US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6703

On January 31 2017 04:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
left/right dichotomy is relative to the opposition, they're not absolute values. neoliberalism is much more of an absolute description of favored policies. seeing as how the european and american political climates differ, it makes perfect sense for a neoliberal politician to be center-left in the US and staunchly on the right side of the spectrum in Europe.

In terms of policies favored, democrats are probably the closest to the norwegian conservative party, which in Norway is aptly named 'Right'. In terms of rhetoric employed, they sound more like our Labour party, which is on the left side of the spectrum. This again relates to how rhetoric largely relates to the opposition.

On January 31 2017 04:12 Velr wrote:
Because you marxists? Yeah, why not bring up hitler too?

Most people i know, including myself, are pro bussiness. Many just don't think the market is regulated enough.
Neoliberalism means as few regulations as possible improving the possible earnings a company could make by as much as possible.

I just don't see this as a sustainable model, because it is, by its very nature, built to exploit employees as much as possible.
It leads straight to oligarchy.

On January 31 2017 04:12 Velr wrote:
Because you marxists? Yeah, why not bring up hitler too?

Most people i know, including myself, are pro bussiness. Many just don't think the market is regulated enough.
Neoliberalism means as few regulations as possible improving the possible earnings a company could make by as much as possible.

I just don't see this as a sustainable model, because it is, by its very nature, built to exploit employees as much as possible.
It leads straight to oligarchy.

On January 31 2017 04:16 farvacola wrote:
oneofthem continually reifies problematic characterizations of competing leftist attitudes towards the economy and I can't quite figure out why. There is more than enough common ground among self-proclaimed socialists and those of a more Clintonian bent.

On January 31 2017 04:16 farvacola wrote:
oneofthem continually reifies problematic characterizations of competing leftist attitudes towards the economy and I can't quite figure out why. There is more than enough common ground among self-proclaimed socialists and those of a more Clintonian bent.

On January 31 2017 04:16 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
the US is one of the few 1st world countries with no labour party. i view the US as a 2-party dicatorship. in every other 1st world country new political parties have risen and fallen in prominence over the past 60 years. Not so in the USA.. every race is Democrat/Republican.

Are there any non-Democrat, non-Republican governors?

IMO, all this is a cryin' shame because the US Constitution was one of the most important political achievements in the history of the world and a beacon of hope for the free world.

o well.

On January 31 2017 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:

My personal view is that we should really just go down the Bernie path. Clinton folks will vote for Bernie folks but Bernie folks won't vote for Clinton folks.

None of these discussions as to which is better or worse matter when you lose elections anyway.

On January 30 2017 06:22 ChristianS wrote:

No evidence that the NYT predictions were rigged to inflate Hillary's chances, nor is there any evidence that favoring her in prediction algorithms would make her more likely to win. + Show Spoiler [offtopic re. Plansix] +

On January 31 2017 03:42 oneofthem wrote:

this is true in abstract but does not apply to our current situation, because 'the establishment' as in center-left technocrats involved in dem policy making take very seriously these problems.

you can say the proposed solutions do not go far enough, are constrained by existing ideological blocks such as with respect to role of monetary policy, direct interventions on capital allocation and so on, but i think if the softer solutions do not work for two years or so, real radical changes may be on the table even for a HRC administration.

On January 31 2017 04:55 parkufarku wrote:



If you honestly believe that, I don't know what to tell you. There's a reason why dirty election tactic involves announcing for one candidate way before results are even clear - to make the voters feel like winner is already decided, so that your vote for the loser isn't gonna do any good, and to make the people feel like they are gonna vote for a winner and earn a victory. It's human psychology 101.

And:
+ Show Spoiler +

On January 31 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:


i like this development from you. "real radical changes" may be on the table. as zizek says the true utopia is not this leftist communist alternative that you (falsely) find inextricably bound up with manichean worldviews, but the idea that we can go on as we are with only some slight changes to make liberal democracy better by degrees.

On January 31 2017 05:17 ChristianS wrote:

The opposite effect, i.e. the winner appearing inevitable so there's no reason to go out to the polls, is just as plausible. Hell, it's part of why I didn't vote in 2012. Studying which is more prevalent would be very hard because obviously if someone is down in the polls it's probably because they're unpopular, so their turnout would be lower even if no polls were published.

What we've got here is a classic cult of savviness:

"What's REALLY going on is [insert insidious conspiracy]"
"Oh really? What's the evidence that a more innocent explanation isn't the true one?"
" lol ur so naive, maybe someday ul be savvy like me prolly not"

In place of evidence you try to appeal to people's desire to be "in the know" to convince them to believe you. In reality most of the prediction models got it wrong, to varying degrees, and there's no reason to think NYT did it on purpose. They probably just underestimated correlated error like everyone else.