posted by QuakerOats

 

Good to know you favor conspiracy, collusion, corruption, and cover-ups at the highest levels of the “Justice” Dept., the FBI, and the DNC.  It appears the enemies within are more numerous than one might think. 

they are numerous and this goes back decades.  DC is a circular swamp.  Electing a none politician is a good thing, we are flushing it out.  We need to elect more in the future that dont have their lifeline connecting to DC.

posted by QuakerOats

Good to know you favor conspiracy, collusion, corruption, and cover-ups at the highest levels of the “Justice” Dept., the FBI, and the DNC.  It appears the enemies within are more numerous than one might think. 

Oh, look.  Someone who disagrees with Quaker is an actual enemy.

Ahh yes, the GOP....the totally moral, law-abiding side. LOL

posted by Spock

they are numerous and this goes back decades.  DC is a circular swamp.  Electing a none politician is a good thing, we are flushing it out.  We need to elect more in the future that dont have their lifeline connecting to DC.

This isn't even close to currently happening.  Wtf are you watching?  If you actually want this to happen, start voting for third party members.  As long as we keep allowing the GOP and DNC take turns fucking shit up, nothing will change. 

No doubt both sides have been immersed in the swamp and become intoxicated with $$$.  However, we are finding just how corrupt, collusive and conspiratorial one side has been for the last ten years, and this is SOLELY due to the election of Trump, and the perseverance of certain republicans. 

posted by O-Trap

Oh, look.  Someone who disagrees with Quaker is an actual enemy.

It's good to see that the RNC spent the last couple weeks giving their bots a good tune-up to make them more hysterical and prone to histrionics on a daily basis, explaining why he was gone for awhile and why he came back even more rabidly insane than usual.

posted by like_that

This isn't even close to currently happening.  Wtf are you watching?  If you actually want this to happen, start voting for third party members.  As long as we keep allowing the GOP and DNC take turns fucking shit up, nothing will change. 

This. Neither the GOP nor the DNC are worth shit -- just two collections of super-rich people taking turns running the show. Anyone who legit cheers for one (as opposed to the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, which is merely misguided) is either an idiot or someone who is profiting off big politics.

posted by Heretic

This. Neither the GOP nor the DNC are worth shit -- just two collections of super-rich people taking turns running the show. Anyone who legit cheers for one (as opposed to the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, which is merely misguided) is either an idiot or someone who is profiting off big politics.

People keep saying that, but there's no evidence that 3rd/multiple parties would make things any better.  Most of the countries in Europe have multiple parties, and are more socialist and running larger deficits than the US.

No, the solution is to get rid of the incumbents who don't do the job.  The problem is not that America doesn't have a 3rd party, the problem is it doesn't hold its politicians accountable.

The problem is the federal government is at least twice the size it should be.

posted by gut

People keep saying that, but there's no evidence that 3rd/multiple parties would make things any better.  Most of the countries in Europe have multiple parties, and are more socialist and running larger deficits than the US.

No, the solution is to get rid of the incumbents who don't do the job.  The problem is not that America doesn't have a 3rd party, the problem is it doesn't hold its politicians accountable.

Agreed. A good number of the members of Congress either run unopposed or in a District so safe that is essentially a no contest. You also have a rise in the number of primaries, but normally those pull the incumbents further away from the middle and more toward the base. As a result, the people who do win the primaries are either way too far left or right and then either get trounced or win unopposed. Thus the cycle continues, but each side pulls further and further apart. 

There is rarely actual middle of the road accountability for incumbents. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/29/canadas-trudeau-says-nafta-deal-possible-by-friday.html

Cannot recall an elected official delivering on so much, so soon, as Trump has; remarkable considering the daily rancor from the left and the media.

posted by gut

People keep saying that, but there's no evidence that 3rd/multiple parties would make things any better.  Most of the countries in Europe have multiple parties, and are more socialist and running larger deficits than the US.

No, the solution is to get rid of the incumbents who don't do the job.  The problem is not that America doesn't have a 3rd party, the problem is it doesn't hold its politicians accountable.

Here's why I think more than two parties makes that a more realistic option, though:

With our two parties, at least in the current climate, how does that typically go?  How does one hold politicians accountable?

They usually vote in a candidate from the other party.

What happens when the candidate from the other party ALSO doesn't do the job?  We end up playing a game of hot potato with the candidates, and the campaigns end up just pointing out how the other's track record makes them less likely to do the job.

As it stands, if the incumbent hasn't done the job, I have exactly one response in a general election: vote for the one other guy.  What if I don't have any confidence in the other guy's ability or willingness to do the job?  I end up playing the, "Well, at least X is not Y" game.

More than two candidates doesn't inherently solve that problem, but it provides more options, which inevitably increases the possibility that I believe ONE of the people up for office will do the job.

With only two parties, though, many are forced into the notion that if they wish to vote for 'not A', they must vote for 'B'.  We essentially force ourselves into an unnecessary dichotomy, and one that provides us with basically one question: Which is better, the poison you know or the poison you don't?

posted by like_that

This isn't even close to currently happening.  Wtf are you watching?  If you actually want this to happen, start voting for third party members.  As long as we keep allowing the GOP and DNC take turns fucking shit up, nothing will change. 

Trump is the closest thing to a 3rd party as we have gotten.  

Term limits solve a lot of this

posted by QuakerOats

And yes, the tax code is over 2,000 pages, and it takes another 70,000 pages to explain those 2,000 pages. 

BURN IT, and eliminate the IRS.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/30/newt-gingrich-trump-keeps-racking-up-victories-despite-liberal-medias-desperate-efforts.html

Nice summary of some of the many wins ……..key takeaway: Trump is willing to endure (tremendous) heat to achieve success, unlike actual politicians.

Micron Technology To Spend $3 Billion To Expand Plant In Virginia.

The AP (8/29) reports Micron Technology “is making a $3 billion investment in northern Virginia to expand its manufacturing facility and add 1,100 jobs.” Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said that the decision Micron “to expand its Manassas facility is ‘one of the largest manufacturing investments in the history of this commonwealth’ at a groundbreaking ceremony Wednesday.” The company “decided to expand its existing facility in Manassas after considering offers from competing domestic and international locations, including Singapore.”

Thankfully we have created an atmosphere where we welcome business investment in the US.  What a far, far cry from the days of “You didn’t build it”.

$3 billion is a lot of cheddar

posted by Spock

Term limits solve a lot of this

Term limits solve nothing. Exhibit A is the Ohio General Assembly. It is worse than Congress. 

posted by BoatShoes

Term limits solve nothing. Exhibit A is the Ohio General Assembly. It is worse than Congress. 

I actually agree with this.

posted by O-Trap

I actually agree with this.

More candidates and multiple parties absolutely doesn't matter when voters are stupid and/or disinterested.  Heck, one party would work just fine if voters picked the best candidate, and the best candidates knew they could win.

The reason money wins campaigns is because voters are dumb.  Giving the voters more options doesn't fix that.

You are in the minority .

posted by gut

More candidates and multiple parties absolutely doesn't matter when voters are stupid and/or disinterested.  Heck, one party would work just fine if voters picked the best candidate, and the best candidates knew they could win.

The reason money wins campaigns is because voters are dumb.  Giving the voters more options doesn't fix that.

This operates on the premise that voters are stupid.  That's fair enough.  However, part of what seems to cause so many to vote the way they do is because of the perception that there are only two options.  Functionally, as it has played out, that's been true.

If that's no longer true, they still may be led to vote for the person who pontificates the best or debates the most dishonestly.  A stupid voter will still make a stupid vote, but of the things that influence the stupid vote will NOT be the self-imposed false dichotomy, raising the potential that the vote is less stupid, if only incrementally.

Frankly, I don't mind your idea of one party (which would functionally be no parties ... which was intended as far as I can tell).  I'd prefer that, in fact.  But we categorize everything, whether out of laziness or expediency.  If I am an "evangelical," that's just a faster way to tell you a lot of things about me at once.

Granted, one can be categorized without being an official party, but while I'm sure that's true conceptually, I'm not sure we could ever get it to stay that way practically.  As such, I think parties are somewhat inevitable in politics.  That being the case, I'd argue that it should essentially be open season for parties, with no one getting any sort of federally sanctioned leg up over another.  I realize how hairy that might get, when you have 12 candidates for the presidency, all from a different party, and that one could conceivably win a general election with significantly less than half the vote.  At this point, though, I'm not sure that's worse than the "only A or B" setup we functionally have now.

posted by O-Trap

This operates on the premise that voters are stupid.  That's fair enough.  However, part of what seems to cause so many to vote the way they do is because of the perception that there are only two options.  Functionally, as it has played out, that's been true.

We don't have to speculate - there are many democracies with multiple parties, and there is absolutely no evidence they function better. 

You're not changing anything voting 3rd party - that's the political equivalent of virtue-signaling.  Elections are about getting your base to vote, and their base to stay home.  3rd party voters are viewed the same as people who don't vote - ignored and irrelevant.

posted by gut

We don't have to speculate - there are many democracies with multiple parties, and there is absolutely no evidence they function better. 

You're not changing anything voting 3rd party - that's the political equivalent of virtue-signaling.  Elections are about getting your base to vote, and their base to stay home.  3rd party voters are viewed the same as people who don't vote - ignored and irrelevant.

Eh, as far as I can tell, you can't help yourself to any given other nation as an accurate test case.  There are virtually innumerable cultural and historical differences that taint such a one-to-one parallel.  It's the same reason you can't look at Japan's gun laws and try to apply them here expecting the same result.  Too many other variables at play.

And regarding voting for third-party, you kind of illustrate my point here.  If we assume, as you suggest, that third-party voters are viewed the same way as people who don't vote, and people who go to the voting booths place a high priority on their vote "counting" (I'd argue it still doesn't matter that much), they're probably going to vote for a major candidate, and this assumption becomes part of what perpetuates the unnecessary dichotomy.  The dichotomy, in turn, makes the assumption true.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Moreover, the fact that you can honestly say (and I agree with you) that at the present time, you don't change anything by voting third-party is effectively taking a portion of the population who did take every bit as much civic action and making them irrelevant without justifiable cause.

Frankly, how much would say is changed by voting for one of the main two parties?  Doesn't seem like much there either.

How you've framed elections is, it seems, pretty accurate, but I'd argue that's hardly what we should settle for or view as a wash with any other system.  When you only have one other candidate, campaigns can be run much more effectively on a platform as simply being 'not the other guy'.  When you have 2-3 other possibly viable candidates, you see campaigns swing more to emphasize the virtues of voting FOR a candidate as opposed to against the other candidate.  Hell, that's what we see through most of the primaries.  When there's a field, campaigns have to distinguish their candidate instead of trying to smear other ones, not to mention the fact that there would theoretically be an increased pressure to perform while in office, since you'd have more candidates offering to do what you don't/cant' in office, and it won't work to just try to campaign against one of them in a reelection bid.

Shoot, it really can be viewed as similar to talent pools in athletics.  You got two guys trying out for QB?  You might get a good one, but odds of you getting a good one are better if you have those same two plus ten others.

As for calling it the equivalent of virtue-signaling, I'd only agree if you're intending to make your vote known.  Otherwise, there's no "signaling."  But I get your point.