The General US Politics Thread

Yep, Muslims do report on suspected terrorists among their number. Up to and including Muslims who reported on Omar Mateen, the person whose actions prompted this discussion in the first place.

This was linked days ago, but it's very relevant to the point: Trump is full of shit.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:09:09 PM by TobiasDrake

@Ace: Understand that politicial parties are, much like any large group of people, rational*, self interested actors in political game theory. As long as the GOP continues to be run by nationalistic madmen, the democrats will be assured of the votes of minority populations. Until the party is facing credible competition for those votes, it had no incentive to pursue policy changes to the benefit of that constituency, and thus, while there will be token reforms, the overa treatment of minorities who are not part of the elite themselves by the state will not improve significantly. The only way around this is for the populafion to refuse to take it any longer, and ideally express that through peaceful means. That's something that had been happening with groups like black lives matter, but it won't matter if they don't keep their efforts up.

* Bound of course by what they know, and the time/processing constraints of human information processing.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:17:32 PM by CaptainCapsase

That was a total non-answer. You're asking me to take a generality you've stated as total truth. Nevermind that as many problems as the Democrats have, they are the ones actually trying to address things such as criminal reform, because those are the things their constituents are voting them into office to do. Self interest, in this case, dictates that they actually follow through on campaign promises. Which hasn't seemed to occur to you.

@ Captain- Couple of problems with that assumption:

First, many Democrats are themselves members of minority groups, so even if you are assuming solely self-interest, they have a big incentive to favor policies helping/not harming minority groups

• As hard as iit is for you to believe, people are involved in politics to advance policies which they believe are just and beneficial to the country, and in the case of the Democratic party, that includes policies beneficial to minority groups.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:17:28 PM by Hodor2

Capsase seems to think that politicians pursue their offices purely out of solely seeking power because... I dunno. Generally people seek power in order to accomplish something they want, not just for power itself. The power (political office) is generally as much of a means to an end as it is a goal itself.

Also, consistent failure to address minority issues by the Democratic Party might not drive those voters to the Republicans, but it sure as hell will make them stay home on election day.

Believe it or not, rational self-interest often aligns with doing what the people who vote for you want.

If it were not for one party being actively obstructionist, trying to block or undo every bit of progressive legislation that's been achieved over the past century, we'd be in much better shape now than we are.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:20:21 PM by Fighteer

Moreover, multiple studies have concluded that the vast majority of Politicians keep their campaign promises.

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/contrary-to-popular-belief-politicians-often-keep-campaign-promises/2012/01/19/gIQAAgq6BQ_story.html

and

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-decision-tree/201201/politicians-keep-their-promises-more-often-you-think

I'll find the articles I'm vaguely referencing after work; do note that this stuff tends to not be talked about outside of specialist scholarly journals, so unless you're at a university, there's going to be a paywall.

Yes, which is why politicians mostly speak in empty rhetoric, burying their actual agenda in places where laypeople simply won't read them, but they're still theoretically publically available. That's not what's being discussed however; individual politicians have little to no agency, particularly in the modern era; true power lies in institutions.

@Fighteer: As long as he GOP looks poised to to commit genocide if gets into power, fear of the GOP will ensure massive minority turnout regardless of how poorly or how well they advance progressive social agendas. It's essentially the same strategy by which the GOP continuously leads along the white working class, and the democrats lead along progressives, with the party occasionally passing down token tax cuts to give the perception that they are acting in their base's best interest. This had come to the attention of said base as of late, hence populists overtaking the party. If the democrats are prepared to make real concessions, it's because they fear the same happening to them, but I do not believe they've reached that point yet.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:38:18 PM by CaptainCapsase

In America, first you get the sugar; then you get the power; then you get the women.

A semanticist would have a field day with that post. Reading through the circumlocutions, you are accusing the majority of politicians of having sinister elite agendas that they cover up with meaningless platitudes towards the ignorant voters they hope to dupe into electing them.

Now, I might buy that on the Republican side, at least in some cases, but it is certainly not universal, nor is it particularly useful, because by that logic any politician automatically becomes suspect the instant they solicit their first vote. It also implies that attempting to get our government to represent the people is a pointless exercise (and we've already stipulated that most voters are ignorant dupes).

So... what, exactly? This kind of political nihilism accomplishes exactly nothing.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:40:11 PM by Fighteer

No, I am arguing that societal institutions are designed largely to benefit elite interests, and that participants in those institutions are constrained to courses of action which are percieved to benefit those interests.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:41:07 PM by CaptainCapsase

And water is wet, grass is green, and my arse doesn't smell of lilies. Moving right along...

At this point Capsase just seems to be assuming the worst of every politician, regardless of anything shown to him which proves the opposite. Because self interest has never meant keeping your promises to your voters, or no one has ever sought out a position of power because that position allows them to make the changes they think are good. (Because whoever changed anything without power?)

The point I'm making is that if people do not demand change, it will not happen, regardless of what elected officials think of want; mere voting is not enough.

What you fail to understand is the difference between an institution and a person. As with every other social animal, human social networks have emergent phenomena, and institutions are perhaps the most important such phenomena.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:44:18 PM by CaptainCapsase

And people demand stupid change because they don't understand how nations work. So we're in a Catch-22.

So what do we do if voting isn't enough then?

edited 29th Jun '16 1:43:57 PM by LeGarcon

Mass protest, civil disobedience, coordinated voting, and that sort of thing. Violent revolution is reserved for cases where no further reform within the framework of societal institutions are possible, which would more or less require a dictator or oligarchic junta to seize power in the context of modern democracies.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:46:34 PM by CaptainCapsase

People already do that though.

More people need to be involved. Many, many more. Enough to potentially overthrow the government if concessions are not made (by voting en masse In a democracy, by force in a non democracy).

edited 29th Jun '16 1:48:12 PM by CaptainCapsase

The idiots can engage in mass protests and civil disobedience, too (see also: Tea Party). Sometimes they win. Disrupting the system by itself isn't enough. If you try, you get a revolution, which replaces the old institutions with new ones, and the cycle continues.

The only way to effect meaningful change without violence is to convince the institutions that it's in their self-interest.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:48:10 PM by Fighteer

Except that people who fail to keep their promises frequently find themselves voted OUT OF OFFICE. Again, it's already been pointed out that most politicians do in fact make a good faith effort to follow through on campaign promises, both for self interest and because in genuine belief in their causes.

Again, it seems like you think "the elites" (very poorly defined here, btw) seek only to support themselves. Never minding how not actually pursuing what they promised their constituents will cause them to lose that support. Or that it makes no sense to run on a platform you don't believe in. Your arguments are very black and white and that's not helpful to the discussion.

Considering the tea party is kept afloat by the Koch brothers and friends, they arguably aren't an example of a popular movement.

edited 29th Jun '16 1:49:58 PM by CaptainCapsase

I don't really get how the civil disobedience/protests are helpful in terms of directing party policies.

Like I definitely think that the protests of/greater publicity regarding police brutality and killings made the Democratic Party (and many people in general) more aware of/interested in that issue and receptive toward policies to combat that evil.

But like I don't see how it is a helpful strategy for people to express hatred toward the Democratic Party and not vote for/threaten to not vote for Democratic candidates, if the goal is to have the Democratic Party adopt one's positions.

Organize your own party and movements, start small and try to grow big, sure it sucks at the short term and can be prone to failure but change never happens overnight.

Popular enough to get into office. Money alone didn't get them in there, but now people are starting to get fed up with them.