-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT9| The Wrath of Khan!
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
oh THAT'S benji i thought you all were talking about me
Neodiablo22
Member
I'm more concerned about the impact to Clinton. The people who would vote for this guy would have never voted for trump. They would either have stayed home, or have voted for Hillary. Hopefully this won't take too many people away from her.
nature boy
Member
Yes, this is the GOP Civil War and once Trump loses, it's going to get ugly.
In terms of the election, with the exception of Ohio and Michigan, he's an non-starter in the big swing states.
If Romney endorses him, he could compete in Utah, splitting the Republican vote 3-way (!).
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
You think Clinton voters are going to abandon her and vote for a self-proclaimed conservative?
Come on.
You're being disingenuous, because this happens in the United States. Whenever an oppressed group tries to assert themselves, they have been shut down. This is especially true of organized groups who seek to change American society. Look at what happened to the Socialist Party, CPUSA, and the Black Panthers. Fred Hampton was quite literally murdered in his bed. Hell, MOVE and all its members were bombed in the fucking 1980s.
A socialist government absolutely shouldn't use force to maintain control, but neither should a capitalist government. Socialists who advocate for violent revolution aren't just being edgy. They believe that voting away wealth is impossible, especially when liberal democracy is so heavily dominated by the elite. While I don't consider myself revolutionary, there are volumes of evidence to support their belief.
You use the phrase "true socialism", but that doesn't really exist. There are a nigh-infinite number of post-capitalist possibilities, and many of these systems of organization do provide incentives for excess labor! Syndicalism, for instance, believes not-for-profit trade unions should control their industries and provide wages much like a capitalist employer would. Incentive can even under full anarchic communism -- if you don't do your job, there's less food available. In a collective society, this would be met with a social punishment, far more humane than the capitalist punishment against idleness: starvation.
On the next point, Russia has essentially always been a despotism, much like how Venezuela has essentially always been a corrupt oligarchy. But critics tend to be much more forgiving of these faults when leftist movements aren't in power. Why would the authoritarianism of the USSR have anything to do with its leftism, when the Russian Empire was at least as authoritarian?
IggyChooChoo
Member
I could see it complicating Ayotte and McCain's races (assuming this guy can still get on the ballot there.) Hardcore Trump supporters might not vote for those senators if they're perceived to be playing footsie with this new guy and screwing over Trump.
Neodiablo22
Member
I think conservative voters that said they would vote for Clinton instead of Trump would go to this guy instead.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
A Trump loss is a Trump loss.
Felix Lighter
Member
I don't see a Republican third party taking too many votes from Hilary, relatively speaking. His supporters would be republicans staying home, voting for Johnson and Trump supports looking for another option endorsed by the Republican party. I think pragmatic conservatives willing to vote for Hillary are going to stick with Hilary if they haven't already jumped on Johnson.
Black Republican
Member
your type of candidate perhaps?
Neodiablo22
Member
Y2KEV
shinra-bansho
Member
Maybe it's just that not enough people like what you're selling. Rather than being sheeples of the aristocroligarchibourgeoisie...
Felix Lighter
Member
I don't see him getting a lot of votes, but if a number of candidates in troubled reelection bids use him to separate themselves from Trump, Trump's head may actually explode on stage during his following stump speech.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Mormon mission? A month before Utah's deadline for write-in candidates to declare their candidacy? Rick Wilson knows what he's doing.
I still don't expect McMullin to surpass Johnson anywhere but this is an interesting move nonetheless. Let's imagine for a second that Romney/Bushes/etc endorse him, and Trump starts attacking him. Could be fun.
I still don't expect McMullin to surpass Johnson anywhere but this is an interesting move nonetheless. Let's imagine for a second that Romney/Bushes/etc endorse him, and Trump starts attacking him. Could be fun.
Most Americans in 1830 didn't want abolition.
nature boy
Member
Depends on who's backing him.
If he gets big donors + big names in the GOP I wouldn't count him out.
I'm guessing he has some sort of backing.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
It's also taking up oxygen on his "big" "speech" "day"
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm sure you don't really want to go there. And imply that not wanting to join your friends of Stein is remotely comparable to wanting to own slaves.
Or that college kids working at McDs to scrounge to buy their next CoD is something you can try and analogue to picking cotton while being whipped.
benjipwns
Banned
He has the backing of former AmericansElect board member and stated Hillary Clinton supporter Christine Todd Whitman.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
This isn't even his final form
The median voter generally isn't some paragon of morality. Ethical progress doesn't happen in a vacuum -- the work of activists is necessary to start dialogue on the harms of systems and institutions that most of us think of as either harmless or irreplaceable.
Unless you believe morality is relative, I don't think we should leave certain decisions in the hands of the voters, because voters often don't act in their interests. Just look at all the poor whites who flock to the GOP even though its policies hurt their communities.
And for the record, I'm voting for Clinton. I think Stein is doing more harm than good by running in such an important election, and her policies aren't really that different from Hillary's. Jill Stein, much like Bernie, is just another social democrat trying to move the overton window to the left. But the 2016 general election is neither the time nor the place.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This has always bothered me about the left. They are a minority and people don't want far leftism.
That's your problem. No that the people are bring tricked.
neurosisxeno
Member
Some people over on Reddit posting those "unskewed poll" sites warning Trump is still in the lead. When told those sites are garbage they ask why. Oh, I don't know, maybe because they are claiming FUCKING RASMUSSEN HAS A 3-5 POINT DEMOCRAT BIAS!?!:!
You're Evan McMullin.
Not that people necessarily want far left policies, whatever that means, but are you saying people aren't tricked or effectively marketed into voting certain ways?
benjipwns
Banned
You reminded me I forgot to post the thread and left it in an open tab.
shinra-bansho
Member
Well it's a good thing we have you and Jill and Cornel West to be the arbiter of moral absolutes. To take the decision out of the hands of voters. But not in any authoritarian fashion, no.
But wouldn't you agree that attitudes are hugely influenced by the conditions of the time?
Like, Islamist violence was not a prominent force in the Middle East until pretty recently. Millions of Muslims didn't spontaneously become radical.
Well yeah, this is where we disagree. You think capitalism is a good thing, I don't. But I find it hard to believe you'd be as democratic if liberalism, and not socialism, was a maligned ideology in the United States. Aren't electoral campaigns all about changing voters' attitudes to fit a paradigm we believe to be correct?
benjipwns
Banned
Wait, yes they did. That is almost exactly what happened. Wahhabism was a minor sect that hitched its wagon to the House of Saud, which ended up working out really well for them in 1932 when they became the keepers of Mecca and Medina, and again in 1970 when they got oil money and spent it on evangelism.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Umm.. I'll believe it when I see it.
Georgia!
Clinton 44
Trump 37
Johnson 7
Stein 1
http://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Georgia-Executive-Summary.pdf
Georgia!
Clinton 44
Trump 37
Johnson 7
Stein 1
http://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Georgia-Executive-Summary.pdf
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't believe capitalism is necessarily "good". I think it's the most functional system at present and has brought about good. It needs checks. Those aren't necessarily sufficient. It may not be the most functional later. But it aligns with people's self-interest that isn't going anywhere.
Also I have a highly productised view of elections and candidates. Which from memory some find abhorrent. But whatever.
And from that spelling you should realise I'm not a "Democrat." But it's the product I'd buy.
Also I have a highly productised view of elections and candidates. Which from memory some find abhorrent. But whatever.
And from that spelling you should realise I'm not a "Democrat." But it's the product I'd buy.
Absolutely. Islam has been a motivation for violence in the Middle East in the past -- just look at the expansion of the Caliphates. But the idea of targeted civilian attacks to promote a fundamentalist agenda is a wholly post-WW2 phenomenon. While partisans have existed everywhere, there's not much of an analog for Al-Qaeda.
A minority of Muslims began supporting and partaking in the killing of civilians because the constant failure of Arab armies convinced some Islamist thinkers (many directly or indirectly supported by the United States or the Soviet Union) that murdering civilians could scare their oppressors into ending occupations and interventions.
Because Arabs were wholly tired of being colonized by Turks, Brits, Americans, and Israelis, some turned to existing pre-colonial structures. These pre-colonial structures were often manifest in Wahhabism, the traditionalist violence practiced by Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
We're arguing the same thing. Many Arab Muslims became Wahhabist because the ideology was promoted by the Saudis. Attitudes are influenced by politics as much as the reverse, if not more often. Spontaneous radicalization would have happened without the actions of the Saudis, and without colonialism.
balladofwindfishes
Member
They must be super worried if they've started pushing the "HILLARY IS OLD AND SICK" angle this far out from the election
rigged!
User 463088
Banned
Let me believe. I BELIEVE IN MIRACLES. I believe in Santa Claus! I believe in Father Christmas!
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
I do declare!
nature boy
Member
350+ electoral votes, here we come.
So to hopefully prevent Diablosing, this third party candidate is good for Hillary.
This guy is a former CIA advisor and GOP policy director who was also a banker with Goldman Sachs! Also, a Mormon. He was basically made in a laboratory to appeal to the GOP constituencies who are most disaffected by Trump.
The most likely outcome is probably that he does nothing. The second most likely outcome is that he stems the bleeding of GOP voters to Hillary and the Libertarians, which is a little sad because then we don't pile up as many GOP converts. But in this scenario he also ensures Trump's defeat by cutting into his margins, which runs up Hillary's score.
Basically if we wanted a landslide victory with 49 states this guy is the only way that will happen. It probably still won't happen but he offers the chance.
This guy is a former CIA advisor and GOP policy director who was also a banker with Goldman Sachs! Also, a Mormon. He was basically made in a laboratory to appeal to the GOP constituencies who are most disaffected by Trump.
The most likely outcome is probably that he does nothing. The second most likely outcome is that he stems the bleeding of GOP voters to Hillary and the Libertarians, which is a little sad because then we don't pile up as many GOP converts. But in this scenario he also ensures Trump's defeat by cutting into his margins, which runs up Hillary's score.
Basically if we wanted a landslide victory with 49 states this guy is the only way that will happen. It probably still won't happen but he offers the chance.
It is just absurd how orange turd can commit so many campaign ending mistakes, insult even his own supporters yet still have a chance while simultaneously asking everyone to forget about what happened just a week ago in order to get everything 'back on track.' If this doesn't help show without a shadow of a doubt at how incompetent and dangerous orange turd is nothing will. He is a walking insult to all humanity and a danger to the world and I don't mean this as an exaggeration. Orange turd is the most unprepared, ignorant and bigoted individual to want power, undeservedly, in our modern era.
By democrat, I mean somebody who believes that the will of the people should be followed at all times.
Because people can be pretty shitty, especially when their social environment encourages shitty behavior, I don't think this true.
People need to be able to represent themselves, but direct democracy doesn't work unless voters are angels.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't believe the will of the people should be followed at all times. I have no idea where you derived that.
We operate in representative democracies because people are dumb. Even then their dumbness still leaks through.
That doesn't mean that I'm going to veer all the way to your authoritarian hippy commune.
We operate in representative democracies because people are dumb. Even then their dumbness still leaks through.
That doesn't mean that I'm going to veer all the way to your authoritarian hippy commune.
I mean, this is how pretty much everybody explains why most voters disagree with them on particular things. Most of them are too ignorant and then there are a minority who are evil or stupid or whatever which causes them to fail to educate the masses properly.
I don't think we're using the same definition of incentives.
Either way, I'll join the discussion in more detail once we can focus on an actual well-defined organization of institutions to argue the merits of, and not a nigh-infinite number of possibilities.
Syndicalism is by no means incentive compatible.
Your argument on the... genetic predisposition of institutions in Russia even after a revolution, by the way, creates a very much self-defeating argument for the US. If self-interest creates terrible outcomes under capitalism in the US due to what it has "essentially always been", why would it not happen again under Syndicalism?
Under your logic of institutional stickyness, why would trade union leaders be fundamentally different from current business owners?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked