2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Patine]

I think you're looking at it backwards. Its not about them being mutually exclusive at all, in fact its the opposite. The critique correctly identifies that the one is actually the cause of the other and they are essentially, one phenomenon rather than two. What Carlin's critique attacks, is the myopic view that these "sucky" politicians are being thrust upon the blameless, poor and innocent public, pointing out instead that it is the public who is the source of, and thus the cause of the politicians being sucky.

So in short, yes, they both suck... but the public is as much to blame if not moreso, than the individual politicians.

Consider the 2016 cycle... If Trump sucks so bad, how the heck did he win? If Hillary sucks worse then why the hell did she get the most votes? If they both suck so bad, then why the eff did so many people vote for them? If there wasn't anyone better, then why the hell not? If there were better options available, why didn't they win, and who's fault is that? Mirror time.

I've brought up the matter of REAL, DE FACTO, MEANINGFUL choice, which is a much more aggravated problem in the U.S. than most First World Countries. Politicians who actually show REAL concern for the people and voters, especially in a way that antagonizes "the Establishment," are going to be marginalized thoroughly, given no meaningful media coverage, no major campaign donors will give them a dime, and they won't appear on any real debates. And this will not be the voters' choice - it'll be the corrupt party bosses - the DNC, the successors of people like Tweed and Crump, and the RNC, the successors of people like Conkling, the modern, highly partisan media outlets, and the plutocratic oligarchs. Blaming the common voters is disingenuous and, on your part, arrogant.

Trump is fiddling whilst America Burns

I doubt Trump's that musically talented. He's a much better actor.

Nah that doesn't work because this is a democratic-republic, not a dictatorship, at least not yet...

‘Democratic republic’? Like the Congo? Or the People's one in North Korea?

Not that democratic, but yes, certainly a republic, though more in line with the old Dutch, Venetian, Genoan, Ragusan, Florentine, Pisan, Novgorod, and Hanseatic City-State Republics the Founding Fathers had as easy and available references - the runs ruled thoroughly by corrupt plutocrats with only a pretense of obligation or responsibility to the hoipaloi.

It's all about malice and hate with these people.

Not just those things. Greed, deception, ego, narcissism, and a desire for power or admiration, and having people believe their right is their too. Their viewpoint and agenda is a lot broader than you give it credit, even if no better.

Meh... UK has that and they still have BoJo the Clown as PM ... and a Queen... so...

You're STILL making a lot more of the British Monarchy than is meaningfully the case in the modern day and age. It's a bit pitiful, to be honest...

 

[Zardnaar]

Even with a monarchy ladies and gents QEII looks pretty good vs Trump lol.

She actually generates money for her country as well.

The Queen's also going to address the UK/Commonwealth soon.

 

[Gori the Grey]

is a terrible plan

It's not a plan. Nobody plans it. Voters settle on it. Voters have settled on it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Needs no explanation:

Spoiler Foul language :

 

[Takhisis]

Obama was the president and Trump was set on leading the opposition. If you want to call that “run against”, fine and fair enough, but I think many will find that confusing when he ran and won the general election against Hillary.

Look, I already quoted amadeus on it and he's an actual admitted Trump voter: they voted to yet again give a middle finger to Obama and to somebody he explicitly endorsed from the get-go and was one of his top officials. He was running against Obama…

Saying it’s all about destruction on the other hand is too simplistic. Trump ran on populism. Trump can read a room and tell people what they want to hear. He does that very well with his special brand blunt charisma, humour and loose ties to reality. Trump is a very able demagogue. Fact is many Americans care far more about their taxes and immigration than the environment. Many American rightfully hated the trade agreements in place and rightfully considered ACA a weak compromise. Trump sold his candidacy very well on these populist issues. Now, put up a chump like Biden talking just as much out of his arse as Trump does – only ten times less coherent and with a terrible public voting record on all those populist issues – is a terrible plan. To defeat a demagogue, you want to be trustworthy and like a laser beam on the actual issues. Demanding answer after answer until people for themselves see the façade crack and fall off.

…and what did Trump (claim to) want to construct?

I think a simpler way we could incentivize voting is to get rid of the electoral college.

Note that I don't think that this would be easy, just that it is simple, and could potentially produce immediate results. For one thing, it eliminates one of the main excuses people cite for their decision not to vote. There are a multitude of people who have been, for years, using the electoral college as their main reason for not voting. So at a minimum, these folks are would have to come up with a new excuse.

The other thing that this could help do is eliminate the restriction to voting in particular places by nationalizing the voting rolls. If you have a dogsqueeze polling location nearby with ridiculously long lines you just go to another one. It wouldn't even matter what state you voted in.

That's the entire point of my earlier statements, but you'd get a lot of ‘STATES' RIGHTS!’ thrown at you.

A day off to vote! Cool lets go to the beach.

…which is why there's fines for not voting and anyway the day after voting is a working day.

 

[Zardnaar]

Needs no explanation:View attachment 550863

Fake news. Trump can't count to six.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I've brought up the matter of REAL, DE FACTO, MEANINGFUL choice, which is a much more aggravated problem in the U.S. than most First World Countries. Politicians who actually show REAL concern for the people and voters, especially in a way that antagonizes the "Establishment," are going to be marginalized thoroughly, given no meaningful media coverage, no major campaign donors will give them a dime, and they won't appear on any real debates. And this will not be the voters' choice - it'll be the corrupt party bosses - the DNC, the successors of people like Tweed and Crump, and the RNC, the successors of people like Conkling, the modern, highly partisan media outlets, and the plutocratic oligarchs. Blaming the common voters is disingenuous and, on your part, arrogant.

Assuming for sake of discussion that this politician you're referencing "who actually show REAL concern for the people and voters, especially in a way that antagonizes the Establishment," is Sanders... the idea that he was "thoroughly marginalized" or "given no meaningful media coverage" is outright delusional. So the central premise of your argument is flat out wrong, plainly and demonstrably so. Bernie's problem wasn't that he was "marginalized" or that he "got no meaningful coverage" or that the voters were robbed of their agency somehow. Bernie was a fully mainstream candidate and the universally recognized standard bearer for the progressive wing. He just failed to attract enough voters. In other words, he lost. He wasn't an attractive/compelling enough candidate.... twice in a row. As many virtues as he had and things about his candidacy which were attractive... it wasn't enough to beat Hillary and it wasn't enough to beat Biden. That's all there is to it.

So in that sense sure... we shouldn't blame the voters... we should blame him.

But as for the larger point, as I've already explained... I reject wholesale the notion that the voters have no agency... Bernie's campaign, by virtue of its existence squarely conceded the existence of that agency... indeed it depended on it. Trying to now claim that no such agency existed just because Bernie lost is little more than sour grapes.

Lastly... I'm a college educated black man... so maybe you can imagine that you aren't the first frustrated person to attack me for being "arrogant" for contradicting or disagreeing with them... and you certainly won't be the last... you're in pretty common company.

 

[Zardnaar]

Assuming for sake of discussion that this politician you're referencing "who actually show REAL concern for the people and voters, especially in a way that antagonizes the Establishment," is Sanders... the idea that he was "thoroughly marginalized" or "given no meaningful media coverage" is outright delusional. So the central premise of your argument is flat out wrong, plainly and demonstrably so. Bernie's problem wasn't that he was "marginalized" or that he "got no meaningful coverage" or that the voters were robbed of their agency somehow. Bernie was a fully mainstream candidate and the universally recognized standard bearer for the progressive wing. He just failed to attract enough voters. In other words, he lost. He wasn't an attractive/compelling enough candidate.... twice in a row. As many virtues as he had and things about his candidacy which were attractive... it wasn't enough to beat Hillary and it wasn't enough to beat Biden. That's all there is to it.

So in that sense sure... we shouldn't blame the voters... we should blame him.

But as for the larger point, as I've already explained... I reject wholesale the notion that the voters have no agency... Bernie's campaign, by virtue of its existence squarely conceded the existence of that agency... indeed it depended on it. Trying to now claim that no such agency existed just because Bernie lost is little more than sour grapes.

Lastly... I'm a college educated black man... so maybe you can imagine that you aren't the first frustrated person to attack me for being "arrogant" for contradicting or disagreeing with them... and you certainly won't be the last... you're in pretty common company.

Rather than a +1.

Damn made in Australia. For shame.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Rather than a +1.
View attachment 550870

Damn made in Australia. For shame.

I'll take it... its the thought that counts

 

[Zardnaar]

I'll take it... its the thought that counts

Patine just needs to smoke some pot.

Must be a Canadian cultural failing.

 

[Ajidica]

Fake news. Trump can't count to six.

Is good joke, nobody have six potato!

 

[Berzerker]

Patine on pot?

yikes

 

[Patine]

Assuming for sake of discussion that this politician you're referencing "who actually show REAL concern for the people and voters, especially in a way that antagonizes the Establishment," is Sanders... the idea that he was "thoroughly marginalized" or "given no meaningful media coverage" is outright delusional. So the central premise of your argument is flat out wrong, plainly and demonstrably so. Bernie's problem wasn't that he was "marginalized" or that he "got no meaningful coverage" or that the voters were robbed of their agency somehow. Bernie was a fully mainstream candidate and the universally recognized standard bearer for the progressive wing. He just failed to attract enough voters. In other words, he lost. He wasn't an attractive/compelling enough candidate.... twice in a row. As many virtues as he had and things about his candidacy which were attractive... it wasn't enough to beat Hillary and it wasn't enough to beat Biden. That's all there is to it.

So in that sense sure... we shouldn't blame the voters... we should blame him.

But as for the larger point, as I've already explained... I reject wholesale the notion that the voters have no agency... Bernie's campaign, by virtue of its existence squarely conceded the existence of that agency... indeed it depended on it. Trying to now claim that no such agency existed just because Bernie lost is little more than sour grapes.

Lastly... I'm a college educated black man... so maybe you can imagine that you aren't the first frustrated person to attack me for being "arrogant" for contradicting or disagreeing with them... and you certainly won't be the last... you're in pretty common company.

First, I was not specifically referring to one SPECIFIC candidate or one SPECIFIC election. Please, don't put words in my mouth I haven't said. You can ask certain other posters here how well that goes over.
Second, your continued belief that democratic processes and a government chosen by and accountable to the population continue to exist in the U.S. to the meaningful degree you ascribe, and thus justify blaming the voters for choosing "bad leadership," shows a strange and distorted mix of naïve optimism and nihilistic fatalism, that's not a healthy viewpoint at all - in fact, a gateway to deconstructionist thinking.
Third, demographic tends not to make one more or less likely to succumb to the flaw of arrogance, in my experience.

Patine just needs to smoke some pot.

Must be a Canadian cultural failing.

I don't touch the stuff, Nor do I drink or smoke tobacco, and certainly not any "street fair." And no person with REAL brains does.

 

[Lexicus]

And no person with REAL brains does.

i have a fake brain

 

[Patine]

i have a fake brain

How unfortunate for you. You have my sympathies.

 

[H4run]

I don't touch the stuff, Nor do I drink or smoke tobacco, and certainly not any "street fair." And no person with REAL brains does.

You should chill out a bit, every people with brain or not (obviously not in literal sense) have their little vice, even for other definition those things you call vice can be a virtue, some people use pot or alcohol or perhaps cigs as religious ritual, I don't drink alcohol or smoke pot I quit long time ago but I would not stamp those who use it. Btw so you are a man without a vice?

 

[Zardnaar]

First, I was not specifically referring to one SPECIFIC candidate or one SPECIFIC election. Please, don't put words in my mouth I haven't said. You can ask certain other posters here how well that goes over.
Second, your continued belief that democratic processes and a government chosen by and accountable to the population continue to exist in the U.S. to the meaningful degree you ascribe, and thus justify blaming the voters for choosing "bad leadership," shows a strange and distorted mix of naïve optimism and nihilistic fatalism, that's not a healthy viewpoint at all - in fact, a gateway to deconstructionist thinking.
Third, demographic tends not to make one more or less likely to succumb to the flaw of arrogance, in my experience.



I don't touch the stuff, Nor do I drink or smoke tobacco, and certainly not any "street fair." And no person with REAL brains does.

I don't use it. Tried it not a fan.

You're an idiot if you smoke anything right now. Corvid plus lungs you know.

Been sober as well this year derp.

 

[H4run]

I don't use it. Tried it not a fan.

You're an idiot if you smoke anything right now. Corvid plus lungs you know.

Been sober as well this year derp.

Then why you recommend him to smoke pot then

 

[Zardnaar]

Then why you recommend him to smoke pot then

He had a go at me when I started posting. Last year.

Might make him chill out.

I can more or less smoke, drink or consume whatever I like I don't seem to get addicted to anything.

Last time I was at the dentist for a filling no pain relief au natural.

 

[Ironsided]

Look, I already quoted amadeus on it and he's an actual admitted Trump voter: they voted to yet again give a middle finger to Obama and to somebody he explicitly endorsed from the get-go and was one of his top officials. He was running against Obama…

Hillary Clinton was in most parts the continuation of Obama policy, only seemingly slightly more hawkish and to the right. If your argument is that Trump was somehow less “against” Clinton policy and therefore more against Obama policy by say 6.4% (arbitrary guesstimate) and therefore we should say he “actually” ran against Obama you are probably correct (in a convoluted way).

…and what did Trump (claim to) want to construct?

A wall, to begin with. New executive orders and new legislation. New trade deals. Renegotiations (and departure) on a lot of international agreements. But granted he mostly, by theatrics, wanted to construct an image of himself doing things and draining the swamp (while over time picking up his cabinet from the absolute bottom sediments of said swamp). Most of it has been populist driven “destruction” of society if you want to call it that. But to win back people who supported Trump you need to give their reasoning some weight.

Trump still has 50% strong support among republicans and as reference Biden doesn’t even have 25% strong support among democrats. Constantly dismissing Trump as the destructive idiot’s choice, the choice of deplorables, has only made him win. The reason many chose Trump is that the Democratic alternative is just another kind of terrible. A lot of silent Trump support is still a protest.