Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The 2016 Presidential Election thread - it's over? edition

Old 09-10-15, 10:33 AM
  #3576  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,361
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by RoyalTea View Post
statistically speaking, every individual who votes in an election has thrown their vote away. The odds that any single vote will sway an election are essentially zero. If you're already throwing your vote away by voting for a major candidate, why not throw your vote away on someone you actually want be your representative?
Sigh.

While I won't get into the Rational Choice-inspired argument that voting is an irrational act (the 2000 presidential election in Florida calls that into question), it is important to remember that the political system, and hence, the government, in our country works through a system of political parties, of which there are, effectively, two. There are two things to understand about that system - first, it is by design, and second, it helps facilitate, not hinder, democracy and good government.

1. Duverger's Law. I frequently see posts here where people complain about the two-party system, how they wish that people wouldn't be so stupid to only vote for a Democrat or Republican, how they wish there was a viable third party and that their fellow citizens should vote for it. This is all bullshit. At the federal level, the United States has a system of single-member districts and first-past-the-post elections. This combination practically guarantees that we will have a two-party system. That being the case, voting for any party other than the two major ones is an irrational act, since there is almost no way your candidate will win. Now, whether you like the two-party system, or would prefer a multi-party system, isn't the issue. The system we have is mandated by the constitution, and in order to facilitate a system that promotes more parties we would need to amend the constitution, and those amendments would have to be very drastic in nature. Our government would look completely different to the one we have in place. It wouldn't simply be a Libertarian Party and a Green Party grafted on to the existing party system; hell, we might have a Prime Minister instead of a President, and we might do away with, or severely curtail the function of, both the Senate and the Supreme Court.

2. Parties as a force for good. Like it or not, political parties are a functional necessity in a democracy. Whether you view parties as a 'top down' or 'bottom up' phenomenon, parties facilitate public debate, the passage of laws, the formulation of public understanding of issues and ideology, and the very operation of government itself.

While not as ideologically rigid as most European parties, the major parties in the US are at least, in contemporary times, ideologically coherent. This has the effect of allowing a greater understanding of issue positions for candidates at all levels of government (making voters more informed), and of also creating a greater sense of coherence in terms of programs and policies (making elected officials more accountable.) This leads to a better democracy.

When people say they want to vote for a candidate, not a party, they are, without realizing it, asking for the same systems that allow for leaders like Putin or Chavez - highly charismatic demagogues, unaccountable to ideology, party, or program. It's a recipe for disaster.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 10:51 AM
  #3577  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,535
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by General Zod View Post
Anyone who has followed Trump for a while in his career knows that this is who he is and they like that he's not changing just because some people demand that he change.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. You're making him sound like some counter-culture rebel who doesn't give a damn what the Man says. He's not. He's a privileged billionaire who's so used to pushing people around to get his way that he's developed Dunning-Kruger syndrome on a level of Biblical proportions. And the yokels eat it up.

Originally Posted by wendersfan View Post
Sigh.

While I won't get into the Rational Choice-inspired argument that voting is an irrational act (the 2000 presidential election in Florida calls that into question), it is important to remember that the political system, and hence, the government, in our country works through a system of political parties, of which there are, effectively, two. There are two things to understand about that system - first, it is by design, and second, it helps facilitate, not hinder, democracy and good government.
If it's by design, why were so many of the designers opposed to political parties of any stripe?

Also, while the two party system is firmly embedded at the Federal level, many states and local jurisdictions are effectively single party. If you live in California, what is the difference between voting for a Republican presidential candidate and a Libertarian one?
Sean O'Hara is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 10:51 AM
  #3578  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

there are two parties because two parties make it impossible for a legitimate third to exist. I think it's more accurate to say that there are two wings (one republican, one democrat) of a single ruling party. If you think that's awesome, good for you.
RoyalTea is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 10:55 AM
  #3579  
DVD Talk Legend
 
cungar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,535
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara View Post
Look away? Trump supporters jerk off to this shit. They think he's Sid Vicious giving the middle finger to the Man.
Wait until they start rolling out the Howard Stern appearances he made
cungar is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 11:19 AM
  #3580  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,361
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara View Post
If it's by design, why were so many of the designers opposed to political parties of any stripe?
By that, I assume you mean individuals like Thomas Jefferson, the de facto first leader of the Democratic-Republican Party, James Madison, another one of the founders of that party, Alexander Hamilton, de facto first leader of the Federalist Party, and John Jay, another founding member of the Federalists?
Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara View Post
Also, while the two party system is firmly embedded at the Federal level, many states and local jurisdictions are effectively single party. If you live in California, what is the difference between voting for a Republican presidential candidate and a Libertarian one?
On the first point, yes, there are many instances of effective one party rule at the state and local level. But I would argue there's still a coherent difference between the parties. And to the second point, I don't know if I understand. Are you suggesting the CAlifornia Republicans are functionally the same as Libertarians (large-L)?
wendersfan is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 11:21 AM
  #3581  
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 45,387
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

I wonder what would happen if the majority of voters cast their votes for a third party candidate and he/she won?
inri222 is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 11:34 AM
  #3582  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,361
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by inri222 View Post
I wonder what would happen if the majority of voters cast their votes for a third party candidate and he/she won?
You might ask long-time residents of Minnesota the answer to that.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 11:39 AM
  #3583  
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 45,387
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by wendersfan View Post
You might ask long-time residents of Minnesota the answer to that.
What I meant to say was :

I wonder what would happen if the majority of voters cast their votes for a third party presidential candidate and he/she won?
inri222 is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 12:18 PM
  #3584  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Why So Blu?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 29,234
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Why So Blu? is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 12:29 PM
  #3585  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,173
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

The thing I hate about the two party system is that there are social conservatives and economic conservatives, and as an economic conservative, I hate that some of these social crazies are in my party.

I have to see Huckabee show-boating around with the Kentucky lady who wouldn't give someone a gay marriage license, and THAT is the primary party I am voting for next year.

I would feel the same as a liberal, as I know many blue collar union people who hate that everything is dominated by abortion, guns and gay rights in the news these days with their party. They are more worried about jobs going overseas and declining wages then whether gays can get married.

That is why I wish we had 4 political parties:

-Economic Consevatives

-Social Conservatives

-Economic Liberals

-Social Liberals

I am a pro-choice Republican who believes in a lower taxes, less regulation, lower spending, etc. Yet I could never be nominated for my party for President despite my conservative beliefs on the economy because of stinkin issue: My stance on Abortion. The same goes with a pro-life democrat as they could never be nominated either.
coli is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 12:52 PM
  #3586  
DVD Talk Legend
 
hdnmickey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Cygnus
Posts: 12,522
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by coli View Post
The thing I hate about the two party system is that there are social conservatives and economic conservatives, and as an economic conservative, I hate that some of these social crazies are in my party.

I have to see Huckabee show-boating around with the Kentucky lady who wouldn't give someone a gay marriage license, and THAT is the primary party I am voting for next year.

I would feel the same as a liberal, as I know many blue collar union people who hate that everything is dominated by abortion, guns and gay rights in the news these days with their party. They are more worried about jobs going overseas and declining wages then whether gays can get married.

That is why I wish we had 4 political parties:

-Economic Consevatives

-Social Conservatives

-Economic Liberals

-Social Liberals

I am a pro-choice Republican who believes in a lower taxes, less regulation, lower spending, etc. Yet I could never be nominated for my party for President despite my conservative beliefs on the economy because of stinkin issue: My stance on Abortion. The same goes with a pro-life democrat as they could never be nominated either.
Different categories I fall under, but otherwise...

Ans it stands there never is one good option. Just different levels of acceptable or unacceptable.
hdnmickey is online now  
Old 09-10-15, 01:00 PM
  #3587  
DVD Talk Ruler
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,180
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by coli View Post
I am a pro-choice Republican who believes in a lower taxes, less regulation, lower spending, etc. Yet I could never be nominated for my party for President despite my conservative beliefs on the economy because of stinkin issue: My stance on Abortion. The same goes with a pro-life democrat as they could never be nominated either.
I'm socially liberal and financially conservative at about a 40/60 mix. So it's challenging to find a candidate that works for me. So I hear ya..

Originally Posted by Sean O'Hara View Post
who's so used to pushing people around to get his way that he's developed Dunning-Kruger syndrome on a level of Biblical proportions. And the yokels eat it up.
Meh. Like I said Obama is the same way. If they don't like his "deal" or don't agree with him he resorts to name calling and put-downs. He's no better. Just more classy about it.
General Zod is online now  
Old 09-10-15, 02:01 PM
  #3588  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Question: How would you describe the politically philosophy of Hillary Clinton?

She's changed frequently.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 02:06 PM
  #3589  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di SalÚ
Posts: 32,361
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by classicman2 View Post
Question: How would you describe the politically philosophy of Hillary Clinton?

She's changed frequently.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 02:12 PM
  #3590  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 11,747
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by coli View Post

That is why I wish we had 4 political parties:
So that a candidate could win the presidency with 28% of the popular vote, or, if you prefer, with California and 4-5 other states? Sounds like quite a recipe for comity in DC.

I mean, there are obvious drawbacks with the two-party system, but I feel like many people don't stop to consider the implications of their suggested fixes.
dork is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 02:15 PM
  #3591  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 11,747
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by wendersfan View Post
I think those were two separate thoughts. The first was a question about Hillary's political views. The second was a report from c-man's Chappaqua spy cam.

Last edited by dork; 09-10-15 at 03:16 PM.
dork is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 02:19 PM
  #3592  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by slop101 View Post
Dave, you're spot on. Relatively, everything seems far more to the "right".
That's what I see as well, but I'm confused by this. The country is certainly more liberal than it was in the 80s and 90s in a lot of ways (socially) like gay marriage, medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, and a number of other things. But we also see a huge conservative push economically, and that absolutely includes the Democrats who have been elected. It was Bill Clinton that signed away Glass Steagall and set up a huge windfall for banks which ultimately lead to the housing bubble. Obama's ACA has essentially done the same thing with healthcare and insurance companies are making better profits than they had in the past along with medical device companies, etc.

But ultimately it looks to me like Democrats and Republicans have acted absolutely the same way as it relates to corporations even if they aren't they are in the same industry. It actually reminds me of this study from 2014.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...concludes.html
The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded.

The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organisations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."

The positions of powerful interest groups are "not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens", but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10 per cent.

The theory of "biased pluralism" that the Princeton and Northwestern researchers believe the US system fits holds that policy outcomes "tend to tilt towards the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations."

The study comes in the wake of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial Supreme Court decision which allows wealthy donors to contribute to an unlimited number of political campaigns.
Honestly this doesn't feel like it should come as a surprise to anyone. We all see it, but it seems like we all blame the other guy for it. We mostly seem to blame Republicans as being in the pocket for big corporations, but both parties do it, the Republicans just seem to be more honest about it and try to spin it with "trickle down" or "job creator" rhetoric, while the Democrats seem to say what the average person wants to hear, but when they actually pass something, it is still ultimately better for corporations and worse for the citizens. That has occurred even when the Democrats have full control.

It's like everyone just wants to be on the winning team rather than actually be a winner. And it is the Democrats that seriously confuse me on this. Republicans have traditionally voted against their own best interest but Democrats seem to think that they are still voting for what is best for "the people," and they simply aren't anymore.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 03:10 PM
  #3593  
DVD Talk Hero
 
slop101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 38,862
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
That's what I see as well, but I'm confused by this. The country is certainly more liberal than it was in the 80s and 90s in a lot of ways (socially) like gay marriage, medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, and a number of other things. But we also see a huge conservative push economically, and that absolutely includes the Democrats who have been elected.
Yeah, maybe it's just the extremes that seem louder or tend to get more press.
slop101 is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 03:16 PM
  #3594  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

If it is, it is obviously working because we keep electing people who only have eyes on serving corporate interests so they can get re-elected, and there seems to be a never ending amount of people who will do so in the electorate.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 04:06 PM
  #3595  
DVD Talk Hero
 
slop101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 38,862
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

I was just listening to this song "Leviathan" by Manic Street Preachers, and while it's a few years old, it totally describes Trump's candidacy.

We do also speak politics to you today

Leviathan, yeah, we all want one
Obedience, consent, accept death
Brutalness, this life is short
A damp refusal, you will be caught

Leviathan in disguise
Leviathan in all your eyes
Worship denied on your knees and pray
This simple expectation to save this day

Dictators or democracy
Obey the price to make us free
Angels, devils and some more charade
Give us a pain, a God without shame

Leviathan in disguise
Leviathan in all your eyes
Worship denied on your knees and pray
This simple expectation to save this day

Reprobates and MPLA
Patty Hearst, oh, they're all the same
Baader Meinhof and Medusa touch
Leviathan, I am your son

Worship denied on your knees and pray
This simple expectation to save this day
Worship denied on your knees and pray
slop101 is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 04:18 PM
  #3596  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,364
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
If it is, it is obviously working because we keep electing people who only have eyes on serving corporate interests so they can get re-elected, and there seems to be a never ending amount of people who will do so in the electorate.
In the simplest terms only people in the pockets of big corporations can get a candidate to a national stage. It's simply too expensive. And those same corporations can afford the lobbyists to get their pet projects passed.

So many things have to change to affect that and the only way to change them is if the people who are benefiting the most decide to upend the apple cart. It's just not going to happen.

I think the best we can do is try to keep things more in line with constituents at the local level and just hope the national representatives don't fuck things up too much.
Draven is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 04:36 PM
  #3597  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
That's what I see as well, but I'm confused by this. The country is certainly more liberal than it was in the 80s and 90s in a lot of ways (socially) like gay marriage, medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, and a number of other things. But we also see a huge conservative push economically, and that absolutely includes the Democrats who have been elected. It was Bill Clinton that signed away Glass Steagall and set up a huge windfall for banks which ultimately lead to the housing bubble. Obama's ACA has essentially done the same thing with healthcare and insurance companies are making better profits than they had in the past along with medical device companies, etc.
how do you define conservative economics? Getting in bed with large banks and financial institutions?
RoyalTea is offline  
Old 09-10-15, 04:50 PM
  #3598  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by RoyalTea View Post
how do you define conservative economics? Getting in bed with large banks and financial institutions?
Yeah, obviously not defining it as fiscally conservative, because the Republicans spend money whenever they get the chance as well.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 09-11-15, 10:49 AM
  #3599  
DVD Talk Legend
 
cungar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,535
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Huckabee thinks Dred Scott is still the law of the land

"Iíve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, 'How dare you say that itís not the law of the land?'" Huckabee said during a recent interview with radio host Michael Medved. ďBecause thatís their phrase, Ďitís the law of the land.í Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people arenít fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?Ē

Even a cursory understanding of American history would trigger an intellect alarm during Huckabee's extended Dred Scott reference, due mostly to the fact that the 14th Amendment swiftly overturned the Dred Scott decision in 1868. According to BuzzFeed, Huckabee was corrected by Medved but continued his defense of possible star of a Deliverance reboot Kim Davis without much delay.
cungar is offline  
Old 09-11-15, 11:02 AM
  #3600  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,977
Re: The 2016 Presidential Election thread

Originally Posted by cungar View Post
Huckabee thinks Dred Scott is still the law of the land

"I’ve been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, 'How dare you say that it’s not the law of the land?'" Huckabee said during a recent interview with radio host Michael Medved. “Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?”

Even a cursory understanding of American history would trigger an intellect alarm during Huckabee's extended Dred Scott reference, due mostly to the fact that the 14th Amendment swiftly overturned the Dred Scott decision in 1868. According to BuzzFeed, Huckabee was corrected by Medved but continued his defense of possible star of a Deliverance reboot Kim Davis without much delay.
Huckabee's willful ignorance knows no bounds. One doubts he could pass the test immigrants have to pass to become citizens. He probably thinks it is the law of the land that a black person counts as 3/5 of a person in the census.

Last edited by movielib; 09-11-15 at 11:10 AM.
movielib is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.