blame?

i don't know if i would use such a charged word to describe a very and nuanced question.i think there is plenty of blame to go around,and it is never quite as simple as the media soundbytes we are all subjected to on a daily basis.

who do i blame most?
democrats..hands down.

but there are other factors that all served to produce this circus of an election cycle.

1.the failure of the left to actually understand just how frustrated and angry the working class had become.those people may be politically unsophisticated,but they are not dumb.

this really had very little to do with republican vs democrat.this was a large portion of the american population that had simply become fed up with a system that they finally understood had thrown them overboard decades ago.many of the people who voted for trump also voted for obama..TWICE..because they wanted to see "change" and what they got nothing,zip,zilch,zero,nada.

they simply refused to play charlie brown to the democrats lucy.

2.the DNC and debbie wasserman shultz,may she burn in hell for eternity.
this woman singlehandedly secured the nomination for clinton,while blocking a sanders nomination.

remember laurence lessig?
well,don't feel bad if you don't,because wasserman and the DNC kept changing the rules of application so lessig couldn't even get on the primary ballot.

the DNC basically said to the sanders supporters "sanders? fuck you! you get hillary and will like it".

3.the ultra left liberals,for being so sensitive and touchy (don't get mad,you guys are way too soft skinned) that they restrict their interactions in these weird,singular echo chambers.where everybody is agreeing with each other and nobody is challenging anything,no critical examination.

so when trump won.
they damn near lost their minds in shock!
because anybody who may have shed some actual light on the situation was already blocked or on ignore.

4.the republican party,who hated trump but allowed him to fan the flames of dissent with his bombastic speeches,emotionally charged rhetoric and divisive language.

they let this go on for almost a year,and while publicly denounced trump,privately sought a way to capture his thunder.

want carson?.....nope
cruz?...nope.
kasich?..nope.

because just like the left,they too,had misjudged just how pissed off people were in regards to our political system,and their plan backfired.

5.the democratic party for allowing such a shit candidate,and just like the republicans,not fully understanding just how pissed the electorate was.

6.the corporate media,who sought solely to profit from the election by giving us all this mish mash of reality tv,wrestling and days of our lives.they didnt report the issues,they fed the drama.

and every political pundit,every pollster,every opinion news mrs mcprettyface,got it FUCKING WRONG.

7.bernie bros who stayed home in protest,but this entire election was a protest vote.

so,
yeah..a lot of mitigating factors went into trumps win.

i didn't think he was going to win but i knew it was going to close,but i sure as fuck was not surprised.i was actually laughing at loud.

would you look at that...
my fellow countrymen just hit the nuclear option.
i didn't want a trump victory..no sir..but i have to admire the audacity of my fellow citizens to hit that shiny red button.

fuck you washington!

we live in interesting times my friends.
interesting and terrifying times.

and really...what would clinton have given us?
more of the same?
more wars and regime change?
more tax breaks for the super rich while children starve and more people become homeless?

i may find my fellow americans choice horrifying,but i have to respect it.
either way kids...something is gonna change.

You said, "If you do admire him, then there is no other choice but to vote for Clinton. You either trust him or you don't". I believe that is a perfect example of a binary choice. You said it, not me. I believe there -are- other choices, such as voting -for- someone, rather than against.

As for remembering my stance if Trump should win, I'll say the same to you. When the debtor's prisons are raping the remnants of the once-middle class while Hillary only focuses on feeding the MIC with more wars, remember who put her in the position to do that. Because it for damned sure won't have been me.

If I haven't been clear enough, neither of the major candidates is worth my vote. I actually believe that Clinton is slightly more dangerous, due to the combination of competence and utter rapaciousness. Trump's total incompetence limits the damage he can do. The fact that these are the only two candidates with any real chance of victory is a complete damnation of our system. We're fucked.

But -DON'T- try to tell me what my conscience says, or how I have to respond. You haven't come anywhere near earning that right. Nobody in this universe has.

That's basically all there is left to say about TTIP, TPP, CETA, TiSA, etc, isn't it...

-------------------------------------
"It is of the utmost importance to work alongside other world leaders."

Just a small note on that one: thanks to the actions of Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland and the Nazi-supporting, oligarch-empowering regime of Yanukovich/Poroshenko in Ukraine, the "working alongside" part seems to fall awfully short when it comes to the Bear in the East. The Putin administration does some fucked-up shit, but all those tanks taking part in Anaconda 16, the biggest excercise since the end of the Cold War, they don't sport Russian insigniae. That's NATO, excercising a "Invasion of Russia" scenario at the border of Russia.

Maybe it's because I live in what would have been the battlefield of WW3, maybe it's because parts of my family come from Königsberg/Kaliningrad, but I support the old notion of "There is no safety in Europe against Russia, there is only safety in Europe with Russia".

Somehow, he doesn't seem to have issues working alongside the Saudi royalty who support all kinds of extremism while waging a war of aggression against Jemen. You know, the kind of extremism that gave the war mongerers in Washington an excuse to wage war in multiple nations.

How's Clinton doing, by the way? Still hailing her push to turn Libya into a failed state as an accomplishment and a sign of her experience in foreign policy? Still defending her vote for the illegal war of aggression in Iraq? Still pushing for more war in Syria? I would be interested in what Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, would have to say about the Bush administration, the Obama administration and our cherished Presidential Candidate in spe, HRC. Maybe he'd commend them on their oratory prowess or sense of fashion...

What are you talking about? You think Conservative politicians are good?

Here's the Conservative logic:

You a rich guy who's fucking over your workers by not paying them a living wage? Have a tax break, oh and thanks for the campaign contributions we'll find more tax breaks for you.
Oh look, those workers you aren't paying a living wage to need food stamps, let's cut food stamp funding then we'll be able to give you rich people more tax breaks.
Oh, you are moving those jobs overseas so you can keep more of the profits for yourself? Great idea, more money for you. We'll blame those jobs going overseas on the government and everyone will believe it and not blame the rich guy who moved the job overseas because being rich is good (despite what Jesus whom we pretend to like said) and government is bad.
We'll have the churches turn their backs against the teachings of Jesus and convince millions of Americans that Jesus meant the opposite and they'll vote for us thinking they are doing the Christian thing. Sure one or two people will lose faith and hate Christians [your's truly included, even if He is real, I'd rather be in Hell than be around Him or His people] because of it, but most of the faithful have been taught to accept anything the church says, so they'll all go along with the plan to fuck over the working class so that you rich people can have your great life.
We'll keep building more and more prisons, we'll turn them into profit making centers and incarcerate more people than any other nation for the good of corporate profit.
Let's make a pipeline filled with highly pollutive tar sands that will create 35 permanent full time jobs so that we can export a great deal of that oil. We'll tell people it's about "energy independence"and about all the jobs it'll create for the couple years of it's construction. We'll ignore the fact that upgrading our nations infrastructure would create far more jobs not only in the long term, but significantly more jobs in the short term as well., and that's just upgrading our electrical grid, not counting upgrading our freeways, bridges, dams, railways and the like.
Let's make more and more war, because war profits off killing a bunch of what we'll sell as savages is really good money for the rich.

Both sides have good and bad... well the left have good and bad. The right has people brainwashed into thinking they are doing good and the Lord's work...even though it's 100% opposite of what He taught... I hate myself for having ever voted and arguing for Conservative or even Libertarian "logic".

@enoch,

I'm afraid you are the one misunderstanding. Hijacking and redefining anarchy to mean support for essentially a different flavour of grassroots democracy isn't clever or insightful. It's an abuse of the language. That is merely a semantic complaint though. The deeper problem is that it's an effort to build an argument atop a contradiction. Namely, anarchy with some form of overall governing structure. Starting from such a contradiction allows you defend or tie anything and everything back to your core statement. That's why I declared it intellectually dishonest.

You advocate your position as 'anarchy' but then proceed to describe a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You've described democracy, not anarchy. You advocate absolute freedom of the people from the tyranny of rulers. You declare no more wars of aggression, but who's rule is that except your own? I'm afraid that history shows that a large portion of your free people will most assuredly gather together and agree on waging a war of aggression, and the only stricture holding that back is the rule made by the ruler against it, in this case the ruler being yourself.

In short anarchy only fares as well as human nature can be trusted, which is not far at all. Redefining it as democracy light isn't honest, it's just rejecting the burden of defending the specific changes and improvements one would propose. It's an ancient trick used endlessly throughout history and one I refuse to accept.

Well, I disagree on a few points.
With no enforcement, enough people (it doesn't take that many) would spend the day robbing, raping, and causing mayhem that the rest of us would be relatively paralyzed, either by fear or by the requirement to constantly 'police' those bad actors.
Even with reasoned laws (which we no longer have) a relatively large force is required to enforce them, but much smaller and less dangerous a force than we have today.
As I recall, the country was split, but slightly a majority in favor of going to Iraq (or wherever they were told we should go) and a slight minority keeping quiet so they didn't seem 'anti American' or 'pro-terrorist'. Maybe that's wrong, but it's how I remember it.
The issue with anarchism is it means something different to nearly everyone. That means deciding what 'rules' are required for society to work will be near impossible, just setting up the system to decide goes against the plan.
I think with no government to stop them, we would see more wars of aggression (by warlords, it's happened in nearly every power vacuum), more abusive corporate power (although not welfare, true enough, but they'll get that money a different, worse way), and no voting to vote out the fed (although it would not exist in an anarchistic 'society' to be voted in or out). Currency would either go back to regional, or gold (not a bad idea).
Once again, I must say finance reform could go a long way towards having representation for the people.
Wait, in a true anarchistic system, no one votes, and there's no system to collect, count, and certainly not one to follow through with any 'votes', so how would individuals 'vote' anything 'in' or 'out'? It sounds like you really want representative government, not anarchy, you just want it to represent 'us' and not 'them' (them being special interests with deep pockets). If that's correct, I, and I think many others, are right there with you. We need to be organized to force reform, because the 'representatives' have no incentive to do it themselves.

Then slow down with theories of our impending demise, the IPCC doesn't support it. You want to talk about not denying the science, then you don't get to preach gloom and doom. Don't claim a large percentage of farmland is going to be lost to sea level rise by 2100. Don't claim coastlines are going to be pushed back 10 miles by a worst case 1 foot rise of sea level by 2100.

We are talking about advancements solving problems like a maximum sea level rise of a foot in the next 100 years, with best guesses being lower than that. I think it's modest to suggest our children's children will have figured out how to raise the dikes around places like New Orleans by a foot in the next 100 years.
The concord and moon trips are no longer happening because they are expensive. We can do them if we needed to, and more easily than the first time around. Finding out people aren't willing to pay the premium to shave an hour off their flight doesn't mean the technology no longer exists. Just because America no longer needs to prove they can lift massive quantities of nuclear warheads into orbit doesn't mean we couldn't still go to the moon again if it was needed. There's just no reason to do it, the tech exists still none the less.
Yes, there are social problems that confound the use of new technology. You fail to notice that is also the problem with feeding everybody. Food production isn't the problem, but rather the men with guns that control distribution. Stalin's mass starvation of millions was a social problem, not climate change or technology. Mao's was the same. North Koreas the same. All over Africa is the same. We have more than enough food, and plenty of charities work hard to send food over to places like Africa. Once the food gets there though the men with guns take most of it and people still starve. The reason Africa has so many crop failures is the violent displacement of the farmers. Exactly the same problem that saw millions starve in Russia, China and North Korea.
You are right that a changing climate could compound Africa's ag industry a bit, but it's a small hit compared to the violent displacement problem. Also, don't neglect to consider to impact of meaningful CO2 emission restrictions around the globe. A large scale global economic downturn probably means a lot more war, bloodshed, and starvation. If you do not reduce emissions enough to trigger that downturn and instead just 'marginally', you get stuck with both because Africa is still going to see virtually the same climate changes through the next hundred years.

And if you are worried about losing the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2100 there is very good reason to believe that's gonna be alright:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S41/39/84Q12/index.xml?section=topstories

It's the wholly bought republicans that always drive up the debt.
Yet its republicans who cry themselves to sleep about it..
Huh ? That seems so dumb...
How haven't republican voters figured this simple fact out ?

Do you like citizens united ? Do you like the Coche brothers owning you ?

can't you see you are getting played ? I just can't believe you are that stupid.

Republican elections = more guns, jebus, immigrants bad, Amurica

Actual Republican laws passed = more tax cuts for the rich and corporations, freeze congress and hold US economy to ransom, suppress votes (redistricting, voter ID), suppress workers (anti-Union, anti-minimum wage), anti-healthcare, destroy poor, destroy middle class, take over the courts with activist judges, increase prison population, more war


yay

The war(s) we waged, I believe, will create the terrorists that will attack us in the future and create more war.

\m/ \m/

Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!

Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Oh lord yeah!

Are you being pedantic for any good reason? Hyperbole can be useful. The fact is, we don't fully know the extent of atrocities committed by American Empire. As you know, history is written by the victors. What little we do know suggests we could be the worst global offenders over the last 30 years. We imprison our citizens at a higher rate than any other nation. We engage in more wars, and have clandestine involvement in still more (estimates vary, but on the high end the figures are staggering). We provide the means of oppression to brutal despots to retain trade advantages. We manipulate the global economy, potentially starving millions, just to collect on our loans. We rationalize the torture of our enemies. We treat sovereignty like a worry for lesser nations. We shred our own constitution, while suggesting it as a blueprint for others to follow. I mean... what do you want? A fucking bar chart? These aren't trading cards. You can't just flip over your ballot to look at their moral batting average.

War. Huh! Yeah! What are you good for? This.

I, for one, welcome more war if it gets us cool shit like this!

1. Why is it that the more we move away from social democracy and towards fundamentalist capitalism, the more stratified our culture becomes. With record high profits, record low taxes, deregulation of the financial sector and privatization of the government, why is there more corruption, more inequality, more violence, more war, more unemployment, more inflation, more poverty and more misery rather than less. Why are your beliefs so at odds with reality?

And also, individualism is a zero sum game by definition - my me mine. Collectivism is a ‘multi-sum’ game by definition - us we ours. You have it completely backwards. You can’t have it both ways. A functioning democracy works in concert with markets and regulates them to make sure they remain working in a 'multi-sum' manner.

2. You didn't explain why countries that lean more towards social democracy have a happier, healthier, better off populous than countries that lean more towards deregulated markets? Do you dispute this disparity? If so, back it up. Why is it that the more we stray from the New Deal in our own country, the worse our country suffers?

3. Liberals oppose human science? As in eugenics? Liberals prioritize tribalism over science? What does that even mean? Knowledge is useless unless it can make you money? This section is incomprehensible. This is an area of argument I've not heard before. I'd be interested to hear you flesh it out in a more straightforward manner.

4. Cool, let’s get to the heart of the problem:

What does capitalism have to do with liberty? Doesn’t it seem manipulative to define your partisan economic outlook as the embodiment of liberty? How would you feel if I started using social democracy and liberty as the same word? (note to self: fun argument applications here.) How would unregulated markets deal with chattel or wage slavery, labor abuse, environmental destruction, violence, unemployment, vast social inequity, or other kinds of oppression? Why would unregulated markets care that people are suffering?

Why has there never been a successful free market society?

Why is it that the individual tenets of the free market (lowering taxes,lowering wages,deregulation,privatization,austerity) seem to have such a negative and destructive effect on society?

>> ^blankfist:

[W]hat's Obama's position on US Imperialism?

He's against it.

>> ^blankfist:
Is he going to finally end the wars?

He's always said he would. He just put out a budget that counts the savings from him doing so. Over 100,000 troops have been withdrawn from Iraq, with the remainder due out by the end of the year, and troops are now starting to withdraw from Afghanistan.

>> ^blankfist:
What about Guantanamo Bay?

He gave an executive order ordering it closed. But Congress blocked him. If you cared enough about this topic to read up on it, or even one of the many times I've explained the problem, you'd know this one can't be fixed by Presidential wand-waving.

>> ^blankfist:
Or more importantly what about the 700+ bases in over 130 countries overseas? Is he closing those down?

If they're not actively fighting anyone, I'm not too worried about it. I'd like to see us reduce our military presence around the world, but I figure reducing the military's budget overall is all that's really required, and Obama and Democrats generally are on board for that.

>> ^blankfist:
What about the billions the federal government gives in corporate welfare? Is he getting rid of that?

That's congress's bag, but yes. That's literally in the budget proposal Cafferty, the Washington Times, and you yourself are decrying, and counting as eeeeevil "tax increases". Obama's proposal includes a $200 billion dollar cut to farm subsidies, and the elimination of gas & oil subsidies, plus the elimination a large number of smaller-ticket subsidies and tax exemptions.

>> ^blankfist:
Until he does those things, I'm getting tired of hearing your side chanting his praises and raising taxes and whatever other nonsense you like to spout.

But that's the thing, he would do all of those things, but Republicans block him using every trick in the book. Plus, ever since 2010 they've held the House, and won't let any of what you claim to want passed even come to the floor.

>> ^blankfist:
You're the party of war now. Enjoy it, but don't expect me to tag along for the ride into the dirt.


But you are tagging along for the ride into the dirt. You're still living in the US, and you're still parroting right-wing talking points all over the place. You carry water for the Republicans, and then pretend like saying "I'm a libertarian who opposes war" absolves you of all responsibility for generally helping the real "party of War" into power.

And rather than face up to the reality of what you're doing, you cook up these absurd justifications that fly entirely in the face of reality, like "liberals want more wars".

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...

Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.

And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.

"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.

*Off soapbox.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^aurens:
"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...

I think NR gets that, but I can only speak for myself:
Let's say RP gets his ideology through to the presidency and would have 76% of all seats filled with people that share the same ideology, supreme court as well, and ditto for the military (just for completeness). Abolish the national health care system and all other governmental social securities. All regulations and all subsidies get canned, plus: No more wars on foreign soil. Small government.
So let's assume that all people who were laid off in the social sector are immediately hired by the free market companies, all the laid off military personnel from foreign bases find some jobs. Plus: Everyone's net pay comes out as it would be without the taxes.
Let's assume patent laws are still in existence: Drug companies holding a patent can charge whatever price they want, other companies would have to field the costly research themselves to come up with a similar patent. --> costly and ineffective.
If there are no more patents, no company would do research for new patents to stay in business.

People can get fired on a whim without regulations. As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce. Wages will be low, as there will be enough replacement workforce. People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies), expensive public transport (no subsidies, high prices for gas) and their rents (which would most likely also be high, as their landlords need more money).
Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded. The underfunded ones only pay out for immediate threats of life. Only few charities with rich backers have enough income to provide for their employees and selectively only grant moneys as dictated yb their rich backer: Most likely to employees of his firm. What happens to people without jobs? Completely dependant on charity. Around the few charitable organisations, slums are built by the people who rely on the distributed food. Many of these people get hired for the day just for a little money and a bit of food.
Soem are kept by rich people as their personal poor they care for (see India).
People start flocking to the remaining rich states, large areas of middle-America are depopulated, as the aging communities cannot sustain themselves. Farmer is the most popular job again.
The poor revolt, the underfunded police force joins them. Private security of the rich fires into the crowds.
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.