2016 Presidential General Election Thread

[redbreegull]

except this analogy is more like toss it out a 6th story window, go collect the parts, start putting it back together yourself and hope you can make it work better this time eventually

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by Poots

You're right; there never will be an answer in our present system as long as everyone views our elections as a binary choice. If people quit thinking that they are throwing their vote away by voting third party, then some actual changes can occur.

It might take a few election cycles of "throwing your vote away", but in the long run things can change as third parties gain traction. It's hard to get that through to people who are told repeatedly that "this is the most important election of our time; you can't afford to vote third party." Has anyone noticed that they say that every single election?

I'd love a multiparty system but that's just not ever gonna happen with the presidential election

And yeah, a lot is at stake every 4 years

[redbreegull]

I think the reality of a multiparty system would be very disappointing for Americans. I don't know if I can really say which way is better. I mean we currently have 1 party that is a deeply corrupt neoliberal insider's club and another which is little more than a sunday picnic-and-cross-burning, but multiparty democracies have a whole host of horrible problems we don't have.

[redbreegull]

go back to school

[Elphenor]

Radical change happens quicker in multiparty systems where as a 2 party system is perpetually gridlocked

It can be a dangerous thing

I think I'd still prefer more choice though

[redbreegull]

that's not always true. the bipolar system means the parties are umbrellas. causes which may never gain enough traction to change policy in a system with many parties can ally themselves with an umbrella party in the US and have their views promoted and disseminated to a much larger degree. multiparty systems often lead to worse gridlock and less meaningful change because parties tend to represent niches more instead of overarching cultural values. when you have 10 or 20 parties and most of them represent very specific interests, it's not hard to see why that doesn't always result in a better or easier system.

the US system in particular was designed to foil radical change, but that is not a direct result of two parties... it's written into the framework of our government

[redbreegull]

also a lot of change is built through political legacy. many social policy accomplishments in the US are the result of decades of Democrats building on the work of Democrats before them

you don't get that when a new party is in power every election and they are all trying to undo what the last guy did

I also think Americans are not prepared for the relative chaos and political messiness of more parties. You think this is bad?

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

also a lot of change is built through political legacy. many social policy accomplishments in the US are the result of decades of Democrats building on the work of Democrats before them

you don't get that when a new party is in power every election and they are all trying to undo what the last guy did

I also think Americans are not prepared for the relative chaos and political messiness of more parties. You think this is bad?

Democrats have really only fought for social change for the last 20 years. Other than LBJ, who really wasn't really interested in social change, just what got him votes.

[redbreegull]

The JFK/LBJ action on racial inequality was 100% motivated by the realization they could not hold back the tide, but that's not relevant to what I said. And you might be forgetting this guy FDR maybe you heard about him in your masters program

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

The JFK/LBJ action on racial inequality was 100% motivated by the realization they could not hold back the tide, but that's not relevant to what I said. And you might be forgetting this guy FDR maybe you heard about him in your masters program

Wouldn't say FDR was a big advocate for social change.

The Democrats were pretty socially regressive for most of their existence, GOP a bit more progressive. Changed with Reagan.

Nixon ended the draft, was an early believer in global warming and conservation, pushed healthcare in a more socialized way...Ike was also very liberal.

Try again.

[ninsp]

It's a very recent occurrence of the GOP going super far right and the Democrats moderately left.

[redbreegull]

ladies and gentleman, the professor

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

that's not always true. the bipolar system means the parties are umbrellas. causes which may never gain enough traction to change policy in a system with many parties can ally themselves with an umbrella party in the US and have their views promoted and disseminated to a much larger degree. multiparty systems often lead to worse gridlock and less meaningful change because parties tend to represent niches more instead of overarching cultural values. when you have 10 or 20 parties and most of them represent very specific interests, it's not hard to see why that doesn't always result in a better or easier system.

the US system in particular was designed to foil radical change, but that is not a direct result of two parties... it's written into the framework of our government

You're right that it's not ALWAYS true but usually the result is that the party with the majority or plurality will get a large amount of what they want because there isn't a direct mirror opposition to them

The parties without a majority will basically just push their pet issue conceding power to the majority parties in exchange for some bit of work on it

At the same time in the long term you can have very little change because, like you say, parties come in and just undo everything of the previous party

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

ladies and gentleman, the professor

that moment when you get proven wrong and can't come up with a good rebuttal

[Elphenor]

More like the moment someone says something so stupid you're not sure what to say

[redbreegull]

what ninsp said was not even a response to what I said, it was like a tangential history lesson. I guess he just felt like lecturing

[ilikeplanets]

From the perspective of someone without tons of political knowledge I would very much enjoy having multiple parties since I disagree in a major way with what each is trying to do. So I never have anyone to vote for, and hence I've never voted. Maybe I'd be more politically active if there was someone I could tolerate to get behind.

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

what ninsp said was not even a response to what I said, it was like a tangential history lesson. I guess he just felt like lecturing

You said decades of the Democrats building social change.

You were proven wrong.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

You're right that it's not ALWAYS true but usually the result is that the party with the majority or plurality will get a large amount of what they want because there isn't a direct mirror opposition to them

The parties without a majority will basically just push their pet issue conceding power to the majority parties in exchange for some bit of work on it

At the same time in the long term you can have very little change because, like you say, parties come in and just undo everything of the previous party

Multiparty systems also tend to spring up around parliamentary democracies. It's kind of hard to say what would happen if suddenly there were 4 or 6 competitive parties in Congress at the same time. Multiparty systems also are much more susceptible to extreme political instability and factions quickly taking over the government and then disintegrating (see Greece over the last decade e.g.)

I'm not necessarily defending our system... I just think people like to whine about how everything is rigged and broken, but truthfully the bipolar/multipolar system question is just a choice between different sets of problems and different sets of benefits. People want what they don't have.

[redbreegull]

you know when you start drinking and you want to argue on the internet but you are just a little too out of it and thinking clearly is really hard and frustrating

I imagine that is your normal mental state

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

you know when you start drinking and you want to argue on the internet but you are just a little too out of it and thinking clearly is really hard and frustrating

I imagine that is your normal mental state

I love how every time anyone presents a good argument to you, you just sidestep it

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

You just illustrated in part what I've been saying for a long time; that the Bush's and the Clinton's are criminal alliances. From Saddam to Qaddafi they set up these dictators to justify massive military intervention while they agitate the very situation they claim needs to be dealt with via the war machine. Its all a hegelian meets machiavellian clusterfuck, so fuck 'em all. I love the fact both political parties are on tilt and nearing a meltdown.

This is America's playbook in a nutshell.

Come up with an unjustifiable plan, orchestrate and arrange a situation to get the people riled up and demanding a solution, meanwhile the "solution" is the unjustifiable plan that they wanted to orchestrate in the first place.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Sadly there isn't a candidate running on either side and hasn't been for a very long time, we're talking since WW2, that's against these sorts of policies

Then why do you fucktards keep on voting for them?

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Poots

You're right; there never will be an answer in our present system as long as everyone views our elections as a binary choice. If people quit thinking that they are throwing their vote away by voting third party, then some actual changes can occur.

It might take a few election cycles of "throwing your vote away", but in the long run things can change as third parties gain traction. It's hard to get that through to people who are told repeatedly that "this is the most important election of our time; you can't afford to vote third party." Has anyone noticed that they say that every single election?

Truth bomb right here.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by ninsp

I love how every time anyone presents a good argument to you, you just sidestep it

Also this

Americans have 2 establishment choices each election... May as well just live in a total dictatorship... Wow America gives you ONE MORE CHOICE

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by ninsp

It's a very recent occurrence of the GOP going super far right and the Democrats moderately left.

Right on the first part, but the GOP became reactionary to the leftist creep that showed itself in the Carter admin, that's why so many southerners went for Reagan at the time and stayed with it through Bush.


Trump is now the anti-war candidate by saying he's not going to be for nation building, which is code for telling the Neo-Con empire that if he gets in there, their days of war expansion are done. It's a direct threat to the Bush part of the machine. On the social/cultural front, he'll be the Manhattan liberal he's always been and GOP voters are willing to live with it.

So much for that 'super far right' Republican party.

The cucks that call themselves conservatives who loudly won't support Trump, merely expose themselves to be so wrapped up in the corruption that their ass is on the line. That includes most of the media as well.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

obvs

[Cool As Ice Cream]

trut bom write their

[MyOneAndOnly]

LOL at a conversation between fuzz and poots

[ninsp]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Right on the first part, but the GOP became reactionary to the leftist creep that showed itself in the Carter admin, that's why so many southerners went for Reagan at the time and stayed with it through Bush.


Trump is now the anti-war candidate by saying he's not going to be for nation building, which is code for telling the Neo-Con empire that if he gets in there, their days of war expansion are done. It's a direct threat to the Bush part of the machine. On the social/cultural front, he'll be the Manhattan liberal he's always been and GOP voters are willing to live with it.

So much for that 'super far right' Republican party.

The cucks that call themselves conservatives who loudly won't support Trump, merely expose themselves to be so wrapped up in the corruption that their ass is on the line. That includes most of the media as well.

you used the word cuck unironically in the wrong phrasing