The Electoral Process

[Emily]

I honestly think Trump is trolling the Republican Party so his good friend of the Clinton family is back in the White House and the Republican Party in ruins.

I absolutely consider that to be a possibility. Also he's a fame whore.

[Emily]

FdP, I really don't think the general dissatisfaction is to do with any individual candidate or office holder. I think Clinton and Whatshisname are party regulars doing the regular thing and Trump and Sanders are tapping into dissatisfaction and know how to work it, but neither offers anything substantially different. I think the whole reason for this thread is that some people think that there's more of a systemic problem and that all the candidates are working within that system and how do we fix the system. You clearly focus your dissatisfaction on Hillary Clinton, and most people enjoy having an individual to unload their dissatisfaction on to; but I don't think that she, or Obama, or Trump are the cause of the dissatisfaction.
And regarding women supporting Clinton, and that there are limits to the right of assemblage, and several other things, I find the non sequiturs distracting.

Ps. I've been operating without a script my whole life and haven't said anything half as offensive to or about Mexicans, Muslims or women ever.

[filledeplage]

FdP, I really don't think the general dissatisfaction is to do with any individual candidate or office holder. I think Clinton and Whatshisname are party regulars doing the regular thing and Trump and Sanders are tapping into dissatisfaction and know how to work it, but neither offers anything substantially different. I think the whole reason for this thread is that some people think that there's more of a systemic problem and that all the candidates are working within that system and how do we fix the system. You clearly focus your dissatisfaction on Hillary Clinton, and most people enjoy having an individual to unload their dissatisfaction on to; but I don't think that she, or Obama, or Trump are the cause of the dissatisfaction.
And regarding women supporting Clinton, and that there are limits to the right of assemblage, and several other things, I find the non sequiturs distracting.

Ps. I've been operating without a script my whole life and haven't said anything half as offensive to or about Mexicans, Muslims or women ever.

People can see beyond the sometimes maladroit and uncomfortable language to the burning issues of the corruption in the election process as a play-to-play game and look at the concern about out-sourcing of industries, and national security, which is not being taken seriously by this administration.  And, the trail of some of the military having to buy their own body armor and being not fully supported in the battlefield.    

And, I am bothered (along with millions others) that Hillary has this "party politics wall" insulating her from her from the justice that Petraeus was subject to as well as the double standard of the server scandal.  She does not have a tenth of the charisma of her spouse and behaves as though she is entitled to the job because she "waited her turn."

Those two, Sanders and Trump, are tapping into the rage of the voters. Everyone knows someone who has lost his/her home in the mortgage scandal.  Everyone knows someone whose child has overdosed from Mexican heroin and fentanyl. Everyone has seen crime committed by those who have entered the country without being "admitted and inspected" (which has been a standard for decades.) They are sick of being powerless.  They are sick of seeing cops being ambushed and shot and public events disrupted by terrorism attacks.  They are sick of the immigration system doing sloppy work, as in the case of the San Bernadino massacre where the wife listed an address on her paperwork that did not exist. That is a government not doing it's job.  

People will only take so much abuse. The way you operate without a script might work for you, but people who are running for office need some parameters to stay on topic. They are exhausted from a grueling campaign schedule and need a list, when they are so exhausted they don't know what day it is.    

Trump did not "neutralize" his comments.  He seems to be talking about national border security and plugs in an offensive term - I don't think he dislikes either but the behavior that is going on and the national security issues get bogged down in what is considered to be inflammatory language.

The message of security gets conflated with vulgar or unrefined remarks.  He is not a polished member of the diplomatic core who were groomed from childhood. Nor is Trump part of the dynastic political class who are internally scripted to avoid controversy.  I don't believe for a minute he is a bigot.  He may have an Archie Bunker mouth or persona but he has successfully dealt globally in business and that is not on the resumes of the others.  

He has educated his daughters to take their place as business leaders.  They are not "administrative assistants."  Trump does not look or present like a feminist in theory, or policy, but he has educated his daughters in that manner.  He trained his daughters to be business leaders and not followers of their spouses or be trophy-wives, notwithstanding their lovely physical presentation.  Tiffany is going to Wharton as did her father and some siblings.  A feminist educates daughters as well as sons. Trump grew up in an era where the college majors available for women were "teacher, nurse or social worker."        

Sanders has exposed corruption in the financial sector and that is what people suspected all along.  That it was a rotten system, with people such as those cited in the Panama Papers being "above the law." We don't have the full list yet.  His policies might be a little "out there" but he has helped open a discussion that is long overdue.  

As to the assemblage issue, you brought that up.  "Certainly you don't oppose people's right to assemble?" (#44)  

Hillary is neck-deep in her involvement with the private prison industry on both the policy end and the warehousing-end of "hosting" inmates.  Her spouse drove the legislation for the over-incarceration and profited from the "residences" (private prison industry) on the back end.  And, I am a moderate, (baptized Democrat) but want to see both sides of the issues, without a narrative from a political party.    

[SMiLE Brian]

I honestly think Trump is trolling the Republican Party so his good friend of the Clinton family is back in the White House and the Republican Party in ruins.

I absolutely consider that to be a possibility. Also he's a fame whore.

Hillary knows her flaws and would rather scheme to have Trump tear the republicans apart from the inside by making the base turn against the leadership. Ever notice he really doesn't attack the Clintons with vitol like he does to his republican "teammates".

[filledeplage]

I honestly think Trump is trolling the Republican Party so his good friend of the Clinton family is back in the White House and the Republican Party in ruins.

I absolutely consider that to be a possibility. Also he's a fame whore.

Hillary knows her flaws and would rather scheme to have Trump tear the republicans apart from the inside by making the base turn against the leadership. Ever notice he really doesn't attack the Clintons with vitol like he does to his republican "teammates".

Smile Brian - Hillary knows the Republican party because she was brought up Republican, volunteered for Republican Barry Goldwater for president in 1964, and was president of the Young Republicans Club in college.  She did not change parties until later. She knows both sides well and can "play" both sides.   

[the captain]

So much for my hope to separate big-picture political process discussion from this election. Oh well. The people have spoken.

[Emily]

Lol yeah, volunteering for the Republican Party as a student half a century ago has given Hillary Clinton detailed knowledge of their current inner-workings. What's really the problem here?

[the captain]

Hee hee, seems totally legit to me. Though to be fair, the modern GOP likes Goldwater (or at least talks that way) a hell of a lot more than they did through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bushes eras.

[Emily]

Hee hee, seems totally legit to me. Though to be fair, the modern GOP likes Goldwater (or at least talks that way) a hell of a lot more than they did through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bushes eras.

Which is interesting because when I was young Badry Goldwater was fighting against (in the 80s) the increasing influence of the religious right in the party.

[the captain]

Hee hee, seems totally legit to me. Though to be fair, the modern GOP likes Goldwater (or at least talks that way) a hell of a lot more than they did through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bushes eras.

Which is interesting because when I was young Badry Goldwater was fighting against (in the 80s) the increasing influence of the religious right in the party.

One of the most awkward parts of the Republican coalition is the smashing together of "liberty" types with a religious (and thus anti-other religious) agenda.

[filledeplage]

Lol yeah, volunteering for the Republican Party as a student half a century ago has given Hillary Clinton detailed knowledge of their current inner-workings. What's really the problem here?

Emily - she was not just a member, but the president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College in the late 60's while the country was still reeling from JFK, MLK, and RFK being assassinated, anti-war demonstrations and race riots in larger cities. 

That is not unimportant. During her formation at home, the party which moved her was the Republican party.  One does not seek an office in college unless there is both a background and commitment. Children are highly influenced by the political chatter in a home and they tend to carry those values as adults, and vote that party as well when they come of age.

That is just dismissive to use the "it was 50 years ago" defense.  And it explains why the Republicans won't completely freak out if she is elected. They can "work with her."  One commentator about a week or so ago on ABC Sunday, suggested that the Republicans just let Hillary "have the White House" and prepare for the 2020 election to defeat her. 

Just let her "have The White House?  Seriously.   

[the captain]

They don't mean it as some kind of coronation of Clinton, or even remote satisfaction in her candidacy. Plenty of prominent establishment type of Republicans (Sen. Graham quite publicly) have suggested that they ignore the presidential election because none of the Republican candidates can possibly win the general. So their choices are marry themselves closer to the dipshits topping their ticket and further align with that garbage, or keep a distance and come up with a reasonable strategy that doesn't continue backing them into their current corner of nasty bigotry and intolerance for '20. That makes political sense. Let the angry flock to the demagogue, find out what it gets them (double-digit loss), and move on.

[SMiLE Brian]

Yeah its better have an actual policy platform than Trump's lack of policy hidden beneath his grandiose statements of big government control of the people. Barry Goldwater at least had liberty ideas for the people, not fear and control like Trump. 

[filledeplage]

They don't mean it as some kind of coronation of Clinton, or even remote satisfaction in her candidacy. Plenty of prominent establishment type of Republicans (Sen. Graham quite publicly) have suggested that they ignore the presidential election because none of the Republican candidates can possibly win the general. So their choices are marry themselves closer to the dipshits topping their ticket and further align with that garbage, or keep a distance and come up with a reasonable strategy that doesn't continue backing them into their current corner of nasty bigotry and intolerance for '20. That makes political sense. Let the angry flock to the demagogue, find out what it gets them (double-digit loss), and move on.

Captain - that is just wishful thinking on the old-guard Republican Party.  I think both parties are looking for bearers of their respective legacy positions.  We have upstarts cropping up all over the place who don't seem to want to continue the same-old, same-old and want a real shake-up on both sides.  It is just too easy to call them demagogues. 

Bernie looked like the absent-minded professor early on that was never going to go anywhere and I look at his recent successes. And, I never once watched the Trump "You're Fired" show. So I had to figure out and filter what his message was. 

But, both are artculating perhaps polar opposite positions that millions on either side want to see happen.  That cannot be disregarded.

And, I did not ever take Bernie seriously as someone whom the Dems would support.  But I am not looking for my party to pull a fast one at the convention. Nor the Republicans. it is sure to be the catalyst for a 3rd party national movement.   I think it is about time that the popular vote be the standard, instead of the hacks in both parties keeping the status quo.          

[the captain]

Some of what we've been talking about recently--the parties as private entities, for example, how they get to their nominations, and the relative irrelevance of popular vote in it--is discussed in the newest episode of Dan Carlin's "Common Sense." Some people might be interested.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/show-304-speed-dating-for/id155974141?i=366972284&mt=2

A good line just before the 31-minute mark, which echoes what Emily has rightly said a few times: "These parties are not a constitutional part of the system that has to listen to you or is forced to play a certain role that you think is in your high school textbook."

[Emily]

Some of what we've been talking about recently--the parties as private entities, for example, how they get to their nominations, and the relative irrelevance of popular vote in it--is discussed in the newest episode of Dan Carlin's "Common Sense." Some people might be interested.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/show-304-speed-dating-for/id155974141?i=366972284&mt=2

A good line just before the 31-minute mark, which echoes what Emily has rightly said a few times: "These parties are not a constitutional part of the system that has to listen to you or is forced to play a certain role that you think is in your high school textbook."

Yay. I hope it gets a lot of listens.

[the captain]

Would a) general satisfaction with the political system and/or b) the results of the political process itself be improved if a large majority of people, understanding that the two major parties are not some sort of constitutionally mandated public entities dedicated to pure democracy, but rather private organizations with a century-plus-old near-monopoly (to various degrees over the past 150 years or whatever) on our political system, (inevitably, in my opinion) broke those parties into more, smaller parties that better represented their ideologies and/or causes?

For example, the Dems split into some combination of a labor party, a socially progressive party, a social democrat party, and a centrist party; the Republicans split into an evangelical and socially conservative party, a chamber of commerce party, a libertarian party, a strict originalist party, and a nationalist party. (Just examples based on current stereotypes and/or real factions.)

Are the results--with maybe four, six, eight "major" parties--better? For whom?

(I'd ask whether it's even remotely feasible within our lifetimes, but a) this is a big question already, b) no doubt it'll end up being about Trump or Bernie anyway, and c) our lifetimes have widely varying end-dates. Stupid youngsters. Stupid Bubs.)

[Emily]

Yes. And it would be better for everyone but the oligarchy

[the captain]

Well all right then!

I do think people would feel more attached to their parties. The question would be whether these parties could get anything done in the legislature. Then again, they don't get anything done now, so...

What would be interesting to me is the different coalitions on different pieces of legislation. As of now, you're with 'em or you're against 'em, more or less, if you're in congress. There is a little bipartisan work, but not much, and nobody much brags about it--certainly no Republicans. (This was dramatically different in my youth and adolescence, when people ran on bipartisanship. Good times.) But it's easy to imagine the post-Republican libertarians aligning with the social progressives on legalizing pot or right to die stuff. Or centrist Dems and chamber of commerce types aligning on typical corporate welfare. And so on. I think the possibilities of various, bill-specific alignments could be a huge boon to the country if people could break (current) party affiliation.

[Emily]

One is more likely to see cooperation in a multi-player majority game than a two-player unanimity game.
I heart game theory.

[alf wiedersehen]

Would a) general satisfaction with the political system and/or b) the results of the political process itself be improved if a large majority of people, understanding that the two major parties are not some sort of constitutionally mandated public entities dedicated to pure democracy, but rather private organizations with a century-plus-old near-monopoly (to various degrees over the past 150 years or whatever) on our political system, (inevitably, in my opinion) broke those parties into more, smaller parties that better represented their ideologies and/or causes?

For example, the Dems split into some combination of a labor party, a socially progressive party, a social democrat party, and a centrist party; the Republicans split into an evangelical and socially conservative party, a chamber of commerce party, a libertarian party, a strict originalist party, and a nationalist party. (Just examples based on current stereotypes and/or real factions.)

Are the results--with maybe four, six, eight "major" parties--better? For whom?

(I'd ask whether it's even remotely feasible within our lifetimes, but a) this is a big question already, b) no doubt it'll end up being about Drumpf or Bernie anyway, and c) our lifetimes have widely varying end-dates. Stupid youngsters. Stupid Bubs.)

Thank you for your contribution to my signature.

[the captain]

Glad to help. Hope I won't be banned for personal insults.

[Emily]

Wait, what did Bubs do?

[alf wiedersehen]

Wait, what did Bubs do?

Y'know, just basking in my youthful exuberance

[the captain]

LOL sorry, meant to get back to this but, y'know, Prince died and all. Anyway, Bubs did nothing bad! I was fucking around. In noting our eventual demises, I was pointing out that he's likely to have a later one than some of us, such as the aging yours truly.