U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 3/21/2016 at 0:36 PM, Sabretooth78 said:

I don't really see it as irony any more than an intended effect.  Hate begets more hate, and if you bring it out on one side of the argument you're likely to draw it out on the other.  He's a divisive, polarizing figure.  Just what this country needs, more divide-and-conquer from the 1%.

Define hate. How has Trump been hateful? Whether or not any statement you pick was said out of hate is purely subjective. So what if he's divisive? That doesn't excuse going to his rallies, starting fights or agitating, then turning around and blaming Trump. Protesting is one thing, agitating as part of a co-ordinated political plan to promote a narrative that Trump is inciting violence is another. Of course these people don't know they're part of that plan, but they are.

I could make the argument that Sander's campaign is also hateful; hateful of the 1%, the rich and Wall Street. He's divisive and polarizing in his own way. That wouldn't justify Trump supporters going to his rallies and cussing at his supporters. The 1% is composed of individuals, they aren't The Borg. Being part of the 1% isn't a crime and it doesn't make you a bad person.

Okay, now this made me laugh so hard I actually had to stop it. Probably one of the best Trump parodies I've seen yet:

Another:

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Hope that after the Republican convention the word will be "Donald who?".

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Trump warns of riots if that happens, and hints that even he may not be able to control them.  I don't think he is wrong, and if Trump continues dominating in the tally of primary delegates, convention maneuvering to deny him the nomination may be to many of his supporters another "stab in the back" that not only breaks the Republican Party, but breaks our politics.

Vox.com news blog offered this sobering article earlier this month:  "The rise of American authoritarianism":

 

To my surprise, the most compelling conclusion to come out of our polling data wasn't about Trump at all.

Rather, it was that authoritarians, as a growing presence in the GOP, are a real constituency that exists independently of Trump — and will persist as a force in American politics regardless of the fate of his candidacy.

If Trump loses the election, that will not remove the threats and social changes that trigger the "action side" of authoritarianism.  The authoritarians will still be there.  They will still look for candidates who will give them the strong, punitive leadership they desire.

And that means Donald Trump could be just the first of many Trumps in American politics, with potentially profound implications for the country.

 

Egads, "the first of many Trumps"...

 

[Delta 88 262]

"I support anything that destabilizes the Republic..." - unknown

Personally, I say sayonara to American consumerism and materialist culture (might as a little Marxist I know, but I like it)....

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It is clear that the pendulum has swung too far to the left and that there is now a powerful pull to the right.  Because political institutions have such great inertia, the G.O.P. is in self-destruct.  The first clear symptoms was the failure to suppress the TEA party, and now they've sewn the wind the whirlwind is upon them.

The strange thing is that the same thing hasn't happened to the Democrats, or maybe it has.  Feel the Bern.

This could well be the beginning of the end for the two party system, which is not part of the U.S. Constitution but an accident.  America needs more gadflies.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Oh please, let it be true.

Thing is, this strain of authoritarianism has always been present in the GOP, despite how they always seem to claim otherwise.  At least in the past 50 years or so. Only now is it finally manifesting itself.  It's probably most evident in the rise of the so-called christian conservatives (Christian with a lowercase c intentional), not coincidentally over the same time frame; you know, those people who cherrypick the Bible and whom if they were to unknowingly meet real-life Christ would probably castigate him as being a communist.  Spineless people whose actions show they love being told what to do and what to think and believe everybody else needs to be beholden to the same.

Let's also give thanks for their neoconservatism which has infiltrated both parties; an answer to a question that nobody asked.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Interesting response.  Now what about having a set of real political parties for the U.S.  Seems the parties of sweetness & light and light & sweetness have run their course.  If we take the political spectrum from left to right and from libertarian to authoritarian, how many parties of what stripe could be created and be able to field candidates? 

Canadian example: Liberals (currently in power with a majority) are basically tax and spenders.  Conservatives (just removed after a decade in the driver's seat) authoritarian, cost cutting, service cutting, and the last PM was not able to delegate.  New Democratic Party (NDP), also rans who came very close.  Socialist at the roots but tending to be left of centre.  Green Party of Canada (Greens) environmentalist, but a little too radical for most people.  Lots of sympathizers on the west coast, but only manage to elect one member to Parliament.  Bloc Quebecois (out an out Quebec separatists) would like to split the country into three with Quebec as an independent sovereign state.  A set of constipated old intellectuals who are fading from the scene after a near success a couple of decades ago. 

If I had my druthers, the BQ would be on trial for treason.  Just because we got lucky and defeated them in a key battle about  250 years ago, they still insist that they want to get their hands on the wheel.  The interesting thing about Wolfe and Montcalm is that both died at the end of the battle.  But Wolfe was already dying of TB (consumption) and Montcalm got caught with his guard down because one of his top commanders was asleep at the switch.  Meanwhile, we bend over backwards to keep these Francophones happy.  We consider them one of our founding peoples and as a result have both French and English as our official (legal) languages enshrined in the Constitution.  If Quebec should become a Dinghy of State it would be on the rocks pretty quickly IMHO.  They have become no more than a minor annoyance.

So there is a summary of our situation, a little slanted by my private view perhaps.  Now what should happen in the U.S. if the GOP and the Democrats managed to self-destruct or be overthrown by the people finally getting sick of them?  There are surely more political views deserving of higher profiles than they have now, but they keep getting suppressed by the top two.

[Delta 88 262]

12 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Interesting response.  Now what about having a set of real political parties for the U.S.  Seems the parties of sweetness & light and light & sweetness have run their course.  If we take the political spectrum from left to right and from libertarian to authoritarian, how many parties of what stripe could be created and be able to field candidates? 

Canadian example: Liberals (currently in power with a majority) are basically tax and spenders.  Conservatives (just removed after a decade in the driver's seat) authoritarian, cost cutting, service cutting, and the last PM was not able to delegate.  New Democratic Party (NDP), also rans who came very close.  Socialist at the roots but tending to be left of centre.  Green Party of Canada (Greens) environmentalist, but a little too radical for most people.  Lots of sympathizers on the west coast, but only manage to elect one member to Parliament.  Bloc Quebecois (out an out Quebec separatists) would like to split the country into three with Quebec as an independent sovereign state.  A set of constipated old intellectuals who are fading from the scene after a near success a couple of decades ago. 

If I had my druthers, the BQ would be on trial for treason.  Just because we got lucky and defeated them in a key battle about  250 years ago, they still insist that they want to get their hands on the wheel.  The interesting thing about Wolfe and Montcalm is that both died at the end of the battle.  But Wolfe was already dying of TB (consumption) and Montcalm got caught with his guard down because one of his top commanders was asleep at the switch.  Meanwhile, we bend over backwards to keep these Francophones happy.  We consider them one of our founding peoples and as a result have both French and English as our official (legal) languages enshrined in the Constitution.  If Quebec should become a Dinghy of State it would be on the rocks pretty quickly IMHO.  They have become no more than a minor annoyance.

So there is a summary of our situation, a little slanted by my private view perhaps.  Now what should happen in the U.S. if the GOP and the Democrats managed to self-destruct or be overthrown by the people finally getting sick of them?  There are surely more political views deserving of higher profiles than they have now, but they keep getting suppressed by the top two.

Well in the U.S. it has essentially worked like this: Having realized that the party in power is incapable of governing, the electorate votes the other party into power, only to rediscover that it too is incapable of governing. Rinse and repeat. "The two party system depends on the ability of one party to serve the corporate agenda when the other party is too discredited to do so." - Lance Selfa
"Government is the Entertainment division of the Military Industrial complex" - Frank Zappa

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

And here I was hoping for a proposed solution or two.  C'mon folks, you can do better than that.

Here's a Canadian historian with a cautionary tale.

If Americans think they are powerless to overturn the current mess, why bother to vote?

[Delta 88 262]

10 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

And here I was hoping for a proposed solution or two.  C'mon folks, you can do better than that.

Here's a Canadian historian with a cautionary tale.

If Americans think they are powerless to overturn the current mess, why bother to vote?

Well the article is correct. Even the leftist media that tears Trump apart, really just makes him more popular. Also you answered your own question. I used to advocate solutions to this mess, a long time ago. But the more politically alienated I became, as I became more knowledgeable about the inherently broken system - I've come to terms with it. It's kind of like getting a divorce. I don't hope for the best for America anymore, I'm so disgusted by what I see that I couldn't care less about how it all turns out. I just distance myself from it, and take notes. You could say that I'm a disappointed idealist, if you dug deep.

[matias93 7,535]

 

On 26-03-2016 at 9:16 AM, A Nonny Moose said:

It is clear that the pendulum has swung too far to the left and that there is now a powerful pull to the right.  Because political institutions have such great inertia, the G.O.P. is in self-destruct.  The first clear symptoms was the failure to suppress the TEA party, and now they've sewn the wind the whirlwind is upon them.

The strange thing is that the same thing hasn't happened to the Democrats, or maybe it has.  Feel the Bern.

This could well be the beginning of the end for the two party system, which is not part of the U.S. Constitution but an accident.  America needs more gadflies.

Just to make the point, party systems don't emerge accidentally (or at least, that's on what my thesis and future work depends, so let's believe it), but rather because of the combination of rules and ambient conditions. For example, as a general rule, so-called Westminster election rules (the ones used in almost every Commonwealth country) tend to generate two-party systems, because its rules favour marginal winners and make hard to get into parliaments with few votes in each district, even when parties get lots of votes nationally. Now, most traditional Westminster two-party systems have evolved to become multipartidist (even the original one), but is not because the rules have changed, or the relation have became false. In almost each case, new parties have thrived using "majority-minority" districts to assure seats, instead of battling nationwide campaigns as underdogs. The best example? The surprising victory of the Scottish National Party in the last UK elections. The same example also shows the other cause of the aforementioned change: as the traditional parties have accustomed to the benefits the system gives them, they have adjusted their strategy to exploit it. This resulted in mainstream political parties trying to reduce their ideological differences to a minimum, trying to captivate the 'median voter', and despising any radical ideology, or minority position. The success of the UKIP shows how a party can capitalize on the 'depolarization' of the mainstream parties, in that case not by making a tactical advance (getting seats), but instead an strategical one (influencing the voters on issues and forcing mainstream parties to go along their agenda).

All this matters for the US party system? Yes, because their electoral system is basically a Westminster one, and their parties' elites became depolarized, just as the Tories and the New Labour were at the end of the 2000's, both embracing globalization (being it multiculturalism or offsourcing) and neoliberal spending patterns, at a degree their voters could not accept after the Great Recession.

Being as strange as the US is, the open primaries prevented outsiders as Sanders or Trump the need to create a party of their own (now is clear they had the means to do it), but the differences end here: you have the angry nationalists, driving the main right party to an isolationist stance, the young leftists -headed by an old-school marxist- making "entrism" in the main left party, a renewed strength of the geographical and demographical polling (with a chance of minority movements being electorally activated), and a general increase of populist tactics, aiming at more government action, whatever the issue is (even in shrinking government!).

Could this result in a seventh party system? It is tempting to say so, but the most realist scenario of such change, which is getting a national-popular republican party and an liberal-capitalist democratic party, is hard to foresee considering the demographical limitations: populist voters are clearly split into young left liberals and middle-age to old conservative nationalists, so the party elites could 'jump' to compatible issues to keep this people polarized, and their current alignements viable. Anyway, the generations' war couldn't stay for long, and eventually some change has to occurr. Maybe the best option to make it happen without tearing apart the US society is to change the rules, and promote that all those groups get organized by themselves, thus creating political parties, that get compelled to ally each other to make government work. But, of course, that is asking the United States to dismiss their almost 250-years-old political system and copy the western european model, something that is harder to imagine than a real state mogul and a fringe marxist competing -with the establishment behind them- to become the leader of the free world.

____

EDIT: There were a lot more than two typos! (and there are surely more now). Thanks for the feedback, this is the only place where I can get native engish speakers to read my textwalls, learn a language only from non-native speakers is harder than it sounds.

  Edited March 29, 2016 by matias93  
i'll correct the typos when i get enough time - first attempt, done.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

^ There are just enough typos in the preceding article to suggest the poster should re-edit it.  If this is the basis of thesis work, it is time to slow down a little.  The whole thing is probably well thought out, but needs better expression.  The text would not get past me if I was the student's grad supervisor.

[matias93 7,535]

5 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

^ There are just enough typos in the preceding article to suggest the poster should re-edit it.  If this is the basis of thesis work, it is time to slow down a little.  The whole thing is probably well thought out, but needs better expression.  The text would not get past me if I was the student's grad supervisor.

Luckily, I have to write my thesis in spanish, and hopely, in a keyboard with all their keys (not like this 1997 poor old thing).

[Jasoncw 11,946]

6 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

^ There are just enough typos in the preceding article to suggest the poster should re-edit it.  If this is the basis of thesis work, it is time to slow down a little.  The whole thing is probably well thought out, but needs better expression.  The text would not get past me if I was the student's grad supervisor.

^ There are just enough curmudgeonly condescending comments in the preceding post to suggest the poster should re-edit it. If this is the basis of positive social interaction, it is time to slow down a little. The whole thing is probably well thought, but needs better expression...

You're not his thesis adviser, but I *am* your moderator...

[Hikapunk 3]

I may not be as politically educated, but I plan to vote Sanders. I've been more on the left for a while now, being a former conservative, mainly because I believe in things many GOP supporters don't support, or at least I've seen (such as gay rights [which I am gay], net neutrality, better wages/living conditions, and so on). I don't support Hillary though, as I still believe that someone who sets up an e-mail server in her own house and sends classified and confidential info off it, alongside the handling of Benghazi and whatnot shows she's not very competent to be a good president IMO. This is my first election too, and it is a historic one, which that is how I feel. Feel free to interject if I put some incorrect info, as I said, I'm not as politically educated.

[Delta 88 262]

16 hours ago, Jasoncw said:

^ There are just enough curmudgeonly condescending comments in the preceding post to suggest the poster should re-edit it. If this is the basis of positive social interaction, it is time to slow down a little. The whole thing is probably well thought, but needs better expression...

You're not his thesis adviser, but I *am* your moderator...

You and A_Nonny_Moose are being rather ambiguous, but I'm arriving at the conclusion that you're referring to me here.

 

I should edit my post simply because you don't like my opinion? I violated no rules. I was not, or at least not trying to sound, condescending or "curmudgeonly". I'm a joyful individual who enjoys happy, long relationships with my friends and family, and I don't hate people. I love being alive and in this time in history. That being said, however, I do have a low tolerance level for insipid mediocrity and stupidity, that's true. Your post is so vague that I'm still trying to make complete sense of it, really. It sounds condescending to me...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

You should edit your post to fix the typos.  There are at least two, and I find this kind of carelessness distracting.  The topic is interesting, if difficult, and one should never publish material with errors in it.  The fact that you have English as a Second Language suggests that you didn't use the spell checker for English when you composed this. 

And having been retired from the academic world for over 15 years now, I find being called a curmudgeon somewhat refreshing coming from some young whipper-snapper.

As it stands, that original post is a candidate for the bottom of my bird cage.

[Jasoncw 11,946]

9 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

You and A_Nonny_Moose are being rather ambiguous, but I'm arriving at the conclusion that you're referring to me here.

I should edit my post simply because you don't like my opinion? I violated no rules. I was not, or at least not trying to sound, condescending or "curmudgeonly". I'm a joyful individual who enjoys happy, long relationships with my friends and family, and I don't hate people. I love being alive and in this time in history. That being said, however, I do have a low tolerance level for insipid mediocrity and stupidity, that's true. Your post is so vague that I'm still trying to make complete sense of it, really. It sounds condescending to me...

A_Nonny_Moose is lecturing matias93 about his "typos" while being dismissive of his intelligent and worthwhile contribution to this discussion. Don't worry you're completely good.  

7 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

You should edit your post to fix the typos.  There are at least two, and I find this kind of carelessness distracting.  The topic is interesting, if difficult, and one should never publish material with errors in it.  The fact that you have English as a Second Language suggests that you didn't use the spell checker for English when you composed this. 

And having been retired from the academic world for over 15 years now, I find being called a curmudgeon somewhat refreshing coming from some young whipper-snapper.

As it stands, that original post is a candidate for the bottom of my bird cage.

Simtropolis requires basic civility from its members, whether they're 13 or 79.

[Compdude787 916]

I don't think it's a good idea to comment on typos unless you can't understand what they're saying.

[Hikapunk 3]

38 minutes ago, Compdude787 said:

I don't think it's a good idea to comment on typos unless you can't understand what they're saying.

Exactly, for me it's more "as long as it's understandable, a few typos is OK".

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

And now, let us refrain from commenting on typos and return to the discussion at hand.  Thank you for your cooperation.

[Delta 88 262]

10 hours ago, Jasoncw said:

A_Nonny_Moose is lecturing matias93 about his "typos" while being dismissive of his intelligent and worthwhile contribution to this discussion. Don't worry you're completely good.  

Simtropolis requires basic civility from its members, whether they're 13 or 79.

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry if I was getting defensive there.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Perhaps I was being a little harsh.  That rather long post contains very interesting material and I maybe get more upset than I should be by minor errors.  As a thesis prequel is certainly has merit, but I do stand by my stance that typos are inexcusable since this is a permanent medium and can be viewed by anyone.  Lately there have been cases that have come to my attention where some young applicants were turned down for employment based on their facebook content.  Watch what you say, people can access your stuff, will you, nil you. 

As for 'lecturing', it is in my blood.  I taught various computer science subjects for about 15 years before I retired, and some first year students illiteracy and innumeracy made me very sad indeed.

But let us return to our muttons:  What do people think about the reported statement by Trump that he would not support a Cruz candidacy?  I believe I already saw a statement by Cruz that said he'd support any Republican nominee.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

49 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

But let us return to our muttons:  What do people think about the reported statement by Trump that he would not support a Cruz candidacy?  I believe I already saw a statement by Cruz that said he'd support any Republican nominee.

Well it depends on the context. If Ted Cruz gets the nomination after a brokered convention or they somehow steal it from Trump then I think it's reasonable not to support him. It's funny how the Republican establishment used the pledge to support the nominee as a way to control Trump but now that the shoe is on the other hand most of the people who took the pledge don't seem very enthusiastic to uphold it.

[matias93 7,535]

Well, now the convention is practically meaningless: all three candidates would look for a third-party nomination if losing the republican one. CNN has the quotes.

[Sabretooth78 808]

I don't know.  Judging by his business acumen, my gut tells me that it Donald Trump tells you not to do something, you drop whatever you're doing and do it.  Maybe not as quickly as if the Ditz from Wasilla told you, but quickly nonetheless.

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

...but now that the shoe is on the other hand....

That may be the most succinct description of the republican party that I have ever read.  Bravo!

Then again, it's still more reasonable than trying to get a glove on your foot.

1 hour ago, matias93 said:

Well, now the convention is practically meaningless: all three candidates would look for a third-party nomination if losing the republican one. CNN has the quotes.

Good.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

BBC editorial take on the Republican pledge.

So, if these guys all seek extra-party nominations, does that signal the formation of two or three new parties and the demise of the G.O.P.?

[madhatter106 3,922]

On 3/28/2016 at 5:06 AM, A Nonny Moose said:

^ There are just enough typos in the preceding article to suggest the poster should re-edit it.  If this is the basis of thesis work, it is time to slow down a little.  The whole thing is probably well thought out, but needs better expression.  The text would not get past me if I was were the student's grad supervisor.

Sorry, I couldn't help it...

[MintberryCrunch 83]

21 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

BBC editorial take on the Republican pledge.

So, if these guys all seek extra-party nominations, does that signal the formation of two or three new parties and the demise of the G.O.P.?

One can only hope...

But has this ever happened before where candidates went back on the pledge? It certainly seems like this election is pretty unique, which makes it all the more interesting to follow. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Here's some more follow up from BBC.

I suppose if you are across the pond, this could be considered to be humorous.  This is starting to sound like Admiral Farragut at the Battle of Lake Erie.  ("Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.")