Election 2016

[Occluded Sun]

If you're saying that picking the lesser of two evils is pointless when you can still work to remove some evil, I'm going to disagree.

I'm not saying that voting is pointless even though something can be accomplished through it. Accomplishing something worthwhile is better than accomplishing nothing.

I'm saying that nothing can be accomplished. Voting exists to persuade people to tolerate the system instead of overthrowing it, and for no other reason. The forces behind the candidates are perfectly willing to acquire part of what they want at one time, part another. They don't care at all who's in office in the short term as long as the path to their goals remains open.

There are two Ferenghi 'Laws of Acquisition' which parody this very real worldview: "War is good for business." "Peace is good for business."

The people behind the scenes are Republicans. The people behind the scenes are Democrats. It doesn't matter - they don't care about the mask beyond its concealment.

[sandmann]

Oh yes indeed, the most important 'fact' here is that the team you oppose is insane, that makes perfect sense and doesn't at all trigger our nonsense detectors.

I've got three words for you: Donald. Fucking. Trump.
The fact that 50% of the Republican Party is kinda ok with Trump running for office, and 30% actively voting for him, is a non-disputable sign that the Reps are in deep, deep shit.

I'm saying that nothing can be accomplished. Voting exists to persuade people to tolerate the system instead of overthrowing it, and for no other reason. The forces behind the candidates are perfectly willing to acquire part of what they want at one time, part another.

So, the lizard people strike again. Good to know.
So, what's your idea of a better system? I'm listening.

[DSMatticus]

Occluded Sun is a "lizard people rule the planet" type. He thinks there exists some shadowy cabal of reptilian overlords that pulls the strings of both the Democratic and Republican party and stands to benefit regardless of what happens and voting doesn't matter because ultimately the lizard people win no matter what you do.

I don't know what the lizard people win. I don't know why you shouldn't care about the difference between X and Y simply because X and Y are being offered to you by lizard people. I don't know why people feel the need to embellish simple corruption with vast conspiracy. I do know why the vast majority of the people who talk like Occluded Sun ultimately end up voting Republican - because they're full of shit and to them cynicism is... well... "they don't care about the mask beyond its concealment."

So instead of responding to Occluded Sun, I propose we play a game. First, name a policy position of the Democratic party. Second, name a policy position of the Republican party. Third, describe the Xanatos Gambit that wins regardless of which policy is enacted. Let's show the Illuminati how this shit is done.

[Occluded Sun]

You've already failed by looking at 'policy positions' instead of what candidates tend to do when actually elected.

Which is much of the point - Democrats and Republicans tend to be very similar once you depart from a few key and highly visible issues (the mask). And even on those issues the most 'extreme' tend to be adopted to gain the support of factional groups and are ignored once entering the position.

[DSMatticus]

I actually don't mean claimed policy positions, but it doesn't actually matter, because despite your claims otherwise, Democrats and Republicans do wildly different things when put in power. The federal government has been completely broken for nearly a decade now, and so is perhaps a bad example (its dysfunction leaves you room to claim that the two sides only talk big because neither has the power to walk their particular brand of talk), but if you were at all informed about state level politics you'd know that yes, blues and reds do wildly different things when put in charge of a government.

But this isn't about you anymore, because you are a boring and mundane kind of crazy. I would much rather see people concoct harebrained schemes whose win condition is "legalize gay marriage OR invade Iran."

[MGuy]

OS is probably just one of those illuminati or some such overlord conspiracy theorists. I know quite a few and to quote one of them ( who also believes government can't legally tax citizens somehow) "the powers that be like to pit slave against slave and that's why most major issues are over things there shouldn't be any argument over (at the time we were talking about marriage equality) instead of things that actually matter."

I would assume that OS believes something similar and is saying that people should pay more attention to the controversial subjects dems and reps agree on over what they disagree on. Though I always say that you can't ignore the fucking things they do disagree on because one side demonstrably will vote for things that fucking kill people.

Now I don't like Hillary and Obama and the democrats have time and again pushed for shit I really don't like but it is still ( however unfortunate) the best we can do regardless of what secret power cult is pulling the strings. Fact of the matter is that a sizable portion of our population are buying the stupid shit the crazier side is selling and are trying to put the nutcases ( fake or not) in power and at the very least that has to be stopped.

[Occluded Sun]

Did the pigs conspire in Animal Farm to become farmers? Of course not.

There aren't any people wearing hoods sitting around circular tables chanting "For the Greater Good!" There doesn't need to be.

[Mechalich]

I've got three words too: Global. Fucking. Warming.

This is an issue of potentially civilization-ending importance and at minimum has the potential to bankrupt nations and launch massive wars. Do the Democrats and Republicans believe the same thing on this subject? No, not even close.

Obama just concluded a bought of real policy-making activity in Paris, taking part and making pledges in an accord that, while far from ideal and insufficient on its own, represents real progress in controlling global emissions. Every single republican candidate of consequence is against it.

Republicans and Democrats may look similar in power at the federal level because the extreme amount of gridlock due to the US political system makes it difficult to pass major legislation of any kind. Despite this, in the past decade republicans have attempted to privatize social security, kill medicaid, repeal Obamacare an inane number of times, and outright eliminate the estate tax entirely. They have also tried very hard to stumble into a war with Iran.

If the Republicans take the Presidency that means they will maintain their lock on the House will likely have a modest majority in the Senate. Should this occur, Obamacare will disappear, social security will be privatized, we will end up in a shooting war involving ground troops somewhere in the Middle East (quite possibly two), several Cabinet level agencies (probably Education and Energy) will be eliminated outright with others being seriously constrained (EPA, Labor, and they will pass a giant tax cut that delivers 80% or more of its benefit to the top 5% of incomes in this country while exploding the deficit. That is about the minimum of crazy that can be expected from a Republican presidency.

If Hillary is elected we will get eight more years of gridlock with no major domestic legislation, a few weird executive actions of dubious impact, and a whole bunch of extra drone strikes. Essentially, it will be very similar to the last four years (with more drone strikes). Is that good? No, but life for the vast majority of Americans will not get measurably worse due to self-inflicted damage.

[Chamomile]

I'll play.

I would much rather see people concoct harebrained schemes whose win condition is "legalize gay marriage OR invade Iran."

The lizard people illuminati want Iran to be gay. They secretly rule Iran, of course, but a 180 policy change would be too obvious, so instead they're #1 convincing the US to legalize gay marriage and #2 convincing the US to occupy Iran and impose US law in its entirety within its borders. It doesn't especially matter what order that happens in, just that both happen. Bam, Iran is gay.

I've got three words too: Global. Fucking. Warming.

Global warming is actually fake, but the lizard people illuminati have infinity resources (somehow) and don't care how many end up getting dumped into a problem that does not actually exist and need any solving. The entire global warming thing is a vast conspiracy hoax designed to be a wedge issue between young Earth creationists and skeptic science enthusiasts, who would surely put aside their differences and establish a Libertarian paradise of mutually beneficial private trade negotiations (like reinstituting slavery for the mutual benefit of both black and white people) if not for the constant fanning of controversy by the lizard people.

Rather than come up with more on my own, I'm challenging other posters to come up with as irreconcilable a pair of policies as possible, because I am lazy and only want to do one step of the game. It's not actually very hard to reconcile anything with a sufficiently vast and Machiavellian conspiracy, but the more contrary the Dem/Rep policy combo, the more stupidly convoluted the conspiracy has to be, so go ahead and give it your best shot.

[Ancient History]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-ch ... 74638.html

I shouldn't be surprised any more, but I do wonder how much lower this is going to go before the end.

[Occluded Sun]

Global Warming? The conventional strategy of the Republicans is to pander to the people who want it not to be true, the people who reflexively oppose Democratic concerns, and businesses that think public recognition of the problem would cost them money. The conventional strategy of the Democrats is to pander to the people who understand none of the science but panic automatically, the people who reflexively oppose Republican concerns, and businesses that think they can make a buck.

Neither side is the least bit interested in actually confronting the issue. Both sides are very interested in using it for political capital and passing favors to their cronies.

If you're actually concerned about the future of the planet, voting for either side is counterproductive at best.

[Ancient History]

"Both sides may be, but one side must be, wrong." - and facts have a well-known liberal bias.

[Occluded Sun]

On which issues, exactly?

[DSMatticus]

Occluded Sun substitutes cynicism for reason, always and forever. There's no need to pretend he ever has a point. Seriously, play out the hypothetical in your head:

1) Greenhouse gases are causing the planet to retain additional heat [they are].

2) The amount of additional heat being retained will eventually destabilize the agricultural industry [it probably will, through a combined mechanism of increasingly sporadic weather patterns and simple temperature shift], cause significant coastal flooding [it definitely will], and maaaybe begin a runaway warming effect capable of elevating the earth's temperature to a level high enough to render most of the planet uninhabitable by humans for a very long time (or a very short time from a geological perspective, but you are not a rock so that matters very little to you) [it's certainly possible, though by no means certain].

3) There are initiatives we could take to prevent this, namely funding the research and construction of alternative energy sources which do not produce significant volumes of - if any - greenhouse gases [there are - the technology is basically there and now it's just a matter of overcoming inertia and getting the international community to follow suite, which is entirely a political matter].

4) Republicans oppose these initiatives because big oil pays them to [definitely].

5) Democrats support these initiatives because little solar pays them to [going against big oil "for the money" is the stupidest thing anyone could ever do at all, but sure why not, the fact that there is any financial support at all involved certainly helps make it an issue politicians care about - welcome to the insanity that is campaign finance].

6) ???

7) Ergo, you shouldn't care whether or not those initiatives are enacted.

You're notice nothing actually fits in 6 to make that shittarded conclusion work. Even if you subscribe to the notion that every politician is exactly as much of a whore as every other politician ever, you should still care whether or not the people in charge are whores for big oil or whores for little solar. Because the former kind of whore will do all the things you don't want, and the latter kind of whore will do all the things you do want.

Or tl;dr if you are concerned about climate change you should support the people whose policies address it and oppose the people whose policies don't. Shocking. And that is why Occluded Sun is a fucking idiot whose brain has been rotted by pseudo-cynicism.

[Occluded Sun]

Somebody needs a nap. And possibly more fiber in their diet.

But one way or another, both parties give out huge amounts of corporate welfare. (Whether any given person views any given incident as clear evidence of corruption or their political and moral duty seems to have more to do with that person's pre-existing allegiances, as far as I can tell, than any property of the situation.)

And neither has done, is doing, or - I predict - will do much of anything that would seriously address the problem of global warming. Pretty much the same can be said of any other ecological problem.

[Username17]

And neither has done, is doing, or - I predict - will do much of anything that would seriously address the problem of global warming. Pretty much the same can be said of any other ecological problem.

Which is why acid rain continues to melt our forests.

Oh wait, it doesn't. Because the political will to put forward some simple cap and trade measures was found somewhere in the 80s and 90s, and the result is that sulfur emissions are twenty percent of what they were in 1980.

Ecological problems generally do have solutions, and the political process is capable of delivering them. Right now, the right wing is committed to stonewalling progress on the global warming issue. But that doesn't mean nothing is being done and it doesn't mean that political solutions aren't possible. Progress is always possible, even when one of the political parties is opposing it.

And let's get this out in the open: it is one party that is being so freakishly dickish about this issue. It's not a both sides thing. At all.

-Username17

[Ancient History]

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/po ... -campaign/

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I used to think like occluded sun, that both sides were the same and voting didn't matter. Then I realized that is a cop-out answer designed to make myself feel good about my choices but wasn't actually productive in the end. Then again, Occluded Sun says some incredibly bad things so perhaps it's best for all of us if we encourage him to stay the course and not participate in the political process, I only see bad things coming out of that.

[Ancient History]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/29/politics/ ... -campaign/

George Pataki is out, leaving us with a dirty dozen GOP nominees.

[Occluded Sun]

Have you people already forgotten what's been described as "the biggest story of Obama's first term", his complete failure to follow through on his promises to rein in the spying of the intelligence agencies and the expanded powers of the Executive?

Can you imagine any of the potential candidates, Republican, Democratic, or other, doing differently, either then or now?

[virgil]

Can you imagine any of the potential candidates, Republican, Democratic, or other, doing differently, either then or now?

Yes.

Even then, there being some number of similarities between politicians' behavior doesn't mean they're the same or that their differences are meaningless.

[Occluded Sun]

Yes.

Then I suppose the question is the degree to which your imagination corresponds to reality. I can imagine the current crop promising to change things, but not a one actually renouncing that power.

Even then, there being some number of similarities between politicians' behavior doesn't mean they're the same or that their differences are meaningless.

True. But their differences mean increasingly little. The scramble for power means that even those who start out with meaningful goals have to compromise, limit, and eventually abandon what they initially wanted to do.

They *are* more or less the same, as the bottom of one septic tank is more or less the same as the bottom of another.

[DSMatticus]

Have you people already forgotten what's been described as "the biggest story of Obama's first term", his complete failure to follow through on his promises to rein in the spying of the intelligence agencies and the expanded powers of the Executive?

Can you imagine any of the potential candidates, Republican, Democratic, or other, doing differently, either then or now?

That is not how comparisons work. You speak English. Obama speaks English. Why do you want the government to spy on us, Occluded Sun? X is not the same as Y because they have things in common. X is the same as Y when they have all things in common.

You handwave away differences - even when we throw them in your face - because you are a dishonest twat. Stop being a dishonest twat.

[Mechalich]

True. But their differences mean increasingly little. The scramble for power means that even those who start out with meaningful goals have to compromise, limit, and eventually abandon what they initially wanted to do.

You do realize that the need to compromise and limit action is due to the specific nature of the US political system right? And that it is totally dependent upon one party not achieving a full majority in both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and a supreme Court majority all at the same time?

The Democratic Party had a very brief window early in the Obama administration where they had a filibuster proof majority (due to a recount and complications in seeing Al Franken seated in the Senate it was only a few months in duration). During that time they passed the ACA, a massive piece of domestic legislation that impacts the lives of every American. They also passed or almost passed several other important pieces of legislation.

That was without a majority on the Supreme Court and by a party that has a far greater level of internal division than the Republicans do.

Should a Republican win the Presidency in 2016 their party will hold that office and both Houses of Congress and a majority on the Supreme Court. The power of the filibuster has been sharply curtailed in recent years and
they will probably eliminate it entirely. They will absolutely have the power to implement the entirety of their agenda.

That's the biggest difference between the two parties in the current election cycle. The campaign promises of Hillary and Bernie are largely meaningless, since they will be stuck in the same situation Obama currently is, with little power to make any changes of substance. Any Republican candidate, by contrast, will absolutely have the power to make every single on of their campaign promises happen.

Donald Trump has talked about revoking birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. As absurd as that is as a policy statement (even if you hate birthright citizenship, revoking the citizenship of actual Americans is fucking fascist madness), if he's in the Oval Office he will find the votes for it and Scalia will write a majority opinion allowing it to occur.

And I don't even want to think about what would happen once that went through.

[Prak]

And I don't even want to think about what would happen once that went through.

I'm pretty sure it'd resemble something of a cross between these two pictures-