2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

[Cute Anime Girl]

The current rules give them a disadvantage, why wouldn't they try to change that?

...they do try. Getting money out is changing the rules. The Democrats want to stop the retardation that is the partisan appointment of SC judges, for example. What other rule of the game can they try to change? And more importantly, how do you suggest they change it?

But even if successful that would still not change the fact that the wealthy still have much more power to influence politics than regular people, and thus generally get what they want. Even in less dysfunctional democracies, that's still the case.

This is super exaggerated. Most European democracies, for example, are already incredibly transparent, with anecdotal scandals happening from time to time. Having said that, yeah sure, money is power. But if it's not money, people just find other **** to leverage over each other. In prisons, people trade in favours. In little online echo-chambers, your currency is social credit. Best you can do is ensure that the ''transactions'' in whatever form they take place, are known, understood and well-reasoned.

And again, even if I 100% agree with you, instead of mere virtue signalling, what are we supposed to do?

Of course, I'm not saying he means anything he says. I'm sure the most progressive platform in history, speaking of things that don't mean anything is legit though, and isn't already too little waiting to be watered down. It was a shame what happened after his friend Barack Obama's 8 years in
office even if it was a total fluke.

Sorry, I don't know where sarcasm begins and ends because you get very basic things wrong. I don't know if you think that insuring 32 million people is a fluke. Or ensuring gay right or aggressively prosecuting the worst polluters, improving food safety, expanding protections for vulnerable groups, ending torture ****, increase help for veterans, etc.

I know you terminally online leftists think you can go ape**** dictatorial without having to ''water down'' your beliefs, but politics is compromise. Half of the people in the US don't like progressivism, a lot of them are marginalized. You want to let the proletariat do a civil war and massacre each other while you sit in your room philosophizing, then just be honest and say it.

 

[Adorno]

The current rules give them a disadvantage, why wouldn't they try to change that? But even if successful that would still not change the fact that the wealthy still have much more power to influence politics than regular people, and thus generally get what they want. Even in less dysfunctional democracies, that's still the case.

You make it sound inevitable. But in many European countries the parliaments, and politics in general is much more diverse,
and more open to people who are not millionaires - or old men.

" The number of millionaires in Congress is hard to pinpoint precisely because they disclose their finances in ranges. But data from the Center for Responsive Politics showed about 48 percent were worth at least $1 million. "

How many in Congress are millionaires?

With income inequality a persistent hot topic in the Democratic presidential primary, it’s not surprising that...

eu.thetimesnews.com

It doesn't have to be like that.

 

[Anarion]

...they do try. Getting money out is changing the rules. The Democrats want to stop the retardation that is the partisan appointment of SC judges, for example. What other rule of the game can they try to change? And more importantly, how do you suggest they change it?

They can carry on doing whatever their plans are for what I care, I don't work for a think tank so I'm not going to try to propose anything.

This is super exaggerated. Most European democracies, for example, are already incredibly transparent, with anecdotal scandals happening from time to time. Having said that, yeah sure, money is power. But if it's not money, people just find other **** to leverage over each other. In prisons, people trade in favours. In little online echo-chambers, your currency is social credit. Best you can do is ensure that the ''transactions'' in whatever form they take place, are known, understood and well-reasoned.

And again, even if I 100% agree with you, instead of mere virtue signalling, what are we supposed to do?

When it comes to exerting your influence, money goes way beyond something like social prestige or physical coercion. It allows you to command other people's time and energy, at a scale which dwarfs other forms of social power, which couldn't be used effectively in anything but small scales. Most people only have their own time and energy, and if they want to achieve political aims which benefit them, they have to band together in groups based on common interest. But it's much easier to mobilize a lot of people if you have a lot of money. Influencing people's opinion is also easier, because you can pay the salaries of, say, economists if you want some paper that says whatever you want to do is going to also be good for the public at large. People need money for access to all kinds of things and most people don't have a lot of it.

What we should do depends entirely on who we are, I'd probably recommend regular people with jobs to organize themselves, and when they're organized to build institutions to counter those that work against their interest and in the interests of the rich. But it would be an uphill struggle. If you mean economics undergrads, I recommend aiming for a cushy think tank job if possible. :p

Sorry, I don't know where sarcasm begins and ends because you get very basic things wrong. I don't know if you think that insuring 32 million people is a fluke. Or ensuring gay right or aggressively prosecuting the worst polluters, improving food safety, expanding protections for vulnerable groups, ending torture ****, increase help for veterans, etc.

What I meant with that is Trump, which happened after eight years with Obama.

I know you terminally online leftists think you can go ape**** dictatorial without having to ''water down'' your beliefs, but politics is compromise. Half of the people in the US don't like progressivism, a lot of them are marginalized. You want to let the proletariat do a civil war and massacre each other while you sit in your room philosophizing, then just be honest and say it.

Buddy, from the terms being used here we are both obviously extremely online. As for bloody proletarian civil war, that's neither on the table nor something anyone would want. Politics is about managing different interests in society which are often in opposition to one another. Compromise is only a tool, and situationally a good idea. The most important opposition today is between those who work for a wage, and those who profit from that work. In this relationship the latter holds most of the cards. Historically, change in the other direction has come about either by revolutions, or by the threat of revolution forcing through some kind of forceful change as in the postwar era.

I never told anyone not to vote or who to vote for, I'm sure any Americans reading this will use their own judgement and do what they think is best.

 

[Cute Anime Girl]

They can carry on doing whatever their plans are for what I care, I don't work for a think tank so I'm not going to try to propose anything.

Cool, so you agree that the narrative that liberals or the Democrats are intrinsically corrupt is shallow and baseless?

When it comes to exerting your influence, money goes way beyond something like social prestige or physical coercion.

Probably not. Social prestige permits some sort of following that you can utilize as a militia, right?

It allows you to command other people's time and energy, at a scale which dwarfs other forms of social power, which couldn't be used effectively in anything but small scales. Most people only have their own time and energy, and if they want to achieve political aims which benefit them, they have to band together in groups based on common interest. But it's much easier to mobilize a lot of people if you have a lot of money. Influencing people's opinion is also easier, because you can pay the salaries of, say...

I concede this specific point.

....economists if you want some paper that says whatever you want to do is going to also be good for the public at large.

Dude, don't do this anti-science ****. Saying something like ''some economists are agenda/money-driven and have questionable beliefs'' is fine, but don't disparage economics. It just makes you look bad and it cultivates irrationality.

What we should do depends entirely on who we are, I'd probably recommend regular people with jobs to organize themselves, and when they're organized to build institutions to counter those that work against their interest and in the interests of the rich. But it would be an uphill struggle. If you mean economics undergrads, I recommend aiming for a cushy think tank job if possible. :p

And guess what? Economic literature in favour of worker-coops exists and is reasonably well received as far I've heard. The problem is that the studies that exist are inconclusive as to whether they could be preferred over incorporated firms (in the end, it's going to depend on the scale of your activity, I think).

Economics is simply doing cost-benefit analyses. You can account for anything you want (if you have the grounds) as a cost or a benefit. Do you think that hyper-aggressive branding, corruption (plenty of literature exists on rent-seeking) and lack of a ''human touch'' is bad in capitalistic societies? Then you can account for those things in your analysis as costs, which you have to weigh against the benefits conferred by wealth generated by capitalism.

What I meant with that is Trump, which happened after eight years with Obama.

I don't get it?

Buddy, from the terms being used here we are both obviously extremely online. As for bloody proletarian civil war, that's neither on the table nor something anyone would want.

Awesome. Then don't try to erode the legitimacy of the democratic process.

The most important opposition today is between those who work for a wage, and those who profit from that work. In this relationship the latter holds most of the cards.

I don't know how to respond to this. If I aks for a source or ****, you're gonna deflect I think. Labour as a contribution to the value of goods is progressively declining. Maybe that's relevant.

Historically, change in the other direction has come about either by revolutions, or by the threat of revolution forcing through some kind of forceful change as in the postwar era.

''Unrest'' is probably more accurate, but yeah, alright.

You make it sound inevitable. But in many European countries the parliaments, and politics in general is much more diverse,
and more open to people who are not millionaires - or old men.

How many in Congress are millionaires?

With income inequality a persistent hot topic in the Democratic presidential primary, it’s not surprising that...

eu.thetimesnews.com

It doesn't have to be like that.

Thank you once again.

 

[Weaver]

Social prestige permits some sort of following that you can utilize as a militia, right?

What.
I mean, while that's true, who the hell wants a charismatic leader backed by a non-government militia to become a political figurehead in his country?
I'll take oligocracy over Hitler any day of the week.

 

[Cute Anime Girl]

Revolutionaries or reacionaries don't (necessarily) succeed because they're loaded. Grev is an anti-capitalist. I'm trying to argue that, if it's not money, people find other ways to leverage things over one another. But he's probably right that money is especially good at leveraging.

My argument is that leveraging will exist whatever the system, as long as an individual can deviate from his peers. So if it's going to exist, then the best we can do is ensure that the leveraging is known, understood and well-reasoned.

It's a bit like regulating drugs. If you prohibit it and aggressively pursue that enforcement of the prohibition, people just find new ways to trade in it or new ways to make the drug, or they opt for new drugs. The best way to regulate drugs is to ensure that you know how the market works by making everything as transparent as you can by legalising it, so you can combat it closer to the cause.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

My argument is that leveraging will exist whatever the system, as long as an individual can deviate from his peers. So if it's going to exist, then the best we can do is ensure that the leveraging is known, understood and well-reasoned.

"Bad things will happen regardless of the system" is a terrible argument and one that anthropology has proven wrong in 9/10 cases where economists use this logic. Societies even 100 years ago in much of Europe were so fundamentally different to our own that you can never make claims about what people do or don't "naturally" do.

Even so its misleading to act like all leverage is somehow bad. In most traditional societies you're supposed to have constant leverage with everyone you consider a friend or relative, and trying to cut yourself off from them by settling all your favours is extremely rude. I've experienced this first hand.
The difference with money is that it's completely detached from social rules and can allow people to essentially accumulate infinite power and exert it over everyone. In precapitalist societies it was almost impossible to do this because very few people dealt in money. Whenever Europeans colonised a pre-existing society they literally had to force the use of markets and socially uncontrolled currency at gunpoint, because there was no way for them to control a society with no transactions and an economy bound inextricably with culture.

 

[Cute Anime Girl]

Three points.

1. The basis is not "bad things happen", the basis is if something CAN happen given the incentives, it WILL happen. If your system does not account for the prevention of the possibility of the act happening, then it will happen. You can't conveniently ignore it.

If you structure your society around the removal of money, then you may succeed there, but because some people can still have more than other people by leveraging their social credit, they will exercise it.

Even in the most tightly-knot, communal cultures where murder is bad, murder still happens.

2. I didn't say all leveraging was bad. When I say it has to be known, understood and well-reasoned, I mean that you must have good reasons to leverage.

3. I think you're right but that you ended up at the wrong conclusion. Money does not intrinsically allow to exert influence over large groups people, but human organization does. Money is just especially good at it.

It's myopic to try to remove money from society. Instead you want to remove undesirable leveraging.

 

[Weaver]

Revolutionaries or reacionaries don't (necessarily) succeed because they're loaded. Grev is an anti-capitalist. I'm trying to argue that, if it's not money, people find other ways to leverage things over one another. But he's probably right that money is especially good at leveraging.

My argument is that leveraging will exist whatever the system, as long as an individual can deviate from his peers. So if it's going to exist, then the best we can do is ensure that the leveraging is known, understood and well-reasoned.

Ok, true.

"Bad things will happen regardless of the system" is a terrible argument and one that anthropology has proven wrong in 9/10 cases where economists use this logic.

You'll have to direct me to these anthropologic researches.
Pretty sure history actully shows that you can not build a flawless system where bad things don't happen.

 

[Anarion]

I don't think anybody thinks that in a different mode of production, all human problems would go away. People will always be different in terms of strength, intelligence, charisma, etc. Some would try to hurt or take advantage of other people just as they do now.

Money has properties that other forms of power mentioned so far don't have: it can accumulate endlessly across lifetimes and generations. Everyone needs it to get things they need to live, and therefore they're compelled to seek it Most people don't have a lot of it, a few people have an extremely large amount of it. It's not generally unlawful to use it (I know there are lots of exceptions but money can also help avoid these). You can pool it with other people if needed.

To take one hypothetical to show a situation where this can be problematic, let's say there's an important city. People want to live in it because that's where all the jobs are. To do this, they have to rent property inside the city. One entity or group of entities with lots of money is able to acquire most of the properties in this city. Now they can squeeze rents out of the inhabitants of the city, not leaving much to live on for them. Let's say the city tries to pass regulations to make the rents less punishing for the renters. Now the entity or entities can use their considerable resources to lobby and influence public opinion until their renters think the regulations will somehow be bad for them. Now let's say there's a massive pandemic leading to an economic slump and lockdowns, lots of people in the city are laid off, and the city wants to give the people stimulus money to weather the crisis. The entity or entities refuse to waive rents, thereby making the stimulus bill de facto a hand out to them. Without tenants, these entities, many of whom have taken on large debts so they could start living off rents, are in a lot of trouble. So they in fact also lose in this scenario.

.

 

[Weaver]

So the point you're making is property owning entities using money to lobby their interests and gain even more money in the end?
Well, that's corruption. And it kind of goes tangential to the points you're making because neither of them solves it.

 

[Anarion]

In a way, but it's only corruption as long as it's illegal. It's relevant because it's a conflict of interest, and the causes of it are part of why it's harder to solve politically than it ought to be.

A conflict of interest that leads to the ruin of both parties that is.

 

[Weaver]

But you actually can not solve corruption via political means. Just like you can't stop theft and murder through a police reform.

 

[Cute Anime Girl]

Money has properties that other forms of power mentioned so far don't have: it can accumulate endlessly across lifetimes and generations. Everyone needs it to get things they need to live, and therefore they're compelled to seek it Most people don't have a lot of it, a few people have an extremely large amount of it. It's not generally unlawful to use it (I know there are lots of exceptions but money can also help avoid these). You can pool it with other people if needed.

In your opinion, do you think that there's some sort of convenience or benefit to using money? I acknowledge that it has problems.

---

Efficiency → post-scarcity → Marxism

I fixed Marxism, you're welcome.

 

[kurczak]

Michigan, 58% in, Trump +10 (LOOOOL).
Wisconsin, 82% in, Trump + 4.9
He's going to win again, isn't he.

Dems are even looking to lose 1 seat netto in the Senate atm.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

The Democrats are going to put a jar of mayonnaise (Joe Biden) up against Trump and Trump will win a second time.

 

[kurczak]

Seems well predicted.

Btw re: campaign finances, Democrats tend to (substantially) out-raise Republicans. Clinton outraised Trump raised by ~ 100% and Biden by ~50%. Also the incredible amounts they can pump into senatorial challenges that seem to fail so far (O'Rourke or Harrison). Imagine burning over A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS just to not only fail to unseat ****ing Lindsey Graham, but lose by 15 points (at 75% in). This gives me hope, not because I like LG, but because it turns out money isn't everything.

Spoiler: mfw that 2nd CD Maine elector might quite realistically determine the course of the world's only superpower

 

[Adorno]

Trump sues in 3 states, laying ground for contesting outcome

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's campaign filed lawsuits Wednesday in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia, laying the groundwork for contesting battleground states as he slipped behind Democrat Joe Biden in the hunt for the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the White House...

apnews.com

 

[Cute Anime Girl]

Michigan, 58% in, Trump +10 (LOOOOL).
Wisconsin, 82% in, Trump + 4.9
He's going to win again, isn't he.

Dems are even looking to lose 1 seat netto in the Senate atm.

Wisconsin, 95%, + 0.8 Biden now

Reps usually vote in person, Dems (this election especially) by mail-in. See every state do well for Trump first and then flip as counting progresses. It's why Trump wants to stop mail-ins and call the election prematurely. The fact that a state can flip at 90 for Biden when the margins were 5 off at 80 for Trump is kinda insane. Goes to show how important mail-ins are and why Trump was so hard on them. I don't think anyone knew exactly how important they are.

EDIT: Michigan just flipped, too.

Trump sues in 3 states, laying ground for contesting outcome

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's campaign filed lawsuits Wednesday in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia, laying the groundwork for contesting battleground states as he slipped behind Democrat Joe Biden in the hunt for the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the White House...

apnews.com

Comment I stole:
"We fear the American citizens will interfere with the Presidential Election" - Trump

 

[kurczak]

Yea, Biden's taking lead in Michigan and Wisconsin at ~95% in and seems poised to narrowly win them and the only way for Trump is winning Pennsylvania and Nevada, which is a bit of a long shot. But the margin in WI and MI is 20k and 45k votes atm, so I'm sure Trump will summon all legalese mojo and sue for recounts etc.

Even if he loses, Reps seem extremely likely to keep the Senate, even if Loeffler loses the run-off in January and Dems to keep the House, but not really expanding their majority substantially. Biden's leading the popular vote by 2% atm, will probably increase it a bit once the West Coast is fully counted, but still overall not the crashing blue wave they had been hoping for and, more importantly, not (again) the double digit genocide that the vast majority of polls predicted.