Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 285483 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15838
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2900 on: April 09, 2020, 07:48:00 AM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.

And I have never understood the line of logic you presented at least about the voting for a third party candidate. You're really telling me that you can't understand how someone could not ethically vote for either of two people given their perspective on them as people or their positions and live well with themselves afterwards? I can't understand how you can't understand that, lol.

I don't understand it because by voting 'ethically' for a third option, in our current system, you are simply ensuring that one of the other two 'more evil' options wins.  In which case your ethics have done nothing to actually reduce harm to others, or to try to move society to even a slightly better direction.  You threw all that away, along with any real effect your vote might have, just because you wanted to feel better about yourself.

Harm reduction is a real thing.  And the fact the people seem to think it doesn't apply to politics is honestly baffling to me.

For one, a person could see the two candidates as both being so evil that the differences are indistinguishable or roughly indistinguishable, i.e. does it really matter if this one person is slightly less evil than the other, I'm still having to support an extremely evil person or person who promotes policies I find as evil. The problem with taking your assertions as immovable facts is that there would truly be no end to it. You're denigrating people taking a moral stance of not supporting someone who is really bad with dismissive phrases such as "because you wanted to feel better about yourself." I don't think you really follow through with your line of logic in everyday life, or you would be on your guard 24/7 looking to mitigate harm generally/overall (and how you would define it would be extremely challenging). Is there really nothing you ever could not bring yourself to do that would mitigate harm for others?

I understand harm reduction is a real thing. I think that you are making a big stretch to think that people think it doesn't apply to politics. If I didn't think harm reduction applied to politics, I wouldn't have voted in almost any presidential election that I have been able to vote in since I was able to vote. It's not that people that think like me don't understand harm reduction. It's that we don't deify it into the overriding moral imperative.


Also important to note that a large number of Libertarians will vote third party.  Libertarians love Trump.  Not that he follows Libertarian ideology particularly well, but he provides a great validation of their theory of the total failure of all government in every situation.  I'd expect most Libertarians to smugly vote for a 3rd party candidate with no hope of winning and be secretly quite happy when Trump is re-elected for this reason.  Competent governance is (after all) the antithesis to Libertarian doctrine - so 'harm reduction' strategy is going to be roundly rejected by this crew.  They really want the least competent government in power.

Michael in ABQ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
    • Military Saints
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2901 on: April 09, 2020, 07:49:28 AM »
At this point, we get either Trump or Biden in November.

I cannot tolerate Trump's administration of criminals and incompetents.

Therefore, I vote for Biden.

I had a much easier choice last election. The former governor who I'd met and generally liked was running as a Libertarian and NM was going to go Democrat regardless.

This time around I may end up not voting for president and just vote the rest of the ballot. Biden will take the state regardless. New Mexico brief flirtation with being a swing state 15-20 years ago is long gone, along with the last Republican House Representative in the 2018 election. When a Democrat can carry the oil patch and rural southern half of the state there's no chance for Republicans.

I still think there is value in voting for the Democrat, even if it won't matter in your state.  Trump may win again in the EC without winning the popular vote...in fact, maybe this will be how things go mostly from now on.  But, we should make a point of how big the tide is against him.

I'm part of the conservative/libertarian minority around here so voting for a Democrat is pretty much a non-starter. I can at least point to a couple of things Trump has done in the last three years that I support - not really true with Biden. Still doesn't mean I'll actually cast a vote for Trump - but I'm at least considering it.

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2902 on: April 09, 2020, 08:02:20 AM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.
By voting for the same two parties we get the situation we are in now where they drive people further and further apart to isolate them to their party.

It is like group think with two parties so rather than getting politicians that vote on what is the correct thing to do they vote along party lines or they risk being looked at as an outsider and lose support.

From the top all of the way down to the local level as well as the news, this site and even families are being divided further and further in the name of growing their base.

And the cycle continues.

Personally I voted 3rd party last time I would like to see the Democrats and Republicans have some competition and stop this downward spiral that is dividing us.

Would have voted for several of the democrats that have gone out already, will probably vote for Biden but given my state will surely go to Biden I might put my vote to a 3rd party this time in hopes that someday we can have more options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: April 09, 2020, 08:20:15 AM by the_fixer »

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2903 on: April 09, 2020, 08:15:28 AM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.

And I have never understood the line of logic you presented at least about the voting for a third party candidate. You're really telling me that you can't understand how someone could not ethically vote for either of two people given their perspective on them as people or their positions and live well with themselves afterwards? I can't understand how you can't understand that, lol.

I don't understand it because by voting 'ethically' for a third option, in our current system, you are simply ensuring that one of the other two 'more evil' options wins.  In which case your ethics have done nothing to actually reduce harm to others, or to try to move society to even a slightly better direction.  You threw all that away, along with any real effect your vote might have, just because you wanted to feel better about yourself.

Harm reduction is a real thing.  And the fact the people seem to think it doesn't apply to politics is honestly baffling to me.
So how do we move away from the current system?

Using your method we are just giving more and more power to the two parties and more reason for them to divide us into tribes. How is this not causing harm?

What is the hope that someday they will magically decide to work together to do what is the right thing for ALL people and not just their tribe? There is no upside for them to do that they have to cater to their tribe as they will be seen as traitor otherwise.

Divide and conquer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15838
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2904 on: April 09, 2020, 08:18:40 AM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.

And I have never understood the line of logic you presented at least about the voting for a third party candidate. You're really telling me that you can't understand how someone could not ethically vote for either of two people given their perspective on them as people or their positions and live well with themselves afterwards? I can't understand how you can't understand that, lol.

I don't understand it because by voting 'ethically' for a third option, in our current system, you are simply ensuring that one of the other two 'more evil' options wins.  In which case your ethics have done nothing to actually reduce harm to others, or to try to move society to even a slightly better direction.  You threw all that away, along with any real effect your vote might have, just because you wanted to feel better about yourself.

Harm reduction is a real thing.  And the fact the people seem to think it doesn't apply to politics is honestly baffling to me.
So how do we move away from the current system?

It's not possible to move away from the current system within the current system.  It needs to be radically changed.
 Representation by population would be a good start.

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2905 on: April 09, 2020, 08:28:26 AM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.

And I have never understood the line of logic you presented at least about the voting for a third party candidate. You're really telling me that you can't understand how someone could not ethically vote for either of two people given their perspective on them as people or their positions and live well with themselves afterwards? I can't understand how you can't understand that, lol.

I don't understand it because by voting 'ethically' for a third option, in our current system, you are simply ensuring that one of the other two 'more evil' options wins.  In which case your ethics have done nothing to actually reduce harm to others, or to try to move society to even a slightly better direction.  You threw all that away, along with any real effect your vote might have, just because you wanted to feel better about yourself.

Harm reduction is a real thing.  And the fact the people seem to think it doesn't apply to politics is honestly baffling to me.
So how do we move away from the current system?

It's not possible to move away from the current system within the current system.  It needs to be radically changed.
 Representation by population would be a good start.
Well going by population would not serve everyone it would serve the high population centers therefore a large portion of the country would be subject to the desire of a smaller geographical area of a high density that does not understand the wants / needs / unique issues of the entire country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

turketron

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 554
  • Age: 34
  • Location: WI
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2906 on: April 09, 2020, 08:29:30 AM »
It's not possible to move away from the current system within the current system.  It needs to be radically changed.
 Representation by population would be a good start.

Ranked choice voting would also help.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2907 on: April 09, 2020, 08:35:42 AM »
Well going by population would not serve everyone it would serve the high population centers therefore a large portion of the country would be subject to the desire of a smaller geographical area of a high density that does not understand the wants / needs / unique issues of the entire country.

It would serve the people. Geographical areas, whether they are small/dense or large/sparse, should be irrelevant.

You can't possibly "serve everyone", you can only hope to accurately represent most people.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2908 on: April 09, 2020, 08:43:46 AM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.

And I have never understood the line of logic you presented at least about the voting for a third party candidate. You're really telling me that you can't understand how someone could not ethically vote for either of two people given their perspective on them as people or their positions and live well with themselves afterwards? I can't understand how you can't understand that, lol.

I don't understand it because by voting 'ethically' for a third option, in our current system, you are simply ensuring that one of the other two 'more evil' options wins.  In which case your ethics have done nothing to actually reduce harm to others, or to try to move society to even a slightly better direction.  You threw all that away, along with any real effect your vote might have, just because you wanted to feel better about yourself.

Harm reduction is a real thing.  And the fact the people seem to think it doesn't apply to politics is honestly baffling to me.
So how do we move away from the current system?

Using your method we are just giving more and more power to the two parties and more reason for them to divide us into tribes. How is this not causing harm?

What is the hope that someday they will magically decide to work together to do what is the right thing for ALL people and not just their tribe? There is no upside for them to do that they have to cater to their tribe as they will be seen as traitor otherwise.

Divide and conquer

If a 3rd party is ever going to have a shot, it needs to start at lower levels of politics. If you want to break out of the two party system then support local 3rd party candidates.

Starting from the top isn't going to change anything, especially with the electoral college is in place. With the current system, 3rd party candidates don't even show up in the results unless you look at popular vote. In theory if everyone voted for who they believed to be the best candidate we could elect a 3rd party candidate, but nothing from history suggests that a group of people as large as the US electorate could ever make a decision like that.

The best chance we have of restructuring the system right now is the Democrats, and not because they're just so dang benevolent, but because the current system hurts them. Republicans have no interest in fixing a broken system that benefits them, in fact they're actively working to break it more.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2909 on: April 09, 2020, 08:46:25 AM »
By voting for the same two parties we get the situation we are in now where they drive people further and further apart to isolate them to their party.

It is like group think with two parties so rather than getting politicians that vote on what is the correct thing to do they vote along party lines or they risk being looked at as an outsider and lose support.

From the top all of the way down to the local level as well as the news, this site and even families are being divided further and further in the name of growing their base.

And the cycle continues.

Also for what it's worth I think you're wrong. My disgust for Trump and all Trump voters (including my parents) has nothing to do with Democratic base-wrangling. I'm not even a Democrat.

the_fixer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Location: Colorado
  • mind on my money money on my mind
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2910 on: April 09, 2020, 09:05:18 AM »
Well going by population would not serve everyone it would serve the high population centers therefore a large portion of the country would be subject to the desire of a smaller geographical area of a high density that does not understand the wants / needs / unique issues of the entire country.

It would serve the people. Geographical areas, whether they are small/dense or large/sparse, should be irrelevant.

You can't possibly "serve everyone", you can only hope to accurately represent most people.
So why worry about the rights of handicapped people in wheel chairs? They obviously represent a small portion of the population yet we put in place accommodations so they can be mobile at great expenses to the larger population.

Minorities? We as a society have a duty to protect them as well correct?

How about the farmer who provides your food that lives in the middle of now where? How about the ranch owners in Wyoming?

While I live in a large city I understand that what might seem right for me is not necessarily right for the farmer that lives the next state or county over from me.

The current parties are an either or situation where someone wins and someone loses. Next cycle it flips and we spend time / effort / great expenses trying to undo what the prior administration put in place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2911 on: April 09, 2020, 09:17:52 AM »

Also important to note that a large number of Libertarians will vote third party.  Libertarians love Trump.  Not that he follows Libertarian ideology particularly well, but he provides a great validation of their theory of the total failure of all government in every situation.  I'd expect most Libertarians to smugly vote for a 3rd party candidate with no hope of winning and be secretly quite happy when Trump is re-elected for this reason.  Competent governance is (after all) the antithesis to Libertarian doctrine - so 'harm reduction' strategy is going to be roundly rejected by this crew.  They really want the least competent government in power.

Libertarian-splaining :)

What you said actually makes some sense though.

There is a good argument to be made that the left leaning corporatist/centrist/globalist leadership class merely offers a thin veneer of competence. They are able to smoothly say the professional sounding words that make us nod and yawn while ultimately participating in a sort of managed decline rife with the endless little conflicts of interest layered throughout bureaucracies that ultimately end up leaving everyday people high and dry.

At least with Trump it's more plain to see that many things are moving in the wrong direction. Not because HE's moving us in the wrong direction (though he is) but because he has the opposite incentives that previous presidents have had to preserve order, decorum, and cohesion with our various counterparts.

For example, the current issue of the day. GW Bush and Obama, had they even arrived at the same conclusion, would have had to think long and hard before calling out the WHO for its complicity in validating Chinese propaganda regarding the status of Covid19. And their tone probably would have been much more conciliatory.

Meanwhile Trump is incentivized to do things like this. It's part of his campaign promise and part of his brand. He unfortunately overdoes it, fixating his sights on any random target that might offend or insult him in any minor way, which risks causing the "adults in the room" to have a knee jerk reaction to simply adopt the opposite position to whatever Trump's position is. And of course Trump doesn't do this when it's him or his own team that act unethically with conflicts of interest. But those are plain as day for us to see.

This is all to say the reason a libertarian would want to see another Trump term is NOT to see the incompetence of a Trump administration on full display (as the Trump presidency is a total aberration that would provide no validation of the incompetent government thesis), but to let the tactless loudmouth loose in the land of secrets to expose all of the conflicts of interest and incompetence he is uniquely incentivized to call out.

It might be ignored along with all of Trump's other nonsense, but astute and independent thinkers can differentiate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/consider-possibility-trump-right-china/609493/


To play devil's advocate to myself, I don't see how any of these problems will get resolved with another 4 years of Trump. He is something of a broken clock identifying two problems a day and shoehorning in non-solutions that simply please his voter base. Trump's election was like tearing off your sheetrock and slapping tax cuts & not-so-quiet dog whistles on rotting studs. Electing Biden will be like simply putting the sheetrock back up.

So I occasionally vote 3rd party simply to try and grow the 3rd party number vs the previous vote so that voters will start considering 3rd parties to be more and more realistic and eventually offer us more options like other countries.






sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2912 on: April 09, 2020, 09:45:03 AM »
Well going by population would not serve everyone it would serve the high population centers therefore a large portion of the country would be subject to the desire of a smaller geographical area of a high density that does not understand the wants / needs / unique issues of the entire country.

It would serve the people. Geographical areas, whether they are small/dense or large/sparse, should be irrelevant.

You can't possibly "serve everyone", you can only hope to accurately represent most people.
So why worry about the rights of handicapped people in wheel chairs? They obviously represent a small portion of the population yet we put in place accommodations so they can be mobile at great expenses to the larger population.

Minorities? We as a society have a duty to protect them as well correct?

How about the farmer who provides your food that lives in the middle of now where? How about the ranch owners in Wyoming?

While I live in a large city I understand that what might seem right for me is not necessarily right for the farmer that lives the next state or county over from me.

The current parties are an either or situation where someone wins and someone loses. Next cycle it flips and we spend time / effort / great expenses trying to undo what the prior administration put in place.

Yes they should be protected. But wheelchair-bound people should not be able to outvote the ambulatory, and a minority should not have more voting power than the majority, no.

Your examples only prove that it's not necessary to give the rural minority outsized amount of voting power in order for the government to still look out for their interests. And you're conveniently ignoring the other (larger) side of the coin, which is if you do give rural people more-than-average power, all you're doing is enabling that minority to run roughshod over the non-rural majority. If unfair subjugation of a minority is your concern, you can't improve it by unfairly subjugating a majority.

The best solution is to ensure true proportional representation, and then let the two parties actually compete for votes in that environment. You don't have to have unfair / disproportionate representation in order to have two equally powerful parties that stand in tension with each other. I'd much rather have them stand in tension over the issues and spend their time persuading voters that their way is best, than have one of them constantly attempt to undermine and sabotage democracy itself in order to win.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2020, 09:46:38 AM by sherr »

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5420
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2913 on: April 09, 2020, 10:15:44 AM »
Something I don't understand is how and why your two-party system seems to be enshrined in your governmental procedures, with State authorities running Republican and Democratic Party primaries.  It's hard to see how a third party has a chance against that, and it seems very odd that internal party politics are deemed a matter suitable for State governments to be involved in.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12947
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2914 on: April 09, 2020, 10:59:15 AM »
It's not possible to move away from the current system within the current system.  It needs to be radically changed.
 Representation by population would be a good start.

Ranked choice voting would also help.

+1

Every state and federal election should have ranked choice voting, IMO.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2915 on: April 09, 2020, 11:10:54 AM »
Something I don't understand is how and why your two-party system seems to be enshrined in your governmental procedures, with State authorities running Republican and Democratic Party primaries.  It's hard to see how a third party has a chance against that, and it seems very odd that internal party politics are deemed a matter suitable for State governments to be involved in.

The US is fundamentally different from basically every other democracy in the world in two ways: 1) we're not parliamentary and 2) the constitution was written in such a way as to entice a bunch of individual states to choose to unite, not with the intent of having a strong country-wide government.

#1 is impactful because every election is for an individual, not a party. There is no such thing as a vote for the party, where the parties then proportionately split control of the parliament. If the country is divided with 49.9% of the population supporting party A and 50.1% of the population supporting party B, and the distribution of those voters is completely evenly distributed in every district, then party B will win literally every single seat that exists at every layer of government.

Now of course things aren't evenly distributed. And some voter count for more than others thanks to geography, as the_fixer is advocating for. But in this kind of system one of the equilibrium states that game theory predicts is that you end up with two parties of roughly equal power, and control switches between them as they adapt to the times or voters become tired of the one that's currently in power. You can't have three, because then the two that are most similar would split their portion of the vote and the third party's candidates would always win. And so on and so forth with higher numbers; 2 is the equilibrium state. It doesn't even have to be the same 2, in fact the Republican party only arose thanks to the crumbling / disintegration of the Whig party.

Now add to that #2, where the constitution places basically all power for running elections in the hands of the individual states. And add to that the fact that neither party wants there to be a successful 3rd party that could supplant their dominance.

And you wind up where we are. I'm not saying any of this is actually good or desirable, just that it is how it is.

Michael in ABQ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
    • Military Saints
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2916 on: April 09, 2020, 11:22:03 AM »
Something I don't understand is how and why your two-party system seems to be enshrined in your governmental procedures, with State authorities running Republican and Democratic Party primaries.  It's hard to see how a third party has a chance against that, and it seems very odd that internal party politics are deemed a matter suitable for State governments to be involved in.

It's simple, the politicians created the laws and run the government. It's the reason why if you decide to run as Republican or Democrat for a public office in most states there are minimal requirements. If you want to run as a third party or independent you might be required to gather thousands or tens of thousands of signatures. The people who created those laws want to maintain their duopoly so they raised barriers to entry. It's the same reason the Commission on Presidential Debates requires 15% polling to be in televised presidential debates. It's an organization created and ran by the two parties to ensure no upstart third party or independent can call them out on all their BS. Politics is a business and both parties want to maintain or increase their market share. They don't want some startup coming in and disrupting their comfortable duopoly profits.

The way our system is setup with first-past-the-post voting it's inevitable there will be two dominant parties. Not necessarily the same two, but just two viable ones. Parliamentary systems with proportional voting on the other hand are designed to provide for multiple parties across the political spectrum because even getting a relatively small number of votes can win you a seat at the table.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2917 on: April 09, 2020, 12:23:40 PM »
Pondering things like proportional voting is a waste of time.  The US can't just change how the government is structured due to the Constitution.  Any change is VERY difficult to get through, practically impossible.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2918 on: April 09, 2020, 12:37:15 PM »
I was big on Bernie this time around, but even I can see that Democrats, including Biden, will at least work to better the country in terms of the courts, pandemic response, voting rights, etc.

I can't believe people are already setting themselves up to equivocate Trump and Biden. Even just beyond rhetoric Trump has recently been brazenly "anti-democracy", and Biden believes/ can be pressured into signing bills that reduce our consumption of coal, increasing minimum wage, protecting previous supreme court decisions, etc.

Is there a lot of stuff that Biden is terrible on? Yes. But equivocating Trump and Biden is not just wrong, but ethically damaging.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2919 on: April 09, 2020, 12:39:50 PM »
Agree. It's as if some people around here want us to doubt what our own eyes are showing us; there are good guys and there are bad guys at this moment in time, and it's not difficult to tell them apart.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 650
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2920 on: April 09, 2020, 01:00:53 PM »
I was big on Bernie this time around, but even I can see that Democrats, including Biden, will at least work to better the country in terms of the courts, pandemic response, voting rights, etc.

I can't believe people are already setting themselves up to equivocate Trump and Biden. Even just beyond rhetoric Trump has recently been brazenly "anti-democracy", and Biden believes/ can be pressured into signing bills that reduce our consumption of coal, increasing minimum wage, protecting previous supreme court decisions, etc.

Is there a lot of stuff that Biden is terrible on? Yes. But equivocating Trump and Biden is not just wrong, but ethically damaging.

It's not equivocating to say that even with Trump being Trump, Biden could be guilty of something that would make supporting him, at least, ethically dubious.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12947
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2921 on: April 09, 2020, 01:05:39 PM »
Pondering things like proportional voting is a waste of time.  The US can't just change how the government is structured due to the Constitution.  Any change is VERY difficult to get through, practically impossible.

There's nothing in the constitution preventing ranked-choice voting.  Maine already has it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12947
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2922 on: April 09, 2020, 01:07:47 PM »

It's not equivocating to say that even with Trump being Trump, Biden could be guilty of something that would make supporting him, at least, ethically dubious.

I have seen nothing over the last three decades of Biden's political career that comes anywhere close to the moral morass that has marked Trump's three years.  Heck, in the last three MONTHS Trump is guilty of far more, and far worse.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5420
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2923 on: April 09, 2020, 01:11:01 PM »
Anyone who wants to vote for a saint can do so by becoming a Cardinal and voting for the Pope.  The rest of us vote for the least worst outcome.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1519
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2924 on: April 09, 2020, 01:18:30 PM »
Excellent article on why the Reade accusations haven't been reported more heavily (spoiler alert: not because Dems are hypocrites as some on this thread have claimed) and provides details on rigorous reporting standards on sexual assault allegations (both in general and as applied to this case) that I found illuminating.
https://www.salon.com/2020/03/31/a-woman-accuses-joe-biden-of-sexual-assault-and-all-hell-breaks-loose-online-heres-what-we-know/

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 650
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2925 on: April 09, 2020, 01:18:46 PM »
Anyone who wants to vote for a saint can do so by becoming a Cardinal and voting for the Pope.  The rest of us vote for the least worst outcome.

Lol. I would vote for Bill Clinton over Trump. I'm not looking for a saint. Just saying, per the previous thread discussions I've had, there are some lines that I won't cross in actively supporting for someone.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1604
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2926 on: April 09, 2020, 05:08:28 PM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.

You are getting it.  The only thing good about most Super Bowls is the short half-time show and the new TV ads.  Send in that unknown quarterback and there will be some real excitement.  You won't be seeing the same plays you've seen all season.

If Mr. Biden wants my vote, what is he going to give me?

Will I see people with a decent minimum wage?
Will I see health care for all?
Will I see the end to foreign wars?
Will I see a true investment in the education of our nation's young?
Will I see better fiscal policy for the country at large?
Will I see solutions to global warming?

Will I see SSDD? 

If the only thig he is promising is to replace Trump's 3 ring circus with one put on by the Democrats,...............well I'm not convinced these neo-liberals or whatever they call themselves will be doing anything for me.

I might as well throw that Hail Mary pass and go third party.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2927 on: April 09, 2020, 05:14:28 PM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.

You are getting it.  The only thing good about most Super Bowls is the short half-time show and the new TV ads.  Send in that unknown quarterback and there will be some real excitement.  You won't be seeing the same plays you've seen all season.

If Mr. Biden wants my vote, what is he going to give me?

Will I see people with a decent minimum wage?
Will I see health care for all?
Will I see the end to foreign wars?
Will I see a true investment in the education of our nation's young?
Will I see better fiscal policy for the country at large?
Will I see solutions to global warming?

Will I see SSDD? 

If the only thig he is promising is to replace Trump's 3 ring circus with one put on by the Democrats,...............well I'm not convinced these neo-liberals or whatever they call themselves will be doing anything for me.

I might as well throw that Hail Mary pass and go third party.
I wish I would get a rainbow unicorn but Biden won't give me one, so I'm voting third party.


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12947
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2928 on: April 09, 2020, 05:16:44 PM »
Bleh. I’ve found most of the half time shows in recent memory to be completely disappointing. Not really surprising - they aren’t playing for their core fans, have a ~15 minute set and have the FCC closely watching.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1604
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2929 on: April 09, 2020, 05:32:24 PM »

- RIP TEAR -

I wish I would get a rainbow unicorn but Biden won't give me one, so I'm voting third party.

The point is that I really don't see him promising much of any improvement beyond the status quo.  Any one of those noted things would bring voters his way.  At least he could lie about bringing good things like Donald.  He doesn't even do that.

maizefolk

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4664
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2930 on: April 09, 2020, 05:47:08 PM »
The point is that I really don't see him promising much of any improvement beyond the status quo.  Any one of those noted things would bring voters his way.  At least he could lie about bringing good things like Donald.  He doesn't even do that.

One of the real flaws about the current leadership in the moderate wing of the Democratic Party is that they seem to have this blind spot where they think the status quo is pretty darn good for everyone. And it's not.

In 2016 Trump said he was going to "make america great again" and Clinton said "america is already great". ... we saw how that turned out.

It's possible to completely disagree with all of Trump's solutions while still recognizing he would never have come close to being elected in a country where most voters thought things were going pretty well already.

Oh well. I'll vote for Biden. Just like I, reluctantly, voted for Clinton. I think he stands a better chance than she did, just because four years ago a vote for Trump was a vote against the status quo and this fall a vote for Trump is a vote for the status quo.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2931 on: April 09, 2020, 05:49:05 PM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.

You are getting it.  The only thing good about most Super Bowls is the short half-time show and the new TV ads.  Send in that unknown quarterback and there will be some real excitement.  You won't be seeing the same plays you've seen all season.

If Mr. Biden wants my vote, what is he going to give me?

Will I see people with a decent minimum wage?
Will I see health care for all?
Will I see the end to foreign wars?
Will I see a true investment in the education of our nation's young?
Will I see better fiscal policy for the country at large?
Will I see solutions to global warming?

Will I see SSDD? 

If the only thig he is promising is to replace Trump's 3 ring circus with one put on by the Democrats,...............well I'm not convinced these neo-liberals or whatever they call themselves will be doing anything for me.

I might as well throw that Hail Mary pass and go third party.

No one can guarantee any of those things but I think they vary from slightly more likely to much more likely under Biden/Democrats than Trump.

Voting third party isn't a hail Mary pass, it's taking a knee to forfeit the game in protest.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2932 on: April 09, 2020, 06:01:11 PM »

- RIP TEAR -

I wish I would get a rainbow unicorn but Biden won't give me one, so I'm voting third party.

The point is that I really don't see him promising much of any improvement beyond the status quo.  Any one of those noted things would bring voters his way.  At least he could lie about bringing good things like Donald.  He doesn't even do that.

Sounds like you don't actually know Biden's positions on these issues.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/joe-biden/

In some cases he's already done exactly what you're criticizing him for not doing.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5379
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2933 on: April 09, 2020, 06:03:17 PM »
The point is that I really don't see him promising much of any improvement beyond the status quo.  Any one of those noted things would bring voters his way.  At least he could lie about bringing good things like Donald.  He doesn't even do that.

One of the real flaws about the current leadership in the moderate wing of the Democratic Party is that they seem to have this blind spot where they think the status quo is pretty darn good for everyone. And it's not.

In 2016 Trump said he was going to "make america great again" and Clinton said "america is already great". ... we saw how that turned out.

It's possible to completely disagree with all of Trump's solutions while still recognizing he would never have come close to being elected in a country where most voters thought things were going pretty well already.

Oh well. I'll vote for Biden. Just like I, reluctantly, voted for Clinton. I think he stands a better chance than she did, just because four years ago a vote for Trump was a vote against the status quo and this fall a vote for Trump is a vote for the status quo.

Sure. It was a reactive position, instead of a proactive one. Which sorta sucks.

But when “Make America Great Again” really means, “Drag America back to when white dudes did not have to question their supremacy,” and Clinton’s “America is already great” response meant “Diversity is a strength, not a weakness”...

As ham-fisted and jingoistic as the second is...

I will take that shit every day of the goddamn month over Trump.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3004
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2934 on: April 09, 2020, 06:46:27 PM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.
By voting for the same two parties we get the situation we are in now where they drive people further and further apart to isolate them to their party.

It is like group think with two parties so rather than getting politicians that vote on what is the correct thing to do they vote along party lines or they risk being looked at as an outsider and lose support.

From the top all of the way down to the local level as well as the news, this site and even families are being divided further and further in the name of growing their base.

And the cycle continues.

Personally I voted 3rd party last time I would like to see the Democrats and Republicans have some competition and stop this downward spiral that is dividing us.

Would have voted for several of the democrats that have gone out already, will probably vote for Biden but given my state will surely go to Biden I might put my vote to a 3rd party this time in hopes that someday we can have more options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was a third party of sorts for a few years called the Tea Party. Technically they were just Republican extremists on a few key issues. The Democrats and Republicans united to marginalize them to keep the system going.  The best the Tea Party was able to do was shut down the government for a spell.  I'll reiterate that first point. The Republicans were willing to roast and eat their own for breaking from the script.  They got away with it because the Tea Party was not actually a single party with a unified message. They also didn't have enough votes to accomplish anything other than stall, filibuster, and shut down things.  You want a competitive third party? Start at the bottom rung and build it up.

In the meantime, which of the two candidates are you willing to live with? Until you reach the critical mass of having a third party presidential candidate with any level of support in Congress you're still stuck with whoever everybody else is going to pick.

ministashy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2935 on: April 09, 2020, 08:16:28 PM »
I have never understood folks who want to vote third party for Presidential elections.  Local/state elections, sure, I could see a third party candidate maaaaybe making a difference here and there.  But voting third party for President is like saying you don't like either of the teams that made the Superbowl, so you're going to vote for a third team's quarterback to be on the field.  Even if by some miracle that person actually got into the game, they have no team backing them--no matter how pure/smart their intentions, they're still just going to get flattened by both sides.

Of course, by the same token I've never understood folks who refuse to vote because they 'want to send a message' to the Democrat/Republican party that they don't approve of what they're doing.  I mean, if you don't vote, then literally the only message you're sending to any politician is that they don't have to care about what you think, and DEFINITELY don't have to listen to what you want.

You are getting it.  The only thing good about most Super Bowls is the short half-time show and the new TV ads.  Send in that unknown quarterback and there will be some real excitement.  You won't be seeing the same plays you've seen all season.

If Mr. Biden wants my vote, what is he going to give me?

I think you're misunderstanding my metaphor.  Even if by some miracle, you got your third-party quarterback--in this analogy, they are literally on the field without a team.  And two other full teams (maybe minus their quarterbacks, if you want to be fair), would still be on the field, and literally running OVER your third-party quarterback to get possession of the ball.

Your miracle President could promise you the moon, the earth and stars, and they still wouldn't be able to get anything done--because there is no third party that controls enough of Congress to make them want to work with that President.  That is the way our system works.  Would I like to see that change?  Sure!  But it's not easy, it's not going to happen overnight, and in the meantime I'm not going to hold my breath and vote for an ineffective candidate as a vain attempt at virtue-signalling.

If any of the third parties were TRULY serious about taking the Presidency--whether the Green Party, the Democratic Socialists, the Libertarians, whatever--they would be out there doing grassroots organizing and running serious, viable candidates for EVERY local, county and state election in all 50 states before they ever touched anything higher than that.  But they don't.  And until that changes, I see no reason to take them seriously as a viable alternative to the Democrats or the Republicans.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2020, 08:19:56 PM by ministashy »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12947
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2936 on: April 10, 2020, 08:52:47 AM »

- RIP TEAR -

I wish I would get a rainbow unicorn but Biden won't give me one, so I'm voting third party.

The point is that I really don't see him promising much of any improvement beyond the status quo.  Any one of those noted things would bring voters his way.  At least he could lie about bringing good things like Donald.  He doesn't even do that.

Sounds like you don't actually know Biden's positions on these issues.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/joe-biden/

In some cases he's already done exactly what you're criticizing him for not doing.

Similar to how a frequent criticism of HRC was how she didn't have any detailed positions and was just "the establishment candidate" and "a continuation of Obama's [failed] policies" - when in fact she put out the most detailed & wonky policy plans in modern memory.

J Boogie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2937 on: April 10, 2020, 03:04:56 PM »

- RIP TEAR -

I wish I would get a rainbow unicorn but Biden won't give me one, so I'm voting third party.

The point is that I really don't see him promising much of any improvement beyond the status quo.  Any one of those noted things would bring voters his way.  At least he could lie about bringing good things like Donald.  He doesn't even do that.

Sounds like you don't actually know Biden's positions on these issues.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/joe-biden/

In some cases he's already done exactly what you're criticizing him for not doing.

Similar to how a frequent criticism of HRC was how she didn't have any detailed positions and was just "the establishment candidate" and "a continuation of Obama's [failed] policies" - when in fact she put out the most detailed & wonky policy plans in modern memory.

I dunno. How many of these positions are high conviction and how many are the result of focus groups and just getting a general sense of which way the winds are blowing?

When someone like Bernie moves the overton windows on things like universal health care, it feels like cheating when other candidates try to get in on the popularity - and they rightfully fail to benefit by adopting these proposals. Because it takes no courage for them to propose it.

Regarding the wonkiness nature of Hillary's proposals, the "status quo" critique isn't that her proposals lacked detail. It was that they wouldn't amount to a transformational presidency. Not to mention that presidents would do well to avoid wonkiness - it's the job of the legislative branch to draft legislation and the job of the president to execute it, so it makes sense for them to communicate their ideas concisely.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 03:09:48 PM by J Boogie »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12947
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2938 on: April 10, 2020, 03:30:17 PM »

- RIP TEAR -

I wish I would get a rainbow unicorn but Biden won't give me one, so I'm voting third party.

The point is that I really don't see him promising much of any improvement beyond the status quo.  Any one of those noted things would bring voters his way.  At least he could lie about bringing good things like Donald.  He doesn't even do that.

Sounds like you don't actually know Biden's positions on these issues.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/joe-biden/

In some cases he's already done exactly what you're criticizing him for not doing.

Similar to how a frequent criticism of HRC was how she didn't have any detailed positions and was just "the establishment candidate" and "a continuation of Obama's [failed] policies" - when in fact she put out the most detailed & wonky policy plans in modern memory.

I dunno. How many of these positions are high conviction and how many are the result of focus groups and just getting a general sense of which way the winds are blowing?

When someone like Bernie moves the overton windows on things like universal health care, it feels like cheating when other candidates try to get in on the popularity - and they rightfully fail to benefit by adopting these proposals. Because it takes no courage for them to propose it.

Regarding the wonkiness nature of Hillary's proposals, the "status quo" critique isn't that her proposals lacked detail. It was that they wouldn't amount to a transformational presidency. Not to mention that presidents would do well to avoid wonkiness - it's the job of the legislative branch to draft legislation and the job of the president to execute it, so it makes sense for them to communicate their ideas concisely.

Personally I don't care who first proposed an idea, and I don't feel like it's "cheating" when other candidates adopt a proposal.  That should be considered a 'win' by Bernie, and it comes across as sour-grapes of a bitter old man when he keeps touting that he was the 'first to call for socialized health care'.  Ideas are cheap - winning and implementing them are what's hard.  Bernie didn't come up with single-payer healthcare - that was pioneered decades ago by half a dozen other countries.  He gets credit for raising it so forcefully in a national campaign, but that's about it, IMO.  The person who ultimately pushes a proposal through is rarely the first to conceive of it.

The status-quo critique of HRC's policies (at leasat as I remember) was that she didn't have them. I vividly remember hearing over and over how she had no ideas of her own, not that he ideas were not transformative enough.  She'd get hammered for not having any ideas on healthcare and then she'd release a 100+ page document detailing what she would do, but it would be completely ignored.  That's kind of what I'm getting at here - a detraction is repeated so often about a candidate that it becomes part of the accepted narrative, even when it's not true or substantiated.

I don't disagree that it should be the job of the legislative branch to craft legislation, but we've seen an incredible and voluntary erosion of Congress' power to the executive branch in recent decades, and it's accelerated under this president.  Now the WH is directly invovled in crafting many major pieces of legislation.  Not as it was intended to be, but it is what it is now.  Frankly I'd be quick to support any president that ran on a platform promising to cede more authority back to congress, and agree to wholesale, legally accountable oversight of current and future presidents and legislatures.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1604
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2939 on: April 10, 2020, 04:42:53 PM »
Seemed to me when I watched those Democratic debates, they would echo Bernie's ideas in a watered down form.  "Medicare for those who want it."  Right.

Then they would counter with the dumb statement, "How are you going to pay for it?" 

Taxes and it will be less money overall.   Kind of basic math that was covered by noise.

You guys are right though.  I should read what Joe Biden's people have written for him.  I haven't.

I guess Trump has some nasty ads out already slamming Mr. Biden.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12947
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2940 on: April 10, 2020, 05:34:35 PM »
Seemed to me when I watched those Democratic debates, they would echo Bernie's ideas in a watered down form.  "Medicare for those who want it."  Right.

Then they would counter with the dumb statement, "How are you going to pay for it?" 

Taxes and it will be less money overall.   Kind of basic math that was covered by noise.

You guys are right though.  I should read what Joe Biden's people have written for him.  I haven't.

I guess Trump has some nasty ads out already slamming Mr. Biden.

I think the most honest and seldom heard response to how a candidate plans on paying for his/her health care plan is: we already are paying for it.

Employers are currently saddled with the largest share of insurance cost which comes directly out of their profits, individual payers wind up paying not for lower tier insurance and providers are saddled with reimbursements that can be less than cost.

Taxes would go up with a government option, But business and personal expenses would drop correspondingly.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2941 on: April 10, 2020, 06:03:50 PM »
No one could deliver the promises made by Bernie, not Bernie or Biden.  Bernie knows full well his proposals would never get through Congress.  You need 60 Senators to get anything of importance done.  51 and you can tinker with existing laws, but not change them too much.  The Dems don't even have a majority, so right now it is a practical stalemate.  The dishonesty of promising things that can't be achieved is why I view Sanders as a charlatan.

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1604
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2942 on: April 10, 2020, 07:14:13 PM »
Woman will never have the vote.

Slaves will never be free.

We will never have a Social Security System.

We will never have Medicare for those over 65 years of age.

You've just got to give up.  It will never get through Congress.

Too bad we can't vote for the type of Congress we want,.........but wait,..........we can! 

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6918
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2943 on: April 11, 2020, 03:43:46 AM »
No one could deliver the promises made by Bernie, not Bernie or Biden.  Bernie knows full well his proposals would never get through Congress.  You need 60 Senators to get anything of importance done.  51 and you can tinker with existing laws, but not change them too much.  The Dems don't even have a majority, so right now it is a practical stalemate.  The dishonesty of promising things that can't be achieved is why I view Sanders as a charlatan.

This is facetious. What's the point of an opposition promising anything at all then? How will an opposition ever win government by just promising to tinker with the existing government policies? You might as well get the real deal and stick with the incumbent.

Did you ever think a Republican POTUS and Congress would be drop $2 trillion and history will record it as the highest spending administration as a proportion of GDP ever? And most of that is going towards welfare?

Things that you never thought could be achieved or believed do come to pass. Nothing is impossible.

Michael in ABQ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
    • Military Saints
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2944 on: April 11, 2020, 05:20:59 AM »

I don't disagree that it should be the job of the legislative branch to craft legislation, but we've seen an incredible and voluntary erosion of Congress' power to the executive branch in recent decades, and it's accelerated under this president.  Now the WH is directly invovled in crafting many major pieces of legislation.  Not as it was intended to be, but it is what it is now.  Frankly I'd be quick to support any president that ran on a platform promising to cede more authority back to congress, and agree to wholesale, legally accountable oversight of current and future presidents and legislatures.

Congress has been abdicating it's authority to the Executive and Judicial branches for decades. Congress doesn't want to rock the boat so they craft legislation that's full of loopholes and half-finished thoughts and then rely on the Executive branch to generate all the regulations that will actually implement it - or the Judicial branch to make the hard decisions.

The Supreme Court has become highly politicized and partisan in recent decades precisely because Congress gave up it's power and shifted all the hard decisions to them. This way they can continue spending half their time in office fund raising and working to get re-elected rather than doing their real job of creating legislation and providing oversight.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Congress has generally chosen to follow or get out of the way. Instead of writing clear legislation they craft a thousand pages of incomprehensible mess which the Executive branch translates into 20,000 pages of regulations. Then they rely on the Judicial branch to try and sort it out because they didn't make it clear in the first place.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2945 on: April 11, 2020, 05:42:23 AM »
No one could deliver the promises made by Bernie, not Bernie or Biden.  Bernie knows full well his proposals would never get through Congress.  You need 60 Senators to get anything of importance done.  51 and you can tinker with existing laws, but not change them too much.  The Dems don't even have a majority, so right now it is a practical stalemate.  The dishonesty of promising things that can't be achieved is why I view Sanders as a charlatan.

This is facetious. What's the point of an opposition promising anything at all then? How will an opposition ever win government by just promising to tinker with the existing government policies? You might as well get the real deal and stick with the incumbent.

Did you ever think a Republican POTUS and Congress would be drop $2 trillion and history will record it as the highest spending administration as a proportion of GDP ever? And most of that is going towards welfare?

Things that you never thought could be achieved or believed do come to pass. Nothing is impossible.
Politicians that promise things that don't get delivered breaks the trust of the public, who then say, "see they are all liars".  In Sanders case this would be accurate.  He knows full well his proposals are going nowhere.  There is no groundswell for "revolutionary socialism", not in the Democratic party or the general public.  Any Democrat to run on a Sander's platform will not win an election, with rare exceptions.

He is a career politician who sells false hope to the young and gullible.  No one in the Senate likes him or wants to work with him.  Not surprising since he isn't a Democrat or Republican.  You don't get things done like that.



GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15838
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2946 on: April 11, 2020, 07:25:56 AM »
No one could deliver the promises made by Bernie, not Bernie or Biden.  Bernie knows full well his proposals would never get through Congress.  You need 60 Senators to get anything of importance done.  51 and you can tinker with existing laws, but not change them too much.  The Dems don't even have a majority, so right now it is a practical stalemate.  The dishonesty of promising things that can't be achieved is why I view Sanders as a charlatan.

This is facetious. What's the point of an opposition promising anything at all then? How will an opposition ever win government by just promising to tinker with the existing government policies? You might as well get the real deal and stick with the incumbent.

Did you ever think a Republican POTUS and Congress would be drop $2 trillion and history will record it as the highest spending administration as a proportion of GDP ever? And most of that is going towards welfare?

Things that you never thought could be achieved or believed do come to pass. Nothing is impossible.
Politicians that promise things that don't get delivered breaks the trust of the public, who then say, "see they are all liars".  In Sanders case this would be accurate.  He knows full well his proposals are going nowhere.  There is no groundswell for "revolutionary socialism", not in the Democratic party or the general public.  Any Democrat to run on a Sander's platform will not win an election, with rare exceptions.

He is a career politician who sells false hope to the young and gullible.  No one in the Senate likes him or wants to work with him.  Not surprising since he isn't a Democrat or Republican.  You don't get things done like that.

I'd argue that if a politician makes a promise and works hard towards delivering the promise, they have kept their word.  Obviously no politician operates as a supreme dictator and gas everything they want go their way, so that's really all that a reasonable person could expect.  I'd consider a politician to have broken a promise if they don't work towards enacting/implementing it.

FWIW, I don't see anything particularly revolutionary or socialist in Sanders proposals.  Maybe your experience living with the extremely right wing US political system (where there is a center right Democratic Party, an extreme right Republican Party, and several super extreme right wing groups - Libertarians/Tea Partiers) is tainting your objectivity on this.

You can certainly argue that a politician has no chance to enact their plan because they don't have enough support from others, but it's unfair to say that they're breaking promises if they're stymied by opposition.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5420
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2947 on: April 11, 2020, 07:36:15 AM »
No one could deliver the promises made by Bernie, not Bernie or Biden.  Bernie knows full well his proposals would never get through Congress.  You need 60 Senators to get anything of importance done.  51 and you can tinker with existing laws, but not change them too much.  The Dems don't even have a majority, so right now it is a practical stalemate.  The dishonesty of promising things that can't be achieved is why I view Sanders as a charlatan.

This is facetious. What's the point of an opposition promising anything at all then? How will an opposition ever win government by just promising to tinker with the existing government policies? You might as well get the real deal and stick with the incumbent.

Did you ever think a Republican POTUS and Congress would be drop $2 trillion and history will record it as the highest spending administration as a proportion of GDP ever? And most of that is going towards welfare?

Things that you never thought could be achieved or believed do come to pass. Nothing is impossible.
Politicians that promise things that don't get delivered breaks the trust of the public, who then say, "see they are all liars".  In Sanders case this would be accurate.  He knows full well his proposals are going nowhere.  There is no groundswell for "revolutionary socialism", not in the Democratic party or the general public.  Any Democrat to run on a Sander's platform will not win an election, with rare exceptions.

He is a career politician who sells false hope to the young and gullible.  No one in the Senate likes him or wants to work with him.  Not surprising since he isn't a Democrat or Republican.  You don't get things done like that.

I'd argue that if a politician makes a promise and works hard towards delivering the promise, they have kept their word.  Obviously no politician operates as a supreme dictator and gas everything they want go their way, so that's really all that a reasonable person could expect.  I'd consider a politician to have broken a promise if they don't work towards enacting/implementing it.

FWIW, I don't see anything particularly revolutionary or socialist in Sanders proposals.  Maybe your experience living with the extremely right wing US political system (where there is a center right Democratic Party, an extreme right Republican Party, and several super extreme right wing groups - Libertarians/Tea Partiers) is tainting your objectivity on this.

You can certainly argue that a politician has no chance to enact their plan because they don't have enough support from others, but it's unfair to say that they're breaking promises if they're stymied by opposition.
Which would be fine if what they promise is "I will work towards universal health care".  Instead it's all dumbed down and on the one hand it's "I will immediately bring in universal health care" and on the other hand it's "anyone who is not for immediately bringing in universal health care is the devil in disguise" - aka Buttigieg's "medicare for all who want it" being treated as a policy betrayal.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3004
  • Location: South Korea
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2948 on: April 11, 2020, 08:15:52 AM »
No one could deliver the promises made by Bernie, not Bernie or Biden.  Bernie knows full well his proposals would never get through Congress.  You need 60 Senators to get anything of importance done.  51 and you can tinker with existing laws, but not change them too much.  The Dems don't even have a majority, so right now it is a practical stalemate.  The dishonesty of promising things that can't be achieved is why I view Sanders as a charlatan.

This is facetious. What's the point of an opposition promising anything at all then? How will an opposition ever win government by just promising to tinker with the existing government policies? You might as well get the real deal and stick with the incumbent.

Did you ever think a Republican POTUS and Congress would be drop $2 trillion and history will record it as the highest spending administration as a proportion of GDP ever? And most of that is going towards welfare?

Things that you never thought could be achieved or believed do come to pass. Nothing is impossible.
Politicians that promise things that don't get delivered breaks the trust of the public, who then say, "see they are all liars".  In Sanders case this would be accurate.  He knows full well his proposals are going nowhere.  There is no groundswell for "revolutionary socialism", not in the Democratic party or the general public.  Any Democrat to run on a Sander's platform will not win an election, with rare exceptions.

He is a career politician who sells false hope to the young and gullible.  No one in the Senate likes him or wants to work with him.  Not surprising since he isn't a Democrat or Republican.  You don't get things done like that.

I'd argue that if a politician makes a promise and works hard towards delivering the promise, they have kept their word.  Obviously no politician operates as a supreme dictator and gas everything they want go their way, so that's really all that a reasonable person could expect.  I'd consider a politician to have broken a promise if they don't work towards enacting/implementing it.

FWIW, I don't see anything particularly revolutionary or socialist in Sanders proposals.  Maybe your experience living with the extremely right wing US political system (where there is a center right Democratic Party, an extreme right Republican Party, and several super extreme right wing groups - Libertarians/Tea Partiers) is tainting your objectivity on this.

You can certainly argue that a politician has no chance to enact their plan because they don't have enough support from others, but it's unfair to say that they're breaking promises if they're stymied by opposition.
Which would be fine if what they promise is "I will work towards universal health care".  Instead it's all dumbed down and on the one hand it's "I will immediately bring in universal health care" and on the other hand it's "anyone who is not for immediately bringing in universal health care is the devil in disguise" - aka Buttigieg's "medicare for all who want it" being treated as a policy betrayal.

A by-product of our party Primary system where anything that resembles nuance isn't partisan enough to get the party's nomination.  You better be all in on the platform or you get shown the door.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2949 on: April 11, 2020, 08:44:30 AM »
I pointed out that the way our system is supposed to operate there should be nearly 11,000 members of Congress. It would allow for the formation of a socialist coalition, Democrat coalition, Republican and a Libertarian coalition.

It would be easier to remove the artificial cap on Congress members rather than trying to amend the constitution.

And before anyone says "that would be too unwieldy to work", well, welcome to democracy I guess. All the solutions I see being offered will keep an oligarchy in place. You would just prefer your oligarchs.