|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 15 2023 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem with impaired US politicians is all connected to their age.
Does any other country in the world have an average politician age as high as the US?
Actually, there are. While US senate's average age of 66 is high, it is only at 8th place according to the source below. UK house of Lord is at the top at average age of 70. A little lower, we have France 's senate at 60 and India's council of states at 61.
source:
https://data.ipu.org/age-brackets?sort=desc&order=Average age
|
On February 16 2023 00:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2023 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem with impaired US politicians is all connected to their age.
Does any other country in the world have an average politician age as high as the US? Does any comparable country have as high of an uneducated voting population as the US?
You didn't research this at all, did you? The US is doing fine in terms of higher education:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-educated-countries
|
I think its easy to blame voters (and plenty are crappy) but I dont think its as fair to blame them given the nature of the system they're forced to operate within. Better to look upwards than downwards when it comes time to figure out what problems are imo.
|
Especially considering that the one thing which is even harder to change than the system is the voters.
|
Yeah, changing the average American would take decades, however I'd say the average American voter isnt actually all that hard to guide. Maybe Im an optimist but I think the voting populace would be a lot more engaged and take more time to care about their political leaders if it felt like they had real meaningful power to impact what their political leaders actually do instead of voting once every few years and just watching as they kind of do whatever they want.
|
On February 15 2023 21:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2023 21:49 Simberto wrote:
The voters generally have two options on a ballot. One they kind of agree with politically, and one they tend to view as basically Hitler. This is true on both political sides in the US.
In that setup, voting for someone who is losing their mental faculties, but who is in the party that you tend to agree with is rational. They would probably prefer to vote for someone who isn't basically dement who they agree with politically, but that option does not exist on the ballot. It does exist. It's called primaries. Or 3rd parties. Someone could challenge Joe Biden for the nomination in 2024. The reason they don't is because they know the voters would rather pick the incumbent over them even if the incumbent is well into their 80s.
Primaries exist, but I think part of what is meant by “everyone acts rationally” is that primaries are slanted in various ways by rational actors.
Donors acting rationally may give money to incumbents with whom they’ve already established connections.
Party leaders acting rationally may work against primary challengers because primaries challenges may be seen as bad optics.
I once read (sorry, I don’t remember where) that a whole slew of firms necessary for campaigning — pollsters, advertising companies, poster makers, etc. — tend to avoid working with challengers to avoid losing business with incumbents, who are their repeat customers.
The preferences of donors and of party leaders can percolate to news organizations. The same donors may be paying for advertising and the same party leaders get to choose which news outlets get privileged information and interviews. News outlets can have rational incentives to get in line.
Potential primary challengers may rationally wish to wait for someone to retire rather than go head-to-head with them and get branded as a loser and an outsider.
Thus, fewer primary challengers run than should run, and those that do may compete with an experience disadvantage, a resource disadvantage, the antipathy of party leaders, and unfriendly news coverage. In that landscape, even if the incumbent is incompetent and corrupt, their campaign may still be the most effective at broadcasting a polished message.
If so, even rational voters may vote for the incumbent unless the voters are *also* highly informed.
|
|
|
On February 16 2023 04:08 Simberto wrote:
Especially considering that the one thing which is even harder to change than the system is the voters.
It does make me wonder; if there was a socialist revolution that displaced US democracy as we know it, how many people that object to a socialist revolution (particularly Democrat voters) would actually work/fight against it by trying to return to the current status quo vs how many would simply transition their "it's imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters" position to a socialist government in the US.
Outside of ostensibly left people that don't see socialism at minimum as a "lesser evil" to capitalism, I'm not sure they'd have a rational argument to not transition their "imperfectly optimal" position to a socialist US?
|
United States43617 Posts
On February 16 2023 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2023 04:08 Simberto wrote:
Especially considering that the one thing which is even harder to change than the system is the voters. It does make me wonder; if there was a socialist revolution that displaced US democracy as we know it, how many people that object to a socialist revolution (particularly Democrat voters) would actually work/fight against it by trying to return to the current status quo vs how many would simply transition their "it's imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters" position to a socialist government in the US. Outside of ostensibly left people that don't see socialism at minimum as a "lesser evil" to capitalism, I'm not sure they'd have a rational argument to not transition their "imperfectly optimal" position to a socialist US?
They would transition. The bar of “good enough” is “not so bad that I’m willing to manfight a heavily armed openly violent state to change it”. My options are to overthrow the constitution or to participate in simple plurality electoral systems and I don’t feel like overthrowing the constitution. If Bernie was in charge and I hated him I’d still have better things to do with my time than bomb city hall.
|
GH, if you’re wondering whether people have inertia, I’m sure the answer is yes, and for two reasons.
1) People are risk averse. “Revolution” is a term that has described times of great violence and instability (not sure what exactly you have in mind), and nobody wants that even if there’s also some % chance of getting an outcome better than the present.
2) People have limited bandwidth. Ask most people with 2 children if they want to march in the streets, and possibly get clobbered and tear gassed, and they will say no, they don’t have time to march, let alone get arrested or go to the emergency room.
That isn’t to say that many people couldn’t better spend their limited bandwidth. I’m sure I could.
|
On February 16 2023 04:08 Simberto wrote:
Especially considering that the one thing which is even harder to change than the system is the voters.
If 10 of the most influential/popular Republicans/conservatives, across politics, television, and the internet - Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Mitch McConnell, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, etc. - decided to come together and make a unified message that the coronavirus vaccine can be trusted, that humans really do need to do something about climate change, that it is possible to have common sense gun regulations, that being pro-choice is a reasonable position on abortion, or any other flipped stance that their party currently doesn't support, I feel like 95% of those viewers/voters would be swayed in that new direction. All it takes is a unified message from the representatives of the party, but their leaders gain too much money and power from promoting their current positions to ever push the opposing viewpoint.
|
On February 16 2023 02:51 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2023 00:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 15 2023 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem with impaired US politicians is all connected to their age.
Does any other country in the world have an average politician age as high as the US? Does any comparable country have as high of an uneducated voting population as the US? You didn't research this at all, did you? The US is doing fine in terms of higher education: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-educated-countries
I meant as in uneducated in what the policies and actual politics of their representatives are. I understand 100000% party loyalty is the biggest thing. But they don't even understand what the issues are. That was my point. I'm aware America ranks pretty high in terms of overall education. But that doesn't necessarily equate to informed voters.
|
On February 16 2023 04:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2023 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 16 2023 04:08 Simberto wrote:
Especially considering that the one thing which is even harder to change than the system is the voters. It does make me wonder; if there was a socialist revolution that displaced US democracy as we know it, how many people that object to a socialist revolution (particularly Democrat voters) would actually work/fight against it by trying to return to the current status quo vs how many would simply transition their "it's imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters" position to a socialist government in the US. Outside of ostensibly left people that don't see socialism at minimum as a "lesser evil" to capitalism, I'm not sure they'd have a rational argument to not transition their "imperfectly optimal" position to a socialist US? They would transition. + Show Spoiler +The bar of “good enough” is “not so bad that I’m willing to manfight a heavily armed openly violent state to change it”. My options are to overthrow the constitution or to participate in simple plurality electoral systems and I don’t feel like overthrowing the constitution. If Bernie was in charge and I hated him I’d still have better things to do with my time than bomb city hall.
I think they would too. They should do it now though imo.
|
On February 16 2023 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2023 04:57 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2023 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 16 2023 04:08 Simberto wrote:
Especially considering that the one thing which is even harder to change than the system is the voters. It does make me wonder; if there was a socialist revolution that displaced US democracy as we know it, how many people that object to a socialist revolution (particularly Democrat voters) would actually work/fight against it by trying to return to the current status quo vs how many would simply transition their "it's imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters" position to a socialist government in the US. Outside of ostensibly left people that don't see socialism at minimum as a "lesser evil" to capitalism, I'm not sure they'd have a rational argument to not transition their "imperfectly optimal" position to a socialist US? They would transition. + Show Spoiler +The bar of “good enough” is “not so bad that I’m willing to manfight a heavily armed openly violent state to change it”. My options are to overthrow the constitution or to participate in simple plurality electoral systems and I don’t feel like overthrowing the constitution. If Bernie was in charge and I hated him I’d still have better things to do with my time than bomb city hall. I think they would too. Why then is pursuing revolutionary socialism not already the imperfectly optimal route for anyone that sees socialism as at least the "lesser evil" to capitalism?
Seems like you should move to Europe 
|
On February 16 2023 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2023 04:57 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2023 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 16 2023 04:08 Simberto wrote:
Especially considering that the one thing which is even harder to change than the system is the voters. It does make me wonder; if there was a socialist revolution that displaced US democracy as we know it, how many people that object to a socialist revolution (particularly Democrat voters) would actually work/fight against it by trying to return to the current status quo vs how many would simply transition their "it's imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters" position to a socialist government in the US. Outside of ostensibly left people that don't see socialism at minimum as a "lesser evil" to capitalism, I'm not sure they'd have a rational argument to not transition their "imperfectly optimal" position to a socialist US? They would transition. + Show Spoiler +The bar of “good enough” is “not so bad that I’m willing to manfight a heavily armed openly violent state to change it”. My options are to overthrow the constitution or to participate in simple plurality electoral systems and I don’t feel like overthrowing the constitution. If Bernie was in charge and I hated him I’d still have better things to do with my time than bomb city hall. I think they would too. Why then is pursuing revolutionary socialism not already the imperfectly optimal route for anyone that sees socialism as at least the "lesser evil" to capitalism? You really don't get the notion that people might not be comfortable with the complete dice roll of social revolution?
The fact you still have not figured this out is amazing.
|
On February 16 2023 06:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2023 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 16 2023 04:57 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2023 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 16 2023 04:08 Simberto wrote:
Especially considering that the one thing which is even harder to change than the system is the voters. It does make me wonder; if there was a socialist revolution that displaced US democracy as we know it, how many people that object to a socialist revolution (particularly Democrat voters) would actually work/fight against it by trying to return to the current status quo vs how many would simply transition their "it's imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters" position to a socialist government in the US. Outside of ostensibly left people that don't see socialism at minimum as a "lesser evil" to capitalism, I'm not sure they'd have a rational argument to not transition their "imperfectly optimal" position to a socialist US? They would transition. + Show Spoiler +The bar of “good enough” is “not so bad that I’m willing to manfight a heavily armed openly violent state to change it”. My options are to overthrow the constitution or to participate in simple plurality electoral systems and I don’t feel like overthrowing the constitution. If Bernie was in charge and I hated him I’d still have better things to do with my time than bomb city hall. I think they would too. Why then is pursuing revolutionary socialism not already the imperfectly optimal route for anyone that sees socialism as at least the "lesser evil" to capitalism? Seems like you should move to Europe
Yeah, I've certainly considered it. Being comfortable in the Netherlands while my comrades risk their lives in the US for things Scandinavians already have definitely has its advantages.
If I go, it will be as a political refugee though.
On February 16 2023 06:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2023 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 16 2023 04:57 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2023 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 16 2023 04:08 Simberto wrote:
Especially considering that the one thing which is even harder to change than the system is the voters. It does make me wonder; if there was a socialist revolution that displaced US democracy as we know it, how many people that object to a socialist revolution (particularly Democrat voters) would actually work/fight against it by trying to return to the current status quo vs how many would simply transition their "it's imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within its own parameters" position to a socialist government in the US. Outside of ostensibly left people that don't see socialism at minimum as a "lesser evil" to capitalism, I'm not sure they'd have a rational argument to not transition their "imperfectly optimal" position to a socialist US? They would transition. + Show Spoiler +The bar of “good enough” is “not so bad that I’m willing to manfight a heavily armed openly violent state to change it”. My options are to overthrow the constitution or to participate in simple plurality electoral systems and I don’t feel like overthrowing the constitution. If Bernie was in charge and I hated him I’d still have better things to do with my time than bomb city hall. I think they would too. Why then is pursuing revolutionary socialism not already the imperfectly optimal route for anyone that sees socialism as at least the "lesser evil" to capitalism? You really don't get the notion that people might not be comfortable with the complete dice roll of social revolution? The fact you still have not figured this out is amazing.
It's more that I don't think they are appropriately considering the atrocities required to maintain their tenuous comfort when juxtaposing it with the potential consequences of social revolution.
|
https://www.newsweek.com/pete-buttigieg-ignores-ohio-train-derailment-transportation-celebration-1780918
Pete Buttigieg speaking at a recent conference didn't make any mention of the Ohio train derailment and toxic waste zone it created. But he did have time to talk about the skin color of construction workers, lamenting that people with the good paying construction jobs often "don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in" and we can build generational wealth by tearing down those barriers preventing people from getting those jobs.
Quickly googled this and the first thing that comes up on demographics of construction workers
https://www.zippia.com/construction-worker-jobs/demographics/
White - 52.9%
Hispanic - 27.7%
Black - 11.1%
Unknown/Asian/Other - 8%~
I don't know, seems pretty ethnically diverse to me. If anything hispanics might be a little overrepresented. Maybe the point he was making was that there are too many hispanics working construction and they don't look like they come from the neighborhoods they are working in? Hmm... probably not. I think most likely his point was that any time is a good time to use identity politics regardless if it makes sense or not.
|
United States24755 Posts
Did you ignore the part about high-paying jobs? I haven't checked, but perhaps whites hold a disproportionate amount of jobs among the top quarter of pay, or something like that?
Do you think it's wrong for Pete to talk about demographics?
|
United States43617 Posts
On February 16 2023 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2023 04:08 Simberto wrote:
Especially considering that the one thing which is even harder to change than the system is the voters. If 10 of the most influential/popular Republicans/conservatives, across politics, television, and the internet - Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Mitch McConnell, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, etc. - decided to come together and make a unified message that the coronavirus vaccine can be trusted, that humans really do need to do something about climate change, that it is possible to have common sense gun regulations, that being pro-choice is a reasonable position on abortion, or any other flipped stance that their party currently doesn't support, I feel like 95% of those viewers/voters would be swayed in that new direction. All it takes is a unified message from the representatives of the party, but their leaders gain too much money and power from promoting their current positions to ever push the opposing viewpoint.
They would also need to be told that the liberals hate carbon taxes, public healthcare, and vaccines. If the libs aren’t owned they don’t want any part of it.
|
On February 16 2023 07:17 micronesia wrote:
Did you ignore the part about high-paying jobs? I haven't checked, but perhaps whites hold a disproportionate amount of jobs among the top quarter of pay, or something like that?
Do you think it's wrong for Pete to talk about demographics?
If he has a good point to make then sure. He starts the sentence with "We've heard too many stories..." which to me doesn't even sound like he has a well-researched thought as much as he is just making an off-the-cuff remark to beat the drum on race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
