US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Yea, despite being an ignorant American, I know "direct democracy" isn't actually a thing because hey, people not American are also smart to make systems that work for them. Thanks? Again, in the very blocks of text you quoted.



Once again, I'm not arguing for or against. I'm bringing up the context, and framework for why people believe it as such.

You say you "brought up the context", like you were trying to explain things, but I really feel you just muddied the waters. Even if they're just "explanations", the flow of the discussion and your behavior - like your claim we're wrong for ignoring them - made it seem like they're arguments.

So, yeah, maybe I misunderstood, but that was an easy mistake to make, because:
- everybody here knows that the US is a federal republic, and everybody knows that the "tyranny of the majority" can be a problem, so what's your "explanation" for?
- like I said, I've seen using those very "explanations" as actual arguments for why the EC is such a great idea that absolutely must be maintained.

For that matter, speaking of muddied waters, what do you mean by "representative democracy isn't exactly a hip thing since the beginning of the 20th century"? I'm not sure I understand.

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Magin

Um... this section here is kinda what the (most extreme) Conservatives want- they were raised with the idea that the American Dream is to have a house with a white picket fence, at least two kids, the husband goes and works to earn a living while his wife stays at home and raises the kids

Good old times with 6L cars, cheap gasoline and uranium toothpaste lol

Originally Posted by Magin

Um... this section here is kinda what the (most extreme) Conservatives want- they were raised with the idea that the American Dream is to have a house with a white picket fence, at least two kids, the husband goes and works to earn a living while his wife stays at home and raises the kids

And what is the problem? One working person in the family is enough to take care of it - without debts, leasing etc.
Nowadays it is not that possible for average person (I know people who believe that finishing college is enough to live in penthouse apartment though )

Originally Posted by Magin

we had just emerged victorious from WWII (and this is another subject I've become disillusioned about, but that's for another thread)

Really? I thought it is common knowledge that USA benefited from WW the most. It is even taught in schools.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Magin

Um... this section here is kinda what the (most extreme) Conservatives want- they were raised with the idea that the American Dream is to have a house with a white picket fence, at least two kids, the husband goes and works to earn a living while his wife stays at home and raises the kids. Oh, and the neighbors are all exactly like him as well. AKA, the romanticized versionof the 1950's that many Republicans will say were the "good ole days and we need to go back to them"

Actually, to go a step further- this is the idea of the Baby Boomers, I'd assume- the largest population from that specific time period (I'd assume that the only way you get a larger population is to combine all the generations that came after all together). After all, this was when America was arguably at its peak- we had just emerged victorious from WWII (and this is another subject I've become disillusioned about, but that's for another thread), manufacturing and quality American goods were at an all time high, and if you were a white male, you had a million and one advantages. This the "Great" that many people probably think of when Trump says his slogan. Of course, there's also about a billion flaws in this idea and why it can never happen again, IMO- the least of which is that America doesn't have a large manufacturing culture anymore, and it probably won't come back due to the process being cheaper elsewhere. And this is just the tip of the iceberg

Indeed, I think it's troublesome that people can think we can turn back the clock to the past, and more so, a nonexistent past. I always joke that it's like "Back in the old days, people were responsible [when nobody is looking] and treated each other with respect (to people who are the same as them)". Then you see people glued to their phones and freak out when the internet goes out for 10 minutes. Hmm.... Oh, and the thread of imminent nuclear war. Then again, I suppose that's coming back too.

And yes, there will be a rude awakening when the realization comes that jobs are just not coming back. Though I really wonder what's going to happen when automation is becoming more advanced. Even these days, you have those automated checkouts that means it's not needed to hire as many cashiers. Stuff like that. It's not exactly one of those things that one can easily address through a few cheap words.

Perhaps it's unsettling to those that have embraced the values of American Capitalism only to figure that they haven't adapted to fit it or vice versa. It's certainly easy to judge others, but what happens when reality strikes and one is on the wrong end?

[Magin]

Originally Posted by ChuckE

And what is the problem? One working person in the family is enough to take care of it - without debts, leasing etc.
Nowadays it is not that possible for average person (I know people who believe that finishing college is enough to live in penthouse apartment though )

Clearly you've never dealt with the so-called Social Justice Warriors, who abhor this idea. Mostly because there's a lot of implications. One, it means women should completely stay out of the workforce, something that is just impossible in today's day and age. Second, not only does it imply heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable one, it also means that a woman's sole role in society is to get married and have kids, as well as being the one raising them- nothing more

Really? I thought it is common knowledge that USA benefited from WW the most. It is even taught in schools.

The US did benefit the most- the only thing is, that was also 70 years ago, and many of the effects no longer apply. The two biggest ones I have gripes with: A) the US is NOT the strongest superpower in the world anymore, though many want to pretend it is and use that as justification for many political things, including my other issue B ) The US no longer has any business playing World Police or getting involved in affairs that only drain more money. For my personal favorite example, please see the Vietnam War, and more recently, the Afghan/Iraq "war"

[MCAL]

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/312...overnors-power

Finally some good news in the state of North Carolina...

[Archon_Wing]

That's a good sign, but it's only the start.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Australia has one man, one vote. And voting is compulsory so you can't count on other people not showing up. Australian democracy is so strong that an unpopular leader is removed from power before elections are even called, because the politicians already know they WILL lose, thus would rather get someone new for the next election. There is no bullshit of hoping that the opposition doesn't turn up.

That has nothing to do with the original point I was making, which is that a decentralised federation with largely autonomous states requires a federal government with limited heads of power and all other residual powers being left to state government.

Originally Posted by GDB

Based on the few republican friends I have on facebook that I haven't blocked or removed for being bat**** insane/stupid, they seem to have been basically brainwashed into thinking that if you don't work yourself to death, your life isn't worth living. Literally, I saw one post one of those "inspirational quote" memes about how the European lifestyle is seductive because you don't have to work as many hours, can spend more time on hobbies, more time socializing with people, and generally not being a miserable slog, but then it ends by saying that's not a life worth living. And all his republican friends were piling on, agreeing with it.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

It seems like start of the 20th century in an industrialized country seems to be a good place to wax nostalgic about for them. You know dying in your 30s because of all that pollution entering your lungs. Or if not, you might want to die gloriously when rulers toss you into a World War meat grinder. Shame on Europeans for not wanting that. I really don't know if that's a descendant of Puritan work ethic, or Social Darwinism. Or Both.

Let's go even further. Make America great again. We'll go back to when Women are treated as propety, minorities have to sit in the back of the bus, and gays were executed. Because they were all allowed freedom and look what happened! They do stuff I don't like!

As a funny point, while people often mock the sheltered ivory tower liberal, sometimes a internet conservative meeting their dose of reality also changes matters a little. I think it is easy to judge people that are abstract and then things change when you realize the actual reality of the situation.

Perhaps someone with a good deal of national pride, I found "Make America Great Again" to be insulting because I thought it was pretty great to begin with. And that is the disdain I have against people at both extremes. It's kinda funny that American Exceptionalism, which is rightfully ridiculed at times, seems to be lacking at the far right too.

Originally Posted by Magin

Um... this section here is kinda what the (most extreme) Conservatives want- they were raised with the idea that the American Dream is to have a house with a white picket fence, at least two kids, the husband goes and works to earn a living while his wife stays at home and raises the kids. Oh, and the neighbors are all exactly like him as well. AKA, the romanticized versionof the 1950's that many Republicans will say were the "good ole days and we need to go back to them"

Actually, to go a step further- this is the idea of the Baby Boomers, I'd assume- the largest population from that specific time period (I'd assume that the only way you get a larger population is to combine all the generations that came after all together). After all, this was when America was arguably at its peak- we had just emerged victorious from WWII (and this is another subject I've become disillusioned about, but that's for another thread), manufacturing and quality American goods were at an all time high, and if you were a white male, you had a million and one advantages. This the "Great" that many people probably think of when Trump says his slogan. Of course, there's also about a billion flaws in this idea and why it can never happen again, IMO- the least of which is that America doesn't have a large manufacturing culture anymore, and it probably won't come back due to the process being cheaper elsewhere. And this is just the tip of the iceberg

One important concept that's being missed with this discussion of the conservative mindset is that when we refer to the 1950s being great, we are referring specifically to the personal values of that era - not the technology of that era (no, we don't want to give up our modern PCs and smartphones); not the culture of that era insofar as it does not relate to personal values (no, we don't want to take away women's rights or minority rights [abortion is a separate issue], and we don't necessarily want to go back to the fashion of that era); and not the events of that era (no, we don't want WWIII).

This video somewhat makes that point:

Spoiler:

Note that the video talks specifically about the values of the Ward-Cleaver archetype that are still applicable today:

Reliable; trustworthy; smart; confident, but not smug. Funny and capable of laughing at himself. A man who’s successful at work, but not a workaholic. A man who likes children, but is not a child himself. Perhaps most importantly, devoted to his family.

Also notice that Cliff Huxtable was included in the list, so it has nothing to do with race. Nor is the video saying that women should go back to stay-at-home roles that were common in the 50s, since technology has made it such that what used to be the most significant difference between men and women in terms of work performance (physical strength) is now immaterial for most jobs.

Edit: In terms of manufacturing, I'm one of those economists who believes that it is important for a large economy to have a strong manufacturing base. I agree with the essence of the quote, "I would take one new manufacturing job being created over two new service jobs any day".

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by frivolity

One important concept that's being missed with this discussion of the conservative mindset is that when we refer to the 1950s being great, we are referring specifically to the personal values of that era - not the technology of that era (no, we don't want to give up our modern PCs and smartphones); not the culture of that era insofar as it does not relate to personal values (no, we don't want to take away women's rights or minority rights [abortion is a separate issue], and we don't necessarily want to go back to the fashion of that era); and not the events of that era (no, we don't want WWIII).

This video somewhat makes that point:

Spoiler:

Note that the video talks specifically about the values of the Ward-Cleaver archetype that are still applicable today:

Reliable; trustworthy; smart; confident, but not smug. Funny and capable of laughing at himself. A man who’s successful at work, but not a workaholic. A man who likes children, but is not a child himself. Perhaps most importantly, devoted to his family.

Also notice that Cliff Huxtable was included in the list, so it has nothing to do with race. Nor is the video saying that women should go back to stay-at-home roles that were common in the 50s, since technology has made it such that what used to be the most significant difference between men and women in terms of work performance (physical strength) is now immaterial for most jobs.

Edit: In terms of manufacturing, I'm one of those economists who believes that it is important for a large economy to have a strong manufacturing base. I agree with the essence of the quote, "I would take one new manufacturing job being created over two new service jobs any day".

That's a nice video. Thanks and actually thank you for this part.

We were mostly talking about the unfortunate few that GDB has come in contact with, that honestly seemed more like they were more Social Darwinist than anything else but I'm aware that there are people sensible to be able to separate these things.

Trust me, I certainly believe there are many out there that do believe what you stated above.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

I've always felt like that. But lately I've seen people adopt this mindset in a rather dangerous and nihilistic fashion, considering the buzzword this year has been "establishment" and you know where that went.

When you had people so disillusioned by the system that they'd rather not vote "because it doesn't matter" or even leftists that wanted Trump to win because Bernie couldn't get the nomination, or people that voted Trump because f the establishment, well I don't want to really pass judgement, but as corrupt as the establishment is, I enjoy having civil order and running water and a degree of protection from bigotry

Perhaps someone with a good deal of national pride, I found "Make America Great Again" to be insulting because I thought it was pretty great to begin with. And that is the disdain I have against people at both extremes. It's kinda funny that American Exceptionalism, which is rightfully ridiculed at times, seems to be lacking at the far right too

What we saw this year was history repeating itself when a nation-state is hurting, with Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump taking the bandaid off the gunshots. 50% of the workforce is making $30k a year or less, 70% are living paycheck to paycheck, Flint, Michigan and other cities across the country don't have clean drinking water, our infrastructure gets a grade of D, we're the only modern nation without universal healthcare, and so on. People get disenfranchised when the franchise actively hurts them. The spectrum has shifted to the right to the point of hurting the nation, and I repeat, the most liberal senator in America is a centrist on the international stage. Bernie Sanders' (and Jill Stein) New Deal-type proposals used to be such a "duh" that Eisenhower, a Republican president, said that anybody who doesn't believe in those has no place in American politics. Put in an objective context, America's political economic establishment scarcely has anyone who's on the left; we're dealing with the right and off the spectrum most of the time; the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic party is hardly "extreme"

YouTube

https://youtu.be/ogPCxycgE80

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

That's a nice video. Thanks and actually thank you for this part.

We were mostly talking about the unfortunate few that GDB has come in contact with, that honestly seemed more like they were more Social Darwinist than anything else but I'm aware that there are people sensible to be able to separate these things.

Trust me, I certainly believe there are many out there that do believe what you stated above.

Most hilarious about most Social Darwinists is that they are such until they hit a low point and find out what it mean to struggle to make ends meet.

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Magin

Clearly you've never dealt with the so-called Social Justice Warriors, who abhor this idea.

Let's just say, where I live there is no such SJW movement. But also there is no need to guess where I am living

Originally Posted by Magin

The US did benefit the most- the only thing is, that was also 70 years ago, and many of the effects no longer apply.

They were able to earn a lot and they are still trying to repeat that success, that is why USA is trying to drag big countries into conflicts (fight with each other and we will provide you the supplies).

Originally Posted by Magin

The two biggest ones I have gripes with: A) the US is NOT the strongest superpower in the world anymore, though many want to pretend it is and use that as justification for many political things, including my other issue

Indeed. Aside huge navy they have nothing else they can brag around.

Originally Posted by Magin

B ) The US no longer has any business playing World Police or getting involved in affairs that only drain more money. For my personal favorite example, please see the Vietnam War, and more recently, the Afghan/Iraq "war"

Well those conflicts happened in "new environments" to which armies were not used to. Typical scenario - rush with tanks and air support - did not work. Not "open" conflict basically.

Originally Posted by frivolity

Edit: In terms of manufacturing, I'm one of those economists who believes that it is important for a large economy to have a strong manufacturing base. I agree with the essence of the quote, "I would take one new manufacturing job being created over two new service jobs any day".

Generally there is a term "post industrial society" and USA wanted to move to that. Though my position is that "in order to be strong, country should be self sufficient".

The closest one to that in modern times - strangely right - is Russia (though it was checkmated in 80s-90s and it still left deep scars that very difficult to heal. I mean in 90s it was like ghettos but all over the country ). But it does not use its own strong points to achieve that. China would be perfect example but...It has too big population. If it has population comparable to USA - it would be the real superpower there. USA basically has no manufacturing - aside selling weapons and brands it cannot do anything else I rather sad with the current state of affairs.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by ChuckE

Generally there is a term "post industrial society" and USA wanted to move to that. Though my position is that "in order to be strong, country should be self sufficient".

The closest one to that in modern times - strangely right - is Russia (though it was checkmated in 80s-90s and it still left deep scars that very difficult to heal. I mean in 90s it was like ghettos but all over the country ). But it does not use its own strong points to achieve that. China would be perfect example but...It has too big population. If it has population comparable to USA - it would be the real superpower there. USA basically has no manufacturing - aside selling weapons and brands it cannot do anything else I rather sad with the current state of affairs.

My reasoning is a bit different from the strategic-industry argument, though such a view has indeed been gaining traction in an environment with increasing international tension. I grew up in a country that had to import pretty much everything - even water - so I'm not so big on the whole self-sufficiency issue.

Rather, from a purely economic perspective, I consider manufacturing to be more important than services because the latter is primarily a support industry for the former. Without a strong manufacturing sector, what exactly is the services sector supposed to support? Growth in the services sector will eventually have to slow down if the manufacturing sector is not growing.

In addition, relying on services for growth is highly problematic because it is much more difficult to raise productivity in services compared to manufacturing. Services are also much harder to export en-masse compared to manufactured goods, and it is very rare for a country's services sector to even make up 5% of total exports. Even countries that are known for their services sectors, such as Singapore and Switzerland, have very high manufacturing value added per capita. Hong Kong is the exception in that it has a large services industry with very little manufacturing, but that's probably because of the gigantic workshop next door.

Having said all that, this does not mean that the US should attempt to force its previous manufacturing industry to return. What should be done is to instead emphasise on creating a more business-friendly environment with lower corporate taxes and less regulation so that manufacturing firms will have an incentive to return. Special focus should be placed on high-tech manufacturing that will require skilled labour, while also providing incentives for workers to retrain in order to pick up the necessary skills.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Most hilarious about most Social Darwinists is that they are such until they hit a low point and find out what it mean to struggle to make ends meet.

Then they band together and accuse [x] of poisoning the well.

[CrowKenobi]

Thread closed. Continue the discussion in the U.S. Polictics Thread (2017 going forward).