2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Kincard]

Maybe this is the proper response a democracy should have to trying to help too many people, too quickly.

You're acting as if the current situation of the United States came about because we went crazy with our social programs instead of making sure they don't pass or making sure they're totally inefficient when they do pass because partisanship.

As for people voting only in their own (perceived) interest, all that says to me is that more people need to understand the prisoner's dilemma. We have a lot of people in politics masking their racism in a veneer of utilitarianism (unless you think Trump actually gives a fuck about the working class, White or not). Also do you think our system has produced a society that, relatively speaking, demarcates have and have-nots along racial lines because of pure coincidence?

[Byrthnoth]

isn't that a perfectly natural tendency? To vote for your own interests, over the interests of others? And that's kind of the point of democracy, to provide what 'the people' want/need? And wouldn't it make sense that poor(er) and more disenfranchised people would be the ones to be less-altruistic and NOT think about helping out people worse off than they are?

That can be unpacked into these supposedly-linked ideas:
* It is perfectly natural to vote for your own interests over the interests of others.
* The point of democracy is to provide what people want/need.
* It is reasonable for the poor and disenfranchised to be less altruistic.

Response:
* It is natural to vote your own perceived self interests over the perceived interests of the community if you are a selfish person. However, many people this election cycle failed to vote their own self interest, which means they are either dumb or not selfish. I actually lean towards the latter explanation. For instance, you can make the argument that 70yr old women single-issue voting against abortion aren't being selfish. They're voting for something they believe to be in the interest of the community.
* The point of the government in a capitalist society is to take actions in the interest of the public good that wouldn't otherwise happen. The point of democracy is to give all voting members of society equal representation, which would have resulted in a different president elect twice in the last 20 years.
* Altruism experiments haven't really backed this up and logically it wouldn't make much sense.

[kuronosan]

???

isn't that a perfectly natural tendency? To vote for your own interests, over the interests of others? And that's kind of the point of democracy, to provide what 'the people' want/need? And wouldn't it make sense that poor(er) and more disenfranchised people would be the ones to be less-altruistic and NOT think about helping out people worse off than they are?

Maybe this is the proper response a democracy should have to trying to help too many people, too quickly. And that isn't to say that we couldn't provide everything everyone wants.. just that democracy worked, and democracy isn't the most efficient... but all the other systems of dealing with so many people are worse. What can ya do

edit: I'm not saying it CAN'T be majorly influenced by racism btw, just saying that it doesn't have to be according to what I've read^

Well, sort of. Except it's pretty alarming when those lines are drawn by "I'm all for social programs until they benefit people who aren't as white as me".

[arus2001]

Perhaps a key factor when acting in one's own self-interest is truly identifying the root of a problem and tracing steps from there. Not doing that is probably the "dumb" part since an improper fix can just make things worse or not change anything at all. And bluntly, the R's have also been all about obfuscating and obstructing the past few terms, which further fuels potential confusion on issues. Compromise may as well not even be a word anymore, which is the only way we can really hope to achieve more universal solutions.

Either way, it's safe to say too many were charmed by Trump without reading the proverbial fine print. Some promises have already been broken while the shit show only seems to just be beginning. And that c-word is obviously a distant thought with the Dems being a minority. At this point, we can only hope the self-destruction of Trump and/or the republican party happens sooner rather than later. And this isn't a "Because we hate America!" sentiment, but more an acknowledgement of his inexperience, the questionable cabinet he's putting together, personality and temperament, and then some. A lot of traits people tried to point out prior to the election, but well, insert whatever reasons why Hillary should've lost here.

Probably just easier to stick to people being dumb.

[Thunder]

Well, I think it at least makes logical sense poor people would be less altruistic since they're the same people as us well-off people except they have to deal with the added stress of not knowing how they'll provide themselves with healthcare, housing, or even very dire situations like food for yourself or children. It's too bad the link you gave is just some article on a study because I'd want to see the socio-economic status of the people they tested. Idk if you, me, and study have the same distinction between poor/normal/rich lol. Why doesn't what I said make much logical sense to you?

And I thought gred's 2nd post's link was trying to explain that it wasn't purely a "people didn't vote for their own interests" but rather that the pendulum has been swinging to left so much it's beginning to offer aid to people below them which, because there are racial divides so obviously present makes a "you're all racist!" argument plausible, which was what I was contending

But if you'd care to talk about that the other stuff, I've got some opinions I want feedback on there as well - the "not voting for one's own interest" or voting for "this is best for the community when it's actually wrong for the community" happens on both sides and I haven't seen evidence that it's gotten any worse for a particular side over the other (or that it's majorly racism that's causing the distortion, tying into the actual topic). Could it just be standard bias in democrat/republican camps and over-focusing on certain things? Like, I see large sections of BG standing against the the racist trump voters who're voting against social programs that help them or against programs that are 'better for the community' but not once did I see BG poke even a tenth of the amount of fun at people decrying democracy/capitalism/police over the last year (and all of those happened in this very sub-section) - and it's safe to say, for me, those people were advocating for things against their self interest from my perspective of unique set of biases.

Basically, I think it could be wrong to call these distortions in decision-making a result of racism, or even majority influenced by racism when it sure looks like all the other kinds of biased voting/thinking out there to me. Could just be your own biases painting the situation with racism when it's really just a product of conservative v liberal voting issues playing out once again, except this time it's after 8 years of a democrat, which plays out differently in the media than it did 8 years ago it, when it was 8 years of a republican in office

Admittedly, I'm not a history-of-government/politics buff but I like to think I have no horses in either race which gives me some clarity and I just don't really see the difference this time, this election. I was all aboard the "white lashing" train the day trump was elected but the voting data didn't really support that, right? I distinctly remember catching shit for having that stance lol

As for people voting only in their own (perceived) interest, all that says to me is that more people need to understand the prisoner's dilemma. We have a lot of people in politics masking their racism in a veneer of utilitarianism (unless you think Trump actually gives a fuck about the working class, White or not). Also do you think our system has produced a society that, relatively speaking, demarcates have and have-nots along racial lines because of pure coincidence?

I understand enough of the history of blacks between 1860-1945 and roughly between 1945-1960 to say with confidence that (if we're speaking broadly about groups of people) they had no chance of not being in the bottom of the economic ladders... so no, not coincidence

but I think that we'll never see 'equality' happen when racial divides disappear precisely because we, not so long ago, had so much of it by design. I think in some sectors of our country the racial lines we observe in studies might as well be a coincidence because the only reason they are there are because it was unequal in the past and could very well be equal, in effect, now. For sure there's some structural inequality left (drug laws come to mind) but you have to agree that the goal should be removing structural inequality vs coming up with laws that would blend us all together immediately and remove all racial distinctions between classes because to do that quickly would take a lot of preferential treatment, no? I think that kind of equality should be achieved through a long amount time under systems that provide equal treatment/opportunity regardless of race/sex/gender. Is that fair to say?

You're acting as if the current situation of the United States came about because we went crazy with our social programs instead of making sure they don't pass or making sure they're totally inefficient when they do pass because partisanship.

"we went crazy", crazy to who? Crazy to republican voters might not be crazy to you. And it could also be that people are being influenced, and scared of, the things being passed abroad, and the policies being taken abroad

[Quicklet]

It doesn't help when there's a myth (or at minimum hyperbolic exaggeration) constantly being peddled that the government is in dire fiscal straits and that the only solution is to massively cut the social safety net while continuing to funnel money to the ultra-wealthy.

[kuronosan]

And people believe it because it makes sense. That is why there is such a push to eliminate critical thinking. It's not a matter of Conservative versus Liberal ideals; it's pretty obvious that powerful folks in the government go out of their way to minimize steps in problem solving because then people would see the shit they're being spoonfed isn't good for them.

It's really the power of sales. You keep it brief, easy to understand, and easy to make sense of. Anyone will latch on because you hit all the points.

"Wait, you mean I'll get my job back? Who fucking cares about equality I need money."
"Wait, you mean it's those immigrants fault I can't get a job? Kick 'em out (even though I have no fucking clue who they are)"
"Wait, you mean the liberals/conservatives want to take my rights away? I don't care how true it is you got my support"

It's sad, because it really is on both sides of the spectrum extremes; people who were hyper for Bernie and are hyper for Trump buy into the most extreme philosophies because they won't bother to look into the deeper, grey issues that sit at the core.

In other words, your average person/American is very, very superficial. That's why we're so easy to divide. It takes too long to discuss real issues, so let's argue over stupid ones.

[Thunder]

Who's pushing to eliminate critical thinking? Isn't that just a natural result of how media works?

Even on here, I'm always very weary of typing too much (like I did above, didn't even notice while writing) because trolly one-liners get a lot of traction. Sometimes it's really difficult to discuss anything because it's easier (and more fun) to just post some "you fucking retard" or meme.jpg and then everyone joins in on the flogging lol

It doesn't help when there's a myth (or at minimum hyperbolic exaggeration) constantly being peddled that the government is in dire fiscal straits and that the only solution is to massively cut the social safety net while continuing to funnel money to the ultra-wealthy.

there's also a bunch of people (even on here, albeit less fervent - sort of) who have openly made anti-capitalism comments.. not realizing that probably the best reason america is where it is, is because of the kind of capitalism we've got

Like this "that's racism" thing, I worry that a lot of us are jumping to conclusions without getting a proper perspective on things. Could just be me though, which is why I'm in the discussion in the first place

[Quicklet]

there's also a bunch of people (even on here, albeit less fervent - sort of) who have openly made anti-capitalism comments.. not realizing that probably the best reason america is where it is, is because of the kind of capitalism we've got

Like this "that's racism" thing, I worry that a lot of us are jumping to conclusions without getting a proper perspective on things. Could just be me though, which is why I'm in the discussion in the first place

So perhaps I'm one of those people -- I'm not anti-capitalist per se, and I think market forces produce mutually beneficial outcomes for a wide class of exchanges and circumstances, but when I look at (a) the variants of capitalism that are implemented and advocated for right now and (b) the way capitalism seems to be handling the effects of automation and downward labor forces (globalization), I see failings that need to be remedied through the presence of social safety nets and income redistribution in the form of progressive taxes on those who are in a position to pay them.

I think people who take risks and succeed should reap the rewards, but I don't think having an increasingly removed class of ultra-wealthy is healthy for society when the vast majority of people are left behind. "A rising tide lifts all boats" is the best argument for capitalism, but empirically that hasn't materialized for a lot of people in the past few decades, and if we as a society don't collectively try to address why this is the case, a lot of people will suffer because of it.

As an aside, I'm all for constructive discussion with viewpoints I don't necessarily agree with, as long as it doesn't veer into the realm of absurd conspiracy theories or blatant trolling. I think people should be able to have reasoned arguments with each other, and unfortunately I think one of the problems in our current political climate is that that doesn't happen often enough.

[arus2001]

I'd be wary of confusing anti-capitalism for a disdain of how things currently seem to be functioning. I mean, if we nixed pretty much any and all regulations and let things go full-on free market, shit would be catastrophic. On the other end, we've gotta wonder if various big businesses need tax cuts, bailouts, and watching CEOs walk away with giant paychecks/bonuses your average person wouldn't see in dozens of lifetimes. We could rehash the minimum wage debate, the cost of college, and so on, but at the end of the day, it just seems like the system is continually being rigged at the inverse of trickle down economics.

So, while some may default to life not being fair or that people failing just haven't bootstrapped enough, there's simply more to it that's beyond their individual control. Seeing multi-millionaires being given the keys to the country is fucking scary, especially if they've never had to live "like us" in the past. It's why I purport that empathy is hella important for people in power to have, and that goes beyond simply saying what we'd like to hear.

[Kincard]

A lot of people here are certainly critical of capitalism (because it's a flawed system as with anything else) but the last person close to a Marxist crazy I remember being around here was notorious bum and I haven't seen that guy post in a while now. I don't think it's valid to do a GIVIN' YOU BOTH SIDES argument when it's clear the socialist boogeyman is far more common in political discourse than any sort of capitalist boogeyman thanks to the country's history. There are plenty of Republicans throwing around terms like "European nightmare" and "Haves and Soon-to-haves". Call me when Democratic politicians start boiling down their shit to dodging the Somalian Nightmare or Destroying the Evil Bourgeois or something. The closest thing I can think of is muttering something about the 99% and even that was met with that stupid 53% claim.

Although with some of Trump's supporters it seems we've gone from "socialist pinko commies are bad" to "a bit of socialist pinko commie ideas are okay if its for white people" so I guess you can call that progress?

For sure there's some structural inequality left (drug laws come to mind) but you have to agree that the goal should be removing structural inequality vs coming up with laws that would blend us all together immediately and remove all racial distinctions between classes because to do that quickly would take a lot of preferential treatment, no? I think that kind of equality should be achieved through a long amount time under systems that provide equal treatment/opportunity regardless of race/sex/gender. Is that fair to say?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I don't get how someone can simultaneously say they know of the US's history of unequal treatment and think that a shift into separate but equal laws after that will somehow solve everyone's problems over time. It makes even less sense when you consider so many of Trump's supporters apparently don't like the fact that the rich got richer from global free trade allowing the wealthy to continue rolling their money snowball.

[Aerin]

It's not hard to imagine that racism played an important part in the election. If you payed any attention to Fox News over the last several years you can see how the Republican party has flirted with racist ideologies and then adamantly claim they were no such thing and it was just liberals making stuff up. The fact that so many felt so comfortable with shouting such terrible things out in the open says a lot as well.

That being said, I'm very hesitant to make the blanket statement of those that voted for Trump were racist/sexist or whatever else. Even saying the majority of them are is problematic because everyone would just assume they're part of the majority and you're talking about them (hi2u deplorables). I'd also mention that if you verbally attack someone by saying they're a racist because they voted for Trump, without trying to understand what concerns them in general, it will not help the problem in the slightest.

not once did I see BG poke even a tenth of the amount of fun at people decrying democracy/capitalism/police over the last year (and all of those happened in this very sub-section) - and it's safe to say, for me, those people were advocating for things against their self interest from my perspective of unique set of biases.

I'm not sure what this is specifically referring to. Not saying it's wrong.

[Thunder]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I don't get how someone can simultaneously say they know of the US's history of unequal treatment and think that a shift into separate but equal laws after that will somehow solve everyone's problems over time. It makes even less sense when you consider so many of Trump's supporters apparently don't like the fact that the rich got richer from global free trade allowing the wealthy to continue rolling their money snowball.

Separate but equal? What do you mean by that?

If you want immediate and total equality right now - same amount, roughly, of blacks, women, trans, etc in every socio-economic bracket - you'd need to give INCREDIBLE help to those who have been historically pushed down. Yeah?

And because that's dumb to me I'd prefer instead total equality be: laws affect everyone the same (and no weird things like the crack vs cocaine stuff) and everyone has roughly equal opportunities at careers/success/etc
And even if we were able to do that all tomorrow, a study next week could be done and show disparities among the races, even though there is no systemic oppression/unfairness.... because systemic oppression had left a deep mark and being born into a family that lived during oppressed times gives you less of a shot, just by virtue of being born in the wrong family. You can't make laws to beat that sort of inequality immediately. There's so much in the "inequality" bubble that just can't be given back to people who lived through systematic oppression that talking about it is silly, to me. Education, preschool, medical costs/care. You can't give missed opportunities back, best you can do is make sure it's fair moving forward and just move it forward enough the disparities disappear

We can't fix the damage the last century worth of racism did with laws (or at least I can't see a way to do it that's fair for anyone). It's like playing a game that started 20 years ago and we all just find out now that most of us are cheating - what do you do? Reparations to the non-cheaters? Or just make sure everyone starts playing fair and let the advantage the cheaters gained taper off in the next decades to come

does that make better sense?

Edit:

I'm not sure what this is specifically referring to. Not saying it's wrong.

Past few weeks/months have had comments in our own youtube section implying democracy is bad or has failed, system is unfair, etc
capitalism is evil, shouldn't be used as a benchmark for anything, fiat currency is failing us
admittedly now that I'm thinking about it, the police stuff could have been bum but that happened so long ago I wouldn't be able to find it in that thread

but the other two are issues that some people are way overblowing by buying into the left's hysteria about it (imo) and now we're saying that the reason trump was elected was majorly a result of racist white democrates not voting?
or that trump losing the popular vote means anything? And to the people that have a quick retort to that line, if we rewound the clock ~18 months and the system changed to popular vote electing the president... can we really expect the same exact results? Trump's comment about him still winning the election if it were a popular vote because his strategy would change makes a lot of sense and a lot of people are putting on heavy blinders to that idea

Basically, I think I'm seeing a lot of bias around here to lefty ideas that should be criticized vs embraced. But again, could just be me and just like I have in the past will admit to being wrong if someone convinces me

I'd be wary of confusing anti-capitalism for a disdain of how things currently seem to be functioning.

Yep, I get that. I can discuss all day ways to improve functionality and I think that's great for everyone involved (discussing it, I mean). But it's ridiculous when someone comes back with "that's why capitalism shouldn't be used as a benchmark for anything" when like, damn, a big part of what makes america so cool and on the cutting edge of a lot of business is the very thing you're saying sucks. It's that ol' throwing the baby out with the bath water or just not understanding how it works

For instance, quicklet's post is totally fine to me. I bet we'd run into disagreements if we went deeper into it (for instance, do you mean that "but empirically [rising tide rises all boats] hasn't materialized for a lot of people in the past few decades" hasn't materialized AT ALL for some people? I'm down with it hasn't materialized at a rate equal to the rate of growth of the US... but we all benefit from cheaper tech, cheaper labor (automation), etc through all sorts of ways) and that's cool

[Xantavia]

???

isn't that a perfectly natural tendency? To vote for your own interests, over the interests of others?

I think what we see at times is people think they are voting their interests, but in reality it won't affect them at all. Like candidate X promising tax cuts, where it will only affect those making over $200K a year. Then the people struggling on $20K a year vote for them because they think it will drop their taxes too.

[Greatguardian]

You can't give missed opportunities back, best you can do is make sure it's fair moving forward and just move it forward enough the disparities disappear

This isn't a thing that just happens. It's maybe a thing you can rationalize thinking might happen in your head. But it's not a thing that happens in reality. Wealth, the accumulation of wealth, and the propagation of wealth through successive generations don't work that way.

[Kincard]

Careful with the putting words in mouths there. Who is asking for there to be some kind of action taken to immediately ensure absolute equal representation in every facet of society, rather than just being a goal to strive towards? This is a straw man often thrown around by the same sort of people who think they're being persecuted by the Cultural Marxists. I've almost never seen the idea espoused by anyone other than reactionaries who need to make something up to complain about.

Separate but equal? What do you mean by that?

I was being sarcastic, but it mostly a jab at the fact that the nation historically has had times when we've created specious versions of equality while defending it with a ton of sophistry.

There's so much in the "inequality" bubble that just can't be given back to people who lived through systematic oppression that talking about it is silly, to me. Education, preschool, medical costs/care. You can't give missed opportunities back, best you can do is make sure it's fair moving forward and just move it forward enough the disparities disappear

We can't fix the damage the last century worth of racism did with laws (or at least I can't see a way to do it that's fair for anyone). It's like playing a game that started 20 years ago and we all just find out now that most of us are cheating - what do you do? Reparations to the non-cheaters? Or just make sure everyone starts playing fair and let the advantage the cheaters gained taper off in the next decades to come

To me yours is pretty much the textbook case of what would be considered a privileged viewpoint. If we're willing to convince ourselves that the poor need help so they aren't stuck in poverty forever, why are we simultaneously against giving aid to minority groups which were historically oppressed? Unless you're also against the former, at least then you'd be logically consistent I guess.

[Thunder]

This isn't a thing that just happens. It's maybe a thing you can rationalize thinking might happen in your head. But it's not a thing that happens in reality. Wealth, the accumulation of wealth, and the propagation of wealth through successive generations don't work that way.

I didn't, in my mind, have the idea of equal distribution of wealth.

I'm thinking about having enough wealth to afford preschool, medical care, proper nutrition, school supplies, college, effects of racially biased laws, etc. being missed opportunities you can't give back and those are the things that I have in mind when discussing equality... I'm not really for any idea that would theoretically, in time, equally distribute all wealth

And I do think those things have a propagative effect throughout generations, wouldn't you say so?

And isn't that what we should all hope 'equality' looks like in the future? And not some utopia where everyone has equal share of the world's wealth..?

[Thunder]

Careful with the putting words in mouths there. Who is asking for there to be some kind of action taken to immediately ensure absolute equal representation in every facet of society, rather than just being a goal to strive towards? This is a straw man often thrown around by the same sort of people who think they're being persecuted by the Cultural Marxists. I've almost never seen the idea espoused by anyone other than reactionaries who need to make something up to complain about.

..It was just a hypothetical to further illustrate the point I kept on failing to convey to you since my first post@you about what I thought about equality and how a system can be equal and still have seemingly observable inequality

To me yours is pretty much the textbook case of what would be considered a privileged viewpoint. If we're willing to convince ourselves that the poor need help so they aren't stuck in poverty forever, why are we simultaneously against giving aid to minority groups which were historically oppressed? Unless you're also against the former, at least then you'd be logically consistent I guess.

I'm for giving aid to minority groups...
remember the initial comment I made that spun into the discussion you and I are having atm,

Maybe this is the proper response a democracy should have to trying to help too many people, too quickly.

we can be for not wanting people in poverty forever and simultaneously against certain aid to minority groups at the moment. You're implying me saying it could be the right thing to do to deny some theoretical aid NOW is somehow equal to denying theoretical aid FOREVER. I'm just saying that maybe this is the right thing to do given our situation in the US, politically and socially

[Greatguardian]

I didn't, in my mind, have the idea of equal distribution of wealth.

I'm thinking about having enough wealth to afford preschool, medical care, proper nutrition, school supplies, college, effects of racially biased laws, etc. being missed opportunities you can't give back and those are the things that I have in mind when discussing equality... I'm not really for any idea that would theoretically, in time, equally distribute all wealth

And I do think those things have a propagative effect throughout generations, wouldn't you say so?

And isn't that what we should all hope 'equality' looks like in the future? And not some utopia where everyone has equal share of the world's wealth..?

...What? Wealth is not something you buy school supplies with. Wealth is the sum total of all assets owned by a person or family. Differences in wealth result in differences in effective opportunity and purchasing power. The single largest contributor to lower and middle class wealth is property ownership. Renters do not accumulate and pass on wealth in the same way that property owners do. When a renter dies, they don't pass on a house to be lived in or traded up for a bigger house by their children. Families who start off unable to own property and, subsequently, unable to afford to own property are given very little opportunity to accumulate wealth which can be traded on in subsequent generations. The poor stay poor, even when they generate levels of income equivalent to peers whose ancestors could own property.

[Gredival]

Who's pushing to eliminate critical thinking? Isn't that just a natural result of how media works?

Not necessarily. There was a time where the media was a respected and integral component of political life. Journalists still served to delve into the nitty gritty details that average persons cannot devote their time to, but because they were respected they could hold politicians accountable to the public. They had power. Newspaper endorsements could change elections.

The whole "bias in the media" has served to rob journalists of the clout and gravitas they once had, which in turn has reduced journalism to partisan clickbait chase in an attempt to stay afloat. It's a vicious cycle where no one wins save the people who can now avoid scrutiny by discrediting the media.

The problem is exacerbated with rise of new media, most especially social media, where the quality of the journalism matters less than giving viewers/readers what they want -- an echo chamber. The market for analytical "Here eat your broccoli" journalism are the people who least need the assistance in forming their opinion leading real political and analytical journalism to be a thing of increasingly niche print outlets (The Atlantic, The Times, The Economist, etc.)