General US Politics

[Dark Holy Elf]

There very well could have been illegals voting, probably not 3 million like he claims, but it's a legitimate concern.

No, it really isn't. Let me quote my own post from a few days ago:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56082&p=4618138

I'll add another link this time for good measure: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/17/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-large-scale-voter-f/

(By the way: yes, I know that Trump made similar comments prior to the election. I'm relatively less concerned about those because they can be dismissed as posturing designed to help rile up his base for the election; that sort of shit happens in politics. The more recent comments, even though they are nothing but repetition of what he said before the election, are thus far more concerning to me.)

[Crysta]

He's been attempting to sow doubt in the electoral process since 2012 when Romney lost, if not earlier. And he spent the weeks leading up to the election insisting that the results were going to be rigged - particularly if he lost.

And he went from being in favor of abolishing the electoral college to praising it within the week after he was elected.

The guy's a trainwreck of egotism and whining and his authoritarian leanings are nothing new.

[blah the Prussian]

The US has a voting population roughly equal to that of Indonesia and far smaller than that of India, which manage to run national elections just fine, and Indonesia has run-offs. Being a larger country is a very weak excuse. More population just means you have more polling stations, more people counting ballots, and so on; the system scales up quite well. And yeah, paper works just fine for run-off (and I tend to prefer it to other methods myself in general; it's nice to have a verifiable physical record of all votes should it be necessary).

Indonesia committed genocide as recently as the 1990s. In the 1970s India's President declared an emergency and went on a spree arresting the political opposition. Neither are models for successful democracy.

[Life]

capitalism is inherently bad because it fails to keep safe the exploited worker from the owners of production, and as such it makes everyone overall less productive because there's no incentives to perform at their best. i believe that even the idealistic scenario for capitalism would be utterly detrimental to humanity.

Why this doesn't make sense:

Under capitalism, the worker can quit because capitalism is reliant on a mutual gain system without coercion. Under any form of Marxism, he can't because this is his portion of work owed to the state. Only one system can actually succeed in exploiting the worker and it ain't capitalism.

Tell you what. I'll go re-read The Communist Manifesto while you read Adam Smith. Fair?

[blah the Prussian]

Why this doesn't make sense:

Under capitalism, the worker can quit because capitalism is reliant on a mutual gain system without coercion. Under any form of Marxism, he can't because this is his portion of work owed to the state. Only one system can actually succeed in exploiting the worker and it ain't capitalism.

Tell you what. I'll go re-read The Communist Manifesto while you read Adam Smith. Fair?

Problem with this: we're ultimately driven by a desire to survive, and that can be just as strong as the law. It is necessary for Capitalism to be restrained or the worker can't quit without his ability to live being severely impacted. Not arguing for Communism, just against pure Capitalism.

[Life]

Problem with this: we're ultimately driven by a desire to survive, and that can be just as strong as the law. It is necessary for Capitalism to be restrained or the worker can't quit without his ability to live being severely impacted. Not arguing for Communism, just against pure Capitalism.

Well sure but there's also the idea of supply vs. demand. If a company prices its product out of the masses' income scale, the company fails until it reigns back in the price. And if it is because they can get away with paying workers less (which causes average incomes to fall), eventually the price of said product will also have to fall to meet the demand.

There's lots of discussion to be had on how much restraint should be put on Capitalism but the main takeaway from my point is that no company is forcing someone to work for less with the use of force. Not so under Marxist ideology since you owe your workload to the state.

I think it was Raven who said something along the lines of "well, Marxism hasn't worked yet because we're not at the societal level where it can". Which is completely false because Marxist ideas work perfectly since they require brutal dictatorships to enforce the system. If I were to think that I was entitled to my own gain, the state needs to step in with force to make sure that it is fairly shared across the country. That's why all Marxist based regimes ban freedom of speech; dissent breeds opposition to the idea of forced altruism.

​As I like to say, "Statism - Ideas so good that they have to be mandatory".

EDIT: I know that eclipse just said but I'm playing Civ 6 (Game of the Month #2) and I just unlocked the Class Struggle civic (to unlock Communism as a government because they have sweet production bonuses but I don't need them when aiming for a culture victory). And guess what the quote says?

​"The class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx

Marx himself realized the need for a dictator (whether one person or an entire class) to enforce his own ideas.

This was totally by accident. I just want to finish this GotM (my first attempt at Immortal) and this just happened to pop up.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Life

[eclipse]

And while this is fascinating, this is the wrong topic to do so.

[Tetragrammaton]

Well sure but there's also the idea of supply vs. demand. If a company prices its product out of the masses' income scale, the company fails until it reigns back in the price. And if it is because they can get away with paying workers less (which causes average incomes to fall), eventually the price of said product will also have to fall to meet the demand.

There's lots of discussion to be had on how much restraint should be put on Capitalism but the main takeaway from my point is that no company is forcing someone to work for less with the use of force. Not so under Marxist ideology since you owe your workload to the state.

I think it was Raven who said something along the lines of "well, Marxism hasn't worked yet because we're not at the societal level where it can". Which is completely false because Marxist ideas work perfectly since they require brutal dictatorships to enforce the system. If I were to think that I was entitled to my own gain, the state needs to step in with force to make sure that it is fairly shared across the country. That's why all Marxist based regimes ban freedom of speech; dissent breeds opposition to the idea of forced altruism.

​As I like to say, "Statism - Ideas so good that they have to be mandatory".

EDIT: I know that eclipse just said but I'm playing Civ 6 (Game of the Month #2) and I just unlocked the Class Struggle civic (to unlock Communism as a government because they have sweet production bonuses but I don't need them when aiming for a culture victory). And guess what the quote says?

​"The class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx

Marx himself realized the need for a dictator (whether one person or an entire class) to enforce his own ideas.

This was totally by accident. I just want to finish this GotM (my first attempt at Immortal) and this just happened to pop up.

That's not Marxism, you're just simply don't understand it enough.

The truth is "well, Marxism hasn't worked yet because we're not at the societal level where it can".

It's in the far future, it must be at least hundred years before any of us can reach to that level.

Stalinism, Maoist or Communist, while they claim they are, they all have misunderstood, and practiced it in a wrong way.

It's like in a game, you know your final boss right from the beginning of the game, but you can't deal with it until you reach some certain level, find high end gears, learn all the required skills, etc...

None of us has reach to that level yet, anyone want to try that before the time comes will be doomed.

[Augestein]

I think it was Raven who said something along the lines of "well, Marxism hasn't worked yet because we're not at the societal level where it can". Which is completely false because Marxist ideas work perfectly since they require brutal dictatorships to enforce the system. If I were to think that I was entitled to my own gain, the state needs to step in with force to make sure that it is fairly shared across the country. That's why all Marxist based regimes ban freedom of speech; dissent breeds opposition to the idea of forced altruism.

They do? And why is that a requirement?

[Emperor Petitt]

There very well could have been illegals voting, probably not 3 million like he claims, but it's a legitimate concern. However, just like the claim that the voting machines were hacked, you shouldn't be making those claims publicly without some solid evidence to back it up. The burden of evidence is on the one making the accusation, here. Trump pointing out that Hillary is a bit of a hypocrite for not accepting the elections is one thing, but making a claim that there were 3 million illegal votes crosses the line.

Actually this claim is a week and a half old and didn't originally come from Trump but from a man named Gregg Phillips, though they didn't use the term illegals, just noncitizens. Now because states like New York, and California don't require you to have any ID to vote, it is very possible that states like them is where is happened.

[Lord Raven]

​"The class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx

Marx himself realized the need for a dictator (whether one person or an entire class) to enforce his own ideas.

This quote means that the rich will piss off the poor if they continue to screw the poor over as they do in a capitalistic society.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

He's saying this in opposition to the dictatorship of the bourgeoise, ie what capitalism turns into, which we are seeing in the US now. Or rather we have been seeing it.

[Phoenix Wright]

Why this doesn't make sense:

Under capitalism, the worker can quit because capitalism is reliant on a mutual gain system without coercion. Under any form of Marxism, he can't because this is his portion of work owed to the state. Only one system can actually succeed in exploiting the worker and it ain't capitalism.

Tell you what. I'll go re-read The Communist Manifesto while you read Adam Smith. Fair?

you missed the point. i'm aware it's a gross simplification, but it's exactly what you did. and i'm not gonna sit here and defend marxism because i don't care, i just wanted you and tuvarkz to know your understanding is lacking.

"re-read." yeah. fucking. right.

[Excellen Browning]

Well considering it seems Trump's children aka the people who are mostly taking over his company are now sitting in on meetings with other politicians from abroad, and he's calling the Argentinian president to get permits for his hotels, we might end up seeing some real bourgeois government going on.

"Hey John how's it going"

"Pretty good, Donald. Say, listen. I'm trying to get some stuff built in Mexico, and I'm having some issues with the permits. Could you do me a solid and see what you can do about it?"

"Sure thing. Hey, how about you and I and some friends have a little get together next saturday? We'll hire some hookers, snort some coke and do some fishing"

"That sounds like a lot of fun. I'll make sure to be there. By the by, should I pay the usual amount to your company for services rendered"

"Yea, that'd be great"

... Is what I'm imagining will be a conversation between Trump and one of his business friends during his presidency.

Why did the christian fundamentalists vote him again? Oh right they were off their pills and all thought Hillary was the devil and lol who ever votes for a third party amirite.

[Life]

Tell you this much, I'm not happy with Trump's kids talking shop with world leaders. As in there are some serious ethical problems here for me.

To be expected, I guess, but that doesn't mean that I'm happy about it.

[Lord Raven]

I think the idea of a post-fact era is all I can think of. Some people sincerely did believe that the democrats/liberals droned up a conspiracy against Donald Trump showing that he is this fraud with less-than-pure intentions.

Other people voted him in because of reasons that Yojinbo keeps getting at (Clinton's disastrous foreign policy, which I actually don't know anyone - even my family who are the most ardent Clinton supporters - who supports it).

And the Christian fundamentalists voted him in because he's an evangelical despite being Satan in the flesh.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Lord Raven

[CyborgZeta]

Yeah, because California and New York aren't part of the U.S., or it's not like they aren't some of the most populated states, right? Also, Texas has more population than New York. Do you like the idea of Texas deciding national policy, or is only California and New York not okay because they vote a party you do not like personally?

No one's ever said California and New York aren't part of the US; California in particular may seem like another country altogether compared to where I grew up, but it is a state. I just don't like the idea of two states, regardless of how populated they are, deciding how the rest of the states go about their business. If I wanted to live in California, and abide by its culture and laws, then I'd live there; but I don't live in California.

Also, the catch is that California and New York are massively populated and overwhelmingly lean one way. Hillary got a whopping 62% of the vote in California (and it's likely to keep increasing!) and 58% of the vote in New York.

Texas is just one state; and despite being a red state, its margins are not as large as California or New York. The difference between Trump and Hillary in Texas was less than a million votes.

Texas isn't enough to save the day for one side if the majority of California and New York are going for the other side; the popular vote in this election proves that. Texas doesn't get to decide anything.

[tuvarkz]

And the Christian fundamentalists voted him in because he's an evangelical despite being Satan in the flesh.

And perhaps because the whole spirit cooking debacle, being involved with a person that fervently denied being a satanist despite overwhelming proof of the opposite; and the odd reference to making a sacrifice to Moloch in a wikileaks mail. Oh, and Clinton's stance on abortion likely.

[ping]

Too bad that the next president will be from NY, I guess. ;)

I still can't really agree with a state seen as one big Thing in regards of the presidental election. It's still individuals voting, and right now the voters in California, New York, Hawaii and all the other sure states had no chance to influence the result in any way. And this goes voters of both parties, really, because voting for Trump in Hawaii was equally pointless.

You're afraid that the populace of a few states might decide about the affairs of the whole union, but how is that not the case right now? You either live in a swing state (or at least a state that could potentially flip) or you can just vote for the candidate of whatever the American equivalent of the Anarchist Pogo Party might be.

And perhaps because the whole spirit cooking debacle, being involved with a person that fervently denied being a satanist despite overwhelming proof of the opposite; and the odd reference to making a sacrifice to Moloch in a wikileaks mail. Oh, and Clinton's stance on abortion likely.

What

My sarcasm detectors seem to be out of order, so... Is this an actual accusation against Clinton? Because... well, 'what' pretty much covers my reaction to this.

€: First part directed at CyborgZeta.

Edited November 28, 2016 by ping

[CyborgZeta]

They don't have as much influence now because popular vote doesn't decide the President. I'm only expressing my concern at the idea of using popular vote to decide a national election, because then only the most populous areas would matter; in which case a state like California would carry a proportionally large influence.

And this election shows that not every state is truly safe. Swing states are important, but if you have a message that resonates, or get enough people to turn out, then you can win states normally considered safe.

As I pointed out, the difference between Trump and Hillary in Texas was less than a million votes; add their totals together, and that doesn't even scratch Texas's total population of over 27 million people. Had more people turned out and voted for Hillary, it's possible Texas could've gone blue.

Even a state like Montana had a difference of just a bit over 100,000 votes; Montana has a population of at least a million. Could the state have gone blue? I dunno, but Bill Clinton managed to win over a lot of normally conservative states in his runs for President; Montana included.

[Rezzy]

No, it really isn't. Let me quote my own post from a few days ago:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56082&p=4618138

I'll add another link this time for good measure: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/17/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-large-scale-voter-f/

(By the way: yes, I know that Trump made similar comments prior to the election. I'm relatively less concerned about those because they can be dismissed as posturing designed to help rile up his base for the election; that sort of shit happens in politics. The more recent comments, even though they are nothing but repetition of what he said before the election, are thus far more concerning to me.)

I said it was unlikely to play a deciding role in this election, but was possible. And at least as credible as Russian hackers influencing the election.

I've voted in 7 election cycles, I'm been asked to show ID in about half of those. The other half, they simply asked for my name. I did get carded this time, incidentally. There's no way to link a person's vote to their identity, so who's to say people are who they say they are? Maybe people checked the obituaries and just gave that name or stole someone's name. If the person tries to vote later in the day, there's no way to go back and trace the fraudulent vote. I'm not saying this is happening wide scale in this case. It's just something that can't be dismissed out of hand. And if someone were to make an accusation that something like this influenced the election, they would need to bring proof.

I think Trump's claim is ridiculous. I simply think there is a middle ground between: "No fraud happens ever, nope not even in 1960." and "The election was rigged by the millions."

[Excellen Browning]

It can be fairly easy to prevent identity fraud with identity cards that are difficult to counterfeit with simple authenticity checks, and running a check on a living persons database. Or by sending voting passes to persons who are allowed to vote, and only allow them to vote if their ID matches the one on the voting pass.

[Time the Crestfallen]

They don't have as much influence now because popular vote doesn't decide the President. I'm only expressing my concern at the idea of using popular vote to decide a national election, because then only the most populous areas would matter; in which case a state like California would carry a proportionally large influence.

It's a difficult situation it seems. Certainly, it would be more 'fair' and democratic if the election was decided by who got the most votes, but at the same time if this website can be trusted:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS

Only about 18% of the US population is rural, so you can say goodbye to them having any say in the election.

It pretty much comes down to which sections of the population should have less of a say; with a purely popular vote, the Presidency will be decided by the top 50 or so cities, but with an electoral college the Presidency will be decided largely by how the swing states vote (even if some states do change over every now and then) and people in safe states will feel less compelled to vote.

[Excellen Browning]

You could also have a bicameral system where in one chamber the people with the most votes across the country combined get in, and in the other there's an equal amount per state. And then make it so a law can only pass with a majority in both chambers.

You know, like the US has.

You'd almost think they put some actual thought into this.

[Res]

They'd still get a say; just an 18% say, which could still be pretty decisive in an election. Clearly red and blue lines aren't drawn only amongst rural/urban voters or else the popular vote would reflect that.

And right now you can be a rural Californian, for example, and not have your vote count. Trump still received nearly a good third of the votes in California, which is not insignificant.

[Time the Crestfallen]

They'd still get a say; just an 18% say, which could still be pretty decisive in an election. Clearly red and blue lines aren't drawn only amongst rural/urban voters or else the popular vote would reflect that.

And right now you can be a rural Californian, for example, and not have your vote count. Trump still received nearly a good third of the votes in California, which is not insignificant.

Can you clarify the bolded part? I'm not sure what you mean.

As for your bottom part, that was part of my criticism of the electoral college. Trump received a third of the votes, and yet due to the Electoral college the entirety of the 55 electoral votes goes to Clinton. I believe Sunwoo has touched upon this, pointing out that since his state was all-but guaranteed to go blue he didn't feel the need to vote.

Admittedly, my criticisms might be a little weak since the very concept of voting for a Presidential candidate is a little odd to me.