Trump just won

[DrZoidberg]

And that is why the two candidates were Hillary and Trump. You kept saying "I approve of what you are doing, don't change" over and over again.

No, that's not what you say when you vote for Johnston and Stein. When you vote for them you communicate that you don't understand the rules of the game and that your vote doesn't matter.

When you vote for Hilary or Trump you nudge the political dichotomy in one way or another. If you don't vote for either of them you're voting for it to stay the same. Which is what you did. Enjoy.

But what really matters is pollings. Both parties have polls where the collect info on the people who support them, and they will pander to those voters. It's those polls who inform politicians of how to do their jobs.

Nobody remembers election day after a few weeks anyway. Nobody remembers campaign promises.

It is quite clear what elections measure. They measure "you have earned my vote" or "you have not earned my vote." That is the one thing the parties really do pay attention to. But since you think it is a "no game" then there's no reason for you to lecture us on and on about game theory. You have no game, and your second choice won. Congratulations on your victory, enjoy your President Trump.

ha ha... ok there Mr Maths Major. Election results measure stuff like what weather it was on election day, or what spectacular crime was in the news right before election. There's a billion and one factors. You're just wrong. Also... earned their vote based on what? Trump hasn't been in power before. Obviously he hasn't earned anybody's vote, but yet he won. How do you explain that?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, that's not what you say when you vote for Johnston and Stein. When you vote for them you communicate that you don't understand the rules of the game and that your vote doesn't matter.

It shows I understand the long game.

When you vote for Hilary or Trump you nudge the political dichotomy in one way or another. If you don't vote for either of them you're voting for it to stay the same. Which is what you did. Enjoy.

Those are the rules of the short game, where you are so fixated on winning the battle you will wind up losing the war.

But what really matters is pollings. Both parties have polls where the collect info on the people who support them, and they will pander to those voters. It's those polls who inform politicians of how to do their jobs.

What really matters is the poll that takes place on the second Tuesday in November.

ha ha... ok there Mr Maths Major. Election results measure stuff like what weather it was on election day, or what spectacular crime was in the news right before election. There's a billion and one factors. You're just wrong. Also... earned their vote based on what? Trump hasn't been in power before. Obviously he hasn't earned anybody's vote, but yet he won. How do you explain that?

Election results measure who voted for which candidate. Things like weather may impact it, or a spectacular crime, but they actually only measure the end votes, the big poll that takes place on the second Tuesday in November. That is the polling that really matters. If you vote for someone you say "you earned my vote" not "I'm playing a game." Trump is a result of short game theory, the kind you advocate. He's your guy, not mine. I'm playing the long game.

 

[skepticalbip]

No, that's not what you say when you vote for Johnston and Stein. When you vote for them you communicate that you don't understand the rules of the game and that your vote doesn't matter.

When you vote for Hilary or Trump you nudge the political dichotomy in one way or another. If you don't vote for either of them you're voting for it to stay the same. Which is what you did. Enjoy.

So are you telling me that I should have voted for Trump instead of Johnson?

I voted for the candidate that represented the platform that I most agreed with. I knew Clinton's record in her offices and so saw her as an unacceptable putz because of her piss-poor decision making in her official positions. I had and still have absolutely no idea how Trump will govern. He looks funny but I don't judge people's abilities on looks. He is opposed by Democrat loyalists but then I don't consider Democrat loyalists to be a reliable source of information. Of the two, Clinton's record is in the minus column, Trump doesn't have a record so is zero. Zero is higher than any minus.

 

[Ford]

I'm playing the long game.

If you're hoping for a Libertarian candidate with more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning, then you are playing a very long game indeed.

 

[laughing dog]

I voted for the candidate that represented the platform that I most agreed with. I knew Clinton's record in her offices and so saw her as an unacceptable putz because of her piss-poor decision making in her official positions. I had and still have absolutely no idea how Trump will govern. He looks funny but I don't judge people's abilities on looks. He is opposed by Democrat loyalists but then I don't consider Democrat loyalists to be a reliable source of information. Of the two, Clinton's record is in the minus column, Trump doesn't have a record so is zero. Zero is higher than any minus.

Trump has a well-established record, just not a record in politics. Using your stated "logic", you would have voted for Charles Manson over HRC.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You might as well not bothered with registering to vote.

I don't think you understand how governance in the US works. The President is probably one of the least important decisions a voter makes on the ballot. It is just that the news media focus on the President because it is easier to cover. Plus they can make it emotional so that they can attract viewers and boost their ratings.

For the average American, the most important decisions on the ballot are the ones that really effect their daily life like the Sheriff, Mayor, city council, local initiatives, zoning, local tax measures, etc. because these are the decisions that determine everything such as water, sewage, garbage collection, law enforcement, libraries, schools, etc. The next in importance is the State legislators, governor, amendments to the State Constitution, etc. because these effect State laws and State law enforcement, industrial development, roads and highways, etc. The next in importance is the US House and Senate seats because these are the people that make the national laws. Finally, the President who's authority is as executive who's main function is to oversee the agencies that enforce the laws enacted by the House and Senate. The President does not make laws.

I disagree. The President controls Supreme Court appointments, that's vitally important.

The veto also acts as a check on Congress unless one side has a 2/3 majority.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't think you understand how governance in the US works. The President is probably one of the least important decisions a voter makes on the ballot. It is just that the news media focus on the President because it is easier to cover. Plus they can make it emotional so that they can attract viewers and boost their ratings.

For the average American, the most important decisions on the ballot are the ones that really effect their daily life like the Sheriff, Mayor, city council, local initiatives, zoning, local tax measures, etc. because these are the decisions that determine everything such as water, sewage, garbage collection, law enforcement, libraries, schools, etc. The next in importance is the State legislators, governor, amendments to the State Constitution, etc. because these effect State laws and State law enforcement, industrial development, roads and highways, etc. The next in importance is the US House and Senate seats because these are the people that make the national laws. Finally, the President who's authority is as executive who's main function is to oversee the agencies that enforce the laws enacted by the House and Senate. The President does not make laws.

I disagree. The President controls Supreme Court appointments, that's vitally important.

The veto also acts as a check on Congress unless one side has a 2/3 majority.

Really? What did either Bush or Obama (sixteen years) do that effected your daily life as much as your home's running water, sewage, garbage collection, etc. did that is overseen by your local government?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm playing the long game.

If you're hoping for a Libertarian candidate with more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning, then you are playing a very long game indeed.

When was the last time the Socialist Party had someone elected president? Yet how much of their platform has been adopted?

 

[Ford]

If you're hoping for a Libertarian candidate with more than a snowball's chance in hell of winning, then you are playing a very long game indeed.

When was the last time the Socialist Party had someone elected president? Yet how much of their platform has been adopted?

I am unfamiliar with the platform of the Socialist Party, but I'd hazard a guess that the answer to your question is "little to none." In my lifetime the Democratic Party has been tacking away from anything even remotely approaching socialism. Sanders excepted (and he wasn't a Democrat until it became convenient) the party has been center-left for decades.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

When was the last time the Socialist Party had someone elected president? Yet how much of their platform has been adopted?

I am unfamiliar with the platform of the Socialist Party, but I'd hazard a guess that the answer to your question is "little to none." In my lifetime the Democratic Party has been tacking away from anything even remotely approaching socialism. Sanders excepted (and he wasn't a Democrat until it became convenient) the party has been center-left for decades.

As any third party becomes successful, the Democrats and Republicans will simply adopt that party’s platforms. This happened with the Socialist party early in the 20th century. The Socialists failed miserably with a popular vote total that peaked at only six percent in 1912. But they succeeded in the way that matters most. Dig below the surface and you’ll find that virtually every economic plank of the Socialist’s 1928 platform has since been written into law.

But that involves looking back before the immediate moment, something the average American is very bad at.

 

[Ford]

Dig below the surface and you’ll find that virtually every economic plank of the Socialist’s 1928 platform has since been written into law.

I started digging. It hasn't been long, but so far I haven't been able to find a source on the Socialist Party's 1928 platform that isn't a libertarian claiming what you've claimed.

 

[laughing dog]

Dig below the surface and you’ll find that virtually every economic plank of the Socialist’s 1928 platform has since been written into law.

I started digging. It hasn't been long, but so far I haven't been able to find a source on the Socialist Party's 1928 platform that isn't a libertarian claiming what you've claimed.

Perhaps the reference is to this document - https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/slp/1928/plat1928.pdf. If it is, there is no coherent platform of action in it that I can see, so I cannot understand how anyone could identify any plank in that platform.

 

[skepticalbip]

I did find this that is claimed to be the Socialist Candidates 1928 Platform

https://archive.org/stream/SocialistCandidates1928Platform/1928plat2_djvu.txt


2. Shortening the work day in keeping with
the steadily increasing productivity of labor
due to improvements in machinery and meth-
ods.

3. Securing to every worker a rest period
of no less than two days in each week.

4. Enacting of an adequate Federal Anti-
Child Labor Amendment.

5. Abolition of the brutal exploitation of
convicts under the contract system and sub-
stitution of a cooperative organization of in-
dustries in penitentiaries and workshops for
the benefit of convicts and their dependents,
the products to be used in public institutions,
and the convict workers to be employed at
wages current in the industry.

6. Legislation aiming at the prevention of
^ occupational diseases,

TAXATION

For the proper support of government and
as a step toward social justice we propose:—

L Increase of taxation on high income
levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance
taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pen-
sions and other forms of social insurance.

2. Appropriation by taxation of the an-
nual rental value of all land held for specula-
tion,

CIVIL LIBERTIES

To secure to the people the civil rights with-
out which democracy is impossible, we de-
mand : —

L Federal legislation to enforce the First
Amendment to the Constitution so as effectu-
ally to guarantee freedom of speech, press and
assembly, and to penalize any official who in-
terferes with the civil rights of any citizen.

2. Abolition of injunctions in labor dis-
putes.

 

[Ford]

I did find this that is claimed to be the Socialist Candidates 1928 Platform

https://archive.org/stream/SocialistCandidates1928Platform/1928plat2_djvu.txt


2. Shortening the work day in keeping with
the steadily increasing productivity of labor
due to improvements in machinery and meth-
ods.

3. Securing to every worker a rest period
of no less than two days in each week.

4. Enacting of an adequate Federal Anti-
Child Labor Amendment.

Holy crap. Weekends and no child labor?


We're clearly living in a communist dictatorship!

 

[skepticalbip]

I did find this that is claimed to be the Socialist Candidates 1928 Platform

Holy crap. Weekends and no child labor?


We're clearly living in a communist dictatorship!

You missed Jason's point that the planks of a third party that never elected a president had been adopted by the major parties and passed into law. The major parties at the time had no such ideas in their platform but, to attract voters that would have voted socialist. they adopted them.

The subject was about how third party platforms can effect the platforms of major parties if that third party attracts voters, even if the number of voters attracted were only a very small percentage of the total vote. Four or five percent of the vote is damned small but also damned important to the major parties - it can mean the difference between a win and a loss.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You missed Jason's point that the planks of a third party that never elected a president had been adopted by the major parties and passed into law. The major parties at the time had no such ideas in their platform but, to attract voters that would have voted socialist. they adopted them.

How is it that you are the only one on the entire forum who can actually read my posts? I think I'm writing them in English, and I think they are readers of English...

 

[Ford]

Holy crap. Weekends and no child labor?


We're clearly living in a communist dictatorship!

You missed Jason's point that the planks of a third party that never elected a president had been adopted by the major parties and passed into law. The major parties at the time had no such ideas in their platform but, to attract voters that would vote socialist. they adopted them.

No, I thought his point was bullshit.


The planks of the socialist party back in 1928 - that children should not be part of the work force, that people should get a couple days off, and that fair wages should be payed - are not radical ideas.

 

[skepticalbip]

You missed Jason's point that the planks of a third party that never elected a president had been adopted by the major parties and passed into law. The major parties at the time had no such ideas in their platform but, to attract voters that would have voted socialist. they adopted them.

How is it that you are the only one on the entire forum who can actually read my posts? I think I'm writing them in English, and I think they are readers of English...

You were certainly writing in English but I have no idea what language they were reading in. Maybe it is just that I am not wearing partisan blinders.

 

[skepticalbip]

You missed Jason's point that the planks of a third party that never elected a president had been adopted by the major parties and passed into law. The major parties at the time had no such ideas in their platform but, to attract voters that would vote socialist. they adopted them.

No, I thought his point was bullshit.


The planks of the socialist party back in 1928 - that children should not be part of the work force, that people should get a couple days off, and that fair wages should be payed - are not radical ideas.

They are not radical today but they were in 1928. That is why those planks were not in the platforms of the major parties at the time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree. The President controls Supreme Court appointments, that's vitally important.

The veto also acts as a check on Congress unless one side has a 2/3 majority.

Really? What did either Bush or Obama (sixteen years) do that effected your daily life as much as your home's running water, sewage, garbage collection, etc. did that is overseen by your local government?

Only one of those utilities is government run here.

Whereas the President created the ACA.