The General American Politics Thread

[shdowhunt60]

1 minute ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Though we should be careful not to criticize losing the will to fight. After all, it's part of the reason we're independent in the first place.

Never mind the idea it's necessarily a bad thing would be catastrophic for humanity, because then wars would never end. "Blood for the blood God" is not the correct approach to war, but rather "is the goal worth the losses? Do we actually have a chance of achieving our goal?"

But at the same time, we were already committed. And when we left, it was worse for the Vietnamese than it was before we came in. It's the same case for the Middle East right now. Yes, we probably shouldn't have went in the first place, but at the same time we're leaving it worse than it was before.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

11 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Perhaps I made the wrong word choice. While they weren't fighting with third world weaponry, it looks like in most categories (it looks like anti-air, armor, and aircraft are the main exceptions) Soviet forces were not top of the line, despite their absolute quality. This is a natural consequence of economic realities. 

Anyway, it appears I overestimated North Korea's numbers relative the South. I remembered they had 1/4 of their population in the military at one point, so I assumed they would have an edge in numbers... but apparently not much of one.

For once in his life, it seems Trump is not an idiot, because he understands the American presence doesn't really have much of an impact in the final outcome. Sounds like we're more there to preclude Chinese intervention than anything.

I wouldn't say that American presence doesn't have much of an impact, but rather the final outcome would be the same regardless. A superpower backing a middle power like South Korea, even with 30,000 troops is a big impact if you ask me - don't forget some of the equipment that goes along with those US troops.

South Korea did get the THAAD missile defense, right? Or is that still on the backburner?

[Tani Coyote]

4 minutes ago, shdowhunt60 said:

But at the same time, we were already committed. And when we left, it was worse for the Vietnamese than it was before we came in. It's the same case for the Middle East right now. Yes, we probably shouldn't have went in the first place, but at the same time we're leaving it worse than it was before.

Sounds to me like a reason to avoid intervention in the first place, not continuing interventions.

Never mind it will cost more lives to remain there. American ones in particular, and that's what the general public tends to care more about.

Though I think going back to Iraq is an elephant in the room that no politician really wants to address. ISIS, despite all the attacks on it, seems to still be able to inspire attacks all over the world. It would be optimistic to think that what happened in Paris and Brussels can't happen here.

[shdowhunt60]

Just now, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Sounds to me like a reason to avoid intervention in the first place, not continuing interventions.

Of course. I agree wholeheartedly. What I was saying is that maybe if we're going to be making these kinds of actions we should actually follow them through, instead of going halfway. Like think of how Japan, Germany, and South Korea turned out as opposed to Vietnam or the Middle East. 

Just now, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Never mind it will cost more lives to remain there. American ones in particular, and that's what the general public tends to care more about.

Eh, I don't really see how that's relevant.

Just now, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Though I think going back to Iraq is an elephant in the room that no politician really wants to address. ISIS, despite all the attacks on it, seems to still be able to inspire attacks all over the world. It would be optimistic to think that what happened in Paris and Brussels can't happen here.

Not sure how that's relevant? The key to fighting a group through ISIS doesn't involve large organized military forces. That's never worked against guerrilla tactics, which is precisely what we're seeing here.

And my thing isn't to bomb Iraq more, it's to help it rebuild, which is kinda the big thing we're missing here. We wrecked their shit, we should help them out simply as part of a friendly gesture. I like to think that a good fight ends with a beer so to speak. Hot tea in this case.

[Tani Coyote]

20 minutes ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Of course. I agree wholeheartedly. What I was saying is that maybe if we're going to be making these kinds of actions we should actually follow them through, instead of going halfway. Like think of how Japan, Germany, and South Korea turned out as opposed to Vietnam or the Middle East. 

Those countries had long-established governments. It was relatively easy to pacify them, because they were already pacified; it was merely a matter of cutting off the head and putting a new one in its place.

We can't do that with Iraq, Afghanistan, or most third world nations. This is the age of nationalism, and people of different cultures generally do not want to live in the same society (thank you Europe for putting a bunch of different cultures in artifically-created nation-states). We should not have tried to help Iraq, but should have instead cut it into several pieces and helped those.

But that raises the question of if these independent nations would have been as capable of resisting Iranian objectives, which is probably a no.

All things considered, it would probably have been best to just let Saddam stay in charge, while trying to slowly push the country towards liberal ideas. This isn't that crazy, as the last century is full of examples of tyrannical regimes that slowly liberalized. Guys like Kim Jong Un are the exception.

Quote

Eh, I don't really see how that's relevant.

Because body counts destroy public perception.

It's part of why we're seeing shifts to PMCs. A bunch of mercenaries dying doesn't have the same effect as a soldier dying. A mercenary is a hired killer, whereas a soldier's first duty is protecting their country.

Quote

Not sure how that's relevant? The key to fighting a group through ISIS doesn't involve large organized military forces. That's never worked against guerrilla tactics, which is precisely what we're seeing here.

Because we left a mess there and will inevitably have to clean it up, because the mess has given rise to bacteria that will infect us with disease otherwise.

There are counter-insurgency tactics, yes, but let's be honest: the only really effective one is to win over hearts and minds. We're going to have to convince the Iraqi people to defy ISIS, and that will most likely require a military presence. People are hesitant to rise up on their own, but happy to join something that's already there.

And then the real clincher: I imagine they remember we're the reason Iraq is in this mess in the first place. They probably want our "help" the same way Native Americans do at this point. Doubly so given our traditional tendency to overthrow friendly governments that didn't put our interests first.

Quote

And my thing isn't to bomb Iraq more, it's to help it rebuild, which is kinda the big thing we're missing here. We wrecked their shit, we should help them out simply as part of a friendly gesture. I like to think that a good fight ends with a beer so to speak. Hot tea in this case.

We can't help it rebuild without bombing it, though. ISIS is not a stable state actor and needs to be removed from the chess board.

Then the country is so fragile that, once more, it might be best carved up into smaller states. But that once more runs the risk of creating small states that won't be as effective in checking Iran or even somebody like Turkey. Yes, there are military alliances and confederacies as options, but Lord knows those can still be tough to work without trust between the members.

[shdowhunt60]

25 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Because we left a mess there and will inevitably have to clean it up, because the mess has given rise to bacteria that will infect us with disease otherwise.

Mmm. Isn't that basically what I was saying? Sorry, I got lost in the metaphor.

25 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

There are counter-insurgency tactics, yes, but let's be honest: the only really effective one is to win over hearts and minds. We're going to have to convince the Iraqi people to defy ISIS, and that will most likely require a military presence. People are hesitant to rise up on their own, but happy to join something that's already there.

I'd argue the best way to fight insurgency is simple: arm the peasantry.

Vikings, barbarians, terrorists, disillusioned psycopaths: they're all the same. They move in and attack too fast for either a police force or the military to respond. But the reason why they're effective is that they attack targets that are incapable of defending themselves.

Adam Lanza targeted an elementary school. James Holmes specifically chose the one theater he could find that banned concealed carry. The San Bernadino shooters attacked a hospital, for much the same reasons.

The historically best way to fight off these people to make it so that the things that they target aren't vulnerable. Hence, arm the peasantry.

25 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

And then the real clincher: I imagine they remember we're the reason Iraq is in this mess in the first place. They probably want our "help" the same way Native Americans do at this point. Doubly so given our traditional tendency to overthrow friendly governments that didn't put our interests first.

Historical precedent for douchery shouldn't exclude not being a douche, though.

25 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

We can't help it rebuild without bombing it, though. ISIS is not a stable state actor and needs to be removed from the chess board.

With this, I can agree. Violently and swiftly preferably.

25 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

Then the country is so fragile that, once more, it might be best carved up into smaller states. But that once more runs the risk of creating small states that won't be as effective in checking Iran or even somebody like Turkey. Yes, there are military alliances and confederacies as options, but Lord knows those can still be tough to work without trust between the members.

Perhaps the best way to prevent a repeat of Yugoslavia.

[Tornado]

20 hours ago, caseykz said:

'Questionable relevance' well, it's not supposed to be because S Korea is technically one of your biggest trading partners and basically not letting China close to those assets?

That's not really relevant to what I said. Vietnam was lost because we, meaning the United States, didn't have the political or public will for the primarily US-led war to drag on until it could be "won;" especially since domestically who gave a shit? Korea was lost because we, meaning the United States, didn't have the political or public will for the primarily US-led war to drag on until it could be "won;" especially since domestically who gave a shit?

 

 

South Korea, in comparison, isn't going to lose the will to fight a second Korean War; certainly not if North Korea did something heinous to start it. Domestically, South Koreans are going to give an awful lot of shits.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

I'd argue the best way to fight insurgency is simple: arm the peasantry.

Vikings, barbarians, terrorists, disillusioned psycopaths: they're all the same. They move in and attack too fast for either a police force or the military to respond. But the reason why they're effective is that they attack targets that are incapable of defending themselves

The US did that when the Soviet Union was fucking around in Afghanistan.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

17 minutes ago, Tornado said:

The US did that when the Soviet Union was fucking around in Afghanistan.

Boy...how ironic that this came to bite us in the ass 20 years afterwards.

[Dizcrybe]

4 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

I'd argue the best way to fight insurgency is simple: arm the peasantry.

Vikings, barbarians, terrorists, disillusioned psycopaths: they're all the same. They move in and attack too fast for either a police force or the military to respond. But the reason why they're effective is that they attack targets that are incapable of defending themselves.

Adam Lanza targeted an elementary school. James Holmes specifically chose the one theater he could find that banned concealed carry. The San Bernadino shooters attacked a hospital, for much the same reasons.

The historically best way to fight off these people to make it so that the things that they target aren't vulnerable. Hence, arm the peasantry.

I'd argue this works better in theory than it does in execution.

By giving someone a firearm (I assume that's what you mean here), you're essentially giving them the power to kill. And some people will realize that and treat that power with the weight and responsibility that it deserves.

But what of the ones that won't? The ones that just see them as a handy way of "settling" a disagreement? Should we really arm them just on the offchance someone might hoot up their workplace?

And you say "arm the peasantry", but Lanza, Holmes, the San Bernadino guys... they were part of the peasantry. They were seemingly Average Joes before, for whatever reason, they decided some people had to die. See, the peasantry is already kinda armed, and I think that's the problem here. Letting all of these people have firearms seems less like it would solve the current problem of mass shootings, and more that it would not only make it worse, but create new problems as well.

(Granted, I realize that firearms aren't the only things you can kill someone with, but they get the job done faster. Guns can be fired from a distance; with knives, rope, your bare hands, what-have-you, you have to get close to your target.)

(EDIT: I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I don't know how much this applies to Iraq and ISIS, but I know that for America, it'd ultimately do more harm than good.)

Edited June 3, 2016 by Dizcrybe

[Nepenthe]

Assuming that you could somehow ensure that 100% of the population who was given arms in any specific measures of programs would not: A.) have them stolen, B.) willingly give them to terrorist sympathizers, C.) have them mishandled, or D.) have a devolution of their environment or mental state to either cause gun violence or for them to join said terrorists, you also have to realize that people are woefully unprepared for sudden gun fights. A recent college shooting we had months ago revealed that there was an armed student on campus, but he didn't want to get involved for fear of being misidentified by police and being killed or being killed by the actual gunman. Simply having a gun doesn't turn you into a super character from Wanted. So, for this to work, you're going to have to train people to function under the stress of a surprise life or death situation, which requires money and military intervention that neither the American people are willing to spend nor the Iraqi people are willing to accept. Just a bad idea all around.

[shdowhunt60]

1 hour ago, Dizcrybe said:

I'd argue this works better in theory than it does in execution.

By giving someone a firearm (I assume that's what you mean here), you're essentially giving them the power to kill. And some people will realize that and treat that power with the weight and responsibility that it deserves.

I'm glad you think well of some people, but:

1 hour ago, Dizcrybe said:

But what of the ones that won't? The ones that just see them as a handy way of "settling" a disagreement? Should we really arm them just on the offchance someone might hoot up their workplace?

Are you truly that cynical that you honestly believe that people would think like this? People don't seriously think like this. Look at the people around you and seriously ask that question: would any of the people you're surrounded by shoot up the place to settle a disagreement? That's nonsensical. Real life isn't a Clint Eastwood film.

1 hour ago, Dizcrybe said:

And you say "arm the peasantry", but Lanza, Holmes, the San Bernadino guys... they were part of the peasantry. They were seemingly Average Joes before, for whatever reason, they decided some people had to die.

Okay, and? My proposition would give people means to defend themselves if that situation arises.  Someone starts shooting, and then someone shoots back, and that's that. Far fewer casualties than to just let them keep shooting.

1 hour ago, Dizcrybe said:

See, the peasantry is already kinda armed, and I think that's the problem here. Letting all of these people have firearms seems less like it would solve the current problem of mass shootings, and more that it would not only make it worse, but create new problems as well.

And I wholeheartedly disagree. The problem, as I see it, is that we're letting barbarians loot the villages completely unopposed. Nobody has been able to substantiate this claim.

1 hour ago, Dizcrybe said:

(Granted, I realize that firearms aren't the only things you can kill someone with, but they get the job done faster. Guns can be fired from a distance; with knives, rope, your bare hands, what-have-you, you have to get close to your target.)

(EDIT: I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I don't know how much this applies to Iraq and ISIS, but I know that for America, it'd ultimately do more harm than good.)

Stop looking through the collectivist lens and look at the individuals surrounding you, please. Ask yourself how these individuals would carry themselves. For each and every single one. Would you say with all honesty that any of these people would willfully pose a hazard around you? And if so, wouldn't you rather have a means to deal with them if they are a hazard? And for the ones that aren't, wouldn't you rather they have a means of protecting themselves then not. 

[Nepenthe]

No one is ever 100% sure about what's going on in someone's life to understand how they will react to any given situation; isolated small events have commonly been the "last straw" for people. People will kill each other over video games and Kool-Aid. Subsequently, we know psychologically and statistically that the mere presence of firearms is likely to increase their chance of being grabbed or being used in a situation where there's aggression, fear, or conflict. Appealing to ridicule by essentially saying "Normal people would never use firearms to solve a conflict!" just doesn't fly.

[Dizcrybe]

33 minutes ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Are you truly that cynical that you honestly believe that people would think like this? People don't seriously think like this. Look at the people around you and seriously ask that question: would any of the people you're surrounded by shoot up the place to settle a disagreement?

Honestly, yes, I think some people would. The same type of people that would shoot up an elementary school or a movie theater or a church or Navy Yard. Yes, there are, like I said, plenty of people who understand the responsibility of owning a gun, but you can't possibly tell me that there aren't some other people who would resort to outright murder like all of the people behind last year's mass shootings. People say "If we just let more people have guns, we wouldn't have this problem," but it's the people with guns that cause the problem.

Also, "someone starts shooting, someone shoots back" is a drastic oversimplification. That would mean that whoever else had a gun would think in the heat of the moment to pull it out, then find exactly where the shooter is, then finally attempt to shoot them before they get shot. Attempt; this is assuming they're a good enough shot to hit what would likely be a moving target in all of the commotion. And all of this assuming that this would-be hero even has the willpower to take someone's life, even under threat of death. You wanna talk individual? Let's do that. The shooter may have decided to act out the events of Hatred. but John Smith was just out grocery shopping. He wasn't prepared to kill anybody. So even if he does think to get out his gun, if the shooter gets to him, and he hesitates, bam, that's it. John Smith is just another casualty. Giving some average civilian a gun doesn't mean they're ready and willing to kill someone, even if that someone has given a second thought to killing them.

37 minutes ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Would you say with all honesty that any of these people would willfully pose a hazard around you? And if so, wouldn't you rather have a means to deal with them if they are a hazard?

You know what I would do if I was out somewhere and I heard someone was shooting? Run. Run as far away from that area as I could as fast as I could. Run to the nearest Metro station and hope that by the grace of God there's a train on the way, or the second nearest if the shooting is taking place right by or even in a Metro station.

[Patticus]

You'll never fully get rid of ISIS, militarily at least, without addressing the non-military reasons underpinning its success and attractiveness. Simply wiping the region clean with munitions and manpower won't kill the ideology, there or elsewhere. At least, not without a coherent and much broader simultaneous campaign of global economic, political and diplomatic efforts - all of which may last for decades - designed to undo the severe alienation that has been allowed to engulf the global Islamic community.
 

As for the idea that someone starting to shoot results in everyone firing back... I mean, where do I begin? Are all involved going to be crack shots, or will one be untrained and the other trained? Are there panicking, screaming bystanders running hither and yon? Is the area well lit, or is it dark - is visibility good or bad? Are the Good Samaritan gunmen going to be able to fell the ne'erdowell without killing innocents themselves? Will the other Good Samaritans, particularly those nearby who didn't witness the commencement of the crime, be able to tell the criminal from the other do-gooder shooters? Presumably, the pandemonium of a shooting probably renders swift and accurate judgments and shooting from citizen gunmen without extensive combat training unlikely.
 

How many events have taken place where a criminal gunman was justifiably felled by an upstanding citizen? To compare, how many legal gun owners have committed their own crimes? How many have committed suicide? Figures exist, collected by the FBI, which tell their own story about what guns are primarily used for in America. In 2012, for every 1 "justifiable" gun homicide, there were 2 accidental gun deaths, 34 criminal gun homicides, and 78 gun suicides. The figures do not paint a rosy picture.

Other figures show that concealed carry permit holders, often held up as those Good Guys With Guns, are far from being perfect actors, and have been responsible for 29 mass shootings of their own, along with a great many suicides and unintentional shootings.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

3 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Are you truly that cynical that you honestly believe that people would think like this? People don't seriously think like this. Look at the people around you and seriously ask that question: would any of the people you're surrounded by shoot up the place to settle a disagreement? That's nonsensical. Real life isn't a Clint Eastwood film.

They might very well do that given the crazy stuff people have killed other people over, which is the very risk people against the idea probably don't want to take. And given that we've had police officers, people who're supposed to be better trained than the ordinary joe, shoot unarmed suspects over minor if not downright bullshit reasons, I don't think the peasantry having weapons would be that much better.

All it takes is just one person with a gun to kill a dozen people who never saw it coming. And while you could very easily argue that giving more people weapons could mitigate that by having more people ready to shoot the crazed gunner, it could just as easily be argued that doing so would likely increase that chance of crazy gunners shooting people or even innocent people shooting other innocent people after getting caught in the crossfire.

Arming the peasantry isn't exactly the easiest solution, much less the best one (and for the record, I'm actually pro-Gun Ownership here) because it could very well perpetuate the problem or even worsen it. If everyone has a gun then there's no telling who might actually use it in legit self-defense, or who might shoot you just because you looked at them the wrong way, or because you argued and threw popcorn at them in a movie theater (no seriously), or because you look like someone who's people they don't take kindly too (i.e. muslims given the islamophobia, or black people given the media's perception) - who might then be shot back in self-defense and turn the very area they're in into a shootout that endangers other people, with those people pulling out guns just to defend themselves from the chaos just in case. Nevermind the legal quagmire and property damage that would have as a result.

Sounds like a slippery slope, I know. But history has shown that people will jump off of it and cause even bigger problems than what was intended to be solved, and these things have happened recently. Not that I think people shouldn't be allowed to purchase and get licenses for their firearms, but we'd need something more stable than simply arming the peasantry.

[Tani Coyote]

I like to think of firearms rather like smaller, more accessible nukes.

While there is some data to show that widespread firearm possession can be a good deterrent, it doesn't seem to really make a difference on ending violence that actually occurs, for the reasons given above. And, just like a nuke, will actually make things worse.

And again just like nukes, it is ultimately desirable they not be used at all. It is much better to look at the underlying issues that cause violence rather than enabling the violence.

"Maybe the insurgents have a valid grievance" is a good place to start for any conflict.

16 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Mmm. Isn't that basically what I was saying? Sorry, I got lost in the metaphor.

No, because pulling out of a war doesn't always cause chaos. Guys like Ho Chi Minh had no issue occupying the rest of Vietnam once we were gone; he clearly had a stable power base.

In Iraq's case, it was held together by a single strongman, and we killed his ass. Cue the whole thing falling apart, being held together by American arms. Once American arms were gone, the place was free to come apart at the seams.

Quote

The historically best way to fight off these people to make it so that the things that they target aren't vulnerable. Hence, arm the peasantry.

This only works assuming there's a united identity. The Viet Cong had great success, because let's face it, most Vietnamese wanted Ho Chi Minh. The Cold War has more than a few examples of us being sore losers when a country decided they wanted Communism.

Then you have places like Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan where there's several competing groups who only briefly united, but quickly turned on each other once the common threat was gone. Giving them all weapons is a HORRIBLE idea, because all those groups are going to fight each other.

In most of these countries, wars are multi-sided. It's not supporters of the state versus an "insurgency," because the insurgents are very often several different factions fighting the government.

Quote

Historical precedent for douchery shouldn't exclude not being a douche, though.

Sure, but our survival instincts tell us to be wary of associating with people who have caused us problems in the past.

It's why Iran's leadership in recent years has said they're willing to work with us, but they want to see some serious good faith on our part. This is not unreasonable, given the last time they tried to protect their interests, we put a tyrant in charge of the place.

The democratization of Iraq has given Iraqis access to far more information than before, and they can quickly derive a lesson by looking at US foreign policy: America is not to be blindly trusted. No matter how good or just our leader seems at a given minute, he is only one man. He could just as easily be followed up by a complete sociopath.

Then you have the fact people tend not to like military forces running around in their country, allied or not. That so many countries allow American bases is rather peculiar if you think about it.

[Hyp3hat]

15 hours ago, shdowhunt60 said:

Are you truly that cynical that you honestly believe that people would think like this? People don't seriously think like this. Look at the people around you and seriously ask that question: would any of the people you're surrounded by shoot up the place to settle a disagreement? That's nonsensical. Real life isn't a Clint Eastwood film.

That's all well and good, but then you said...

Quote

My proposition would give people means to defend themselves if that situation arises.  Someone starts shooting, and then someone shoots back, and that's that. Far fewer casualties than to just let them keep shooting.

What you've just described is a literal action movie scenario! If I were so unlucky to be where a mass shooting was taking place, the prospect of it turning into a firefight between two untrained gunmen would be even scarier! I'm literally twice as likely to die in that scenario, because I'd be in between someone who wants to kill me and a panicking good samaritan, and I don't fancy my odds there. 

[Tani Coyote]

This is ultimately why the fact so many conservative talking heads demonize the "Run, Hide, Fight" ideology as cowardice greatly saddens me. It's a result of this rugged individualism that defines the ideology, this belief in superhuman actors who will appear regularly. While I can admire the Aristotlean conception of humanity, it's not very realistic.

It will always be better to eliminate the sources of violent behavior rather than giving everyone firearms and hope for the best.

And we know that other countries, even ones with a fair number of guns, don't have these problems.

The gun debate tends to distract from a far more sensitive fact: America's rampant social inequality is the reason there is so much violence. Is it a coincidence that mental illness (about 1/4 of Americans have one), crime, distrust towards others, mortality, political partisanship, unhappiness all positively correlate with increased economic inequality?

America did not become wealthy because of capitalism. It became wealthy through vast resources that were put to productive use through ethically unsavory means. We can destroy our vastly inequitable economic structure and still remain great. We may just become even greater.

Market cooperatives are proven to work. They shred the idea that workers are too stupid to manage a company. It sounds to me like we don't really need these bigshot CEOs running everything, when we've proven common people are just as intelligent as them.

Here's a riddle: why do we place so much faith in democracy, but not in socialism? Both share a common idea: we have equal dignity and largely equal mental faculties, so we should be equals in our day to day lives and our future prospects. The idea people are smart enough to run a country, but not a company, is rather queer.

"They ran the company!" Maybe so, but that company would not get anywhere without laborers. I don't think anyone's calling for the CEO to be paid the same as the day laborer, so much as that the gap between the top and bottom in a company is rather large. As I recall, at one point, CEOs were making about 10x as much as their lowest paid workers. They were still having comfortable lives, but were not making so much that their workers had to suffer for it.

[Patticus]

Trump vs Clinton: Race To The Bottom confirmed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36466228

Quote

Clinton 'wins Democratic nomination'

Hillary Clinton has clinched the Democratic Party nomination for US president after reaching the required number of delegates, according to AP.

The news agency's tally puts Mrs Clinton on 2,383 - the number needed to become the presumptive nominee.

She reached the threshold with a big win in Puerto Rico and a burst of last-minute support from party insiders called superdelegates, AP said.

She will become the first female nominee for a major US political party.

So much for the claim that super-delegates have never been instrumental to a candidate winning the nomination.

She probably would have won the nomination anyway, but if they hadn't been a factor, then the narrative would have been (at least much closer to) that of a tight primary race going right down to the wire, rather than Mrs. Super-Delegate Gets To Win. If Sanders can score a win in California though, he might try and fight all the way up to the convention, but the likelihood is that he'll soon pivot towards concentrating on changing the party's platform and policies.

[Tani Coyote]

I think it is a load of bull that superdelegates are able to voice their support anywhere besides the convention.

This basically means that any Bernie supporters will throw in the towel, even though the contest still isn't over until tomorrow night.

It's pretty obvious what happened here. Clinton still didn't have the exact number needed, so a few of her buddies spoke up so she could claim "victory."

If nothing else I can hold out for the unlikely effect of Clinton supporters not bothering to turn up, thus allowing Sanders to swamp the primaries and steal this nomination right from her fingers.

The whole superdelegate system needs to be abolished, anyway. That 20% margin they have allows the Party insiders to pick who they desire over the people, and then they can give their buddies in the media a ring to start saying who the "victor" is.

There's what, 17% of the population still not voting for the Democratic nominee? How is dismissing them when the race is so narrow conceivably democratic?

It's good to know the Democratic Party is still run by the enemies of liberty today, as it was several decades ago. Nixon's realignment was a red herring.

[Tani Coyote]

Looks like Clinton's narrowly leading in California and has taken New Jersey by a good margin.

Going forward, it will be interesting to see what concessions Clinton makes to Sanders to get his support. Furthermore, I hope Sanders has the courage to obstruct President Clinton's efforts if she doesn't keep her promises. Obstruction will help Republican victory in later elections, and that's something neither wants... but it's an effective weapon to get the dominant half of the Party to listen. There's nothing like a game of Mutually-Assured Destruction to get people to work with you. Sanders and his friends have no reason to work with Clinton if she's about as good for them as a GOP leader.

A thought occurs. While it hasn't been successful to my knowledge, sitting Presidents can be competed against for their nomination. With how close the race between these two was, if President Clinton doesn't do a good job, Bernie might very well be able to unseat her in 2020. Yes, she will have the leverage of being President, but if she is a BAD President, then that's not real leverage.

Clinton's victory ultimately stems from an idea that she has the name recognition and connections to get more done. If she DOESN'T get much done, then that may just swing some of her Progressive supporters towards Sanders 4 years from now.

Ronald Reagan ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination in 1976 against President Ford (who went on to lose the general election). It most likely helped give him the recognition needed to easily take the nomination in 1980 regardless.

Sanders has gained enormous visibility and influence from this campaign, even if he ultimately lost. If he can't get Clinton to make some deals, he can still try for President again next time, when Clinton will have whatever costs or benefits her Presidency has brought.

And let's face it, a lot of folks are anxious about the 2017-2021 period. It's very possible there could be an economic hiccup there.

[Patticus]

I don't think that Sanders is going to run again, I just don't think that he'll have the stamina in 4 years' time to do it. Hell, just doing it at his current age has been a remarkable feat. I can see him holding a powerful position in the senate for some time to come, though - alongside his colleague Elizabeth Warren, who looks set to help several new female senators get elected this autumn.

It's up to him now to take the newly woken dragon that is the young, frustrated and angry left half of the party, and steer it towards voting for more left-wing candidates - and hopefully some of them will turn out to be as sincere and genuine as he is.

As for Clinton and the DNC's likely concessions, there'll have to be a few big ones to sate the man; hopefully the entire super-delegate system being done away with will be one of those concessions, as well as a solid pathway to the original single payer vision of the ACA, solid campaign finance reform and much more affordable education. He'll never get everything he wants, so he's going to have to compromise - and I'm sure that he will because he of all people must be aware of how far he can stretch his luck.

[Tani Coyote]

Sanders might not be the one who runs again, but he might just have the brand recognition to support whoever does. If Warren decides to go for it, they might actually be able to give her serious trouble. I imagine that as much as a lot of younger folks like Sanders, they understand he'd be a little too old and so someone else will have to fill his shoes.

On the other hand, I'd be worried that if Clinton does badly, people might unfairly assume it is because she is a woman, harming the success of a Warren campaign. It's in much the same way that Obama's political paralysis has hurt the less-intelligent voter's idea of what a black President can do, even though it's obvious that a lot of his issues are not his fault.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 hours ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

On the other hand, I'd be worried that if Clinton does badly, people might unfairly assume it is because she is a woman, harming the success of a Warren campaign. It's in much the same way that Obama's political paralysis has hurt the less-intelligent voter's idea of what a black President can do, even though it's obvious that a lot of his issues are not his fault.

Might? A lot of them will.

And if anything, that's one of main reasons why, as much as I may not be fond of everything about Clinton, that I really don't want her screwing up. We have enough trivial sexism in this goddamned country as it is.

[Patticus]

I'm not fond of Clinton, but she's probably the closest we'll get in our lifetimes to a James Madison figure - a real policy nerd who knows the ins and outs of everything more than even her team of advisers. If anyone can figure out how to outmaneuver the machinations of the congressional GOP, it's her - although I'm sure they'll try and impeach her for Benghazi or some shit ASAP.

They're going to move to block her at every possible turn, but she knows their playbook well - it's the same one they've been using since '08 -  so she's going to go in guns blazing and so are they.

Also: