Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12 Oct 2017, 05:03 PM   #678134 / #1
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,854
Default Revolting middle class. If the rich keep funding war with the lives of the lower classes, I wonder w

Revolting middle class. If the rich keep funding war with the lives of the lower classes, I wonder when the lower classes will revolt.

I would like to think, soonest is best, thanks to the left being too far left of the political spectrum, and the right being too far right.

The U. S. needs a third party to draw both overextended wings in and that should be a worker’s party.

If the worst affected by war, the middle and working classes, do not form a third party to represent the wealth creating demography of the country do nothing revolutionary, the dumbing down of the middle has worked quite well and the nation has no heart or love of self.

If the average working man or woman is not to be represented by either Democrats or Republicans, and are too dumbed down to see the requirement to be represented as important, and continue with their antiquated two party system, then you my dear Yankee friends, have devolved into quite a revolting and heartless middle and working classes.

You are even more revolting than the rich C S sons of bitches that don’t care for your welfare at all. The rich do not give any thought to your welfare, even as you enrich them more and more daily. It seems to me that you match their mind set by not giving a thought to your own long term welfare or about what kind of American Nightmare you are giving your children.

Bring the rich to heel or face a nuclear war. It’s your revolting choice.

Regards
DL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8...s_digest-vrecs
__________________
God is a cosmic consciousness .
Telepathy the key.
Our next evolution. No choice.
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 12 Oct 2017, 11:47 PM   #678169 / #2
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,500
Default

I think to have a working class, you have to have work.
__________________
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 13 Oct 2017, 10:28 PM   #678237 / #3
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
I think to have a working class, you have to have work.
Work is not lacking.

Intelligent workers and citizens are.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 20 Oct 2017, 06:21 AM   #678500 / #4
dancer_rnb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
I think to have a working class, you have to have work.
Being currently unemployed won't keep you from being working class.
__________________
There is no such thing as "politically correct." It's code for liberalism. The whole idea of "political correctness" was a brief academic flash-in-the-pan in the early 1990's, but has been a good conservative bugaboo ever since.
dancer_rnb is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 20 Oct 2017, 11:51 PM   #678531 / #5
Jackrabbit
House Pervert
 
Jackrabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: City Dump
Posts: 1,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Revolting middle class. If the rich keep funding war with the lives of the lower classes, I wonder when the lower classes will revolt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel Brooks in History of the World, Part I

Count De Monet: I have come on the most urgent of business. It is said that the people are revolting!

King Louis: You said it; they stink on ice.
Though in this case the 1% stinks on ice.
__________________
Moe: "Why don't you get a toupee with some brains in it?" <whack!>
Jackrabbit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 21 Oct 2017, 05:28 PM   #678563 / #6
dancer_rnb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,198
Default

I'm inclined to think it only happens when you are losing, if at all.
dancer_rnb is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 22 Oct 2017, 08:29 PM   #678607 / #7
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,926
Default

The Democratic party isn't too far left. It's also too far right. Just not mental hospital level right.
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 23 Oct 2017, 10:34 AM   #678630 / #8
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Revolting middle class. If the rich keep funding war with the lives of the lower classes, I wonder when the lower classes will revolt.

I would like to think, soonest is best, thanks to the left being too far left of the political spectrum, and the right being too far right.

The U. S. needs a third party to draw both overextended wings in and that should be a worker’s party.

If the worst affected by war, the middle and working classes, do not form a third party to represent the wealth creating demography of the country do nothing revolutionary, the dumbing down of the middle has worked quite well and the nation has no heart or love of self.

If the average working man or woman is not to be represented by either Democrats or Republicans, and are too dumbed down to see the requirement to be represented as important, and continue with their antiquated two party system, then you my dear Yankee friends, have devolved into quite a revolting and heartless middle and working classes.

You are even more revolting than the rich C S sons of bitches that don’t care for your welfare at all. The rich do not give any thought to your welfare, even as you enrich them more and more daily. It seems to me that you match their mind set by not giving a thought to your own long term welfare or about what kind of American Nightmare you are giving your children.

Bring the rich to heel or face a nuclear war. It’s your revolting choice.

Regards
DL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8...s_digest-vrecs
But does USA have any kind of class consciousness? It seems completely missing from the public discourse. The 99% movement wasn't really. They didn't want anything concrete. It turned out that they were just whining.

I think USA has a long way to go before they're in a place to even start to address this.
__________________
"Sorry, you must have been boring"
/Dr Zoidberg
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 25 Oct 2017, 02:05 PM   #678791 / #9
Shake
Mostly harmless
 
Shake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 1,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
The Democratic party isn't too far left. It's also too far right. Just not mental hospital level right.
Bernie Sanders is considered far left here in the states, but internationally, he's centrist. The US has gone too far right. That's why Justice Democrats have formed to take back the Democratic Party for the people, push a populist left agenda, and then work to get money out of politics. We already have one sitting member of Congress, Rep. Ro Khanna, and currently have nearly 30 other candidates ready to run against not only GOP incumbents, but also in primaries against corporate, establishment Democrats like Joe Manchin. These candidates take no corporate or PAC money, and instead are fundraising Bernie-style. The videos below should explain all this and more.

(Not loaded: rj_95Ld2g9I)
(View video on YouTube)

(Not loaded: lOTsK_WGNAc)
(View video on YouTube)
Shake is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 26 Oct 2017, 11:57 PM   #678921 / #10
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackrabbit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Revolting middle class. If the rich keep funding war with the lives of the lower classes, I wonder when the lower classes will revolt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel Brooks in History of the World, Part I

Count De Monet: I have come on the most urgent of business. It is said that the people are revolting!

King Louis: You said it; they stink on ice.
Though in this case the 1% stinks on ice.
Their hording habits, or lack of, sure stinks.

Their spending habits have to increase if they want more profits for all.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 27 Oct 2017, 12:00 AM   #678922 / #11
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dancer_rnb View Post
I'm inclined to think it only happens when you are losing, if at all.
I guess that you have nor seen all the losers in the U.S. these days.

This link shows who they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Regards
DL
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 27 Oct 2017, 12:02 AM   #678924 / #12
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattShizzle View Post
The Democratic party isn't too far left. It's also too far right. Just not mental hospital level right.
They are too far left when they cannot say Muslim and terrorist without choking.

If you cannot see the polarizing of your political system in the two extremes, then ------

Regards
DL
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 27 Oct 2017, 12:08 AM   #678925 / #13
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Revolting middle class. If the rich keep funding war with the lives of the lower classes, I wonder when the lower classes will revolt.

I would like to think, soonest is best, thanks to the left being too far left of the political spectrum, and the right being too far right.

The U. S. needs a third party to draw both overextended wings in and that should be a worker’s party.

If the worst affected by war, the middle and working classes, do not form a third party to represent the wealth creating demography of the country do nothing revolutionary, the dumbing down of the middle has worked quite well and the nation has no heart or love of self.

If the average working man or woman is not to be represented by either Democrats or Republicans, and are too dumbed down to see the requirement to be represented as important, and continue with their antiquated two party system, then you my dear Yankee friends, have devolved into quite a revolting and heartless middle and working classes.

You are even more revolting than the rich C S sons of bitches that don’t care for your welfare at all. The rich do not give any thought to your welfare, even as you enrich them more and more daily. It seems to me that you match their mind set by not giving a thought to your own long term welfare or about what kind of American Nightmare you are giving your children.

Bring the rich to heel or face a nuclear war. It’s your revolting choice.

Regards
DL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8...s_digest-vrecs
But does USA have any kind of class consciousness? It seems completely missing from the public discourse. The 99% movement wasn't really. They didn't want anything concrete. It turned out that they were just whining.

I think USA has a long way to go before they're in a place to even start to address this.
The oligarch owned government sure wants to delay the dialog for sure.

They do not want the public to know just how badly they are being shafted.

You are correct that the 99% remain pacified by the few handouts they are given.

Demographers look to the next election where the young overtake the old and polarized who held their noses while voting for Trump while the Dems were too stupid to see that the public wanted Bernie to trounce Trump the way the statistics were showing he would.

Reps are not bright but the Dems lost the election. Trump did not win it.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 28 Oct 2017, 01:08 PM   #679013 / #14
lpetrich
Smart Designer
SysAdmin; Mod: LU&E, C&AS
 
lpetrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 14,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
The U. S. needs a third party to draw both overextended wings in and that should be a worker’s party.
Except that the spoiler effect forces convergence on two parties. That's Duverger's law, and it's awfully hard to beat.

What does work is being a faction inside one of the two major parties. It worked for the Tea Party, though it meant becoming a faction of the Republican Party.
lpetrich is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Oct 2017, 09:49 AM   #679070 / #15
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Quote:
But does USA have any kind of class consciousness? It seems completely missing from the public discourse. The 99% movement wasn't really. They didn't want anything concrete. It turned out that they were just whining.

I think USA has a long way to go before they're in a place to even start to address this.
The oligarch owned government sure wants to delay the dialog for sure.
What do you mean by this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
They do not want the public to know just how badly they are being shafted.
Really? They seem pretty open about it to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
You are correct that the 99% remain pacified by the few handouts they are given.
The European working class are given more handouts and are less pacified. It's not that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Demographers look to the next election where the young overtake the old and polarized who held their noses while voting for Trump while the Dems were too stupid to see that the public wanted Bernie to trounce Trump the way the statistics were showing he would.
I think you are completely wrong. You're equating youth with Bernie supporters. I think it's young voters who put Trump in the White House.

I think the divide is people who grew up after the rise of the Internet, and those who grew up without the Internet. We trust different sources of information.

For us who were raised before the Internet academics were the keepers of truth. Even those who said they didn't trust academia, they still trusted journalists, who in turn trusted the academics. Universities decided what was true and the stream of that went one way.

After the Internet came the keepers of truth are the algorithms. The Internet laid bare the methodological problems of academic truth. We no longer trust academics because they were academics. Now they needed to convince us they were correct, and use terminology we could understand. There's an obvious problem here. But... Dunning-Kruger paradox. The judgement of non-experts is pretty damn close to worthless.

There's a Swedish philosopher called Alexander Bard. He made the case in his 2000 book, Netocracy, that the main currency of the Internet world is attention. It's no longer enough just to be rich.

Sure, being an academic with published prestigeous papers is nice. But you're also competing, on the same platform, as reality show hosts and cute kittens.

I don't think Bernie Sanders rose to prominence because of his platform or because of what he wants to do. I think it was because he was active in the Civil Rights movement of the 60'ies. Something that today is largely mythic. He proved his goodness. For practical purposes he's basically Jesus and people voted for goodness.

I think Bernie Sanders rose to prominence for the same reason Trump did. Nobody gave a shit about what they wanted to do or their opinions. They only cared about what they had come to symbolise.

I suspect the real reason Obama won the last election because he was black, rather than any of his opinions. I think we've all wondered if we're subconsciously racist. It's hard to know. Well... if we voted for a black guy we have some evidence that we aren't. We get to feel better about ourselves. I think that's the main reason Obama won.

Hillary Clinton's main selling point was being a woman.

We seem to be voting for gimmics rather than platforms today.

Trumps gimmic seems to be that he's a cartoonish stereotype of conservatives?

I'm not saying it's bad. It's just a new thing. And it's certainly not less democratic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Reps are not bright but the Dems lost the election. Trump did not win it.
I hate this line of argument. He won. USA has an electoral system. It's democratic. It works. USA isn't undemocratic because it's not a perfect direct democratical system. Every democracy is a mishmash of tradition and various rules to balance out groups against each other. They're all mistakes of history, and we usually leave them be, because we know better than to fuck with something that works. The American electoral system works. No, it's not perfect. Even an imperfect system can be acceptable and fine. The American democratic system is fine.

The measurement of how well a political system is doing is how engaged people are about politics. People stop caring if they think that their opinions won't make any difference. Americans are extremely vocal. They feel empowered to a degree few Europeans do. American democracy is clearly doing just fine.

The fact that Americans aren't discussing class consciousness is the problem. They don't care. We can't force people to care. That's not how democracy work. If we force people to care about class issues, we are in fact making it less democratic.
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Oct 2017, 12:41 PM   #679072 / #16
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I suspect the real reason Obama won the last election because he was black, rather than any of his opinions. I think we've all wondered if we're subconsciously racist. It's hard to know. Well... if we voted for a black guy we have some evidence that we aren't. We get to feel better about ourselves. I think that's the main reason Obama won.
That is the stupidest thing I have heard this week, and I've been grading midterms. We elect our only black candidate in the history of the presidency, spurring a racialized backlash worse than we have seen in decades, and this somehow proves there is a bias in favor of blacks? What happened the other 54 times?

Quote:
I hate this line of argument. He won. USA has an electoral system. It's democratic. It works. USA isn't undemocratic because it's not a perfect direct democratical system. Every democracy is a mishmash of tradition and various rules to balance out groups against each other. They're all mistakes of history, and we usually leave them be, because we know better than to fuck with something that works. The American electoral system works. No, it's not perfect. Even an imperfect system can be acceptable and fine. The American democratic system is fine.
People usually only say this when their candidate has won.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Oct 2017, 12:43 PM   #679073 / #17
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I suspect the real reason Obama won the last election because he was black, rather than any of his opinions. I think we've all wondered if we're subconsciously racist. It's hard to know. Well... if we voted for a black guy we have some evidence that we aren't. We get to feel better about ourselves. I think that's the main reason Obama won.
That is the stupidest thing I have heard this week, and I've been grading midterms. We elect our only black candidate in the history of the presidency, spurring a racialized backlash worse than we have seen in decades, and this somehow proves there is a bias in favor of blacks? What happened the other 54 times?

Quote:
I hate this line of argument. He won. USA has an electoral system. It's democratic. It works. USA isn't undemocratic because it's not a perfect direct democratical system. Every democracy is a mishmash of tradition and various rules to balance out groups against each other. They're all mistakes of history, and we usually leave them be, because we know better than to fuck with something that works. The American electoral system works. No, it's not perfect. Even an imperfect system can be acceptable and fine. The American democratic system is fine.
People only say this when their candidate has won.
Did you read the rest of my post?
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Oct 2017, 12:45 PM   #679074 / #18
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,500
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I suspect the real reason Obama won the last election because he was black, rather than any of his opinions. I think we've all wondered if we're subconsciously racist. It's hard to know. Well... if we voted for a black guy we have some evidence that we aren't. We get to feel better about ourselves. I think that's the main reason Obama won.
That is the stupidest thing I have heard this week, and I've been grading midterms. We elect our only black candidate in the history of the presidency, spurring a racialized backlash worse than we have seen in decades, and this somehow proves there is a bias in favor of blacks? What happened the other 54 times?

Quote:
I hate this line of argument. He won. USA has an electoral system. It's democratic. It works. USA isn't undemocratic because it's not a perfect direct democratical system. Every democracy is a mishmash of tradition and various rules to balance out groups against each other. They're all mistakes of history, and we usually leave them be, because we know better than to fuck with something that works. The American electoral system works. No, it's not perfect. Even an imperfect system can be acceptable and fine. The American democratic system is fine.
People only say this when their candidate has won.
Did you read the rest of my post?
I did. Wrapping a point that dumb in the middle of a standard diatribe about identity politics doesn't do anything to help it.
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 30 Oct 2017, 01:26 PM   #679077 / #19
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I suspect the real reason Obama won the last election because he was black, rather than any of his opinions. I think we've all wondered if we're subconsciously racist. It's hard to know. Well... if we voted for a black guy we have some evidence that we aren't. We get to feel better about ourselves. I think that's the main reason Obama won.
That is the stupidest thing I have heard this week, and I've been grading midterms. We elect our only black candidate in the history of the presidency, spurring a racialized backlash worse than we have seen in decades, and this somehow proves there is a bias in favor of blacks? What happened the other 54 times?

Quote:
I hate this line of argument. He won. USA has an electoral system. It's democratic. It works. USA isn't undemocratic because it's not a perfect direct democratical system. Every democracy is a mishmash of tradition and various rules to balance out groups against each other. They're all mistakes of history, and we usually leave them be, because we know better than to fuck with something that works. The American electoral system works. No, it's not perfect. Even an imperfect system can be acceptable and fine. The American democratic system is fine.
People only say this when their candidate has won.
Did you read the rest of my post?
I did. Wrapping a point that dumb in the middle of a standard diatribe about identity politics doesn't do anything to help it.
What do you think I meant by "attention being the currency of the Internet economy"? Do you think Obama's blackness and Trump's reality show personality are comparable in terms of the attention they produce?

What do you think it means that Obama wins one election and then Trump wins the next? What's the pattern?
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 Nov 2017, 09:18 PM   #679222 / #20
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
The U. S. needs a third party to draw both overextended wings in and that should be a worker’s party.
Except that the spoiler effect forces convergence on two parties. That's Duverger's law, and it's awfully hard to beat.

What does work is being a faction inside one of the two major parties. It worked for the Tea Party, though it meant becoming a faction of the Republican Party.
Few or the Western democracies suffer a two party system so I reject your spoiler effect.

A two party system is an insult to half the population that sees what a duly elected Rep party is doing in reversing what Obama's duly elected party put into place.

That shows a contempt for the wishes of half the population by a tyrannical force.

Imagine the garbage of systems left if all parties did that all the time.

Stupid is as stupid does and having just a two party system that reverses what the previous duly elected party did out5 of spite is really stupid. I would also say that it is immoral.

Look at how stupid Trump and the Reps look with their disrespect of Obamacare, a system they were too stupid to improve upon.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 Nov 2017, 09:52 PM   #679226 / #21
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,854
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Quote:
But does USA have any kind of class consciousness? It seems completely missing from the public discourse. The 99% movement wasn't really. They didn't want anything concrete. It turned out that they were just whining.

I think USA has a long way to go before they're in a place to even start to address this.
The oligarch owned government sure wants to delay the dialog for sure.
What do you mean by this?
Basically what is shown in this link. Bottom li8ne, your vote means nothing compared to the cash that those who govern us care about.

http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-...6e71b014efbf27

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
They do not want the public to know just how badly they are being shafted.
Really? They seem pretty open about it to me.
Good. Your eyes are open then.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
You are correct that the 99% remain pacified by the few handouts they are given.
The European working class are given more handouts and are less pacified. It's not that.
What happens elsewhere does not negate what is happening in the U.S.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Demographers look to the next election where the young overtake the old and polarized who held their noses while voting for Trump while the Dems were too stupid to see that the public wanted Bernie to trounce Trump the way the statistics were showing he would.
I think you are completely wrong. You're equating youth with Bernie supporters. I think it's young voters who put Trump in the White House.
I do not agree as I see the young are less racist and right wing than their parents. They also tend to be more intelligent.
Quote:
I think the divide is people who grew up after the rise of the Internet, and those who grew up without the Internet. We trust different sources of information.
Indeed, and that is why they are less racist and intelligent.

Quote:
For us who were raised before the Internet academics were the keepers of truth. Even those who said they didn't trust academia, they still trusted journalists, who in turn trusted the academics. Universities decided what was true and the stream of that went one way.
This is partially true but you forget the indoctrination we were subjected to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVqMAlgAnlo&app=desktop

Quote:
After the Internet came the keepers of truth are the algorithms. The Internet laid bare the methodological problems of academic truth. We no longer trust academics because they were academics. Now they needed to convince us they were correct, and use terminology we could understand. There's an obvious problem here. But... Dunning-Kruger paradox. The judgement of non-experts is pretty damn close to worthless.
Wisdom is often found in the words of the young.

Quote:
There's a Swedish philosopher called Alexander Bard. He made the case in his 2000 book, Netocracy, that the main currency of the Internet world is attention. It's no longer enough just to be rich.

Sure, being an academic with published prestigeous papers is nice. But you're also competing, on the same platform, as reality show hosts and cute kittens.

I don't think Bernie Sanders rose to prominence because of his platform or because of what he wants to do. I think it was because he was active in the Civil Rights movement of the 60'ies. Something that today is largely mythic. He proved his goodness. For practical purposes he's basically Jesus and people voted for goodness.

I think Bernie Sanders rose to prominence for the same reason Trump did. Nobody gave a shit about what they wanted to do or their opinions. They only cared about what they had come to symbolise.

I suspect the real reason Obama won the last election because he was black, rather than any of his opinions. I think we've all wondered if we're subconsciously racist. It's hard to know. Well... if we voted for a black guy we have some evidence that we aren't. We get to feel better about ourselves. I think that's the main reason Obama won.

Hillary Clinton's main selling point was being a woman.

We seem to be voting for gimmics rather than platforms today.

Trumps gimmic seems to be that he's a cartoonish stereotype of conservatives?

I'm not saying it's bad. It's just a new thing. And it's certainly not less democratic.
No comment.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Reps are not bright but the Dems lost the election. Trump did not win it.
I hate this line of argument. He won. USA has an electoral system. It's democratic. It works.
Not from what I can see.
Quote:
USA isn't undemocratic because it's not a perfect direct democratical system. Every democracy is a mishmash of tradition and various rules to balance out groups against each other. They're all mistakes of history, and we usually leave them be, because we know better than to fuck with something that works. The American electoral system works. No, it's not perfect. Even an imperfect system can be acceptable and fine. The American democratic system is fine.
Of you like pole taxes, your stupid electoral college and a candidate with less of the populations vote than the other candidate which goes directly against democratic principolels.

Quote:
The measurement of how well a political system is doing is how engaged people are about politics. People stop caring if they think that their opinions won't make any difference. Americans are extremely vocal. They feel empowered to a degree few Europeans do. American democracy is clearly doing just fine.
Check the numbers in the population that vote and you will see how poorly you are doing.

Quote:
The fact that Americans aren't discussing class consciousness is the problem. They don't care. We can't force people to care. That's not how democracy work. If we force people to care about class issues, we are in fact making it less democratic.
You say people are engaged then say they do not care.

Ok.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 Nov 2017, 09:55 PM   #679227 / #22
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
The U. S. needs a third party to draw both overextended wings in and that should be a worker’s party.
Except that the spoiler effect forces convergence on two parties. That's Duverger's law, and it's awfully hard to beat.

What does work is being a faction inside one of the two major parties. It worked for the Tea Party, though it meant becoming a faction of the Republican Party.
Few or the Western democracies suffer a two party system so I reject your spoiler effect.

A two party system is an insult to half the population that sees what a duly elected Rep party is doing in reversing what Obama's duly elected party put into place.

That shows a contempt for the wishes of half the population by a tyrannical force.

Imagine the garbage of systems left if all parties did that all the time.

Stupid is as stupid does and having just a two party system that reverses what the previous duly elected party did out5 of spite is really stupid. I would also say that it is immoral.

Look at how stupid Trump and the Reps look with their disrespect of Obamacare, a system they were too stupid to improve upon.

Regards
DL
In practice I don't think there's much of a difference between majority party countries and proportional representation countries. What you get in majority party countries is factions within the two major parties. That play the same kind of role as the different parties in proportional representation countries. But it does make voting more confusing. In a majority representation it's less clear what you're voting for.

Majority countries are often also more focused on the party leader as a person, and more people vote on charm. In proportional countries, the policies are more important than the person.

What majority party countries has going for it is that it avoids weak minority party ruling parties. Sometimes the party that gets most of the votes fail in finding coalition parties. Belgium recently had a hung parliament for two years. In Italy the various coalitions often fall apart mid term.

I personally prefer proportional representation. I like clarity. It's a much simpler and straight forward concept
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 01 Nov 2017, 10:26 PM   #679230 / #23
Greatest I am
Senior Member
 
Greatest I am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatest I am View Post
The U. S. needs a third party to draw both overextended wings in and that should be a worker’s party.
Except that the spoiler effect forces convergence on two parties. That's Duverger's law, and it's awfully hard to beat.

What does work is being a faction inside one of the two major parties. It worked for the Tea Party, though it meant becoming a faction of the Republican Party.
Few or the Western democracies suffer a two party system so I reject your spoiler effect.

A two party system is an insult to half the population that sees what a duly elected Rep party is doing in reversing what Obama's duly elected party put into place.

That shows a contempt for the wishes of half the population by a tyrannical force.

Imagine the garbage of systems left if all parties did that all the time.

Stupid is as stupid does and having just a two party system that reverses what the previous duly elected party did out5 of spite is really stupid. I would also say that it is immoral.

Look at how stupid Trump and the Reps look with their disrespect of Obamacare, a system they were too stupid to improve upon.

Regards
DL
In practice I don't think there's much of a difference between majority party countries and proportional representation countries. What you get in majority party countries is factions within the two major parties. That play the same kind of role as the different parties in proportional representation countries. But it does make voting more confusing. In a majority representation it's less clear what you're voting for.

Majority countries are often also more focused on the party leader as a person, and more people vote on charm. In proportional countries, the policies are more important than the person.

What majority party countries has going for it is that it avoids weak minority party ruling parties. Sometimes the party that gets most of the votes fail in finding coalition parties. Belgium recently had a hung parliament for two years. In Italy the various coalitions often fall apart mid term.

I personally prefer proportional representation. I like clarity. It's a much simpler and straight forward concept
Politics is a game of compromise.

That is best served by weak leading parties who then have thing of those who did not vote for them because if they do not, two minority parties can vote their new policy attempts down.

That served the greatest good to the greatest numbers which is what a democracy is supposed to do.

Your way, as shown with Trump attempting rolling back Dem policies voted for by the previous majority.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 Nov 2017, 07:05 AM   #679241 / #24
Hermit
Metierioric fail
 
Hermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 6,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think it's young voters who put Trump in the White House.
Look up facts, then think.

Hermit is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 02 Nov 2017, 09:07 AM   #679242 / #25
DrZoidberg
Senior Member
 
DrZoidberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
I think it's young voters who put Trump in the White House.
Look up facts, then think.

You are completely correct in that I didn't look it up. But that graphic doesn't prove what you think it does. What you need to do is find corresponding numbers for the election before it, and compare them. Here they are:

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/poll...ps-voted-2012/

This one proves it. So I was slightly wrong. So Internet hasn't primarily changed the voting (and information gathering) behaviour of young people. It's changed the behaviour of everybody all at once. Which actually makes perfect sense. Silly of me not to think of it.

So I'll make the same argument, but instead of it only being about young people, it covers everybody. I think we're all more interested in gimmics than the content of what somebody is saying.

Just the fact that Trump won at all I think is evidence of that. As well as Clinton's main selling point was being a woman.
DrZoidberg is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Politics & World Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus