2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Martinus]

My problem with Islamism is that, as I said, it goes beyond ISIS and terrorism.

Generally, I think the doctrine of Islamism (by which I understand an attempt to impose Sharia law as the law of the land, irrespective of the method through which such imposition would take place) is comparable to the doctrine of Nazism in its threat to the Western liberal societies. Now, different societies have different legal and social cultures, which make the necessary response different (for example, Germany has an outright ban on propagating the Nazi ideology - something that would not work in the USA, because of the first amendment) but I generally think that our societies' response to Islamism (as defined above) should use the same template we use towards Nazism.

[Sheilbh]

I think that definition of Islamism is wrong, it wouldn't cover most Islamists.

Also the key difference with Nazism is that there was a Nazi Germany. There's nothing really comparable.

And I disagree with the analysis. I'm still a less violent, old school neo-con. Democracy is a large part of the answer - I don't think it'll be liberal democracy and that's fine - and Islamism will be a necessary part of that.

[Razgovory]

My problem with Islamism is that, as I said, it goes beyond ISIS and terrorism.

Generally, I think the doctrine of Islamism (by which I understand an attempt to impose Sharia law as the law of the land, irrespective of the method through which such imposition would take place) is comparable to the doctrine of Nazism in its threat to the Western liberal societies. Now, different societies have different legal and social cultures, which make the necessary response different (for example, Germany has an outright ban on propagating the Nazi ideology - something that would not work in the USA, because of the first amendment) but I generally think that our societies' response to Islamism (as defined above) should use the same template we use towards Nazism.

You plan to annex a part of Czechoslovakia?

[Berkut]

I still don't get why Marty likes Trump. Is he a single issue "voter" about being anti-Muslim? Trump seems to stand against virtually everything else a reasonably liberal European would vote for.

"I don't see how anyone with intelligence and integrity can vote for Trump."
Get it?

Plus it's hardly surprising that Marti's seduced by an authoritarian strong man. It's just a surprise he's resisted Putin this long

What gave you the idea that Marty was liberal or European?

You just couldn't help yourself, could you, guys? If something doesn't fit your narrative, it has to end with namecalling and attacks on character. 

As I said already, I think Trump is a shitty candidate. And on balance of issues, I support Hillary over him. But one issue I think he is superior to Hillary is the threat of Islamism (and no, this issue is not enough to make me support him over Hillary, so I guess I am not a "one issue" voter, after all. Yay!). His ideas how to go about it may be half-baked and ham-fisted but at least he acknowledges there is a threat (and that it is neither limited to, nor simply a flavour of a more general terror threat - it is quite unique and requires unique approach). This is more than what Hillary and Obama are doing, as they are claiming the threat does not even exist.

They sure are wasting a lot of drones and missiles then...

[garbon]

I still don't get why Marty likes Trump. Is he a single issue "voter" about being anti-Muslim? Trump seems to stand against virtually everything else a reasonably liberal European would vote for.

"I don't see how anyone with intelligence and integrity can vote for Trump."
Get it?

Plus it's hardly surprising that Marti's seduced by an authoritarian strong man. It's just a surprise he's resisted Putin this long

What gave you the idea that Marty was liberal or European?

You just couldn't help yourself, could you, guys? If something doesn't fit your narrative, it has to end with namecalling and attacks on character. 

As I said already, I think Trump is a shitty candidate. And on balance of issues, I support Hillary over him. But one issue I think he is superior to Hillary is the threat of Islamism (and no, this issue is not enough to make me support him over Hillary, so I guess I am not a "one issue" voter, after all. Yay!). His ideas how to go about it may be half-baked and ham-fisted but at least he acknowledges there is a threat (and that it is neither limited to, nor simply a flavour of a more general terror threat - it is quite unique and requires unique approach). This is more than what Hillary and Obama are doing, as they are claiming the threat does not even exist.

They sure are wasting a lot of drones and missiles then...

We're made of money.

[DGuller]

I still don't get why Marty likes Trump. Is he a single issue "voter" about being anti-Muslim? Trump seems to stand against virtually everything else a reasonably liberal European would vote for.

Trump will rescue Europe from Islam.
By delivering it to Russian rule.
Under the new Great Putinist Union, the state will not execute people for being gay.  Rather, that task will be handled by neo-fascist youth groups supported by the government.
Much better, you see.

Yeah, well that's part of the trouble with supporting Trump. Allying with Putin against Islam is like, I don't know, allying with Stalin against Hitler. Pretty dodgy stuff.

It's more like allying with Hitler against Mussolini.

[Valmy]

I have no idea who 'Tablet Magazine' is but I am glad somebody is bothering to expose those crazies in the Green Party:

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/210549/friends-dont-let-friends-vote-for-jill-stein?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_content=Friends+Don%E2%80%99t+Let+Friends+Vote+for+Jill+Stein&utm_campaign=august2016

This past weekend, Jill Stein was officially nominated by the Green Party as its candidate for president of the United States. Here at Tablet, despite Stein's Jewish background, we haven't covered her campaign. In large part, this is because her story was eclipsed by the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, the most successful Jewish presidential candidate in American history. Indeed, unlike the Vermont senator, Stein has proved largely inconsequential to this point.

But at a time when a third of Sanders supporters still haven't committed to backing Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump in the general election, where every percentage point will matter, Stein's candidacy looms larger. Many good people are only just discovering her campaign, and wondering if she might be worthy of their vote. Which is why it's time for responsible political observers to say what has been commonly understood among those who have followed Stein for years: Friends don't let friends vote for Jill Stein.

To be clear, this post is not meant as a criticism of Stein's supporters. In my experience, many of these well-meaning individuals imagine they are voting for a bold, progressive changemaker who won't pander to special interests and who will demonstrate the knowledge and political courage to enact real reform. Even if Stein won't win, these idealists believe that they are voting their conscience by backing the candidate who best represents their values.

The only problem is, upon closer inspection, Jill Stein bears no resemblance to such a candidate. Let us count the ways.

She stokes ignorance rather than dispelling it. A Harvard-trained doctor, Stein has nonetheless consistently pandered to the ignorance of her supporters in her area of expertise, rather than educating them. Sometimes, this can be amusing, as when Stein granted credence to a constituent who agitated about the dangers of Wi-Fi. "We should not be subjecting kids' brains, especially, to that," the Harvard M.D. said.

But even this entertaining exchange has darker implications. After all, Wi-Fi has been a remarkable resource for poor communities, libraries, and schools. It has granted access to the internet and online educational tools to thousands of students and teachers, all without the costly hardware and set-up of wired connections. To fearmonger about Wi-Fi to uninformed parents, then, is to risk depriving students of basic building blocks for their futures.

Other times, however, the dangerous consequences of Stein's irresponsible pandering are readily apparent. Such is the case when it comes to her hedging on the efficacy and alleged hazards of vaccines. "As a medical doctor, there was a time where I looked very closely at those issues, and not all those issues were completely resolved," Stein told the Washington Post. "There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury, which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don't know if all of them have been addressed."

As the liberal site Vox pointed out, "this seemed like a dog whistle and pandering to anti-vaxxers, who say vaccines are unsafe and cause autism, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows otherwise." (All of the concerns Stein raised are reasons wrongly proffered by anti-vaxxers for why vaccines cause autism and other alleged maladies.) Stein later deleted a tweet stating that "there's no evidence that autism is caused by vaccines" and replaced it with one saying merely that "I'm not aware of evidence linking autism with vaccines."

As this delicate equivocation shows, the problem is not that Stein thinks that vaccines (or Wi-Fi, for that matter) are genuinely harmful. It's that she is unwilling to forthrightly face those who think otherwise and tell them the unvarnished but necessary truth. Which is, of course, what we rely on our leaders to do when it comes to difficult subjects.

She expresses strong opinions on important issues, then completely reverses course with no explanation. In the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote in the U.K., Stein posted a celebratory statement on her website. "The vote in Britain to exit the European Union (EU) is a victory for those who believe in the right of self-determination and who reject the pro-corporate, austerity policies of the political elites in EU," she declared. "Britain has spoken for much of humanity as it rejects the failed vision of a world that prioritizes profit for the few amidst hardship for the many. Now we must build on this momentum."

This was a strange stance to take, since Brexit was largely opposed by progressive forces in Britain and Europe, and especially by young people. Stein was quickly hit with withering criticism from these quarters. But rather than defend her stance, Stein simply deleted and replaced her statement with an anti-Brexit one, with no explanation or apology.

It is this kind of pandering to idiots and ignorance that drives me nuts in modern politics.

The rest of the article starts linking twitter images so I didn't post the rest. But you get the idea. It goes on from there to show her buddying up with Putin and shit. Oh FFS.

[Razgovory]

I'm beginning to think that people like Marty and Trump are so interested in pointless or destructive gestures because they want the US to be at war with all Muslims.

[sbr]

Which funnily enough is what the bad guys want as well.

[viper37]

You just couldn't help yourself, could you, guys? If something doesn't fit your narrative, it has to end with namecalling and attacks on character. 

you mean doing like you constantly do?

Edit: ohh, nice, there is a new filter on the forum 

[Savonarola]

You just couldn't help yourself, could you, guys? If something doesn't fit your narrative, it has to end with namecalling and attacks on character. 

you mean doing like you constantly do?

Edit: ohh, nice, there is a new filter on the forum 

It's messed up my sig.

[Valmy]

Oh wow it did 

[Malthus]

You just couldn't help yourself, could you, guys? If something doesn't fit your narrative, it has to end with namecalling and attacks on character. 

you mean doing like you constantly do?

Edit: ohh, nice, there is a new filter on the forum 

It's messed up my sig.

[DGuller]

  The kind and sensitive person is now filtered?

[Malthus]

Read an amusing tweet today:

If the election was about Clinton, Trump would win.
If the election was about Trump, Clinton would win.
Both candidates agree they want the election to be about Trump.