The General US Politics Thread

I was sure I saw a tweet where O'Malley expressed support for Sanders. Maybe it was fake?

Wait, just found that one of his campaign co-chairs in NH endorsed Clinton, maybe I misread that.

Thanks, Bernie. I mean it. That kind of "support" destroys the credibility of the party.

edited 7th Feb '16 11:11:56 AM by Fighteer

That definitely earns Bernie some points to me. Especially, on thinking about it, in contrast to how Trump ignores, if not encourages, his supporters being a-holes.

Yes, I'm increasingly liking Sanders as a person which only convinces me the more that he'd make a horrid President. Decency has no place in government. Not that this makes me a Trump supporter by any means. He goes too far in the other direction into outright cartoon villainy. What we need is a high functioning sociopath, which is why I support Hilary.

Have we ever considered that the reason decency has no place in government is because we keep insisting that that's the case? When we elect one or two good people and surround them with scum yes they'll get drowned, but maybe if we actually demanded better from our politicians instead of accepting that they're scum we'd get somewhere.

Until now, I've never really seen someone declare that decency has no place in government. I'd argue it very much does-part of a President's job is to be nice to everyone.

This is part of my problem with Trump; he isn't even Affably Evil.

Part of a President's job is knowing when to be nice, when to be diplomatic, and when to be aggressive. Trump has only one mode: aggressive.

I agree in principle, but Who Will Bell the Cat?

If, by some miracle, we actually manage to oust (or at least neutralize) all the blatantly self-serving Washington insiders, what do we have to replace them with? The honest politician is an endangered species, if not an out-and-out oxymoron.

edited 7th Feb '16 12:22:48 PM by pwiegle

x5 You're assuming that decency is what people want. Most of them don't. They want someone who will give them what they want. Anything else gets defined as "unfair". Look no further than Jimmy Carter as an example.

And then they will get torn to shreds because everyone defines "nice" differently, usually in terms of what's good for them.

edited 7th Feb '16 12:35:27 PM by tricksterson

Those "self-serving insiders" are necessary to the political process. Look what happened when we replaced a minority of one party with "no-compromise outsiders".

They're an endangered species because we've made them one, we don't encourage good honest people to go into politics, we tell them that if they're going into politics then they're self serving scum, that only selfish assholes become politicians, the idea that someone might go into politics out of a genuine desire to serve their nation is actively discouraged by the public.

I'm doing my degree in politics and the first thing I tell people when I mention my degree is "politics isn't what politicians study", I'm a politically active(ish) politics student and I feel the need to distance myself from politicians because of all the hate.

There are good people out there, more of them would run for office if we argued that a person could do it serve their nation rather then only to serve themselves.

Yes, a "pure" government ends at the guillotine. You need just the right amount of corruption in order to get things done.

No, self serving assholes get elected because, with rare exceptions, people are self serving assholes. You know why "politics isn't what politicians study"? Because they want to get elected.

edited 7th Feb '16 12:41:10 PM by tricksterson

"Self-serving" and "willing to compromise" are not the same thing, plenty of self-serving politicians won't compromise because it's in their best interests not to (let's not pretend for a moment that the Tea Party aren't self-serving), yes right now shady back room deals seems to be the onto way to get compromise but it doesn't have to be that way. Corruption isn't the only way to get compromise.

I clearly have a different opinion of humanity to you.

edited 7th Feb '16 12:45:41 PM by Silasw

To go into politics requires a substantial ego: you must be the kind of person who zealously believes in your own correctness and can sell that belief to voters. It is not a domain for introverts or doubters. It should be obvious that this lends itself to certain types of corruption because it is very easy to fall into the belief that the system owes you compensation for your dedication to it.

edited 7th Feb '16 12:46:27 PM by Fighteer

Trump is the logical conclusion of that line of thinking, yes you need self confidence and self assurance, but that doesn't have to mean being a ragging egomaniac.

Edit to edit: yes it lends itself to certain types of corruption, but the same way that soilders can lend itself to the corruption of "I just wanna shoot people" it's possible to filter (at least the majority of) thouse assholes out, we just have to belive that they have no place there and should be removed.

edited 7th Feb '16 12:49:17 PM by Silasw

Note that Sanders has gotten so far because he falls into this mold, not in spite of the fact that he doesn't. He's a typical populist politician in the Paul/Kucinich/Nader mold.

edited 7th Feb '16 12:55:02 PM by Nihlus1

Indeed. He's probably going to be more successful than them, although whether he will actually win the nomination is still up in the air. Personally, I'm bearish on Bernie.

That's an excellent analogy. For most of human history, soldiers were just people who liked killing and were willing to do it for the king. In recent centuries, we've been able to move away from that, to the point that many soldiers never kill anyone, and would be insulted if you claim that's their job. As far as soldiers are concerned, they protect people.

So maybe with politicians we just need a way to reframe the narrative.

Throughout most of history, most soldiers were one of two things: idle nobility with itchy sword arms or conscripted peasants who no more wanted to die than you or I. The rape-happy, bloodthirsty thugs were what one would call "professional soldiers" today: hardened survivors who stuck with the profession because they liked it, because they had no better prospects, or because they couldn't return home.

edited 7th Feb '16 1:45:26 PM by Fighteer

Some also just fought because of personal loyalty, back in the feudal days. It was just a duty, like paying taxes.

interestingly enough some ancient Empires (like Rome and Assyria) maintained what we would consider professional armies who did not partake in that sort of behaviour, after all, they would make the newly conquered province harder to rule. They were well disciplined volunteers from all walks of life who fought for a salary and (in Rome's case) a share of the conquered land, and Assyria was the first recorded example of promotion due to merit instead of birth. (I'm less certain about Assyria though, since its military history isn't as well recorded or translated as Rome's)

edited 7th Feb '16 1:58:11 PM by FieldMarshalFry

X3 Professional mercenaries were a big thing for a fair bit of history, they only realy fell out of favour in Europe after the 30 years war, where the war was itself sustained by the mercs due to it being cheaper to send them to fight rather than actually pay them their severance package.

Still, ego or not, Sanders and Clinton are both doing a fair amount of setting-an-example for civility in politics, which is something we could do with more of.

I still prefer Sanders by a fair shake and will caucus for him, barring some unthinkable betrayal of the spirit of his campaign. But though how prevalent versus how loud they are remains unclear, the very existence of the "Bernie Bros" has blunted my zeal a bit in recent days. If Clinton wins the nomination, hopefully she'll do a fair bit to address the patriarchal BS which plagues and divides this country among others and further delays the possibility of needed reform. If it's the case that too many of us are in Sanders' camp because of an unrecognized or even overt hostility to her gender, her occupation of the highest office in the land may do a bit to shift their preconceptions in time for a future Elizabeth Warren run and let them judge her candidacy on its own progressive merits. So she's got my vote if it comes to that in November.

This made me lawl: http://tinyurl.com/hcwo2l9 "Hillary: College should be affordable. Twitter: Establishment puppet, no better than GOP. Bernie: College should be affordable. Twitter: DAD"

edited 7th Feb '16 10:42:18 PM by Artificius