2020 US Election

[joshuatxuk]

15 minutes ago, randomsummer said:

Of course they do.  I'll bet this divisiveness has greatly increased viewership, and the media doesn't want to lose out on that.  Everyone is tuning in either to see what boneheaded thing Trump said this time or to get upset about the latest things the "libtards" want to take from them.

Totally, same mentality help secure him as the 2016 candidate as well.

this episode lays into Biden's campaign pretty well, centering mostly on one of his near incoherent debate responses as well as his corn pop lifeguard story

 

[goDel]

Looks like I've made a mistake thinking 2020 won't be turning out like a Hillary-Trump election 2.0. Sounds like the hate machines are already pumping freely. And it hasn't even started yet. I guess US politics simply can not exist without being polarised.

So yeah, "prediction" is that lots of people will hate both candidates running for 2020. Well done! It's not even a prediction anymore, innit. It's just a given at this point. Regardless who wins the Dem ticket, btw.

[EdamAnchorman]

Which is why ALL of the sane people who just want a functioning government need to give them all the middle finger by voting but writing in their choice.

It's never gonna happen, but wouldn't it be great if there was a statistically large number of write-in votes?  I feel that's the only way to alter the course of where it seems we're headed, because the establishment on both sides would realize they've lost party-line voters and perhaps make some changes to try to get them back.  But as it is, the narrative is that if you don't vote your party line, you're throwing your vote away.

[zlemflolia]

2 hours ago, joshuatxuk said:

Castro literally was the only non-frontrunner who performed well. The pundits are literally manufacturing narratives and "conflicts" at this point. Same with their dismissive tone about Sanders being too serious or "grumpy." They'll talk about Castro and Sanders being too mean/negative on cable shows then literally cut to some panel discussing Trump and his cronies outrageous vitriol of the week. The amount of enabling the mainstream media in the US does for Trump is incredible  treasonous

 

[may be rude]

love this

 

re: the media discussion, above

Edited September 19, 2019 by very honest

[zlemflolia]

5 hours ago, randomsummer said:

Which is why ALL of the sane people who just want a functioning government need to give them all the middle finger by voting but writing in their choice.

It's never gonna happen, but wouldn't it be great if there was a statistically large number of write-in votes?  I feel that's the only way to alter the course of where it seems we're headed, because the establishment on both sides would realize they've lost party-line voters and perhaps make some changes to try to get them back.  But as it is, the narrative is that if you don't vote your party line, you're throwing your vote away.

good in theory, doesn't work

a write-in is a vote for trump

[EdamAnchorman]

17 hours ago, Zeffolia said:

good in theory, doesn't work

a write-in is a vote for trump

I'm tired of this narrative.  Sure if only 1 person does it that's true, but what if everyone who is fed up with this bullshit did it.  Would it be a vote for Trump then?  I feel like this was HRC's whole platform, "you'd better vote for me because you don't want Trump in office, right?"

What if I voted for Biden?  I would consider that throwing away my vote because I don't want him to be president.

[markedone]

25 minutes ago, randomsummer said:

I'm tired of this narrative.  Sure if only 1 person does it that's true, but what if everyone who is fed up with this bullshit did it.  Would it be a vote for Trump then?  I feel like this was HRC's whole platform, "you'd better vote for me because you don't want Trump in office, right?"

politics is social, it doesnt just happen in private at the ballot box. Unless youre out there convincing millions to change the electoral system or to vote for your preferred candidate, youre not making a statement.  write-in or abstaining only helps trump. Voting for the least worst candidate is making an actual statement.

And your second sentence doesnt even make sense.  Just because it wasnt perfect to you doesnt mean HRC didnt have a platform.

Edited September 19, 2019 by markedone

[goDel]

16 minutes ago, randomsummer said:

I'm tired of this narrative.  Sure if only 1 person does it that's true, but what if everyone who is fed up with this bullshit did it.  Would it be a vote for Trump then?  I feel like this was HRC's whole platform, "you'd better vote for me because you don't want Trump in office, right?"

What if I voted for Biden?  I would consider that throwing away my vote because I don't want him to be president.

I think you may need to come to grips with the fact that all sane people will behave differently no matter what. Or in other words, in a democracy there is no single "sane" thing, but there are many. 

Being part of a democracy is like that Rollings Stones song: You can't always get what you want. So you don't want Biden to be president? Fine. But what do you want? Especially when Sanders is not on the Dem ticket? If you don't want to "compromise" (which is what I'd argue voting for Biden would mean), but instead do something else, that might be your idea of "sane". But there are still plenty people (the vast majority), who would vote for either Dem or Gop. Even if the candidate would not be their first choice. 

In the end I think compromising is part of being in a democracy and is the "sane" thing under normal circumstances. Only under extreme circumstances I'd go for the so-called nuclear/I don't give a F*ck/FU option. For 2020 however, I'd consider it shooting yourself in the foot and far from sane if you go for a write-in because you don't like Biden - or any other Dem candidate. But hey, that's my opinion.

[EdamAnchorman]

I see both of your points.  The point I was trying to make is that I wonder how many people compromise, like you say, and vote for the lesser of two evils because they're afraid of what might happen if the other guy wins.  I wonder if there are enough people who, if they voted how they really felt, could make a difference and shift the system to get candidates that actually serve the people they're supposed to represent.  I know it's idealistic, but it's the way it's supposed to work and I just don't want to resign myself to saying, "well that's the way it is so I guess I'll just compromise."  I'm asking what would happen if we didn't compromise and actually tried to take control of things.

The government is supposed to serve the people, but I feel that the candidates that both parties keep pushing forward hardly do that and if we keep compromising like this, they're going to keep pushing the limits and serving their own interests over the people's until we eventually reach a tipping point where enough people are in shitty enough situations where they'll be motivated enough to act.

[goDel]

If people don't compromise, there wouldn't be a democracy. Simple as that. You think you're being idealistic, but it seems closer to autoritarian. It's my way or the highway. 

I completely disagree with you, and suspect your idea of how a democracy should be functioning is completely skewed. 

Without compromise, everything would be a conflict. Which is basically the polarized nonsense you're currently dealing with. You could even consider it the current status quo. So if you want to keep things the way it is, you would indeed avoid any compromises and remain in eternal conflict.

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by goDel

[EdamAnchorman]

No, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  Sorry if I can't articulate it well enough, I have problems with that sometimes.

I'm saying that people should vote for the candidate that best represents themselves and their views.  Tally up the votes, and the candidate with the most votes wins, which should be the one that represents the most amount of people.  Everyone who didn't vote for the winner has to compromise, but that's OK because theoretically the winner will represent the largest subsection of voters.  I'm completely fine with the fact that I have to compromise if my choice doesn't get elected, that just means that my views don't necessarily align with the largest section of voters and I'm fine with that.  I don't want the government to serve me personally, I want it to serve the largest amount of people possible. 

Now I get that if there are only two candidates, people will have to compromise and vote for the one of the two that most closely aligns with their values, but this is why I think the primaries are more important than the general election.  For example, I know a lot of Dems who hated HRC but didn't vote in the primaries, then because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for HRC they just didn't vote, maybe also because they didn't think Trump could actually win.  All I'm saying is that, throughout the entire process, people need to participate and vote for who they want to represent them.  And then if their candidate doesn't make it, compromise and vote for the person who is closest to their views. 

Here's my issue: in the last election, I really didn't think that HRC represented the largest section of Dem voters.  I'm not just talking about the narrative that Bernie got shafted, he may or may not have, I don't really care.  I felt like the people leading the Dems decided that HRC was going to be their nominee no matter what, and I didn't like that they made that choice for everyone which is why I didn't vote for her.  I felt like I would be endorsing their tactics and emboldening them to do it again next time.  Of course my perception could've been wrong and I'm willing to accept the consequences.

Edited September 20, 2019 by randomsummer

[may be rude]

you guys are both right, in a way. at times, a voter should decide their vote to record their preference, even if they they know it will not result in that person's election. and, at other times, a voter should pay attention to the moment, and should consider voting for a lower preference with a higher chance, in order to prevent a worse choice from winning. you've got to smell the wind at the time and decide.

 

the spoiler effect resulted in president george w bush and his random, disastrous war with iraq (ralph nader).

 

if i present you with two options, and you say you want a third, you are not participating in the choice. by election day in america, it's usually a choice between two people. the idea of write-ins by themselves contributing to a movement that will change elections in the future, i am skeptical of.

 

if you want a third party candidate to have a good chance, the way is ground work and support starting early in the campaign season. i think that a significantly sizable movement of write-ins would only happen as a byproduct of a very strong 3rd party campaign, or campaigns.

Edited September 20, 2019 by very honest

[goDel]

1 hour ago, randomsummer said:

No, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  Sorry if I can't articulate it well enough, I have problems with that sometimes.

...

Now I get that if there are only two candidates, people will have to compromise and vote for the one of the two that most closely aligns with their values, but this is why I think the primaries are more important than the general election.  For example, I know a lot of Dems who hated HRC but didn't vote in the primaries, then because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for HRC they just didn't vote, maybe also because they didn't think Trump could actually win.  All I'm saying is that, throughout the entire process, people need to participate and vote for who they want to represent them.  And then if their candidate doesn't make it, compromise and vote for the person who is closest to their views. 

Here's my issue: in the last election, I really didn't think that HRC represented the largest section of Dem voters.  I'm not just talking about the narrative that Bernie got shafted, he may or may not have, I don't really care.  I felt like the people leading the Dems decided that HRC was going to be their nominee no matter what, and I didn't like that they made that choice for everyone which is why I didn't vote for her.  I felt like I would be endorsing their tactics and emboldening them to do it again next time.  Of course my perception could've been wrong and I'm willing to accept the consequences.

Fair. 

I think 2016 was a special case though. Apart from HRC and Bernie, I can't remember any other interesting candidates, tbh. And because Bernie was an independent, I kinda understand why he didn't get a real shot. Not that I agree, btw. But in the end, there wasn't really an alternative for HRC as far as I can tell. Nate Silver did some analysis back then explaining why Bernie wouldn't win anyways, regardless of the shenanigans. Too many groups weren't supporting him (he was doing poorly with the "african americans" back then, for instance). 

Haven't seen similar stuff happening this time around though. So I'm having a harder time understanding people who are hating the dem candidate. But that's just my opinion. 

[may be rude]

bernie got a shot. he lost. to hillary.

[caze]

2 hours ago, goDel said:

Too many groups weren't supporting him (he was doing poorly with the "african americans" back then, for instance). 

He continues to do poorly there, as does Warren, they love Biden though.

[Brisbot]

So for those who like the more populist candidates in the democratic primary, Bernie, Elizabeth, Yang (kinda). Turns out Elizabeth is not even a 'Bernie-Lite' candidate and that she is using underhanded tactics to take money from rich donors. Time to call her out. Now that this has been exposed there's no telling where her real views lie since she isn't honest.

So far Bernie and Yang are the only ones that are honest about their positions, barring evidence to the contrary.
 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Brisbot

[TubularCorporation]

Yang is sort of honest, but you have to dig.  He's not going out on TV and talking about how his long term plan is to eliminate or privatize all social programs through attrition, but he's up front about it when he talks to people like Ben Shapiro.

[TubularCorporation]

My main concern about Bernie is that if he becomes president and is inevitably unable to deliver 100% on his platform for obvious structural reasons, I think there are a lot of sectarian personality cultists on the left who will get salty and disengage.  As much as Bernie is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime I actually feel good about supporting, I worry that he would be more effective as a political martyr than as a president, and that Warren as president with pressure from Bernie and his base giving her a pretense to move left might be strategically preferable.

[Brisbot]

13 minutes ago, TubularCorporation said:

My main concern about Bernie is that if he becomes president and is inevitably unable to deliver 100% on his platform for obvious structural reasons, I think there are a lot of sectarian personality cultists on the left who will get salty and disengage.  As much as Bernie is the first presidential candidate in my lifetime I actually feel good about supporting, I worry that he would be more effective as a political martyr than as a president, and that Warren as president with pressure from Bernie and his base giving her a pretense to move left might be strategically preferable.

Yes I agree somewhat. IMHO centrist dems would much rather have Trump as president than Bernie, as they are the gatekeepers of the overton window, and their job is to keep the status quo as it is by keeping the conversation from going too far left economically. Bernie if elected will have to pull out all the stops of bypassing them. Even if he doesn't win, it is still an amazing thing he has accomplished by re-defining American politics. I think he could accomplish a lot more as president than a martyr, but if just ends up being a martyr that is a good thing as well.

The issue though with Warren is that it's become increasingly obvious that she really isn't nearly as much of a populist as she says she is. The reason the media like her is because she aligns with their views behind closed doors, and so they pretend she will be upsetting the system, . You don't even need to hear what she has to say to know this, all you have to do is watch who the media plays favorites with. 

While it's important to undo what Trump has done, Biden and Warren will just uphold the status quo. Warren if elected will probably just try to accomplish 1 or 2 of her promises like most politicians who become president. 

19 minutes ago, TubularCorporation said:

Yang is sort of honest, but you have to dig.  He's not going out on TV and talking about how his long term plan is to eliminate or privatize all social programs through attrition, but he's up front about it when he talks to people like Ben Shapiro.

I don't think Yang is much like Shapiro and not nearly as condescending. I kinda like him, he presents interesting ideas that I think would be better than our current system, but it still isn't ideal. And I think UBI is an inevitable thing in the future, however idk if Yang is a decade or two too early for it. Even if he loses I imagine he will run as president again, and will have a much better chance of winning in the future.

You know it's sad that politicians can be likeable simply because they're candid. That  should be a given, but in reality most politicians obfuscate their real beliefs with platitude and cliches and pretending to care about people.
 

[caze]

25 minutes ago, Brisbot said:

IMHO centrist dems would much rather have Trump as president than Bernie

This is an incredibly silly thing to say. Bernie keeps calling himself a democratic socialist, which might scare the people who watch Fox news, but really he's just a pretty mainstream European style social democrat, he's a capitalist at the end of the day not a socialist. The rest of the democrats are on the same page as him on most issues, and they'd probably be able to compromise pretty easily on the others.

Warren has better versions of most Sanders policies, but there's not a huge difference between most of the big ones. She also has more chance of getting them through congress I would have thought, with the exception of the medicare plan, a public option or something like that would be a better plan, and would work better in the general election because it would require far less tax increases. 

Neither of them are fit for the job though, as they both plan on shutting down nuclear power in favor of a renewables only strategy (and not just focusing on new renewables, but shutting down existing nuclear, which is complete idiocy). This really should rule them out for anyone who thinks climate change is a big priority. This makes even Biden a better candidate, and he's terrible. Brooker and Yang have been the best and most vocal on this issue.

It's a shame though, I'd have been happy with Warren if it wasn't for the nuclear thing, she had been sitting on the fence on that issue for ages. She also has some other dumb ideas too, like breaking up the big tech companies, and she's been talking up protectionism too.

Yang has a lot of interesting ideas (his VAT idea is probably the best one, not even the UBI), plus some silly ones, but it's all academic really as he doesn't have a chance. Hopefully he at least sticks around til the end, as he'll have a positive effect on the debate at least, he should run for Senate or Governor next, he might have a real chance in the future.

[zlemflolia]

On 9/20/2019 at 8:34 AM, very honest said:

bernie got a shot. he lost. to hillary.

actually, he lost to mainstream media corporate interests who barely acknowledged his existence

[luke viia]

58 minutes ago, caze said:

This is an incredibly silly thing to say. Bernie keeps calling himself a democratic socialist, which might scare the people who watch Fox news, but really he's just a pretty mainstream European style social democrat, he's a capitalist at the end of the day not a socialist. The rest of the democrats are on the same page as him on most issues, and they'd probably be able to compromise pretty easily on the others.

Warren has better versions of most Sanders policies, but there's not a huge difference between most of the big ones. She also has more chance of getting them through congress I would have thought, with the exception of the medicare plan, a public option or something like that would be a better plan, and would work better in the general election because it would require far less tax increases. 

Neither of them are fit for the job though, as they both plan on shutting down nuclear power in favor of a renewables only strategy (and not just focusing on new renewables, but shutting down existing nuclear, which is complete idiocy). This really should rule them out for anyone who thinks climate change is a big priority. This makes even Biden a better candidate, and he's terrible. Brooker and Yang have been the best and most vocal on this issue.

It's a shame though, I'd have been happy with Warren if it wasn't for the nuclear thing, she had been sitting on the fence on that issue for ages. She also has some other dumb ideas too, like breaking up the big tech companies, and she's been talking up protectionism too.

Yang has a lot of interesting ideas (his VAT idea is probably the best one, not even the UBI), plus some silly ones, but it's all academic really as he doesn't have a chance. Hopefully he at least sticks around til the end, as he'll have a positive effect on the debate at least, he should run for Senate or Governor next, he might have a real chance in the future.

Warren wants to kill off nuclear energy too? ffs. First I've heard of that; I knew about Bernie's plan and yeah, that part is seriously disappointing. 

[auxien]

2 hours ago, TubularCorporation said:

My main concern about Bernie is that if he becomes president and is inevitably unable to deliver 100% on his platform for obvious structural reasons

tbh that's possible with any candidate these days, Dem or R.

Shapiro is an idiotic pile of trash masquerading as a 'thinking man' in these desperately sad times we're in. 

Yang is just riding Trump's coattails trying to up his exposure on the national stage. he's Marianne Williamson with better marketing. 

[caze]

1 hour ago, luke viia said:

Warren wants to kill off nuclear energy too? ffs. First I've heard of that; I knew about Bernie's plan and yeah, that part is seriously disappointing. 

Last I checked there was no mention of nuclear on her website, but in that town hall climate debate earlier this month she announced her plan was to phase out all nuclear and replace it with renewables by 2035. Now even if this was possible (it's not), it would still be incredibly stupid, because you could instead replace lots of coal power with renewables instead. 

Now one possible thing here is that because it's such an idiotic policy, it'll be obvious early on it's going to fail and maybe she'd be able to backtrack somewhat; but even then it's likely all her eggs will be in a renewables basket so it would just lead to big delays decarbonising. Maybe it's just a cynical attempt on her part to court Sanders voters? It's not an issue she's been vocal on before and she seems willing to steal other candidates policies when it suits her.