Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Herman]

It's interesting to compare Obama's and Hillary's speeches.

Obama kept it down a bit, but still no one can match his rhythm, both in the pacing of ideas and in delivery.

Not one speaker managed better to link Trump to fundamentally un-American values. "We're not looking to be ruled."

Hillary's speech would have been better if it had been ten minutes shorter. She could have taken it a little easier.

The DNC speech I liked best in terms of temperature and effectiveness was Bloomberg's.

[Brian]

True, but there's just something about Gary Johnson I don't like.  Oregon is going Clinton no matter how I vote.

Perhaps this ain't it, but Johnson is cursed with one of those snarly, nasal voices that just sounds smug and off-putting even when it says all the right things.

[Todd]

Perhaps this ain't it, but Johnson is cursed with one of those snarly, nasal voices that just sounds smug and off-putting even when it says all the right things.

It's not his voice, but more the fact that he couldn't answer the key non-interventionist hypothetical he was asked (Should the US have been in WWI and WWII?  The proper answers are No and Yes, not "I don't know"), and he chose to run a pot business, which, while legal where he did run it, is not nationwide, and if one aspires to be President, even half-assedly, one should not engage in a business that is illegal in most of the country.  In short, he's not serious.  He's more serious than Trump, but that doesn't mean anything. 

[Florestan]

Should the US have been in WWI and WWII?  The proper answers are No and Yes

The question is as contrafactual as it gets, because if the US had not been in WWI, probably WWII would not have been, at least not in the form it was, because if Germany had won WWI (which they were just about to, prior to the US intervention) Hitler would probably have remained an obscure former corporal selling trite watercolors for a pitiful living. 

[Todd]

The question is as contrafactual as it gets

Correct, but if he wanted to show he was a serious non-interventionist, then the correct answers are either no/yes, or something like "I can't answer that question because the events happened, but as it pertains to X happening now, here is where I stand."  He spluttered the worst possible answer for a self-proclaimed non-interventionist. 

[Karl Henning]

In other words, the contrafactual nature of the question does not invalidate as an invitation to express one's political philosophy 

[Florestan]

Correct, but if he wanted to show he was a serious non-interventionist, then the correct answers are either no/yes, or something like "I can't answer that question because the events happened, but as it pertains to X happening now, here is where I stand." 

That´s true.

[Florestan]

In other words, the contrafactual nature of the question does not invalidate as an invitation to express one's political philosophy 

Sure, but as Todd pointed out and I agree, "I don´t know" is the worst possible answer.

[Karl Henning]

Sure, but as Todd pointed out and I agree, "I don´t know" is the worst possible answer.

Indeed.

[Ken B]

Sure, but as Todd pointed out and I agree, "I don´t know" is the worst possible answer.

A touch off topic but I hold what might be the most contrarian view about WWI. The Armistice was a tragic error, preventing Germany from suffering the true consequences of a total defeat, and allowing the "stab in the back" myth, and romantic myths about that war generally, to flourish. Not that I blame anyone for it, though there were dissenters at the time making exactly this point. Crushing military humiliation is sometimes just what is needed.

[Herman]

A touch off topic but I hold what might be the most contrarian view about WWI. The Armistice was a tragic error, preventing Germany from suffering the true consequences of a total defeat, and allowing the "stab in the back" myth, and romantic myths about that war generally, to flourish. Not that I blame anyone for it, though there were dissenters at the time making exactly this point. Crushing military humiliation is sometimes just what is needed.

Wow. You seem to have drawn a rather different lesson from history.

The reason why Europe recovered to fast from the much bigger devastation of WWII is that your kind of thinking was absent at the table.

[Florestan]

A touch off topic but I hold what might be the most contrarian view about WWI. The Armistice was a tragic error, preventing Germany from suffering the true consequences of a total defeat, and allowing the "stab in the back" myth, and romantic myths about that war generally, to flourish. Not that I blame anyone for it, though there were dissenters at the time making exactly this point. Crushing military humiliation is sometimes just what is needed.

Well, Germany formally requested the armistice when their troops were still quite deep into enemy territory and not a single enemy soldier had set foot on their soil. It was obvious that they could not win the war, but equally obvious that technically speaking they were far from having lost it. Drole de guerre indeed.

I doubt that if the war continued they would have suffered a crushing defeat, but such thought experiments are futile. After 4 years of carnage, no responsible and sane political or military leader would have rejected Germany´s request and continued a outrance a war without any clear outcome in sight.

[Ken B]

Well, Germany formally requested the armistice when their troops were still quite deep into enemy territory and not a single enemy soldier had set foot on their soil. It was obvious that they could not win the war, but equally obvious that technically speaking they were far from having lost it. Drole de guerre indeed.

I doubt that if the war continued they would have suffered a crushing defeat, but such thought experiments are futile. After 4 years of carnage, no responsible and sane political or military leader would have rejected Germany´s request and continued a outrance a war without any clear outcome in sight.

No, this is wrong. Germany was teetering on the edge of a complete military collapse.

[Ken B]

Wow. You seem to have drawn a rather different lesson from history.

The reason why Europe recovered to fast from the much bigger devastation of WWII is that your kind of thinking was absent at the table.

Nonsense. Germany DID suffer a crushing defeat in WWII and there was no armistice, there was unconditional surrender. Exactly the opposite of what happened after WWI. FDR and Truman applied my thinking exactly.

[Todd]

The reason why Europe recovered to fast from the much bigger devastation of WWII is that your kind of thinking was absent at the table.

American money and economic management, in the form of the Marshall Plan, and the accompanying (mandatory) senior status of American claims on German debt repayment, are widely considered to be two of the biggest reasons why Europe recovered so fast and with so little acrimony compared to the Great War.  Part of what made this possible was the unconditional surrender of Axis powers.

[Florestan]

Germany was teetering on the edge of a complete military collapse.

Sorry, my friend, this is a historical nonsense. Simply not true. Please, please get your facts straight. Germany requested an armistice at a time when their troops were rather deep into enemy territory and not a single enemy soldier had set foot on their soil. Very, very different than the situation at the end of WWII.

[Florestan]

American money and economic management, in the form of the Marshall Plan, and the accompanying (mandatory) senior status of American claims on German debt repayment, are widely considered to be two of the biggest reasons why Western Europe recovered so fast and with so little acrimony compared to the Great War.  Part of what made this possible was the unconditional surrender of Axis powers.

Fixed & Hear, hear!

(Whenever I hear Europe used as meaning anything, and exclusively, west of Vienna I cringe.

For one, Prague is west of Vienna. 

For two, the Byzantine Empire (an ideological misnomer for the Roman Empire proper) was a beacon of civilization and culture at a time when what is today known as Western Europe was the undisputed playground of various sorts of barbarians.  )

[Todd]

when what is today known as Western Europe was the undisputed playground of various sorts of barbarians.

When did that change?

[Florestan]

When did that change?

There is not a fixed historical date. It was a continuous process initiated by Charlemagne (one of the greatest geopolitical geniuses the Western world has produced) in the West, corroborated with the historical development, and contingencies, of the Roman Empire in the East.

1453 is probably THE year that changed the history of Christendom for good. (actuallly, for worse...)

That is, after 1204.... If I were to nominate THE event that had the most negative impact on the history of the Western (ie, Christian) world, it would be the 1204 Crusade.

[Ken B]

Sorry, my friend, this is a historical nonsense. Simply not true. Please, please get your facts straight. Germany requested an armistice at a time when their troops were rather deep into enemy territory and not a single enemy soldier had set foot on their soil. Very, very different than the situation at the end of WWII.

No Andrei, you are quite wrong. I am not going to debate you. The high command demanded the government sue for peace because they were about to implode. This is not controversial. Germany was also facing starvation from the blockade as well. This is evident from the difficulty feeding people even after the war ended.

The fact they were still on conquered territory is of course part of why the armistice proved such an error: it fed the myth that germany was not actually beaten militarily.

Update.

On 29 September Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and General Erich Ludendorff told Kaiser Wilhelm II that the war was lost and that negotiations for an armistice based on President Wilson's peace proposals should begin at once.

things got worse in October.
A brief summary here http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/war_end_01.shtml