2016 Presidential Race Thread

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

if you are worried about money and **** in this country, and you have any sense at all, you won't waste your time chaining yourself to the sinking ship that is the collective working-class/poor. instead focus your efforts on getting yourself into the winning team.

QFT. I've worked **** jobs with poor people for years, and I didn't really like most of them anyway.

[Josef K]

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

why not?

See, I kind of saw this coming, hence

Originally Posted by Josef K

I believe that you ought to care about them, because, you know, it's good to care about people. (I should also note now that I'm sort of uninterested in debating from first principles whether this is a productive outlook to have or not.)

But fine, I'll bite, although this post is going to be at least a little bit (and probably a lot) tautological. There are a few reasons (and you'll notice everything here is prefaced with "I believe" - you should continue to think however you want, and I'm unlikely to change your mind, much less get you to change your "I'm cynical and apathetic" schtick).

I'm a fairly idealistic person, which you may have gathered from my posts here and elsewhere. I believe in democracy and I believe that in a democracy, voters have actual power to solve injustices and help shape good policy. I think it's a person's duty as a democratic citizen to do what they can to help others.

That said, I don't believe that democracy works by having everyone vote in their own interest, and that's for two reasons. First is the issue of tyranny of the majority - we should avoid voting for things which hurt people, and we shouldn't rationalize voting for those things with "Oh well those people can vote against it", because we, as democratic citizens, have responsibilities to other people and peoples. The second reason is that we don't live in a "true" democracy. I don't mean that in the ******* "Oh we live in a republic not a democracy don't you feel stupid now," way, I mean that lots of groups of people are, systematically and not, denied access to the franchise even when they officially have voting rights. So because oppressed groups of people are voiceless in many cases, we need to consider them especially when voting.

I also believe, essentially (although not entirely), in Rawls's veil of ignorance. I think that we should try hard to create an equitable society and try hard to put protections in place for those who are born (or become at some point in their life) worse off than most so they're still able to lead fulfilling, free lives.

Finally, I guess it makes me feel better to think that voting can change things - I don't know that, and this is very specific to me personally, my life has a ton of meaning if I can't in some important way make the world a better place. And I know that voting doesn't solve everything, or maybe almost anything - there's a study from Martin Gilens and Ben Page that talks about how the median American has no influence over government policy - but I also have to believe that those conclusions are an oversimplification, that if the other guy had been elected then things would be worse, because I've seen what kinds of things Republicans do and I've seen what kinds of things Democrats do, and I know that they're different. And I don't think that believing voting is powerful precludes me from pursuing systemic change, and I don't think that I'm perversely increasing oppression by participating in "the system", and I don't think I could live with myself if we went to war with Iran, or if worker protections got rolled back by the Supreme Court, or if we continued on with decades of racist housing policy, and it could've been prevented if I'd done something different. And I want to do more than just vote, but if doing more isn't available to me, I still will do whatever I can to create a better society.

(jwb: "why?")

[The Batlord]

You should join us in our apathy. The becomes a much funnier place.

[Xurtio]

Originally Posted by Josef K

Let's just remember that Bernie Sanders is a firmly establishment figure at this point - him being powerful and getting things done relies on his affiliation with the Democratic party, and he's not going to practically ask to be kicked out of the Senate caucus which grants him his committee assignments. In addition such a run would massively hurt his credibility not just with the party, but with the public.


That's because super PACs weren't an issue - like, nobody had ever even used the term - until the Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions in 2010, which also opened the door to increased corporate influence in politics. While of course corporate influence has been an issue forever, unlimited (and anonymous) corporate campaign contributions weren't allowed until the former decision. There have been lots of politicians who care a lot about lobbying reform, but that's way less appealing than "the Koch brothers are buying elections!" and it never had nearly the political support that generically pro-campaign finance reform sentiment does now - see what I said above about Sanders being a fairly savvy politician.

In addition I just don't think it's true that Sanders has momentum. I think that largely you're seeing people looking for someone to talk about other than Hillary and landing on Bernie, because the other pointless candidates are not only pointless but boring (Martin O'Malley might actually be the dullest person alive, and his trying to solve this by constantly posing with his guitar isn't helping matters), which is one thing that Sanders is definitely not. And even if he were experiencing some kind of surge in numbers right now that could reasonably lead you to believe he could compete with Clinton (although, for the record, he is not and could not), he still lacks the kind of infrastructure and the kind of institutional support a candidate needs to get nominated. What's more, there's no evidence that any gains he's making are plausible reasons why he could win the nomination, any more than Herman Cain's brief surge in the 2011/2012 election cycle meant he had a real shot at beating Romney.

In short, I like Bernie Sanders well enough but he has no chance at this election and it's foolish to vote for him - that said, I'm glad he'll be in the debates, because hopefully Clinton will make some promises to do progressive things to win over his audience.

Most of my social-democratic slant is probably because I hear my news inadvertently through reddit, which is extremely lefty. I generally don't pursue political news (or any news really, besides science news).

But say we accept your premise that Bernie can't win. Doesn't supporting him bring more support to the issues he's campaigning on, even if he doesn't win the primaries? Isn't there a long-term game here that plays on your own values that you've demonstrated in responding to JWB and Batlord?

addendum: also, if we're so sure that Clinton is going to win, then how does a vote for Sanders in the primaries affect the outcome negatively?

[Josef K]

Originally Posted by Xurtio

Most of my social-democratic slant is probably because I hear my news inadvertently through reddit, which is extremely lefty. I generally don't pursue political news (or any news really, besides science news).

But say we accept your premise that Bernie can't win. Doesn't supporting him bring more support to the issues he's campaigning on, even if he doesn't win the primaries? Isn't there a long-term game here that plays on your own values that you've demonstrated in responding to JWB and Batlord?

Yeah, maybe. Like I said, I want him in the debates. For me the problem involves identifying the point where it's less pushing issues that I'd like pushed, and more hurting the Democrats' chances in the general. But you're right, to some extent I am contradicting myself, and I do think he should at least stay in the race for now. I think a large part of why I'm not as enthusiastic about him as you or Briks is just that I don't think he's as left wing as y'all seem to, but he has value.

ETA: I'm not sure that Clinton's going to win the general, although I think it's likely. I think voting for Sanders in the primary could negatively affect her chances in the general, and even if I am not a fan of Clinton I have to acknowledge that she's the best actual option we have in this election.

[Xurtio]

I guess I'm a bit fatalistic about Hillary. I'm not a Democrat, I was raised libertarian, but I don't identify with that anymore either. I often support Vermin Supreme in jest, because at the end of the day I think power and evil go hand in hand and changes in society are often outside the control of politicians and occur as unintended consequences (also, sour grapes). Thus, to some extent, I agree with Batlord and JWB: better my evil guy than somebody elses evil guy - and by that I do include moral alignment. In that regard, I see Hillary as an arm of the corporations, even to the extent of supporting the TPP.

She will support civil rights, carefully and with public acceptance, like Obama (iirc he didn't support gay marriage until it was >50% in the polls). It's like they're throwing us a bone while they otherwise maintain the status quo.

[John Wilkes Booth]

Originally Posted by Josef K

See, I kind of saw this coming, hence

yea... you know, anticipating my response and responding for me isn't as good an idea as you might think. kind of makes the conversation pointless.

But fine, I'll bite, although this post is going to be at least a little bit (and probably a lot) tautological. There are a few reasons (and you'll notice everything here is prefaced with "I believe" - you should continue to think however you want, and I'm unlikely to change your mind, much less get you to change your "I'm cynical and apathetic" schtick).

I'm a fairly idealistic person, which you may have gathered from my posts here and elsewhere. I believe in democracy and I believe that in a democracy, voters have actual power to solve injustices and help shape good policy. I think it's a person's duty as a democratic citizen to do what they can to help others.

That said, I don't believe that democracy works by having everyone vote in their own interest, and that's for two reasons. First is the issue of tyranny of the majority - we should avoid voting for things which hurt people, and we shouldn't rationalize voting for those things with "Oh well those people can vote against it", because we, as democratic citizens, have responsibilities to other people and peoples. The second reason is that we don't live in a "true" democracy. I don't mean that in the ******* "Oh we live in a republic not a democracy don't you feel stupid now," way, I mean that lots of groups of people are, systematically and not, denied access to the franchise even when they officially have voting rights. So because oppressed groups of people are voiceless in many cases, we need to consider them especially when voting.

I also believe, essentially (although not entirely), in Rawls's veil of ignorance. I think that we should try hard to create an equitable society and try hard to put protections in place for those who are born (or become at some point in their life) worse off than most so they're still able to lead fulfilling, free lives.

Finally, I guess it makes me feel better to think that voting can change things - I don't know that, and this is very specific to me personally, my life has a ton of meaning if I can't in some important way make the world a better place. And I know that voting doesn't solve everything, or maybe almost anything - there's a study from Martin Gilens and Ben Page that talks about how the median American has no influence over government policy - but I also have to believe that those conclusions are an oversimplification, that if the other guy had been elected then things would be worse, because I've seen what kinds of things Republicans do and I've seen what kinds of things Democrats do, and I know that they're different. And I don't think that believing voting is powerful precludes me from pursuing systemic change, and I don't think that I'm perversely increasing oppression by participating in "the system", and I don't think I could live with myself if we went to war with Iran, or if worker protections got rolled back by the Supreme Court, or if we continued on with decades of racist housing policy, and it could've been prevented if I'd done something different. And I want to do more than just vote, but if doing more isn't available to me, I still will do whatever I can to create a better society.

(jwb: "why?")

there are a few things to address here

first, my basic question was why shouldn't i be addressing my own interests when i vote. it seems like that is a pretty straight forward approach to democracy to me... even if we don't have a 'pure democracy'... at the end of the day, the whole point of having the vote distributed throughout the populace vs decided by a few good men is to ensure that these interests are represented. so it seems flat out weird to me to hear you say my interests aren't what i should be considering... instead every individual is supposed to engineer the ideal society in their own head and vote along those lines? so we're falling back on the collective wisdom of the masses? but that's not a tyranny of the majority right...

but i don't take issue with the idea that "you should care about other people" etc etc. i do care. i throw a dollar in the salvation army guy's bucket. i don't take the time to vote cause i really don't see it as being as productive as you do. just to sort of passively stave off the elite a little bit... and meanwhile i hear poor people deluded into thinking obama is making them poor on a daily basis. nah, really i feel like sometimes it takes a fire to clear the forest. let them take the reigns, i say. would be interesting at least.

but i have to admit i do like your intellect and your ideals. i wish more people were like you. but i think robots will overthrow us before that happens, or we'll just global warming ourselves out of existence.

[Josef K]

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

there are a few things to address here

first, my basic question was why shouldn't i be addressing my own interests when i vote. it seems like that is a pretty straight forward approach to democracy to me... even if we don't have a 'pure democracy'... at the end of the day, the whole point of having the vote distributed throughout the populace vs decided by a few good men is to ensure that these interests are represented. so it seems flat out weird to me to hear you say my interests aren't what i should be considering... instead every individual is supposed to engineer the ideal society in their own head and vote along those lines? so we're falling back on the collective wisdom of the masses? but that's not a tyranny of the majority right...

I think the point of democracy is not that it takes into account everybody acting in their own self interest, but that it takes into account everybody acting according to their own worldview. Of course, as I mention in my first post, I guess I don't believe in an absolutely unfettered democracy because I think we can, should, and do put safeguards in place against tyranny of the majority - and, again, I think considering the interests of people besides yourself helps solve tyranny of the majority.

but i don't take issue with the idea that "you should care about other people" etc etc. i do care. i throw a dollar in the salvation army guy's bucket. i don't take the time to vote cause i really don't see it as being as productive as you do. just to sort of passively stave off the elite a little bit... and meanwhile i hear poor people deluded into thinking obama is making them poor on a daily basis. nah, really i feel like sometimes it takes a fire to clear the forest. let them take the reigns, i say. would be interesting at least.

Fair enough. I wish voting did more. I guess to me, any positive change is good and if there's even the possibility, I feel like I'm obligated to try to make it happen.

but i have to admit i do like your intellect and your ideals. i wish more people were like you. but i think robots will overthrow us before that happens, or we'll just global warming ourselves out of existence.

Thanks for that. You're pretty fun to argue with too - definitely you have more interesting views than some people on here.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Josef K

Yeah, maybe. Like I said, I want him in the debates. For me the problem involves identifying the point where it's less pushing issues that I'd like pushed, and more hurting the Democrats' chances in the general.

See, this is called "selling out". It's when you compromise your principals in the name of pragmatism. You know a leftist lefty ain't gonna win, so you go with the gutless moderate. Perfectly reasonable, and I don't fault you for it, but just recognize that it's what keeps the status quo in power. If you choose to remain engaged regardless, then be my guest, but that **** doesn't motivate me.

Originally Posted by Josef K

I think the point of democracy is not that it takes into account everybody acting in their own self interest, but that it takes into account everybody acting according to their own worldview. Of course, as I mention in my first post, I guess I don't believe in an absolutely unfettered democracy because I think we can, should, and do put safeguards in place against tyranny of the majority - and, again, I think considering the interests of people besides yourself helps solve tyranny of the majority.

But this is basically pointless. Sure, people like to think that they're voting according to their conscience, but just like in real life, they're really going by self-interest whether they like to admit it or not.

And any attempt to make people act the way they "should" (in this case, vote based on a worldview rather than selfishly) as opposed to the way they actually do, is a fool's errand. If they were going to act that way, then you wouldn't need to tell them to, cause they'd already be doing it. The only thing you can do is account for self-interest and mold your political framework around that, and not the other way around.

[Josef K]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

See, this is called "selling out". It's when you compromise your principals in the name of pragmatism. You know a leftist lefty ain't gonna win, so you go with the gutless moderate. Perfectly reasonable, and I don't fault you for it, but just recognize that it's what keeps the status quo in power. If you choose to remain engaged regardless, then be my guest, but that **** doesn't motivate me.

I don't know what's wrong with pragmatism. I mean, yes, I prefer some stuff getting done to no stuff getting done. Anyway, nobody close to me ideologically is going to win an election anytime soon, so I don't really see what's wrong with wanting the better person of the plausible options to win. Just to be clear - we keep the status quo either way, whether Hillary wins or she gets dragged down by Sanders and loses to Jeb Bush or whoever. (Even if Sanders could somehow win the election, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that he'd still be a continuation of the status quo.) The difference is that Clinton would be better for millions of people, and if I didn't honestly believe that, I wouldn't be making these posts.

But this is basically pointless. Sure, people like to think that they're voting according to their conscience, but just like in real life, they're really going by self-interest whether they like to admit it or not.

And any attempt to make people act the way they "should" (in this case, vote based on a worldview rather than selfishly) as opposed to the way they actually do, is a fool's errand. If they were going to act that way, then you wouldn't need to tell them to, cause they'd already be doing it. The only thing you can do is account for self-interest and mold your political framework around that, and not the other way around.

Okay, if you don't believe it's possible for a person to think with other people's interests in mind, or have any degree of compassion or empathy, I don't know what the point of this conversation is.