The General American Politics Thread

[Tornado]

Who would Trump actually elect to the Supreme Court? Someone pro-business, for sure, but beyond that what could we realistically assume will be put in place?

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

The absolute mathematical fact is that we live in a voting system that trends towards two- and only two- outcomes in any given large-scale election after enough of them have come to pass, meaning until we change our voting system to a more proportional system, then your only choice if you don't get your perfect candidate is to vote strategically. If Hilary isn't getting votes, then the only thing that happens is that Trump closes the gap on her. If enough people who would have otherwise voted for a Democratic ticket decide to abstain or vote for third parties this cycle, then Trump wins the presidency. A Green Party candidate isn't winning this shit.

That seems pretty self-fulfilling to me.

1 hour ago, Aoi said:

I'm sure more and more people will warm up to Hillary as the general takes place.

Beyond whatever Bernie stragglers decide that they don't want to go back to just not voting every election, who is going to change their opinions about Hillary Clinton over the course of 4 months?

[Nepenthe]

It's only self-fulfilling if you think everyone votes for a specific candidate just for strategic reasons, but people genuinely do like the two major candidates and thus will vote for them in earnest. Of course some don't, yet in a system that determines a winner based on the highest number of votes versus actual representational results, third-party voting only hurts the candidates whom are closest in alignment to those voters. If those third parties didn't exist, those same voters who planned on voting would vote for the negatively-affected candidate since they are the second-best choice to whom they want. This is why Republicans were freaking out about Trump potentially announcing an independent run; instead of a guaranteed 40-50% of the national vote because disgruntled Republican voters still wouldn't be disgruntled enough to vote for Hillary and thus would vote strategically against her, that percentage would be split by those preferring Trump to Jeb! or whomever else would've been given the ticket, meaning Hillary would've been absolutely guaranteed to win in a simple mathematical landslide.

If we want third parties to flourish in the Presidency, we instead need a straight alternative vote, a system which simulates multiple run-off systems at once: rank your most favorite candidates in order, and whomever has the highest amount of preference among the voters until they reach a majority wins.

[Blue Swallow]

Stuff has been going on that the mainstream media won't tell you.

So, after the roll call vote this evening, Bernie delegates walked out. Police tried to keep them from the media tent, but eventually they took over the media tent. later they joined the Bernie or Jill protesters that were already outside protesting, and at some point joined together with Black Lives Matter protesters.

Also, 600 of Bernie's 800 'super volunteers', were stripped of their credentials, so they weren't allowed in the convention. Sander's Delegate and surrogate, and former Ohio senator (and someone I think should run for president in 2020) Nina Turner, was also stripped of her credentials, presumably for criticizing the dnc.

They had also been taking Bernie delegates' signs away, and giving them Hillary signs, and at least in New York, wouldn't, let them be on camera.

 

As for people voting for Hillary, there's a reason people won't vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

The dnc leaks are one reason, neither were mentioned here, but two of the most damaging were, this one, which shows them planning to smear Sanders by saying he's not really Jewish and might be an athiest, and this one, which proves they were colluding with the media. People say Trump is fascism, and rightly so, but the media and the wealthy running our elections is too.

But it's a lot more than that too, this Twitter thread is a good rundown of a lot of those reasons. 

As a queer person, I'll tell you why LGBTQIA+ folks won't vote for Hillary, but I suggest you read that Twitter thread first. 

In 1996 The Defense of Marrige Act, also known as DOMA, was signed in by Bill Clinton. It ruled that only heterosexual couples could be legally defined as spouses, which meant that same sex couples could not get many of the benefits a straight couple could. Hillary Clinton, being First Lady, couldn't vote on the bill, but she did support it, and lobbied for it. She did the same with Don't Ask Don't Tell, which was disastrous for those in the military. She also repeatedly mentioned throughout her time as a senator that, "Marrige is between a man and a women." And as late as 2010, in an email, said that she was degusted that 'mother' and 'father' on passports were changed to 'parent 1' and 'parent 2', and made them change it back. So, telling us she was our ally in 2013, when it was popular and she would be running for president in 2 years, after years of being against us, doesn't exactly sell it for us.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It's easy to understand why they wouldn't want to vote for Hillary (lord knows I was rooting for Sanders). But given the alternative, not doing so is far more damaging depending on where you stand.

There's a lot of nonsense at the DNC, that much is true, but what would benefit you from letting the opposition win? There are times where people need to swallow their pride, and this is one of them.

[-Robin-]

Considering Bernie had been lambasting left and right everything the DNC stood for, only to then saddle up with them when it became convenient for him to do so, I really can't blame DNC members being apprehensive about this man who talked shit about them and so at best considered talking to journalists about inquiring into Sanders' background.

 

Let's not get into the delusion that Bernie Sanders was some patron saint.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

1 hour ago, -Robin- said:

Considering Bernie had been lambasting left and right everything the DNC stood for, only to then saddle up with them when it became convenient for him to do so, I really can't blame DNC members being apprehensive about this man who talked shit about them and so at best considered talking to journalists about inquiring into Sanders' background.

 

Let's not get into the delusion that Bernie Sanders was some patron saint.

And to that, all that can be said is this: welcome to the world of politics, filled with shady people of various moralities criticizing everyone left and right and cozying up when they share a common interest.

If you expected him to be an angel, you were only deluding yourself. And given all the crooked shit the DNC were doing, someone was bound to call them out.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Of course, he's not angel but I will say, he ran one of the cleanest campaigns I've seen. I may not side with the dems, however it is so nice to see someone not run their campaign on fear and intimidation and just spoke from the heart. I probably would have handed my support to him if Trump didn't run.

[Patticus]

Did I actually hear Donald Trump inciting the Russian intelligence services to commit a crime by hacking into his main political opponent's (Clinton's) email accounts today?

Yes I did. Of course I did.

[Hyp3hat]

Seriously, inviting foreign cyberterrorism against a rival candidate and the general campaign has barely just got started? Fucking hell, the next few months are going to be 'fun', good luck America.

PSA: if you Chrome users out there haven't got the Detrumpify extension yet, it makes this quasi-fascist authoritarianism a lot more bearable - the above news was delivered to me as 

US election: Heaving Carcass 'encourages Russia to hack Clinton emails'

on Auntie Beeb, makes the medicine go down a bit smoother.

[PSI Wind]

B-But he didn't tell them to! Or, it was just a joke!

I'm sorry, but when does telling someone that they'll be rewarded or saying "I HOPE YOU" DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN HE'S ASKING THEM TO!?

[Nepenthe]

Tim Kaine just finished his DNC speech. 99% adorable dad who cares and then 1% fucking savage. He went in a little on Trump.

[Dizcrybe]

Since I wasn't able to get a serious answer in the statuses, I'll ask here: was last night's convention archived somewhere? I kinda forgot it was a thing until I checked this thread.

[Nepenthe]

I believe PBS has them all archived, but if not you can just search for each speaker in YouTube and find them.

[-Robin-]

Even if enough people decide to be the modern day hippies and vote for a 3rd party to stick it to the establishment, it won't mean a thing.

The Republican and Democrat parties are too large and ubiquitous to get a 3rd party the 270 electoral votes one needs to secure victory. But, if the 3rd party candidate gets enough votes to prevent any one of them from getting 270....then, like the election of 1825, the vote goes to the current House of Representatives.

You know, the obstructionist GOP-controlled House that has been blocking Supreme Court picks for months and caused a government shutdown.

Keep that in mind before thinking your 3rd party vote is going to be that impactful.

[Tornado]

On 7/27/2016 at 1:16 AM, Nepenthe said:

It's only self-fulfilling if you think everyone votes for a specific candidate just for strategic reasons

This election has two candidates currently so unpopular that Donald fucking Trump is the Republican candidate straight off of his reality TV show and he's polling comparably to his Democratic competition. And its not just because there are so many racists or Christian fundamentalists or rich people that he's mega popular. We have an election coming up that might as well be Richard Nixon versus Richard Nixon, yet the assertion remains that voting for a third party is throwing your vote away? The assertion that actual left wing members of the Democratic party (and not just the existing ones that Bernie dug up who never would have voted for Clinton at all otherwise) should just give up and vote for someone who is probably only even a Democrat because it was more convenient for her political aspirations? The assertion that, yes, long time Republicans should vote for someone who would never have been considered Republican until he started being an idiot over Obama's birth certificate last election cycle? The assertion that people who are somehow undecided on who they should vote for at this point should just vote for whoever sounds less scary? Sorry, but no. That's bullshit of the highest order.

 

I hate Trump, but even if I didn't hate her as much as I do I'm sure as shit not going to vote for Hilary just because I hate Trump more; or because I'm assuming that he's going to do a bunch of heinous shit that he never showed much indication of supporting before running for president; nor should anyone who leans more towards the ends of the political spectrum than I do. Lesser of two evils is a false dichotomy of the highest order, practically a synonym of it; and to perpetuate a "lesser of two evils" mindset when both of the candidates are complete scumbags is just irresponsible.

 

On 7/27/2016 at 7:13 PM, PSI Wind said:

Or, it was just a joke!

He said it directly after the leak of an email scandal showing that the former DNC head was involved in a conspiracy to stymie the Sanders campaign; the former DNC head who was immediately integrated into the Clinton campaign (albeit in a meaningless window seat after) her resignation. Said email scandal was almost immediately noted to be from the Russian government. Hilary Clinton had her own email scandal that she squeaked by actual charges being brought to bear against her over it; which conveniently can be tied in to taunt her over it. So, yeah, it was a joke. The Russian government wasn't waiting for Trump to give them the go ahead to perform espionage they were already capable of before they supposedly dug up the DNC stuff; and if they have the ability to dig up whatever "personal" emails Hilary sent that concerned national security they haven't been waiting for Trump to say it is okay to try.

 

 

The alternative (or addition) to it being a joke is that it was a clever way to trip up Hilary's team over her email scandal. Which, amusingly, they seemingly ran right into. And considering Trump keeps walking into these gold mines with this shit, I'm having a harder and harder time believing that he's as much of a fool as everyone plays him for; blindly stumbling and capitalizing on controversy to controversy because he's just so racist that everyone loves him anyway.

Politically inexperienced or presidentially unsuitable that he may be we can bring up examples for all day, but he still basically walked the nomination process. He blew out the person everyone assumed was going to be the nominee, to the extent that most late night television writers probably already had all of their jokes written; and despite obviously being against the GOPs wishes did so so fast that Jeb's campaign was dead in the water before the actual year of the election. Perpetual political opportunist Hilary Clinton, who has probably spent at least 20 years doing whatever she could to build enough political capital to spend on this election and was obviously favored by the DNC long before any emails were sent confirming it, almost lost the nomination to another Senator from the northeast no one had ever heard of before last Fall.

 

9 hours ago, -Robin- said:

You know, the obstructionist GOP-controlled House that has been blocking Supreme Court picks for months and caused a government shutdown.

Again, this sounds an awful lot like scare tactics to justify why you shouldn't vote outside of whatever your party affiliation is. The obstructionist GOP controlled house that also isn't, never has been and never will be particularly thrilled with Donald Trump, you say? Yeah, they'd probably pick Trump. But considering how quick people all over the political spectrum are to point out how full of shit he is, you know what the main difference between the obstructionist GOP House picking Hilary and the obstructionist GOP House picking Trump would probably be?

 

 

Congress would have an awful lot easier of a time impeaching Trump.

[Nepenthe]

No one is saying it's scientifically impossible to get a third-party candidate or a write-in into the White House. All a majority of voters would have to do is simply vote for them. But if financing a campaign, convincing people of your arguments, human psychology, personal politics, and numbers were easy barriers to cross, I would've been President by now.

I'm sorry but this isn't opinion here. You can call strategic voting irresponsible all you want, you can call it all bullshit all you want, but math is math regardless, and subsequently a situation of two major parties constantly turning over power due to the statistical bottlenecking that occurs in FPTP systems is the reality we are all stuck with- even if one of the major parties splinters and dies (because it will simply be replaced by the second biggest party over enough election cycles). The only thing to do to ensure such an election as we have now has less chance of happening again is to change the system from an FPTP one where you have but a single decision to make to an alternative one where you have perhaps three to five decisions to make in order to determine- on some level- the candidate that actually appeals to the largest amount of voters possible. So honestly, I suggest you start getting the word out.

[Johnny Boy]

Hot damn, that speech by the father of a fallen Muslim soldier was easily the best speech of the night. Almost brought tears to my eyes.

[Tornado]

3 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

No one is saying it's scientifically impossible to get a third-party candidate or a write-in into the White House. All a majority of voters would have to do is simply vote for them. But if financing a campaign, convincing people of your arguments, human psychology, personal politics, and numbers were easy barriers to cross, I would've been President by now.

And reinforcing the status quo lowers those barriers to entry? Telling people to just vote for whatever Democrat or Republican candidate is vaguely closer to whatever their political views are doesn't entrench those above things even deeper? Right now we have a candidate who has spent sixteen years of political office as a Democrat seemingly only because her husband was a (conservative, Southern) Democrat' and a Republican candidate who went into interviews and debates without even realizing what the "correct" answers were to popular Republican talking points. Both of them have decades of baggage and, other than probably the 1860 election, unprecedented disapproval of the choices provided by the political process; but the correct solution is still "just vote whoever isn't as bad as the other one?"

 

3 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

I'm sorry but this isn't opinion here. You can call strategic voting irresponsible all you want, you can call it all bullshit all you want, but math is math regardless

So when does the math about the voting threshold required to receive federal campaign financing come into play? When does the math about the popularity threshold required to get in on debates or on the ballot come into play? When does the math about these two candidates being the most strongly disapproved candidates in the history of polling for candidate disapproval come into play? When does the math about the record number of people registered as independents come into play?

 

This is an election where the nomination process has failed for both major parties to provide anyone who would be electable at all if the alternative was basically anyone else, and is so mired in corruption and supposed corruption and controversy that there is practically a new scandal every day. Mitt Romney would have walked Hilary. John Kerry would have walked Trump.

This is an election where a third party could have a legitimate shot at building itself up for the future as a viable option; or at least fracturing one (or both!) of the current ones until they get their shit together; which they clearly need to do if Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are the faces of the two parties in 2016. This is an election where one of the potential nominees stirred up a lot of his substantial support from people who never had any interest in the political process, and have gone right back to not giving a shit now that he is out; and where one of the potential nominees of the other party basically told the winner to go fuck himself instead of endorsing him. This is an election where it is possible that neither candidate would even be allowed to finish their first term if they were elected.

 

This election isn't 1992, or even 1912. Third parties in this election have a unique opportunity provided to them to make serious inroads to political legitimacy; to actually lay groundwork that won't automatically be destroyed by a popular incumbent in the following election cycle.Telling people, essentially, that every vote they make out of principle is a vote for the major party least aligned with you, flies in the face of all of that.

[Nepenthe]

If you don't want either of them in the White House, you are boned. If you don't want Hillary in the White House, you're most likely boned. If you don't want Trump in the White House, you need to vote for Hillary. The status quo is hard to change, but the way to change it isn't to vote for a third-party in the national and most difficult election in total isolation. That becomes an entirely symbolic gesture, especially this late in the game when the voices and platforms of minority candidates have been drowned out by the news cycle and impending general.

Also, corruption absolutely has nothing to do with the system. If you could simulate a country wherein every party and every candidate was of a noble moral character but people voted in an FPTP system, you would still trend downwards towards two realistically viable choices every single election after enough of them had come to pass. The political culture of any given country is going to develop a general moral scale, and anyone outside of that is going to have to align with the more popular party who is closest to their beliefs in order to attain some level of representation. It's a result of our voting process; nothing more or less. If you're honest about change and not simply upset at the two candidates we have for this current election, your solution isn't voting third-party now and then praying on it. It's to advocate changing the way we vote.

[Tornado]

I'm sorry to hear that you feel voting for principles you hold dear rather than simply against whatever boogeyman happens to be in the other party in any given election is a purely symbolic gesture; but it is something I simply cannot agree on; in the election we are currently facing especially.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

To be honest, getting a 3rd party on the ballet can be tough. I've been following Dr. Stein's campaign and they needed 7 million bucks to get her on the ballot in one state and they needed to go to court as well (?). However, I honestly do not thinking that voting with your heart instead of out of fear means you are voting for whoever you are afraid of. 

[Nepenthe]

I'm also voting for the principles of the Democratic Party, the new party platform, and Hillary's campaign promises. I do actually like them. The fact that the GOP is a current shitshow makes it that much easier for me, but had Jeb! or even Romney been elected I would've voted against them anyway because I don't like American conservatism, also on principle. But even if I wasn't, that's regardless of the point. I'm a pragmatist, and while I'm ignorant I feel like I understand the realities of our current political system well enough to understand the reality that either Trump or Hillary will be President in November, that it's too late to change course, and that the ultimate problem of "bad candidates" isn't actually with the candidates but simply with our voting style to allow them a much easier time to flourish. It's no different from thinking that we're probably not going to finally "get" racism or colonize Mars anytime soon. I'm not sure why that's so offensive, particularly since I'm actually offering a solution to the issue.

[Patticus]

Clinton's speech seemed to cover everything - emphasizing her experience, her ability to get shit done, her compassionate, empathetic, human side (something she has always had difficulty conveying). She invoked the founding generation and their ability to compromise to reach effective deals, and really skewered Trump. One of the highlights for me was this line:

Quote

"A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons."

She made a play for independents and Republicans still uncomfortable with the man (real "big tent" stuff), and talked about common sense gun laws and invoking recent killing sprees while pledging not to do away with the second amendment. Right at the beginning made a hard plea for Bernie supporters with her pledge to work with him on making college tuition free for the middle class. She even spoke about wanting to be rid of Citizen's United, via constitutional amendment if necessary. There were also a few mentions of her failed attempt to introduce universal healthcare back in '94 - undoubtedly another push for Bernie supporters' sympathy.

Pretty good speech TBH. I have a more favorable view of her now than I did before.

[Tornado]

1 hour ago, Nepenthe said:

I'm also voting for the principles of the Democratic Party, the new party platform, and Hillary's campaign promises. I do actually like them. The fact that the GOP is a current shitshow makes it that much easier for me, but had Jeb! or even Romney been elected I would've voted against them anyway because I don't like American conservatism, also on principle. But even if I wasn't, that's regardless of the point.

It's really not though. Your principles happen to align with whatever ones Clinton has adopted for this election, but that goes more towards being convenient for you rather than a counterpoint for why people whose principles align with someone else (we'll say Bernie, but it could be Johnson or Stein just the same) can't vote along them without it just being symbolic. I'm not going to vote for Trump or Hilary, but for damn sure I'm not voting for what I believe in just to be symbolic. I could send a symbolic vote for my dissatisfaction with this particular election cycle by not even bothering to show up and it wouldn't make any difference to the front runners.

 

1 hour ago, Nepenthe said:

I'm a pragmatist, and while I'm ignorant I feel like I understand the realities of our current political system well enough to understand the reality that either Trump or Hillary will be President in November, that it's too late to change course,

 And I don't see where anyone said otherwise; nor do I think anyone actually expects it. Johnson and Stein aren't Roosevelt, and Bernie probably could have been before but isn't anymore. It's not really a point worth hammering.

 

Quote

and that the ultimate problem of "bad candidates" isn't actually with the candidates but simply with our voting style to allow them a much easier time to flourish.

But it isn't just bad candidates. It's decay of the actual parties. The GOP is, as you say, a shitshow of the highest order. They created such an insular party line that someone who almost certainly doesn't believe in any of it was able to manipulate himself into the face of it against the wishes of the GOP establishment.

 

But how much better off is the Democratic Party, the party of social reforms and progressive attitudes, when it turns out that the powers that be fought to get a candidate as... uh... progressively minded as Clinton as the front runner?

 

Quote

I'm not sure why that's so offensive, particularly since I'm actually offering a solution to the issue.

"I suggest you start getting the word out" about switching the something like the UK system or whatever isn't a rebuttal when I explained why I felt voting third party, in this election especially but not exclusively, can have a greater effect on the future then just towing party lines would and can cause changes to the system. With the disapproval ratings for both of the front running candidates in this cycle, it would not take terribly much to have the Green or Libertarian party get dramatically more exposure than the fringe status they have held off and on in previous cycles.. With front runners that hated, it would not take terribly much to have Stein or Johnson guaranteed a spot on every ballot (though the latter probably will already happen), or a spot in each of the debates over the next few months. And in the general election, with main candidates that unpopular, the 5% popular vote hump to get federal funding (and the air of legitimacy that entails) is not insurmountable; which means in 2020 a third party could mount a more serious offense against the established ones and force them to actually adapt.

 

Your "solution" comes off as nothing more than pretentious, as if the millions of people who go to bat for third party candidates most in line with their beliefs (nevermind the third party candidates themselves) are just doing it wrong.

[Nepenthe]

We have absolutely no idea who the establishment candidates are going to be in 2020 at this point aside from Hillary again (I honestly don't think Trump is going to run again after this, or if he does I don't think he'll get the nom again), so I feel it's impossible to say how much ground any given third-party candidate is going to gain just based on nothing but the cynicism present in this current election cycle. Feelings, economies, situations; they all change and they can change wildly. I would personally wait a bit on that.

Regardless, if it's pretentious to say that simply voting for third-party candidates only in the general election doesn't work is pretentious, then call me pretentious, but results don't lie. Third party candidates are not viable candidates to statistically win the general election under the current system, and merely saying it's possible for third-party candidates to enact change is a non-starter especially since I agreed with that already. That's not the point of disagreement; the point of disagreement is how viable a working strategy it actually is.