United States Presidential Election 2012 MEGATHREAD
2,907 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37762917]but what about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]all[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]those[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]constitutional[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]reforms[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]that[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]happened[/url] that made the system more democratic and fair
[editline]22nd September 2012[/editline]
so i point out a flaw in a "democratic" system and i'm told to kill myself
ty[/QUOTE]
None of those really make the system more democratic. They just give people the illusion of more democracy.
Tell me when they outlaw lobbying, the electoral college, super pacs, and unlimited corporate donations.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37763092]None of those really make the system more democratic. They just give people the illusion of more democracy.
Tell me when they outlaw lobbying, the electoral college, super pacs, and unlimited corporate donations.[/QUOTE]
do you realise that in the beginning, voting was limited to just wealthy white landowners? the franchise has extended from the top 0.1% to everyone over the age of 18 who isn't insane or a prisoner or puerto rican. I'd say that's a substantial step in the direction of more "democracy". if you think things like super pacs and corporate donations are bad now then open a history textbook and see how bad things used to be.
[editline]22nd September 2012[/editline]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy[/url]
yeah we are not a perfect democracy
but at the same time, is there really such thing as a perfect democracy?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37764913]do you realise that in the beginning, voting was limited to just wealthy white landowners? the franchise has extended from the top 0.1% to everyone over the age of 18 who isn't insane or a prisoner or puerto rican. I'd say that's a substantial step in the direction of more "democracy". if you think things like super pacs and corporate donations are bad now then open a history textbook and see how bad things used to be.
[editline]22nd September 2012[/editline]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy[/url][/QUOTE]
Who cares if just white wealthy landowners get to vote if "our vote doesn't matter anyways", as you yourself put it?
Also, if wanting a functional democracy is unrealistic, in your mind, why the fuck should we even give a shit about the election anyways?
[editline]22nd September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=person11;37765258]yeah we are not a perfect democracy
but at the same time, is there really such thing as a perfect democracy?[/QUOTE]
We are not a functional democracy.
Call me an idealist, or a fucking radical, but I think it's possible to construct one.
You are right that we can make it much better, and that we are way behind other Western Countries in terms of Democracy, but its not like we are in some sort of RonPaulian Government Dictatorship 1984 nightmare.
[editline]22nd September 2012[/editline]
Like France is an amazingly awesome Democracy with very little restrictions to voting if any.
I got to vote online for the French Legislative Elections! I voted Socialist and it felt weird. The Republican guy won the post of Foreign French people though. French people outside of France tend to be more Conservative. A month earlier, I voted for the Center candidate in the Presidential election at the Consulate. And my vote counted because France does not have any stupidity in terms of Democracy.
The only problems with France are Government Debt and anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, etc.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37763092]None of those really make the system more democratic. They just give people the illusion of more democracy.
Tell me when they outlaw lobbying, the electoral college, super pacs, and unlimited corporate donations.[/QUOTE]
your entire argument is a "no true scotsman" fallacy
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37765428]Who cares if just white wealthy landowners get to vote if "our vote doesn't matter anyways", as you yourself put it?[/quote]
that's why i put democracy in scarequotes. in their own context, your own beliefs about democracy are self contradictory, it doesn't matter that I think they're just flat wrong.
[quote]We are not a functional democracy.
Call me an idealist, or a fucking radical, but I think it's possible to construct one.[/QUOTE]
do tell
[editline]23rd September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37765428]Also, if wanting a functional democracy is unrealistic, in your mind, why the fuck should we even give a shit about the election anyways?[/QUOTE]
i give a fuck about who wins because regardless of the selection process, they are the ones who have power delegated to them. i hope obama wins the election, and if the USA were overtly not a democracy and the next president were appointed by some other process, then i would still hope obama would win.
America is not a democracy.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37770740]your entire argument is a "no true scotsman" fallacy[/QUOTE]
Explain.
Because it's not.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37770841]that's why i put democracy in scarequotes. in their own context, your own beliefs about democracy are self contradictory, it doesn't matter that I think they're just flat wrong.[/quote]
How are they self contradictory? I believe people should be able to choose their leaders. We don't get to choose our leaders.
[quote]do tell[/quote]
About constructing a democracy? Well, a great start would be a social revolution and restructuring of our three branches. Outlaw corporate political donations, abolish the electoral college, and don't base every single process off of simple majorities and super majorities.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37771954]Well, a great start would be a social revolution and restructuring of our three branches. Outlaw corporate political donations, abolish the electoral college, and don't base every single process off of simple majorities and super majorities.[/QUOTE]
every other country achieved this through socioeconomic and political reform why can't the USA?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37771954]How are they self contradictory? I believe people should be able to choose their leaders. We don't get to choose our leaders.[/quote]
i was talking about extending the franchise
[quote]About constructing a democracy? Well, a great start would be a social revolution[/quote]
like all those other time when a social revolution worked, here's a list:
.
[editline]23rd September 2012[/editline]
and as for not basing decisions on simple majorities, can't you see how that's in a conflict with "I believe people should be able to choose their leaders"???
Everyone tune into the Presidential debates on Oct. 3, Oct. 16, and Oct. 22.
And make sure to vote Nov. 6.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37765428]
We are not a functional democracy.
[/QUOTE]
Alright why don't you stay on your couch and eat cheetos on Nov. 6th, tbh you're probably not even gonna vote anyways.
You clearly have no confidence in the system, and no confidence in the reform the rest of us are voting for.
Why are you even in this thread
[QUOTE=person11;37757429]It is weird to me that being a business man gives you more experience handling the largest economy in the world than someone who has been President for four years.
Also, in what crazy world is Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and LGBTQ Rights, not as important as "the economy"?
Look, I understand that economic growth is needed, but recovery cannot be spurred on by any single political figure. The only true solutions have been repeatedly proposed by Democrats and shut down by Republicans.[/QUOTE]simple for the economy, noone cares about anything else unless they have money in their pockets.
also, shortly after the election after this one THEN I will get my right to vote.
agh, damn timing.
The rights that minorities etc have is a heavy indicator for how much money they get in their pockets.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37772196]
like all those other time when a social revolution worked, here's a list:[/QUOTE]
Civil rights movement got the Jim Crow laws struck down.
There was also the Indian Independence Movement which was a largely social revolution as well.
Unionization and labor movements were social revolutions as well.
Social revolution has accomplished a fucking lot.
[quote]and as for not basing decisions on simple majorities, can't you see how that's in a conflict with "I believe people should be able to choose their leaders"???[/quote]
Um no, there is no conflict there unless you are simple-minded.
I said basing every process off simple and super majorities. People should have a say proportionate to how much a decision affects them. For example, a simple majority shouldn't be used when a decision would impact a minority group more heavily than the majority group.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37772702]Everyone tune into the Presidential debates on Oct. 3, Oct. 16, and Oct. 22.
And make sure to vote Nov. 6.
Alright why don't you stay on your couch and eat cheetos on Nov. 6th, tbh you're probably not even gonna vote anyways.
You clearly have no confidence in the system, and no confidence in the reform the rest of us are voting for.
Why are you even in this thread[/QUOTE]
This thread is about the American presidential election. I am talking about the American presidential election. Specifically, the electoral system.
That's on-topic and relevant.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37773037]Civil rights movement got the Jim Crow laws struck down.[/quote]
that was not a revolution.
[quote]There was also the Indian Independence Movement which was a largely social revolution as well.[/quote]
for all the good it accomplished
[quote]Unionization and labor movements were social revolutions as well.[/quote]
no, they weren't revolutions at all. they were movements. when people say "revolution" they mean [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution]stuff like this[/url] or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolution]this.[/url] a change in social attitudes is not a revolution, it's the norm.
Social revolution has accomplished a fucking lot.
[quote]Um no, there is no conflict there unless you are simple-minded.
I said basing every process off simple and super majorities. People should have a say proportionate to how much a decision affects them. For example, a simple majority shouldn't be used when a decision would impact a minority group more heavily than the majority group.[/quote]
but i don't really believe that people should have a say to begin with
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37773037]This thread is about the American presidential election. I am talking about the American presidential election. Specifically, the electoral system.
That's on-topic and relevant.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no, all you're talking about how you are not going to participate in it
you are literally devolving down the election discussion into "Why the fuck should we even give a shit about the election anyways?"
Completely tangential to actual purpose of the thread which is to discuss the 2012 election, specifically who you are going to vote for and why. Obama v. Romney.
guess what I'm trying to say is stop filling this page with your shit
1. no one cares about your stupid opinion of presidential elections
2. you aren't contributing to the discussion at hand
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37773300]that was not a revolution.
for all the good it accomplished
no, they weren't revolutions at all. they were movements. when people say "revolution" they mean [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution]stuff like this[/url] or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolution]this.[/url] a change in social attitudes is not a revolution, it's the norm.
Social revolution has accomplished a fucking lot.[/quote]
The French and Cuban revolutions weren't Social Revolutions.
Basically you are saying that social revolution hasn't been successful because you don't classify social revolutions as social revolutions.
That's a great fucking way to prove your point, change the definition of words so nothing contrary to your opinion can be stated.
[quote]but i don't really believe that people should have a say to begin with[/QUOTE]
So an autocracy is preferable to a democracy, then?
[editline]23rd September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37773388]
1. no one cares about your stupid opinion of presidential elections
2. you aren't contributing to the discussion at hand[/QUOTE]
1. no one cares about your stupid opinion of presidential elections
2. you aren't contributing to the discussion at hand
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37773451]So an autocracy is preferable to a democracy, then?[/quote]
well not exactly an autocracy but my reasons for not liking democracy are basically
[quote]1. no one cares about your stupid opinion of presidential elections
2. you aren't contributing to the discussion at hand[/QUOTE]
but applied to everyone
[editline]23rd September 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37773451]The French and Cuban revolutions weren't Social Revolutions.
Basically you are saying that social revolution hasn't been successful because you don't classify social revolutions as social revolutions.
That's a great fucking way to prove your point, change the definition of words so nothing contrary to your opinion can be stated.[/quote]
well sorry i assumed you were just putting the "social" adjective in front of revolution rather than using an actual reified term with capital letters.
either way your argument is circular. social revolution is basically just social change happening quickly, so all you're saying is that we can make social change happen by doing rapid social change.
Eh any argument about politics works for me & I am the thread lord or something.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37773562]
well sorry i assumed you were just putting the "social" adjective in front of revolution rather than using an actual reified term with capital letters.
either way your argument is circular. social revolution is basically just social change happening quickly, so all you're saying is that we can make social change happen by doing rapid social change.[/QUOTE]
I use the term social revolution because it is unique from violent revolution.
And you're missing the point when:
[quote]so all you're saying is that we can make social change happen by doing rapid social change.[/quote]
Is the point you are getting from what I've written. I'm talking about specific ways to make our system more just. Change for the sake of change won't get us anywhere. There needs to be direction.
are you sure?
how could you distinguish the two after the fact?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37775358]are you sure?
how could you distinguish the two after the fact?[/QUOTE]
Violent revolution tends towards replacing a government with another government very similar. This is because violent revolution is hierarchical, it is a top-down affair where the new society is dictated from a higher class of victorious revolutionaries. You replace the bourgeous with the managerial class, the royalty with the senators, the parliament with the dictator.
Social revolution is preferable because it seeks to change the very foundations of society. Instead of replacing classes and castes, it changes attitudes towards the system. This allows for a more radical change, and a change that everyone can be involved in, rather than the victorious revolutionaries.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37775491]Violent revolution tends towards replacing a government with another government very similar. This is because violent revolution is hierarchical, it is a top-down affair where the new society is dictated from a higher class of victorious revolutionaries. You replace the bourgeous with the managerial class, the royalty with the senators, the parliament with the dictator.[/quote]
but that isn't even historically accurate. yeah that tends to happen often but it's by no means necessary
[quote]Social revolution is preferable because it seeks to change the very foundations of society. Instead of replacing classes and castes, it changes attitudes towards the system. This allows for a more radical change, and a change that everyone can be involved in, rather than the victorious revolutionaries.[/QUOTE]
but why should this necessarily lead to anything good? you realise that like 50% of the population has an IQ below 100? what makes you think the vast majority of people are qualified to make grand decisions like that?
again:
[quote]I'm talking about specific ways to make our system more just. Change for the sake of change won't get us anywhere. There needs to be direction.[/quote]
once it's already happened how can you distinguish a random walk from a directed one? they'd both look like progress from that vantage point.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37775615]but that isn't even historically accurate. yeah that tends to happen often but it's by no means necessary[/quote]
It happens often enough that a different approach is preferable.
[quote]but why should this necessarily lead to anything good? you realise that like 50% of the population has an IQ below 100? what makes you think the vast majority of people are qualified to make grand decisions like that?[/quote]
What does that even mean? Who cares if 50% of people have an IQ that is below average. You obviously have no idea how an average works anyways.
It will lead to a society that is determined by the people who are part of the society. This is the only moral way to organize society. A dictatorship, whether by an individual or ruling class, is inherently coercive, and is immoral by design.
[quote]once it's already happened how can you distinguish a random walk from a directed one? they'd both look like progress from that vantage point.[/QUOTE]
You can't distinguish it if you don't have the ability to think critically. It is all the same if you think all change is the same no matter what. If, however, you care about freedom, economic prosperity, technological advances, and better standards of living, it is easy to analyze different types of change based on how they affect these criteria.
A change with direction just means you are trying to impact one of these important criteria in a specific way.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37775880]It happens often enough that a different approach is preferable.[/quote[
alright I'll grant that
[quote]What does that even mean? Who cares if 50% of people have an IQ that is below average. You obviously have no idea how an average works anyways.[/quote]
i know how an average works. if you have a symmetrical distribution of IQs with 100 as the average, then 50% of the population will be below 100. elementary.
this means that in a country of 300 million, 150 million will have IQs of 100 or below. i don't want that many stupid people to have control over society.
[quote]It will lead to a society that is determined by the people who are part of the society. This is the only moral way to organize society.[/quote]
there isn't a "moral" and "immoral" way to organize a society. you measure morality by its outcomes.
[quote]A dictatorship, whether by an individual or ruling class, is inherently coercive, and is immoral by design.[/quote]
no it isn't, it's only immoral if it leads to bad things happening. besides, by your own standards, collectivism is trivially immoral. if I disagree with what the rest of society wants me to do, then what happens? either i'm permitted to keep doing what I want to do (in which case it's the same as no judgment being passed at all) or I'm forced to conform to what society wants of me (which is coercive and therefore wrong). if you argue that your system there would be less coercion overall, then you're implicitly accepting that there are gradations of how bad coercive practices can be, so it isn't such a sacred value after all.
[quote]You can't distinguish it if you don't have the ability to think critically. It is all the same if you think all change is the same no matter what. If, however, you care about freedom, economic prosperity, technological advances, and better standards of living, it is easy to analyze different types of change based on how they affect these criteria.[/quote]
freedom is a buzzword, economic prosperity doesn't matter all that much in terms of hedonic psychology, technological advance isn't limited to liberal democracies.
[quote]A change with direction just means you are trying to impact one of these important criteria in a specific way.[/QUOTE]
but if it were a random walk, whichever criteria were positively affected will be retconned into being good things from the start, and vice versa for the things negatively affected. history is written by the victors.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37775990]i know how an average works. if you have a symmetrical distribution of IQs with 100 as the average, then 50% of the population will be below 100. elementary.
this means that in a country of 300 million, 150 million will have IQs of 100 or below. i don't want that many stupid people to have control over society.[/quote]
I don't consider a below average intelligence to mean stupidity considering there has to be below average people in any facet to set the bar. Also, I would rather stupid people have control over their own lives rather than smart people controlling it for them.
[quote]there isn't a "moral" and "immoral" way to organize a society. you measure morality by its outcomes.[/quote]
Yea, and I judge the lack of control over your own life to be a bad outcome.
[quote]no it isn't, it's only immoral if it leads to bad things happening. besides, by your own standards, collectivism is trivially immoral. if I disagree with what the rest of society wants me to do, then what happens? either i'm permitted to keep doing what I want to do (in which case it's the same as no judgment being passed at all) or I'm forced to conform to what society wants of me (which is coercive and therefore wrong). if you argue that your system there would be less coercion overall, then you're implicitly accepting that there are gradations of how bad coercive practices can be, so it isn't such a sacred value after all.[/quote]
Collectivism doesn't coerce people. It uses transparency and voluntary participation. Also, it doesn't matter if you do something the rest of society doesn't like as long as you are not imposing your will on others.
[quote]freedom is a buzzword, economic prosperity doesn't matter all that much in terms of hedonic psychology, technological advance isn't limited to liberal democracies.[/quote]
Freedom is a buzzword, but it's also improperly used most of the time. I'm not talking about freedom the same way a capitalist or a dictator or a liberal talks about freedom. I'm talking about self-determination at its core, the ability for a society and an individual to decide their own fate rather than having it thrust upon them by an external force.
I believe that is an incredibly virtuous goal for any group of people to have.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37776298]I don't consider a below average intelligence to mean stupidity considering there has to be below average people in any facet to set the bar. Also, I would rather stupid people have control over their own lives rather than smart people controlling it for them.[/quote]
why
(also the alternative to stupid people controlling their lives isn't necessarily smart people controlling them)
[quote]Yea, and I judge the lack of control over your own life to be a bad outcome.[/quote]
but why should it be? why not judge by happiness and unhappiness?
[quote]Collectivism doesn't coerce people.[/quote]
inherent contradiction
[quote]It uses transparency and voluntary participation.[/quote]
more buzzwords
[quote]Also, it doesn't matter if you do something the rest of society doesn't like as long as you are not imposing your will on others.[/quote]
contradictory and assumes that there has to be some kind of intentional coercion. if i violate social norms, even in a way that doesn't impose my will on others, society [I]will[/I] shame me through steadily increasing punishments as my transgression increases in magnitude. this gives de facto coercive power to the high-status individuals who shape cultural norms.
[quote]Freedom is a buzzword, but it's also improperly used most of the time. I'm not talking about freedom the same way a capitalist or a dictator or a liberal talks about freedom. I'm talking about self-determination at its core, the ability for a society and an individual to decide their own fate rather than having it thrust upon them by an external force.
I believe that is an incredibly virtuous goal for any group of people to have.[/QUOTE]
it's a virtuous goal but it's not a terminal one. you should only grant people freedom (lol) if you're reasonably certain they'll be happier and better off.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.