Monday, October 10, 2016

The Second Trump versus Clinton Debate

Here:



It doesn’t seem like the Trump tape hurt him much, if we go by this.

I couldn’t help notice the favourable references to Bernie Sanders by Trump. Part of a strategy to placate the Bernie Bros??

But I have to laugh at Trump from 34.58 bashing Canadian single payer health care, given how he was *in favour of something like it* until (apparently) just a few years ago:



What Trump would put in Obamacare’s place is unclear, but he does seem to be making noises about more government funding for people who cannot pay for health care.

I will say: at least Trump has the guts to talk about the elephant in the room: the rise of Islamist terrorism and the need to do something about it.

You’d think Trump would get some credit from the left for saying he would never have gone into Iraq in 2003 (from 43.38), but you can bet the regressive left will never be capable of doing this.

Given the mad attempts to gun up an unnecessary and dangerous conflict with Russia in Syria and the Ukraine, Trump has it right, at least in his rhetoric:



Hillary’s talk about the suffering in Syria was disgusting and hypocritical, given how she and Obama’s administration are guilty of pouring petrol on that fire, by supporting the insurgents, including Islamist fanatics, and attempting an unhinged and schizophrenic policy of trying both to overthrow Assad and to oppose ISIS at the same time (Hillary and her State Department’s mad strategy to topple Assad is analysed here). Her anti-Russian propaganda is hysterical, deceitful and dangerous. Trump was correct to attack her over the disastrous intervention in Libya and his hints at a more sane policy in Syria.

It was stunning that Trump even disagreed with his running mate Pence and was firm in opposing any American attacks on the Assad regime. It’s a pity that Trump had to spoil this with a bit of anti-Russian talk.

And, all in all, despite all of Trump’s bad points, he still sounded better on economic matters.

Realist Left
Realist Left on Facebook
Realist Left on Twitter @realistleft
Realist Left on Reddit
Realist Left Blog
Realist Left on YouTube
Lord Keynes on Facebook
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left

Alt Left on the Internet:
Alternative Left on Facebook
Alt-Left on Google+
Samizdat Broadcasts YouTube Channel
Samizdat: For the Freedom Loving Leftist

I’m on Twitter:
Lord Keynes @Lord_Keynes2
https://twitter.com/Lord_Keynes2

24 comments:

  1. "saying he would never have gone into Iraq in 2003"

    But he didn't oppose invading Iraq...

    https://youtu.be/77P6fxa2KOs?t=1m39s

    ReplyDelete
  2. The reason why the "Regressive Left" (a term I think has started to lose all real meaning and just means "someone who's beliefs I don't care for") won't give Trump any "credit" on Iraq is because when asked by Howard Stern if he thought the US should invade, his response was "I guess so":

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/02/19/trump-in-2002-on-support-of-iraq-war-yeah-i-guess-so

    Why should anyone give him credit for what's clearly been debunked?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Howard Stern if he thought the US should invade, his response was "I guess so"

      You forgot to search many other very strong comments he made where he opposed the war? So yoy could blame him in both ways. If the war would have turned out to be a great thing then you would not find the comment you are presenting here.

      Delete
    2. No, if the war turned out to be a great thing, that comment would have been hailed as prescient.

      What your missing is that Trump didn't come out with his opposing statements until after the war was underway. That basically eliminates his claim that the US wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq if he was in charge. All his opposition was hindsight.

      And he lied even bigger on Libya:

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trumps-libya-quagmire/485870

      Delete
    3. You are right that only available comment before the war started from Trump is the one you presented, where he says I guess so. Bot he was not running for public office at the time neither was he talking about It at all publkicly. All his next comments about the war were opposing It. While Hillary was strongly for It.

      Delete
    4. "I guess so..." followed by “I wish the first time it was done correctly.” Meaning under the right circumstances he supported the concept of an invastion. Hardly the ringing opposition Trump or his supporters wish they could honestly say he had.

      Delete
    5. It's one thing to say I guess so before you think things through. A certain deference to the government is not uncommon. The comment means "I don't know". Once he investigated he turned against the war. It seems reasonable to conclude that *had he been in office* his investigations would have come sooner, and he would have reached the conclusion he did in time to not invade.

      Delete
    6. Exactly Ken, he could have been totally unprepared for the question.

      But I let you have your truth Kevin.

      Delete
    7. "It's one thing to say I guess so before you think things through"

      Clearly he had thought things through enough to support Desert Storm, as indicated by his comment that it should have been done right the 1st time.

      "The comment means "I don't know"

      If you want it to be, sure.

      "Once he investigated he turned against the war."

      Which was after the fact, but oh well.

      "It seems reasonable to conclude that *had he been in office* his investigations would have come sooner, and he would have reached the conclusion he did in time to not invade"

      Bush had all the information available to him but chose for whatever reason to still invade. Countless governments had their espionage look into the matter and concluded the same thing. You mean Trump is so much smarter than all of them? When he backed down on health care and capitulated to Bibi? The man has less of a backbone than Hillary Clinton. She made him look like a chump onstage, after so many were predicting a bloodbath. And that's pretty sad.

      Delete
    8. "But I let you have your truth"

      Ditto, Kristjan ;-)

      Delete
    9. I had neglected to include this Atlantic link before, but I offer it and other corroborating evidence not only on Trump's Iraq comments, but on Libya as well. You guys are engaging in partisan wishful thinking, I'm afraid:

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trumps-libya-quagmire/485870

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/25/timeline-of-trumps-comments-on-iraq-invasion-not-loud-not-strong-and-no-headlines

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/09/presidential-debate-fact-check-donald-trump-hillary-clinton

      http://www.refinery29.com/2016/09/122511/donald-trump-supported-iraq-war

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/27/fact-checking-the-first-clinton-trump-presidential-debate

      I'm afraid Clinton is right in this case: “Donald lives in an alternate reality.” Apparently so do several patrons of this comments section.

      Delete
  3. This was the 1st time I literally felt depressed watching a debate. Trump dissing Single Payer, calling for "Free Market" healthcare, claiming competition will eliminate Prexisting Conditions, parroting other GOP crap like allowing Insurance Companies to sell across state lines. Then Clinton's Russophobia with claiming Russia is responsible for the Refugee crisis & that Russians hacked the DNC to help Trump against her.

    Russophobes, Islamophobes - neither should be anywhere near a position of power. In contrast, Jill Stein was (as always) a breath of fresh air:

    https://youtu.be/AQbkpg4l-BE

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think there is a word you're looking for ... opportunism...
    And yes it is a pity to see so many good hearted people falling for the good war fallacy : the X-(elassad, hussein, kadhafi... putin?) regime is not a rule of law
    therefore (??) we are entitled to airstrike it to the death.
    Goodwill without reason is often worse than pure selfishness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can't even fathom watching another one of these.

    ReplyDelete
  6. LK, I'd love to hear a post by you on what you would do about Islamist terrorism.

    My proposals are:

    1. Stop all Saudi and Emirati funding of mosques and religious institutions in the country, but offer to compensate with temporary funding from the government for all non profit activities carried out by these groups.

    2. Put a highly restricted visa status for people from countries that are known to be state sponsors of terrorism or from unstable states, by only allowing with people with long-term recurring business and family members in the country to get visa renewals.

    3. Policy of neutrality on Sunni-Shi'ia conflicts, especially on refusing to confront Iran just because the Arab lobby demands it

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-nuclear-weapon-training-attack-radiation-moscow-vladimir-putin-a7345461.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. LK, while our views on Syria, Russia, and Trump being more sensible on those matters than Hillary and Pence align, don't you feel Trump's hostility towards America warming up relations with Iran also indicates a sort of schizophrenic view on US goals in the region? Weakening Daesh and Iran at the same time is as untenable a position as opposing Assad and the Islamist rebels; defeating one will inevitably strengthen the other side. Given Iran and Russia have been warming up relations, isn't it likely that Trump pursuing a hostile policy towards Iran would bring him into conflict with Putin, rather than lead to cooperation between the three states against their mutual Salafi Jihadist enemies? Do not take this as a defense of Hillary, whose record on Iran is also quite hawkish.

    Given Trump is fine with trashing the neoconservative legacy, it would have been nice if he pointed out how Bush's toppling of the Husayn government, and the consequent occupation of Iraq, strengthened Iran's position more than any event since 9/11. I suppose that doesn't really fit his narrative where it's pinned on the actions of Obama and Hillary, though.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's an astounding amount of hypocrisy here, but Trump is holed beneath the water line. And there are probably more tapes. We will hear the next time a leak incriminating Hillary surfaces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It appears that we need to get back to the old-fashioned morality, when people forget that being faithful to your marriage vows is an indication of how you'll be when you put your hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the constitution. To say nothing of the cognitive dissonance of claiming to be against outsourcing, while having all of your products Made In China.

      Delete
  10. Trump, as you point out, supported universal healthcare but for the sake of the GOP electorate has moved to what appears some kind of hybrid system. He's certainly not a basic bitch GOP healthcare 'reform' hack.

    This is the best course of action. The right wing in America is changing (rejection of neoconservatism and the worst excesses of libertarianism), but it will take a careful discursive style and incremental adjustments to avoid triggering their great aversion to SOCIALISM. Post WWII conservatism at a deep emotional level is organized by anti-Sovietism. These were the Great Days when Cold Warriors fought a black and white war of holy capitalist righteousness against the 'evil empire', ending it with a Reagan Smash. False dichotomies plugged into a moral narrative and finally related back to issues of American identity take time to dismantle.


    And the left does itself no favours talking about universal healthcare as a 'right'. Is it? No, its the result of a well administered state, a social good of being a body politic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Left needs to continue to talk about healthcare, housing, and education as basic human rights because they are. Keeping up the conversation will ensure it gets into the public consciousness. We already do consider education a right through the 12 grade.

      Methinks thou dost cut Trump too much slack. Nothing he said the other night or on his website would have been out of place on a GOP platform for the last 35 years or more. He doesn't have the strong resolve some people think he does.

      Delete
    2. That's ridiculous, as your attempt to speak them into existence ex nihilo clearly shows. Healthcare et el doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's no healthcare in the jungle. MRI machines don't materialize because you think we have a 'right' to access them. All of these things are the results of a productive group-level activities, just like individual accomplishment aren't 'rights' but are the result of study and labour.

      Eventually, automation will drastically reduce labour demand and the masses will have all material needs provided for at almost no cost. Does this mean I'm being denied my human rights now because the social welfare available is more limited? No, it simply means my society hasn't developed that capacity yet.

      What you have done is an ad hoc justification of something already extant.

      As for Trump, look how he BTFO'd his down VP. That's resolve. And while Trump is no Sanders, he's well to the left of the GOP on healthcare and trade.

      Delete
    3. "That's ridiculous, as your attempt to speak them into existence ex nihilo clearly shows"

      If you think rights somehow exist out in the universe somewhere ready for us to discover them, rather than a result of careful deliberation and a deliberate choice of the government and/or populace then you might conclude that.

      Unfortunately even then, I used precedent in the fact that societies consider K-12 Education a basic human right.

      "There's no healthcare in the jungle"

      LOL That's absurd! :D There's healthcare wherever there's a) a malady and b) resolve to address the malady.

      "MRI machines don't materialize because you think we have a 'right' to access them"

      But they do exist because of the belief that such things are necessary to address physical maladies. Do you even have a valid argument, here?

      "Eventually, automation will drastically reduce labour demand and the masses will have all material needs provided for at almost no cost."

      And then you woke up.

      "Does this mean I'm being denied my human rights now because the social welfare available is more limited?"

      Absolutely. Part of the reason for healthcare costs is stated right here:

      https://youtu.be/PdF2BfgO7x8?t=1m37s

      "What you have done is an ad hoc justification of something already extant."

      You've yet to provide a valid argument against it.

      "As for Trump, look how he BTFO'd his down VP. That's resolve."

      No, resolve would have been to not pick a free-trader like Pence to begin with. Resolve? Trump? The man has less backbone than Hillary!

      "And while Trump is no Sanders, he's well to the left of the GOP on healthcare and trade."

      Cannot be proven by any objective standard:

      https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/health-care

      You just "want" to believe in Trump. Face it.

      Delete
    4. One other additional comment: Your entire argument is centered around a belief in a) Natural Rights, which I reject and b) a Libertarian faith Market-based Economics which I also reject. It also seems to be based on the fantasies entertained by Jeremy Rifkin and others who think the need for work will eventually be eliminated. In comparison, belief in Healthcare, Housing and Education as Basic Human Rights is real shoe-leather-to-pavement sober reality.

      Delete