Trump just won

[Tom Sawyer]

Right, that's the entire point. It's not a negotiation amongst equals and the employers are far better and more able at driving the wages down, particularly for low-skilled work at the bottom of the ladder, than low-skilled workers are at driving the wages up. If you leave things to the free market, low end wages go down. Democrats believe that these low-skilled workers need a strong government on their side to counter the power imbalance they encounter and it is the role of the government to restrict people's freedom to manage these voluntary relationships however they like because they see leaving it alone as a negative for society.

Really? Let's try an experiment: Go ahead. Offer me some slave wages. What do you think I'm going to do?

I don't know who it is that you're having a conversation with, but it doesn't seem to be me. Please quote the correct posts in the future to avoid confusion.

Thank you.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is no argument that the core of the Democrat Party philosophy is not personal freedom, it is government control just like the Republicans only controlling different things. However, for many people in the Democrat party, personal freedom is damned important and many of them falsely believe the party agrees with them.

And many Republicans think that Trump is going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the rust belt states. That doesn't mean this is somehow related to what the Republican party is about.

Then we agree. Those Democrats that believe that their party advocates for their personal freedom and Republicans that believe that their party is financially responsible are in the wrong political parties - they should become Libertarians.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And many Republicans think that Trump is going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the rust belt states. That doesn't mean this is somehow related to what the Republican party is about.

Then we agree. Those Democrats that believe that their party advocates for their personal freedom and Republicans that believe that their party are financially responsible are in the wrong political parties - they should become Libertarians.

OK yes, if that was the point that you were making, I'm in complete agreement with your point. I had thought that you were arguing that the two parties had philosophies that mirrored each other's. Never mind, I guess.

 

[dismal]

Really? Let's try an experiment: Go ahead. Offer me some slave wages. What do you think I'm going to do?

I don't know who it is that you're having a conversation with, but it doesn't seem to be me. Please quote the correct posts in the future to avoid confusion.

Thank you.

You claimed the employer has all the power. So, you're the employer. Offer me slave wages to come by and clean your toilets or something. We'll put your claim to the test.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You saw five different names listed, but you only saw two options.

Ah, but there was a dot next to each of the five names meaning I had the ability to choose any of those five names, meaning five options.

Seriously, your strange insistence that by not voting for your candidate I am somehow voting for the other,

That's how binary choices work.

But you've just acknowledged that my ballot had more than two choices.

that strange insistence translates into you personally thinking that Trump is legitimate, so it is more realistic to say a candidate you supported won the election.

I don't understand what "legitimate" means in this context. But fine, according to the rules of the game or by logical inference the only two legitimate choices were Trump or Hillary. I fail to see how you can twist this to mean anything else?

You think there are only two choices, and everyone must pick one of the two.

Because reality. No matter what you do you're helping to pick at least one of those two. You can't not do that.

That means you think Trump is as valid as Hillary, an opinion I don't share. That makes you, to some small extent but more of an extent than me, a Trump supporter.

Acknowledging reality isn't being a supporter of said reality.

You understand what "legitimate" means in this context - that a person must support one or the other and anything else is something they should not do.

Which means your first choice is Clinton and your second choice is Trump. My first choice is Johnson and my second choice is Stein.

So your first choice lost and your second choice won. Stop whining and accept my congratulations on your candidate winning.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Libertarians believe that the government should stay out of people's affairs. That means that they can marry whomever they want, do whatever drugs they want,

Yes, yes, so far so good.

pay employees whatever slave wages they want,

Go back to where I discussed civil vs economics. Oh, by the way, to pay someone a slave wage means that someone has to accept the slave wage.

let people die from whichever preventable disease they don't want to pay to protect themselves against,

Mandatory vaccinations?

defend themselves how they want,

I don't see why you're listing this as a problem.

use whatever subpar materials they want, etc.

And you really need to elaborate more on this.

The Democrats believe that the government should be strong and be able to counter anyone interfering in people's affairs in what they consider to be a negative manner.

I believe voting major party is interfering in my life in a negative manner. Therefore by your logic the government must intervene to prevent it.

If somebody says that you can't marry another man, they want a strong government able to prevent that person from stopping you from marrying whom you like.

Actually it is strong government that made said prohibition possible. If John Smith and Joe Brown want to marry, and their next door neighbor says "you can't do that", his saying so has no effect at all. None.

If someone wants to pay you a slave wage, they want a strong government to prevent them from having you work for less than what you need to live.

Again, to pay a "slave wage" means someone has to accept that "slave wage."

 

[laughing dog]

Again, to pay a "slave wage" means someone has to accept that "slave wage."

Technically, slaves have no choice in the matter.

 

[bilby]

I don't know who it is that you're having a conversation with, but it doesn't seem to be me. Please quote the correct posts in the future to avoid confusion.

Thank you.

You claimed the employer has all the power. So, you're the employer. Offer me slave wages to come by and clean your toilets or something. We'll put your claim to the test.

He claimed that there was a significant imbalance of power.

Your conversion of this to a false dichotomy might make you feel clever, but that's not the same thing as your actually being clever.

 

[dismal]

You claimed the employer has all the power. So, you're the employer. Offer me slave wages to come by and clean your toilets or something. We'll put your claim to the test.

He claimed that there was a significant imbalance of power.

Your conversion of this to a false dichotomy might make you feel clever, but that's not the same thing as your actually being clever.

It doesn't feel imbalanced to me. I apparently am immune to this power he has to make me clean his toilets for slave wages.

How exactly do you experience this power? And is it by any chance telling you to come by this weekend and cut my grass for $0.75?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ah, but there was a dot next to each of the five names meaning I had the ability to choose any of those five names, meaning five options.
...

But you've just acknowledged that my ballot had more than two choices.

That depends what we mean by choices. I have a choice to write whatever I want on a piece of paper. But the point of an election isn't to write things on pieces of paper. The point of an election is to elect people. The names on the paper have to represent a possible candidate. That's what elections are about. Like any game elections have rules. The rules define how the game is played. From said rules emerges strategies to win. If you don't respect those strategies your opinion won't matter. And that's the point of elections. Whether or not that is anything to cry about is academic. The fact remains, you had two choices on that ballot. Possibly no choice. You decided that both candidates were equally good candidates for the presidency.

Acknowledging reality isn't being a supporter of said reality.

Wut? Reality doesn't give a fuck about your support, it's simply true.

You understand what "legitimate" means in this context - that a person must support one or the other and anything else is something they should not do.

"Legitimate" has several legitimate interpretations. It can also mean candidates who have a realistic chance of winning. That makes one almost guaranteed (Clinton) one unlikely (Trump) and three no chance in hell (illegitimate).

Which means your first choice is Clinton and your second choice is Trump.

That's not how binary choices work. There's just one you want and one you don't. There is no second choice.

My first choice is Johnson and my second choice is Stein.

So your first choice lost and your second choice won. Stop whining and accept my congratulations on your candidate winning.

I can't believe I'm explaining this to a maths major. Johnson and Stein weren't in the race. By ticking Johnson and Stein you were dividing your support equally between Trump and Clinton.

 

[skepticalbip]

I can't believe I'm explaining this to a maths major. Johnson and Stein weren't in the race. By ticking Johnson and Stein you were dividing your support equally between Trump and Clinton.

No, he is giving no support to either Trump or Clinton. He is saying "fuck you" to both. Voting for either would have been giving support to one of them.

ETA:
Maybe the problem is that you don't understand the meaning of the word, "support".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I can't believe I'm explaining this to a maths major. Johnson and Stein weren't in the race. By ticking Johnson and Stein you were dividing your support equally between Trump and Clinton.

No, I was saying no to both of them.

So you want to play game theory. It does salve the conscience of one who knows he was supporting someone bad, but let us examine game theory.

You are playing a short game. I am playing a long game. And every good strategist knows that sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.

You are focused on the outcome of this, the most immediate election, as if that was the whole of the conflict. What you forget is that your vote does NOT come with a label saying "I don't actually like or support you, I'm actually just voting against the other guy." Your vote says to the one who receives it "I approve of what you are doing, don't change." After many elections in a row of voting against the other guy, you now are faced with one of the worst candidates your party ever put forward and you feel you must still support that candidate. You're like a $2 hooker wondering why the guys don't respect her.

The major parties do actually look at the 3rd party votes. They look at them with an eye of "those actually belong to us, why weren't they delivered to us." If they feel the problem is big enough, they start making speeches in support of the third party issues. If that isn't enough they insert an ignored platform plank. If that still doesn't work, they shift a little in the direction needed to claim the vote.

By not delivering the vote, I am telling the party I am unsatisfied, much like a stay at home voter. By delivering it to someone else, I am telling them what they need to do in order to get my vote. I am telling them that if they want my vote they have to shift towards me.

Your strategy means your party will continue to get worse and worse because you will still support them over the hated other. At least you keep getting your short term victories as you get screwed in the long run by candidates you detest. My strategy means that there will be some short term discomfort until one or the other party finally figures out how to win my vote.

That doesn't mean I'm satisfied with your second choice candidate. It means I'm not satisfied with your first or second choice candidates and am playing the LONG GAME to change it.

Be happy with your short term victory of your second choice candidate. By always delivering the vote, whether earned or not, this is what you get, this is what you asked for, this is what you deserve.

 

[Elixir]

I can't believe I'm explaining this to a maths major. Johnson and Stein weren't in the race. By ticking Johnson and Stein you were dividing your support equally between Trump and Clinton.

No, I was saying no to both of them.

So you want to play game theory. It does salve the conscience of one who knows he was supporting someone bad, but let us examine game theory.

You are playing a short game. I am playing a long game. And every good strategist knows that sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.

You are focused on the outcome of this, the most immediate election, as if that was the whole of the conflict. What you forget is that your vote does NOT come with a label saying "I don't actually like or support you, I'm actually just voting against the other guy." Your vote says to the one who receives it "I approve of what you are doing, don't change." After many elections in a row of voting against the other guy, you now are faced with one of the worst candidates your party ever put forward and you feel you must still support that candidate. You're like a $2 hooker wondering why the guys don't respect her.

The major parties do actually look at the 3rd party votes. They look at them with an eye of "those actually belong to us, why weren't they delivered to us." If they feel the problem is big enough, they start making speeches in support of the third party issues. If that isn't enough they insert an ignored platform plank. If that still doesn't work, they shift a little in the direction needed to claim the vote.

By not delivering the vote, I am telling the party I am unsatisfied, much like a stay at home voter. By delivering it to someone else, I am telling them what they need to do in order to get my vote. I am telling them that if they want my vote they have to shift towards me.

Your strategy means your party will continue to get worse and worse because you will still support them over the hated other. At least you keep getting your short term victories as you get screwed in the long run by candidates you detest. My strategy means that there will be some short term discomfort until one or the other party finally figures out how to win my vote.

That doesn't mean I'm satisfied with your second choice candidate. It means I'm not satisfied with your first or second choice candidates and am playing the LONG GAME to change it.

Be happy with your short term victory of your second choice candidate. By always delivering the vote, whether earned or not, this is what you get, this is what you asked for, this is what you deserve.

I was reading this thread a while ago, and thinking "I bet Jason is counting on some political coroner doing the Dem autopsy report, remarking to himself and his colleagues "Hey - I was WRONG! Johnson didn't just get 4,001,293 votes as I expected, he got 4,001,294!! We better put a shift into the party platform!"

 

[skepticalbip]

I was reading this thread a while ago, and thinking "I bet Jason is counting on some political coroner doing the Dem autopsy report, remarking to himself and his colleagues "Hey - I was WRONG! Johnson didn't just get 4,001,293 votes as I expected, he got 4,001,294!! We better put a shift into the party platform!"

That looks like some rather odd impression of how political parties evaluate the vote to determine how they need to shape their platform for the next election.

The analysis looks at totals and each and every vote contributes to that total. If the party worries about a close election next time then that total of 4,001,294 votes could certainly be worth going after. Those 4,001,294 votes could absolutely mean that they will either work on legislation that reflects the platform that attracted them between now and the next election so they can point to what they did the next time or they could adopt some of that platform for their platform the next time... or both.

ETA:
By your analysis, why the hell would anyone bother to vote for whoever they support even in the major parties? It is only one vote out of the over 60,000,000 that was cast for their candidate.

 

[Elixir]

I was reading this thread a while ago, and thinking "I bet Jason is counting on some political coroner doing the Dem autopsy report, remarking to himself and his colleagues "Hey - I was WRONG! Johnson didn't just get 4,001,293 votes as I expected, he got 4,001,294!! We better put a shift into the party platform!"

That looks like some rather odd impression of how political parties evaluate the vote to determine how they need to shape their platform for the next election.

I was just musing... the guy has a pocket protector and horn-rimmed glasses BTW.

The analysis looks at totals and each and every vote contributes to that total. If the party worries about a close election next time then that total of 4,001,294 votes could certainly be worth going after. Those 4,001,294 votes could absolutely mean that they will either work on legislation that reflects the platform that attracted them between now and the next election so they can point to what they did the next time or they could adopt some of that platform for their platform the next time... or both.

Whereas 4,001,293 votes would cause them to say "aw fuckit!"?

ETA:
By your analysis, why the hell would anyone bother to vote for whoever they support even in the major parties? It is only one vote.

One vote CAN make a difference. Probably not, but it is possible. But not in CA in the 2016 presidential election. So I don't fault Jason for his protest vote, like I would if he was in say, Florida. He did increase the impact of Johnson's presence on the ticket by 0.00003% or so. Consider though if he had voted for Jason Harvestdancer! He could have increased the impact of THAT protest vote by an infinite percentage (unless his mom voted for him too, then only by 100%)

 

[skepticalbip]

That looks like some rather odd impression of how political parties evaluate the vote to determine how they need to shape their platform for the next election.

I was just musing... the guy has a pocket protector and horn-rimmed glasses BTW.

The analysis looks at totals and each and every vote contributes to that total. If the party worries about a close election next time then that total of 4,001,294 votes could certainly be worth going after. Those 4,001,294 votes could absolutely mean that they will either work on legislation that reflects the platform that attracted them between now and the next election so they can point to what they did the next time or they could adopt some of that platform for their platform the next time... or both.

Whereas 4,001,293 votes would cause them to say "aw fuckit!"?

ETA:
By your analysis, why the hell would anyone bother to vote for whoever they support even in the major parties? It is only one vote.

One vote CAN make a difference. Probably not, but it is possible. But not in CA in the 2016 presidential election. So I don't fault Jason for his protest vote, like I would if he was in say, Florida. He did increase the impact of Johnson's presence on the ticket by 0.00003% or so. Consider though if he had voted for Jason Harvestdancer! He could have increased the impact of THAT protest vote by an infinite percentage (unless his mom voted for him too, then only by 100%)

Each and every vote is what makes the total. Just as your one vote is what contributed to give your candidate over 60,000,000 votes. If each and every one of those more than 60,000,000 voters had your view of elections then that total could have well been zero.

 

[credoconsolans]

And what if the person helping is retarded and does the wrong thing? I mean, everybody who voted for Trump is clinically retarded. That's a majority of the American population. A lot of helping is in fact "helping" and just makes life harder for everybody. Considering the number of empowered idiots in USA the world needs to fear USA's "help". Being an idiot is fine if it also comes with insecurity. But nothing it more dangerous than an empowered moron. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

Keep that message load and clear and you'll see Trump get a second term. Just a tip for next time.

Why is it Trump can insult women, the handicapped, POWs, Hispanics, etc. but still get elected, but if his opponents start insulting the people who approved of Trump calling names to OTHER people, they're going to get all mad for being called names?

Trump and fans can dish it out but can't take it? Is that it?

 

[fast]

That depends what we mean by choices.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? You're saying 5, and Jason is saying 4. I understand why you're saying what you're saying, and I understand why he's saying what he's saying. The problem isn't that he might disagree with what you mean by what you say. The problem is that what you say means is not communicated by what you say. So, say what you will, I'll have some room to agree with parts of what you mean but little room to agree with what you say.

 

[credoconsolans]

Perhaps this should be under the "Silver Lining" thread:

In the 24 hours after Donald Trump became president-elect, people flocked to donate to the ACLU — a national legal organization known for suing the government to block racially biased laws and advocate for free speech.
The group’s donation website crashed under a crush of visitors Wednesday morning, ACLU spokesperson Gabriela Melendez told BuzzFeed News.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/aclu-donations-after-trump-win?utm_term=.seKw5yqdm#.grlwPxKq5

 

[dismal]

I was just musing... the guy has a pocket protector and horn-rimmed glasses BTW.

The analysis looks at totals and each and every vote contributes to that total. If the party worries about a close election next time then that total of 4,001,294 votes could certainly be worth going after. Those 4,001,294 votes could absolutely mean that they will either work on legislation that reflects the platform that attracted them between now and the next election so they can point to what they did the next time or they could adopt some of that platform for their platform the next time... or both.

Whereas 4,001,293 votes would cause them to say "aw fuckit!"?

ETA:
By your analysis, why the hell would anyone bother to vote for whoever they support even in the major parties? It is only one vote.

One vote CAN make a difference. Probably not, but it is possible. But not in CA in the 2016 presidential election. So I don't fault Jason for his protest vote, like I would if he was in say, Florida. He did increase the impact of Johnson's presence on the ticket by 0.00003% or so. Consider though if he had voted for Jason Harvestdancer! He could have increased the impact of THAT protest vote by an infinite percentage (unless his mom voted for him too, then only by 100%)

Each and every vote is what makes the total. Just as your one vote is what contributed to give your candidate over 60,000,000 votes. If each and every one of those more than 60,000,000 voters had your view of elections then that total could have well been zero.

It's a pretty safe bet there will be over 100,000,000+ votes based on observable experience. And you only control one vote. If you have managed to convince yourself your voting or not voting causes hundreds of millions of other people to vote or not vote you may be mistaken.