[RD] The Obama Legacy

[metalhead]

The future has been being addressed for the last 25. And it's why I've been happy to insult Republicans freely for years and it's why I've been so damned mad at the Democrats for years. How they've been addressing the future has been very similar. All because there is no alternative to their brand of progress.

Not really though. I mean, they've addressed the future in terms of enabling global commerce and putting us at the top of it. But they haven't addressed our futures, individually, as actual people who live in actual places, many of whom until recently had local economies that relied on something the future was bound to take away. Their addressing of the future has been incomplete. Or hasn't? I mean yeah, maybe this is simply what they always envisioned, communities left to overripen and then die on the vine, eventually leading to a country where large swathes are left to be reclaimed by nature, or perhaps in a weird sort of unpoetic justice, converted back to farm land. That would certainly be in keeping with our relentlessly capitalistic economic tradition.

Ray Zalinsky sums it up best, I guess.

Look, believe it or not, I'm providing a service. I'm thinning the corporate herd. You've seen "Daktari"? The weaker animals always go. So the kids cry when you tie an old tiger to a tree and shoot him. But that's life! America's in a state of renewal. We've gotta have the strength to tie a few factories to a tree and bash 'em with a shovel. Meanwhile, if i can grab your share of the market, put a little coin in my pocket, by being the *******? Well, what the hell, you know what i mean?

The truth is i make car parts for the American working man because I'm a hell of a salesman, and he doesn't know any better. Well, son, since you're no longer the shareholder, this is where i leave you. Don't feel bad. This chain of events was set in motion a long long time ago.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think once you've decided to tie enough tigers to the tree, they'll be enough of them to eat you(not you you, but maybe you you, you know?).

This is all very Gilded Age. I remember a conversation with he who shall not be named, who was crowing the accomplishments of the late 19th. After those who resisted industrialized hell were gunned down with those who resisted abolition(oh, the irony), "If the people are wrong for my policy, then the people need to change!"

 

[Zelig]

Another way of conceptualizing it, is that while Hillary got 65 million direct votes to Trump's 62 million direct votes, Trump got a majority share of the remaining additional 59 million proxy votes, in the sense that everyone who didn't vote (or voted third party) in a state Trump won, gave their proxy to Trump, ditto for Hillary states. So for example... in Florida, Trump got 4.6 million vote to Hillary's 4.5 million, but that means (assuming a 55% across the board national turnout) Trump also got another 4.1 million proxy votes from FL. That alone closes the popular vote gap in his favour. I can't be bothered to add up all the states cause it doesn't matter, Trump won, but the point is that the "Hillary won the popular vote" argument just isn't that persuasive to me.

I'm not sure it makes sense to count only eligible electors who don't vote.

Why should the proxy vote of someone who doesn't care about or follow politics count more than the proxy vote of the 17 year-old future president?

The least persuasive part of the popular vote argument is that first past the post is a load of rubbish in the first place.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm not sure it makes sense to count only eligible electors who don't vote. Why should the proxy vote of someone who doesn't care about or follow politics count more than the proxy vote of the 17 year-old future president? The least persuasive part of the popular vote argument is that first past the post is a load of rubbish in the first place.

To paraphrase the outlaw William Munney ... "should" 's got nuthin' to do with it. And I will also note that you're not going to persuade many Americans by using phrases like "first past the post" and "load of rubbish"... just sayin'

 

[Zelig]

Right, but the concept of "proxy votes" is made up in the first place - I'm saying your method of choosing which people you're counting as proxy voters isn't sound.

 

[Traitorfish]

A city or, to a lesser degree, state is considered a single political entity, whereas the entire nation of the US is not. It is a union of many political entities and for the system to work each political entity within the union must have an equal voice or the whole thing falls apart.

The electoral college does not guarantee each state an equal voice.

 

[Farm Boy]

Right, but the concept of "proxy votes" is made up in the first place - I'm saying your method of choosing which people you're counting as proxy voters isn't sound.

If it weren't, the number of electors would scale with turnout, not population. It's accurate enough on the ground if not on the mountain high from whence the tablets came.

I have to really want the universe to know I did not pick Trump or Clinton in order to leave work, pick up my son, go home because he's hungry, feed him a snack, load him back into the car, drive to the polling station, bring him in(he went twice that day), wait in line, entertain him as an elder of my community finds my registration, control him from knocking over the privacy dividers while I fill in multiple choice bubbles, drive back home, realize I forgot to buy toilet paper since I got distracted by voting, load him back into the car, go get toilet paper... etc. I could skip a lot of that boredom and just let Clinton carry the state without my oh so valuable input like I knew she was going to.

 

[Commodore]

The electoral college does not guarantee each state an equal voice.

Because that's part of the compromise. Under the current system the states are more equal than they would be under a popular vote only system. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, you are smart enough to put all this together.

If the US moved to a popular vote system for federal elections, I guarantee the Union would dissolve after the first few elections with the very real chance it would not be a peaceful dissolution. So fir those arguing for a popular vote system I ask this: Why do you wish for political instability and war for the American people?

If it weren't, the number of electors would scale with turnout,

Thinking about it, this actually isn't a bad idea. It would reward states for being politically active and encourage higher vote turnout. The basic idea being the less politically active a state's population is, the less of a say that state will have in government.

 

[Farm Boy]

It'd get hard to justify not just going with the popular vote then.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because that's part of the compromise.

You're prepared to compromise with "tyranny"?

If the US moved to a popular vote system for federal elections, I guarantee the Union would dissolve after the first few elections with the very real chance it would not be a peaceful dissolution. So fir those arguing for a popular vote system I ask this: Why do you wish for political instability and war for the American people?

Lincoln won the electoral college but not the popular vote.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Right, but the concept of "proxy votes" is made up in the first place - I'm saying your method of choosing which people you're counting as proxy voters isn't sound.

"Voting" is made up in the first place... I really don't follow your point about choosing which imaginary division of the participants in a made up system should count and why...

 

[onejayhawk]

I did. You started on about stories and narratives. Talk about tangents...Because, y'know, you need a railroad to get to the voting booth...

Railroads are indeed a tangent. That makes one valid point for you.

The future has been being addressed for the last 25. And it's why I've been happy to insult Republicans freely for years and it's why I've been so damned mad at the Democrats for years. How they've been addressing the future has been very similar. All because there is no alternative to their brand of progress.

This is pretty much where I am sitting. Identity politics has destroyed the Democratic party. They used to have 70% of the state legislature seats. They now have 35%. Congress has been slipping away for years. Back in the day, it was normal to be both Democratic and Union. Not lately. The Democrats sold out to special interests and deep pockets. This campaign all they had were favors and money. It was almost enough, but this ain't horseshoes.

Go to the 2020 thread. Who is influential in their party and under age 60 today? There are at least 20 Republicans. Democrats you can count on one hand. The Democratic party has a future, but it is currently one of the voices in the badlands because no one with juice gives a rip.

Lincoln won the electoral college but not the popular vote.

He won in both.

You can even argue it was a landslide since he was more than 10% ahead of second place.

J

 

[FriendlyFire]

This is pretty much where I am sitting. Identity politics has destroyed the Democratic party. They used to have 70% of the state legislature seats. They now have 35%. Congress has been slipping away for years. Back in the day, it was normal to be both Democratic and Union. Not lately. The Democrats sold out to special interests and deep pockets. This campaign all they had were favors and money. It was almost enough, but this ain't horseshoes.J

I guess thats why the workers have all switch over to Republicans, whom havent sold out to special interest and big money and have avoided using identity politics to gain power
I cant blame them for voting on cultural issues if both Democrats and Republicans have the same economic policies, except they are about to find out what it will be like under Republican leadership and they are going to get it good and hard

 

[Farm Boy]

Nah J, identity politics aren't what did it. What did it was the same thing as always. Money and power.

So, more of the usual, eh FF? I suppose the reacharound is an improvement. And possibly the squealing where laughter used to be. That might be nice. Guess we'll find out. Expectations are low!

 

[Commodore]

It'd get hard to justify not just going with the popular vote then.

Nah, because it would be percentage based, not based on total number of voters. For example: Let's say California has 1 million registered voters and Wyoming has 25,000 (I know those numbers aren't accurate, I'm just throwing random numbers out there to illustrate the point). If 250,000 of those registered voters in California actually vote and the rest stay home but in Wyoming 12,500 people get out and vote, then in the next election Wyoming would get more electoral votes than California because Wyoming was more politically active with a 50% voter turnout to California's 25% voter turnout.

In theory, Wyoming having a larger voice than California due to a higher percentage of voter turnout would piss Californians off and motivate more of them to get out and vote in the next election so they could get more electoral votes in the election after that. Go through a few elections under a system that rewards high voter turnout and I bet you'd see voter turnout numbers skyrocket in the US without having to implement compulsory voting as some people suggest we should.

You're prepared to compromise with "tyranny"?

Yes. And tyranny compromises in our system as well. Basically, everyone gets enough of what they want to keep them buying into the system but no one will ever get everything they want. I'm completely okay with that as long as it maintains stability and order. Compromise is the only thing that makes any kind of large-scale society come anywhere close to being functional. It's when people become uncompromising and obstinate in their demands that things start to fall apart.

Lincoln won the electoral college but not the popular vote.

I know you think you just made a clever point here, but you didn't. This post of yours would imply that Lincoln's election and the Electoral College itself were the causes of the American Civil War and making that point would show a woeful lack of knowledge on the causes of the American Civil War. You know this of course, so I can't imagine why you would make this comment if you are trying to argue in good faith. You are trying to argue in good faith aren't you?

 

[Agent327]

He only said Lincoln won the same way Donald Trump did. The rest is just you speculating wildly.

 

[Commodore]

He only said Lincoln won the same way Donald Trump did. The rest is just you speculating wildly.

Not really.

 

[FriendlyFire]

So, more of the usual, eh FF? I suppose the reacharound is an improvement. And possibly the squealing where laughter used to be. That might be nice. Guess we'll find out. Expectations are low!

The fallout from the coming train wreck is going to be bad for everyone sadly much of it will fall on the poor and working class

The only way Trump will square his promises of higher infrastructure and defense spending with large tax cuts and deficit reduction is a heavy dose of what used to be called voodoo economics. Decades of “cutting the fat” in government has left little to cut: federal government employment as a percentage of the population is lower today than it was in the era of small government under President Ronald Reagan some 30 years ago.

This story doesn’t end well for Trump’s angry, displaced Rust Belt voters. Unhinged budgetary policies will induce the Federal Reserve to normalize interest rates faster.

Trump has argued that the Fed should raise interest rates. The Fed, which took the first step toward normalization in early December, will almost certainly deliver — and Trump will soon regret what he wished for. There’s a good chance that the monetary contraction will outweigh the fiscal stimulus, curbing the Obama growth spurt currently underway.

And there really is no silver lining to the cloud that now hangs over the U.S. and the world. As bad as his administration will be for America’s economy and workers, its policies on climate change, human rights, the media, and ensuring peace and security are likely to be no less damaging for everyone else.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is a professor at Columbia University and Chief Economist at the Roosevelt Institute

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do...s-angry-displaced-rust-belt-voters-2016-12-19

 

[Farm Boy]

Welcome to the club?

 

[dutchfire]

If it weren't, the number of electors would scale with turnout, not population. It's accurate enough on the ground if not on the mountain high from whence the tablets came.

I have to really want the universe to know I did not pick Trump or Clinton in order to leave work, pick up my son, go home because he's hungry, feed him a snack, load him back into the car, drive to the polling station, bring him in(he went twice that day), wait in line, entertain him as an elder of my community finds my registration, control him from knocking over the privacy dividers while I fill in multiple choice bubbles, drive back home, realize I forgot to buy toilet paper since I got distracted by voting, load him back into the car, go get toilet paper... etc. I could skip a lot of that boredom and just let Clinton carry the state without my oh so valuable input like I knew she was going to.

There's solutions to that