April Presidential Poll: Biden, Trump or ? - Page 5

theprestige · 21st April 2020, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

The result of that would be a Trump victory, and I think you know that.

The solution he describes is literally defined as not being a Trump victory.

You can't get a Trump victory result if lots of other people joined ST in ditching Trump.

wareyin · 21st April 2020, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

In that case, you should keep voting Democrat and the party will have no motive to not be corrupt. The Republican's will be able to point to the corruption of the Democrats and scare their voters into playing the same game. If there isn't a limit beyond which you won't vote for them, it's a race to the bottom.

Why does the party have no motive not to be corrupt? Of course they aren't perfect (nobody is but Sanders alayhi as-salām) but the Democratic party is orders of magnitude more interested in policing themselves than the Republican party is. Look at how interested members here are in purging the party of those who are only 99% good, for instance!

shuttlt · 21st April 2020, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Why does the party have no motive not to be corrupt? Of course they aren't perfect (nobody is but Sanders alayhi as-salām) but the Democratic party is orders of magnitude more interested in policing themselves than the Republican party is. Look at how interested members here are in purging the party of those who are only 99% good, for instance!

What would motivate the party machine to avoid corruption other than the possibility of them losing votes?

bruto · 21st April 2020, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

What would motivate the party machine to avoid corruption other than the possibility of them losing votes?

Maybe, but even that is a start if enough voters choose the party they perceive as less corrupt.

The_Animus · 21st April 2020, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Once again, those were reasons given in 2016 why it was safe to not even try to stop Trump last time. The Libertarian Party candidate in 2016 even came out and told people to vote for Clinton, not him. But poutraged holier-than-thou privileged children still voted for Johnson, or Stein, or wrote in Sanders, all sure in the knowledge that it was safe because Clinton was going to win. They were wrong.

Now here we are in 2020, we already know the damage Trump has caused to the country and to the progressive causes some here claim to want, but those very same progressives are trying to justify taking the same actions that allowed Trump to win last time. You just keep ignoring what the actual results of your course of action were in favor of making the same error again. Is there a term for that?

You're literally arguing that people who supported Trump but then did not vote for him in 2016 and that people who voted 3rd party or stayed home in places like California and New York where Clinton still easily won all the delegates helped Trump win in 2016.

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

shuttlt · 21st April 2020, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

Maybe, but even that is a start if enough voters choose the party they perceive as less corrupt.

Do significant numbers of people in fact do this though? Let's say that the Republican party was unimpeachably more honest and less corrupt than the Democrats, and also in favor of making abortion illegal, ending same sex marriage, tax breaks for billionaires, etc..., you'd vote Republican?

I very much doubt enough people are single issue enough on corruption for this to work. They'll tolerate their party being vastly more corrupt than the opposition. So long as the test is relative corruption, the tendency is a race to the bottom.

LSSBB · 21st April 2020, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

What would motivate the party machine to avoid corruption other than the possibility of them losing votes?

I live in Illinois, one of the most politically corrupt states in the union. Putting Sanders into office would not change the corruption in Illinois in any way I can see.

wareyin · 21st April 2020, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

What would motivate the party machine to avoid corruption other than the possibility of them losing votes?

Other than how the national party already does that (for instance see: Franken, Al)? I guess nothing. In a 2 party system, how does one party having no votes or power prevent corruption?

wareyin · 21st April 2020, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by The_Animus

You're literally arguing that people who supported Trump but then did not vote for him in 2016 and that people who voted 3rd party or stayed home in places like California and New York where Clinton still easily won all the delegates helped Trump win in 2016.

I'm literally arguing that voting none of the above when you are sure the Democratic candidate will win your state/country helped Trump to win in 2016. I'm literally pointing out this fact over and over in the hopes that those stupid/self-centered/short-sighted voters who did it then won't do it again, and anyone thinking of doing it again (much less telling others to do it this time), will learn from the mistakes of 4 years ago.

shuttlt · 21st April 2020, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Other than how the national party already does that (for instance see: Franken, Al)? I guess nothing. In a 2 party system, how does one party having no votes or power prevent corruption?

If the corruption is a sufficiently important issue for the voters that they stop supporting the party then it is in the interests of the party to address the problem. If corruption isn't enough of an issue that people stop voting for them, then there is no motivation to address it. If the party out of power is sufficiently stupid and or corrupt that they refuse to change, then sure... but sooner or later another party will replace them.

shuttlt · 21st April 2020, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

I'm literally arguing that voting none of the above when you are sure the Democratic candidate will win your state/country helped Trump to win in 2016. I'm literally pointing out this fact over and over in the hopes that those stupid/self-centered/short-sighted voters who did it then won't do it again, and anyone thinking of doing it again (much less telling others to do it this time), will learn from the mistakes of 4 years ago.

Isn't it the parties/candidates fault for not being appealing to voters rather than the voters fault for not finding the party/candidate appealing. This sounds like a caricature of an incel, blaming the people who reject him.

bruto · 21st April 2020, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Do significant numbers of people in fact do this though? Let's say that the Republican party was unimpeachably more honest and less corrupt than the Democrats, and also in favor of making abortion illegal, ending same sex marriage, tax breaks for billionaires, etc..., you'd vote Republican?

I very much doubt enough people are single issue enough on corruption for this to work. They'll tolerate their party being vastly more corrupt than the opposition. So long as the test is relative corruption, the tendency is a race to the bottom.

Point taken, and you're right in much of that. But I do still think that corruption plays some part, and the degree of corruption also. I would not generally vote Republican, but I'm not sure that would be the case if a reasonably honest Republican were running against a flagrantly corrupt Democrat, despite principles.

One would, after all, have to judge whether a very corrupt Democrat would act as he pretends, and whether an honest Republican would invoke corruption and trickery to overthrow the will of the people.

I'm pretty close to "blue dog" Democrat but I've voted Republican a couple of times, even when the Democratic candidate was not so awful. Policy is a big issue, but so, I think are effectiveness and integrity.

shuttlt · 21st April 2020, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

I live in Illinois, one of the most politically corrupt states in the union. Putting Sanders into office would not change the corruption in Illinois in any way I can see.

If a significant number of peoples voting preference was driven by the issue of corruption it would have an impact since parties that were too corrupt would fall from power and the money that drives the corruption would dry up. If you vote for a non-corrupt candidate for other reasons, then it doesn't do much.

Or is the idea here that, if the Democrats couldn't get into power in Illinois without addressing corruption and believed they would lose power if they didn't address it, it wouldn't at least impose some hard limit on corruption?

Ultimately this comes down to the electorate just don't care enough that Illinois is corrupt.

SuburbanTurkey · 21st April 2020, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I know things get pretty contentious, and that there's a lot of active dislike between us. So thank you for taking the time to give me a civil and thoughtful answer. Several in a row, in fact.

I think the party gets about three years to do this kind of discussion. The fourth year, the election year where the party is trying to get its head together and wrest the presidency from a terrible incumbent, is probably not the right time. I think you're getting pushback mostly because people are baffled that you don't agree with this.

I think you may need to reconsider your overall strategy. Americans are pretty conservative, overall. Even the progressives aren't often revolutionary progressives. A lot of Americans - Republicans and Democrats alike - want to make incremental improvements to some things. Very few Americans want to make revolutionary changes to everything. This dynamic becomes more clear the more specific and concrete you get with your policy proposals.

Even progressive policy has to orbit the attractor at the center of America's Overton Window.

People are questioning the propriety of waiting until the party is in the middle of a presidential election, trying to support a candidate to beat a terrible incumbent from the other party, to launch your full-throated condemnation of the party and undermining of the candidate.

I think most people on the left would have been very tolerant, even supportive, if you'd spent three years condemning the party for its failures, and then spent the fourth year withholding your condemnation in favor of actually winning an election.

Especially if your condemnation isn't working, because you're trying to drag the party further left than most progressive Americans want to go. If you haven't had much success for the past three years, what makes you think the fourth year is the right time to double down on your attacks, instead of supporting Biden against Trump, and thinking about how you're going to adjust your strategy for the three years that follow?

I'd like to apologize for my curtness. I should be more careful responding, as only some posters are determined to engage in bad faith and willful mischaracterization of my comments, and you are not one of them. I have found these dialogues to be personally helpful and I should not respond to you with such rudeness.

As far as the timing, your point is well taken. It's a bit of catch-22. The election is the only time to really exercise any leverage on politician, but is also the most dangerous time to make mistakes. The moment a politician wins, the electorate losses most of their power.

My perception is that the party is happy to ignore the progressives for the 3 years that an election doesn't matter, then demand loyalty during the crisis election year. Crisis to crisis management, with no opportunity for introspection or reform in between. So here we are, on another crisis, and it's just not a great time for infighting, so vote blue. Should Biden secure victory he will stop even pretending to care about "party unity" before the ink on the last ballot dries. It won't matter when Biden retreats from his tepid campaign promises because it's too late by then. From an electoral standpoint, there is no other time to hold the party accountable than during the election. And in 2024, they'll be some other ring wing ghoul that's just too evil to allow to win, so we'll be brow-beat into voting to re-elect Biden. on and on it goes.

As far as undermining the candidate, which will potentially benefit Trump, that's a good point. I find it difficult to pretend to not notice the emperor has no clothes. I'm not a pundit or a campaign strategist, and I'm not out knocking on doors telling the world how much Biden sucks, so I don't see the need for strategic truth telling. I don't see how someone could read the body of my work and come away with the impression that Trump is a better alternative. I'm pretty open that I think he's a proto-fascist with an attention span problem (a tremendous stroke of fortune that). Strategic voting is a valid approach, but let's not get carried away pretending that Biden isn't a terrible candidate.

Realistically, much of the bitterness is probably misplaced. The movement to drag this country out of right wing hell-world is going to be a long haul, and I doubt electoralism will play a role anytime soon. I think the best opportunity to make this change probably exists outside of government, which is captured by soulless corporatists, and in the labor and community sector. Ideally, a Biden win will be accompanied with intense spat of new wildcat strikes, growing class consciousness, and maybe a few rowdy protests from the left.

I'm no accelerationist, but I don't see any reason to believe things aren't going to continue to decline for average Americans, even under a resounding Democratic victory. I just hope that there will be a left alternative when the populist rage boils over again, because we know what the right-wing reactionary solution looks like.

shuttlt · 21st April 2020, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

Point taken, and you're right in much of that. But I do still think that corruption plays some part, and the degree of corruption also. I would not generally vote Republican, but I'm not sure that would be the case if a reasonably honest Republican were running against a flagrantly corrupt Democrat, despite principles.

We agree :-) A rare thing.

The only not of caution I have is that I think you underestimate the difficulty in making the judgement of who is more corrupt given a partisan press. Each party's supporters are always going to think the other side is significantly more corrupt and incompetent, that's a given. The Republican's certainly think it of the Democrats every bit as much as the Democrats think it of the Republicans. Hence my preference for an absolute standard.

shuttlt · 21st April 2020, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Realistically, much of the bitterness is probably misplaced. The movement to drag this country out of right wing hell-world is going to be a long haul, and I doubt electoralism will play a role anytime soon. I think the best opportunity to make this change probably exists outside of government, which is captured by soulless corporatists, and in the labor and community sector. Ideally, a Biden win will be accompanied with intense spat of new wildcat strikes, growing class consciousness, and maybe a few rowdy protests from the left.

For what it's worth, the more right wing commentators I'm aware of would certainly agree with you. The danger they perceive is the progressive left's capture of Academia, Media, Silicon Valley and HR Departments. You may disagree with some or all of those, but that is how they see it. There's a lot of concern that the Republican party doesn't take this threat nearly seriously enough.

LSSBB · 21st April 2020, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If a significant number of peoples voting preference was driven by the issue of corruption it would have an impact since parties that were too corrupt would fall from power and the money that drives the corruption would dry up. If you vote for a non-corrupt candidate for other reasons, then it doesn't do much.

Or is the idea here that, if the Democrats couldn't get into power in Illinois without addressing corruption and believed they would lose power if they didn't address it, it wouldn't at least impose some hard limit on corruption?

Ultimately this comes down to the electorate just don't care enough that Illinois is corrupt.

It would take years of groundwork and coalition building, one or two really charismatic and really good politicians who currently don't exist and have no higher ambition than Illinois, or the pending bankruptcy of the state with no bailout and some groundswell that doesn't exist currently, to effect any sort of change.

The problem is pensions. No one wants to disturb their own golden goose.

LSSBB · 21st April 2020, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

which is captured by soulless corporatists

Not all corporatists are soulless. Dehumanization is a terrible tactic if you want to build a progressive coaltion.

shuttlt · 21st April 2020, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

It would take years of groundwork and coalition building, one or two really charismatic and really good politicians who currently don't exist and have no higher ambition than Illinois, or the pending bankruptcy of the state with no bailout and some groundswell that doesn't exist currently, to effect any sort of change.

The problem is pensions. No one wants to disturb their own golden goose.

I don't know enough about the state to agree or disagree about pensions. Again, what it comes down to is corruption just isn't important enough to people for it to be an issue.

theprestige · 21st April 2020, 12:09 PM

I'm not sure corruption is or should be the defining factor.

You're not going to vote for an ideologically pure and incorruptible conservative who opposes gay marriage and abortions of convenience, just because he can't be bought. Not that this is even a choice. Politicians are corrupt. It's the nature of the beast. Everybody's trying to vote for the least corrupt politician who's the closest to their ideological principles.

If the choice were between a banally corrupt and venal capitalist who was going to continue the graft and bribery of business usual, and a saintly communist who was going tear it all down and replace it with a Soviet state... I'd vote for the corrupt capitalist over the incorruptible communist every time. Every. Single. Time.

That's not our choice here, though. And while many forum members here are wholly committed to the idea that Donald Trump is especially, unprecedentedly corrupt, I wonder how many voters actually see it that way.

SuburbanTurkey · 21st April 2020, 12:47 PM

A thoughtful and comprehensive essay on the current dilemma facing progressives. The author comes to no recommendation, but just outlays the various factors at play from a progressive's perspective.

"The Moral and Strategic Calculus of Voting for Joe Biden to Defeat Trump — or Not" - Jeremy Scahill

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/20/...ection-voting/

I suppose this sums up my bitterness on this topic:

Quote:

A Biden administration, they believe, will undoubtedly be a massive corporate-friendly juggernaut that wages military and economic wars and, for them, voting in the affirmative for that is a bridge too far. And many of these people hold the Democratic Party responsible for Trump because of the terrible campaign it ran in 2016, so trying to convince them to buy into the same strategy twice is a losing battle. They are tired of being Democrats’ cheap dates — treated with contempt, offered few and paltry concessions, and expected to go along. As a strategic matter, at this juncture, they regard supporting Biden as tantamount to telling Democrats to continue to take them for granted.

If Democrats want to try to win them over, they should use the next six months to show them you take their concerns about 2016 seriously and map out the ways this campaign is different. Most people on the left who oppose Biden but also view Trump as the gravest danger are going to vote against Trump by voting for Biden. But those who disagree with that strategy do not support Trump. For them, “He’s not Trump” is not a gamble worth taking. The onus is on the Biden campaign and its supporters to make their case to every eligible voter in this country and earn their votes. No one should be taken for granted.

A point that I hadn't considered much. There's still 6 months to the election. What is Joe doing to shore up his left? Clearly there is a weakness there. What is being done to, beyond brow-beating, to actually achieve party unity?

wareyin · 21st April 2020, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If the corruption is a sufficiently important issue for the voters that they stop supporting the party then it is in the interests of the party to address the problem. If corruption isn't enough of an issue that people stop voting for them, then there is no motivation to address it. If the party out of power is sufficiently stupid and or corrupt that they refuse to change, then sure... but sooner or later another party will replace them.

As theprestige points out, all politicians (hell, all people) are corrupt to some degree. (Again, with the exception of Sanders alayhi as-salām that is.) If you stop voting for a party because they aren't pure, you won't ever have a party to vote for. And, as I pointed out, the Democratic party self-polices to an extent far greater than the Republican party. If you want to cry about corruption but vote for Donald "Conman" Trump, corruption wasn't your issue. In a 2 party system, you have 3 choices: pick the less corrupt party (if corruption is your over-riding focus), Pick the more corrupt party, or you abdicate and let everyone else who doesn't share your values pick for you. The 2nd and the 3rd choices will not lower corruption in the already less corrupt party.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Isn't it the parties/candidates fault for not being appealing to voters rather than the voters fault for not finding the party/candidate appealing. This sounds like a caricature of an incel, blaming the people who reject him.

That's a .... novel take on it. Some people are just never going to be happy. When faced with 2 choices, one of which they admit is flat out the worst, they still can't refrain from whining about the better. I worked with a guy who described it this way: If you handed that guy a $100 bill for nothing, he'd complain that it had wrinkles in it.

shuttlt · 21st April 2020, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

As theprestige points out, all politicians (hell, all people) are corrupt to some degree.

Certainly.

Originally Posted by wareyin

(Again, with the exception of Sanders alayhi as-salām that is.) If you stop voting for a party because they aren't pure, you won't ever have a party to vote for.

I think possibly there are shades of impurity. Some people on here suggest that the Republicans are some terrible level of corrupt. I hear Illinois is terribly corrupt. Some people felt Bernie was cheated by the DNC in 2016 and perhaps didn't want to vote Democrat because of that. All I'm saying, and I don't think it is a complicated point, is that if you don't have absolute lines that would cause you to vote differently if crossed, the party has absolutely nothing to gain from caring about what you think or giving you anything you want.

Originally Posted by wareyin

And, as I pointed out, the Democratic party self-polices to an extent far greater than the Republican party.

I don't care. I said over and again that I thought an absolute standard was needed. Telling me that one side is better than the other is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by wareyin

If you want to cry about corruption but vote for Donald "Conman" Trump, corruption wasn't your issue.

The corruption I care about is the corruption of the party I hope will represent my interests! The fact the the party that isn't going to get the things I want done done is corrupt and bought by special interests matters much less to me, even if they were pure as snow, they wouldn't be trying to implement anything I wanted anyway.

Originally Posted by wareyin

In a 2 party system, you have 3 choices: pick the less corrupt party (if corruption is your over-riding focus), Pick the more corrupt party, or you abdicate and let everyone else who doesn't share your values pick for you. The 2nd and the 3rd choices will not lower corruption in the already less corrupt party.

You assume that I would be the only person (or nearly so) who would have these priorities. Haven't I been reading on this forum that Bernie voters cost Hillary the election by not voting for her? That must be at least giving Biden's team some pause for thought. Anyway if it is just me, a single vote is very unlikely to matter either way, so I might as well vote as I wish. If others do the same and my party finds that too many of its supporters are disgusted with it, then I get my wish and they have an incentive to do better.

Realistically, I think almost everybody votes as you suggest. That means there is generally little incentive for each party not to be as corrupt and venal as they like. Naturally each side believes the other is more corrupt, so down it goes circling the toilet.

Originally Posted by wareyin

That's a .... novel take on it. Some people are just never going to be happy. When faced with 2 choices, one of which they admit is flat out the worst, they still can't refrain from whining about the better. I worked with a guy who described it this way: If you handed that guy a $100 bill for nothing, he'd complain that it had wrinkles in it.

If you are unwilling to accept the short term pain of letting your side lose, your opinion and vote do not matter to your side since your vote is guaranteed. If you are a progressive and you are ultimately willing to vote Democrat regardless, then your opinions don't matter and they never have to give you anything you want. The party could be marched to the right, or become corrupt or do as it pleases and so long as they are able to convince you that a douche is marginally less bad than a turd sandwich, they can act like a douche all day long. Maybe this time they haven't crossed the line, I don't know.... but if one doesn't have absolute lines after which you withdraw your support, you aren't asking for a $100 dollar bill, you are asking for a douche.

wareyin · 21st April 2020, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I think possibly there are shades of impurity. Some people on here suggest that the Republicans are some terrible level of corrupt. I hear Illinois is terribly corrupt. Some people felt Bernie was cheated by the DNC in 2016 and perhaps didn't want to vote Democrat because of that. All I'm saying, and I don't think it is a complicated point, is that if you don't have absolute lines that would cause you to vote differently if crossed, the party has absolutely nothing to gain from caring about what you think or giving you anything you want.

Yes, shades of impurity. Since no one is absolutely perfect, demanding such is not productive.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't care. I said over and again that I thought an absolute standard was needed. Telling me that one side is better than the other is irrelevant.

Wait, do we need an absolute standard with which to compare the 2 parties against and pick the best from? Or is comparing one party against the other according to this standard irrelevant? You're sort of going back and forth here.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The corruption I care about is the corruption of the party I hope will represent my interests! The fact the the party that isn't going to get the things I want done done is corrupt and bought by special interests matters much less to me, even if they were pure as snow, they wouldn't be trying to implement anything I wanted anyway.

Ok, so when you have 2 choices, you don't care if one is corrupt because they won't do what you want? And so...you are perfectly fine with that more corrupt party that will implement the opposite of what you want being in charge? And this helps you implement...what? It's certainly not going to eliminate corruption! In fact, it is a guaranteed way to increase corruption.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You assume that I would be the only person (or nearly so) who would have these priorities. Haven't I been reading on this forum that Bernie voters cost Hillary the election by not voting for her? That must be at least giving Biden's team some pause for thought. Anyway if it is just me, a single vote is very unlikely to matter either way, so I might as well vote as I wish. If others do the same and my party finds that too many of its supporters are disgusted with it, then I get my wish and they have an incentive to do better.

Realistically, I think almost everybody votes as you suggest. That means there is generally little incentive for each party not to be as corrupt and venal as they like. Naturally each side believes the other is more corrupt, so down it goes circling the toilet.

Again, you are going back and forth with 'nearly everybody voting as I suggest' in one paragraph but 'too many supporters not voting the way I suggest' in another. Perhaps you can pick a position and we can discuss that?

And, again, despite evidence that one party does police itself, you continue to claim that there is little incentive for either party to not be corrupt. Why don't you support your contention, rather than just ignoring evidence against it and repeating it? (And as I know you are from the UK, you should know that Illinois is pretty unique in corruption. Check out how many of their Governors from both parties have been jailed, for instance. This is not how either party behaves nationally)

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If you are unwilling to accept the short term pain of letting your side lose, your opinion and vote do not matter to your side since your vote is guaranteed. If you are a progressive and you are ultimately willing to vote Democrat regardless, then your opinions don't matter and they never have to give you anything you want. The party could be marched to the right, or become corrupt or do as it pleases and so long as they are able to convince you that a douche is marginally less bad than a turd sandwich, they can act like a douche all day long. Maybe this time they haven't crossed the line, I don't know.... but if one doesn't have absolute lines after which you withdraw your support, you aren't asking for a $100 dollar bill, you are asking for a douche.

You are assuming despite evidence to the contrary that Trump only has or will cause short term pain. You are also assuming that the only time Democratic politicians pay attention to the voters is during the elections, which also flies in the face of evidence. And yes, the former coworkers point was that no matter how much some people get, they will find some way to call what they got "a douche". This free $100 bill is wrinkled, it's no better than toilet paper!

Sideroxylon · 21st April 2020, 04:13 PM

#postvalues #posttruth

Delvo · 21st April 2020, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

There's still 6 months to the election. What is Joe doing to shore up his left? Clearly there is a weakness there. What is being done to, beyond brow-beating, to actually achieve party unity?

The republican wing of the Democrat party doesn't want party unity with the left. Their top priority is to get rid of it.

theprestige · 21st April 2020, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

The republican wing of the Democrat party doesn't want party unity with the left. Their top priority is to get rid of us.

Translation: Americans are pretty conservative folk, even the progressives. Of course mainstream Democrats don't have a lot of love for revolutionary progressives.

LSSBB · 21st April 2020, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Translation: Americans are pretty conservative folk, even the progressives. Of course mainstream Democrats don't have a lot of love for revolutionary progressives.

Eugene Debs was jailed for his beliefs. The average American I believe isn't far evolved from that time. To decry the moderates of the Democratic Party as reactionaries is a serious disconnect from history.

Sideroxylon · 21st April 2020, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Translation: Americans are pretty conservative folk, even the progressives. Of course mainstream Democrats don't have a lot of love for revolutionary progressives.

Neither do the billionaire political donors or owners of the media their older voters consume.

theprestige · 21st April 2020, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Eugene Debs was jailed for his beliefs. The average American I believe isn't far evolved from that time. To decry the moderates of the Democratic Party as reactionaries is a serious disconnect from history.

Tell it to Delvo, I'm not decrying moderate Democrats at all, nor am I slurring anyone as a reactionary.

LSSBB · 21st April 2020, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Tell it to Delvo, I'm not decrying moderate Democrats at all, nor am I slurring anyone as a reactionary.

Yes, I was agreeing with you.

Sideroxylon · 21st April 2020, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Eugene Debs was jailed for his beliefs. The average American I believe isn't far evolved from that time. To decry the moderates of the Democratic Party as reactionaries is a serious disconnect from history.

Is it a disconnect to decry those who want addressing the obscene wealth divide and the domination of the political agenda by billionaires as radicals?

Cain · 21st April 2020, 06:26 PM

It's better if Biden loses to Trump than Sanders. If Trump wins again, then the Democratic Party is an early favorite for 2024.

The betting markets are stubbornly sticking with Trump. Biden's stock has risen, but not nearly as much as I thought in this short-run.

LSSBB · 21st April 2020, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Is it a disconnect to decry those who want addressing the obscene wealth divide and the domination of the political agenda by billionaires as radicals?

You don't need to be a progressive to decry that.

Case in point: Ray Dalio

Sideroxylon · 21st April 2020, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

You don't need to be a progressive to decry that.

Case in point: Ray Dalio

Get on board, Biden! Sanders has written your speeches already.

shuttlt · 22nd April 2020, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Yes, shades of impurity. Since no one is absolutely perfect, demanding such is not productive.

I'm not either.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Wait, do we need an absolute standard with which to compare the 2 parties against and pick the best from? Or is comparing one party against the other according to this standard irrelevant? You're sort of going back and forth here.

I'm not.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Ok, so when you have 2 choices, you don't care if one is corrupt because they won't do what you want? And so...you are perfectly fine with that more corrupt party that will implement the opposite of what you want being in charge? And this helps you implement...what? It's certainly not going to eliminate corruption! In fact, it is a guaranteed way to increase corruption.

Only if the party I prefer has no desire to win.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Again, you are going back and forth with 'nearly everybody voting as I suggest' in one paragraph but 'too many supporters not voting the way I suggest' in another. Perhaps you can pick a position and we can discuss that?

I'm pretty sure you aren't quoting me saying "nearly everybody voting as I suggest". Perhaps you could respond to what I actually say?

Originally Posted by wareyin

And, again, despite evidence that one party does police itself, you continue to claim that there is little incentive for either party to not be corrupt.

Your assertion isn't evidence.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Why don't you support your contention, rather than just ignoring evidence against it and repeating it? (And as I know you are from the UK, you should know that Illinois is pretty unique in corruption. Check out how many of their Governors from both parties have been jailed, for instance. This is not how either party behaves nationally).

What evidence would I need to support the assertion that if you are willing to vote for a party you believe is corrupt, you provide little incentive for them to change?

Originally Posted by wareyin

You are assuming despite evidence to the contrary that Trump only has or will cause short term pain.

Not really, that judgement is down to individual voters. I'm just defending the position that not voting, or voting for a third party isn't pointlessly throwing away your vote.

Originally Posted by wareyin

You are also assuming that the only time Democratic politicians pay attention to the voters is during the elections, which also flies in the face of evidence.

I really don't think I am. My point is general and isn't restricted to the Democrats or even US politics.

Originally Posted by wareyin

And yes, the former coworkers point was that no matter how much some people get, they will find some way to call what they got "a douche". This free $100 bill is wrinkled, it's no better than toilet paper!

It isn't free. Politicians are given power over our lives. If the perceived downside of accepting the $100 for my vote from you is $110 and accepting the $100 from the other guy is $200, ultimately I need to find a way of changing the nature of the game. Calling me ungrateful, or stupid for refusing to back you because you are better is a con game.

Delvo · 22nd April 2020, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Calling me ungrateful, or stupid for refusing to back you because you are better is a con game.

It's also the behavior of somebody whose top priority is not opposing the "real enemy" (s)he preaches about needing to oppose, but opposing those who are more like himself/herself... while accusing them of being... the way (s)he actually is.

But it's also classic Democrat behavior in general, although with exceptions of course. Somehow the idea that you can (and should) insult voters into submission has soaked in to the party's operational philosophy pretty thoroughly and keeps bubbling out again & again.

wareyin · 22nd April 2020, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I'm pretty sure you aren't quoting me saying "nearly everybody voting as I suggest". Perhaps you could respond to what I actually say?

You may notice that those weren't quotation marks? But it's clear that I'm asking you to clarify what you are actually saying as you keep contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Your assertion isn't evidence.

Perhaps not, but my references to well known examples is.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

What evidence would I need to support the assertion that if you are willing to vote for a party you believe is corrupt, you provide little incentive for them to change?

I want evidence that they are as corrupt as you keep claiming they are. I want evidence that they don't self-police, as I have provided you evidence that they do. Hint: self-policing is the opposite of being corrupt but doing nothing about it.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Not really, that judgement is down to individual voters. I'm just defending the position that not voting, or voting for a third party isn't pointlessly throwing away your vote.

Your defense rests on false assumptions and false equivalencies. It is failing because of that.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I really don't think I am. My point is general and isn't restricted to the Democrats or even US politics.

You have been claiming that we have to force less corruption on the already less corrupt party by withholding our votes. If that isn't an assumption that the only way to affect the system is voting, and that the only time the politicians listen is when you vote, then what do you mean?

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It isn't free. Politicians are given power over our lives. If the perceived downside of accepting the $100 for my vote from you is $110 and accepting the $100 from the other guy is $200, ultimately I need to find a way of changing the nature of the game. Calling me ungrateful, or stupid for refusing to back you because you are better is a con game.

That $100 bill isn't free, it's wrinkled and they're going to expect me to say thanks! It's just horrible!

Edited to add: Wait, calling people stupid for refusing to back the better option is a con game? Do you understand the meaning of the word "better" or "con"?

wareyin · 22nd April 2020, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

It's also the behavior of somebody whose top priority is not opposing the "real enemy" (s)he preaches about needing to oppose, but opposing those who are more like himself/herself... while accusing them of being... the way (s)he actually is.

It is quite clear that you have a different "real enemy" than most Democratic voters, that's true.

Originally Posted by Delvo

But it's also classic Democrat behavior in general, although with exceptions of course. Somehow the idea that you can (and should) insult voters into submission has soaked in to the party's operational philosophy pretty thoroughly and keeps bubbling out again & again.

Wait, are you claiming to be a Democrat here?

uke2se · 22nd April 2020, 05:42 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

It's also the behavior of somebody whose top priority is not opposing the "real enemy" (s)he preaches about needing to oppose, but opposing those who are more like himself/herself... while accusing them of being... the way (s)he actually is.

But it's also classic Democrat behavior in general, although with exceptions of course. Somehow the idea that you can (and should) insult voters into submission has soaked in to the party's operational philosophy pretty thoroughly and keeps bubbling out again & again.

You are agreeing with a Trump apologist and are talking about the "real enemy". Just saying. Maybe get a ******* grip?

Biden	64	83.12%
Trump	5	6.49%
None of the above, third party, Planet X, etc.	8	10.39%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll

21st April 2020, 09:06 AM	#163
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by wareyin Why does the party have no motive not to be corrupt? Of course they aren't perfect (nobody is but Sanders alayhi as-salām) but the Democratic party is orders of magnitude more interested in policing themselves than the Republican party is. Look at how interested members here are in purging the party of those who are only 99% good, for instance! What would motivate the party machine to avoid corruption other than the possibility of them losing votes?
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

21st April 2020, 09:20 AM	#164
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 27,768	Originally Posted by shuttlt What would motivate the party machine to avoid corruption other than the possibility of them losing votes? Maybe, but even that is a start if enough voters choose the party they perceive as less corrupt.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

21st April 2020, 10:17 AM	#166
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by bruto Maybe, but even that is a start if enough voters choose the party they perceive as less corrupt. Do significant numbers of people in fact do this though? Let's say that the Republican party was unimpeachably more honest and less corrupt than the Democrats, and also in favor of making abortion illegal, ending same sex marriage, tax breaks for billionaires, etc..., you'd vote Republican? I very much doubt enough people are single issue enough on corruption for this to work. They'll tolerate their party being vastly more corrupt than the opposition. So long as the test is relative corruption, the tendency is a race to the bottom.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

21st April 2020, 10:29 AM	#167
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by shuttlt What would motivate the party machine to avoid corruption other than the possibility of them losing votes? I live in Illinois, one of the most politically corrupt states in the union. Putting Sanders into office would not change the corruption in Illinois in any way I can see.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

21st April 2020, 08:07 AM	#161
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,666	Originally Posted by uke2se The result of that would be a Trump victory, and I think you know that. The solution he describes is literally defined as not being a Trump victory. You can't get a Trump victory result if lots of other people joined ST in ditching Trump.

21st April 2020, 08:30 AM	#162
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,353	Originally Posted by shuttlt In that case, you should keep voting Democrat and the party will have no motive to not be corrupt. The Republican's will be able to point to the corruption of the Democrats and scare their voters into playing the same game. If there isn't a limit beyond which you won't vote for them, it's a race to the bottom. Why does the party have no motive not to be corrupt? Of course they aren't perfect (nobody is but Sanders alayhi as-salām) but the Democratic party is orders of magnitude more interested in policing themselves than the Republican party is. Look at how interested members here are in purging the party of those who are only 99% good, for instance!

21st April 2020, 10:41 AM	#168
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,353	Originally Posted by shuttlt What would motivate the party machine to avoid corruption other than the possibility of them losing votes? Other than how the national party already does that (for instance see: Franken, Al)? I guess nothing. In a 2 party system, how does one party having no votes or power prevent corruption?

21st April 2020, 10:45 AM	#169
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,353	Originally Posted by The_Animus You're literally arguing that people who supported Trump but then did not vote for him in 2016 and that people who voted 3rd party or stayed home in places like California and New York where Clinton still easily won all the delegates helped Trump win in 2016. I'm literally arguing that voting none of the above when you are sure the Democratic candidate will win your state/country helped Trump to win in 2016. I'm literally pointing out this fact over and over in the hopes that those stupid/self-centered/short-sighted voters who did it then won't do it again, and anyone thinking of doing it again (much less telling others to do it this time), will learn from the mistakes of 4 years ago.

21st April 2020, 11:12 AM	#170
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by wareyin Other than how the national party already does that (for instance see: Franken, Al)? I guess nothing. In a 2 party system, how does one party having no votes or power prevent corruption? If the corruption is a sufficiently important issue for the voters that they stop supporting the party then it is in the interests of the party to address the problem. If corruption isn't enough of an issue that people stop voting for them, then there is no motivation to address it. If the party out of power is sufficiently stupid and or corrupt that they refuse to change, then sure... but sooner or later another party will replace them.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

21st April 2020, 11:18 AM	#171
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by wareyin I'm literally arguing that voting none of the above when you are sure the Democratic candidate will win your state/country helped Trump to win in 2016. I'm literally pointing out this fact over and over in the hopes that those stupid/self-centered/short-sighted voters who did it then won't do it again, and anyone thinking of doing it again (much less telling others to do it this time), will learn from the mistakes of 4 years ago. Isn't it the parties/candidates fault for not being appealing to voters rather than the voters fault for not finding the party/candidate appealing. This sounds like a caricature of an incel, blaming the people who reject him.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

21st April 2020, 11:29 AM	#172
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 27,768	Originally Posted by shuttlt Do significant numbers of people in fact do this though? Let's say that the Republican party was unimpeachably more honest and less corrupt than the Democrats, and also in favor of making abortion illegal, ending same sex marriage, tax breaks for billionaires, etc..., you'd vote Republican? I very much doubt enough people are single issue enough on corruption for this to work. They'll tolerate their party being vastly more corrupt than the opposition. So long as the test is relative corruption, the tendency is a race to the bottom. Point taken, and you're right in much of that. But I do still think that corruption plays some part, and the degree of corruption also. I would not generally vote Republican, but I'm not sure that would be the case if a reasonably honest Republican were running against a flagrantly corrupt Democrat, despite principles. One would, after all, have to judge whether a very corrupt Democrat would act as he pretends, and whether an honest Republican would invoke corruption and trickery to overthrow the will of the people. I'm pretty close to "blue dog" Democrat but I've voted Republican a couple of times, even when the Democratic candidate was not so awful. Policy is a big issue, but so, I think are effectiveness and integrity.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

21st April 2020, 11:30 AM	#173
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by LSSBB I live in Illinois, one of the most politically corrupt states in the union. Putting Sanders into office would not change the corruption in Illinois in any way I can see. If a significant number of peoples voting preference was driven by the issue of corruption it would have an impact since parties that were too corrupt would fall from power and the money that drives the corruption would dry up. If you vote for a non-corrupt candidate for other reasons, then it doesn't do much. Or is the idea here that, if the Democrats couldn't get into power in Illinois without addressing corruption and believed they would lose power if they didn't address it, it wouldn't at least impose some hard limit on corruption? Ultimately this comes down to the electorate just don't care enough that Illinois is corrupt.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

21st April 2020, 11:31 AM	#174
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 8,015	Originally Posted by theprestige I know things get pretty contentious, and that there's a lot of active dislike between us. So thank you for taking the time to give me a civil and thoughtful answer. Several in a row, in fact. I think the party gets about three years to do this kind of discussion. The fourth year, the election year where the party is trying to get its head together and wrest the presidency from a terrible incumbent, is probably not the right time. I think you're getting pushback mostly because people are baffled that you don't agree with this. I think you may need to reconsider your overall strategy. Americans are pretty conservative, overall. Even the progressives aren't often revolutionary progressives. A lot of Americans - Republicans and Democrats alike - want to make incremental improvements to some things. Very few Americans want to make revolutionary changes to everything. This dynamic becomes more clear the more specific and concrete you get with your policy proposals. Even progressive policy has to orbit the attractor at the center of America's Overton Window. People are questioning the propriety of waiting until the party is in the middle of a presidential election, trying to support a candidate to beat a terrible incumbent from the other party, to launch your full-throated condemnation of the party and undermining of the candidate. I think most people on the left would have been very tolerant, even supportive, if you'd spent three years condemning the party for its failures, and then spent the fourth year withholding your condemnation in favor of actually winning an election. Especially if your condemnation isn't working, because you're trying to drag the party further left than most progressive Americans want to go. If you haven't had much success for the past three years, what makes you think the fourth year is the right time to double down on your attacks, instead of supporting Biden against Trump, and thinking about how you're going to adjust your strategy for the three years that follow? I'd like to apologize for my curtness. I should be more careful responding, as only some posters are determined to engage in bad faith and willful mischaracterization of my comments, and you are not one of them. I have found these dialogues to be personally helpful and I should not respond to you with such rudeness. As far as the timing, your point is well taken. It's a bit of catch-22. The election is the only time to really exercise any leverage on politician, but is also the most dangerous time to make mistakes. The moment a politician wins, the electorate losses most of their power. My perception is that the party is happy to ignore the progressives for the 3 years that an election doesn't matter, then demand loyalty during the crisis election year. Crisis to crisis management, with no opportunity for introspection or reform in between. So here we are, on another crisis, and it's just not a great time for infighting, so vote blue. Should Biden secure victory he will stop even pretending to care about "party unity" before the ink on the last ballot dries. It won't matter when Biden retreats from his tepid campaign promises because it's too late by then. From an electoral standpoint, there is no other time to hold the party accountable than during the election. And in 2024, they'll be some other ring wing ghoul that's just too evil to allow to win, so we'll be brow-beat into voting to re-elect Biden. on and on it goes. As far as undermining the candidate, which will potentially benefit Trump, that's a good point. I find it difficult to pretend to not notice the emperor has no clothes. I'm not a pundit or a campaign strategist, and I'm not out knocking on doors telling the world how much Biden sucks, so I don't see the need for strategic truth telling. I don't see how someone could read the body of my work and come away with the impression that Trump is a better alternative. I'm pretty open that I think he's a proto-fascist with an attention span problem (a tremendous stroke of fortune that). Strategic voting is a valid approach, but let's not get carried away pretending that Biden isn't a terrible candidate. Realistically, much of the bitterness is probably misplaced. The movement to drag this country out of right wing hell-world is going to be a long haul, and I doubt electoralism will play a role anytime soon. I think the best opportunity to make this change probably exists outside of government, which is captured by soulless corporatists, and in the labor and community sector. Ideally, a Biden win will be accompanied with intense spat of new wildcat strikes, growing class consciousness, and maybe a few rowdy protests from the left. I'm no accelerationist, but I don't see any reason to believe things aren't going to continue to decline for average Americans, even under a resounding Democratic victory. I just hope that there will be a left alternative when the populist rage boils over again, because we know what the right-wing reactionary solution looks like.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 21st April 2020 at 11:38 AM.

21st April 2020, 11:37 AM	#175
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by bruto Point taken, and you're right in much of that. But I do still think that corruption plays some part, and the degree of corruption also. I would not generally vote Republican, but I'm not sure that would be the case if a reasonably honest Republican were running against a flagrantly corrupt Democrat, despite principles. We agree :-) A rare thing. The only not of caution I have is that I think you underestimate the difficulty in making the judgement of who is more corrupt given a partisan press. Each party's supporters are always going to think the other side is significantly more corrupt and incompetent, that's a given. The Republican's certainly think it of the Democrats every bit as much as the Democrats think it of the Republicans. Hence my preference for an absolute standard.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

21st April 2020, 11:46 AM	#176
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Realistically, much of the bitterness is probably misplaced. The movement to drag this country out of right wing hell-world is going to be a long haul, and I doubt electoralism will play a role anytime soon. I think the best opportunity to make this change probably exists outside of government, which is captured by soulless corporatists, and in the labor and community sector. Ideally, a Biden win will be accompanied with intense spat of new wildcat strikes, growing class consciousness, and maybe a few rowdy protests from the left. For what it's worth, the more right wing commentators I'm aware of would certainly agree with you. The danger they perceive is the progressive left's capture of Academia, Media, Silicon Valley and HR Departments. You may disagree with some or all of those, but that is how they see it. There's a lot of concern that the Republican party doesn't take this threat nearly seriously enough.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

21st April 2020, 11:52 AM	#177
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by shuttlt If a significant number of peoples voting preference was driven by the issue of corruption it would have an impact since parties that were too corrupt would fall from power and the money that drives the corruption would dry up. If you vote for a non-corrupt candidate for other reasons, then it doesn't do much. Or is the idea here that, if the Democrats couldn't get into power in Illinois without addressing corruption and believed they would lose power if they didn't address it, it wouldn't at least impose some hard limit on corruption? Ultimately this comes down to the electorate just don't care enough that Illinois is corrupt. It would take years of groundwork and coalition building, one or two really charismatic and really good politicians who currently don't exist and have no higher ambition than Illinois, or the pending bankruptcy of the state with no bailout and some groundswell that doesn't exist currently, to effect any sort of change. The problem is pensions. No one wants to disturb their own golden goose.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

21st April 2020, 11:57 AM	#178
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey which is captured by soulless corporatists Not all corporatists are soulless. Dehumanization is a terrible tactic if you want to build a progressive coaltion.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

21st April 2020, 12:01 PM	#179
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by LSSBB It would take years of groundwork and coalition building, one or two really charismatic and really good politicians who currently don't exist and have no higher ambition than Illinois, or the pending bankruptcy of the state with no bailout and some groundswell that doesn't exist currently, to effect any sort of change. The problem is pensions. No one wants to disturb their own golden goose. I don't know enough about the state to agree or disagree about pensions. Again, what it comes down to is corruption just isn't important enough to people for it to be an issue.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

21st April 2020, 12:09 PM	#180
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,666	I'm not sure corruption is or should be the defining factor. You're not going to vote for an ideologically pure and incorruptible conservative who opposes gay marriage and abortions of convenience, just because he can't be bought. Not that this is even a choice. Politicians are corrupt. It's the nature of the beast. Everybody's trying to vote for the least corrupt politician who's the closest to their ideological principles. If the choice were between a banally corrupt and venal capitalist who was going to continue the graft and bribery of business usual, and a saintly communist who was going tear it all down and replace it with a Soviet state... I'd vote for the corrupt capitalist over the incorruptible communist every time. Every. Single. Time. That's not our choice here, though. And while many forum members here are wholly committed to the idea that Donald Trump is especially, unprecedentedly corrupt, I wonder how many voters actually see it that way.

21st April 2020, 12:47 PM	#181
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 8,015	A thoughtful and comprehensive essay on the current dilemma facing progressives. The author comes to no recommendation, but just outlays the various factors at play from a progressive's perspective. "The Moral and Strategic Calculus of Voting for Joe Biden to Defeat Trump — or Not" - Jeremy Scahill https://theintercept.com/2020/04/20/...ection-voting/ I suppose this sums up my bitterness on this topic: Quote: A Biden administration, they believe, will undoubtedly be a massive corporate-friendly juggernaut that wages military and economic wars and, for them, voting in the affirmative for that is a bridge too far. And many of these people hold the Democratic Party responsible for Trump because of the terrible campaign it ran in 2016, so trying to convince them to buy into the same strategy twice is a losing battle. They are tired of being Democrats’ cheap dates — treated with contempt, offered few and paltry concessions, and expected to go along. As a strategic matter, at this juncture, they regard supporting Biden as tantamount to telling Democrats to continue to take them for granted. If Democrats want to try to win them over, they should use the next six months to show them you take their concerns about 2016 seriously and map out the ways this campaign is different. Most people on the left who oppose Biden but also view Trump as the gravest danger are going to vote against Trump by voting for Biden. But those who disagree with that strategy do not support Trump. For them, “He’s not Trump” is not a gamble worth taking. The onus is on the Biden campaign and its supporters to make their case to every eligible voter in this country and earn their votes. No one should be taken for granted. A point that I hadn't considered much. There's still 6 months to the election. What is Joe doing to shore up his left? Clearly there is a weakness there. What is being done to, beyond brow-beating, to actually achieve party unity?
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 21st April 2020 at 12:57 PM.

21st April 2020, 01:11 PM	#182
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,353	Originally Posted by shuttlt If the corruption is a sufficiently important issue for the voters that they stop supporting the party then it is in the interests of the party to address the problem. If corruption isn't enough of an issue that people stop voting for them, then there is no motivation to address it. If the party out of power is sufficiently stupid and or corrupt that they refuse to change, then sure... but sooner or later another party will replace them. As theprestige points out, all politicians (hell, all people) are corrupt to some degree. (Again, with the exception of Sanders alayhi as-salām that is.) If you stop voting for a party because they aren't pure, you won't ever have a party to vote for. And, as I pointed out, the Democratic party self-polices to an extent far greater than the Republican party. If you want to cry about corruption but vote for Donald "Conman" Trump, corruption wasn't your issue. In a 2 party system, you have 3 choices: pick the less corrupt party (if corruption is your over-riding focus), Pick the more corrupt party, or you abdicate and let everyone else who doesn't share your values pick for you. The 2nd and the 3rd choices will not lower corruption in the already less corrupt party. Originally Posted by shuttlt Isn't it the parties/candidates fault for not being appealing to voters rather than the voters fault for not finding the party/candidate appealing. This sounds like a caricature of an incel, blaming the people who reject him. That's a .... novel take on it. Some people are just never going to be happy. When faced with 2 choices, one of which they admit is flat out the worst, they still can't refrain from whining about the better. I worked with a guy who described it this way: If you handed that guy a $100 bill for nothing, he'd complain that it had wrinkles in it.

21st April 2020, 03:23 PM	#183
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by wareyin As theprestige points out, all politicians (hell, all people) are corrupt to some degree. Certainly. Originally Posted by wareyin (Again, with the exception of Sanders alayhi as-salām that is.) If you stop voting for a party because they aren't pure, you won't ever have a party to vote for. I think possibly there are shades of impurity. Some people on here suggest that the Republicans are some terrible level of corrupt. I hear Illinois is terribly corrupt. Some people felt Bernie was cheated by the DNC in 2016 and perhaps didn't want to vote Democrat because of that. All I'm saying, and I don't think it is a complicated point, is that if you don't have absolute lines that would cause you to vote differently if crossed, the party has absolutely nothing to gain from caring about what you think or giving you anything you want. Originally Posted by wareyin And, as I pointed out, the Democratic party self-polices to an extent far greater than the Republican party. I don't care. I said over and again that I thought an absolute standard was needed. Telling me that one side is better than the other is irrelevant. Originally Posted by wareyin If you want to cry about corruption but vote for Donald "Conman" Trump, corruption wasn't your issue. The corruption I care about is the corruption of the party I hope will represent my interests! The fact the the party that isn't going to get the things I want done done is corrupt and bought by special interests matters much less to me, even if they were pure as snow, they wouldn't be trying to implement anything I wanted anyway. Originally Posted by wareyin In a 2 party system, you have 3 choices: pick the less corrupt party (if corruption is your over-riding focus), Pick the more corrupt party, or you abdicate and let everyone else who doesn't share your values pick for you. The 2nd and the 3rd choices will not lower corruption in the already less corrupt party. You assume that I would be the only person (or nearly so) who would have these priorities. Haven't I been reading on this forum that Bernie voters cost Hillary the election by not voting for her? That must be at least giving Biden's team some pause for thought. Anyway if it is just me, a single vote is very unlikely to matter either way, so I might as well vote as I wish. If others do the same and my party finds that too many of its supporters are disgusted with it, then I get my wish and they have an incentive to do better. Realistically, I think almost everybody votes as you suggest. That means there is generally little incentive for each party not to be as corrupt and venal as they like. Naturally each side believes the other is more corrupt, so down it goes circling the toilet. Originally Posted by wareyin That's a .... novel take on it. Some people are just never going to be happy. When faced with 2 choices, one of which they admit is flat out the worst, they still can't refrain from whining about the better. I worked with a guy who described it this way: If you handed that guy a $100 bill for nothing, he'd complain that it had wrinkles in it. If you are unwilling to accept the short term pain of letting your side lose, your opinion and vote do not matter to your side since your vote is guaranteed. If you are a progressive and you are ultimately willing to vote Democrat regardless, then your opinions don't matter and they never have to give you anything you want. The party could be marched to the right, or become corrupt or do as it pleases and so long as they are able to convince you that a douche is marginally less bad than a turd sandwich, they can act like a douche all day long. Maybe this time they haven't crossed the line, I don't know.... but if one doesn't have absolute lines after which you withdraw your support, you aren't asking for a $100 dollar bill, you are asking for a douche.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Last edited by shuttlt; 21st April 2020 at 03:34 PM.

21st April 2020, 04:11 PM	#184
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,353	Originally Posted by shuttlt I think possibly there are shades of impurity. Some people on here suggest that the Republicans are some terrible level of corrupt. I hear Illinois is terribly corrupt. Some people felt Bernie was cheated by the DNC in 2016 and perhaps didn't want to vote Democrat because of that. All I'm saying, and I don't think it is a complicated point, is that if you don't have absolute lines that would cause you to vote differently if crossed, the party has absolutely nothing to gain from caring about what you think or giving you anything you want. Yes, shades of impurity. Since no one is absolutely perfect, demanding such is not productive. Originally Posted by shuttlt I don't care. I said over and again that I thought an absolute standard was needed. Telling me that one side is better than the other is irrelevant. Wait, do we need an absolute standard with which to compare the 2 parties against and pick the best from? Or is comparing one party against the other according to this standard irrelevant? You're sort of going back and forth here. Originally Posted by shuttlt The corruption I care about is the corruption of the party I hope will represent my interests! The fact the the party that isn't going to get the things I want done done is corrupt and bought by special interests matters much less to me, even if they were pure as snow, they wouldn't be trying to implement anything I wanted anyway. Ok, so when you have 2 choices, you don't care if one is corrupt because they won't do what you want? And so...you are perfectly fine with that more corrupt party that will implement the opposite of what you want being in charge? And this helps you implement...what? It's certainly not going to eliminate corruption! In fact, it is a guaranteed way to increase corruption. Originally Posted by shuttlt You assume that I would be the only person (or nearly so) who would have these priorities. Haven't I been reading on this forum that Bernie voters cost Hillary the election by not voting for her? That must be at least giving Biden's team some pause for thought. Anyway if it is just me, a single vote is very unlikely to matter either way, so I might as well vote as I wish. If others do the same and my party finds that too many of its supporters are disgusted with it, then I get my wish and they have an incentive to do better. Realistically, I think almost everybody votes as you suggest. That means there is generally little incentive for each party not to be as corrupt and venal as they like. Naturally each side believes the other is more corrupt, so down it goes circling the toilet. Again, you are going back and forth with 'nearly everybody voting as I suggest' in one paragraph but 'too many supporters not voting the way I suggest' in another. Perhaps you can pick a position and we can discuss that? And, again, despite evidence that one party does police itself, you continue to claim that there is little incentive for either party to not be corrupt. Why don't you support your contention, rather than just ignoring evidence against it and repeating it? (And as I know you are from the UK, you should know that Illinois is pretty unique in corruption. Check out how many of their Governors from both parties have been jailed, for instance. This is not how either party behaves nationally) Originally Posted by shuttlt If you are unwilling to accept the short term pain of letting your side lose, your opinion and vote do not matter to your side since your vote is guaranteed. If you are a progressive and you are ultimately willing to vote Democrat regardless, then your opinions don't matter and they never have to give you anything you want. The party could be marched to the right, or become corrupt or do as it pleases and so long as they are able to convince you that a douche is marginally less bad than a turd sandwich, they can act like a douche all day long. Maybe this time they haven't crossed the line, I don't know.... but if one doesn't have absolute lines after which you withdraw your support, you aren't asking for a $100 dollar bill, you are asking for a douche. You are assuming despite evidence to the contrary that Trump only has or will cause short term pain. You are also assuming that the only time Democratic politicians pay attention to the voters is during the elections, which also flies in the face of evidence. And yes, the former coworkers point was that no matter how much some people get, they will find some way to call what they got "a douche". This free $100 bill is wrinkled, it's no better than toilet paper!
	Last edited by wareyin; 21st April 2020 at 04:13 PM.

21st April 2020, 04:13 PM	#185
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,327	#postvalues #posttruth
	Last edited by Sideroxylon; 21st April 2020 at 04:17 PM.

21st April 2020, 04:30 PM	#186
Delvo Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North Tonawanda, NY Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey There's still 6 months to the election. What is Joe doing to shore up his left? Clearly there is a weakness there. What is being done to, beyond brow-beating, to actually achieve party unity? The republican wing of the Democrat party doesn't want party unity with the left. Their top priority is to get rid of it.
	Last edited by Delvo; 21st April 2020 at 04:51 PM.

21st April 2020, 04:52 PM	#187
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,666	Originally Posted by Delvo The republican wing of the Democrat party doesn't want party unity with the left. Their top priority is to get rid of us. Translation: Americans are pretty conservative folk, even the progressives. Of course mainstream Democrats don't have a lot of love for revolutionary progressives.

21st April 2020, 05:58 PM	#188
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by theprestige Translation: Americans are pretty conservative folk, even the progressives. Of course mainstream Democrats don't have a lot of love for revolutionary progressives. Eugene Debs was jailed for his beliefs. The average American I believe isn't far evolved from that time. To decry the moderates of the Democratic Party as reactionaries is a serious disconnect from history.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

21st April 2020, 05:59 PM	#189
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,327	Originally Posted by theprestige Translation: Americans are pretty conservative folk, even the progressives. Of course mainstream Democrats don't have a lot of love for revolutionary progressives. Neither do the billionaire political donors or owners of the media their older voters consume.

21st April 2020, 06:00 PM	#190
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,666	Originally Posted by LSSBB Eugene Debs was jailed for his beliefs. The average American I believe isn't far evolved from that time. To decry the moderates of the Democratic Party as reactionaries is a serious disconnect from history. Tell it to Delvo, I'm not decrying moderate Democrats at all, nor am I slurring anyone as a reactionary.

21st April 2020, 06:01 PM	#191
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by theprestige Tell it to Delvo, I'm not decrying moderate Democrats at all, nor am I slurring anyone as a reactionary. Yes, I was agreeing with you.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

21st April 2020, 06:03 PM	#192
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,327	Originally Posted by LSSBB Eugene Debs was jailed for his beliefs. The average American I believe isn't far evolved from that time. To decry the moderates of the Democratic Party as reactionaries is a serious disconnect from history. Is it a disconnect to decry those who want addressing the obscene wealth divide and the domination of the political agenda by billionaires as radicals?

21st April 2020, 06:26 PM	#193
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,278	It's better if Biden loses to Trump than Sanders. If Trump wins again, then the Democratic Party is an early favorite for 2024. The betting markets are stubbornly sticking with Trump. Biden's stock has risen, but not nearly as much as I thought in this short-run.
	__________________ April 13th, 2018: Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

21st April 2020, 06:33 PM	#194
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by Sideroxylon Is it a disconnect to decry those who want addressing the obscene wealth divide and the domination of the political agenda by billionaires as radicals? You don't need to be a progressive to decry that. Case in point: Ray Dalio
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

21st April 2020, 06:45 PM	#195
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,327	Originally Posted by LSSBB You don't need to be a progressive to decry that. Case in point: Ray Dalio Get on board, Biden! Sanders has written your speeches already.