Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[薔薇語]

The party politics of the Republicans and Democrats will continue to distress me. But I get to wake up every morning from here on out knowing I didn't vote for someone who would order the targeted death of an American citizen abroad. I get to wake up knowing I didn't vote for someone who treats free speech and privacy as either non-existent or extremely negotiable qualities of our republic. It is amazing how good that feels. 

If I voted with the masses of Dems or Republicans, my views wouldn't be given any more weight than they are now. The difference is that the Dems and Republicans have a choice to either recognize that my vote is transferable (to a third, etc) and meet me half way on an issue or ignore it. By voting third I exercise far more control than I would inside the party. If the Libs decided to side with Sec. Clinton this cycle, she wouldn't all of a sudden forgo her indifference to foreign wars or crony capitalism. Nor would us voting for Trump cause him to rethink his stance on libel laws and protectionist trade policies. But now that the Dems have lost and can recognize that the Libs could have easily put them over, they have a hard choice to make: meet us half way or ignore it and hope it was a one off. Eitherway, we exercise the exact same amount or more control in the cycle this time. Why? Because coalitions only change policies if members of that coalition will actually carry through on our only power - breaking from it. 

Soar. 

[megaplayboy]

The party politics of the Republicans and Democrats will continue to distress me. But I get to wake up every morning from here on out knowing I didn't vote for someone who would order the targeted death of an American citizen abroad. I get to wake up knowing I didn't vote for someone who treats free speech and privacy as either non-existent or extremely negotiable qualities of our republic. It is amazing how good that feels. 

 

If I voted with the masses of Dems or Republicans, my views wouldn't be given any more weight than they are now. The difference is that the Dems and Republicans have a choice to either recognize that my vote is transferable (to a third, etc) and meet me half way on an issue or ignore it. By voting third I exercise far more control than I would inside the party. If the Libs decided to side with Sec. Clinton this cycle, she wouldn't all of a sudden forgo her indifference to foreign wars or crony capitalism. Nor would us voting for Trump cause him to rethink his stance on libel laws and protectionist trade policies. But now that the Dems have lost and can recognize that the Libs could have easily put them over, they have a hard choice to make: meet us half way or ignore it and hope it was a one off. Eitherway, we exercise the exact same amount or more control in the cycle this time. Why? Because coalitions only change policies if members of that coalition will actually carry through on our only power - breaking from it. 

 

Soar.

Coalitions change policies by deciding internally between different candidates with different policy ideas and arguments. Those candidates try to woo those coalitions by appealing to their interests. Coalition members who leave tend to stay gone(e.g., the Dixiecrats). Threatening to leave tends to be more effective of a threat than actually leaving. Once you leave, you're unreliable and difficult to placate. So they search for easier votes to get or new members to add to the coalition. If Bernie had run third party, it would have done immeasurable damage to the left wing of the Democratic party, because they would be seen as disloyal and contributing to the loss, rather than working together to get the win. Sanders staying within the party strengthened the hand of the progressive left wing of the party. Just an example.

[薔薇語]

Mega, you are confusing politicians with voters. When I go to vote in a Primary, no one knows who I am going to vote for in the election. I can vote in the Democratic Primary and push for a more Libertarian candidate. I have not lost that power. But we still aren't getting pro-peace and pro-privacy Dems. We still aren't getting Pro-Trade, Pro-Minority republicans. We are still more than capable of exercising that power, and the parties are still more than capable of pushing a candidate that will favor us in their primaries, but they aren't. And for as much as I disagree with Senator Sanders on issues, at least that was someone I, a full gold Libertarian, could have stomached against President Elect Trump. But the Dems decided that he and his crew were all racists and sexist bigots and colluded to keep him out. That isn't a process I particularly want to be in. Senator Sanders' willingness to accept that kind of abuse is unfortunate. 

 

Soar. 

[megaplayboy]

With respect, wrt what happened with Sanders, you know not whereof you speak. I say that as a Democrat who voted for Sanders, who read a dozen political sites several times a days and who frequents and comments on a few progressive blogs. It's a misrepresentation of what actually happened during the campaign. I will leave it at that, because it would be an extremely lengthy and nonproductive dialogue to lay it all out. Suffice it to say that Bernie required no conspiracy against him to lose the primaries. He made sufficient mistakes on his own to pull that off effectively. I know this because I was wincing for him as the mistakes happened in real time.

[薔薇語]

I say this as someone who has heard you claim, on this very thread, that Bernie Bros were an actual thing months after the fact, that your assessment leaves me wanting. 

The Dems had a chance to put someone at the head of their ship that might have actually gotten more than an absolute "NO" from me. They chose not to but in doing so alienated an election-losing percent of their base. Let's hope for the Libs sake they learn nothing from this fiasco. 

Soar. 

[Old Man]

Millions of cases of voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election

[薔薇語]

I literally just said that abolishing the EC would help the GOP voters in blue states that you consider disenfranchised. Giving more voice to minority states would be fine, but because EVs are awarded en bloc by state*, what matters is the relative proportion of voters within each state.

 

 

* Or district, in the case of Nebraska and Maine.

Apologizes for not getting back to this faster. 

 

I do not like the idea of a national popular vote. I do not like it for a handful of reasons, some of which are partisan. 

 

Things to start off with:

 

1 - I am not some diehard "democracy" fan-boy. An appeal to "DEMOCRACY" falls as flat as uninspired appeals to tradition. So what?

 

2 - The system we have does leave out some groups but is an imperfect way of giving smaller states a voice. A voice they don't really have for 1460 days of the cycle. No Democrat nor Republican is going to ignore the interests of California, New York, nor Texas just because they didn't vote for them. They are too big and important to our nation. Wyoming and North Dakota on the other hand can be ignored in large part. Now the fact that they always vote for a particular party means they exercise less power than they could (or somehow more according to Mega's coalition argument) but then we get back to an issue of fending off the good-enough because it ain't perfect. 

 

3 - 3rd party partisanship. The EC allows people to take a chance on third party candidates in solidly D or R states. They can do so "safely". This gives third parties more media attention and helps them secure ballot access. In battleground states, third parties have a far easier time convincing a few hundred thousand or million voters of something than tens of millions in other states. This makes third party interests more important to prospective candidates wanting to lock up a state. 

 

4 - Anti-Extremism.  I can't count the number of times I have been labeled a racist for not voting for Sec. Clinton this time around when my vote, per some posters here, "didn't matter". Now, imagine the vitriol and extremism we would find ourselves in with a national vote. This can have a mellowing effect - although perhaps less so than I would want. 

 

5 - I like themes. Champions and Comic Books teach us the values of themeing. We have the clear representative themeing of the House, state themeing of the senate and that cozy mix of the two with the PotUS. 

 

6 - Given people are so worried about Russian hackers, an EC system actually makes it a bit harder. You have to set up rigged machines in several states which use various methods in order to swing their votes. A national one could just use pick the easiest targets in the whole of the US and swing their votes alone. But of course this is more a concern for the few conspiracy theorists that actually believe Russians hacked out elections :eyeroll:. 

 

 

I wouldn't mind seeing the way we do things changed, though. Having proportional splitting of EV along with a mandatory binding of them would be good. This alone would actually encourage people to come out in solid states and counter some of the BS that Dems in California are doing. We can't decrease the minimum values for each state without a constitutional amendment, but we can increase them with just an act of congress. This limiting to 435 was created in 1911. If we went back to 1 per 30 or 50 or even 100k, we drastically decrease that vote imbalance. 

 

On a tangential note, we could actually moderate the parties a bit in the congress by switching a bit more to an English style system. Put all the rep seats for a single state up to a vote by party (Dem, Rep, Lib, Green, etc). Then apportion them according to percentage of party votes. Remove the locality of the reps, expand their numbers, and make it a party vote. This does, of course, mean that party politics becomes more important - but also help keep out extremists yet promote 3rd parties. 

 

Soar. 

 

Edited: my original point 3 needed some reworking and breaking out into 2 points. 

[薔薇語]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/donald-trump-supporters-check-in-camerota-new-day-cnntv/index.html?sr=fbCNN120116donald-trump-supporters-check-in-camerota-new-day-cnntv0116PMStory

 

 

This is why I am not so hyped on "democracy". These people get just as much say as everyone else. 

Soar. 

[Badger]

If you mean election results, that's a different animal. By voting patterns, we're purple, nowhere near predominantly red or blue almost anywhere. The vast majority of American territory is populated by purple by any estimation.

 

We don't show up as particularly red or blue in any election by our voting habits, either in the cities or in the rural areas.

 

OK, now I understand exactly what you're saying.  Yeah, I don't disagree with that.  I was pointing out rural counties do tend to vote more GOP, and urban ones Dem.  But, by no means did I mean overwhelmingly so per se.  

[Badger]

Trump won the electoral college. The fact that he didn't win the popular vote is entirely irrelevant, because the goal was not to win the popular vote. Saying otherwise is like saying you can win a game of baseball by making the most touchdowns. 

 

Had the election been a straight popular vote, who would have won? It's impossible to say without actually running a popular vote election.

 

Well, I did see a comparison recently that the American system compared to football. Electoral votes are points. And popular votes are yards.  It doesn't matter if you gain more yards if you don't score.

[Badger]

Good analogy. Another one I love is: In the world series, you can score the most runs and still lose. It doesn't matter if you won 100 to 1 in game 1, if you lose 0 to 1 in the next six, you are still the loser. Dems da rulz.

 

Soar.

 

See 1960 World Series for a clear example.  The Yankees scored almost twice as many runs, yet Mazeroski hits a game winner in game 7 to give it to the Pirates.

[薔薇語]

Maybe seeing a progressive site make the same case as me will help some folks.

 

http://slate.me/2gLwVc9

 

The Myth of the Rust Belt Revolt:

Donald Trump didn’t flip working-class white voters. Hillary Clinton lost them.

 

Soar.

[Badger]

Apologizes for not getting back to this faster. 

 

I do not like the idea of a national popular vote. I do not like it for a handful of reasons, some of which are partisan. 

 

Things to start off with:

 

1 - I am not some diehard "democracy" fan-boy. An appeal to "DEMOCRACY" falls as flat as uninspired appeals to tradition. So what?

 

2 - The system we have does leave out some groups but is an imperfect way of giving smaller states a voice. A voice they don't really have for 1460 days of the cycle. No Democrat nor Republican is going to ignore the interests of California, New York, nor Texas just because they didn't vote for them. They are too big and important to our nation. Wyoming and North Dakota on the other hand can be ignored in large part. Now the fact that they always vote for a particular party means they exercise less power than they could (or somehow more according to Mega's coalition argument) but then we get back to an issue of fending off the good-enough because it ain't perfect. 

 

3 - 3rd party partisanship. The EC allows people to take a chance on third party candidates in solidly D or R states. They can do so "safely". This gives third parties more media attention and helps them secure ballot access. In battleground states, third parties have a far easier time convincing a few hundred thousand or million voters of something than tens of millions in other states. This makes third party interests more important to prospective candidates wanting to lock up a state. 

 

4 - Anti-Extremism.  I can't count the number of times I have been labeled a racist for not voting for Sec. Clinton this time around when my vote, per some posters here, "didn't matter". Now, imagine the vitriol and extremism we would find ourselves in with a national vote. This can have a mellowing effect - although perhaps less so than I would want. 

 

5 - I like themes. Champions and Comic Books teach us the values of themeing. We have the clear representative themeing of the House, state themeing of the senate and that cozy mix of the two with the PotUS. 

 

6 - Given people are so worried about Russian hackers, an EC system actually makes it a bit harder. You have to set up rigged machines in several states which use various methods in order to swing their votes. A national one could just use pick the easiest targets in the whole of the US and swing their votes alone. But of course this is more a concern for the few conspiracy theorists that actually believe Russians hacked out elections :eyeroll:. 

 

 

I wouldn't mind seeing the way we do things changed, though. Having proportional splitting of EV along with a mandatory binding of them would be good. This alone would actually encourage people to come out in solid states and counter some of the BS that Dems in California are doing. We can't decrease the minimum values for each state without a constitutional amendment, but we can increase them with just an act of congress. This limiting to 435 was created in 1911. If we went back to 1 per 30 or 50 or even 100k, we drastically decrease that vote imbalance. 

 

On a tangential note, we could actually moderate the parties a bit in the congress by switching a bit more to an English style system. Put all the rep seats for a single state up to a vote by party (Dem, Rep, Lib, Green, etc). Then apportion them according to percentage of party votes. Remove the locality of the reps, expand their numbers, and make it a party vote. This does, of course, mean that party politics becomes more important - but also help keep out extremists yet promote 3rd parties. 

 

Soar. 

 

Edited: my original point 3 needed some reworking and breaking out into 2 points. 

 

4) Given what you claim happened to you, being far too widespread, this alone tells me the Dem voters don't get it (yet).  Apparently constantly and unendingly calling a significant portion of the voters racist just wasn't enough.  So, we'll somehow up the ante?  This has become the Dem windmill (as you referenced Don Quixote).  I don't know if that effected anything externally.  But, if you brazenly throw the worst epithet that can be thrown in our current climate.  You will leave seething towards, will not win them over.  To put it into another classic story, it has become the boy who cried wolf, I think fewer people are continuing to buy it.

 

6) I believe the Russian hacker crap is about as credible as the 3 million illegals voting one.

[Simon]

"Soar" is done here (in the NGD), folks.

 

He had been warned multiple times previously and told to stay out of the politics thread as a result.  

 

I tried giving him the benefit of the doubt when he chose to ignore those warnings, but enough is enough.  He will not be back.

[Doc Shadow]

Thank you, Daniel. He was driving me crazy. I tried putting him on ignore but it didn't do much good what with others quoting his posts. I didn't want to have to put everyone on ignore. So thank you for resolving the problem.

[Iuz the Evil]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/christopher-hill-trump-taiwan-erin-burnett/index.html

[TheDarkness]

4) Given what you claim happened to you, being far too widespread, this alone tells me the Dem voters don't get it (yet).  Apparently constantly and unendingly calling a significant portion of the voters racist just wasn't enough.  So, we'll somehow up the ante?  This has become the Dem windmill (as you referenced Don Quixote).  I don't know if that effected anything externally.  But, if you brazenly throw the worst epithet that can be thrown in our current climate.  You will leave seething towards, will not win them over.  To put it into another classic story, it has become the boy who cried wolf, I think fewer people are continuing to buy it.

 

6) I believe the Russian hacker crap is about as credible as the 3 million illegals voting one.

The problem with your point in 4 is that if calling out clear racism is not allowed because of something that amounts to the same thing as political correctness, it is of advantage to no one but the racists. And the difference between calling half of the population racist and calling half the population "people who call racism" seems like no difference at all to me. I'm not saying that there is not unfair name calling all around, but the whole argument that all the democrats are calling racist is doing the exact same thing.

 

The Republican party has an issue with attracting minorities. A huge issue. There's a reason for it, but that doesn't mean that all their voters are racist. But, since the Republican Party's answer to this issue has, for many years, been saying "African Americans just don't understand why we're the best party for them" instead of asking "why don't african-american voters think we're the best party for them" and maybe listening instead of explaining. BUT, this would not have possible in most of my lifetime, because the southern bloc went to the GOP in protest of the Civil Rights Act.

[Badger]

Fair point.  (when I do talk about that my unspoken implication are liberal pundits, which I didnt make clear)

 

However, simply not voting for Clinton is no reason to start chucking bigotry bombs at the opposition.  Which far too many of the known players from the liberal side immediately started doing. 

 

From what I observed this election cycle, the Dems fought a campaign of what they saw as fear and hatred with their own brand of fear and hatred.  Lost, and too many (again especially the public faces of the party made perfectly clear) reacted to that loss with increased fear and hatred.  That simply isn't likely to get them many wins long-term.  But, it is their choice (and for the party members to accept or not where those public faces are going to lead them)

[womble]

However, simply not voting for Clinton is no reason to start chucking bigotry bombs at the opposition.  Which far too many of the known players from the liberal side immediately started doing.

 

I'd content that they're not chucking the 'R-word' around because people didn't vote for Clinton. They're aiming it at people who voted for Trump in spite of him being a knee-jerk racist and inveterate misogynist. They made the choice that his nebulous promises to achieve the unattainable were more important than respect and concern for their fellow Americans and the wider global community. They told Trump, "It's okay to be an ignorant, bigoted narcissist, if you improve our economic position," at the very least. They gave their civic sanction to racist policy-making.

 

 

From what I observed this election cycle, the Dems fought a campaign of what they saw as fear and hatred with their own brand of fear and hatred.  Lost, and too many (again especially the public faces of the party made perfectly clear) reacted to that loss with increased fear and hatred.  That simply isn't likely to get them many wins long-term.  But, it is their choice (and for the party members to accept or not where those public faces are going to lead them)

 

I think that's true, but with the media operating as they do, what option is there? Rational, calm dissection of the opposition's position won't gain any column inches. Or at least not enough to counter the histrionics of Trumpism and its ilk. Doesn't look good for the future, whatever your political colour, if elections solely become decided by who can spread the most fear. Based on some of the comments up-thread, perhaps all the DNC need to do is focus the FUD on their own supporters, to get them worried enough about the Dem victory to actually bother to get off their arses and go vote. Should be easier next time for them, though: "Look at the clown that got in last time; that proves there's no such thing as a foregone conclusion. Get out and vote."

 

I think any democratic system would be greatly improved by making voting mandatory, as they do in Australia. Provided that there is an explicit requirement also for a "None of the above" box, that no one is disenfranchised by the arrangements needed and that the penalty for not voting doesn't criminalise anyone.

[Badger]

I'd content that they're not chucking the 'R-word' around because people didn't vote for Clinton. They're aiming it at people who voted for Trump in spite of him being a knee-jerk racist and inveterate misogynist. They made the choice that his nebulous promises to achieve the unattainable were more important than respect and concern for their fellow Americans and the wider global community. They told Trump, "It's okay to be an ignorant, bigoted narcissist, if you improve our economic position," at the very least. They gave their civic sanction to racist policy-making.

 

 

THe problem though is that there are thousands of reason people might have voted the way they did.  People didn't perceive the election exactly the same.  Which isn't the case.  Nearly everybody I know who voted for Trump (or I am pretty sure did) in large part because they did see Clinton as the greater evil.  One might not agree with that conclusion. But, one also shouldn't dismiss that, and replace it with one's own perceived conclusions.

[womble]

Nearly everybody I know who voted for Trump (or I am pretty sure did) in large part because they did see Clinton as the greater evil. 

 

Indeed. Which worries the bejazus out of me. Nothing I've seen of Clinton suggests she's worse evil than Trump. He's a bigger liar than her, a bigger philanderer than her husband. He's less consistent in his beliefs and even more hypocritical. And he's a racist narcissist who's doing it for the attention. What makes these people think that Hilary is worse than Trump? Mostly big lies, told often and loudly. And unsupported by evidence. Don't get me wrong. I don't think Hilary is anywhere near perfect President material. That'd be Barack Obama, for my money. But Trump? Worse? I thought Brexit was bad, over here, but he has taken "lying your way into office" to another level completely.

 

THe problem though is that there are thousands of reason people might have voted the way they did.

 

 

And for every one of those thousands of reasons, they decided that racism didn't matter enough to stop them voting for the man, implicitly sanctioning with their only civic input, his racist mindset, along with the same attititudes in others.

[csyphrett]

And the people he is wanting to have confirmed for his cabinet are pretty horrible people for the most part. I think Pence picked most of these people since they seem rational but have a core of evil running through them. The only two that actually look Trump picked them are the guy from Goldman Sachs (which owes money to and blasted during his campaign) and the king of bankrupticies.

 

I can't wait until my obamacare is repealed. I am going to look at my coworker who voted for Trump, and I am going to laugh in his face, and rub it in that he had obamacare too.

 

The people I know who said Hillary was the bigger evil, I point blank told them that Trump only told the truth 4% of the time. In a hundred word speech, Hello I'm Donald Trump were the only truthful things he said. Benghazi: Cleared ELEVEN TIMES (And the guy on the committee getting the cabinet seat still swears Hillary was such a mastermind that she covered up her involvement, but she can't cover an email server that a private foundation found through FOIAs.) Emails: Nothing on them, nothing but reports coming from her department that never went out from her server (which shows you how stupid the FBI is because they destroyed a diplomat's career because they couldn't figure out part of her job is to talk to foreign nationals. Oopsie.) Clinton Foundation: The guy that was complaining the most was getting chucked out for CoI because he was building his side business while using Bill Clinton as a fundraiser. Foundation paid for Chelsea's wedding, which apparently is not true according to an audit. The list goes on and I have had to show how wrong the people I work with are to their faces. And they are still Trump's better. After that I was like you are the biggest fracking idiots ever.

 

And I have gotten to rub it in about what they choose, and every time Trump does something stupid, I go you voted for him.

 

What would really make my day is Trump gets impeached, arrested, and tried over his own Foundation, and the fact he was committing fraud with it. I would laugh my Shadow laugh at my coworkers, and say you voted for him.

CES          

[womble]

It is sad that all that is left is Schadenfreude. Though that's not quite right. Is there a German word for laughing at people for bringing troubles upon themselves while you share their fate?

[L. Marcus]

"Ich hat dir gesagt," or some such.

[Old Man]

It is sad that all that is left is Schadenfreude. Though that's not quite right. Is there a German word for laughing at people for bringing troubles upon themselves while you share their fate?