in the coming US presidential election, i think i favor...

[silverwhisper]

cuz i'm shocked there isn't such a thread on page 1. and yes, those of you not eligible to vote in this election for whatever reason, feel free to chime in anyway.

as always, my answers later, yadda yadda yadda...



p.s.: hi guys!

 

[Hypoxia]

This would be more appropriate on the Politics Board.

 

[silverwhisper]

it would, but not everyone frequents it.

 

[fire_breeze]

cuz i'm shocked there isn't such a thread on page 1. and yes, those of you not eligible to vote in this election for whatever reason, feel free to chime in anyway.

as always, my answers later, yadda yadda yadda...



p.s.: hi guys!

Hi Ed!

Can non-Yanks chip in? Because your neighbours north of the 49th are following this very closely. Shaking our heads at times, but following closely nonetheless.

 

[Hypoxia]

Well, if you really want my opinion... What I favor is an impossibility, a working political system. A rule of Systemantics says complex systems always operate in failure mode. They can be patched and kludged but eventually they fall prey to entropy: "Everything put together, sooner or later falls apart." The USA system is disintegrating. This tends to happen after major upgrades in communications technology give pols new ways to distract and enrage voters.

Lacking a working system, I favor another impossible fantasy: Sanders as President, loss of GOP control of both houses of Congress, and admission by the right-wing propaganda machine that they've been lying for decades. Hah.

What I *dread* is the likelihood the GOP nominally retains control of Congress while corporate whore Clinton, or corporate pimp Tromp, or even Sanders takes the White House (doesn't really matter which). None would get much cooperation from polarized legislators. Any would depend on executive orders and out-of-session appointments to accomplish anything, especially with a short Supreme Court.

What do I *really* favor? A clusterfuck contested GOP convention in Cleveland, with the party honchos changing the rules to dump Tromp and draft Ryan or whomever. Tromp's supporters riot; GOP 'leaders' are savaged; the convention collapses into chaos. Tromp (secretly a Dem agent) will have succeeded in destroying the GOP. Go Donny!

 

[Eilan]

The Democrats could nominate an Inanimate Carbon Rod (In Rod We Trust) and I'd still vote for it over anything else that's being offered.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I predicted for 2 years we'll get a fascist and its coming. Ed will be at a re-education camp sewing I SARAH PALIN berets.

 

[Real_American7]

my choice dropped out, you insensitive clod!

I wanted Rand Paul... but I'm voting for Donald Trump.

I'd rather have David Clarke, but he's busy being a sheriff.

I predicted for 2 years we'll get a fascist and its coming.

Don't worry, Hilary won't win.

 

[Hypoxia]

Don't worry, Hilary won't win.

She might not even reach election day. She could be indicted. Vote-counting superdelegates could desert her for Bernie. USA could suffer an election-canceling October Surprise / Disaster. Falling space debris or meteorite or speeding semi-truck might hit her campaign bus.

Assuming she survives politically past the Dem convention, we'll have a match of Machine v. Momentum. Hillary is plugged into Big Money and a huge ground operation. Tromp has minimal organization and liquid cash but a huge populist groundswell. Hillary's campaign will lie a lot; Tromp's will lie exponentially more and nastier. The GOP's Dark Money trolls will spend a shitload on anti-Clinton attacks, dredging up every real and fake scandal. That's the game.

Will standard 'campaign' tactics (ad v. counter-ad, attack v. retaliation) work in 2016? Will the Machine prevail? (Whoever spends most on the presidential race, wins.) Remember: Tromp's groundswell has a pushback, a majority of USAnians who find him intolerable. Hillary is nearly as reviled, but still...

Cthulhu in 2016. Why vote for the lesser evil?

 

[lovecraft68]

The Democrats could nominate an Inanimate Carbon Rod (In Rod We Trust) and I'd still vote for it over anything else that's being offered.

I agree the rod would be a better choice, than the lying, murdering unethical wretch married to a walking sex offender currently leading the Dems.

I'd vote Sanders if he pulled it out-which he won't.

Which leaves me with Trump.

 

[midwestyankee]

I find it impressive that so many people think that it validates their intelligence when they make claims about a politician when they have absolutely no first-hand knowledge that supports the claim. Delusion is strong in this country.

I'm not sure I could support an inanimate object for President, but I could completely get behind a good stuffed donut if it were running as a Democrat against any Republuican.

 

[Hypoxia]

<===

I find it impressive that so many people think that it validates their intelligence when they make claims about a politician when they have absolutely no first-hand knowledge that supports the claim.

That "first-hand knowledge" hurdle is hard to jump. We live vicarious lives. Much of what we 'know' arrives from afar on magic beams of media -- print, broadcast, online, etc. Most of us lack extensive personal contact with political figures. Whew. But we *must* form political judgments from insufficient or distorted or faked data falling like manna from Heaven.

I have run and edited conspiracy-paranormal-UFO sites, and read and written much on conspiracy-theory fetishes. I see our media environment as a classic model of disinformation -- an onion. Each layer of skin holds purported 'truth'. Peel away a layer to find another, different 'truth' underneath. Peel away that layer, and the next, and the next. Finally, reach the center, the core of truth -- but there's nothing there. Any 'truth' is hidden elsewhere.

Knowing this doesn't make me feel smarter. It makes me feel used.

 

[LIVINRFANTASIES]

I'm not sure I could support an inanimate object for President, but I could completely get behind a good stuffed donut if it were running as a Democrat against any Republuican.

At least I wouldn't mind stuffing my inanimate rod in a donut hole.

 

[midwestyankee]

<===

That "first-hand knowledge" hurdle is hard to jump. We live vicarious lives. Much of what we 'know' arrives from afar on magic beams of media -- print, broadcast, online, etc. Most of us lack extensive personal contact with political figures. Whew. But we *must* form political judgments from insufficient or distorted or faked data falling like manna from Heaven.

I have run and edited conspiracy-paranormal-UFO sites, and read and written much on conspiracy-theory fetishes. I see our media environment as a classic model of disinformation -- an onion. Each layer of skin holds purported 'truth'. Peel away a layer to find another, different 'truth' underneath. Peel away that layer, and the next, and the next. Finally, reach the center, the core of truth -- but there's nothing there. Any 'truth' is hidden elsewhere.

Knowing this doesn't make me feel smarter. It makes me feel used.

Imagine the events of your own personal and professional life, Of course there's a truth there. Either you went to the movies on March 10th or you didn't. No amount of obfuscation and media-like mis-reporting could change that truth. Put another way, either HRC contributed to the death of Vince Foster or she did not. There is a truth and to suggest otherwise is irresponsible.

I am of the opinion, due largely to having lived a pretty long life already, that most of us have largely established our character by the time we reach our early 20s. I know many people who went to school and church with HRC while she was growing up and I'm confident that their assessment of her character is a helluva lot more soundly based in reality than that of some flak with a professional need to promote right-wing political causes by doing damage to left-wing political actors. Thirty years of being on the wrong end of political flackery will put a lot of layers on the onion you describe. But there IS a truth under there.

 

[SCcouple1990]

Like n he last several elections I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate. I'll wonder why people will vote for the two parties that put us in he mess we are in.

 

[monanympho]

I want Trumpet

 

[pete]

I want Trumpet

i'd rather listen to that than to him.

 

[Hypoxia]

Like n he last several elections I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate. I'll wonder why people will vote for the two parties that put us in he mess we are in.

I think the last time I voted for a major-party presidential candidate was Carter in 1976. But I was young and naive then. Now I'm older and naive. Since 1976 it's been Peace & Freedom or Green or other rad-lib alternatives. No DemoGOP has been worth my vote.

EDIT: Would you rather vote for what you want and not get it, or vote for what you don't want and get it?

 

[midwestyankee]

Like n he last several elections I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate. I'll wonder why people will vote for the two parties that put us in he mess we are in.

In case you haven't noticed, Congressional legislation works largely by majority vote. As only two political parties have any chance of aggregating enough votes to get anything done, it seems more effective to vote into power legislators who both share my views (which may be more extreme than the median party member's views) and identify with one of the two powerful parties than to hope that someday a small army of princes will arrive on unicorns to fight off the legislators in power. As a constituent with a vote and a voice, I can do my part to rally fellow-believers behind policy ideas and influence my legislators. If there's no one in Congress who comes even close to my views, I won't have anyone to influence who might then represent me to my liking.

 

[silverwhisper]

fb quoth:
hi ed!

can non-yanks chip in? because your neighbours north of the 49th are following this very closely. shaking our heads at times, but following closely nonetheless.

howdy!

FWIW, a lot of your neighbors to the south are also shaking our heads at times. :>



hypoxia: i'm familiar with entropy, but the problem to me with the theory is the word "eventually". i'm not convinced that it's possible to recognize when we've hit that point until that point is distant in the rearview mirror.

 

[Hypoxia]

hypoxia: i'm familiar with entropy, but the problem to me with the theory is the word "eventually". i'm not convinced that it's possible to recognize when we've hit that point until that point is distant in the rearview mirror.

I was rather loose with the term. Think of it as forced entropy -- too many pressures for the system to handle. The founders hated partisan politics but soon fell into partisanship. Now we have a party that won't play the game, won't compromise for the sake of governance. My way or the highway, turdburger. The system falls apart. Forced entropy, yeah.

GOPs painted themselves into this impossible corner with their hate-fear-lies propaganda machine feeding bullshit to their followers. If non-GOPs are evil swine (as portrayed by that machine) then any compromise is capitulation. Any GOP attempting compromise i.e. governance will be ripped to shreds by the party's bloodthirsty weasels. And the vicious cycle tears the nation apart.

None dare call it treason.

 

[ValeriioN]

Mine dropped out. I only know one person who consistently votes Libertarian.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Is this classed under How To fuck up a country? Bad enough stuff like this spills out of the politics container in to the GB.

 

[Hypoxia]

Is this classed under How To fuck up a country? Bad enough stuff like this spills out of the politics container in to the GB.

And here to HT Cafe. Notice that I suggested (post #2) that this thread should be on the PB. OP sez not enough eyeballs go there, so it's here. Sigh...

 

[dystracted]

I hope Trump will make it as a candidate, because then the election will be a home run for the democrats...