I'm not saying that at all. I said earlier that granting access improperly is bad, and I challenged seattlelou to point out a specific instance where that happened. When I see it, I will legitimately be concerned. I haven't read the articles he linked to yet but I am planning to.

My criticism is completely different and this is important--they are literally fighting for the OPPOSITE of what they are criticizing HRC for. And they are a million times more guilty of it than she is, if she is. I think that should be pointed out every single time HRC's "foundation problems" are brought up. I also think HRC should be criticized as well, but like I said I want something specific to point to that is an actual problem. Then we push that issue hard too to make her respond to it.

hey clinton foundation:

I don't know how much the Koch brothers care about AIDS, but Koch Industries is just below France and above Poland in carbon emissions (and about 160 other countries), so climate change is a pretty big issue for them.

I know you weren't saying that. I was assuming you'd have followed that "purity is for children" bit from another poster and just back me up in general that things like corporate sponsorship(capture) of the Democratic party doesn't get a pass just because we hate Trump more.

I believe in a mix of purity and pragmatism. We have to be realistic and try to get things done given the current completely bizarre paradigm that exists right now. At the same time we have to work towards our long term progressive goals and that means a lot of the time that kind of change isn't going to come from centrist politicians like HRC. We're going to have get our hands dirty and get it done ourselves, sadly. If we can pull the political paradigm back to a more natural or central state, we'd be in a much better position to pressure HRC to be much more progressive.

This Lewandowski guy seems like he would be real fun at parties.

Were you referring to Portman +8 in OH because that totally rocked my universe.

Tonight I'm asking every single 2p2 mod to consider banning this guy. You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jerbs, 58% of your youth reads Politics Unchained, what the hell do you have to lose?

Well you either establish a priori that staying in a race and continuing to collect is wrong, in which case you've entered the realm of deontological blathering or you are going to have to consider the consequences of his decision and demonstrate that led to worse outcomes than if he hadn't.

The People's History of the United States - Howard Zinn

It's definitely dogmatic (probably not the right word), but it pretty effectively makes the case that progress always comes from below and never above. Eisenhower-Kennedy-LBJ-Nixon none of them were in any way radical reformers, and yet civil rights, war on poverty, and much of our environmental legislation came out of that era. Even FDR wasn't a radical, just someone who realized that you need to relieve pressure or it will blow up.

Which is my point, if we want something like getting rid of Citizens United, the people need to do it by not accepting the status quo just because it was part of what got your POTUS in office.

you know

An example of what I mean. HRC most like won't be able to accomplish many radical progressive ideas, like universal healthcare as one example. She'll be able to accomplish only the MOST obvious of goals like maybe working to reduce mass incarceration, or increasing the minimum wage to a more reasonable level like $10/hour. But it's not from a lack of pressure by Bernie bros, it's from the fact that the conservative agenda completely runs this country--from the media's implicit "he said-she said" bias all the way to the Fox News empire having very high ratings and being considered legitimately "Fair and Balanced" by a huge portion of the population. We have to stop letting those people set the table for everything, because they are the real barrier to HRC getting the great stuff done. They are the ones that decided it was more important to keep Obama from doing any single positive thing rather than allow him to get reelected. And that's considered fine and they don't even get attacked for it these days. The double standard that HRC has to toe the line by is completely ridiculous. And now the press is smearing her about her health. But that's the situation we've gotten ourselves into.

Right. With LBJ for example, it was a combination of his own political agenda along with pressure from the civil rights movement and MLK that ended up forming what eventually became the Voting Rights Act (twice!) and other powerful legislation. Without that intense pressure from the left wing, I don't believe it goes the same way at all. And let's all remember that those two pieces of legislation were a huge part in getting where we are today--they caused southern Democrats to flee the Democratic party en masse, joining the Republican party purely because they couldn't stand to be part of a party that supported civil rights for black Americans!

Nice. It's very educational itt lately.

Immanual Kant was a real pissant, right?

I agree. I think Hillary will be as liberal as congress allows her to be, and I expect the republicans to cry bloody murder and filibuster every proposal just like they did to Obama. "hillary is going to pull the plug on your grandma etc"

It's of course impossible to demonstrate that for any political act of this type, whether it leads to worse outcomes or not. Maybe Bernie's Noble Lie maximized the good, maybe it didn't. Maybe Clinton's Goldman Sachs speeches maximized the good? Deontology is a reasonable shortcut to rules potentially correlated with positive utility, perhaps not being a scam artist is an example.

The attacks on Bernie not dropping out are really stupid.

In 2008 we know the Dem race was closer and no drop out until after all contests
In 2004 second place Edwards dropped out when he had something like 2 states to Kerry's 20
in 2000 Bradley withdrew after losing all of the first 19 contests
in 1992 Jerry Brown withdrew at the convention and never endorsed and only won 6 states
1988 I can't find anything about Jackson conceding before the convention
in 1984 NEITHER Gary Hart nor Jesse Jackson withdrew until the convention
in 1980 the sitting POTUS was primaried and still no concession until the convention
1976 no concession until convention despite the winner getting way more than double the votes of 2nd place
1972 pretty sure no concession before convention and that's the entire time there has been a primary for every state I think.


ie, this "scam artist" nonsense is just BS and it makes you look like a fool.

This thread is one of the best on 2+2 when any Trump news is happening and one of the worst when it isn't. Sad!

It's impossible to demonstrate for any act whether the consequences of A <=> B. But this doesn't prevent consequentialists from advocating for some act on consequentialist grounds, they do this, as I know you are aware, by looking at the likely consequences, the intended consequences and actual consequences of acts and judging. That's the argument, you can't just insert some arbitrary deontological rule into a discussion and expect it to be taken seriously. Consequentialists advocate for rules, those that do anyway, by explicating, the work the rule does by reference to actual consequences.

This line from you is rubbish and I'm surprised cos I usually enjoy your stuff even where I disagree with it.

@microbet, one of my favourite Monty Python sketches that, reckon it made me feel smart that I knew a couple of the philosophers it referred to. Itr makes me feel less smart that I still struggle to understand a lot of them.

And Bernie is still taking money. Tomorrow (8/24) there are hundreds of meetings all over the country (there are 158 of them w/in 100 miles of me) starting to organize for activities going forward.

I think it's the opposite, but I'm weird I guess.

Odds Lewandowski is the guy that gets drunk and starts randomly swinging at people? Like -3500?

Assuming Hillary wins, CU will be gone within the next five years. It might be as little as two.

I'd be willing to bet up to four figs on a five year frame.

It's never to early to think about post-Nov. 6 and discuss the harm Trump's candidacy is doing to the nation. This black author from South Carolina puts a twist on things and brings up an interesting perspective.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-crisis-214178

How Trump Exposed America’s White Identity Crisis

The GOP nominee’s greatest legacy will be that he forced us to confront racist demons we thought were mostly behind us.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...il-war-646602/

this is the best thread in 2+2 history except for all the AP/UB ones

Reminder that 2009 2+2 politics forum hero Borodog posted this on the first page of that thread:

the most infuriating thing about Borodog in particular and AC in general was how he/they never ever heard a single dogwhistle, not us, nossir, ergo no whistles could possibly be aimed at dogs

Why does that infuriate you? We simply MUST discuss politics at the level of the lowest common denominator? Because some are dogs we must all sit around barking?

It seems like the reason you are mad isn't that they won't admit that dogwhistles exist but rather that they won't admit that they themselves are secretly dogs.