Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Trump's Cabinet of Deplorables: Now with 33% fewer memes!

Trump's Cabinet of Deplorables: Now with 33% fewer memes! (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
If you've done something that wouldn't get you past the security clearance at WalMart HR, you've got no business being in a presidential cabinet.
Yet you voted for someone who did just that, for president. Someone who, during their tenure at the very position you're complaining about, violated the very rule you're upset about, lied about it, and got away with. Funny how your rhetoric changes when your preferred ideology loses an election, and your standard for acceptable behavior suddenly skyrockets. What was perfectly viable, way overblown, and worth supporting in a campaign setting is now far below acceptable standard since the person doing it has an (R) next to their name.

We could do far worse than Paetreus for SOS - at least we'd be reasonably sure he wouldn't botch the security situation of our ambassadors in the ME then cover-up the fact that his incompetence got them killed, then frame the attack as a response to an obscure youtube video, where if only we weren't so damn white and so damn bigoted none of it would have happened. I am in no way justifying what the P man did, but if we're worried about him serving as secretary of state we ought to remain consistent in our arguments across the aisle, amirite?
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 05:50 PM
 
Pfft, I voted for Johnson.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Pfft, I voted for Johnson.
For serious?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Yet you voted for someone who did just that, for president. Someone who, during their tenure at the very position you're complaining about, violated the very rule you're upset about, lied about it, and got away with. Funny how your rhetoric changes when your preferred ideology loses an election, and your standard for acceptable behavior suddenly skyrockets.
Can someone say with full conviction, "Hillary Clinton has no place in the white house" and then vote for her?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
He predicted a much higher chance for Trump to win than everyone else. That was wrong how?
Being less wrong does not make you right.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
How does the rhetoric "if it were up to me, I'd throw 'em in the can!" square-up with someone who pled guilty and accepted the punishment?
I mean, you can keep trying to change the argument, but I'll keep pointing you to the disqualification being how classified info was handled, not whether there was admittance of guilt or punishment.



Originally Posted by subego View Post
I honestly don't feel like spending the day in TD, which is what it would take to find out for sure.
TD?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Pfft, I voted for Johnson.
A luxury of the state of you residence, is it not? Or gun to your head you'd have still chosen neither?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Can someone say with full conviction, "Hillary Clinton has no place in the white house" and then vote for her?
Not in my opinion, though I know others feel differently.

As I have said before, if we would all start voting FOR people instead of AGAINST others, we wouldn't have to choose between two awful candidates. Hell, we might even get to a point where the 3rd parties could put up a viable presidential candidate in lieu of the trash we're getting from the majors.

The system where "I'm voting for such and such because XYZ candidate is worse!" is literally a self-fulfilling prophecy that ensures each election to be the "highest" common denominator of candidate-shittiness.

Especially with the advent of the internet, where any and all dirt, no matter the context or time, is at the disposal of millions. This means campaigns are continually skewing towards opposition, and less and less towards propping up a candidate on their own laurels. Quite simply, it's a race to juuuuuust below the bottom.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Hell, we might even get to a point where the 3rd parties could put up a viable presidential candidate in lieu of the trash we're getting from the majors.

The system where "I'm voting for such and such because XYZ candidate is worse!" is literally a self-fulfilling prophecy that ensures each election to be the "highest" common denominator of candidate-shittiness.
No, the rules set in place are the problem. Don't blame people for working within the system given them. The system as the major parties have engineered it, is working as intended.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No, the rules set in place are the problem. Don't blame people for working within the system given them. The system as the major parties have engineered it, is working as intended.
It's never the lemmings fault when they throw themselves off the ledge, is it?

I reject your premise that you're "working within a system". It is this logical fallacy that enables exploitation of the system in the first place.

You act as if we're powerless without the blessing of the majors, where the reality is precisely the opposite.

What would happen if a 3rd party candidate won the majority of the states' EC votes?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 09:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
TD?
r/the_donald
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Or gun to your head
Which is the same as living in Ohio.
( Last edited by subego; Dec 5, 2016 at 11:15 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It's never the lemmings fault when they throw themselves off the ledge, is it?

I reject your premise that you're "working within a system". It is this logical fallacy that enables exploitation of the system in the first place.

You act as if we're powerless without the blessing of the majors, where the reality is precisely the opposite.

What would happen if a 3rd party candidate won the majority of the states' EC votes?
But the likelihood of that happening is almost slim to none because our democratic republic is structurally a two-party system. This is the natural result of the "winner take all" voting rules we have in nearly every state. Along with ballot access laws which favor major political parties. The Democratic and Republican parties don't have to spend resources gaining basic access to the ballots in all 50 states because they have it automatically under the law. Not so much for other parties. If we had a true, multi-party democracy ... and I'm not necessarily talking about a a parliamentary system .... but a system that was oriented around "proportional" as opposed to "winner take all" representation then voting FOR rather than AGAINST a candidate would be strategically sound. But as it stands now that's a luxury that many voters simply can't afford.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I mean, you can keep trying to change the argument, but I'll keep pointing you to the disqualification being how classified info was handled, not whether there was admittance of guilt or punishment.
I keep changing it to that in an effort to demonstrate the reasons for why I'm disagreeing.

Allow me to try from a different direction.

Hillary set things up to make it easy for her to dodge the FOIA, deleted State Department communications, had laughable security, mishandled classified information, lied about it, got hundreds of people to lie about it for her, and ultimately expressed a willingness to casually behave in ways that would get a normie slapped in chains.

I challenge the notion only three words of that sentence are relevant to her qualifications, or lack thereof.

The irony is, despite that harsh indictment, it's not like I actually disqualified her, so I have trouble considering myself that much of an authority on those who did.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 5, 2016, 11:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
being less wrong does not make you right.
How does this work out practically when it comes to assessing predictive models? Everything is a gradation of less wrong, until at point X it snaps into a binary "right"? If so, where is X?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2016, 12:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You act as if we're powerless without the blessing of the majors, where the reality is precisely the opposite.

What would happen if a 3rd party candidate won the majority of the states' EC votes?
Then unicorns would roam the earth and there'd be rainbows everywhere.

Read: That's never going to happen. In this election the two major candidates were historically unpopular, and it should have been easy for a neutral third-party candidate to scoop up votes. But they didn't. ~90 % of Republicans stuck to Trump and ~85 % of Democrats voted for Clinton.

Jill Stein is a wonk, though, and Johnson seemed like a small town mayor who didn't seem like he could fill the big shoes in the first place. But even McMullin who seems like a sensible alternative for conservatives (and a decent human being judging by his principled opposition to Trump he maintains up until now) garnered almost no votes outside of Utah. Had McMullin been part of the race from the beginning, perhaps he would have fared better, but even in that case, I don't think he would have received a significant share of the vote (20+ %).
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The system where "I'm voting for such and such because XYZ candidate is worse!" is literally a self-fulfilling prophecy that ensures each election to be the "highest" common denominator of candidate-shittiness.
Yeah, but that requires people to start heavily criticizing people from their “own” party first, for otherwise you won't get better candidates. Criticizing Clinton or the Democrats at large won't give you a better Republican candidate. In the foreseeable future, unless one of the parties implodes (which has happened in the past), you will only be able to choose from two candidates in the US.

The parties have no interest whatsoever in giving third-party candidates more screen time. When was the last time a third-party candidate was included in the presidential debates? Who makes the rules how these debates work (hint: there are two organizations, the name of the first starts with D and the name of the second with an R). The big two parties have zero interest in sharing power with someone else, and that won't change until you switch away from a “first-pass-the-post” system. But of course, such a switch would need support from the Democrats and the GOP whose interests are not aligned here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2016, 07:58 AM
 
OT, but this question brought it to mind

Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Can someone say with full conviction, "Hillary Clinton has no place in the white house" and then vote for her?
This reminds of a thing I saw the other day, about trusting pollsters. There was one infamous automated poll that said that 13% of Americans believed that Obama was Satan. The same poll included a question about who the respondent voted for in the last election. Since you can cross-reference answers, you can see how they relate. Apparently 5% of Americans knowingly voted for a man they believed to be the Prince of Darkness.

Or possibly they were just messing with whoever disturbed their dinner, or just pressed buttons to make whoever dialed go away so they could make an important call. Just maybe.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2016, 08:15 AM
 
Satan's a totally cool cat once you get to know him.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2016, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Satan's a totally cool cat once you get to know him.
And he can dance.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2016, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But the likelihood of that happening is almost slim to none because our democratic republic is structurally a two-party system. This is the natural result of the "winner take all" voting rules we have in nearly every state. Along with ballot access laws which favor major political parties. The Democratic and Republican parties don't have to spend resources gaining basic access to the ballots in all 50 states because they have it automatically under the law. Not so much for other parties. If we had a true, multi-party democracy ... and I'm not necessarily talking about a a parliamentary system .... but a system that was oriented around "proportional" as opposed to "winner take all" representation then voting FOR rather than AGAINST a candidate would be strategically sound. But as it stands now that's a luxury that many voters simply can't afford.

OAW
I'm not disagreeing that a it stand it would be diffecult. But there is nothing preventing you, or 330+ other americans from voting outside the majors.

Casting a vote is an individual action, not a collective process. The phenomenon you describe assumes a collective action, where who I vote for has a real tangible effect on who you vote for. This is not how it actually works. Voting is an individual action. We don't need to change the collective process in order to manipulate individual votes. We simply need to let go of this idea that voting for a 3rd party is outside our control, and that in order for us to put someone other than (R) or (D) on our voting forms we need some kind of blessing from the majors.

What you say is true only as far as you buy into it, and convince others of it. Literally, a self fulfilling prophecy.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2016, 05:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Then unicorns would roam the earth and there'd be rainbows everywhere.

Read: That's never going to happen. In this election the two major candidates were historically unpopular, and it should have been easy for a neutral third-party candidate to scoop up votes. But they didn't. ~90 % of Republicans stuck to Trump and ~85 % of Democrats voted for Clinton.
And which 3rd party candidate do you believe made a compelling case against them? That could absolutely happen.

It's not going to happen if no one votes for a 3rd party, because you erroneously believe no one else is voting 3rd party.

Jill Stein is a wonk, though, and Johnson seemed like a small town mayor who didn't seem like he could fill the big shoes in the first place. But even McMullin who seems like a sensible alternative for conservatives (and a decent human being judging by his principled opposition to Trump he maintains up until now) garnered almost no votes outside of Utah. Had McMullin been part of the race from the beginning, perhaps he would have fared better, but even in that case, I don't think he would have received a significant share of the vote (20+ %).
Stranger things have happened. We elected Donald Trump as president just now, if you recall.

Yeah, but that requires people to start heavily criticizing people from their “own” party first, for otherwise you won't get better candidates. Criticizing Clinton or the Democrats at large won't give you a better Republican candidate. In the foreseeable future, unless one of the parties implodes (which has happened in the past), you will only be able to choose from two candidates in the US.
Which is exactly why I am saying we need to stop voting against people and start voting for them. If we as a nation decided to do so, you would see a fundamental change in where the votes are going and why they are voting that way. Instead, we let the majors convince us that we cannot vote for anyone but who they offer without some kind of blessing from them - which is utter bullshit.

The parties have no interest whatsoever in giving third-party candidates more screen time.
Screen time helps with campaigning, but it does not put ink to paper.

When was the last time a third-party candidate was included in the presidential debates?
I would imagine the last time we had a viable 3rd party candidate.

Who makes the rules how these debates work (hint: there are two organizations, the name of the first starts with D and the name of the second with an R). The big two parties have zero interest in sharing power with someone else,
But they have zero power in who we, as individuals, vote for. 0. Ziltch. Nada.

The only power over your vote they have is the power you give them, right now by ascribing to faulty logic that somehow you can't vote for anyone else.

and that won't change until you switch away from a “first-pass-the-post” system. But of course, such a switch would need support from the Democrats and the GOP whose interests are not aligned here.
I agree that it's an uphill battle, but it could absolutely change should the right candidate run the right campaign.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 6, 2016, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
And which 3rd party candidate do you believe made a compelling case against them? That could absolutely happen.

It's not going to happen if no one votes for a 3rd party, because you erroneously believe no one else is voting 3rd party.
This is just not going to happen. Even in this election 85~90 % stuck to their party's candidate despite their record-level unpopularity. Apparently it was more important for them to win the election than vote their conscience and lose the election. In fact, I see no realistic scenario where a third-party candidate can win: Either you would need to peel of significant numbers of Democrats and Republicans, ~50 % on average. That means you must have a spectacular candidate that is appealing to both parties and the two big parties must have weak candidates, all at the same time. Given the gulf between Republicans and Democrats in the US that has grown wider and wider, I just don't see any candidate to fit that bill.

Or alternatively, one of the two parties collapses/is replaced from within, but then you're just replacing Duff with Duff Dry:


You could argue that Trump might completely change the shape of the Republican Party, and that he is a “third-party candidate” that managed to get the nomination of the GOP. But you'd still end up with two parties, and no avenue for a third.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Which is exactly why I am saying we need to stop voting against people and start voting for them. If we as a nation decided to do so, you would see a fundamental change in where the votes are going and why they are voting that way. Instead, we let the majors convince us that we cannot vote for anyone but who they offer without some kind of blessing from them - which is utter bullshit.
We could also try and wait until foxes started guarding hen houses and the aforementioned unicorns roamed the earth. It's a nice romantic idea that you have here, and I'm not opposed to the ideal you hold here. But it's just not going to happen. You need to work within the system to change it at this point.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I agree that it's an uphill battle, but it could absolutely change should the right candidate run the right campaign.
If it didn't happen with these two candidates, what kind of candidates would you need then?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2016, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is just not going to happen. Even in this election 85~90 % stuck to their party's candidate despite their record-level unpopularity.
Again, which 3p candidate gave them reason not to? As shitty as they were, they were not as bad as the 3ps, who in addition to having extreme policies, were batshit nuts at the same time.

Apparently it was more important for them to win the election than vote their conscience and lose the election. In fact, I see no realistic scenario where a third-party candidate can win: Either you would need to peel of significant numbers of Democrats and Republicans, ~50 % on average. That means you must have a spectacular candidate that is appealing to both parties and the two big parties must have weak candidates, all at the same time. Given the gulf between Republicans and Democrats in the US that has grown wider and wider, I just don't see any candidate to fit that bill.
See my question above. The 3p candidates were no better (and far more extreme in their policies) than either of the two majors. That's why no one voted 3p - there were no 3p candidates to vote FOR.

You could argue that Trump might completely change the shape of the Republican Party, and that he is a “third-party candidate” that managed to get the nomination of the GOP. But you'd still end up with two parties, and no avenue for a third.
The avenue is to stop listening to the people that are telling you it's impossible to vote for a 3rd party candidate. i.e. stop buying into the self-fulfilling prophecy.
We could also try and wait until foxes started guarding hen houses and the aforementioned unicorns roamed the earth. It's a nice romantic idea that you have here, and I'm not opposed to the ideal you hold here. But it's just not going to happen. You need to work within the system to change it at this point.
Can you explain which part of the system forces you to vote for a major? I mean, is there a guy with a gun to your head in there that I just keep missing or is it some kind of chemical they're putting into your wheaties?

If it didn't happen with these two candidates, what kind of candidates would you need then?
Viable candidates that give a voter a reason to vote FOR them. Can you name one from this past election? I can't, because there weren't any. That's what I'm talking about - the fact that no one voted 3p here only supports the idea that no one had a candidate to vote FOR. Only AGAINST. I've already demonstrated how this leads into a self-fulfilling prophecy where we keep getting shittier candidates and we keep voting against the shittier of the two. All it would take is one viable 3p candidate in that scenario to turn the system on it's head.

In your view, because X or Y is always going to win, it would be a waste not to vote for X or Y. Therefore, everyone votes for X or Y. Z isn't an option because no one thinks it's an option. Well, who can make Z an option? It isn't the majors. It's us. We have to make Z the option. How? By believing that voting for Z is an option, and telling other people that Z is an option. If Z is an option, all the sudden X or Y isn't always going to win - and therefore it's not a waste to vote for Z, and we've broken free of the logical fallacy that we so obediently ascribe to.

We just need a Zorro to show up for the next election, and for people to stop relying on a logical fallacy to dictate their voting habits. A high bar indeed, I agree - but to call it impossible is the very reason it becomes impossible.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 8, 2016, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Again, which 3p candidate gave them reason not to? As shitty as they were, they were not as bad as the 3ps, who in addition to having extreme policies, were batshit nuts at the same time.
I already mentioned McMullen in this context.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The avenue is to stop listening to the people that are telling you it's impossible to vote for a 3rd party candidate. i.e. stop buying into the self-fulfilling prophecy.
No, the best avenue is to identify why a two-party system is favored by the current system, and then to work to change that.

Addendum: Since the tea party was mentioned in this other thread, I thought I add them to my arguments. If you look at attempts of people change US politics in a significant way, movements like the Tea Party or Trump happen within one of the two big parties not via third parties. If Trump had run as a third-party candidate, it is safe to say he wouldn't be President Elect now.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Can you explain which part of the system forces you to vote for a major? I mean, is there a guy with a gun to your head in there that I just keep missing or is it some kind of chemical they're putting into your wheaties?
Yeah, just of the top of my head:

(1) Winner-takes-all and first-past-the-post voting

This is the biggest issue in my view (watch the videos, they do a much better job explaining the myriad of problems than I do). Many other problems such as gerrymandering are born from it, too. Let's say an area is split 55:45 in favor of conservatives, but there are two conservative parties which I call C1 and C2. C1 gets 15 % of the votes and the other, C2, the remaining 40 %. The mere presence of two conservative parties means the Democrats will win the election. In fact, until either C1 or C2 by themselves are able to surpass the Democrats' share of 45 % individually, Conservatives will lose the election despite having a 10-point lead taken together.

To most voters it is more important, though, to have a government which is closest to their persuasion, so C1 is abandoned in favor of C2. You can say all you want that voters should know better, but there is a strong force for C1 voters to combine forces with C2. This voting system is not only problematic if the gap is large (e. g. in case of a 60-to-40 split, if C1 and C2 both got 30 %, the Democrats would still win despite being 20 points behind), but also, as illustrated above, when the gap is small.

And in fact, we know several instances where this has happened in US Presidential elections, e. g. in 2000 with Bush Jr., Gore and Nader as well as Bush Sr., Bill Clinton and Perot in 1992. In the first instance, it caused Gore to narrowly lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote. The consequences in 1992 were far more dramatic: even though Bush Sr. and Perot taken together garnered 56.3 % of the popular vote (vs. 43 % for Bill Clinton), Bush Sr. lost in a landslide because of Perot's respectable 18.9 %.


(2) Gerrymandering

That causes not only distortions in the number of seats one party gets, but also encourages more extreme candidates as there are less contested elections where candidates have to focus on the middle to get votes to win. This makes it doubly difficult for third parties, because the GOP and the Democrats are working together here to get a certain number of sure seats. They are in charge of drawing the electoral map.


(3) Lack of Participation in Discussions and Debates

Things like Presidential Debates are jointly controlled by Democrats and Republicans, and they have absolutely zero motivation to get additional competition. The current threshold for independent candidates is set at 15 %, although of course that may be changed.


I could go on here, but these are a few off the top of my head.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Viable candidates that give a voter a reason to vote FOR them. Can you name one from this past election?
Again, let me throw Evan McMullin's name in here: former CIA operative, former chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, senior advisor on national security issues, etc. I'd say he's a moderate, principled conservative who believes in good governance. I'm quite sure he knows where Aleppo is. He is pro-life, but has more reasonable stances, e. g. he believes that Obama Care's pre-existing conditions clause is something to keep, but that there should be further reforms. He is in favor of border security but against mass deportations. Personally, he is against gay marriage, but respects the Supreme Court's decision on that matter. And his VP pick was a woman.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Dec 9, 2016 at 05:21 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 11:45 AM
 
Possible FCC candidate against net neutrality:

https://consumerist.com/2016/12/08/l...#more-10262681
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 02:06 PM
 
So was Wheeler at first.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I already mentioned McMullen in this context.
Who?
No, the best avenue is to identify why a two-party system is favored by the current system, and then to work to change that.
I just told you why

Addendum: Since the tea party was mentioned in this other thread, I thought I add them to my arguments. If you look at attempts of people change US politics in a significant way, movements like the Tea Party or Trump happen within one of the two big parties not via third parties. If Trump had run as a third-party candidate, it is safe to say he wouldn't be President Elect now.
It's also safe to say that had a viable 3p candidate shown up - moderate, has a track record, doesn't say stupid things....they'd have garnered a very significant portion of the vote this year.

Yeah, just of the top of my head:

(1) Winner-takes-all and first-past-the-post voting
How does this stop anyone from voting 3p?

This is the biggest issue in my view (watch the videos, they do a much better job explaining the myriad of problems than I do). Many other problems such as gerrymandering are born from it, too. Let's say an area is split 55:45 in favor of conservatives, but there are two conservative parties which I call C1 and C2. C1 gets 15 % of the votes and the other, C2, the remaining 40 %. The mere presence of two conservative parties means the Democrats will win the election. In fact, until either C1 or C2 by themselves are able to surpass the Democrats' share of 45 % individually, Conservatives will lose the election despite having a 10-point lead taken together.
I'm not doubting your logic here. I'm not doubting that it makes it harder for a 3p to win. But impossible? Only because you say it is.

To most voters it is more important, though, to have a government which is closest to their persuasion, so C1 is abandoned in favor of C2. You can say all you want that voters should know better, but there is a strong force for C1 voters to combine forces with C2. This voting system is not only problematic if the gap is large (e. g. in case of a 60-to-40 split, if C1 and C2 both got 30 %, the Democrats would still win despite being 20 points behind), but also, as illustrated above, when the gap is small.
Again, your logic is rock solid in terms of why it is easier to win as a major party nom. However, this doesn't preclude anyone or everyone from voting 3p, nor are these disadvantages insurmountable for 3p candidates.

And in fact, we know several instances where this has happened in US Presidential elections, e. g. in 2000 with Bush Jr., Gore and Nader as well as Bush Sr., Bill Clinton and Perot in 1992. In the first instance, it caused Gore to narrowly lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote. The consequences in 1992 were far more dramatic: even though Bush Sr. and Perot taken together garnered 56.3 % of the popular vote (vs. 43 % for Bill Clinton), Bush Sr. lost in a landslide because of Perot's respectable 18.9 %.
Yes, this gets back to my point about not voting against someone. People voted FOR Perot, and he got nearly 1 in 5 of every vote. That demonstrates right then and there that it is possible for a 3p to run & win an election, given the right campaign and the right circumstances. The idea that a 3p has to borrow exclusively from one major or the other is problematic here. What if a 3p was far to the left socially, and far to the right economically/foreign policy wise and was able to "borrow" from both voter pools?

It's not as far fetched as you're making it out to be.

(2) Gerrymandering

That causes not only distortions in the number of seats one party gets, but also encourages more extreme candidates as there are less contested elections where candidates have to focus on the middle to get votes to win. This makes it doubly difficult for third parties, because the GOP and the Democrats are working together here to get a certain number of sure seats. They are in charge of drawing the electoral map.
Agreed we should fix this for a multitude of reasons, including the ones you cite here. We'll never do so without a 3p candidate in office though - the majors won't give up their demographics advantages that easily. Catch 22 - which do you think will be easier? Voting in a 3p who will fix this mess or getting the republicans or democrats to do it themselves (hint: they never will)?

(3) Lack of Participation in Discussions and Debates

Things like Presidential Debates are jointly controlled by Democrats and Republicans, and they have absolutely zero motivation to get additional competition. The current threshold for independent candidates is set at 15 %, although of course that may be changed.
It's the internet era. We don't need the majors, NBC, CNN or FOX to run all the debates for us anymore. A 3p candidate could easily set one up themselves - if the majors don't want to participate that's just more ammo for the 3p campaign(s).


I could go on here, but these are a few off the top of my head.
You've cited a number of reasons why it is more difficult for 3p candidates to get elected. I don't disagree with any of them. None of these aspects, even taken together, preclude anyone from voting 3rd party. See my XYZ example above.

]
Again, let me throw Evan McMullin's name in here: former CIA operative, former chief policy director of the House Republican Conference, senior advisor on national security issues, etc. I'd say he's a moderate, principled conservative who believes in good governance. I'm quite sure he knows where Aleppo is. He is pro-life, but has more reasonable stances, e. g. he believes that Obama Care's pre-existing conditions clause is something to keep, but that there should be further reforms. He is in favor of border security but against mass deportations. Personally, he is against gay marriage, but respects the Supreme Court's decision on that matter. And his VP pick was a woman.
TBH, I've never heard of him and didn't even realize he ran. Point blank - he ran a shitty campaign and didn't leverage the communications channels he had available to get the word out (i.e. the internet). I'm not saying a 3p should win every time, only that it is far more likely to happen if we stop buying the bullshit that voting 3p is somehow out of our control, and that we need the majors to give it their blessing. Nader is proof that, with 18.5% of the vote, a 3p candidate could absolutely win a presidential election. If he indeed was all the things you say, he likely would have gotten my vote.

I bet you had you taken Nader's campaign from the 90's, and ran it today, that 18.5 would not only be a ton higher but we might be looking at a 3p president elect right now. Of course, I'm only speculating and there's no way to prove/disprove my assertion.

There were close to 25 million people that voted in 08 that didn't vote in 00'. Are you saying a 3p candidate could never get these people to come out? If you took 18.5% of the voters from the 2012 turnout (based on Nader's peak performance - sorry the 16 numbers are final yet) and added the 25 million voters who came out in 08, but not 00' - well there's your 3p president right there - by a landslide. It's not as crazy of an idea as you're making it out to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_...tial_elections
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 9, 2016, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not doubting your logic here. I'm not doubting that it makes it harder for a 3p to win. But impossible? Only because you say it is.
How many US Presidents were not affiliated to one of the major two parties? When was the last time somebody did? How many independents currently sit in the House? (Currently 0, although 1 was elected as an Independent, but joined the Democrats afterwards. Since 1949 there was a total of 8. And half of them joined one of the two major parties afterwards.) Even if you look at the state level, the numbers are miniscule (0.4 % in the lower chambers and 0.5 % in the upper chambers) — and a good chunk of those are from the Vermont Progressive Party .

So yeah, is the current system really working for third parties?
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Again, your logic is rock solid in terms of why it is easier to win as a major party nom. However, this doesn't preclude anyone or everyone from voting 3p, nor are these disadvantages insurmountable for 3p candidates.
The system disfavors third-party candidates so strongly that they will never have any independent pull in Congress or a realistic chance at winning the Presidency.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Yes, this gets back to my point about not voting against someone. People voted FOR Perot, and he got nearly 1 in 5 of every vote. That demonstrates right then and there that it is possible for a 3p to run & win an election, given the right campaign and the right circumstances.
These are examples why third parties don't stand a chance. Perot, the most popular (in terms of votes) third-party presidential candidate in recent history, never stood a chance of winning. You claim it is an example for 3rd party candidates, but Perot's campaign is the very reason why we haven't seen another right-leaning 3rd party candidate making a dent. Ditto for a left-leaning candidate, because of the experience in 2000 with Nader. These are examples exactly why no third-party candidate stands a chance, because people remember that them voting for a conservative/liberal alternative brought a liberal/conservative in power.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The idea that a 3p has to borrow exclusively from one major or the other is problematic here. What if a 3p was far to the left socially, and far to the right economically/foreign policy wise and was able to "borrow" from both voter pools?
It's not problematic thought exercise, I went through both options, i. e. (1) a centrist getting votes from Republicans and Democrats, and (2) a conservative/liberal alternative to the GOP/Democrats. In both cases third-party candidates either don't stand a chance to get the majority or end up spoiling the vote. It's facts and voter dynamics.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It's not as far fetched as you're making it out to be.
It is, just look at the electoral history of the US, count the number of Congresspersons that were third-party candidates who managed to win.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Agreed we should fix this for a multitude of reasons, including the ones you cite here. We'll never do so without a 3p candidate in office though - the majors won't give up their demographics advantages that easily. Catch 22 - which do you think will be easier?
Yes, that's my post's weakest bit, I didn't give a solution, just an analysis. If I knew the solution, I'd probably be either powerful or rich — or both.

I thought that a landslide loss of the GOP could have been a change for something new to be born of the ashes, created by conservatives who don't agree at all with the shift within the party whose pinnacle was the election of Trump as its candidate. Of course, that didn't come about, and we are just left with more questions.

Partial answers, though, are the following:
- Remove yourself from your filter bubble. Don't just listen or read news that reinforce your point of view. Even if you don't agree, try and understand why other people believe what they do. Walk in someone else's moccasins for a mile.
- Reduce polarization and increase cross-partisan collaboration. Instead of punishing your elected officials when they compromise, reward them, be it at the ballot box with your vote or just by a call or email.
- Prioritize things you can do now rather than “ideologically perfect” solutions.
- Critically inspect solutions of the past, and be very wary of politicians promising the same solutions for the past few decades.
- With that knowledge, ask your representatives critical questions. Demand that they represent not just your 50 % but represent all people. If 48 % of your community are strongly opposed to a measure and 52 % in favor, can you find a solution that takes the concerns of the 48 % into account?

Along the lines, that gives you a better understanding of where the country should go.


There are tons of issues that I think should not be controversial at all and which can be solved now:
- Take measures to improve the integrity of elections every cycle. E. g. voting machines that are known to be unsafe should not be allowed to use in any election. Develop best practices, e. g. leaving a paper trail and making (partial) manual recounts mandatory. Citizens should have faith in the outcome of an election — especially if the race is very tight. The discussion should also include the problem of IDs. In most European countries you have a national ID card, and it was strange for me to have to take utility bills and some such with my to “prove” my identity. But it should also include rules that make sure people don't have to wait in line for 3-4 hours on a Tuesday in order to vote.
- Oh, and move the vote from a Tuesday to a Sunday.
- Fix VA. This will cost money, but your nation has to take the responsibility to take care of its veterans.

You can add a few more items to the list if you wish, but before tackling things like the ACA, don't forget about things that can be done now.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
TBH, I've never heard of him and didn't even realize he ran. Point blank - he ran a shitty campaign and didn't leverage the communications channels he had available to get the word out (i.e. the internet).
McMullin came late to the race, because he hadn't planned to run. But abhorred by Trump's nomination, he threw his hat into the ring last minute. I don't even think he was on the ballot of all 50 states. He was the third-party candidate with the most substance. Perhaps he will decide to run in 2020 again, but prepare more carefully this time. He got 21 % of the vote in Utah (he is a Mormon, so that might have played a role).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2016, 09:40 AM
 
the mcmullen discussion is interesting, but off topic. Perhaps it should be in the Gary Johnson (3rd Party) thread?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 10, 2016, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
the mcmullen discussion is interesting, but off topic. Perhaps it should be in the Gary Johnson (3rd Party) thread?
Good point. If you are curious about him, though, have a look at his twitter account.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2016, 02:03 PM
 
Yesterday Milo stated that Trump's going after the companies that impose caps on seemingly "unlimited" data plans.
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Dec 12, 2016 at 01:53 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2016, 12:30 PM
 
I can actually believe that. Right now, the most popular thing that the EU is doing is that they're forcing telecom companies to stop overcharging for roaming data inside the union (so if you have 1GB data included in your plan, you cannot get charged extra if you use data up to that limit even if you are not in your own country when using it). Not that I don't like my free data, but it seems like there is one or two more important things they could be working on right now. Clearly squeezing network providers is a very populist thing to do, and Trump is nothing if not populist.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2016, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It's never the lemmings fault when they throw themselves off the ledge, is it?

I reject your premise that you're "working within a system". It is this logical fallacy that enables exploitation of the system in the first place.

You act as if we're powerless without the blessing of the majors, where the reality is precisely the opposite.
Let me put it this way: The problem of our current election problems is the system:

1. We have a duopoly on politics in the form of the Republican and Democratic Parties; Those parties are the gatekeepers; By leveraging their private status they limit who can participate and even vote. How different would primaries look if you could cast a vote for each party? Freedom of choice would rob them of power, so they don't do this.

2. We have a system, let's call it a set of regulations, that are tilting the electoral market in favor of the two incumbents parties. Yadda, yadda, yadda (we've gone over this: i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law) So long as these 'regulations' (First Past The Post) exist, it incredibly difficult if not impossible for outside parties to win. I'm pretty sure there's game theory that explains this.

(In fact, if anything, it's likely that before a 3rd party would win, we'd likely end up in a situation where no candidate would reach 270, allowing the House of Representatives to pick the winner, which, again, favors the entrenched parties).

You want people to basically bootstrap themselves into third party, ignoring that if they fail, they'll suffer the outcome. It's pretty easy to ask people to do this if you hate both parties equally. Not so much if you have a clear preference.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What would happen if a 3rd party candidate won the majority of the states' EC votes?
What would happen if a 3rd party candidate won some local ****ing votes? I heard this pointed out after the election and rings true: The third parties are trying a top down approach when they haven't proven themselves at the lower levels. The correct way to amass credibility and support is to, at the very least, win some state levels positions of import. The Libertarians acknowledged this problem in nominating Johnson and Weld – two former republicans who already checked those boxes. The problem is they still represent an unknown party with little credibility in an electoral system where voting your best preference can produce unwanted outcomes.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2016, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How does this work out practically when it comes to assessing predictive models? Everything is a gradation of less wrong, until at point X it snaps into a binary "right"? If so, where is X?
It's a valid point, so to clarify, being off by one yard or three doesn't matter when we're usually dealing in inches.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2016, 09:02 PM
 
What no mention of the CEO of Exxon for Secretary of State? I'm curious as to the conservative take on this one.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2016, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What no mention of the CEO of Exxon for Secretary of State? I'm curious as to the conservative take on this one.
Oil good. Environment bad.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2016, 07:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What no mention of the CEO of Exxon for Secretary of State? I'm curious as to the conservative take on this one.
Well, he's certainly part of a big cosmic joke in the minds of many liberals: he's the personification of the claim that US foreign interests are dominated by oil (which is overly simplistic but not entirely false). On a more serious note, though, Tillerson's ideas on how to deal with Russia are going to clash with the designated Secretary of Defense.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2016, 12:06 PM
 
If I wasn't sure before that we were being punked, Rick Perry as head of what was that department I wanted to do away with again? would have convinced me.

Exxon CEO is just appalling. All the oil industry execs must have donated big time.

I don't recall ever being this shocked by cabinet appointments, or in fact ever much thinking about it. Even W chose reasonable people - sure, republicans, but not bizaro-world.

As for why I'm not just "getting over it already"... what was consoling me about a President Trump is that he would surround himself with the "best people." We are not seeing that. We are seeing consolation prizes for unqualified fellow running mates, pay for play nominations from the oil industry, and the kind of anti-government picks that would have gotten Gary Johnson burned at the stake... and yeah, it's weird.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2016, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
We are seeing consolation prizes for unqualified fellow running mates, pay for play nominations from the oil industry, and the kind of anti-government picks that would have gotten Gary Johnson burned at the stake... and yeah, it's weird.
Just imagine Clinton had picked 3 Goldman-Sachs alumni and refused her daily intel briefings, the Republicans would (justifiably) be up in arms about that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2017, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What no mention of the CEO of Exxon for Secretary of State? I'm curious as to the conservative take on this one.
Speaking of controversial picks, for some reason there are six hearings scheduled for one day next week. Doesn't sound like the GOP is up for a good vetting or discussion about the candidates.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2017, 06:02 PM
 
that would be silly.
     
andi*pandi  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 05:05 PM
 
So in addition to double-booking confirmation hearings (ensuring they will be nothing but rubber-stamping travesties) Republicans are also pushing to bypass background checks and ethics reviews. This despite Mitch McConnell's insistence in 2009 on following the rules and going by the book:

https://thinkprogress.org/mitch-mcco...694#.mls2dz46i

He also is demanding Democrats to quickly conform, er, confirm, the candidates and not hold out until they've been properly vetted. Why should they confirm any candidate, considering the hack job he and his ilk made of the SCOTUS nomination process? Why should dems not take a page out of the same book?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 05:10 PM
 
It's a goddamned farce. The silence from the right is deafening.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's a goddamned farce. The silence from the right is deafening.
Better to let people call you a fool than to open your mouth and prove them right.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2017, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
So in addition to double-booking confirmation hearings (ensuring they will be nothing but rubber-stamping travesties) Republicans are also pushing to bypass background checks and ethics reviews. This despite Mitch McConnell's insistence in 2009 on following the rules and going by the book:

https://thinkprogress.org/mitch-mcco...694#.mls2dz46i

He also is demanding Democrats to quickly conform, er, confirm, the candidates and not hold out until they've been properly vetted. Why should they confirm any candidate, considering the hack job he and his ilk made of the SCOTUS nomination process? Why should dems not take a page out of the same book?

This is one thing I hate most about politics. Normally one would say "two wrongs don't make a right" and <insert high road argument here>, but it's either play dirty or don't play at all.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2017, 11:53 AM
 
I'd just like to reiterate that Jeff Sessions is a piece of shit.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2017, 12:27 PM
 
Unlike Eric (with)Holder?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2017, 01:25 PM
 
So we agree?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2017, 02:16 PM
 
That Holder is a POS?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2017, 02:31 PM
 
Is he a bigger piece of shit than Gonzales?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 10, 2017, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is he a bigger piece of shit than Gonzales?
Or the late Reno?
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:52 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,