Infants for Hillary, Mingled with Mormonism and Politics

Panel Discussion

Posted August 7th, 2016

Bob, Jake, John, and eventually Randy get together to discuss politics and Mormonism (but mostly politics) in the context of the United States presidential election of 2016.

Bob

Jake

John

Randy

  • jon49

    For Hillary? I thought you guys would be against war.

    • And here we go… This comment sums up nicely how political discourse works nowadays.

      • jon49

        Hillary has a proven track record of being pro war/pro interventionist. I don’t understand how anyone could vote for her.

        I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, I will. But I really don’t understand how someone could vote for someone that has proven to have the desire to kill 10s of thousands of innocent people. This is serious stuff. It’s life and death. Just because we live in the country that is doing most of the killing doesn’t make it OK. We owe it to others to leave politics aside and push forward a civilization for peace.

        https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2014/04/29/hillary-clinton-the-democratic-partys-pro-war-anti-civil-liberties-front-runner/

        • I’m going to regret asking—I just know I am—but . . .

          Does this mean you’re supporting that sweet man Donald Trump who is going to track down and kill the families of every one associated with ISL?

          You might want to scoot home and make sure you didn’t leave the water running on your home planet.

          • jon49

            I’m not supporting anyone. Both leading candidates will be mass murderers by the time they leave office.

          • Sterling C

            Jon49

            I absolutely agree with you, I will not be voting for either. I am in the camp that is folded in big American politics, the game is sick. I am trying to withdraw my energy and support from this sick left-right game.

            I have read a few of the emails released on Hillary by wikileaks. I have also read most of the stuff released by snowden. I live in a country that starts wars of aggression (relabeled preemptive strikes) on the lie of “weapons of mass destruction”; W Bush and his posse are war mongers. Am I obligated to support this?

            Why did the US take out Libya? Why does the US fund ‘rebels’ to over throw Syria? Many of these rebels are ISIS; the US funds ISIS. This war in Syria, again funded and strongly supported by the US, has caused the largest refugee crisis in Europe since ww2. Hillary and her posse are more of the same, this is not that hard to see.

            And Trump? Your thesis stands, he acts and talks plane crazy. To vote for that guy is crazy.

            One last thought, I personally reserve my right to not support a system that flatly does not support many of my strongly held beliefs with either political party. It seems to me this message from the citizens of this country is getting louder every year, including a few in this thread. That is the movement I am involved in, and I support.

            So again jon49, I believe I am with you. I will not support this warmongering system by voting, or by giving any of my energy to either side, or by any other perceived virtue.

          • Audrey Pietrucha

            I call my new political stance “Pro-active Apathy.” I cannot bring myself to vote for either major party candidate and may not vote for the first time in my adult life. In the meantime, our strategy is to take care of our family and make sure, as much as possible, we are financially and socially secure. I’m tired of worrying about thing out of my control and would rather put my energy into what actually helps make our lives better.

    • Randy_Snyder

      *sigh*

      • Jeff Morris

        Out of curiosity, why the sigh?

        I’m not a Democrat or a Republican (both have Science-Denialism issues and are fiscally irresponsible), so I don’t understand the Hillary Clinton defense.

        I am not endorsing Trump with this, but:

        Hillary didn’t side w/ gay marriage until 2013 – well after many Republicans (including Trump)

        She’s STILL against legalization of marijuana

        Hillary voted for the war in Iraq, was involved in the Equadorian power struggle, was an advocate for the war in Kosovo, etc…

        The head of the FBI called her criminally negligent – seriously, how dumb do you have to be to send classified information from your home email server in Russia/China??

        Over half of her major contributors are Investment banks on Wall Street.

        The DNC colluded w/ the Hillary campaign (which is illegal btw).

        It’s important to note that these bits aren’t sensational or exaggerated, they’re simply facts. My choice of candidate is basically a Cartoon Character (Trump), or a criminally negligent walking avatar for corruption (Clinton).

        Trump is an Unknown quantity, which makes him scary. Clinton is a known quantity (I.E. corrupt, war-mongering and irresponsible).

        It’s an impossible catch 22; how on Earth can you vote responsibly when every option is irresponsible? The (barely) lesser of two evils is still evil. It’s a bit like having to pick between Hitler and Stalin; I think I’ll just sit this one out, and your arguments about which one is better be damned.

        • Randy_Snyder

          Why the sigh? Because it was a typically simplistic response based obviously on only the title that voting for Hillary means you are pro war. It’s complicated and we spent 2 hours discussing how complicated politics is. We state our opinions in the podcast and you can agree or disagree, obviously that’s your right, but a glib, simplistic comment like Jon49’s is prototypical of the level of discourse like Bob said.

          And I absolutely reject your false equivalency of Trump and Hillary. When you find the presidential candidate that fits all your views, has an unblemished record and is electable, let me know. But don’t hold your breath. But at least Hillary has a record and you are not being fair when you only weigh the perceived negatives.

          • Jeff Morris

            Easy mate, I’m not attacking you.

            It’s true that it’s complicated, I agree, but as simple as Jon49’s comment was, it’s not wrong. Hillary Clinton is a warhawk, there’s really no way around that. She’s been an avid supporter of every overt and covert military operation we’ve had in the past couple decades. Does that mean Trump is better? Of course not. But ignoring her voting history doesn’t make it go away.

            Regarding false equivalence; It’s a bit of a Red Herring. The Democratic party is not owed my vote – I may lean liberal, but I’m an independent. If they want me to vote for their nominee, they can put forward one that’s worth voting for. If they lose the election, that is not, in any way, my fault. It is the fault of the Democratic party and no-one else. Not voting for Clinton is not a vote for Trump, the exact same way that not voting for Trump is not a vote for Hillary. I will not be voting for either candidate, since neither is really, imo, fit for office.

            Honestly, I’m not entirely sure what you expect Trump to do that Hillary won’t. Go to war? She’s already done that, and said she’d do it again. Social issues? She took longer than most Republicans to support gay marriage and is still against marijuana (even though many Republicans aren’t). Regulation? She supported the pipeline, NAFTA, and deregulation of Wallstreet. Build a wall? Hillary has advocated for the same thing in the past. And do you really believe she gives a damn about minorities and the middle class?

            You’re correct that Hillary has a record – and it’s absolutely deplorable. I can’t recall a single thing she’s voted for that I agree with. She literally represents everything I detest in American politics. Voting for her would be a betrayal of everything I claim to believe in. None of those listed negatives are “perceived”. It’s not difficult to google the FBI director saying that if it were anyone else, she’d be in prison for criminal negligence.

            Besides, we already found a candidate that had an excellent record and was electable – his name was Bernie Sanders.

            If the DNC hadn’t been working against him from the beginning, he would have had a real shot at the nomination. And let’s be honest, most republicans would have been far more willing to vote for Bernie than they are for Hillary.

            The lesser of two evils is still evil.

          • I still feel like a competent despot is a little less dangerous than a petulant despot. It would be nice to have an electable non-despotic choice, but that’s not how it goes these days.

          • Samuel Rogers

            You guys would have benefited from at least discussing hillary clintons perceived negatives (sorry if you did this in the last 20 minutes i havent listened to yet)

          • GiuseppeDC

            Lol Randy, it actually looks like you are the one who are simplifying things, labeling Hillary as the ‘good’ candidate against ‘evil’ Trump. This is reinforced by the fact that you guys spent literally 0 minutes even mentioning Hillary’s record – of being a warmongerer, of her vicinity to financial institutions, of her love for Kissinger, of her opportunistic support for LGBT rights, of her supporting racist policing when she was first lady.

            Unless you hope people just dismiss these as right wing propaganda. They’re not, they’re hard facts. And I’ll repeat myself :it’s incredibly racist, as it assumes that people who are being killed in South America and the Middle East are just an externality in you being able to chose a ‘lesser evil’ . These people happen to be black and non US citizens so who cares, right?

            Trump’s racism does not justify Hillary’s.

        • dmharris26

          “It’s important to note that these bits aren’t sensational or exaggerated, they’re simply facts.”

          When a person says that, what they just said mostly likely, at best, is taken out of context and at worst, is sensational or exaggerated.

          “Hillary voted for the war in Iraq”, and she regretted it, said it was wrong, was mislead (as were many very smart people) by the “evidence” presented to congress at the time.

          “The head of the FBI called her criminally negligent” and yet that same person said her actions didn’t rise to the level of criminal charges (an important contextual detail).

          “How dumb do you have to be to send classified information from your home email server in Russia/China??” This is a fact???? Regardless, I guess it depends on the type of encryption you use between your client and server as well as the type of encryption in the message itself. Also, take into account that some of the “classified” information wasn’t marked classified and the fact that the State Department is not exactly a model of good cyber-security practices…I just don’t think you can call your arguments “simply facts.”

          You have an agenda. You cherry-pick partial truths and spin them to push your agenda. And, by the way, so do I. We are acting just like any politician…which is not necessarily a bad thing. The moment we get completely transparent politicians who never tell a lie is the moment US diplomacy falls apart…it’s part of the job and it’s also part of internet “debates.”

        • Samuel Rogers

          Thank you for this! I am 20 minutes out from finishining this podcast but so far all the infants have practically dismissed hillary clintons negatives as if they are entirely untrue, and just hog wash from the internet. It almost feels like mormon leaders saying “dont believe everything you read” while being too afraid to go into specifics.

          you guys would have come across much more balanced if you would have discussed some of hillary clintons shortcomings and not simply said they were irrelevant.

          • Thomas Moore

            Make it a joke or not… Hillary is O.G.!!! So she knows the people, players and how to protect herself and country. Joe Kennedy was a notorious bootlegger, mafia friend yet he fought the hardest for his constituents. So “Notorious HRC” Repub Bitches. Work with her. https://youtu.be/7hBnwPycFUQ

    • Randy_Snyder
      • jon49

        I’m neither a democrat nor a republican. This video doesn’t seem to apply to me.

        • Thomas Moore

          I am a devout Democrat, and I felt the Bern. However, now it’s over and we have to vote for Hillary just to soundly thump Trump.

          • There’s a bumper sticker for ya:
            THUMP TRUMP

            That’s better than “Dump Trump.” I had a “TRUMP / BLAGOJEVICH 2012” sticker on my truck for two and a half years promoting the American Hair Party dream ticket, but they say that there is no such thing as bad publicity so I’m not going to put his name on my truck anymore even as a joke.

  • Duke of Earl Grey

    I think you did a wonderful job of explaining why third-party votes are simply not practical, considering the way our electoral system is set up.

    Even if Clinton were half as bad as right-wing blowhards want us to think she is, even if I considered her an evil person, I’d still vote for the “lesser of two evils” every time. If I valued a soothed conscience over the practical effect of my vote, I think that would be kind of selfish. But it turns out I don’t think Hillary is evil, just a flawed person I don’t always agree with, who could still serve honorably as President.

    I will gladly vote for Clinton in November. Of course, there’s no way I’m putting her bumper sticker on my car, here in Utah. I don’t want to get keyed. No, I’ll stick with my “Don’t Blame Me… I Voted For KODOS” sticker, thank you very much.

    • Nowadays I agree with you completely. I am old enough to have voted for John Anderson and Ross Perot and at least once for Nader (though not in 2000—I definitely voted for KODOS that time). I thought somebody had to be the early adopter of a three-or-more party system. Hamer has a really good point though, that’s really not going to happen unless you go to a parliamentary system and with a populace that considers the metric system a tool of the devil, good luck with that.

    • Thomas Moore

      I don’t think he explained why a third party wouldn’t work. He gave the examples of what has happened in the past (i.e. Bull Moose Party which split the Republican vote, which led to Woodrow Wilson the Democrat being elected; or Perot splitting off the Republican vote again… But there were many “Reagan Democrats” who jumped ship). I think if a Party, like the Libertarians, could put there positions in a straight and forward way. Center Right Republicans and Center Left Democrats might vote for a party that is for reigning in Govt and bureaucracy and liberal on social issues (i.e. de-criminalization of marijuana, gay rights, less penalty for non-violent offenders, etc…) I know it’s hard to believe but many GLBTQ people and couples are actually very, very fiscally and government growth conservatives. Yet, they just want social liberalism and want to retract “religious freedom laws” that actually take away their freedom and rights. The same could be said for many ethnic groups.
      So history and examples seem to favor Hamer’s arguments, but I believe that a logical and forthright party could indeed sign up many Republicans and Democrats if they could get their message and positions out there… Then again, as John Hamer pointed out, we may have just become too tribal and everyone will just keep voting the way their family and friends and social circles do.

      • I’m all for the emergence of a more libertarian-minded party, but I think what’s most likely in what you’re describing is that the social liberalism/fiscal conservatism platform that you’re describing ends up supplanting one of the existing parties rather than becoming a competing third party. As long as we maintain a winner-take-all plurality election system, there’s no incentive for a party to emerge that consistently gets votes but doesn’t win elections. There’s no prize for coming in second.

        I definitely agree that the Democrats’ coalition is becoming a bit too unwieldy–for example, Hispanic voters are traditionally quite conservative in many aspects, but the white nationalism among Republicans has pushed them into the Democratic party. Eventually, though, what’s left of the Republican party will wise up and loosen their stance on social issues and focus on economic issues. Fiscal conservatism isn’t going anywhere–people like money and don’t like taxes. It’s all the cultural baggage that’s killing the message, but the fever will break eventually.

      • CocoaCoveredHeretic

        This hits the nail on the head for me. I don’t fully agree with either party but the social issues are more important to me that the economic ones at the moment, so I find myself supporting the democrats. But if there were a viable libertarian option I would feel more comfortable there.

  • Lynchburg, Tennessee is where Jack Daniels is made. Reverence, please . . . (and a moment of silence for the brain cells that gave their lives that I might one day know better).

  • KarenVS

    THANK YOU for the pragmatic discussion. It was seriously refreshing. (I 💜 John Hamer!)

  • David Skidmore

    Smackdowns or GTFO. At least John Larsen knew when to call it quits.

    • Ryan Gregson

      You’re welcomed to call it quits.

    • JRon

      The man has a point. Hillary’s Clinton foundation has received 10-25 million in contributions from super anti-LGBT super anti-woman’s right middle eastern countries. The Infants are off course ever since Glenn started getting super snideful and anti-Trumpy in his “Hey Jeremy” podcast.

  • Jared

    Hillary Clinton is the conservative candidate in that she is going to preserve the status quo. Her (likely) presidency is not going to usher in a new era of transparency or accountability. She’s going to win, and she will probably have a presidency similar to her husbands–pushing a liberal agenda but making concessions to work with republicans. Republicans will continue to gripe (not unreasonably) that she is above the law, but it will be too difficult politically to actually do anything about it. She will appoint friends who owe her favors to prominent positions. The nation will get to pat itself on the back for electing a woman.

    People like Trump partly because he’s an outsider to the political system. The rich are getting richer, and it’s unlikely that Hillary Clinton (with so many friends in banking) is going to do anything about it. It’s odd that an ego driven millionaire like Trump appears to be more of a champion for the little guy.

    • Ryan Gregson

      *appears* to be. And even then, I’m not sure how the lower class would ever see him as a champion of their cause. But many do. (I recoginze that you’re not necessarily making this argument, btw)

  • Ryan Gregson

    Hamer dismissing an idea as ‘nothing’ is my favorite.

  • Beth P

    So yes I get that third party votes are a waste, but for those who hate Hillary enough to vote for trump (not me, but many people I’m around) would it not be better that they vote for anyone other than trump, rather than for trump. Say my friend is going to vote for trump, isn’t it better that I convince them to throw their trump vote away by convincing them to vote for Gary Johnson, isn’t that a win? Some people will NOT vote for Hillary, and they’d vote for trump to keep her out, so isn’t it helpful to convince them that their third party vote is valuable and result in one less vote for trump?

  • Barry Donnelly

    Guys, the entitled dismissive attitude toward third party candidates is just wrong. Being liberal or just not conservative does not mean that either Hillary or any other Democratic candidate is not entitled to anyone’s vote. Every four years it’s the same rhetoric of how now is not the time to vote for a new party because the world is about to end. The Democrats will NEVER open the door for more competition, you have to have convictions and push it open yourself. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war and was against gay marriage until Joe Biden pushed both Obama and her into supporting it.
    If you want to support Hillary Clinton and convince people to not vote for a third party then treat Stein and Johnson as real candidates by responding to what they have to say rather than dismissing them as de facto Trump supporters. The Green and Libertarian parties need to keep the heat on between elections and run candidates for state general assembly and city councils so that in 20 years there will be a politically viable third party presidential candidate.

    In reality a vote for candidate x is a vote for candidate x.

    • This time it’s worse and I’m not sure it hasn’t been engineered to be worse. Nobody in their right mind would vote for Hillary Clinton unless the alternative was worse, and they’ve had to dig way, way down to come up with a worse alternative. It still would only surprise me a little if it turned out Trump was working for the Clintons. Can anyone really be that crude, stupid and disconnected? It’s got to be an act? Doesn’t it?

      I feel manipulated. I feel like a damn head of cattle, but if Trump is for real, a Trump presidency would be a catastrophe. The Donald is not running for president, he’s running for emperor and he doesn’t know the difference. We can’t take a chance; everyone with a brain has to vote as a bloc against Trump. Gubner Gary will be there next time. He’s not that old.

    • It’s not that the concept of more than 2 parties is abhorrent, it’s just that voting for a third party candidate in the presidential election is essentially taking your ball and going home in the U.S. political system. Until we stop using a plurality/winner-take-all electoral system, voting for candidates that can’t win the election is a refusal to participate in the system. And if that’s the case, the movement should be to call for a change in the Constitution, not casting a protest vote that has no chance of affecting any change.

      There’s no point in addressing Stein and Johnson as real candidates any more than addressing Darrell Castle or Tim Hoefling or Bob Witaker or Scott Copeland or Gloria LaRiva or Jim Hedges or Emidio Soltysik (all of whom are running for president this election, btw). Why are you dismissing them?

      • Barry Donnelly

        New parties are the only groups running for office that have anything to say about first past the post elections, ballot access, multiparty debates, and proportional representation. What good will an unelected minor party do if they call for a constitutional convention? Nothing. They have to win support and take seats in both local and national government and even then it’s an uphill battle for a constitutional amendment or range voting or instant runoff voting. In no possible universe will a Republican or Democrat ever champion constitutional reforms that hurt their strategic advantage. If the dismissive or self defeating attitude toward new parties continues it will be like this for another hundred years.

        There is a much better argument to win over minor party voters than flippantly dismissing then out of hand. You encourage them to grow the new party from the local level up while making a case for why Clinton would be a good decision. I’m a self identified Green but I actually don’t like Jill Stein as the nominee (she practically ran unopposed) and am concerned that there will be no future for the party if we keep tuning out between presidential election years.

        This “Well she’s not Trump so no need to explain why Hillary is a good choice.” comes off as dismissive and entitled even if you guys don’t realize it.

      • Jason Jordan Smith

        “Until we stop using a plurality/winner-take-all electoral system, voting for candidates that can’t win the election is a refusal to participate in the system.”

        There are many reasons for the electoral collage. It is an integral part of federalism, and its elimination would create larger problems.
        Taken from Wikipedia:

        Prevents an urban-centric victory[edit]
        Proponents of the Electoral College claim the Electoral College prevents a candidate from winning the presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas. This means that candidates must make a wider geographic appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote.[101]

        Maintains the federal character of the nation[edit]
        The United States of America is a federal coalition which consists of component states. Proponents of the current system argue that the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at the federal level greater than that given to a small, though numerically equivalent, portion of a very populous state. The system also allows each state the freedom, within constitutional bounds, to design its own laws on voting and enfranchisement without an undue incentive to maximize the number of votes cast.

        For many years early in the nation’s history, up until the Jacksonian Era, many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the President must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government.[102]

        In his book A More Perfect Constitution, Professor Larry Sabato elaborated on this advantage of the Electoral College, arguing to “mend it, don’t end it,” in part because of its usefulness in forcing candidates to pay attention to lightly populated states and reinforcing the role of the state in federalism.[103]

        Enhances status of minority groups[edit]
        Instead of decreasing the power of minority groups by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair, minority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win. This encourages candidates to court a wide variety of such minorities and advocacy groups.[102]

      • B.Russ

        Jake, that (and your discussion in general) seems overly dismissive and misses the key way in which third parties can be effective, which Barry points to. Let me illustrate:

        In hypotheticlandia, there are three parties.
        Party A gets 47 votes
        Party B gets 49 votes
        Party C gets 4 votes

        Party B wins this election and party C never had a chance, agreed/accepted/granted, BUT parties A and B are already looking ahead to the next race in four years (two for congressional seats). Party A desperately needs Party C’s votes to win. Also, if Party B can get Party C’s votes, they would be in complete dominance. Suddenly Party C is the belle of the ball.

        Ask yourself, does Comcast treat its customers better, or its PROSPECTIVE customers better. Why would political parties be that different?

        Think about how effective the Tea Party movement was in changing Republican rhetoric circa 2009, wrong-headed, but effective. Not a perfect example, as it wasn’t an official third party, but from what I remember, it was trending that way, until co-opted by the RNC.

        If your vote is granted, then the party has no work to do to get your vote. If your vote is third-party, you send a strong message, for instance “Hey RNC, drop the shit about gay marriage, start talking about reigning in military spending, and stop the war on drugs and we’ll talk. Until then, have fun losing elections.” Also, “Hey DNC, let’s have a frank discussion about welfare and “entitlement” programs and their effectiveness relative to charitable organizations, and we’ll talk. Until then, best of luck, we’ll be over here when you need us.”

        If Utah trends to swing, I’ll vote Hillary, no worries there. But if it trends red, like it usually does, I’ll be voting for Johnson. I want the RNC to know exactly where to find me if they decide to change their platform.

  • Thomas Moore

    I can guarantee that Garry Trudeau (Doonsebury) prophesied the psychopath well before John Hamer; https://youtu.be/MmCc_96Pl4U?t=1m40s

    • Randy_Snyder

      Yes he did but to be fair, he lived near Trump in the 80’s. 🙂

  • Scott Gardener
  • Gabriel von Himmel

    Infants you delivered a solid drubbing to The Trumpodoctile
    Thanks for the livelily concern for our national malaise.

    Months ago I coined a moniker for “The Donald.” I began calling him The Trumpodoctile, reptilian and cold blooded with the brain of Komodo Dragon. This has been of come comfort to me.

    Hillary has been in The Bell Jar for nearly forty years. She’s one tough mama. How many have had to suffer the slings and arrows of sexist anger for that long and not be a touch paranoid after the hate she has endured? I’m no Clinton fan of either sex, but, she is one smart hard working public figure who has wended her way through the mazes of political fashion with a modicum of decency.

    • If one is an Anybody-But-Trump-itarian, like I’ve become, I suppose there may be some solace in Hillary’s hard-bitten resilience. You’ve got a point: Limbaugh built a career—nay, an industry—on unbridled hatred of Hillary Clinton and twenty-five years later all of Hate Radio’s vitriol has been to no avail: she’s gone nowhere, except for maybe a stint as a US senator and one as Secretary of State. Someone said recently (damn, I wish I could remember who) that “Trump’s a pussy—he’s a goddam peacock—but you tangle with Hillary Clinton and you’re not walkin’ away with all the feathers you had goin’ in.” I’m afraid Bernie (and the rest of us) fell victim to her underhanded, under-the-table, behind-the-scenes ruthlessness, but now I’m hoping she can bring that to bear and (figuratively) slay the Trumpodoctile.

  • Ben

    Libertarian ideology is what started my journey out of Mormonism. I believed in the D&C 134 stuff and believed that the church was violating the free exercise of conscious with prop 8 and such. One of the problems I have with liberals is that they are pro war and pro drug war, neither of which I want my tax dollars spent on. I agree with helping the poor, but I think the way they do it is counter productive. I will not be voting for Hillary because she does not represent any of my values. We ought to be choosing from the greater of two goods, not the lesser of two evils. Its fucked up and I’m sick of it.

  • GiuseppeDC

    Dear Infants,

    I love your show, and because I am not a mormon and never was, nor an American, I’ve always lurked in the dark. But after this show, I can’t keep my mouth shut no more.

    Hillary Clinton is not ‘the right choice’. You guys are privileged enough to live in North America, so the foreign policy outlook of your future president does not matter to you. You’re white, you’re America and you don’t care. And, without being offensive, it just confirms the European stereotype that Us citizens are politically ignorant and fall easily pray to slogan politics.

    Hillary is a Hawk. I don’t care about Trump, I don’t know about his foreign policies. He just looks dum. But I know Hillary’s foreign policy record, and this woman makes George W Bush look like an infant (pun intended). She has consistently advocated the killing of (brown) people in South America as well as in the Middle East. Afghanista, Iraq, Syria, Libya. You name it, then go and find a more right-wing, warmongering Republican politician. You won’t find it.

    You can’t accuse people of not sustaining Hillary to not be ‘facing reality’, especially people who may have relatives and family who are now being droned and killed by your already ‘progressive’ president in the Middle East. They’re facing reality much more seriously than you are.

    Of course you don’t care. You are white males, you feel emboldened by identity politics in the democratic parties, and the thousand of lives that will be massacred under Hillary count nothing to you, as did the lives that we’ve already lost.

    While you elect your white, female, ‘feminist’, ‘progressive’ president, we’ll be picking up the corpses in the Mediterranean.

    I expected better from you guys. Dropping article here so maybe you get a bit more info about it.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hillary-the-hawk-a-history-clinton-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/

    • “I don’t care about Trump, I don’t know about his foreign policies,” is a very foolish statement. You are assuming, as so many Americans do, that there can be nothing worse than Hillary. Do you honestly think you won’t be fishing corpses out of the Mediterranean if Trump is elected? Think again. You don’t know what Trump’s foreign policies are because nobody does, including Trump. But the guy is deeply ignorant, emotionally immature, mentally unstable and if you think he’s less of a hawk than Hillary, you’re mistaken. You might not understand that there is no viable third choice. If Hillary doesn’t beat Trump, he wins. None of the other also-rans can shut him down and turn him off. Trump is worse than Hillary; that’s his job; that’s his purpose in life at this point.

      • GiuseppeDC

        Nope. What I am saying is that for those of us living outside the US, it doesn’t matter anyway. Foreign policy in the US is always the same. I’m not saying Trump is better, I’m just saying I would never in my life vote for someone with an excellent track record of being a mass murder.
        You don’t think it’s a big deal, fine. But stop trumpeting this Hillary ‘is qualified’, Hillary progressive platform, Hillary the feminist. Stop telling the word how she’s the champion of equality against racist Trump. Voting for Hillary you’re casting an equally racist vote. You’re just saying the only black and brown people you care about, and whose lives you value, are those living within US borders.

        It really struck me as odd how everyone is offended by Trump, while not to giving a shit about Hillary’s foreign policy record. For a minority well trained in managing cognitive dissonance this is illuminating.

  • Chad Butterworth

    That was GK Butterfield at the political rally. I just feel like I had to set that straight.

  • Susan Mowers

    Please do another of these! But can you make sure Heather is available?

  • chriswir

    Who scores higher in narcissism: Donald Trump or Joseph Smith?

    1. Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
    2. Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
    3. Exaggerating your achievements and talents
    4. Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, and the beauty of the perfect mate
    5. Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
    6. Requiring constant admiration
    7. Having a sense of entitlement
    8. Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
    9. Taking advantage of others to get what you want
    10. Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
    11. Being envious of others and believing others are envious of you
    12. Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
    13 Having many wives 😉

  • Darth Bill

    I wish JH wasnt so dismissive of third parties. I understand that the US system tends that way but the US didnt start out with these parties. The were both alternatives at one time. A vote for a third party is influential in moving policy. If you lose 20% of your voters to someone with a different policy, you will shift to get them back. You dont think a huge loss to Hillary or Johnson wont get noticed? Elections mean things.

  • Chad the Beer Snob

    This was a great podcast. Very glad to see Randy join in at the end. Well done and I think the infants pretty well nailed. I’ve voted for Libertarians, Johnson and Barr the last two elections. Not this time. Hamer is correct, Clinton needs to get as many popular votes as possible to utter and completely repudiate Trump and his hateful rhetoric. The guy is dangerous.

    On a slightly different note…
    There are very few Libertarian folks that I know in my circles who were actually Libertarian long BEFORE Trump got nominated. I think the Tea Party has completely hijacked the Libertarian party as of late with these likely heroes of Glenn Beck and Ammon Bundy claiming to represent the L party.

    Is it coincidence it all happened right after the Republican party started supporting Trump. (buyers remorse?) Here is why I say that and someone tell me where I’m off the rails. My friend who is just as befuddled with this new surge of Libertarians put it this way: “The Libertarian Party consists of two groups. Pot heads who live in their mom’s basement and embarrassed Republicans.”

    So in my circles, I’m seeing all these self proclaimed religious people who I’ve known to be Republicans and quite conservative forever, all of sudden start to claim they are Libertarians. Libertarianism is vogue all of sudden with religious people. These are folks who voted for John McCain and Romney and scoffed at me for voting for Johnson and Barr, and told me I was just wasting my vote.

    Now they claim to be Libertarians.

    Fantastic!

    Here is the thing though. All you new Libertarians who claim to be religious, both evangelicals and faithful Mormons, do you even know what the Libertarian platform is? So you religious folks who, at one time were conservative republicans if not down right tea party folk, are now Libertarians and accept the Libertarian vision which means you now support:

    If I’m a Libertarian, I believe and support…

    Legalized abortion. http://www.ontheissues.org/C…/Libertarian_Party_Abortion.htm

    Legalizing Gay marriage: http://www.libertarianism.org/…/gay-rights-libertarian-appr…

    Legalized prostitution: http://www.libertarianism.org/…/gay-rights-libertarian-appr…

    Legalizing pot. https://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence

    Open borders/Immigration. https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration

    Protect victims rights. https://www.lp.org/issues/crime-and-violence

    Oppose censorship of pornagraphy. https://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech

    Support the ACLU in regards to censorship. https://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech

    Cut the US Military budget by 50%. https://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy

    Remove all troops from foreign countries. https://www.lp.org/issues/foreign-policy

    So all you recent Glenn Beckenion Libertarians, is this really what you believe and support? This is not the kind of shit I remember hearing every week from the pulpit and in Sundays School class.

    Really? Is this what all the faithful mormons new Libertarians believe?

    btw…to be upfront, I am not a Libertarian anymore. And I don’t pretend to be, because I don’t agree with much of the L platform. I’m kind of in the agreement with John Hamer….you got to in the game, and being libertarian or Independent makes it difficult to mold the platform of American politics.

  • ProudHighway

    There’s very little value in a discussion where the viewpoints of the opposition are not accurately represented. Two hours of confused straw manning. It’s good now and then to remind myself how backward and misinformed some people are. Listening to the Infants trying to talk economics and law is like listening to Larry the Cable Guy talking about 19th century French Existentialism. IoT is an echo chamber.

  • Tim

    I think there is a lot more to be said about the convergence of Republican and Mormon ideologies. There is the canonization of the constitution, the establishment of capitalism as righteous and communism as evil, proclaiming that the founding fathers are all Mormon in the afterlife now, and the doctrine of personal accountability/responsibility. I’d love to hear a discussion of those broader topics.

  • Tim

    I think you gave too much credit to Mormons for thinking it through and opposing Trump. When Mitt Romney opposed Trump, everyone fell in line. On issues of alcohol, gambling, and marijuana, everyone falls in line with the authoritative, “authentic” voice for the LDS stance. On matters of LGBTQ rights, they fall in line. And on party lines, they still align with the dominant Mormon=Republican belief.

    This post is from the waiting area of the Timpanogas Temple. Do you think they would care if I mixed up my instant Starbucks while I wait?

  • dodger

    While the discussion was bright and smart and only slightly one sided, it seemed to have missed a very important reality of American politics circa 2016 post Obama: Kate is the Queen of England now folks. I bring that up only because we’re here and she’s there but that position, while all the way over there across the pond, used to mean something here…a long time ago. Now? WGAS! I find Bernie and The Big Doogy and Hills on the same commuter train as the English Monarchy, about to arrive collective at useless historical siding land.

  • Sally

    I was happy with the podcast..and when I heard Heather talk about Bernie Sanders, I hoped that there would be a podcast to discuss the candidates and the policies. It doesn’t mean we must agree with everything..because that sounds too much like the organization I just left! Keep up the great conversations!

  • jon49

    Here we go. Tucille does a good job of showing how both these people are not what we need to vote for. Saying that you are throwing away your vote by voting third party is not very forward thinking, so much for progressive.

    http://tuccille.com/disloyal/2016/08/15/dear-trumpkins-and-clintonistas-your-candidates-are-evil/

  • B.Russ

    Interesting to hear a bunch of non-Libertarians explain to me what Libertarianism is. FWIW, most Libertarians I know aren’t all-or-nothing. We’d just like to see the government get a little smaller. Participate in a couple fewer wars. See some oversight and accountability on government spending. And have the gov’t get out of people’s bedrooms and ease up on telling us what we can put into our bodies.
    I think you may have confused the Anarchist party for the Libertarian party.

  • Don’t Call Me Teddy

    I just want to thank Jake for standing up for the idea that just because one leaves the LDS Church, it doesn’t follow that one must become politically liberal in all your views. Otherwise, we are just trading one dogma for another.

    Of course I no longer take my cues on any issue from the Church and some of my positions have changed as a result. I had to evaluate each of my views on its own. But the impetus for most of my economic and governance views came from studying economics and markets and then from personal experience and observation – not from the LDS Church.

    Does a market-based approach have it’s shortcomings? Sure. But it has also lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. While the Infants are free to structure the podcast in any way they want, and I get that the podcast isn’t necessarily “for” the audience, but if the Infants are going to broach political/social/economic topics, it would be nice to have some educated folks on both sides to talk about it. Maybe others listen to Infants for it, but I don’t usually tune into Infants to hear one-sided political rants on the US political system by a Canadian, no matter how smart that Canadian happens to be.

    All that said, I’m not a Trump supporter (so don’t take this post that way). I feel like Alexander Hamilton must have felt when he was faced with choosing between endorsing Aaron Burr (a self-aggrandizing, power-seeking blowhard) and Thomas Jefferson (Hamilton’s long-time political rival). Hamilton wrote: “Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous
    of something like orderly Government – Mr. Burr loves nothing but
    himself – thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement – and will be
    content with nothing short of permanent power [struck: and] in his own
    hands – No compact, that he should make with any [struck: other] passion
    in his [struck: own] breast except [struck: his] Ambition, could be
    relied upon by himself – How then should we be able to rely upon any
    agreement with him? Mr. Jefferson, I suspect will not dare much Mr.
    Burr will [inserted in margin: dare every thing in the sanguine hope of
    effecting every thing –]”

    All that said, you guys are awesome and were a great anchor that happened to coincide with the timing of my leaving the church.

    Best to you.

  • Don’t Call Me Teddy

    I just want to thank Jake for standing up for the idea that just because one leaves the LDS Church, it doesn’t follow that one must become politically liberal in all your views. Otherwise, we are just trading one dogma for another.

    Of course I no longer take my cues on any issue from the Church and some of my positions have changed as a result. I had to evaluate each of my views on its own. But the impetus for most of my economic and governance views came from studying economics and markets and then from personal experience and observation – not from the LDS Church.

    Does a market-based approach have it’s shortcomings? Sure. But it has also lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. While the Infants are free to structure the podcast in any way they want, and I get that the podcast isn’t necessarily “for” the audience, but if the Infants are going to broach political/social/economic topics, it would be nice to have some educated folks on both sides to talk about it. Maybe others listen to Infants for it, but I don’t usually tune into Infants to hear one-sided political rants on the US political system by a Canadian, no matter how smart that Canadian happens to be.

    All that said, I’m not a Trump supporter (so don’t take this post that way). I feel like Alexander Hamilton must have felt when he was faced with choosing between endorsing Aaron Burr (a self-aggrandizing, power-seeking blowhard) and Thomas Jefferson (Hamilton’s long-time political rival). Hamilton wrote: “Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government – Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself – thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement – and will be content with nothing short of permanent power [struck: and] in his own hands – No compact, that he should make with any [struck: other] passion in his [struck: own] breast except [struck: his] Ambition, could be relied upon by himself – How then should we be able to rely upon any agreement with him? Mr. Jefferson, I suspect will not dare much Mr. Burr will [inserted in margin: dare every thing in the sanguine hope of effecting every thing –]”

    All that said, you guys are awesome and I hope you keep going for a long time. You’re starting the podcast served as a great anchor that happened to coincide with the timing of my leaving the church. You are much appreciated.

    Best to you.

    • Nope, us ‘Mericans don’t need no smart people tellin’ us what to do!

      • Don’t Call Me Teddy

        Not really my point. I don’t mind smart Canadians expressing opinions on our system, I just appreciate when the counter position is espoused by an equally smart person (of any nationality).

        • jon49

          They should have had a refugee on. Then they would have had to explain to that person why they want a known war hawk to be put in office as president.

  • SAMUEL THE LEHITE

    I love all of your podcasts. But this one I could not listen to.. sorry.

    Signed,

    Your biggest fan

  • dblagent007

    I was surprised with the level of certainty Hamer has for his opinions, especially when it comes to the interplay of economics and politics (e.g. Republican policies are what caused the Great Depression; his explanation of the economic recovery from 2009 onward, etc.). Maybe the reason it bugged me is that I’m a believer in Bayesian reasoning and any time someone comes across as dead set certain, especially about something as inherently uncertain as politics, it grates on my inner Bayesian self.

  • Skyler Brent Coles

    So, I have a question about the two party system dynamic. I understand there used to be a non ticket based election. Why did it move to party voting for P & VP, and what effect would that have if reversed?
    I was actually planning on voting Johnson, but I think you may have converted me to vote Clinton. John is just so persuasive despite his Sheldon Cooper style scoffing laugh.