his decision and he has to own it. I do think Obama is to the left of Hillary but I honestly don't know how marginal that difference is. We will have to wait and C.

chrondog wrote:i suppose i can't begrudge "young people" (of which i am one) too much 4 lacking significant perspective, but i think people get wrapped up in the "sexiness" of presidential elections and lose the forest 4 the trees. to me, it's possible make a choice about which presidential candidate to support in a day of research--the ideological and value differences between all FOUR of the candidates R so vast that it should be a no brainer 4 those with a coherent set of political values (though i suppose it's a huge stretch to assume anyone has those). instead we get wrapped up and twisted around making micro-distinctions and arguing over "the lesser of two evils" when people could be dedicating their time to studying municipal, county, state, and regional issues. they could be working directly on issues they care about. instead, there is a highly performative aspect 2"struggling with the moral decision of a presidential vote" that involves politicians with a huge ideological gulf between them.

I agree with this. Part of the problem is that these micro-distinctions make 4 captivating headline news. I can't get over how poorly our national media is and how it is just completely failing us right now. I already had really low expectations going into this election but this has been ridiculous.

As a side note, U seem to have a problem with accelerationist politics in general. I have all the same criticisms that U have. I think it's a morally disgusting framework that ignores human suffering and environmental damage. However, it did emerge within pseudo-Marxist thought as a reaction to social democracy, New Deal politics, and Keynesian economics. It isn't that they R celebrating human suffering so that it will create a more #woke electorate. Their criticism is that social democracy is a reformist movement that masks the inherent contradictions of the capitalist marketplace.

I don't know if that history makes their position any more or less morally reprehensible, but that is its history, I believe.

Ҩ wrote:There is always going to be money, exchange, and a marketplace

I agree and that's the primary point I was making. But it's one that I'm not sure anti-capitalists have fully thought through. What would it mean to have a marketplace of exchange that is NOT capitalist? How would U prevent people from making the choice to generate surplus or horde goods? I think it is a more efficient path to align economic incentives with social progress. That is a basic summation of my politics.

Ҩ wrote:I agree that 'carbon pricing,' and subsidizing alternative energy sources R important reforms that make a positive impact. Outside of some insane technological innovations these reforms won't impact rising temperatures nearly enough (and that isn't the only way that the capitalist market place effects the environment either). When U look at COP21, which has yet to be ratified, it is pretty clear that government elites R protecting their own economic advantages by placing the environmental burden on the working classes and the post-colonial world. If some developing countries R unable to meet the concerns of basic human welfare it is because they spent centuries being raped of their resources (and sometimes people), forced into an inequitable world-system that economically benefited their colonial rulers, and they continue to be plunged into an endless financial debt through IMF and World Bank austerity measures. Neoliberalism didn't begin in the West. It was the reaction by ex-colonial elites in the recently decolonized world to enact a capitalist counter-offensive that would allow 4 their countries to participate in the global marketplace. They succeeded, 4 the most part, and we R still witnessing its effects.

The nuances of global climate cooperation R too many and arcane 4 an informed discussion here. I work 4 a firm that has experts precisely in this area and I still wouldn't say I have a handle on all the particulars. Tbh, every delegation is protecting their own interests, that's what negotiation is. The strategies in that negotiation R informed by national wealth and endowment, which is a direct function of the colonial legacy, 4 sure. One of the key issues in international climate (and in Paris this year) is how to encourage economic development in small and developing nations while promoting climate goals. Because of the colonial history, U can't turn to India and tell them they can't use coal power and can't grow their economy. G20 nations need to commit to international development aid 4 clean energy and global decarbonization. Some of that happened in Paris. More needs to happen still.

U're definitely right on the point that the vast vast majority of the American electorate doesn't give a flying fuck about any of that.

Ҩ wrote:Part of the problem is that these micro-distinctions make 4 captivating headline news. I can't get over how poorly our national media is and how it is just completely failing us right now. I already had really low expectations going into this election but this has been ridiculous.

It's corporate bullshit. Another example of economic incentives being misaligned with public good. This is perhaps another unpopular viewpoint, but I believe that getting deeper into the business of state-funded media and subsidizing journalism is one of the few ways to address this problem. I don't C many alternatives other than hoping that the private news media will either stop caring about profit or the public will stop consuming infotainment. Neither of those seems very likely at all.

Ҩ wrote:As a side note, U seem to have a problem with accelerationist politics in general. I have all the same criticisms that U have. I think it's a morally disgusting framework that ignores human suffering and environmental damage. However, it did emerge within pseudo-Marxist thought as a reaction to social democracy, New Deal politics, and Keynesian economics. It isn't that they R celebrating human suffering so that it will create a more #woke electorate. Their criticism is that social democracy is a reformist movement that masks the inherent contradictions of the capitalist marketplace.

I don't know if that history makes their position any more or less morally reprehensible, but that is its history, I believe.

I'm not very familiar with "accelerationist politics" so I looked it up. I think U're probably right in characterizing me as someone who's against it, though I am someone who thinks that a certain level of radicalism is necessary. I think radicals, even those who destroy property and kill people, serve a necessary function in society on some level. There must be an understanding by the "stability first" elites of the world 4 how motivated people on the margins R. I think radicals necessarily accelerate the deployment of political reform by the ruling class to preserve stability. But I definitely C a tipping point. Too much reactionary action just creates counter-reactionaries, encourages extremism, and progress stagnates.

chrondog wrote:The nuances of global climate cooperation R too many and arcane 4 an informed discussion here. I work 4 a firm that has experts precisely in this area and I still wouldn't say I have a handle on all the particulars. Tbh, every delegation is protecting their own interests, that's what negotiation is. The strategies in that negotiation R informed by national wealth and endowment, which is a direct function of the colonial legacy, 4 sure. One of the key issues in international climate (and in Paris this year) is how to encourage economic development in small and developing nations while promoting climate goals. Because of the colonial history, U can't turn to India and tell them they can't use coal power and can't grow their economy. G20 nations need to commit to international development aid 4 clean energy and global decarbonization. Some of that happened in Paris. More needs to happen still.

I know embarrassingly little about both environmental science and environmental policy. It's something that I should spend more time studying because it is so important. Most of my information and perspective is coming from a friend that I have who is very passionate about the need 4 a radical alternative. He sends me articles pretty often and that's where the majority of my information comes from. It's uncertain what that radical alternative might look like but, at least in classical Marxism, a non-capitalist marketplace would require that the workers control the means of production and State power. How that might effect climate policy, I really don't know. The question that Marxists will always ask is whether or not we think it is possible to create endless value on a planet with finite resources.

chrondog wrote:It's corporate bullshit. Another example of economic incentives being misaligned with public good. This is perhaps another unpopular viewpoint, but I believe that getting deeper into the business of state-funded media and subsidizing journalism is one of the few ways to address this problem. I don't C many alternatives other than hoping that the private news media will either stop caring about profit or the public will stop consuming infotainment. Neither of those seems very likely at all.

A state-funded alternative would be preferable but still problematic. Social media provides a platform 4 various progressive, anti-capitalist, Marxist, and anarchist perspectives but they R so diffuse and niche that it has a very marginal impact and it often just feels like pissing in the wind.

chrondog wrote:I think radicals, even those who destroy property and kill people, serve a necessary function in society on some level.

Honestly, I'm really frustrated by the tactics of contemporary 'radical' movements. They spend far too much time celebrating disruption (through occupation, street demonstrations, etc.) and not nearly enough time actually developing a comprehensive platform 4 what their alternative future would look like. The problem, I think, is that the Left has been so marginalized 4 decades that they kind of forgot the purpose of what political action ought to be, which is building networks of solidarity and ultimately hegemonic alternatives to the status quo.

Part of what exasperates the problem is that the left, and I think the same goes 4 liberals and progressives as well, has an unhealthy obsession with identity politics. Everything needs to be framed within the 'lived experience' of some marginalized or oppressed subject-position. It's a hard thing to be critical of, especially a straight white guy, but it can produce a sort of fallacious assumption that only people with first hand experience of oppression R capable of having a critical insight into relationships of power and inequality, which is dumb and breaks down solidarity from the start. The perfect example of how easily identity politics can be used 4 reactionary ends is Milo Yiannopoulos. Him coming to DePaul created a real shit storm on campus, rightly so. But it is kind of hilarious to C how he uses the pervasive logic of contemporary social justice against progressives because they R accustomed to accepting and acknowledging the lived experience and perspective of a marginalized identity or subject like Milo (an openly gay man). I don't want to be misunderstood, I think Milo is a piece of shit, but only because he has bad, disgusting political views. U can be a transgender (Caitlyn Jenner), a black man (David Clarke), an immigration, gay, bisexual, working class, etc., and have really shitty, dumb, reactionary politics.

I listened to the latest Keepin' It 1600 pod and they hinted Trump hasn't committed to debates or his team is far behind in the typical negotiations that surround the debate structure. They seemed to be saying we don't know 4 sure a debate will happen & HRC should double down and be like "Let's have 4 or 5."

Say a few Tweets today about people wondering if Trump would actuall not debate and whether that would only embolden his psycho support.

Ҩ wrote:it is kind of hilarious to C how he uses the pervasive logic of contemporary social justice against progressives because they R accustomed to accepting and acknowledging the lived experience and perspective of a marginalized identity or subject like Milo (an openly gay man). I don't want to be misunderstood, I think Milo is a piece of shit, but only because he has bad, disgusting political views. U can be a transgender (Caitlyn Jenner), a black man (David Clarke), an immigration, gay, bisexual, working class, etc., and have really shitty, dumb, reactionary politics.

I mean, I know his supporters love this idea, that his existence actually puts liberals in some kind of intellectual bind that they don't know how to reconcile. But do U really think this is happening?

Can U clarify this? Because I'd written up a whole response to this post but U'd be better off not reading it until I'm completely sure that U're not even kind of defending this guy.

I'm not defending him at all. He is a piece of shit and I'd love to hear your response. I do think that he has been able to attack liberal identity politics really effectively, which I'm not celebrating, but I think it exposes some of the bitter contradictions of the left's current obsession with the discourse around 'lived experience,' which unfortunately just comes with a lot of obvious political pitfalls.

I appreciate what U're saying WP. I think identity-politic obsessed liberals do make that point often that lived experience matters more than having well thought out ideas. Certainly lived experience is a useful data point and understanding the psychology of people's real lives is essential 4 informing why people think what they do, but it isn't enough on its own. Plenty of people with challenging experiences don't have the prescription to their problems. Perspective can be just as important as experience. So when a proud gay man is on the "anti-PC brigade", I do think it fucks with some people's sense of self. That doesn't mean he is a good guy or really all that clever, just that he is highlighting a real tension in people's thinking.

Jesus the story this morning of Trump asking 3 times in an hour long national security briefing why the USA cannot use nukes is terrifying. This week has been incredible by any election standards by that shifts it to another level of darkness that is hard to comprehend.

people haven't woken up to the seriousness of even considering someone as ill-tempered as Donald Trump to be president because the election cycle is so long and our media (and electorate, i suppose) is so frivolous.

i truly still believe that Hillary will drop the hammer with "is Trump ready 4 the 3am phone call?" ads after Labor Day and Trump will be soundly defeated. but it's still hard to feel safe in that thinking.