2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Psion]

Fascinating. You are making textbook arguments I have never heard before. I should've been paying attention in my poli sci classes instead of reading Howard Zinn, probably.

They're textbook because they're true. you don't go making groundbreaking scientific discoveries by doing random shit unless you're stupidly lucky, and you're far more likely to just hurt yourself and possibly anyone around you. and even then, the scientists who did random shit did so with a purpose, taking note of what happened and trying to come up with reasons why it happened that way, and how their discoveries related to each other and their knowledge of the world.

Likewise, if you want to change a political system you're going to have to figure out how the current one works, the reasons why it is the way it is, and try to see how it relates to your own life and the lives of others. if you don't like something in the system, it's not as simple a matter as "just take down this law!" or "ban all guns!". randomly changing laws without understanding why the current laws are in place will almost certainly lead to unintended consequences occurring, and there will almost certainly be at least two negatives, and one HOLYSHITWHATHAVEWEDONE negative.

It's better to figure out what you want EXACTLY "we need to stop people going on shooting sprees and hurting innocent civilians", figure out the exact reasons why this occurs (lack of enforcing in current laws, not enough safeguards, lack of care for the mentally ill, etc), then focus on ways to solve that lack. "perhaps we need better treatment for the medically ill, policies that keep guns from going to people who aren't able to handle the responsibility, and better ways of catching those who get past our safeguards before they do damage". then you need to apply K.I.S.S. because our current system is a behemoth already. figure out which laws will do the maximum result for the least work.

It's NOT as simple as going "kick out all our corrupt politicians!" because you a) are probably categorizing an entire system as corrupt when it's just a bunch of humans, with human failings and human talents. some officials may be utterly corrupt in some ways yet are complete heroes when it comes to certain issues. lumping an entire group together as evil is a cowards way out of a dilemma. b) good luck actually succeeding in removing corruption from all officials. this is a pipe dream. c) even if you somehow managed to kick out every single politician you considered corrupt, you will wind up with complete anarchy as the system breaks down and people have no clue how to proceed. you may or may not get a new government less corrupt than before, but demolishing a house not up to safety codes WHILE PEOPLE ARE STILL INSIDE is not the proper way to go rebuilding, nor is it the way to go about fixing a broken government.

power is corrosive. that's just the nature of the beast. therefore if you want a system thats not corrupt, you need to have laws in place that protect the people dealing with power (politicians) from being affected by that corrosion. it's not the fault of the politicians, it's simply the way power is. removing the politicians will not solve the inherent corrosive nature of power, and finding enough people resistant to said corrosion for an entire country is nigh impossible, so what we need are laws that help keep such corrosion from etching away at politicians ethics.

Personally, one thing i've thought about that might help would be more feedback from the people. we're in the age of information, yet we don't really seem to apply it much in our political system. what if we had like, a public forum? for instance, a forum with a few levels, and any US citizen could register, but they would not be anonymous. there would be a lowest level of forums, divided by general category (laws, economy, ecology, etc), or by geographic region for local/state/country, where people could bring up issues and debate on them, and the best way to solve it. major issues could then be elevated to a more public level, a second forum where it would get more attention and more people debating an issue and the ways to solve it. a third level would bring those results to registered scientists/economists/lawmakers who would point out any flaws in how to solve the issue, or expand on certain ideas. the idea is that it would result in a law with feedback from citizens, scientists, and lawmakers to bring it to life.

of course, that would just be a general idea. first off, the forum would probably tackle the first major issue: how exactly the forum should operate to best ensure laws are enacted with minimum corrosion and maximum effectiveness.

It just seems odd that we aren't making full use of the vast amounts of instant input the internet is capable of.

[Greatguardian]

Forgive me but I forgot all my civis/polisci classes from years ago. In what ways are the political parties regulated? Do they have to follow certain rules? Do they have to allow people to vote at all for their candidates?

Generally speaking, they're not. Political parties have a first amendment right to exist and a fourteenth amendment right to equal protection under the law (equal to other political parties, that is). Campaign finance is regulated. States have the ability to regulate certain aspects of parties' internal structure and nominating process if they can demonstrate a level of interest in the regulation that corresponds to the burden imposed on the parties.

That's about it. As far as primary elections are concerned, the parties have every right to decide how to nominate their own candidate. Who gets to vote and who doesn't get to vote isn't a federal or state matter as far as I'm aware.

[zoobernut]

Generally speaking, they're not. Political parties have a first amendment right to exist and a fourteenth amendment right to equal protection under the law (equal to other political parties, that is). Campaign finance is regulated. States have the ability to regulate certain aspects of parties' internal structure and nominating process if they can demonstrate a level of interest in the regulation that corresponds to the burden imposed on the parties.

That's about it. As far as primary elections are concerned, the parties have every right to decide how to nominate their own candidate. Who gets to vote and who doesn't get to vote isn't a federal or state matter as far as I'm aware.

Yeah it really bugs me when people act like the DNC is doing something illegal when they favor one candidate over another or when they try to manipulate the system. It is ok to say that you don't like how the system is but to pretend like they are doing something subversive or illegal is annoying.

Honestly the parties should be just more open about it since it isn't illegal and they can do whatever they want for the most part in the primaries. If they took away the pretenses then people wouldn't get mad over their candidate they would just either vote for them or not.

[notorious bum]

I appreciate the time you took to say all of that, Psion. But, literally nobody here is arguing for Tea Party tactics or magic-wand neoliberal versions of "Make America Great Again" (that I know of, at least).

I, for one, do not subscribe to reformist bullshit that allows us to continue placing dumb trust into electable pawns and unelectable power structures where the real measure of "progress" is dictated. I consider Bernie the absolute minimum level of socialism that is needed to even attempt to repair this garbage empire's crumbling foundation, so you can get an idea how I'm rolling with my naive activist self.

[Krandor]

If you're living a country you define as a "garbage empire" I wonder why you waste your time trying to feed it the magical cure all of socialism instead of just leaving.

[notorious bum]

Thanks for the motivation, Bill O'Reilly.

[Greatguardian]

I appreciate the time you took to say all of that, Psion. But, literally nobody here is arguing for Tea Party tactics or magic-wand neoliberal versions of "Make America Great Again" (that I know of, at least).

I, for one, do not subscribe to reformist bullshit that allows us to continue placing dumb trust into electable pawns and unelectable power structures where the real measure of "progress" is dictated. I consider Bernie the absolute minimum level of socialism that is needed to even attempt to repair this garbage empire's crumbling foundation, so you can get an idea how I'm rolling with my naive activist self.

I thought you already said you didn't actively engage in any form of activism besides hanging around chatting with public school teachers and the like (which is ironic, because I'm a public school teacher in a majority minority urban school with 95% of students qualifying for free/reduced lunches due to SES).

[notorious bum]

That would be incorrect. I said that I was limited to community-based activism, not just hanging around places and talking to random folk.

[Greatguardian]

That would be incorrect. I said that I was limited to community-based activism, not just hanging around places and talking to random folk.

No, you're right. You said you volunteered in soup kitchens too. That's good work, it sincerely is. But it's not political activism.

Political activism is hard. Really hard. Why? Because it's not enough to be right. You don't get to decide that you know how to change the country for the better and call it a day. You have to convince people to work with you and do the things you can't do - and that absolutely requires taking the time to understand who they are and where they're coming from.

[kuronosan]

Do you feel that party leaders aren't allowed to have a favorite? Especially if for the entire Obama presidency it's been assumed that said favorite would run unopposed next cycle? The day Obama went in office any one who's been paying attention should have known Hillary was next, and she's been working on it way longer than Bernie. It shows.

Except for that part where, you know, she isn't supposed to take money while campaigning.

I mean, that's if you consider the last 2-3 years to be "running for office" while she took speech money from special interest groups.

That's pretty unethical, and people should be angry.

But anyone who was surprised that 1) she ran and 2) had so much support given her 2008 run is deluded.

[Greatguardian]

She wasn't running for office for the past 2-3 years. She was a private citizen with a large public profile doing what private citizens with large public profiles do: get free money to show up and say some howdy do's to people with cash to burn and a need to feel important.

Just because anyone with two brain cells to rub together could figure she would run this year doesn't mean she was actually running the whole time before she announced.

[Krandor]

Unless she was specifically telling everyone at those paid speeches that she was going to be running for president (OMG conspiracy) the entire thing is one gigantic grey area.

Which to be fair sums up most situations involving the Clintons.

[notorious bum]

No, you're right. You said you volunteered in soup kitchens too. That's good work, it sincerely is. But it's not political activism.

Political activism is hard. Really hard. Why? Because it's not enough to be right. You don't get to decide that you know how to change the country for the better and call it a day. You have to convince people to work with you and do the things you can't do - and that absolutely requires taking the time to understand who they are and where they're coming from.

You just described what 90% of my conversations consist of when I explain to anyone that everything they learned in school about the Cold War, our system of "checks and balances", socialism/communism, the American Dream, and etc. is all manipulated, fallacious, and interpreted like *insert jingoistic fantasy political drama*

I could spew a lot of fear-mongering Alex Jones shit to make disgruntled voters nod their heads in agreement that "drastic measures need to be taken", but it's far harder to get people to understand that being upset that their only source of power is at the ballot box isn't something they have to concede to nor should they adopt anti-social behavior.

You probably also know that convincing those living below poverty that: they shouldn't give up faith in their representative democracy because good prevails, change is gradual, and how we've come so far is going to fall on deaf ears nearly every single time. I don't try to give anyone false hope and I also don't encourage to "just do you" because that's the losing combination that has us settling for toxic dynasties over toxic celebrities, while getting exploited, murdered, or squeezed for every last ounce of value that we can provide to the modern day robber barons and slavers.

Political activism starts with education, creating visibility, agitation/disruption of power, and ultimately dismantling of failed systems. This isn't the softball "social revolution" that Bernie uses, in which he still supports capitalism and doesn't believe in publicly-owned infrastructure. Everyone has to play a part, not just showing up to the table and placing their bets after a new reshuffling of the deck. It doesn't matter if you're the political equivalent of Rain Man, the House always wins when the rakeback is scooping up 90% of the wealth into a couple of old motherfuckers' pockets, who contribute jack shit to society. /endrant

[kuronosan]

Um, no. It involves getting involved in local governments and affecting change by knowing your audience of people and persuading them to do the same.

[notorious bum]

"Getting involved in local govt." is the easy part, especially if you have the means necessary. Don't kid yourself if you believe that's the road to dismantling entire systems of oppression and monopolies on power in this country. We can barely hold off local public utilities from privatization in this country.

[Byrthnoth]

Bum said he was a twitter blowhard, not that he actually talked to people irl:

I mean, not trying to be mean here, but rather than post my fucking activism resume, it should be obvious that a dude living on the below poverty bus schedule for most his life, who posts links from radical black, radical left, and sometimes marxist/commie commentary, isn't going to have the time or the resources to waste in knocking on doors, doing phonebanks, and other traditional reformist bullshit 9-out-of-10 times(not that I'm too lazy to do it or that I'm above that). If I told you I have never volunteered in anything besides traditional community-based services (i.e. bums in soup kitchens, local radio events, etc.), would that even matter in a pissing contest? If so, then good on you.

I may agitate some with my posts, but I figure I'm filling a void that would otherwise be filled with superficial headlines anyways.

[Greatguardian]

You're really missing the point, aren't you? The thing that makes political activism hard is not rallying your own troops. It's convincing people who fundamentally disagree with you to work with you anyways. Because, ultimately, they are just as important as you are. Not a single flying fuck is given for who is right or who is wrong.

Political activism starts with building bridges. That's how democracy works. We live in a democracy defended by the most advanced military in the world. You may not like it, but that's the game that's being played right now. You can either piss and moan, hope someone comes along with enough guns (and tanks) to flip the table, or play the game better than the people playing right now. That's it.

Edit:

Bum said he was a twitter blowhard, not that he actually talked to people irl

Oh, ok.

[notorious bum]

Don't worry, I'm voting for Hillary in the GE, bro. Byrthnoth, you're the first guy I would stereotype as the Reddit neckbeard who bitches at randos all day, so I'mma have to decline your friends request.


In more important news: Trump still has an African American friend, or two.

[archibaldcrane]

The saddest thing for Bernie fans must be that this is probably the only election he could have actually won, but couldn't get the nom.

I'm really curious how the next 4.5 months go if Trump keeps hemorrhaging support. The convention should be interesting.

I boasted months ago, when Trump was looking inevitable, that a dozen national Republicans would endorse Hillary by November. I feel that was probably wildly overconfident, but I'm not giving up hope.

Also I suppose they probably won't feel the need to do more than just not support Trump and let him twist in the wind.

[notorious bum]

I haven't subscribed to the fact that Trump isn't running a serious campaign or doesn't actually want to win, but at this point, he's making it easy for Hillary to play her cards now.