The Blame Game

[TSwizzle]

I blame it on the fucking democratic process of the people being allowed to select their government officials. Why the hell is anyone being legally allowed to vote for people I don't want in office. Anyone who votes for someone who I don't approve of is obviously an idiot so shouldn't be allowed to vote.

It's a recurring theme on these boards.

 

[skepticalbip]

I blame it on the fucking democratic process of the people being allowed to select their government officials. Why the hell is anyone being legally allowed to vote for people I don't want in office. Anyone who votes for someone who I don't approve of is obviously an idiot so shouldn't be allowed to vote.

It's a recurring theme on these boards.

Exactly. That is pretty much what every gripe boils down to, people are pissed that someone else didn't vote for their candidate.

 

[prideandfall]

It's a recurring theme on these boards.

Exactly. That is pretty much what every gripe boils down to, people are pissed that someone didn't vote for their candidate.

seems to be people like blaming other people for being pissed that someone didn't vote for their candidate, more than that actually happening.

 

[LordKiran]

why not?

Because we live in a very real world where people are petty and bitter and will sue each other over a fifty dollar phone charger just for the sake of the principle. Where as I am willing to let Trump be president as a calculated risk that it will pay off later with increased political clout and social regard for left-leaning voters, I can't say that's true for most people. You can see it in the Bernie or Bust movement. When people feel they've been cheated, they will almost always do what they can to spite you if you don't make it right.

But it honestly goes even further than that, during the entire democratic primary, Bernie and his supporters were regarded by the elites as though they were spoiled, hopelessly naive children and condescended to by Hillary and her top-level supporters. They were slandered and mischarictarized by the DNC (Bernie Bros, Communism) in order to tip the 'ignorant and stupid' voters to her side. (Honestly this is why I kind of like the twenty year long smear campaign against HRC and seeing it pay off, it's a sort of poetic justice.)

The DNC really could not have possibly done more to drive them away, and while many may have forgotten, I have not and I am willing to bet most Bernie supporters haven't either.

 

[bilby]

I blame it on the fucking democratic process of the people being allowed to select their government officials. Why the hell is anyone being legally allowed to vote for people I don't want in office. Anyone who votes for someone who I don't approve of is obviously an idiot so shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Not quite. Anyone who votes for someone whose policies are based on counterfactual opinions is obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or better still, any candidate whose policies are based on counterfactual opinions is obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to run in the first place.

These positions are easily misrepresented as the same as your assertion above; but they are not in fact the same thing.

Reality isn't a matter of opinion. Nobody is entitled to their own facts.

Democracy is a good thing, but anything taken to excess becomes bad.

The Brexit vote is a good example of this - Cameron's job was to make an informed decision. Instead he shirked his duty in favour of an unreasonable increase in democracy.

'What is best for the people' is not always the same thing as 'what the people want'. There is a reason why direct democracy is rare.

I recognise that this is unpopular with those whose faith in democracy is the foundation of their morality. But I don't accept that morality should be founded on blind faith.

 

[Elixir]

You know we can sit here and play the blame game all we want, but what it comes down to is that HRC and the dems failed to make their case where Trump succeeded. That's really all there is to it.

You can blame third parties based on extenuating circumstances if you want, but at the end of the day this is what it comes down to. Hillary lost and it's ultimately her fault.

It would be easy to regress the whole process and blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But that isn't the purpose of the thread. Despite the title, I'm more interested in parsing the process that led to this tragic state of affairs.

 

[LordKiran]

You know we can sit here and play the blame game all we want, but what it comes down to is that HRC and the dems failed to make their case where Trump succeeded. That's really all there is to it.

You can blame third parties based on extenuating circumstances if you want, but at the end of the day this is what it comes down to. Hillary lost and it's ultimately her fault.

It would be easy to regress the whole process and blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But that isn't the purpose of the thread. Despite the title, I'm more interested in parsing the process that led to this tragic state of affairs.

To simply blame DWS is unreasonable. There's also the fact that she was taken on by the Clinton campaign after everything fell through. Even if this is purely coincidental it makes HRC look guilty as fuck and complicit with her shenanigans.

 

[credoconsolans]

You know we can sit here and play the blame game all we want, but what it comes down to is that HRC and the dems failed to make their case where Trump succeeded. That's really all there is to it.

You can blame third parties based on extenuating circumstances if you want, but at the end of the day this is what it comes down to. Hillary lost and it's ultimately her fault.

i completely disagree here.

here's been the usual gamut of "democrats are out of touch" and "hillary ran a poor campaign" and "the left isn't speaking to the fears of the voters" and it's like... the fears of the voters are fucking stupid. they SHOULDN'T pander to that.
the democrats are the ones who show up with reasonable solutions to complex problems without pretending it's a miracle cure and who tackle complicated issues like adults, while the republicans just shit their pants and then shit in your pants and then tell you that herbalife is going to change your destiny... and it's the democrat's fault that most people pick herbalife?

the blame here is (as it always is) squarely on the literal, physical, mental retardation of the US populace.

Agree.

The Democrats made their case and quite clearly.

Hillary was the best qualified for the position.

Apparently, Trump supporters were not looking for qualified candidates and in doing so, set dangerous precedents for the future.

1) What is the point of the debates anymore? They used to be held to showcase the knowledge and ability of the candidates to make a case for being the best candidate by putting forth intelligent arguments for the country's issues.
Hillary clearly won all 3 debates.

Trump supporters voted for the loser. The man who couldn't prove he had a clue about what was going on and how to handle it.

2) Is the candidate a supporter for the USA? Not anymore. The candidate who made public 40 years of tax records was beaten by a candidate who didn't show anything.

Trump supporters voted for the guy who refused to show to who he owes money, what tax breaks he took advantage of and willingly admitted he's paid no taxes, smugly claiming that's smart.

Be ready for the supporters who will suddenly stop paying taxes so they can be 'smart' and then cry foul and the IRS is 'corrupt' when the tax man cometh.

3) The presidential office used to be an office the US people could be proud of and that we wanted our best and brightest there.

Trump supporters voted for a man currently under investigation for fraud and sexual assault. They voted for a man whose wife is a topless model and who lied about her level of education and whose immigration status is nebulous. They voted for a man who willingly admitted he's not smart, but will hire smart people to do his job for him.

Our next elections will be a circus parade, full of dumb, ignorant idiots whose only claim to the qualifications of the highest office of the land is that they can hire someone to be smart for them.

Holy shit. What have they done to us?!?

 

[Trausti]

Trump supporters voted for the loser.

Ah, no they didn't.

 

[skepticalbip]

Trump supporters voted for the loser.

Ah, no they didn't.

Maybe credoconsolans is unaware that Clinton has already given her concession speech.

 

[credoconsolans]

Ah, no they didn't.

Maybe credoconsolans is unaware that Clinton has already given her concession speech.

Trump supporters voted for the loser.

Ah, no they didn't.

Read my whole post next time.

The loser OF THE DEBATES.

 

[LordKiran]

I blame it on the fucking democratic process of the people being allowed to select their government officials. Why the hell is anyone being legally allowed to vote for people I don't want in office. Anyone who votes for someone who I don't approve of is obviously an idiot so shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Not quite. Anyone who votes for someone whose policies are based on counterfactual opinions is obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or better still, any candidate whose policies are based on counterfactual opinions is obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to run in the first place.

These positions are easily misrepresented as the same as your assertion above; but they are not in fact the same thing.

Reality isn't a matter of opinion. Nobody is entitled to their own facts.

Democracy is a good thing, but anything taken to excess becomes bad.

The Brexit vote is a good example of this - Cameron's job was to make an informed decision. Instead he shirked his duty in favour of an unreasonable increase in democracy.

'What is best for the people' is not always the same thing as 'what the people want'. There is a reason why direct democracy is rare.

I recognise that this is unpopular with those whose faith in democracy is the foundation of their morality. But I don't accept that morality should be founded on blind faith.

What a horribly repugnant thing to say.

People have been doomsaying about how Donald trump will be the end of democracy and yet here you are suggesting for this exact thing.

The irony is that if this were a pure democracy, Hillary would have won by a razor thin margin, and yet Trump's presidency was only made possible because of these undemocratic safety precausions, who's entire job was to screen the election for people like trump.

I understand that you might be disillusioned right now but SERIOUSLY reconsider your position.

 

[bilby]

Not quite. Anyone who votes for someone whose policies are based on counterfactual opinions is obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to vote. Or better still, any candidate whose policies are based on counterfactual opinions is obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to run in the first place.

These positions are easily misrepresented as the same as your assertion above; but they are not in fact the same thing.

Reality isn't a matter of opinion. Nobody is entitled to their own facts.

Democracy is a good thing, but anything taken to excess becomes bad.

The Brexit vote is a good example of this - Cameron's job was to make an informed decision. Instead he shirked his duty in favour of an unreasonable increase in democracy.

'What is best for the people' is not always the same thing as 'what the people want'. There is a reason why direct democracy is rare.

I recognise that this is unpopular with those whose faith in democracy is the foundation of their morality. But I don't accept that morality should be founded on blind faith.

What a horribly repugnant thing to say.

People have been doomsaying about how Donald trump will be the end of democracy and yet here you are suggesting for this exact thing.

The irony is that if this were a pure democracy, Hillary would have won by a razor thin margin, and yet Trump's presidency was only made possible because of these undemocratic safety precausions, who's entire job was to screen the election for people like trump.

I understand that you might be disillusioned right now but SERIOUSLY reconsider your position.

I have considered my position very carefully.

Democracy is a great idea. But like all ideas, it has its limits.

I understand that you find it repugnant when your religion is insulted. But I don't hold anything to be sacred. Including democracy.

When democracy goes too far, it invites tyranny. The Founding Fathers understood this, even if you do not.

Democracy is NOT more important than liberty; and democracy doesn't work when most people opt out, and when the people who do vote are misinformed.

 

[LordKiran]

What a horribly repugnant thing to say.

People have been doomsaying about how Donald trump will be the end of democracy and yet here you are suggesting for this exact thing.

The irony is that if this were a pure democracy, Hillary would have won by a razor thin margin, and yet Trump's presidency was only made possible because of these undemocratic safety precausions, who's entire job was to screen the election for people like trump.

I understand that you might be disillusioned right now but SERIOUSLY reconsider your position.

I have considered my position very carefully.

Democracy is a great idea. But like all ideas, it has its limits.

I understand that you find it repugnant when your religion is insulted. But I don't hold anything to be sacred. Including democracy.

When democracy goes too far, it invites tyranny. The Founding Fathers understood this, even if you do not.

Democracy is NOT more important than liberty; and democracy doesn't work when most people opt out, and when the people who do vote are misinformed.

Even though voter participation is not why Trump was elected, but the founding father's stop gap measure against weak presidents was.

The facts don't line up with your views.

 

[Tigers!]

Maybe credoconsolans is unaware that Clinton has already given her concession speech.

Trump supporters voted for the loser.

Ah, no they didn't.

Read my whole post next time.

The loser OF THE DEBATES.

Hillary won the battles yet lost the war. We should call her Hannibal Hillary. Ask she if she would like to swap with trump right now.

 

[bilby]

I have considered my position very carefully.

Democracy is a great idea. But like all ideas, it has its limits.

I understand that you find it repugnant when your religion is insulted. But I don't hold anything to be sacred. Including democracy.

When democracy goes too far, it invites tyranny. The Founding Fathers understood this, even if you do not.

Democracy is NOT more important than liberty; and democracy doesn't work when most people opt out, and when the people who do vote are misinformed.

Even though voter participation is not why Trump was elected, but the founding father's stop gap measure against weak presidents was.

The facts don't line up with your views.

Actually they do, but as you suggested, grasping the limits of democracy is something that requires serious consideration, and I have not had the time for a detailed response today.

I plan to post my complete position on this topic tomorrow, if I have the opportunity. It's likely a thread all of its own, and I would welcome your participation, once I have the chance to set out my position in more detail.

 

[maxparrish]

Even though voter participation is not why Trump was elected, but the founding father's stop gap measure against weak presidents was.

The facts don't line up with your views.

Actually they do, but as you suggested, grasping the limits of democracy is something that requires serious consideration, and I have not had the time for a detailed response today.

I plan to post my complete position on this topic tomorrow, if I have the opportunity. It's likely a thread all of its own, and I would welcome your participation, once I have the chance to set out my position in more detail.

In anticipation of your post, a few comments.

There are, or should be, mechanisms that temper democratic choice. The founders understood and feared forms of direct democracy that allowed the avarice and emotions of the majority to directly implement law. And, as we all know, they created "checks and balances" which were supposed to prevent monolithic and unchecked rule over a minority. They recognized that the despotism of the mob was as dangerous as that of a monarch.

So they limited full democratic participation, initially (in many states) limiting it land owning and free males. In terms of the culture of the period, it made some sense. While everyone could be affected by democratic government, it was property owning free farmers that had the most to lose and paid most of the taxes. Moreover, free males were considered as representative heads of families, and as solely responsible for the well-being of his dependencies (wife, children, servants, and slaves).

No doubt the initial design, and two centuries of modification, has led to some other problems. Courts have become sovereign law makers, Presidents have expanded executive decrees into law-making, and the massive expansion of the administrative state into its own legislative body, has made Congress weak and ineffectual. The notion of a government of, for, and by the people becomes increasingly hollow.

So many reforms are needed, but before addressing institutional problems I suggest you start at the root and first decide who should be allowed to fully participate. I suggest:

- Only those who pay more in taxes than they obtain in subsidies and benefits from the government should be allowed to vote or run for office. Hence, various categories of sponges (students on loans, the 47 percent that pay no income tax, etc.) should not have the right to vote. As long as a person is a net parasite on the civic body, they have no right to decide how much that take of other people's money. They are charity cases.

- Those with a conflict of interest in public spending (e.g. government suppliers and government employees) should not be allowed to vote.

With these modest reforms the nation would permit those who pay the bill to decide what, who, and how they subsidize those who seek the status of being a collective mooch (ironically, a lot of poor white "red" states would find themselves without many of those votes for Trump).

Mind you, there are other options that would seem to be beneficial, but really can't be morally justified. Eliminating the vote for: premenopausal women, those with IQs below 90, first generation immigrants, those below the age of 25, and for Muslims are all great ideas but lack a principled basis.

 

[LordKiran]

Actually they do, but as you suggested, grasping the limits of democracy is something that requires serious consideration, and I have not had the time for a detailed response today.

I plan to post my complete position on this topic tomorrow, if I have the opportunity. It's likely a thread all of its own, and I would welcome your participation, once I have the chance to set out my position in more detail.

In anticipation of your post, a few comments.

There are, or should be, mechanisms that temper democratic choice. The founders understood and feared forms of direct democracy that allowed the avarice and emotions of the majority to directly implement law. And, as we all know, they created "checks and balances" which were supposed to prevent monolithic and unchecked rule over a minority. They recognized that the despotism of the mob was as dangerous as that of a monarch.

So they limited full democratic participation, initially (in many states) limiting it land owning and free males. In terms of the culture of the period, it made some sense. While everyone could be affected by democratic government, it was property owning free farmers that had the most to lose and paid most of the taxes. Moreover, free males were considered as representative heads of families, and as solely responsible for the well-being of his dependencies (wife, children, servants, and slaves).

No doubt the initial design, and two centuries of modification, has led to some other problems. Courts have become sovereign law makers, Presidents have expanded executive decrees into law-making, and the massive expansion of the administrative state into its own legislative body, has made Congress weak and ineffectual. The notion of a government of, for, and by the people becomes increasingly hollow.

So many reforms are needed, but before addressing institutional problems I suggest you start at the root and first decide who should be allowed to fully participate. I suggest:

- Only those who pay more in taxes than they obtain in subsidies and benefits from the government should be allowed to vote or run for office. Hence, various categories of sponges (students on loans, the 47 percent that pay no income tax, etc.) should not have the right to vote. As long as a person is a net parasite on the civic body, they have no right to decide how much that take of other people's money. They are charity cases.

This is the only one I personal care to comment on, but dictating who gets the vote based on their economic wealth means that the electoral body is now determined by the state of the economy. Not a great plan in the long run. What happens if there's a great depression and everyone finds themselves needing gov. assistance as the majority of their intake?

Furthermore I personally like the idea of two tiers of citizens

Freemen and citizens, the latter of which who's classification is dependent upon documented service to the state and/or the local community. (Soldiers/administrators/volunteers ect.)

 

[KeepTalking]

Those viewers didn't just drive the media coverage. They drove to the polls yesterday and voted in droves. They (or at least enough of them) passionately wanted to have the Presidency become a 4-year long reality show. Bread and circuses. Bread and circuses.

Bread and circuses. Except without the bread. We can't just hand out bread simply because people are starving, you know. And those circuses, sorry, but unless you are rich you don't get to go to them, but if you are rich you don't have to pay for them. The people that won't be allowed to go to them will pay for them, just like the Mexicans who won't be allowed into our country will be the ones who pay to keep themselves out.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Those viewers didn't just drive the media coverage. They drove to the polls yesterday and voted in droves. They (or at least enough of them) passionately wanted to have the Presidency become a 4-year long reality show. Bread and circuses. Bread and circuses.

Bread and circuses. Except without the bread. We can't just hand out bread simply because people are starving, you know. And those circuses, sorry, but unless you are rich you don't get to go to them, but if you are rich you don't have to pay for them. The people that won't be allowed to go to them will pay for them, just like the Mexicans who won't be allowed into our country will be the ones who pay to keep themselves out.

Just use Trump brand bread. It's created with the leftover sawdust from clearcutting national parks to drill oil wells. That means it promotes recycling and if you're against it, you're against the environment.