George H. W. Bush voting for Clinton

[KingsGambit]

Y'all seem to forget that when you vote for someone it might not be because you support them but rather it is because you oppose who he/she is running against.

I don't think this distinction is significant. That's really how all my votes end up being because there's never anybody I 100% agree with and I suspect most people could say the same.

[rogue06]

I don't think this distinction is significant. That's really how all my votes end up being because there's never anybody I 100% agree with and I suspect most people could say the same.

I don't think even fervent supporters of a candidate agree with them 100%. The difference is do you feel like you need to take a shower after voting for someone only because the alternative was worse?

[JimL]

Actually, I'm considered generally slightly right of centre in the UK, and we'd consider Hillary right wing too. She's only left wing by the standards of a right wing country.

So in this instance, though I don't doubt starlight is very left wing, he's not far off a 'outside the US' view of Hillary.

Well Hillary voted with Sanders, the most liberal member, 93% of the time, and she is considered, along with Elizabeth Warren and B. Obama, to be just slightly to the right of him. I think people are confusing Hillary's actual stances on the issues with her compromising in order to move things forward. She calls herself a progressive, rather than a liberal, for that reason. Where people get the idea that she is right wing, or conservative, by any ones standards is beyond me.

[Starlight]

Perhaps from an economic perspective Hillary is right of center, but it seems to me that the left in general in America is often socially on target with the rest of the world.

But by that do you mean that the left in the US aligns with the average of the rest of the West (i.e. a centrist position) or that liberals in the US are as liberal as liberals in the rest of the West?

I think it could be argued that the reason the Democratic party sometimes seems right of center compared to Europe is because they know they have to kowtow to half the voters in the US who are staunchly capitalist and conservative.

There are a number of aspects of US social and economic policy that are just waaay off the political continuum of other Western countries, e.g.
a. Lack of universal healthcare
b. Lack of paid parental leave
c. Off-the-charts military spending
d. Lack of mandatory annual leave
e. Off-the-charts imprisonment levels
f. Prison rape being taken for granted
g. Off-the-charts homelessness
h. The death penalty
i. Police brutality
j. Gun deaths
...just to name a few, and I'm probably forgetting several major things. There is probably not a single major political party in the entire rest of the Western world (including even right-wing ones) who, if they were put in power in the US, wouldn't hit the emergency button and immediately try to rush through legislation to deal with those things as soon as possible. The fact that the US differs so much on major issues to every other political party in the Western world, makes it difficult to plot on the same spectrum. However the Democratic party does seem to want to address a lot of those issues, and with policies that would look right-wing by the standards of most countries' political spectrums, so it's somewhat reasonable to describe the Democrats as "right-wing" internationally, whereas the Republicans are off-the-charts in bonkersville as far as the rest of the Western world is concerned. One of my friends said this week "the US will catch up with the rest of the West at some point in our lifetimes", but I wasn't so sure, because I think corruption is so entrenched in the US that not only is there an entire political party that spends all its time trying to sabotage government regulation and taxation in order to help the rich exploit everyone else (i.e. the Republican party), but that the Democratic party has been forced to become almost as corrupt in order to compete, and so I'm not sure the US will be able to escape the increasingly entrenched oligarchy it has created.

I'm certain that if they thought they could get away with it, they'd be much further left than they are.

Just before Bill Clinton's election the Democratic party made a conscious decision to move right on the political spectrum, as they had been losing elections for 12 years and they perceived the problem to have been that they were too far left and that voters had come to view being left-wing / liberal as bad. (The right had spent some years demonizing the term 'liberal', and it's only now beginning to reemerge as a positive term) Under Bill Clinton the Dems followed as policy called "triangulation" which meant going as far towards the Republican positions as they could, in order to capture the moderate and centrist voters. That worked okay short-term, however it took the enthusiasm out of the actual left-ists because their party had betrayed their values and democratic politicians were no longer speaking out constantly in favor of liberal and left-wing views. (A similar phenomena happened to the Labour parties in the UK and NZ) Much of the enthusiasm behind the rise of Bernie Sanders (as with Jeremy Corbyn in the UK) has been that a politician is now once more openly espousing the kinds of left-wing viewpoints that were abandoned in the 80s when the parties "triangulated" to become right-wing-lite.

However, since the 80s, the Dems (and Labour in the UK and NZ) have filled out their political ranks with politicians who agreed with the party line. So while in the 80s a lot of them were still true-leftist liberals who were pretending to be center/center-right to get elected, that changed over time and the parties are now choc full of actual center-right politicians. That's why the Dem politicians hated Sanders and all backed Hillary, and why nearly every politician in Labour in the UK is throwing a tantrum about Jeremy Corbyn because he is daring to take their center-right party back to the left again where it used to be and they are extremely unhappy about that.

Also, I don't think the Democratic party really represent the left in America to the degree that some people imagine. I have a number of friends who are far far left extremists, anarchists, animal-rights activists. They hate the Democratic party almost as much as they hate the Republican. There are a lot of people in the US that think that way.

Agreed. Very few progressive/liberal activists have anything except contempt for the Democrats. You'd have to watch an awful lot of TYT before you see them say anything nice about democrats. While they hate the Republicans even more, they in no way view the democrats as representing their views.

[seanD]

I do apply the same standard to myself, just to be fair. I'm voting for Clinton. I can't stand her but I think she's slightly more reasonable, but I think the act of voting makes myself open to be labeled as a "supporter". After all, casting the ballot literally means you are trying to get them elected.

I think what CP is doing is separating himself from the Trump cult. There are rational people who will vote for Trump simply to keep Hillary out, and then there's the Trump cult -- the deluded ones that enthusiastically believe he'll sideline his massive ego and showman nature, actually pull America out of the economic disaster it's in, end the widespread systemic political and corporate corruption that has infested Washington, and actually "make America great again." That's the cult he doesn't want to be apart of. Much like I'm sure you would want to separate yourself from the deluded pro-Hillary crowd (the JimLs) that stand behind her with pro-Hillary signs, cheering gleefully at her every word.

[demi-conservative]

So in this instance, though I don't doubt starlight is very left wing, he's not far off a 'outside the US' view of Hillary.

In Motherland you Westerners are all liberal!!!

[Adrift]

But by that do you mean that the left in the US aligns with the average of the rest of the West (i.e. a centrist position) or that liberals in the US are as liberal as liberals in the rest of the West?

Liberal in the rest of the world.

There are a number of aspects of US social and economic policy that are just waaay off the political continuum of other Western countries, e.g.
a. Lack of universal healthcare
b. Lack of paid parental leave
c. Off-the-charts military spending
d. Lack of mandatory annual leave
e. Off-the-charts imprisonment levels
f. Prison rape being taken for granted
g. Off-the-charts homelessness
h. The death penalty
i. Police brutality
j. Gun deaths
...just to name a few, and I'm probably forgetting several major things.

What are you talking about? Most Democrats aren't for any of these things, And I don't know anyone who is for prison rape, police brutality, off the charts homelessness, and gun deaths. As for "Off-the-charts military spending", it's not like New Zealand is going to carry the weight of the free world on their shoulders anytime soon.

There is probably not a single major political party in the entire rest of the Western world (including even right-wing ones) who, if they were put in power in the US, wouldn't hit the emergency button and immediately try to rush through legislation to deal with those things as soon as possible. The fact that the US differs so much on major issues to every other political party in the Western world, makes it difficult to plot on the same spectrum.

Likely they'd run into the exact same issues as the current parties do. Part of the problem is that, because we're a melting pot culture, we don't have a lot of the same cohesion that many other nations take for granted, and probably more to the point, the one thing we are cohesive on is this concept of inalienable rights. This idea that we're allowed to really strive for life and liberty, and pursue happiness is unique. It allows quite a bit of bad, as well as quite a bit of good. With great responsibility..., and all of that. Oh, also adding to all of this....the US is vaaast. It's still very wild wild West out here. NZ is like, what, the size of California? It's easy to control everyone and everything in a country that size.

[Starlight]

What are you talking about?

That's a list of things I think the average person in the rest of the Western world would describe as major, major, problems in the US that need to be urgently addressed before the US could rightly be considered a civilized nation.

Most Democrats aren't for any of these things, And I don't know anyone who is for prison rape, police brutality, off the charts homelessness, and gun deaths.

The Republicans propose doing almost nothing to address any of those problems. The Democrats for the most part seem to generally want address those topics, albeit with half-hearted and tepid policies. That's what makes the Democrats sane and right-wing from an international perspective, and the Republicans just loony.

As for "Off-the-charts military spending", it's not like New Zealand is going to carry the weight of the free world on their shoulders anytime soon.

Here's all the biggest military spenders in the world:


The US's rate of military spending is insane beyond any rational or reasonable amount. That level is simply indefensible. If it was approximately equal to Russia + China, that would be arguably reasonable - although the rest of the US allies listed there outspend Russia and China put together even without any contribution from the US.

Russia has 17 military facilities in foreign countries, China has 1, Britain has 18, and France has 12... the US has 662. That's not a rationally defensible amount of military spending.

Part of the problem is that, because we're a melting pot culture, we don't have a lot of the same cohesion that many other nations take for granted

Plenty of other nations are multicultural. It's not at all unique to the US. It's hard to make exact comparisons, but my country seems to be slightly more multicultural / multiethnic than the US for example.

and probably more to the point, the one thing we are cohesive on is this concept of inalienable rights.

All other Western countries recognize international human rights, and most have them entrenched in their constitutions. My own country lacks a constitution but has a special Bill of Rights law, which provides guidelines for interpreting other laws in a way that maximizes liberty.

This idea that we're allowed to really strive for life and liberty, and pursue happiness is unique.

That's some serious propaganda you're smoking there dude.

The best comparative analysis I can find of freedom in different countries is the human freedom index which ranks countries on personal freedoms and economic freedoms. The US ranks 31st on personal freedoms, and 20th overall.

It's easy to control everyone and everything in a country that size.

Not quite sure what you're getting at there... it's not Nazi-ville here, we rank as the 5th freest country in the world on that list.

[Tassman]

I wish to God there were another alternative. I will hold my nose and vote for him as a protest vote against Hillary.

If you're voting for Trump, then you're supporting Trump and that vote may just be the one that gets him into power...heaven help the world. And it'll be your fault.

[Adrift]

That's a list of things I think the average person in the rest of the Western world would describe as major, major, problems in the US that need to be urgently addressed before the US could rightly be considered a civilized nation.

Oh, so basically you were on an anti-US rant. You just used my post as a soapbox. Didn't bother reading the rest of your diatribe.

[Roy]

Supporter

1. a person who approves of and encourages someone or something (typically a public figure, a movement or party, or a policy).
2. Heraldry - a representation of an animal or other figure, typically one of a pair, holding up or standing beside an escutcheon.

A) I don't fit definition 1
2) I don't have a clue what 2 means

One of the figures, typically animals, shown on either side of the shield in a full depiction of a coat of arms. The lion and the unicorn in the British coat of arms here are both heraldic supporters.

arms.jpg

[Sparko]

I have quite often in the past looked at the many rankings here.

and most of those polls on that page rank Reagan pretty high on the list, eh?

People are very split as to how they view Reagan. Conservatives idolize him simply because people like Rush Limbaugh have talked him up constantly. Whereas liberals range from apathy to hatred.

The polls are from both sides combined. So unless the US is almost entirely conservative, a heck of a lot of liberals must like Reagan.

Not of any rankings done by serious historians (e.g. two surveys of historians done in 1996 rank Reagan as the 25th and 26th best president in US history, a different poll of scholars in 2010 put him at 18th). According to almost every single analysis by scholars the top 3 US presidents are FDR, Lincoln, and Washington.

However if you survey random people in the US and ask them about the best president, lots and lots of conservatives mindlessly say Reagan, while more sensible people are split between FDR, Lincoln, Washington and others. What you're essentially measuring by such a survey is the level of conservative brainwashing occurring in the general populace.

You sound like you are desperate to hold on to your belief. To the point of making up stuff to counter the polls now.

[Roy]

I do apply the same standard to myself, just to be fair. I'm voting for Clinton. I can't stand her but I think she's slightly more reasonable, but I think the act of voting makes myself open to be labeled as a "supporter". After all, casting the ballot literally means you are trying to get them elected.

Then why don't you two, since your reluctant votes for Hump and Trillery will effectively cancel out, agree not to vote for either of them and instead vote for candidates you actually prefer?

[Mountain Man]

You sound like you are desperate to hold on to your belief. To the point of making up stuff to counter the polls now.

Haven't you learned by now? Anything that (ostensibly) supports Dimbulb is the God's honest truth, and anything that refutes him is to be treated with suspicion and dismissed with the wave of a hand.

[Roy]

Oh, also adding to all of this....the US is vaaast. It's still very wild wild West out here. NZ is like, what, the size of California? It's easy to control everyone and everything in a country that size.

New Zealand has a lower population density than the USA. The NZ population is even more spread out than the US one, and correspondingly harder to control.