heywood on 25/5/2016 at 18:28
Quote Posted by icemann
If Trump does win (which wouldn't surprise me honestly), it will be due to the fact that the public world over are sick of the traditional politician type. Which is exactly what Hilary is and Trump isn't AT ALL.
Over here in Australia we're currently in the middle of an election period and the public is split between 2 camps. Labor and Liberal. Both are lead by a-typical political types. Public's response? For the opinion polls to pit them both neck and neck with many people not liking either of them.
At least in the US you have someone who is completely different to that. Hence the appeal.
I moved to Australia after Turnbull lost to Abbot and left before he took the leadership back, so I don't know what he's like as a party leader. But after living through the three years of Julia Gillard vs. Tony Abbott, it's hard to imagine Shorten and Turnbull being worse.
It wouldn't surprise me either if Trump wins. Assuming he moderates his mouth a bit, his tax returns don't turn into a scandal, and there are no significant third party challenges, he has a good chance.
Pyrian on 25/5/2016 at 18:36
Quote Posted by heywood
Each system/era was dominated by two parties...
Right. You can change what the two parties are, but without fundamentally changing how the voting system works, it will always converge towards a two party system.
Quote Posted by heywood
I think we are due for a political realignment.
I'm not seeing the potential for a genuinely useful total realignment. I mean, we're in the middle of a quite substantial realignment occurring entirely within the Republican party - and it's ugly as all get out, has been for some time, and appears to be getting worse. The 60's saw a huge realignment of the two parties. Sanders (and Warren for that matter) are showing at least some potential for a reform of the Democratic party. My view is that it's a lot more productive to work within the system or even to try and change the system, but simply breaking the system and hoping something better emerges? Too likely to backfire horribly. And if you
don't break it, welcome to team Greater Evil.
Quote Posted by heywood
My point is that if you're unhappy with the Rep and Dem candidates and the way these two parties are governing, but you vote for them anyway, then you are the root cause of the problem. You get the government you deserve.
Hopelessly simplistic. The "root cause of the problem"
doesn't go away if I don't vote against it's effects. I just make it more powerful than it deserves.
Let's say, for instance, that Gary Johnson wins and the libertarian party succeeds the Republican party. Congratulations - the Koch brother's pet side project is now running the country wholesale instead of through proxies. Power of wealth loses what few checks it had, which is basically all they ever wanted. What does this help?
Here's the thing: I
don't think the parties are the problem, in any fundamental sense. Shattering the parties would not remove the brazen racists, it wouldn't remove the moneyed special interests. At most they'll just change clothes.
heywood on 25/5/2016 at 21:07
I'm not suggesting that *you* vote for Gary Johnson, I'm suggesting that libertarians (and those leaning that way) should vote for Gary Johnson.
And the point of voting for the Libertarian party is not really to elect Gary Johnson president. That's highly unlikely to happen. The point is to cleave off a big enough chunk of the Republican base so that the party is no longer a viable competitor in its current form and will have to modify its platform and form a new coalition. The party might respond by pivoting its platform away from social conservatism and towards greater race and ethnic inclusivity. That's just one hypothetical.
And if the new Libertarian party somehow replaced the Republican party (unlikely), it would not be David Koch's utopia because there aren't enough libertarians in the country to make that happen. For it to get that big it would have to represent a broader coalition of interests that just libertarians.
Likewise, on the left, if disaffected Bernie supporters were to get behind Jill Stein or some other progressive candidate, that might seal the fate of the current party leadership and pave the way for progressives to take over the DNC from the New Democrats.
There is also a possibility (however small) that somebody like Bernie could form a new party uniting elements of the Democratic and Republican base around economic equality issues, trade protection, and an end to military interventionism. The Republican party has a lot of voters who are economically moderate to liberal but socially conservative. If the Republican Party were to pivot away from social conservatism, and the new party aligns with their economic interests, they might jump ship. It would also make a natural home for union members who haven't been happy with the New Democrats. Just another hypothetical.
But if you're always going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter how shit they are, then don't complain when the DNC doesn't give you a candidate you like. They're not going to chase voters they already have in their back pocket.
bjack on 26/5/2016 at 00:39
Vote for me and I promise to lay waste to all lands, except those that recognize Thief as the law of the land. Once the Earth is purged of 99.999999999999% of its human population, the real power struggle will start. Since I have guns, I am already in the running for top dog, but i do see that some are younger, stronger, and maybe slightly less inebriated.
Otherwise, my vote is none of your business. That is why is it s secret ballot. I will say I will not vote for Dracula (aka Hillary). I am not happy with Trump. I may write someone in. Maybe me. Maybe you.
For all of you that are not US citizens... stay the FU(% out of our politics, OK? You piss all over us when we comment on your crap. It’s none of your business. Take it and love it. Yes, you love it... Don’t you? Cheeky monkeys, you all.
What, can’t take a joke? Find it offensive, or worse, just sad and pathetic. Well screw you too. :)
Love and kisses... BJack And the blocking expands... ;)
icemann on 27/5/2016 at 08:59
Quote Posted by heywood
I moved to Australia after Turnbull lost to Abbot and left before he took the leadership back, so I don't know what he's like as a party leader. But after living through the three years of Julia Gillard vs. Tony Abbott, it's hard to imagine Shorten and Turnbull being worse.
To give a quick run down of the current stuff over here. Shorten is MUCH better than Julia Gillard, but not as good as Rudd was. On the lib side, Malcolm Turnbull is MUCH better than Abbott and comes across as a far better leader all round.
The trouble with the 2 parties being:
* Shorten is a half half leader but the actual parties policies going into the election are good (marriage equality, acting on climate change, making the large companies pay their taxes, get rid of negative gearing to improve housing costs).
* Turnbull is an excellent leader but his party policies are horrible going in (tax cuts for the wealthy, no action on climate change, deregulation of university costs).
So when you take all into account, neither has major public appeal. Hence everything being neck and neck.
heywood on 27/5/2016 at 14:13
Quote Posted by icemann
To give a quick run down of the current stuff over here. Shorten is MUCH better than Julia Gillard, but not as good as Rudd was. On the lib side, Malcolm Turnbull is MUCH better than Abbott and comes across as a far better leader all round.
The trouble with the 2 parties being:
* Shorten is a half half leader but the actual parties policies going into the election are good (marriage equality, acting on climate change, making the large companies pay their taxes, get rid of negative gearing to improve housing costs).
* Turnbull is an excellent leader but his party policies are horrible going in (tax cuts for the wealthy, no action on climate change, deregulation of university costs).
So when you take all into account, neither has major public appeal. Hence everything being neck and neck.
Well, sounds like things have improved. At least the news cycle isn't full of Tony Abbott constantly putting his foot in his mouth, with Julia Gillard playing the sexism card as often as she could because that was all she had left going for her.
I feel like I'm going to be re-living it through the general election campaign here in the US. Donald Trump runs off at the mouth and prior to this campaign he had made being an asshole into his personal brand. There's enough tape of Trump mouthing off at women to give Clinton plenty of campaign fodder. And with high negatives, you can be sure that Hillary Clinton will make all of it she can. She probably has her misogyny speech already written.
icemann on 27/5/2016 at 14:39
Truth be told Abbott was a male chauvinist and a complete lunatic, and his party wasn't that much better at the time. Since Turnbull's come along some good changes have come with it. Still not the party I'd vote for, but each to their own.
I'd call myself more of a Greeny, though I only agree with half of their policies (marriage equality + more action on climate change) and don't agree with the rest (allowing illegal immigration via boats which = deaths at sea), so I dunno.
With the US you have a fair bit of illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico which Trump is completely against, so similar lines there.
Tony_Tarantula on 30/5/2016 at 13:52
Quote Posted by icemann
If Trump does win (which wouldn't surprise me honestly), it will be due to the fact that the public world over are sick of the traditional politician type. Which is exactly what Hilary is and Trump isn't AT ALL.
Over here in Australia we're currently in the middle of an election period and the public is split between 2 camps. Labor and Liberal. Both are lead by a-typical political types. Public's response? For the opinion polls to pit them both neck and neck with many people not liking either of them.
At least in the US you have someone who is completely different to that. Hence the appeal.
Exactly. It's less about Trump and more about anti-government sentiment. He's just the lightning rod.
It's a global trend as you pointed out:
Inline Image:
https://armstrongmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/EU-Third-Party-Movement-BBC.jpgQuote:
Trump will win because Americans are idiots. Not all, but most. I'm prepared to argue this fact. Bring it
Not entirely that simple. Trump is extremely good at communicating with Idiots. Read Scott Adam's analysis of Trump. He was one of the few pundits who called exactly what was going to happen back when everyone else was scoffing and saying that Trump's run was just a publicity stunt.
The other reason that he's going to win is that Hillary is a TERRIBLE candidate. She's got no people skills, an almost unprecedented amount of corruption attached to her name (I could fill several posts just listing scandals + a short sentence describing them), and no clear platform other than "I deserve it because I served in [insert the blank] position".
Not to mention her campaign is borderline incompetent. Whereas Trump is using fairly advanced NLP techniques in his campaigning and using them well, Hillary's camp is doing retarded things like putting out bumper stickers that say "Love Trumps Hate". I guarantee you that most people's minds isn't interpreting it that way but rather as "Love Trump's Hate".
That said, if you think Hillary's such a great candidate.....Read through these emails. She is directly responsible for the current refugee crisis in Europe due to her involvement in destabilizing Syria and Libya(
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/)
(
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328)
What you're looking for is a discussion where they say that they're trying to help Israel, and that Israel wants Assad overthrown because they're concerned that the Assad regime's then growing military power could pose a threat to Israeli dominance in the region.
Tony_Tarantula on 30/5/2016 at 14:02
Also here's a random tidbit from them just for those of you who think the idea of Social Media propaganda is just "paranoid tinfoil hattery"[sic]
Quote:
From: Ross,Alec
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 12:31 PM
To: Shannon, Thomas A
Cc: Chapman, Todd C
Subject: Marcelo Tas
Tom, Small thing I thought you would find of interest; you've heard me talk about how we should cultivate "social media influencers" for the purpose of validation and amplification of our message. Embassy Brasilia set up a coffee for me and Marcelo Tas during my brief trip to Brazil in April. Very positive visit. This morning, I pushed out some Syria-related content on Twitter. Tas picked up on it, built in a Portuguese translation, and then disseminated to his nearly 2 million followers on Twitter. That then ricocheted around Brazilian social media circles where it was further amplified so that literally millions and millions of people in Brazil (perhaps 10M+) have read the content we pushed out. More importantly, they don't think of it as something the USG is pushing out, but rather Marcelo Tas. In translating and disseminating the content himself, he became its publisher and validator. It's a small thing, but a good thing; an example of how to use "networks" for local amplification and validation. My best, Alec Alec Ross Senior Advisor for Innovation Office of the Secretary of State (202) 647-6315 [email]RossAJ@State.gov[/email]
faetal on 30/5/2016 at 14:52
Just out of interest - who thinks social media propaganda is paranoid tinfoil-hattery? I don't think I've seen anyone here say that and I was under the impression that it was obviously something which happened - the the extent where no one would disagree it does.
