US Presidential Election XII - Page 64 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-08-2016, 08:50 PM   #946
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pushing my wheel of love.
Posts: 9,332
Local Time: 06:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
My main point is that I just can't take Trump supporters seriously when they call her untrustworthy and try and call her out on any shady/reckless stuff she's done, because, well, look at who they're supporting.
I understand this frustration, but it seems there has also been something of a default rebuttal for any concerns about Hillary that goes, "yes, but Trump!" Eventually she will win this election and will actually be in office, at which point the "better than Trump" argument becomes completely irrelevant.
__________________

__________________
iron yuppie is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 10:23 PM   #947
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,339
Local Time: 07:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I'm failing to understand your first point, as it seems quite opposite of the logical answer. Why would limiting two choices work to the advantage of a large, diverse population? It seems to me that it's the diversity that gets washed in such a state. If you have a belief that isn't sortable into the two really large, generalized boxes, it doesn't matter. Not only will your belief not make it into those large boxes, but it will never be even given adequate representation based upon the proportion of people who share that belief.

You're illegitimizing third party candidates by merely disregarding them. You call Ross Perot the gold standard, yet you don't acknowledge practically everyone else who ever ran and never achieved the same level of popular vote. Ross Perot isn't the "gold standard" of third party candidates, as they're often diverse and come from plenty of different backgrounds. Some are illegitimate, and some are not. You're just disregarding them and smacking a bit "third party" label on them. That's not the solution to third party candidates, it's the problem. You fail to take them seriously, because they're not a major party. And ultimately, they fail to become major players, due to your illegitimization.

This is even evident in your response here. You shrug him off as a pothead. Did you happen to read Johnson's actual reflection and response to his brain fart on Aleppo? About him owning up to his mistake and being frustrated and upset with himself? About him viewing Syria as a serious humanitarian problem? God forbid we have that in politics. Actual honesty, not honesty as a facade.

As a final note, I think it comes off rather ignorant to suggest that all third party candidates do is run for president. I'm assuming you've voted before... these third parties are actual parties with local chapters set up across the country. People run for office, and much like on the national scale with being disregarded, they're disregarded on those smaller ballots as well. Because there is no current system in place filled with money or known voices to endorse their campaign. Funny thing about that is, having a D or R next to your name is the sole reason you might be elected into a state congress, and then you work your way up from there.



If we have 3, 4, 5, candidates running for president, and someone wins with 32% of the vote, how legitimate is that when 2/3rds of the country voted someone other than the president? We don't have a parliamentary system, and o e could argue that the executive branch is necessary for any legislative advancement in a country so large and diverse. Choosing between two lends an air of legitimacy to the winner that choosing 1 president among 4 never would. Legitimacy and trust in the vote is imperative.

Third parties have only themselves to answer to when it comes to their lack of success at the local level, especially in, say, super liberal west coast cities.

Ross Perot is the gold standard because he was actually a part of the debates in 1992. That is the only time that's happened in my lifetime. I suppose one could also point to George Wallace. I don't take them seriously because they aren't serious candidates with serious positions. They haven't earned serious consideration. Am I supposed to take fucking Ralph Nader seriously? Lyndon LaRoushe?

Most talented candidates are able to locate themselves within the two major parties, despite having potential disagreements with elements of the party and its platform. It's because the parties are inclusive out of necessity and by design that third parties tend to have fringe candidates.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-08-2016, 11:41 PM   #948
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 55,111
Local Time: 07:23 AM
A strong, centrist, well known third party candidate could win if faced with to extremes. Like if Hillary was less of a centrist and more, say, Bernie like... or heck, if Bernie had won... Then in that scenario a well funded third party candidate would have a chance.

Most years they will just take votes away from the main candidates.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 09-09-2016, 12:02 AM   #949
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,922
Local Time: 07:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
If we have 3, 4, 5, candidates running for president, and someone wins with 32% of the vote, how legitimate is that when 2/3rds of the country voted someone other than the president? We don't have a parliamentary system, and o e could argue that the executive branch is necessary for any legislative advancement in a country so large and diverse. Choosing between two lends an air of legitimacy to the winner that choosing 1 president among 4 never would. Legitimacy and trust in the vote is imperative.

Third parties have only themselves to answer to when it comes to their lack of success at the local level, especially in, say, super liberal west coast cities.

Ross Perot is the gold standard because he was actually a part of the debates in 1992. That is the only time that's happened in my lifetime. I suppose one could also point to George Wallace. I don't take them seriously because they aren't serious candidates with serious positions. They haven't earned serious consideration. Am I supposed to take fucking Ralph Nader seriously? Lyndon LaRoushe?

Most talented candidates are able to locate themselves within the two major parties, despite having potential disagreements with elements of the party and its platform. It's because the parties are inclusive out of necessity and by design that third parties tend to have fringe candidates.

More major parties doesn't mean that in a general election, you won't end up with two favorites. But to answer your question, yes I'm 100% okay with the victor not being the majority vote. Plurality is enough, we aren't a populist democracy. That's the point of the electoral college. Look no further than 2000 when Al Gore lost while holding the popular vote. The electoral college has its flaws, of course, but it still exists for a way of each state to deliver their verdict -- not the popular count.

I think it's absurd that you'd say third parties only have themselves to answer to. Total disregard to the fact that the defecto two party system in place controls county and state politics. It's like you're suggesting that EVERY third party candidate in EVERY city only has themselves to answer to. As though, the inherent reason why third party candidates don't get elected to public office in these scenarios is simply because they somehow fuck it up or are somehow less qualified than other people who have just as much experience in politics as them?

And you totally missed why I scoffed at you calling Ross Perot the gold standard of third party candidates. You're acting as though he represents third party candidates. As though we actually do have three parties -- democratic, republican, and third. There's no "gold standard" for a third party candidate. They come in all shapes and forms. You can't just use Ross Perot to your credit and claim he's why third party candidates shouldn't exist. Look around you, Donald Trump is the candidate for the Republican Party. If he wanted to, he could've been Ross Perot this election. But he's not. Proof enough that a bumbling fool and the party (or lack thereof) he or she represents are mutually exclusive.

I mean, with your last paragraph you're just making the case that someone fit for office inherently should conform to the system, and that's what makes a good politician. Again, all I can say is look around at most other westernized countries with democratic elections. In most cases, they're able to support multiple parties -- some of which come and go in terms of popularity. And they get proportional representation in their houses of representatives.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 09-09-2016, 02:43 AM   #950
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,014
Local Time: 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
I understand this frustration, but it seems there has also been something of a default rebuttal for any concerns about Hillary that goes, "yes, but Trump!" Eventually she will win this election and will actually be in office, at which point the "better than Trump" argument becomes completely irrelevant.
I don't think many countries have a president / prime minister with the sort of resume Clinton has. I doubt anywhere else in the world would someone with her experience be dubbed 'the slightly less bad option'.
No matter how many made up allegations there have been and will be against her, it doesn't change she has shown already she has the capabilities for the presidency.

Will she be 'the best', 'most beloved' president the US has ever had?
No, almost certainly not.
But to make it that she is a hack who only will win because she's up against a buffoon is doing her a disservice.
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is online now  
Old 09-09-2016, 03:59 AM   #951
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 11,922
Local Time: 07:23 AM
I don't think that's the point. Not a lot of people desiring to discuss legitimate criticisms of Clinton in this thread wish to "level the playing field
" with Trump, so to say.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 09-09-2016, 04:54 AM   #952
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,014
Local Time: 01:23 PM
It might not be the point, but I get very wary of the general perception that Clinton is an obvious bad candidate who is lucky she is up against Trump.

Legitimate criticism of Clinton results in about as many people defending Clinton by stating "better than Trump" as there are people who make out that their criticism is a clear indication Clinton is barely electable and not a preferred option (and of course unlikable). So basically the people who object to others saying "better than Trump" are stating indirectly that they only vote for her because she is better than Trump. (And then there are of course people who would vote for Trump no matter who he is up against).

I don't think there's any politician over here in The Netherlands I don't disagree with at least 15% of the time. That doesn't mean none of them truly deserve my vote.
And I wish any of them had the qualities and experience of Clinton.
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is online now  
Old 09-09-2016, 08:00 AM   #953
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 3,619
Local Time: 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salome View Post
It might not be the point, but I get very wary of the general perception that Clinton is an obvious bad candidate who is lucky she is up against Trump.

Legitimate criticism of Clinton results in about as many people defending Clinton by stating "better than Trump" as there are people who make out that their criticism is a clear indication Clinton is barely electable and not a preferred option (and of course unlikable). So basically the people who object to others saying "better than Trump" are stating indirectly that they only vote for her because she is better than Trump. (And then there are of course people who would vote for Trump no matter who he is up against).

I don't think there's any politician over here in The Netherlands I don't disagree with at least 15% of the time. That doesn't mean none of them truly deserve my vote.
And I wish any of them had the qualities and experience of Clinton.
The insane crusade of the media to make the absolute disgustingly dangerous disaster that is Trump, somehow equal to the most qualified candidate possibly ever in Clinton is the problem.

Heard on CNN this morning...

"Who had a better week this week, Trump or Clinton?

Well that's a tough one. Trump praised Putin and how well he "controls" his country, he said Putin was superior to our president, he said our Generals were a disaster and an embarrassment to our country, he claimed he could and would fire the existing generals and replace them, he said the military court was non-existent, he lied continuously about being against Iraq, he said women should expect to be raped because they serve with men in the military, and he had a proven illegal contribution from his foundation which served as a payoff to an AG to drop a case of his fraudulent University.

BUT... Clinton seemed a bit defensive about the email questions at the Commander in Chief town hall... Sooooooo... Ummmm... Its kind of a toss up. But I think Clinton narrowly wins the week."

This is not hyperbole or a joke or sarcasm. This is reality.
__________________
womanfish is offline  
Old 09-09-2016, 09:46 AM   #954
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,170
Local Time: 07:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Most talented candidates are able to locate themselves within the two major parties, despite having potential disagreements with elements of the party and its platform. It's because the parties are inclusive out of necessity and by design that third parties tend to have fringe candidates.
This is actually pretty sad and probably goes a long way to explain why so many people feel disillusioned with the system and feel like politicians stand for nothing. And that's a real problem.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-09-2016, 10:34 AM   #955
Vocal parasite
 
Axver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: 1853
Posts: 150,206
Local Time: 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salome View Post
I don't think there's any politician over here in The Netherlands I don't disagree with at least 15% of the time. That doesn't mean none of them truly deserve my vote.
Seriously. You don't achieve major change by insisting on ideological purity that aligns rigidly with your specific values.
__________________
"Mediocrity is never so dangerous as when it is dressed up as sincerity." - Søren Kierkegaard

Ian McCulloch the U2 fan:
"Who buys U2 records anyway? It's just music for plumbers and bricklayers. Bono, what a slob. You'd think with all that climbing about he does, he'd look real fit and that. But he's real fat, y'know. Reminds me of a soddin' mountain goat."
"And as for Bono, he needs a colostomy bag for his mouth."

U2gigs: The most comprehensive U2 setlist database!
Gig pictures | Blog
Axver is online now  
Old 09-09-2016, 11:25 AM   #956
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pushing my wheel of love.
Posts: 9,332
Local Time: 06:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axver View Post
Seriously. You don't achieve major change by insisting on ideological purity that aligns rigidly with your specific values.
If I Could Be Just Completely Honest For A Second, I Believe Exactly What You Believe - The Onion - America's Finest News Source
__________________
iron yuppie is offline  
Old 09-09-2016, 12:38 PM   #957
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,339
Local Time: 07:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
This is actually pretty sad and probably goes a long way to explain why so many people feel disillusioned with the system and feel like politicians stand for nothing. And that's a real problem.


possibly, but the two parties might be necessary, which has been my entire point. there has to be a force of moderation and stability, which two parties that easily absorb outliers gives us. the coalition-forming happens within the party itself, and the oppositional clarity of the two parties keeps everything coherent and understandable, from Mississippi to Seattle. only two parties also make it easier to negotiate between the executive and legislative branches of the government.

i know it's become fashionable to stomp our feet and demand more perfect reflections of our imagined selves running for president, but in a country where people are so different and spread out across a vast continent, it likely works better to have someone broadly identify with either of the two parties (or as an "independent") and then work within the party itself to move or change it's platform. one could say this is the great success of the Sanders campaign -- by joining the Democrats, he was better able to affect mainstream political thought than he ever would have running as an independent. this is, in effect, what the Green Party and the Liberatarians do to the D's and the R's -- they threaten to pull votes away from each party, causing the party to change insofar as much as they need to retain a critical mass of votes going into an election.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-09-2016, 12:57 PM   #958
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,339
Local Time: 07:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
And you totally missed why I scoffed at you calling Ross Perot the gold standard of third party candidates. You're acting as though he represents third party candidates. As though we actually do have three parties -- democratic, republican, and third. There's no "gold standard" for a third party candidate. They come in all shapes and forms. You can't just use Ross Perot to your credit and claim he's why third party candidates shouldn't exist. Look around you, Donald Trump is the candidate for the Republican Party. If he wanted to, he could've been Ross Perot this election. But he's not. Proof enough that a bumbling fool and the party (or lack thereof) he or she represents are mutually exclusive.

Ross Perot is the most successful third party candidate of the modern era, hence he is the "gold standard" because he was (and still is) the most successful. he was actually on the debate stage in 1992. nowhere have i claimed they shouldn't exist, but i have claimed that the two party system is necessary and perhaps even a good thing in the US, due to it's unique character, population, geography, history, system of government, etc.

it seems to me that you'd be mistaken to mistake a black swan like Trump as proof of anything, really, beyond his own celebrity powers, the weakness of the field, and the post-Obama GOP madness (and the reverberations of what was a nearly catastrophic economic collapse in 2008). the 2020 GOP nominee will likely be back to the model of a more typical GOP candidate. also, Trump's views aren't all that much out of the mainstream of the GOP candidates in general, and it also speaks to the size of the field that diluted anti-Trump votes so no credible opposition was able to rise. i think everyone, Trump included, is shocked he's the nominee, and i think he was planning on running as a Perot (and then starting his own cable network).



Quote:
I mean, with your last paragraph you're just making the case that someone fit for office inherently should conform to the system, and that's what makes a good politician. Again, all I can say is look around at most other westernized countries with democratic elections. In most cases, they're able to support multiple parties -- some of which come and go in terms of popularity. And they get proportional representation in their houses of representatives.

"most westernized countries" are different, and have different systems of government, and thus have different needs than the US.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-09-2016, 01:02 PM   #959
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,176
Local Time: 07:23 AM
if the US had a multi-party system, they would probably be regional parties rather than ideologically based. i'm not so sure if that would be a good thing.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 09-09-2016, 01:54 PM   #960
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 06:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
if the US had a multi-party system, they would probably be regional parties rather than ideologically based. i'm not so sure if that would be a good thing.

I could see a party popular in the Pacific NW.

A Latino based party in border states.

New England party.

Rust Belt populist party.

Ultra-Conservative Southern party.

A Mormon based party in Utah and Idaho.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com