Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Ken B]

I did one of those "I Side With" questionnaires (www.isidewith.com), and my top 2 were Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson. Bernie's out, so that leaves Gary I guess.

Third parties usually get my vote anyway. I think I have only ever voted once for the candidate that actually won.

I'm skeptical of those things but I did it. I am closest to Johnson, no great surprise. I am closer to Bernie than Hillary, which is one reason I don't trust these things!

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I'm skeptical of those things but I did it. I am closest to Johnson, no great surprise. I am closer to Bernie than Hillary, which is one reason I don't trust these things!

Yeah, it's nowhere near perfect. But I like that it gives you the chance to give nuanced answers and to assign different levels of importance to the questions.

Last time I took it (in 2012), I remember that Jimmy McMillan, of The Rent Is Too Damn High Party, came quite high in my estimation.

[Karl Henning]

The whole situation reeks of irony, among other things.  Nice shiny building though!  0:)

Ah, the attempt to compensate . . . all the insecurities . . . .

[Karl Henning]

Good column by Timothy Egan in today's New York Times (quoted entire in case you don't subscribe). Note the use of the word "sociopath," for which I was treated with howls of derision here from the usual suspects. I was right then, and Egan is right now:

"Vichy Republicans":  artfully coined.

[Karl Henning]

Just want to say that I especially enjoyed this, (poco) sfz

[(poco) Sforzando]

Just want to say that I especially enjoyed this, (poco) sfz

Thank you.

[Herman]

Also, his views on the Iraq War have been known for a while. I can't imagine Texans are unaware of them.

That said, I'm probably switching my vote to Johnson/Weld. Trump is too erratic and narcissistic to be the consistent Peace Candidate.

I believe Mr. T was for the Iraq War before he was against it.

Also, in the case he was to be elected prez, you can be 110% sure he'll start a war of choice somewhere to make sure he gets reelected; assuming he wouldn't step down in a couple months because he doesn't like the white house after all.

fortunately none of this is going to happen.

[kishnevi]

I believe Mr. T was for the Iraq War before he was against it.

Also, in the case he was to be elected prez, you can be 110% sure he'll start a war of choice somewhere to make sure he gets reelected; assuming he wouldn't step down in a couple months because he doesn't like the white house after all.

fortunately none of this is going to happen.

Your mouth to God's ear....
To be fair to the Donald, he was against the Iraq War before most politicians, including a certain senator from New York who later became Secretary of State.

[Florestan]

The USA could not disengage from most conflict areas where they are involved without endangering their own long term interests. Once an empire, always an empire --- this is one of Rome's lessons which is indeed applicable to the USA even if the latter is not an empire proper. 

[Madiel]

The USA could not disengage from most conflict areas where they are involved without endangering their own long term interests. Once an empire, always an empire --- this is one of Rome's lessons which is indeed applicable to the USA even if the latter is not an empire proper. 

But it also may not be able to engage further without endangering long term interests. A podcast I listen to highlighted how Rome couldn't properly resource its borders because of trouble back home, and increasingly relied on mercenary resources, such as relying on one set of Germanic tribes to deal with another set of Germanic tribes.

Sound familiar? It does to me, because there are several decades of policy in certain parts of the world where "the enemy of my enemy... eventually turns out to be my enemy as well". Saddam Hussein in Iraq versus Iran was a good thing, then a very bad thing. Fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union transformed, in some cases, into the war on terror.

One of my favourite ever political cartoons represents Iraq as a cracking dam with a missile rammed into it. Two guys are looking at it and saying "do we leave it in or pull it out?". It vividly communicates that it's a bit of a no-win situation once the missile has hit the dam.

[Rinaldo]

One of my favourite ever political cartoons represents Iraq as a cracking dam with a missile rammed into it. Two guys are looking at it and saying "do we leave it in or pull it out?". It vividly communicates that it's a bit of a no-win situation once the missile has hit the dam.

Good one!

In other news, the Trump campaign is broke.

[(poco) Sforzando]

In other news, the Trump campaign is broke.

Hilarious.

[Ken B]

Hilarious.

Not half as funny as all the people wailing about of money in politics and howling about Citizens United.

[Brian]

The amount of schadenfreude for Trump detractors has been off-the-charts this week. The Trump campaign has less than $2 million in cash on hand; they've spent $0.00 on advertising in battleground states this month; Trump fired his campaign manager and has yet to announce a replacement*; Trump '16 has 69 employees, versus Hillary's 685; and

"the Trump campaign's spending offered no signs that it is building a national campaign infrastructure. The biggest expenditures included $350,000 for the use of Trump's private jet; $493,000 to rent Trump facilities such as Mar-A-Lago, the Trump winery and two of his golf clubs; and $208,000 on hats."

The Trump campaign's biggest expenditures are paying money to Trump himself. Trump loaned his campaign cash, spent that cash on paying himself, and now will presumably use donations to repay the loans...also to himself...presumably at interest. I imagine some intrepid news agency will soon be tallying up just how much personal profit Trump stands to gain from this campaign.

*I just googled "Lewandowski replacement" and all the results were about soccer players.

EDIT: Never mind. It appears that Paul Manafort will be taking over as campaign manager.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Not half as funny as all the people wailing about of money in politics and howling about Citizens United.

Why did I know you wouldn't be far behind with something snarky, this time about the worst SOCUS decision in decades.

And please, please, I just can't wait for your reply. As well as the promised analysis of Donald Trump.

[(poco) Sforzando]

EDIT: Never mind. It appears that Paul Manafort will be taking over as campaign manager.

What a relief.

[Brian]

Why did I know you wouldn't be far behind with something snarky, this time about the worst SOCUS decision in decades.

It's been several years since I read the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United, but I remember having the impression that their logic was correct - and that the problem lies in our constitution, which (contrary to some conservatives' propagandizing) is a creaky old thing that badly needs a half-dozen critical revisions.

There's a neat little book on this theme by John Paul Stevens.

[asin]0316373729[/asin]

[Ken B]

Why did I know you wouldn't be far behind with something snarky, this time about the worst SOCUS decision in decades.

And please, please, I just can't wait for your reply. As well as the promised analysis of Donald Trump.

Imagine I want to film an adaptation of Plautus's The Braggart Soldier. My title character wears a helmet with the logo "Make Rome Great Again". He wears a fake hair piece with a comb-over. I even call the title character Trump. I exhibit the film during the election. Should this be permitted?

The decision in CU was precisely that I would be allowed to show my movie. After all, the case flowed from an attempt by the FEC to shut down the showing of a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. Do you think that film should have been shut down?  If you think the case was wrongly decided you must think the case was decided wrongly, mustn't you?

[Ken B]

It's been several years since I read the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United, but I remember having the impression that their logic was correct - and that the problem lies in our constitution, 

There's a lot of misinformation about that case too. It did not for instance create the precedent that corporations were persons. That corporations can be treated in law as fictitious persons is a doctrine of long standing. And a good one; it allows them to be sued for instance, and held liable for damages. There is a good analysis of this aspect of the case by Eugene Volokh if anyone cares to google. CU ruled that persons do not automatically lose their rights when they act through a corporation. They havespeech rights as persons and do not automatically forfeit them.
It should be remembered that this includes non-profits, unions, and advocacy groups created (as corporations) specifically to allow persons to co-ordinate their speech.

[Brian]

Imagine I want to film an adaptation of Plautus's The Braggart Soldier. My title character wears a helmet with the logo "Make Rome Great Again". He wears a fake hair piece with a comb-over. I even call the title character Trump. I exhibit the film during the election. Should this be permitted?

The decision in CU was precisely that I would be allowed to show my movie. After all, the case flowed from an attempt by the FEC to shut down the showing of a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. Do you think that film should have been shut down?  If you think the case was wrongly decided you must think the case was decided wrongly, mustn't you?

(This post is misleading insofar as you, in creating the Plautus adaptation, are presumably a private individual, and not a corporation, and your free speech right was therefore not at issue in CU.)