This is why Comey and the FBI's role in this election is so corrosive. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/before-election-fbi-is-questioning-muslims-about-terror So the FBI is questioning Muslim leaders on the eve of the election. It's not irrational to wonder if it's a form of voter intimidation. Which is a complete ********ing shame. One reason it's important for the Dems to win the Senate is because then they can have hearings about what the hell is going on at the FBI.
Not unless they get big enough to not be a third party, no. Rugged individualist hipster maverick homebrewers don't cavre out enough of a niche quite yet. And what happens if one of these third parties becomes major and not so kewl anymore among the laser-bearded Starbucks brigade? Will their fans drop them like a band who's made it?
It's cute the way you use "wrongthink" in the same post in which you imply someone isn't a principled pacifist if they don't vote the way you think they should.
No, I'm using "wrongthink" because there's a whole message board full of people (possibly including yourself) who think those who don't vote the way they like are full-throated OtherTeam supporters, if not rhetorically, then in deed. "Pacifist" implies placing an outsized importance on the principles of non-violence and non-aggression in almost all cases. If you didn't mean "pacifist" and instead meant something like "would prefer non-violence", then say so.
Can Ausie Sheila's vote over here? Didn't think so but they do want their say. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...p-on-election-day_us_5820afcde4b0d9ce6fbd7a08
Where do you get the "outsized importance" part? A pacifist is against all war. I am against all war. You can't just decide that a pacifist only counts as a pacifist if they put that value above all other values. I mean, maybe that's your own personal feeling, but it's sure not the definition of the word. I'm a pacifist. I'm against all forms of violence and I believe all wars are unjustifiable. I'm also a pragmatist and a realist, as well as, while we're at it, a humanist, a progressive, a feminist, an environmentalist, and several other things. (These aren't clubs I'm in, just words that happen to best describe my values.) You and I have different ideas about the best way to achieve a world without war. Mine doesn't happen to involve impotent gestures toward propping up an untenable third party. That's all.
Your idea for how to achieve a world without war is to give a woman who has already gotten us involved in a couple and voted for our two longest ones full executive power? That's one hell of a way to get there. You believe that all wars are unjustifiable, but you are excusing multiple wars by your support of a hawk. So you're a consequentialist pacifist-not-really? I mean, you said right there that you adhere to a philosophy that is against all war and that no war is justifiable, but you plan to vote - in a safe state - for a war-monger. Fantastic.
But, it's Hillary Clinton, she means well. The people who die in the wars that she will start will feel better about dying than the ones who died in the wars she didn't support, which were... um... well surely Vietnam, everyone opposed that. When she was student body president at Wellesley College in the late 1960s, Hillary Clinton, by her own account, stayed up all night trying to talk other students out of protests against the Vietnam War. Oh.
Intentions uber alles! Holy shit. I mean, I know she was a "Goldwater Girl", but damn. My wife's old Seven Sisters T-shirt proclaiming Hillary's attendance at one of the member schools somehow failed to mention that.
If we're going to talk Orwell and pacifism, I think y'all need to read this: Pacifism and the War -- George Orwell This is the piece in which Orwell suggests that pacifism is objectively pro-fascist.
Given that foreign policy is the primary purview of the Executive, why isn't that concern overwhelming?
Good thing, then, that I'm not a pacifist and never called myself that, eh? Nor that the vast bulk of libertarians consider themselves such, preferring to draw several distinctions where violence is in fact, justifiable. The NAP is, after all, not a pacifist principle.
My idea for how to achieve anything is to work within the system that exists, to work with a coalition of other voters to actually get our candidate in power, then keep pressure on that person to enact the agenda we want. My idea for how to achieve things is NOT to vote for someone I don't agree with and don't believe would make a remotely good President, thusly making no point that anyone will hear and having no meaningful effect on anything. But you do you.
Maybe you can give $1M to get 5 minutes of Bill's time.... That's how to work within the current system, right?
We're not really talking about that, but like Timon, I don't identify as a pacifist either, so... So instead you'll vote for the complete opposite of a pacifist with the goal of... convincing her to abandon decades of belief and do a 180? How do you think that works out for you? I'm going to say rather poorly.
How has that worked out with Obama and company? Have you been out on the ramparts putting pressure on the establishment? But you don't agree with whomever you are supposedly voting for on something you seem to identify with sufficient importance to declare an affinity with a deeply-held philosophy regarding conflict. So you're voting for someone you "disagree with" on because muttermuttermutterlibertariansaresmug! So, I would like to hear of your activities in "keeping pressure" on Hillary, as she moves from "kinetic action" to "kinetic action" for four years.
I'm not going to speak for @Demosthenes here, but I will expand upon the Orwellian point above. It's one thing to consider yourself a pacifist, but depending on the political situation, acting upon one's pacifism might be, for instance, objectively pro-fascist in the way Orwell suggests. In that case, your "pacifism" should not be the "overwhelming" concern that dictates your political choices and actions. This Orwellian thought is not unrelated to the Trump phenomenon. I'd also note that if you're a pacifist, you should probably evaluate candidates in terms of their propensity to destabilize the global order. Destabilizing that order tends to lead to war. You both miss the point: you are attacking someone else because you don't think they're being a good pacifist. I'm pointing out that your attacks are nonsense.
Well put, sir. There have been some other good posts as well. I guess just to chime in, Assange would say he is for all transparency and will take it wherever he can get it, regardless of outcome. In terms of Trump or HRC my logic is, well, I cant exclude Trump from being W. Bush on nuukclear steriods/demagogue, so therefore regardless of how corrupt she may or may not be, she may only be the default. My personal hope is that, if indeed guilty, she goes quickly, my experience tells me both HRC and the republicans will keep her on the ticket for another nightmare in 4 years where she will then run against Vince McMahnon from the WWE and its dejavu all over again.
I'm not an idiot. War is baked into our culture, our politics, our economy. I'm not so precious that I think one President is gonna fix that. You think your presidential vote will do a single damn thing to change it? Pacifism is a long term project, not an every-four-years wedge issue.