Election 2016

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:10 am

Occluded Sun wrote:And it amply demonstrates why democracy doesn't work. People just don't learn.

Ultimately you'll get the candidates the Powers That Be want you to be offered, and you'll vote for one of them, and things will continue as before.

What do you mean "the Powers That Be"?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:13 am

The shadowy cabal of Jews and lizard-people who make up the New World Order, of course.

No, not THAT New World Order.

Were it anyone else I'd assume he meant how people might all say "We want Trump to be the Republican nominee!" and then Koch brothers and similar pour $TEXAS into having Jeb! be the number one contender despite that, and they end up with Jeb! (And then it makes no difference because the people vote for the Democrats anyway and Democrats win.)

Or how in some democratic countries, people feel like they're voting for the Prime Minister, when actually they're voting for which party gets to tick that district as being "theirs" and the party with the most districts is the winner and that party gets to determine the PM, and they can change that overnight and some people are left feeling betrayed.

Were it anyone else. As it is, I'm betting he thinks a secret society determines who wins the election and all the votes mean nothing. That's the only way democrats could ever possibly win, right?

Actually fuck it. It IS that nWo. Kevin Nash will book himself to win and become president in 2016.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:12 pm

I read OS's post more as "the problem with democracy is corporate interests and the media play too big of a role in the elections", and not "we should get rid of democracy". So, more of a cynical observation than a shitty solution.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:18 pm

Politics SHOULD be more like wrestling . .
You want that law? You face the Big Sexy in the Ring for it!
Oh you are an old rich lawyer that wants to have a law that makes life better for him and his lot? Tough!

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:37 pm

Stahlseele wrote:Politics SHOULD be more like wrestling . .
You want that law? You face the Big Sexy in the Ring for it!
Oh you are an old rich lawyer that wants to have a law that makes life better for him and his lot? Tough!

You will just have to hire a big dumb jock to punch people in the face for you.

Surprise, basing laws on who is the most physically capable of beating up other people is literally so bad a system that Divine Right of Kings was an improvement.

Like, I get that you are trying to make a joke, but your joke isn't funny, and you are stupid.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 am

You joke, but Nash is both the most likely person to run for office of the nWo and the most likely to pull it off.

Also, you should get your parents' permission before going online, OS.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:08 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/ ... c-meeting/

Chafee drops out of the Democratic Primary race.

Almaz · Post by **Almaz** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 6:37 pm

Occluded Sun wrote:Ultimately you'll get the candidates the Powers That Be want you to be offered, and you'll vote for one of them, and things will continue as before.

This is baffling. I mean, yes, Obama has demonstrated nothing but a tired old centrist position, gradually grinding leftwards, but he was our tired old centrist position gradually grinding leftwards. That too was what he campaigned on, and part of why he was popular, because he chose a message with mass appeal, and as a result he came into the Presidency with very little major corporate or political backing. He was not one of those classical candidates "chosen by the Powers That Be," unless, yes, you're assuming Reptoid mind-control rays.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:08 pm

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... g-campaign

There's a real narrative push for Jeb!'s struggle. I can't tell if it's trying to build up a narrative where his losing is pre-ordained or if his winning is hard-fought and earned. In either case, it's important to keep the numbers in context: Bush has by far the largest (and therefor most expensive) organization in the GOP race, with outsized presence in the early-voting states.

In other news: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... sques.html

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:44 pm

Ancient History wrote:In other news: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... sques.html

Of course, the difference between Tunisia, Egypt, and even the United Kingdom on the one hand and the United States on the other is that we have a thing called the Constitution.

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:29 pm

RobbyPants wrote:I read OS's post more as "the problem with democracy is corporate interests and the media play too big of a role in the elections"

Well, it's more that the trouble with representative democracy is instead of running the risk of sociopathic egomaniacs running things, we guarantee that they will, because they're the only sort of people who can successfully win an election. Also, people at large are remarkably stupid and unable to identify their self-interests much less enact them.

My concern with more direct forms of democracy are more focused on the collective human stupidity. Majority rule is a remarkably poor way to run a society.

Corporations are inherently dangerous because of their tremendous ability to possess power and their relatively limited ability to use it intelligently. They're a concern no matter what form of government is out there.

Pseudo Stupidity · Post by **Pseudo Stupidity** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:45 pm

Occluded Sun wrote: My concern with more direct forms of democracy are more focused on the collective human stupidity. Majority rule is a remarkably poor way to run a society.

It must be hard being such a special snowflake. How does it feel to have so much intelligence in a world full of dumb people?

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:18 am

Occluded Sun wrote: My concern with more direct forms of democracy are more focused on the collective human stupidity. Majority rule is a remarkably poor way to run a society.

Is that Johnny K. Toole posting from beyond the grave?

Edit: The novel to which I'm referring actually WAS published posthumously, turns out.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:28 am

Hiram McDaniels wrote:
Occluded Sun wrote: My concern with more direct forms of democracy are more focused on the collective human stupidity. Majority rule is a remarkably poor way to run a society.
Is that Johnny K. Toole posting from beyond the grave?

Edit: The novel to which I'm referring actually WAS published posthumously, turns out.

I almost wanna start calling OS "Big O'Toole"

Because he certainly is one...

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:03 am

Maxus wrote:
Hiram McDaniels wrote:
Occluded Sun wrote: My concern with more direct forms of democracy are more focused on the collective human stupidity. Majority rule is a remarkably poor way to run a society.
Is that Johnny K. Toole posting from beyond the grave?

Edit: The novel to which I'm referring actually WAS published posthumously, turns out.
I almost wanna start calling OS "Big O'Toole"

Because he certainly is one...

I doubt his tool has ever gotten anyone to the big O. (Hurr durr durr...)

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:17 am

TiaC wrote:
Maxus wrote:I almost wanna start calling OS "Big O'Toole"

Because he certainly is one...
I doubt his tool has ever gotten anyone to the big O. (Hurr durr durr...)

It's possible he's gotten the big "Oh god, what have I done???".

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:31 am

Now, now. He's a neckbeard. It's entirely possible his tool gets off to Big O

Post by **fbmf** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:47 am

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Enough about Occluded's tool(e) and sexual experiences. This is one of those rare threads that I actually do care if it wanders off topic or devolves into insults.

Stay on target, folks.
[/TGFBS]

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:57 pm

fbmf wrote:[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Enough about Occluded's tool(e) and sexual experiences. This is one of those rare threads that I actually do care if it wanders off topic or devolves into insults.

Stay on target, folks.
[/TGFBS]

Sorry about that. My niceness slipped.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:21 pm

Fivethirtyeight discusses why the GOP is in disarray, and notes that 80% of the GOP lawmakers have yet to endorse a candidate.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 2:39 am

RobbyPants wrote:Fivethirtyeight discusses why the GOP is in disarray, and notes that 80% of the GOP lawmakers have yet to endorse a candidate.

I stopped giving a shit about 538 when Nate Silver paid Roger Pielke to write a bunch of climate change denial bullshit for him on his site. This article really only confirms what I already thought; Nate's commentary is worth somewhere between shit and fuck all. He is moderate conservative with a dedication to playing "both sides" centrist asshat, and that means he ends up being a total dumbass a substantial portion of the time.

Nate Silver wrote:There are high levels of disagreement among Republicans in Congress.

Perhaps, but these intramural debates may be largely irrelevant. The GOP does not have much ability to affect policy so long as Democrats control the White House, and their behavior might change were they to win the presidency again. Republicans were reasonably unified when they last had unilateral control of government under George W. Bush.

Consider this; it's a bullshit double-decker.

At first glance, it is a fallacious argument which cannot possibly bear fruit. "They were unified in 2006, so who's to say they aren't secretly unified now?" Well, Nate, I was in highschool in 2006. Do you think I'm still in highschool nine years later? No? It's almost like "it was therefore it is," isn't actually an argument you can make without looking like an idiot, because the passage of time is a thing that happens. But it gets worse the more you think about dates. It isn't until ~2009 that the Koch empire started throwing money en masse at Tea Party candidates. The census - and therefore the massive wave of gerrymandering which today makes so many districts competitive only in their primaries - happened in 2010. It's not just that he's claiming that because he had a dozen apples yesterday he must have a dozen apples today; he's got a mouthful of apple and there are apple cores scattered around his feet.

So the tl;dr is that Nate Silver eventually tells us something we all already knew but along the way we have to listen to him pretend to be an idiot in his devotion to ideological "reason be damned!" symmetry. Pass.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 8:02 am

I stumbled upon that article yesterday by chance and was repelled by how meaningless it was. He goes out of his way to avoid having an intelligent stance, just "this happened, but maybe it isn't happening" over and over.

I found the GOP debate drinking rules to be more informative (on rolling stone maybe?), but mostly just due to the bar being set so low.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:13 pm

I guess Carson has been edging Trump out in some recent polls. Still, no one else has been able to come close to either of their totals. I'm surprised it's lasted this long. It seems that over half of the other candidates will have to drop off before anyone else can start polling higher. Trump's and Carson's followers seem immune to being offended by anything dumb either of them say.

DSMatticus wrote: I stopped giving a shit about 538 when Nate Silver paid Roger Pielke to write a bunch of climate change denial bullshit for him on his site. This article really only confirms what I already thought; Nate's commentary is worth somewhere between shit and fuck all. He is moderate conservative with a dedication to playing "both sides" centrist asshat, and that means he ends up being a total dumbass a substantial portion of the time.

I did not know that. Thanks.

erik wrote: I found the GOP debate drinking rules to be more informative (on rolling stone maybe?), but mostly just due to the bar being set so low.

I didn't watch the debate or look up the drinking game rules for it. I have lost interest in what pretty much any of them have to say.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:16 pm

The nominal purpose of debates was to provide a venue for prospective candidates to distinguish themselves and their policies, in a formal setting and before an audience - and before television, and when television was in its infancy like the famous Nixon/Kennedy debates, these debates were much important, because would-be candidates would have considerable difficulty achieving the media attention that a debate event would allow them.

But, times have changed, and every single candidate has a twitter account, facebook account(s), and website(s). Most of them have their own hashtags. Their media presence is so pervasive that it rather dilutes the debates' main purpose, and so largely exists as a sort of collective dick-measuring contest for what you're polling this fortnight. Add to that the sheer number of debates, and event fatigue quickly sets in around debate #3 and onwards.

Honestly, at this point the GOP might want to look at reforming the debats as some sort of elimination system.

violence in the media · Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:35 pm

Ancient History wrote: Honestly, at this point the GOP might want to look at reforming the debates as some sort of elimination system.

I vote they go with Thunderdome.