The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Enoch]

Supporters Aggravated Bernie Sanders Didn't Use DNC Speech to Get Voters to Act Against their Own Self-Interest

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hillary officially the nominee vs. Trump.

 

Anyone know any good suicide methods?

OD on something. It can be done more reliably than hanging, shooting, or cutting and if it's a serious depressant you'll likely go in your sleep.

[Hastur]

Don't anybody off himself. Relieve your frustration by coming here to bitch about it. Oh, and don't strap on a vest and off anyone else either.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Relieve your frustration by starting a hardcore band with me and beating up hipsters. We'll be Black Flag 2.0.

[Keyrock]

Wouldn't this be the year to run as a 3rd candidate?  You have arguably the 2 most hated candidates of all time going against each other.  What better time for a big name from either side to run as an independent?

Edited July 27, 2016 by Keyrock

[Enoch]

Wouldn't this be the year to run as a 3rd candidate?  You have arguably the 2 most hated candidates of all time going against each other.  What better time for a big name from either side to run as an independent?

Because that would be stupid and self-destructive.

 

First, because it's too late in the process to get on the ballot in a critical mass of states.

 

Second, because it would sabotage their policy goals and, consequently, career.  We tend to get caught up in the personalities, but there are rather huge policy differences between the major candidates.  Anybody who cares about tax rates, economic opportunity, immigration, environmental policy, education, energy, etc., would just end up undermining whoever of Trump or Clinton is closer to their views, and hand the election to the one who they like least. 

Edited July 27, 2016 by Enoch

[Longknife]

 

Wouldn't this be the year to run as a 3rd candidate?  You have arguably the 2 most hated candidates of all time going against each other.  What better time for a big name from either side to run as an independent?

Because that would be stupid and self-destructive.

 

First, because it's too late in the process to get on the ballot in a critical mass of states.

 

Second, because it would sabotage their policy goals and, consequently, career.  We tend to get caught up in the personalities, but there are rather huge policy differences between the major candidates.  Anybody who cares about tax rates, economic opportunity, immigration, environmental policy, education, energy, etc., would just end up undermining whoever of Trump or Clinton is closer to their views, and hand the election to the one who they like least. 

 

 

 

But this in of itself perpetuates the same exact problem that's touching on most of the world's problems today: "too big to fail." It creates a dependency on these terribly loathed candidates that prevents us from ever acting out against them, which affords ridiculous levels of control and lee-way to them, which just results in more problems.

[Keyrock]

 

Wouldn't this be the year to run as a 3rd candidate?  You have arguably the 2 most hated candidates of all time going against each other.  What better time for a big name from either side to run as an independent?

Because that would be stupid and self-destructive.

 

First, because it's too late in the process to get on the ballot in a critical mass of states.

 

Second, because it would sabotage their policy goals and, consequently, career.  We tend to get caught up in the personalities, but there are rather huge policy differences between the major candidates.  Anybody who cares about tax rates, economic opportunity, immigration, environmental policy, education, energy, etc., would just end up undermining whoever of Trump or Clinton is closer to their views, and hand the election to the one who they like least. 

 

I don't know, it would be incredibly risky, that's for sure, but it might be worth the risk for someone to take.  The 2 party system is terribly broken, I've know this for quite some time.  The fact that Trump has managed to become the GOP candidate and that Socialist Grandpa managed to get as far as he did in his bid for the Dems candidacy shows that the number of people in the country that recognize how broken the system is and that are sick to death of it is at an all time high.  Sure, someone going independent would quite likely damage their standing in their own party, but that might not matter as much going forward and they would have the talking point of "at least I tried, I risked my career to try to stop the madness" 4 years from now.

[Enoch]

 

 

Wouldn't this be the year to run as a 3rd candidate?  You have arguably the 2 most hated candidates of all time going against each other.  What better time for a big name from either side to run as an independent?

Because that would be stupid and self-destructive.

 

First, because it's too late in the process to get on the ballot in a critical mass of states.

 

Second, because it would sabotage their policy goals and, consequently, career.  We tend to get caught up in the personalities, but there are rather huge policy differences between the major candidates.  Anybody who cares about tax rates, economic opportunity, immigration, environmental policy, education, energy, etc., would just end up undermining whoever of Trump or Clinton is closer to their views, and hand the election to the one who they like least. 

 

 

 

But this in of itself perpetuates the same exact problem that's touching on most of the world's problems today: "too big to fail." It creates a dependency on these terribly loathed candidates that prevents us from ever acting out against them, which affords ridiculous levels of control and lee-way to them, which just results in more problems.

 

 

It only causes problems if they do poorly when in office, which is not something for which their likeability on the campaign trail is an especially good predictor. 

 

And let's not pretend that the primary process is a coronation.  The story of the GOP primary was essentially the voters "acting out" against Jeb, Rubio, Walker, and the other "establishment" folks.  Hillary was the favorite in 2008, and the "insurgent" is the one who ended up being the nominee.  (This time around, Sanders outperformed expectations, but he was, in the end, less popular than Clinton was.)  

[Wrath of Dagon]

Supporters Aggravated Bernie Sanders Didn't Use DNC Speech to Get Voters to Act Against their Own Self-Interest

We have now achieved singularity, where the Onion has merged with reality.

 

 

But this in of itself perpetuates the same exact problem that's touching on most of the world's problems today: "too big to fail." It creates a dependency on these terribly loathed candidates that prevents us from ever acting out against them, which affords ridiculous levels of control and lee-way to them, which just results in more problems.

As I keep saying, nothing can be done until the laws are changed to get rid of the two party system. A third party will never be viable unless it can replace one of the two major parties. Suppose Bloomberg ran like he was thinking of doing. He'd probably get a good chunk of votes, but all it would accomplish is ensure that Hilzilla, who he just endorsed, and would infinitely prefer to Trump, lost. Disclaimer: I'm actually pretty happy the way the election is going so far.

[Keyrock]

I can say this with 100% certainty:  So long as no one with at least a modicum of power and relevance, on whatever side of the fence, takes the risk of shaking up this broken as **** system, nothing will change.  If someone takes the chance there may be a very small chance of succeeding in changing the system and a very high chance of failing.  If no one does anything there is a 0% chance of changing the system.  So long as people keep saying "you just have to play along with the game" we'll be stuck in this bull**** vicious cycle forever until the country completely collapses.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Keyrock

[Wrath of Dagon]

We tried to defeat my Congressman in the primary. 47% of the votes were against him, which is tremendous against a powerful incumbent. He probably did the worst of any Congressman in Texas who were challenged, but 47% is still not enough to beat him. He probably had 50 times more money than the nearest challenger and ran saturation commercials, so he could lie with impunity since no one had the resources to effectively rebut him. Most voters just don't bother to find out information for themselves and make the right decision, so what can you do about it?

[Enoch]

he could lie with impunity since no one had the resources to effectively rebut him. Most voters just don't bother to find out information for themselves and make the right decision, so what can you do about it?

 

Behold the consequences of 3 decades spent telling the voters that they can't trust media organizations! 

 

(And, you know, the internet killing the economic viability of local investigative reporting.) 

[Hastur]

It's probably easy to be urbane, intelligent, and wise about the demise of the media, but it had a central hand in eroding the public's trust. There are still some outlets that do rather well even as others have been diminished. This has always been the case. Well, I would say always, but in the grand scheme of human history, the media as we know it is rather young. An infant, some might say.

 

As for the voters acting against their interest, that's been going forever. Ask the Athenians about that splendid expedition to Sicily! Either you believe in the Republic or you don't. If you do, be prepared to go down with the ship. Then again, earthly things rise and fall, so might as well take the poison of your choosing. Also, one must note the difference between short term interests and long term interests and of course the odd fool who sees that he might not achieve riches long or short term but who believes a small amount of sacrifice of self interest might be the best thing for the community as a whole.

 

Moreover, the majority of states won't see a difference. It's actually far more reasonable for someone like me to vote for a third party candidate if I want to promote one. After all, you can come up with theoretical arguments that my vote here will swing things, but if Hillary Clinton wins this state because I didn't vote for Trump, or if Trump could've won here with my vote, then Hillary lost the election hours earlier.

 

I will agree with an earlier comment about likeability not being the best or even a good indicator of ability in office. That's actually a vote for Trump. Of course, my short term interest is not served by having to see and hear the guy since I can't stand him. On the other hand, my satisfaction from seeing people get bent out of shape when I tell them I'm going to vote for Trump is immense. I typically hate to deceive people even on trivial stuff, so I'll probably tell them I'm voting for Trump even though I'm casting for the Libertarian ticket, but the temptation is great! :D

 

All that said, I like the two party system. I just wish it got back to working again. The two parties are supposed to be big tents, but I think they've had some serious problems along these lines increasingly over time. That's not just everyone's favorite 'Hitler' party (ha!), but also the party of 'Stalin.'

[Guard Dog]

 

Supporters Aggravated Bernie Sanders Didn't Use DNC Speech to Get Voters to Act Against their Own Self-Interest

We have now achieved singularity, where the Onion has merged with reality..

 

 God forbid!

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

he could lie with impunity since no one had the resources to effectively rebut him. Most voters just don't bother to find out information for themselves and make the right decision, so what can you do about it?

 

Behold the consequences of 3 decades spent telling the voters that they can't trust media organizations! 

 

(And, you know, the internet killing the economic viability of local investigative reporting.)

 

Well, you can't, it's just a fact. You can still find everything you need on the internet, like the voting record, you don't need investigative reporting for that. I'm not claiming he did anything underhanded that needed to be investigated, but most people don't even bother to check how their Congressman actually votes.

[Guard Dog]

 

he could lie with impunity since no one had the resources to effectively rebut him. Most voters just don't bother to find out information for themselves and make the right decision, so what can you do about it?

 

Behold the consequences of 3 decades spent telling the voters that they can't trust media organizations! 

 

(And, you know, the internet killing the economic viability of local investigative reporting.) 

 

If all fairness the media organizations have largely killed their own credibility. As an example just contrast the tone of CNNs coverage of both Conventions. 

[Longknife]

I mean wtf man.

 

At least we get THIS GEM RIGHT HERE.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Longknife

[BruceVC]

 

 

he could lie with impunity since no one had the resources to effectively rebut him. Most voters just don't bother to find out information for themselves and make the right decision, so what can you do about it?

 

Behold the consequences of 3 decades spent telling the voters that they can't trust media organizations! 

 

(And, you know, the internet killing the economic viability of local investigative reporting.)

 

Well, you can't, it's just a fact. You can still find everything you need on the internet, like the voting record, you don't need investigative reporting for that. I'm not claiming he did anything underhanded that needed to be investigated, but most people don't even bother to check how their Congressman actually votes.

 

You can trust the media on most things, the same stories get told on Al-Jazeera, CNN, Sky, BBC etc. So if  the media was indeed untrustworthy that would mean all independent global media houses are complicate in some kind of global deceit and conspiracy theory....and I reject that idea 

 

 

It worries me immensely that you feel you can't trust international media houses yet you seem to believe any other link from far less credible sources....especially when they suit a particular narrative 

[ShadySands]

I mean wtf man.

 

At least we get THIS GEM RIGHT HERE.

Apparently there was a walkout as well but it didn't seem to get much coverage

[Hastur]

Actually, I tend to agree with Bruce. Most outlets, from Fox to MSNBC and CNN to BBC, can't afford to out and out lie. Commentary is commentary, and so you get opinion, and various stories will get more or less airtime depending on the source, but none of them will lie. It would completely destroy them. I personally get news from a variety of sources. Because I'm more conservative, I like Fox reporting, but I regularly read other outlets, from CNN, BBC, the Huffington Rag, and even facebook. If it's an important story, I tend to check at least a few outlets. I think Fox does tend to be a little more entertaining, but even they irritate me sometimes, both on the conservative and liberal angle. Anyone who thinks Fox is all conservative should watch Sheppard Smith reports sometime. ...But, yeah, they're a lot more conservative than CNN and way the hell more conservative than MSNBC. (And simply a better news organization than MSNBC too, although I did used to enjoy Olbermann (sp?) when he was on air. lol Countdown!) I canceled my cable TV, though, so I don't actually watch anything live anymore for the most part.

[BruceVC]

Actually, I tend to agree with Bruce. Most outlets, from Fox to MSNBC and CNN to BBC, can't afford to out and out lie. Commentary is commentary, and so you get opinion, and various stories will get more or less airtime depending on the source, but none of them will lie. It would completely destroy them. I personally get news from a variety of sources. Because I'm more conservative, I like Fox reporting, but I regularly read other outlets, from CNN, BBC, the Huffington Rag, and even facebook. If it's an important story, I tend to check at least a few outlets. I think Fox does tend to be a little more entertaining, but even they irritate me sometimes, both on the conservative and liberal angle. Anyone who thinks Fox is all conservative should watch Sheppard Smith reports sometime. ...But, yeah, they're a lot more conservative than CNN and way the hell more conservative than MSNBC. (And simply a better news organization than MSNBC too, although I did used to enjoy Olbermann (sp?) when he was on air. lol Countdown!) I canceled my cable TV, though, so I don't actually watch anything live anymore for the most part.

I also use a variety of sources, I use media houses like CNN, Al-Jazeera and BBC ( we dont get Fox in SA) but also websites  what I consider are credible mediums of news like The Economist and Wall Street Journal. I have links to the financial sector through work and historically what my family does for a living so I admit I am always concerned about any political or economic decisions from the USA that could impact the global financial market which is directly influenced by  what happens in the USA

 

So my constant objective and support is global market financial stability 

 

But there is a degree of biased from some towards " the media " , for example many people on this forum will tell you CNN is biased towards the Democrats and has an agenda to ensure Hilary Clinton wins the presidency and that Trump is always portrayed in a negative light

 

Yes I would agree there is a leaning from CNN towards the Democrats but its not some kind of consensus that all of CNN is behind the Democrats and there is no  orchestrated or surreptitious attempt to only  show Trump badly

 

For example after  the RNC CNN was very vocal that Trump was ahead of Clinton in there latest poll..they never hide this polling information or tried to dismiss it

 

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/25/cnn-trump-clinton-poll-newday.cnn

Edited July 27, 2016 by BruceVC

[HoonDing]

Bill's speech was great.

[BruceVC]

Bill's speech was great.

Michelle Obama's speech was truly inspirational....I was very impressed. Best speech for me so far 

[Hiro Protagonist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnhGMUKeq1A