Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Capsase- I don't even get how that would work. Because in terms of voting, essentially Democrats want to expand the type of identifications that are acceptable for voting as well as to expand the number of polling places/polling days etc. Conversely, Republicans want to limit these things. So, besides being morally bad, there's no way to exclude Republican voters and not exclude tons of Democratic voters. Basically, Democratic voting strategies are about getting as many people to vote as possible, both because it's a good thing and on the assumption that doing so would get them the most votes.
Which is why I think it was a stupid thought experiment by whoever proposed that idea. But also why I think you are talking out of your ass here.
Edit- Also what Silsasw said.
edited 27th Dec '16 11:10:14 AM by Hodor2
![]()
Because not holding back sets up a feedback loop of escalating obstructionism, dirty politics, and demagoguery that has no clear end other than the failure of democracy.
There are ways to deliberately target white working class voters. Reducing the number of polling places in such areas would be a start, though you'd need to stack the courts to accomplish that. You could also be ballsy and outright sabotage voting machines in those districts, which requires you to politicize election officials.
edited 27th Dec '16 11:12:32 AM by CaptainCapsase
Trump has repeatedly praised Putin, has many financial ties to Russia, and literally publicly called for Russia to do further hacks of his opponent.
And really, you think Donald "why can't I use nuclear weapons" Trump has any interest in avoiding a pointless war? The man's repeatedly expressed a great deal of entirely pointless and unhelpful hawkishness towards Iran and has displayed interest in starting, if not a shooting war, a trade war (which would be similarly pointless) with China.
Because certain tactics make us as bad as them, there's no point in winning if we surrender the reason we should win so as to make it happen.
I'm all for not cooperating, not making deals and being a legislative pain in the arse, but if we start subverting democracy then how exactly are we the good guys again?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Until the President for life needs a new scapegoat.
@Hodor: Anyway, the reason I'm worried is because well, Evil Is Easy. It's going to be far easier for democrats to fight back by engaging in the same dirty tactics that the GOP does, and under the Principle of Least Effort, the most expedient choice is generally the most likely decision to be taken.
edited 27th Dec '16 11:19:06 AM by CaptainCapsase
When you stop to think about it, Evil Is Easy is the main reason Republicans win elections (EC aside).
If the last two big democractic victories (Bill Clinton and Obama) are any indication, the Democrats need a perfect or exceptional candidate that can rally the diverse coalition together and the failure of the previous Republican candidate to win.
Meanwhile the Republicans can field mediocre or abysmal candidates like Trump or Dubya and win based on fear, hatred and dirty tactics.
edited 27th Dec '16 11:22:04 AM by Draghinazzo
![]()
I don't think the GOP leadership and the democratic leadership are especially different from one another in aggregate. Or especially different from the leadership of Nazi Germany (note that I'm talking about leadership in aggregate as opposed to specific individuals), to use the most extreme example available. All societies select for similar traits in their leaders; ruthless ambition, willingness to set aside principles in the pursuit of power, to use two broad examples of things that are pretty much universal. The modern day United States' leadership is better behaved than a third world dictatorship not because the people in charge are more moral, but because the institutions and underlying socioeconomic realities incentive destructive behaviors far less than in such societies.
If the political landscape changes to incentivize "bad" behavior on the part of the democrats, most of them will follow suit, and natural selection will ensure the rest will end up Doomed Moral Victors in their own ways.
edited 27th Dec '16 11:28:51 AM by CaptainCapsase
The failure of the democrats to behave in such a manner comes from their adherence to institutional norms which the Republicans chose to abandon in pursuit of power; once one person on the left does it and gets away with it, the floodgate opens, and nearly everyone else in the party leadership follows suit out of necessity because of the competitive advantage it provides; hence Evil Is Easy.
edited 27th Dec '16 11:33:55 AM by CaptainCapsase
I don't agree. The Democrats don't have the same mindset as the Republicans. Even Hillary, the supposed Queen of Corruption, had no legitimate scandals to her name. This whole both sides are evil thing is really annoying. From everything I've seen I think the average Democratic politician is just a better person than the average Republican.
I think Capsase's larger point is that politicians by nature cannot necessarily be bound to the same sphere of morality, or view things in the same way a regular person does. This is especially relevant if you are the president, but I imagine it applies to a lesser degree if you are in another less powerful political position as well.
It's not that the democrats of the present are necessarily going to do those types of things, but that if there is enough demand eventually one of the newer ones is going to be more unscrupulous and open the floodgates. Those who insist on being better would be the Evan Mc Mullins and Mitt Romneys of the democrats, phased out and not able to hold power or influence in the party anymore.
I don't know that things will come to that and I certainly would hope not.
edited 27th Dec '16 11:43:48 AM by Draghinazzo
That's what I was saying? I was merely explaining why that is the case; selection pressure forces politicians to compromise whatever principles they may have, or not have them to begin with. This means that generally speaking if a "bad" behavior is believed to be possible, such a route will be taken.
edited 27th Dec '16 11:54:26 AM by CaptainCapsase
ok, so on one hand we risk the democrats becoming "just as bad" as the republicans, on the other... we get the GOP getting whatever the fuck they want and that is just so far beyond the pale as to be unconscionable.
There should be no compromise, I want that shit so heavily filibustered that congress can't even pass its /own/ funding.
edited 27th Dec '16 11:55:51 AM by Lanceleoghauni
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"@Captain: I don't understand why you would assume that the democrats would become centrist (based on social justice?). As much as some in the social justice wing of the party might talk about suppressing the white vote in knee-jerk authoritarian fashion I don't think there is actually much desire for anything like that.
The only faction of the democrats that seems to lean most towards genuine extremism is economic justice/ socialist wing and even then the prospect of a genuine democratic authoritarian movement is pretty slight so far.

@Hodor: I don't know either, but I'm worried about the possibility that the Democrats will throw democratic norms under the bus to remain competitive with the GOP. I am not certain this worry of mine will come to pass.
edited 27th Dec '16 11:04:54 AM by CaptainCapsase