|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 10 2017 08:12 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 07:54 Plansix wrote:
So I took to comment to mean Obamas EO on transgender bathroom use in schools was part of this "culture war". While Teump had not engaged in it. I would be happy to be corrected if Bucky didn't mean that. Mostly there. I think Obama's EO was more significantly a different sort of bad thing (re-interpreting a statute more broadly than could possibly have been intended by Congress in order to score political points). The state-level transgender bathroom restrictions are a more direct example of a "culture war" mentality. Republicans pass a bill to inconvenience a demographic that mostly supports their opponents. Trump could attempt to EO on the subject, but is restrained enough to stay out of the conversation. ------ More generally, Trump ran on a platform of not abusing executive authority as much as Obama did. So far, he's indeed doing so, with the most significant EOs being retractions of earlier EOs.
Trump really seems like the abuse his authority type of person; so I expect as time goes by he will have done far more abuse of them than Obama has. As time passes and it becomes more clear he can't get what he wants through the legislature.
I'm not sure on a per EO basis he's doing any better by now. negating orders that are good orders isn't really to your credit of course; and some of them are good orders. An interesting question of fact; with some difficult measurement issues; how many EOs get blocked by the courts for unconstitutionality. From what little I can see so far they seem not that different on that metric, as trump has already had some of his blocked by the courts. sadly it's hard to find things in straighit up list form, and there are some issues with how you compare numbers.
also, abusing and damaging the office is kinda worse than abusing executive authority; but it is admittedly a different issue.
|
United States43730 Posts
On June 10 2017 08:12 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 07:54 Plansix wrote:
So I took to comment to mean Obamas EO on transgender bathroom use in schools was part of this "culture war". While Teump had not engaged in it. I would be happy to be corrected if Bucky didn't mean that. Mostly there. I think Obama's EO was more significantly a different sort of bad thing (re-interpreting a statute more broadly than could possibly have been intended by Congress in order to score political points). The state-level transgender bathroom restrictions are a more direct example of a "culture war" mentality. Republicans pass a bill to inconvenience a demographic that mostly supports their opponents. Trump could attempt to EO on the subject, but is restrained enough to stay out of the conversation. ------ More generally, Trump ran on a platform of not abusing executive authority as much as Obama did. So far, he's indeed doing so, with the most significant EOs being retractions of earlier EOs.
Out of curiousity, are you opposed to the overtime or fiduciary EOs?
|
I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen.
|
United States43730 Posts
On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen.
Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to.
|
In case you haven't realized gh, politics in the us sucks.
|
On June 10 2017 08:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen. Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to.
No. I'm aware of how it works and why we can't join a race to the bottom which you essentially say is inevitable.
|
On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen.
For me personally, there is a threshold past which I'd vote for the more despicable person just to tell the other party to go fuck themselves. Hillary here certainly tested those boundaries here. Didn't quite reach that point though.
If she runs in 2020 I'm voting Trump because he would be less trouble than Democrats still not getting a clue.
|
United States43730 Posts
On June 10 2017 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 08:33 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen. Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to. No. I'm aware of how it works and why we can't join a race to the bottom which you essentially say is inevitable.
Ah yes, and then if enough moral people refuse to participate on moral grounds then the immoral people will just get tired out from all the constant winning they're doing.
|
Why not vote for a viable 3rd party if it presented itself? Depending on how trump performs (if he lasts), why continue that same thing? We already saw Bush. We don't need a repeat of that, do we?
|
KwarK, is that following the same premise of why the more intelligent are not reproducing as quickly as the less educated?
|
No third party is viable in the US. Seriously Democrats need to wake up and understand how power works. In a parliamentary democracy you change things by getting elected and drafting law, not by voting for Jill Stein or kicking trash bins over on a campus.
|
On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen.
yeah; some people are going overboard with supporting despicableness; that said the slaaaave queen point is unjustified.
|
On June 10 2017 08:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2017 08:33 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen. Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to. No. I'm aware of how it works and why we can't join a race to the bottom which you essentially say is inevitable. Ah yes, and then if enough moral people refuse to participate on moral grounds then the immoral people will just get tired out from all the constant winning they're doing.
No, if people fight for people to see that the party doesn't represent them and that accepting a corporate party that hates you slightly less than the other corporate party is a stupid voting decision and people need to stop trying to make it sound like the only choice because it's actively harming the ability to change it.
Or we could stick with the absurdly stupid plan you and others are offering.
Republicans are running on killing 1000 people this year and Dems 500, gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 1000 people, but the Republicans are running on killing 1500 gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 10,000,000, but Republicans are running on killing 11,000,000 gotta vote Dem.... Can't vote for someone else, that would be dumb
|
On June 10 2017 08:41 Nyxisto wrote:
No third party is viable in the US. Seriously Democrats need to wake up and understand how power works. In a parliamentary democracy you change things by getting elected and drafting law, not by voting for Jill Stein or kicking trash bins over on a campus.
The people who voted for anyone not named Bernie Sanders have themselves to blame, but the Dems also screwed themselves by being staunch Clinton cronies.
|
United States43730 Posts
On June 10 2017 08:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
KwarK, is that following the same premise of why the more intelligent are not reproducing as quickly as the less educated?
No. It's referring to game theory. Voting is not done in a vacuum, you cannot simply vote for whichever candidate you would most prefer and ignore any information about how other people will vote. In a winner takes all system you have to vote tactically for your vote to have any value at all. Refusing to vote tactically is essentially signalling that you're not participating in the game, broadcasting that whatever you believe in isn't worth appealing to because you're not going to help the players win.
FPTP is a shitty system because it devolves into tactical voting bullshit. The founders fucked you. But you have to play it because the prize at stake is worth winning.
|
United States43730 Posts
On June 10 2017 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 08:39 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2017 08:33 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen. Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to. No. I'm aware of how it works and why we can't join a race to the bottom which you essentially say is inevitable. Ah yes, and then if enough moral people refuse to participate on moral grounds then the immoral people will just get tired out from all the constant winning they're doing. No, if people fight for people to see that the party doesn't represent them and that accepting a corporate party that hates you slightly less than the other corporate party is a stupid voting decision and people need to stop trying to make it sound like the only choice because it's actively harming the ability to change it. Or we could stick with the absurdly stupid plan you and others are offering. Republicans are running on killing 1000 people this year and Dems 500, gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 1000 people, but the Republicans are running on killing 1500 gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 10,000,000, but Republicans are running on killing 11,000,000 gotta vote Dem....
Yeah, and then the Republicans go "wait a second, it looks like people are voting for the Dems because of our plan to kill 11,000,000 people. What if this year we run on killing 9,000,000 and then the Dems will lose". Then the Democrats run on killing 8,000,000 and after a few years we're back to killing nobody. The same system you're inevitably calling a race to the bottom is also a race to the top. Voting for the least bad of the two is also voting for the most good of the two. And if the least bad candidate wins by virtue of being the least bad then the other side is incentivized to run someone even more least bad next time.
|
On June 10 2017 08:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2017 08:39 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2017 08:33 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen. Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to. No. I'm aware of how it works and why we can't join a race to the bottom which you essentially say is inevitable. Ah yes, and then if enough moral people refuse to participate on moral grounds then the immoral people will just get tired out from all the constant winning they're doing. No, if people fight for people to see that the party doesn't represent them and that accepting a corporate party that hates you slightly less than the other corporate party is a stupid voting decision and people need to stop trying to make it sound like the only choice because it's actively harming the ability to change it. Or we could stick with the absurdly stupid plan you and others are offering. Republicans are running on killing 1000 people this year and Dems 500, gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 1000 people, but the Republicans are running on killing 1500 gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 10,000,000, but Republicans are running on killing 11,000,000 gotta vote Dem.... Yeah, and then the Republicans go "wait a second, it looks like people are voting for the Dems because of our plan to kill 11,000,000 people. What if this year we run on killing 9,000,000 and then the Dems will lose". Then the Democrats run on killing 8,000,000 and after a few years we're back to killing nobody. The same system you're inevitably calling a race to the bottom is also a race to the top. Voting for the least bad of the two is also voting for the most good of the two. And if the least bad candidate wins by virtue of being the least bad then the other side is incentivized to run someone even more least bad next time.
Except that's not what's been happening for at least the last 60 years.
|
United States43730 Posts
On June 10 2017 08:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 08:46 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2017 08:39 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2017 08:33 KwarK wrote:On June 10 2017 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm impressed that people managed to convince themselves that they had no choice but to vote for Clinton, and are prepared to vote for the most despicable person they can imagine, so long as someone else can imagine a more despicable one.
That sounds really dumb. But explains why people would vote for the slaaayyyve queen. Do I need to walk you through the game theory of a FPTP system again? Because I will, but I shouldn't have to. No. I'm aware of how it works and why we can't join a race to the bottom which you essentially say is inevitable. Ah yes, and then if enough moral people refuse to participate on moral grounds then the immoral people will just get tired out from all the constant winning they're doing. No, if people fight for people to see that the party doesn't represent them and that accepting a corporate party that hates you slightly less than the other corporate party is a stupid voting decision and people need to stop trying to make it sound like the only choice because it's actively harming the ability to change it. Or we could stick with the absurdly stupid plan you and others are offering. Republicans are running on killing 1000 people this year and Dems 500, gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 1000 people, but the Republicans are running on killing 1500 gotta vote Dem
Dem's are running on killing 10,000,000, but Republicans are running on killing 11,000,000 gotta vote Dem.... Yeah, and then the Republicans go "wait a second, it looks like people are voting for the Dems because of our plan to kill 11,000,000 people. What if this year we run on killing 9,000,000 and then the Dems will lose". Then the Democrats run on killing 8,000,000 and after a few years we're back to killing nobody. The same system you're inevitably calling a race to the bottom is also a race to the top. Voting for the least bad of the two is also voting for the most good of the two. And if the least bad candidate wins by virtue of being the least bad then the other side is incentivized to run someone even more least bad next time. Except that's not what's been happening for at least the last 60 years.
Did you miss the part where they stopped shouting about the damn niggers? Or when gays got rights? Things have gotten better over the years because both parties know that if they run candidates as unpopular as their old candidates would be today they will instantly lose. Even Trump is better than Woodrow Wilson for example.
|
On June 10 2017 08:44 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 08:41 Nyxisto wrote:
No third party is viable in the US. Seriously Democrats need to wake up and understand how power works. In a parliamentary democracy you change things by getting elected and drafting law, not by voting for Jill Stein or kicking trash bins over on a campus. The people who voted for anyone not named Bernie Sanders have themselves to blame, but the Dems also screwed themselves by being staunch Clinton cronies.
The Dems can start blaming themselves when they stop facing people like Trump. This kind of infighting is deeply misplaced
|
IMO the most likely viable third party scenarios for the near future are:
* A Democratic Party split, where the smaller half attracts some typically-Republican voters.
* The emergence of a regional party that does not contest the presidential election so that it can focus entirely on state and local elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
