The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins] (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=362353)

Genegerbread July 14th, 2016 5:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamol (Post 9320461)
If I understand you correctly, Genegerbread, I noticed the following trend in your reasoning:

- For the issues where republicans have had (what you think is) a bad record (e.g. LGBT issues, global warming)- Trump wouldn't follow their footsteps because after all, he's a moderate.

- For the issues where republicans have had (what you think is) a good record (e.g. limited government spending on education, strong border control)- Trump would follow their footsteps because after all, he's a conservative.

And this is where Trump apologetics gets ad hoc. I don't blame you, this trend is supported by the campaign he's run. Trump has adopted so many different policies in each and every issue that it's very difficult to tell what his actual beliefs are. One moment he talks about bombing the families of terrorists, the other he seems to talk in favor of isolationism (a point on which Hillary has attacked him). One moment he talks about the harms of Obamacare, the next he seems to weigh in in favor of universal healthcare (see this link- an analysis of an answer given during a debate). One moment he says women who abort should be punished, the next he speaks in favor of transgender rights. Because of this, it's easy to just associate him with whatever position one favors. If you listen to his debate answer on healthcare, it's just about ambiguous and confusing enough to appease everybody- regardless of whether you're an economic conservative or liberal.

And this is the whole problem. We don't know who Trump is. We don't know his real positions. He's using a party platform, but as you pointed out, it's virtually impossible to predict how closely his policies would match that of his party's. He's a moderate, but seeing how quickly he changes his positions, it's hard to know how much of a break his policies would be from the background. We simply don't know what he's gonna do or what to expect from him. People who celebrate him can map their own political and social policy ideas on to him, but at the end of the day, none of us are the wiser.

One other thing- Trump's campaign is all about encroaching on people's rights. Your argument against this was based on the conservative limited government idea, but Trump doesn't subscribe to that. He has threatened to bring back the Libel laws against media, and the list of people he wanted to sue include the owner of Amazon and Washington Post, Supreme court justice Ruth Bader because she criticized him, and- get this- The Onion for satirizing him. The first amendment isn't a thing that exists under his potential presidency. So let's not use the conservative ideas to defend Trump where he has most explicitly deviated therefrom.

I really appreciate you seeing part of the point here. In my opinion, I feel that Trump is in the middle of this. He's definitely switching around, but seeing how he's running his campaign really got to me. He's always concluded his positions on things, and what he truly stands for is on his website. He's definitely pro-life, as he doesn't want living creatures to be killed, but any conservative (besides for the super-conservative Ted Cruz) would probably say that it shouldn't be aborted unless the mother or baby are in harm's way, or if it were a case of incest, rape, or things that revolve around that subject. He's a very interesting candidate, and he's certainly not perfect. To be honest, though, we should give him just some slack. He's a businessman who didn't make his career politics, and he's already doing better than Hillary in so many ways. I have faith in the guy, and I think he's just a big teddy bear, but his actions are taken because he doesn't know how elections work too much when you're a presumptive nominee, let alone a candidate. Once he becomes the nominee, he'll get things rocketing off. People like him because he's not a part of the whole political thing, and you don't really see him involved in corruption except for the biased media reporting falsely accused information about something he did, yet it's probably extremely exaggerated. I like how you think. c;

Entermaid July 14th, 2016 5:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9321227)
While Pence is more or less a safe choice for Trump, he doesn't really offer anything new to the table (as far as I know) other than being your generic, conservative Republican. But maybe a bit of normal is what Trump might be going for, after all. Certainly a very interesting move.

I think that was his goal. He wants the middle-class/upper-middle-class/upper-class conservative voters who have or are contemplating going over to the Clinton camp. Clinton is a neoliberal-elite, whereas Trump's political campaign is a working-class right-wing populist movement. Populism scares traditional neoconservatives more than a candidates who is slightly left of center, yet maintains an elitist mindset.

These voters fear a tyranny of the majority happening under a Trump regime because it harms their own interests (though I think it harms many non-conservatives' interests, mine included). As a progressive who values the balancing of tension between socialism and libertarianism, it makes Trump marginally better as a candidate selecting an "establishment" candidate -- don't get me wrong, I still think he is the most dangerous candidate for the presidential office ever, but there is something to be said for those on the fringe (5%), especially in battleground states where Clinton is losing ground rapidly if he is able to get those mainline neoconservatives voting for a slightly tempered populist movement.

Shamol July 18th, 2016 10:31 AM

I'm no fan of Trump (as my previous posts in this thread demonstrate), but Hillary's new attack ad may just be her most ineffectual one yet. Listen to Kyle Kulinski's breakdown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfPlEta-VF0

Netto Azure July 18th, 2016 4:49 PM

This has been a fun day, Colbert's little stunt


....and the last gasp of the anti Trump forces in the Republican Party xD

gimmepie July 19th, 2016 2:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genegerbread (Post 9320401)
Boop

Sorry for the delay, finally getting back to you now xD

Quote:

(1). The Clinton campaign is very corrupt, but not compared to the sense that she used her personal e-mail for classified information alone. The fact that she lied about it, but it was stated by the Director of the FBI that she had indeed used her personal server to store classified information is very stupid, but when you lie about it, that's something that's corrupt. I understand how the wealthy usually control the government, but throughout the campaign, I couldn't have been the only one to notice how diverse he is from the rest of the field. Trump has held his consistent argument for years that he's tired of seeing what's happening to the country. He really didn't want to run in the first place, and he would be so much happier if he didn't have to run. Seeing the destruction that has been placed upon our country is what caused him to initiate his campaign.

You could, at a stretch, call Hillary lying about what she did corruption. It was dishonest and it was aimed at personal gain. Of course, a more accurate description would be "good politics". The information getting out would hurt her campaign and give a very dangerous opponent more ground to stand on, so it makes perfect sense to try and keep it covered up.

Trump doesn't flip-flop to please the wealth because he is the wealthy. He already shares a lot of their narrow-minded conservative beliefs and can afford to fund his own campaign anyway if he wants to say something they don't like. It has nothing to do with integrity.

Yes, Trump has maintained the same argument for years but it's still a terrible argument. Maintaining a bad argument for years might make you consistent but it does not make you a better leader than someone who can adapt and compromise.

Trump is an egotist with a bad attitude this "I didn't want to run, I had to" is part of his campaign. It's a narrative that he's spinning to help his campaign, not the truth. There is no way a narcissist like Trump, the kind of person who thinks only they can "fix" their country, would do something they didn't think would benefit them personally or that they didn't want to do. He's lying to further his presidential campaign... wait hang on... what's that word that means being dishonest for your own gain that we're all throwing around?

Quote:

(2). As I said in (1), Trump has held a consistent argument for years, and it's very unlikely that he'd change this argument so abruptly in 2016. Sure, there must be some things you have to say in order to get some votes. You can't really have a chance without saying something to get some votes, but Trump wouldn't say something about the LGBT community, something that was purely implemented into our culture as something important, and something that he took time to carefully explain that the concept of the LGBT community is part of America, and it's part of who we are. Watch this video, and skip to 2:04 for his comment:



You can obviously tell he was being sincere. Sure, it doesn't completely prove he's completely open to the LGBT community, but I'm pretty sure this is pretty damn good, especially for a Republican.
I repeat, being consistent doesn't make you a good leader. But on that note, Trump has flip-flopped several times over the course of his campaign which is something that was heavily criticised by Hillary (as someone mentioned earlier). Not to mention that this talk of "the states should have decided" is clearly a poorly concealed attempt to stay true to the Republican platform without alienating as many liberals as he would if he was honest about the intention.

Quote:

(3). I'm sorry that I used amnesty in the context of helping homeless veterans. It's been a while, and I'm a bit rusty on some terms, so please excuse me there. I should've looked into that before I actually made that statement. Either way, we shouldn't be giving political pardon to those who are just entering our country illegally. The system of immigration was made for one reason, and that's so citizens from other countries can enter this country legally in order to become a citizen of the United States. Again, I apologize for my misunderstanding of that term.
It's not always easy to just up and move to another country. Excluding the hoops people have to jump through and institutionalised racism in the republican party/US in general, their own counties can be huge issues. Lack of income, war and/or internal political problems are huge issues that can prevent people from immigrating legally - that's why people immigrate illegally in the first place. People who are fleeing hell for your country shouldn't be persecuted like criminals. They should definitely be granted amnesty.

I'm all for strict immigration laws/rules. Temporarily segregate people coming in illegally by all means. Use that time to run background checks, teach English and provide education/training. Then integrate into society. That's strict but not unreasonable so long as said immigrants are made comfortable. But what people like Trump suggest is cruel and ridiculous.

Quote:

(4). I understand how that part of illegal immigration works, but we're always seeing illegal immigrants jumping the fences. The arrivals from Mexico have dropped eighty percent, but the amount of illegal immigration has only dropped eight percent. Trump is going to have to work something out with the Mexican government, of course. The former President of Mexico was on Bill O'Reilly, and he spoke about how the Mexican government and Trump should make some type of deal. Sure, he isn't in power anymore, but this is just going to show that Trump is a very intimidating man, and the Mexican people are seeing how he totally destroyed the race to become the Republican nominee. The Mexican people don't want an embargo, which Trump could very well threaten to do if they don't compromise with him.
There's a lot of illegal immigration because the world is full of war, corruption and discrimination and adding fuel to that fire is not going to change that. It's just going to make another messed up country.

Trump isn't intimidating, he's dangerous. He's like Hitler but not a good politician. Seriously, the way Trump talks about Islam and immigration is really similar to the way Hitler started out in politics... minus the good economic policy and charisma.

Quote:

(5). The Republican Party believes that education should be up to the local government. It's ridiculous to judge a whole state and give that entire state the same stuff. Sure, there must be standards, as you can't run an educational system without some sort of state or federal standards, but with my firsthand experience of Common Core, what it is is a waste of money. Nobody is learning from this, and more than one of my teachers have admitted that it's a useless program. Local governments should govern education, not state governments (primarily). If local governments govern education, then they can specify the material that needs to be made in order for students to learn what they must. It's so much simpler and easier, it's more effective, and it's not as much money.
Fracturing the education system is one of the shittiest ideas in a long and sad history of shitty ideas. We had a fractured system here which lead to massive gaps in education whenever someone moved to another state which caused them to struggle which limited options for employment or future study. Teachers had to work their asses off to get those kids up to speed. This was just by state. You're suggesting that we split that further, giving that power to local governments? As in, cities and towns. Do you know how often people move to new cities/towns in the US? That is a surefire way to ruin education in your country. I thought republicans wanted to create more jobs not systematically destroy things until nobody at all is left capable of any job requiring a well-rounded education.

As for common core, I'll say it again. The problem is obviously with the content, not the implementation.

Quote:

(6). The Republican Party constantly denies global warming, which I too dislike very much so. I do have hope that Trump will accept it and do something about it. Him being a moderate, he could very well see the situation. He also listens, believe it or not. He listens to the people who are in support of him. If he becomes President, I'm sure there'll be more than one request stating that there should be something done about global warming, because it's getting to the point where it's unhealthy and dangerous for our country, as well as our world.
Trump is moderate when he suits him and conservative the rest of the time. Hoping he'll see sense is like hoping to win the lottery... without entering. Assuming Trump will listen to the advice and warnings of more educated people just to please voters is equally foolish, when at all has Trump indicated he would listen to anyone smarter/more knowledgable/more experienced? After all, he has quite a "good brain"... if you believe him (I don't).

Quote:

(7). As I said before, we'll definitely need some sort of educational basis nationwide or statewide, but the local government should be the ones tweaking their own districts to where they think it's best for their students.
Already explained why this is a terrible idea. For once my area of study has proved helpful here xD

Quote:

(8). I agree with you that more often than not people are simply unable to work. I'm just saying that there still are about 300 million people in the United States, and a lot of people out of this huge population will play the system. The minimum wage is here for a reason. Maybe tweak it just a little bit, but to make the minimum wage like a full-paying job is absolutely ridiculous. I'm not sure how we'll do it, because there was the Bush administration and the Obama administration that totally destroyed our country in so many ways. We need to think of a way where those who are unable to work get what they need, but at the same time the minimum wage was created so small businesses could pay workers for primarily choosable shifts. Increasing this could easily make small businesses bankrupt. Businesses need relatively very little taken away from them in order to start trouble. I'm hoping some like Trump, a businessman, can find a solution. I think he can, becaus he's a businessman, and his success rate is in the high 90s.
The minimum wage should be able to cover basic independent living costs for an adult. If it doesn't cover that, it's not fulfilling its function. Minimum wage should be about ensuring citizens can afford to live, not about pleasing businesses.

Trump is an awful businessman, so I wouldn't hold your breath. He's bankrupted more ventures than I can count, knows nothing about the working class or below and has actually lost a huge chunk of the money he was left. He was born into the world of the rich businessmen, he didn't have to learn sense because the good life was provided to him on a silver spoon. Trump's business models are more likely to drive the US' economy even deeper into the ground than to fix any problems. Becoming even more capitalist is the way to make things worse, not to improve things.

Quote:

(9). Trump does not want to enroach on people's rights. In fact, a conservative government usually leaves the citizens to themselves. A liberalized government sort of controls you in a way. Living in a time with a conservative government would be very ideal, as you wouldn't have the government always looking over you, and you'd have the freedom to take your responsibilities into your own hands. We don't need gun control, either. Sure, there must be some sort of basis to control how people obtain firearms, but people with bad intentions who murder others usually obtain their firearms illegally. Successful crime would decrease because without such heavy gun control, more people who have good intentions would be able to obtain firearms and protect themselves from crime. Sure, Obama tried to clean up Bush's screw-ups, but he did it in the worst way possible. Trump has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, and that's such a small amount compared to the amount of businesses he actually owns, as I stated in
Trump would very much like to shit on the 1st amendment by creating mass media censorship and ignoring the constitution's statements about freedom of religion. He also wants to further increase surveillance a la the Patriot Act (but worse). Not to mention he's openly racist and sexist. Tell me again how he isn't encroaching on peoples' rights.

God I hate anti-gun control rhetoric. More people with guns won't reduce crime it will make them easier to commit. It's not hardened criminals who go nuts and shoot up a school it's people who are tired of being bullied and see no other option, who have had one too many bad days at work or who decide to make a Trump-esque political statement with bullets instead of words. Tell me, if a child in a schoolyard hits another with a stick, do you take away the stick or give sticks to all the kids and hope that they won't start hitting people willy-nilly too? If you're even remotely invested in safety, you take away the stick.

Quote:

His opinion about the Bible is definitely not going to sway him to make decisions for our country based on it, knowing how diverse religion is in our nation. Either way, Trump isn't a politician, and hates to be called one. He's a businessman, and even if he becomes the President, he still won't consider himself a politician.
Yes, Trump is clearly very open minded when it comes to religion... vilifying and targeting an entire religion is a huge part of his campaign. He does not care much for diversity, religiously or racially, and will continue to act against that diversity as long as he is able. Not to mention his own religious views clearly will effect his politics since he insists the bible be treated as a 100% factual historical document over other religious texts. He wants it taught as such in schools. The man is an idiot.

I don't much care what he considers himself, he's a politician and he became one the minute he started playing politics. In fact, the fact he refuses to call himself a politician pretty much proves he doesn't understand how politics works and does not speak in favour of him at all.

Quote:

I'm enjoying this argument. No harsh feelings, right? c:
Of course not, there's no point in people getting butthurt over a perfectly civil debate.

Kanzler July 19th, 2016 2:36 PM

Melania Trump plagarizes Michelle Obama's 2008 speech:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288381-experts-one-in-a-trillion-chance-melania-trump-speech

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-speech.html

Quote:

Here are the relavant passages:

Ms. Trump, Monday night:

From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life, that your word is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise, that you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily lives. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievements is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.

Mrs. Obama, in her 2008 speech:

“Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them. And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”

Ms. Trump:

“I was born in Slovenia, a small, beautiful and then-Communist country in Central Europe. My sister, Ines, who is an incredible woman and a friend, and I were raised by my wonderful parents. My elegant and hard-working mother, Amalija, introduced me to fashion and beauty. My father, Viktor, instilled in me a passion for business and travel. Their integrity, compassion and intelligence reflects to this day on me and for my love of family and America.”

Mrs. Obama, in 2008:

“And I come here as a daughter — raised on the South Side of Chicago by a father who was a blue-collar city worker and a mother who stayed at home with my brother and me. My mother’s love has always been a sustaining force for our family, and one of my greatest joys is seeing her integrity, her compassion and her intelligence reflected in my own daughters.”
Interestingly enough, no one has so far been fired. This implies that the one who wrote the speech is unfirable, and reflects badly on those close to Trump.

Shamol July 19th, 2016 3:52 PM

Secular Talk's Kyle Kulinski covers the Melania Trump story beautifully. Link.

In summary: an instance of plagiarism is the last thing we should be talking about when it comes to the RNC, not with all the Benghazi exaggerations and fear-mongering and Trump worship that's going on.

[Sorry I keep linking to episodes of Secular Talk, but he covers virtually all noteworthy stories in the election season, and his analyses of politics are usually spot on]

Aeroblast July 19th, 2016 4:27 PM

at the risk of sounding like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, I think the little bit of plagiarism was intentionally put there by the writer to put her speech at the media spotlight.

after all, it's not exactly unheard of the trump camp to generate controversy for attention.

Shamol July 19th, 2016 4:42 PM

Intentional or not, that's everything the sensationalist media is talking about now. No discussion on policy substance.

Thing is, this sort of media sensationalism is bad for everyone. It obviously bothers detractors like myself because the true negatives of the RNC aren't being covered. It's also bad for honest conservatives or republicans, who think their policy discussions should be given a place on the table. With all of this focus on non-issues, no side of the argument gets appropriate hearing.

Jon Stewart said it best- the mainstream news media* doesn't have a liberal or a conservative bias, their bias is towards laziness and sensationalism.

*Fox news is not mainstream media.

Ivysaur July 19th, 2016 10:23 PM

The thing is, Trump is not running a political campaign, he's running a reality TV campaign. He doesn't have any policy proposals other than building a wall with Mexico and speaking really vaguely about everything so people understand he's saying whatever they believe in already. As Genegerbread exemplified, by being vague you can get people to think "well, of course he's going to do (thing I agree with)" and "well, of course he is not going to do (thing I disagree with)", even when he's talked about both things in equally uncertain terms.

The last thing Trump wants is for the media to focus on his non-existent plans for the future and his weird mix of conservative/populist/centrist views- and the media is obliging. Seriously, between the outlets that were eager to say "Trump is now a normal candidate" and the ones who couldn't wait to splash "Trump is still a clown", nobody is talking policy- just as he likes it.

Shamol July 19th, 2016 11:05 PM

One good thing about Trump is how beautifully him and his campaign have exposed problems with the media as well as the general political discourse. It can supply our day to day news, but when it comes to big and complex issues- the six-second sound bite system can only manage so much. To a significant extent this has, and will continue to, contribute to the growth of alternative, internet-based media from both sides of the political spectrum.

Ivysaur July 20th, 2016 11:59 PM

This Convention is a shambles. It's glorious. Ted Cruz being given a prime time slot to diss Trump and ask people not to vote for him. His smile while the pro-Trump delegates booed him. This is amazing. This convention does not disappoint. Also I'm expecting his official campaign slogan to be "Trump-Pence: Lock Her Up!" at this rate.

Esper July 21st, 2016 10:03 AM

Stephen Colbert was right when he said that all the Republicans were passionate about one candidate: Hillary Clinton. They hate her more than they love Trump or loved any of their other former candidates. It doesn't matter how terrible Trump is, how much of a disaster their convention is, as long as the Republicans invoke Hillary that will fire up the base enough to go out and vote. I fear that the only salvation is if the same thing happens on the other side and everyone who doesn't like Trump votes to stop him regardless of how they feel about Clinton.

Shamol July 22nd, 2016 12:50 AM

So uh yeah our favorite media critic is back.



"I see you. And I see your bulls***."

Enjoy fellas.

Ivysaur July 22nd, 2016 1:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamol (Post 9333929)
So uh yeah our favorite media critic is back.



"I see you. And I see your bulls***."

Enjoy fellas.

Fixed the video link.

Also I think this article in The Atlantic is pretty scary... and pretty revealing: Hillary Clinton is running against Vladimir Putin

Kanzler July 22nd, 2016 1:39 PM

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisElection/videos/1229407267090761/

Does this look like a Nazi salute to you or what?

Me: it does.

Entermaid July 22nd, 2016 2:03 PM

I am surprised no one has posted about the new evidence in the alleged collusion between the DNC and the Clinton Camp via 20k leaked emails by top DNC officials. Not sure when people are going to wake up, but it may be too late once we are locked in with Clinton v Trump after the Clinton nomination if made official at the Convention. We may see a third party succeed; hopefully even better than Ross Perot did oddly during a Clinton Election year.

Screw the GOP and DNC, we need a libertarian and socialist two-party system. I'm sick of this garbage both parties spew without any source understanding of political theory such as negative and positive rights. It's an identity politics free for all, free from reasonability or the goal of reaching mutual recognition of suppressed voices of oppressed people. We are captured voters with not voice or autonomy of self. Institutions need to stop reproducing sexism, racism, and religious zealousness and allow us to be free thinking individuals with equal opportunity.


https://www.rt.com/usa/352752-dnc-leaks-clinton-collusion/

Netto Azure July 22nd, 2016 4:16 PM

Well Clinton just picked Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia as her VP pick. I wonder why is she choosing to lose a Purple State senate vote and shore up her right flank lol

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288582-clinton-picks-kaine-for-vp

Kanzler July 22nd, 2016 6:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entermaid (Post 9334798)
I am surprised no one has posted about the new evidence in the alleged collusion between the DNC and the Clinton Camp via 20k leaked emails by top DNC officials. Not sure when people are going to wake up, but it may be too late once we are locked in with Clinton v Trump after the Clinton nomination if made official at the Convention. We may see a third party succeed; hopefully even better than Ross Perot did oddly during a Clinton Election year.

Screw the GOP and DNC, we need a libertarian and socialist two-party system. I'm sick of this garbage both parties spew without any source understanding of political theory such as negative and positive rights. It's an identity politics free for all, free from reasonability or the goal of reaching mutual recognition of suppressed voices of oppressed people. We are captured voters with not voice or autonomy of self. Institutions need to stop reproducing sexism, racism, and religious zealousness and allow us to be free thinking individuals with equal opportunity.


https://www.rt.com/usa/352752-dnc-leaks-clinton-collusion/

all i have to say is ;;

I don't think people care enough. A lot of people just won't put any consideration towards those emails. It might have meant something had these shown up earlier in the primary, but now that the primaries are over Clinton's electoral victory is a fait accompli and there'd be so much inertia to even think of revising that.

Ivysaur July 22nd, 2016 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entermaid (Post 9334798)
I am surprised no one has posted about the new evidence in the alleged collusion between the DNC and the Clinton Camp via 20k leaked emails by top DNC officials. Not sure when people are going to wake up, but it may be too late once we are locked in with Clinton v Trump after the Clinton nomination if made official at the Convention. We may see a third party succeed; hopefully even better than Ross Perot did oddly during a Clinton Election year.

Screw the GOP and DNC, we need a libertarian and socialist two-party system. I'm sick of this garbage both parties spew without any source understanding of political theory such as negative and positive rights. It's an identity politics free for all, free from reasonability or the goal of reaching mutual recognition of suppressed voices of oppressed people. We are captured voters with not voice or autonomy of self. Institutions need to stop reproducing sexism, racism, and religious zealousness and allow us to be free thinking individuals with equal opportunity.

Sorry to say, but at this point, it's over. The only two options are Trump or Clinton, and either you vote for one, or you are allowing the other to win. I'm pretty sure all the people who voted Nader in Florida 2000 really wanted Bush as president.

And I fail to see how a libertarian-socialist two-party-system makes any sense. If the Libertarians win, they get rid of Social Security, remove all regulations in most sectors and take on the gold standard. Then the socialists win and they set Social Security back, plus a single-payer health care system, plus a ton of regulations and... do you realise how utterly insane all the swings would be? How much wasted time and money would be just doing that? In an economic sense, the less relevant Libertarians are, the better for all. Unless you are a billionaire who wants to see taxes gone, of course.

Entermaid July 22nd, 2016 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9335312)
And I fail to see how a libertarian-socialist two-party-system makes any sense. If the Libertarians win, they get rid of Social Security, remove all regulations in most sectors and take on the gold standard. Then the socialists win and they set Social Security back, plus a single-payer health care system, plus a ton of regulations and... do you realise how utterly insane all the swings would be? How much wasted time and money would be just doing that? In an economic sense, the less relevant Libertarians are, the better for all. Unless you are a billionaire who wants to see taxes gone, of course.

No. Sorry, but I find this post extremely devoid of critical thinking in providing a strawman analysis of libertarianism, along with an annoyingly patronizing tone with the line of questions which insinuate that I am a simpleton when I am a social science researcher.

You misunderstanding of the tensions built within two party systems (it is not completely overhaul). Do you think republicans and democrats unearth all policy the other has laid in place? No. Why are you making the libertarian socialist two party system to be a complete overhaul with each change in majority-minority? Please do not refute arguments with such inane claims without any justification; it's clear you dismissed the idea without any actual consideration provided how our current two-party system works. Why would it be fundamentally worse? Reasons? Any reasons? Or are you just going to claim that it would be radically different?

The two belief systems are not always in complete opposition, and it would not be politically expedient for a candidate to be far left or right on that continuum. One values negative rights, the other values positive rights, both forms of rights are commensurable and could balance each other through compromise. I think you fail to understand libertarianism which is the ability to exercise one's own value judgement without State coercion -- negative liberties. Such negative rights do not always come into conflict with socialist perspectives, and thus leaves room for consensus on certain issues -- i.e. LGBT rights and separation of church and state. It is a negative right to have church and state separate for instance; that does not necessarily impact positive rights concerned with socialism. In addition, within each camp, there would be disagreements as to how positive and negative rights are being represented in policy. As it currently stands, the two party's tend to have relativistic platforms that are not internally consistent. With few disagreements internally, as a result of group-thinking, we forgo arduous debate and critical thinking within parties.

Ivysaur July 23rd, 2016 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entermaid (Post 9335338)
No. Sorry, but I find this post extremely devoid of critical thinking in providing a strawman analysis of libertarianism, along with an annoying patronizing tone with the line of questions which insinuate that I am a simpleton when I am a social science researcher.

In addition to you misunderstanding of the tensions built within two party systems (it is not completely overhaul). Do you think republicans and democrats unearth all policy the other has laid in place? No. Why are you making the libertarian socialist two party system to be a complete overhaul with each change in majority-minority? Please do not refute arguments with such inane claims without any justification; it's clear you dismissed the idea without any actual consideration provided how our current two-party system works. Why would it be fundamentally worse? Reasons? Any reasons? Or are you just going to claim that it would be?

The two belief systems are not always in complete opposition, and it would not be politically expedient for a candidate to be far left or right on that continuum. One values negative rights, the other values positive rights, both forms of rights are commensurable and could balance each other through compromise. I think you fail to understand libertarianism which is the ability to exercise one's own value judgement without State coercion -- negative liberties. Such negative rights do not always come into conflict with socialist perspectives, and thus leaves room for consensus on certain issues -- i.e. LGBT rights and separation of church and state. It is a negative right to have church and state separate for instance; that does not necessarily impact positive rights concerned with socialism. In addition, within each camp, there would be disagreements as to how positive and negative rights are being represented in policy. As it currently stands, the two party's tend to have relativistic platforms that are not internally consistent. With few disagreements internally, as a result of group-thinking, we forgo arduous debate and critical thinking within parties.

The problem is that, while socially they may agree in several positions (which is fine), they both disagree in a fundamental basis for any country: the rationale behind the economic system and the function of the State. Socialists believe in a controlled capitalism where the State offers a welfare net including a basic income -or some sort of guarantee that everybody's most basic needs will be fulfilled-, a single-payer state-run healthcare system, a state-regulated pension scheme (SS) and a supervision on all sectors, setting rules and even taking stakes in strategic companies. All of that funded by proggressive taxes raised on the rich as a way to redistribute income and reduce inequality.

Meanwhile, the Liberarians advocate for the literal exact opposite: a reduction of the state to its minimum size possible. In their ideal world, the Government would limit itself to running a police, an army and a judicial system. In their platform, they support the end of all business regulation of any kind, a permanently balanced budget, a reduction of spending and taxes (including the repeal of the Income Tax, the single most proggressive tax existent), an end to Social Security, opening the country to free international trade with no restrictions, the end of "wage controls" (aka minimum wage), a "free market " health care system and end of support to the financial system (so if your bank fails, you lost all your money, end of).

As you can see, it's not that they disagree in some aspects, or in how high taxes should be, or anything. They fundamentally disagree on every single aspect, each one supporting the exact opposite solution for each problem. It's not that one side wants a marginal rate of 50% and the other wants 30%. One of the sides wants 50% and the other... wants to repeal the tax entirely. This brings a problem: either each party starts remaking the country in their image, swinging wildly from an extreme to the other every few years, or they end up looking for some fudge in the middle where both give up on some of their ideals in order to make a system that can be twitched leftwards or rightwards without leaving some agreed boundaries... essentially becoming Republicans and Democrats all over again.

Free abortion? Equal rights? Sure! But what ultimately matters to every person is eating three times per day, and that's where both sides disagree so radically that creating a system in which you have to choose between black and white every few years would be the political equivalent to schizophrenia. They are not two different visions inside the boundaries of the same mutually agreed system- they are oposing, competing systems in which the losing side cannot operate. How can a socialist party run in a country where taxes have been abolished, government reduced to its tiniest size and all welfare systems terminated, other than to end that system and remake it from scratch? How can a libertarian party exist in a system where the state runs 50% of the economy and everybody gets a basic income every month, other than to destroy it completely?

The Socialism Vs Libertarianism is a good debate for a society to have once in a generation- or in a century, more likely. Not one to have every four years.

Mewtwolover July 25th, 2016 4:17 AM

Florida 2000 comes immediately to mind when I read those, these might be pretty dirty elections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiggling Jigglypuff (Post 9316586)
my parents said to us that this Presidential Election has been a complete circus

They hit the nail, the US Presidental election is just a big show, it doesn't matter who you vote, it's still ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government) for the president.

Esper July 25th, 2016 10:20 AM

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has stepped down as DNC chair in the wake of the wikileaks emails that (in my view) show the DNC colluded with the media to make Sanders look bad and Clinton look good.

And the other day the DNC locked out a bunch of Sanders' delegates from the rules committee. The committee then voted not to change the power that superdelegates have in the nominating process. Wooo! Democracy! Way to show a unified party!

Entermaid July 25th, 2016 1:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9335360)
The problem is that, while socially they may agree in several positions (which is fine), they both disagree in a fundamental basis for any country: the rationale behind the economic system and the function of the State. Socialists believe in a controlled capitalism where the State offers a welfare net including a basic income -or some sort of guarantee that everybody's most basic needs will be fulfilled-, a single-payer state-run healthcare system, a state-regulated pension scheme (SS) and a supervision on all sectors, setting rules and even taking stakes in strategic companies. All of that funded by proggressive taxes raised on the rich as a way to redistribute income and reduce inequality.

Meanwhile, the Libertarians advocate for the literal exact opposite: a reduction of the state to its minimum size possible. In their ideal world, the Government would limit itself to running a police, an army and a judicial system. In their platform, they support the end of all business regulation of any kind, a permanently balanced budget, a reduction of spending and taxes (including the repeal of the Income Tax, the single most proggressive tax existent), an end to Social Security, opening the country to free international trade with no restrictions, the end of "wage controls" (aka minimum wage), a "free market " health care system and end of support to the financial system (so if your bank fails, you lost all your money, end of).

As you can see, it's not that they disagree in some aspects, or in how high taxes should be, or anything. They fundamentally disagree on every single aspect, each one supporting the exact opposite solution for each problem. It's not that one side wants a marginal rate of 50% and the other wants 30%. One of the sides wants 50% and the other... wants to repeal the tax entirely. This brings a problem: either each party starts remaking the country in their image, swinging wildly from an extreme to the other every few years, or they end up looking for some fudge in the middle where both give up on some of their ideals in order to make a system that can be twitched leftwards or rightwards without leaving some agreed boundaries... essentially becoming Republicans and Democrats all over again.

Free abortion? Equal rights? Sure! But what ultimately matters to every person is eating three times per day, and that's where both sides disagree so radically that creating a system in which you have to choose between black and white every few years would be the political equivalent to schizophrenia. They are not two different visions inside the boundaries of the same mutually agreed system- they are oposing, competing systems in which the losing side cannot operate. How can a socialist party run in a country where taxes have been abolished, government reduced to its tiniest size and all welfare systems terminated, other than to end that system and remake it from scratch? How can a libertarian party exist in a system where the state runs 50% of the economy and everybody gets a basic income every month, other than to destroy it completely?

The Socialism Vs Libertarianism is a good debate for a society to have once in a generation- or in a century, more likely. Not one to have every four years.

It's like you are describing the current system as ultra conservative vs an ultra liberal governance -- that is not how two-party systems work. Moderates usually win general elections, and purple states. In the case of libertarian and socialism, all individuals and states are purple in that all individuals values negative and positive rights. The form of libertarianism you are describing is not the form that would exist in a two-party system since other competitors who are moderates would defeat either extreme socialist or libertarians. You still keep avoiding the question as to how the current two-party ideologies are not complete overhauls, but rather just spouting off nonsense about complete ideological overhauls as if you completely dismiss the median voter theorem of two party systems. Will you at least address that rather than spouting non-sense that is not informed by any political science and theory literature? You keep going into a particularistic analysis based on this assumption, but NEVER ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ASSUMPTION. So, it's becoming a tiring discussion.

Currently, ideological platforms are unclear and thus voting habits rely upon identity politics -- not reason. Whereas, clear ideological commitments in a two party system would encourage two parties to capture the other party's votes, and provide reasons as to why it furthers a better balance between positive and negative rights. According to Duverger's law and the median voter theorem, parties tend to drift toward the center to capture more voters. However, his theory degrades in our current system as party polarization has ensued after the inclusion of women and non-whites in the political arena.

The two ideologies are not incommensurable. AS I stated twice, negative and positive rights are not necessarily in opposition, and often synergize with the other. For instance, progressive tax for a single payer system allows for cheaper healthcare costs, which in turn can facilitate greater negative rights freedoms.

The brand of libertarianism you seem to be describing is not consistent with political theory, and rather is a right-wing brand that is not consistent with furthering negative liberties. Have you read John Stuart Mill? He is a moral libertarian and a economic socialist. Those values need to be interrogated in the public eye. He would be considered a leaning Libertarian.

If you are going to continue to respond dismissively, please address this assumption of complete overhaul and AGAIN explain why the current system is superior or not to the one I propose based on political theory. Essentially, I argue that all people values positive and negative rights, and if a candidate is too extreme on either front and infringes upon one of them voters will not elect or reelect that politician. This system would keep policymakers more accountable since voters would have more choice and understand those choice rationally rather than from baseless ideological camps of neoconservatism and neopaternalist liberalism.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.