2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Farm Boy]

I was thinking about the why, and if you replace Sauron with Mammon I would agree with you.

Maybe. Needs the irony though. I'm thinking of the reporting on NPR this year about the French politician who bowed out of a race after racy texts were exposed by a ?Russian? journalist type person. Unless the NPR reporting was incorrect, this seemed like somewhat of a shock a) that the exposing was done and that b) he'd step out of the race because of it. In the US, the rich and poor alike are happy to tear down our politicians. They're also frequently happy to stick with one that does crap like defunds the water of their neighbors. Republicans did that in Flint. Chicago does it on Soil and Water districts(albeit less shockingly than accidentally screwing up all the municipal pipes at once). Everyone did it on medical stockpiles(timely!) <yawn> I think believing that they ever aren't worth tearing down is naivete. They're the same *******s.

Bush is starting to look better if you track him against AIDS. But that mostly happened to Africans in Africa, well, so you know.

 

[Patine]

If coronavirus is still a thing in November, there's not going to be any election.

I don't think doing it by mail-in virus is Unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't say HOW the voting and balloting is to be done. The first bunch of elections were carried out before the secret ballot was inspired from Australia, believe it or not. And, if the election is canceled, Trump doesn't "acclaim," another term, it still expires early next year with no President-elect.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Unclear why these should be considered mutually-exclusive options.

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.

 

[Sommerswerd]

mail-in virus is Unconstitutional.

Freudian-slip ?

 

[Gorbles]

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.

Blaming an increasingly disenfranchised voter base for electing rubbish politicians when most of the options are rubbish is not a fantastic argument. Not only is the two-party system in of itself incredibly sucky, there are a wide variety of factors in place that help maintain the sucky status quo.

EDIT - I'm not being snarky with this, but your argument is genuinely giving off the vibe of that popular comic where someone jumps on another saying "we should improve society somewhat" with the gotcha "but you participate in society? curious".

People vote for a wide multitude of reasons, but doing their part to better society (in their own way) must be a pretty strong one. It's why I vote, in the UK, so maybe that's confirmation bias.

 

[Farm Boy]

You should participate in more local government. It's both meaningful and very eye opening. It's rare that there's a real life man behind the curtain to blame.

There's normal function, and then there's when a rail line comes through and some seniors of limited means are going to be self selecting handing down life insurance instead of the ancestral domain before everything is over. Those are fun fights. Money tends to win.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Blaming an increasingly disenfranchised voter base for electing rubbish politicians when most of the options are rubbish is not a fantastic argument. Not only is the two-party system in of itself incredibly sucky, there are a wide variety of factors in place that help maintain the sucky status quo.

EDIT - I'm not being snarky with this, but your argument is genuinely giving off the vibe of that popular comic where someone jumps on another saying "we should improve society somewhat" with the gotcha "but you participate in society? curious".

People vote for a wide multitude of reasons, but doing their part to better society (in their own way) must be a pretty strong one. It's why I vote, in the UK, so maybe that's confirmation bias.

The biggest thing maintaining the sucky status quo is that people, by and large, suck. In a collective sense. That's not saying that everyone sucks, just that when you sort it all down to the common denominators the ways they suck will generally rule the day. I know plenty of USians who I wouldn't describe as "obviously ruled by greed." But every one of them demands that their politicians somehow keep the price of gas down round three bucks a gallon and doesn't look too close at what has to play out in the Middle East to keep that happening. That's an example.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, and there is no possible way to keep the gallery happy all the time. The US goes all drill baby drill and then that's the thing to be about. They also ignore it when politicians they don't like help fund efforts that save people they don't care about.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Nancy Pelosi is insisting the US move to mail-in voting by the general. I wonder how far she is going to push it?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/31/cor...move-to-vote-by-mail-taking-aim-at-trump.html

 

[Gori the Grey]

People suck. The frank acknowledgement that that is true is the fundamental genius of the American Constitution. The founders knew that the only thing that could keep sucky people in check was other sucky people pitted against them. We'll always have a sucky government, because of these sucky people who make it up on every level, including the populace at large. But possibly, they thought, it can be as little suck as arrangable.

 

[Gorbles]

The biggest thing maintaining the sucky status quo is that people, by and large, suck. In a collective sense. That's not saying that everyone sucks, just that when you sort it all down to the common denominators the ways they suck will generally rule the day. I know plenty of USians who I wouldn't describe as "obviously ruled by greed." But every one of them demands that their politicians somehow keep the price of gas down round three bucks a gallon and doesn't look too close at what has to play out in the Middle East to keep that happening. That's an example.

That's an example, sure. That doesn't mean that it will always hold true, nor that it's something you couldn't convince someone of the benefit ofchanging. This is a compound problem, because it relates to economic factors. which will play out very differently depending on the demographic. I could, personally, persuade one person of the benefit of slightly higher taxes if I could point to two things. Firstly, the actual tangible benefit (to take the UK, let's say "better national railway infrastructure"). Secondly, I'd have to convince the person that the government can be trusted to apportion the taxes correctly, which I'd imagine the same as in the US is a not insignificant problem. Which means the problem is definitely at the feet of politicians, regardless of how well they turn out to vote in national elections.

Some leeway to be expected in a) translating a personal argument to an argument to a larger population, and b) assuming that actually converts into action as supposed to just agreement (without the actual vote behind it).

Additionally, our elected representatives should (in my opinion) be the better of us (they're frequently not / as bad, which is a lot of the problem). You want someone uncorruptable (most would settle for less corruptable, etc). You want someone with decent morals. Nobody's expecting perfection, but better than average. Appealing to the lowest common denominator when the inherent standards for being an average person vs. being an average politician is a faux pas, to me.

Expecting people by and large to suck is how you reinforce the loop. The whole cliche is to lead by example, not to justify the excesses and crappiness of the leadership by the behaviour of the people they're supposed to lead.

 

[Birdjaguar]

People suck. The frank acknowledgement that that is true is the fundamental genius of the American Constitution. The founders knew that the only thing that could keep sucky people in check was other sucky people pitted against them. We'll always have a sucky government, because of these sucky people who make it up on every level, including the populace at large. But possibly, they thought, it can be as little suck as arrangable.

TV and the internet often make us suck worse than we would other wise. Crappy schools don't help either.

 

[Zardnaar]

I got yelled at a few weeks ago when I said there's difference in culture between the Anglo Saxon nation's.

Doesn't fit the liberal "we're all the same narrative".

Americans are a lot more mercenary and money obsessed than Aussie/Canada/NZ/UK.

That includes the nice ones.

Now of course not all of them are like that but it's more noticeable IMHO.

Individually they're also some of the nicest people on the planet easy to get along with.

The politics and health system kind of reflect that. Everything's for sale for a buck and it's a rat race to the bottom.

Feel free to jump up and down

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's an example, sure. That doesn't mean that it will always hold true, nor that it's something you couldn't convince someone of the benefit ofchanging. This is a compound problem, because it relates to economic factors. which will play out very differently depending on the demographic. I could, personally, persuade one person of the benefit of slightly higher taxes if I could point to two things. Firstly, the actual tangible benefit (to take the UK, let's say "better national railway infrastructure"). Secondly, I'd have to convince the person that the government can be trusted to apportion the taxes correctly, which I'd imagine the same as in the US is a not insignificant problem. Which means the problem is definitely at the feet of politicians, regardless of how well they turn out to vote in national elections.

Some leeway to be expected in a) translating a personal argument to an argument to a larger population, and b) assuming that actually converts into action as supposed to just agreement (without the actual vote behind it).

Additionally, our elected representatives should (in my opinion) be the better of us (they're frequently not / as bad, which is a lot of the problem). You want someone uncorruptable (most would settle for less corruptable, etc). You want someone with decent morals. Nobody's expecting perfection, but better than average. Appealing to the lowest common denominator when the inherent standards for being an average person vs. being an average politician is a faux pas, to me.

Expecting people by and large to suck is how you reinforce the loop. The whole cliche is to lead by example, not to justify the excesses and crappiness of the leadership by the behaviour of the people they're supposed to lead.

The difficulty hinges on individual leader and the group. Your guy that you convinced about the better national railway structure is never going to trust the government to apportion the taxes correctly, because his idea of correctly is different than the next guy who only bought into the tax things when you got him thinking about better health care infrastructure...and the guy after that...and the guy after that. To get all these individuals on the tax page at the same time they have to be convinced not with a particular tangible benefit, but with an overarching sense of "the public good." Most of them, frankly, suck too much for that to work. So to be genuinely representative the politician has to accept "okay, you all want stuff and no one wants to pay for anything other than the specific bits that appeal to you...gonna have to get busy stealin' then."

 

[Gorbles]

The difficulty hinges on individual leader and the group. Your guy that you convinced about the better national railway structure is never going to trust the government to apportion the taxes correctly, because his idea of correctly is different than the next guy who only bought into the tax things when you got him thinking about better health care infrastructure...and the guy after that...and the guy after that. To get all these individuals on the tax page at the same time they have to be convinced not with a particular tangible benefit, but with an overarching sense of "the public good." Most of them, frankly, suck too much for that to work. So to be genuinely representative the politician has to accept "okay, you all want stuff and no one wants to pay for anything other than the specific bits that appeal to you...gonna have to get busy stealin' then."

It's weird to me that you have such a negative outlook on the average voter, but present the politician as being forced into a no-win situation. Of course that can happen, but there are far too many stories on the public record of politicians that are entirely happy doing whatever immoral shtick is their apparent vice for me to be convinced there. And what's more, by dint of power (soft or otherwise), they generally escape consequences that said average people would find themselves subject to. Certainly, at a far more favourable rate than said people.

I could understand the argument better if it was "all people suck", but it's not. It was used as a defense of (US) politicians in general.

 

[Samson]

Nancy Pelosi is insisting the US move to mail-in voting by the general. I wonder how far she is going to push it?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/31/cor...move-to-vote-by-mail-taking-aim-at-trump.html

There is not going to be a vaccine or treatment early enough to make a November in person election safe. Anyone who is not preparing for a vote by mail wants the election postponed or too dangerous to vote.

 

[Patine]

It's weird to me that you have such a negative outlook on the average voter, but present the politician as being forced into a no-win situation. Of course that can happen, but there are far too many stories on the public record of politicians that are entirely happy doing whatever immoral shtick is their apparent vice for me to be convinced there. And what's more, by dint of power (soft or otherwise), they generally escape consequences that said average people would find themselves subject to. Certainly, at a far more favourable rate than said people.

I could understand the argument better if it was "all people suck", but it's not. It was used as a defense of (US) politicians in general.

Just admit it. All people suck, and we're all thoroughly Moderator Action: Offensive term deleted up, each in our own unique and special way.

Moderator Action: Please do not evade the autocensor. If I can make out a word like that without straining, and you have to use creative asterisks, the word doesn't belong on the forums. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Samson]

Nancy Pelosi is insisting the US move to mail-in voting by the general. I wonder how far she is going to push it?
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/31/cor...move-to-vote-by-mail-taking-aim-at-trump.html

If they insist on a vote in person election in November, it could be loads more dangerous for older voters than younger one. How would that effect the vote?

 

[AmazonQueen]

A poll suggests that Biden is starting to build a lead over Trump.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...euters-ipsos-poll/ar-BB11YWZD?ocid=spartanntp

I'd guess that's mainly due to Trump's handling of covid-19

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's weird to me that you have such a negative outlook on the average voter, but present the politician as being forced into a no-win situation. Of course that can happen, but there are far too many stories on the public record of politicians that are entirely happy doing whatever immoral shtick is their apparent vice for me to be convinced there. And what's more, by dint of power (soft or otherwise), they generally escape consequences that said average people would find themselves subject to. Certainly, at a far more favourable rate than said people.

I could understand the argument better if it was "all people suck", but it's not. It was used as a defense of (US) politicians in general.

It's not the average person, it's the aggregate people. Individually, most people are pretty much good and want to do the right thing.