The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[Katman]

I love it...

Bogan essentially agrees with you - and this is your response.

Fuck off, you stupid cunt.

[husaberg]

Which smarter voters would identify, and elect to power; regardless of if they were with one of the two main parties or not.

In democracy, what appears to be the lesser of two evils is generally the most popular option.

I love it...

Bogan essentially agrees with you - and this is your response.

Don't be silly though, you can't ever expect Katman to be logical or be able to debate rationally.

[bogan]

In democracy, what appears to be the lesser of two evils is generally the most popular option.

Yet they picked Trump over Cruz, Hilary over Sanders, and Trump over Hilary. Like I said, we need smarter voters...

[mashman]

More options? Are there any restriction on why these 'other options' cannot run under the current system to be chosen by smarter voters? I mean, things like the money free party have made the attempt...

'Having the brains to understand any alternative' is exactly what I mean when I said smarter voters are the fix. Why do you state disagreement then say things which are in agreement with that?

The money free party, as I found out relatively recently, aren't a political party. That doesn't mean that they won't become one, but as it stands, they aren't.

Either way, the voter is plenty smart enough to understand alternatives given the knowledge that they currently have and in regards to extrapolating new knowledge that they receive in terms of alternatives. I know this, because I've asked them. Ironically, the supposed smarter voters (full cuppers as I've come to understand them) i.e. those who believe they're smarter based on where they are in life and the knowledge that they have accumulated, are less likely to process new ideas, because they already class themselves as smarter (hence full cuppers). Again, I have found this out by having asked these people... much to my amusement and bemusement. Tis a fun filled journey with lots of twists and turns and I've found indoctrination in places where I ever thought I'd find it. Keeps me entertained whilst I'm not getting stuck in though.

[mashman]

Yet they picked Trump over Cruz, Hilary over Sanders, and Trump over Hilary. Like I said, we need smarter voters...

Who's they? The voter? The electoral college is not the voter. And given that Clinton was supposed to have gotten more votes than Trump, and that the electoral college is full of really really smart voters, it kinda blows your whole theory that the voter needing to be smarter will make a difference out of the water.

[bogan]

The money free party, as I found out relatively recently, aren't a political party. That doesn't mean that they won't become one, but as it stands, they aren't.

Either way, the voter is plenty smart enough to understand alternatives given the knowledge that they currently have and in regards to extrapolating new knowledge that they receive in terms of alternatives. I know this, because I've asked them. Ironically, the supposed smarter voters (full cuppers as I've come to understand them) i.e. those who believe they're smarter based on where they are in life and the knowledge that they have accumulated, are less likely to process new ideas, because they already class themselves as smarter (hence full cuppers). Again, I have found this out by having asked these people... much to my amusement and bemusement. Tis a fun filled journey with lots of twists and turns and I've found indoctrination in places where I ever thought I'd find it. Keeps me entertained whilst I'm not getting stuck in though.

They tried to get on the ballot last time, and missed out. So had they gotten support, they could have gone through in the current system.

Those full cuppers sound a lot like those who are happy with their life, and the others wishing for change are perhaps not so much. Neither is a requirement to nor a prevents them from being a smart voter; they're simply two sides of a coin, one more predisposed to voting for change, and one for stability. You shouldn't confuse the being less likely to process new ideas, when they are simply unlikely to process your ideas.

Who's they? The voter? The electoral college is not the voter. And given that Clinton was supposed to have gotten more votes than Trump, and that the electoral college is full of really really smart voters, it kinda blows your whole theory that the voter needing to be smarter will make a difference out of the water.

The whole lot, voter and college. You should read more on the electoral college if you think even for a second that they are smart voters

[mashman]

They tried to get on the ballot last time, and missed out. So had they gotten support, they could have gone through in the current system.

Those full cuppers sound a lot like those who are happy with their life, and the others wishing for change are perhaps not so much. Neither is a requirement to nor a prevents them from being a smart voter; they're simply two sides of a coin, one more predisposed to voting for change, and one for stability. You shouldn't confuse the being less likely to process new ideas, when they are simply unlikely to process your ideas.

The whole lot, voter and college. You should read more on the electoral college if you think even for a second that they are smart voters

Ah yes, bogan assumption mode engaged and his reality unfolds virtually no understanding of what.... oooo squirrel.

[TheDemonLord]

Fuck off, you stupid cunt.

If Bogan is a stupid Cunt, for agreeing with something you said - that logically makes you an even more Stupid Cunt....

[bogan]

Ah yes, bogan assumption mode engaged and his reality unfolds virtually no understanding of what.... oooo squirrel.

Feel free to correct any assumptions I've made, but it certainly seems like you've made quite a few when classifying how full one's cup is based on how receptive to your ideas they are Look to the bigger picture here mashy, you cannot evaluate the system based on how well it achieves your desired outcome, that's a dictatorship, not democracy.

In either case, smart voters does not mean voters that necessarily agree with you, me, or anyone else. It simply means voters that understand that which they are voting on, not fed lies by media or echo chambers, not voting based on dirty politics, and not voting based purely out of self interest (though arguably that last one might cancel out a bit).

[TheDemonLord]

The money free party, as I found out relatively recently, aren't a political party. That doesn't mean that they won't become one, but as it stands, they aren't.

Either way, the voter is plenty smart enough to understand alternatives given the knowledge that they currently have and in regards to extrapolating new knowledge that they receive in terms of alternatives. I know this, because I've asked them. Ironically, the supposed smarter voters (full cuppers as I've come to understand them) i.e. those who believe they're smarter based on where they are in life and the knowledge that they have accumulated, are less likely to process new ideas, because they already class themselves as smarter (hence full cuppers). Again, I have found this out by having asked these people... much to my amusement and bemusement. Tis a fun filled journey with lots of twists and turns and I've found indoctrination in places where I ever thought I'd find it. Keeps me entertained whilst I'm not getting stuck in though.

Translation:
I've got Sour Grapes because they are smart enough to see through my Communism 2.0 scheme

[Brian d marge]

Communism, brilliant disguise.... Convince everyone is sharing but with one central planner ,,,, whatever next social democracy..... It will never fly

sent for a divine source

[mashman]

Feel free to correct any assumptions I've made, but it certainly seems like you've made quite a few when classifying how full one's cup is based on how receptive to your ideas they are Look to the bigger picture here mashy, you cannot evaluate the system based on how well it achieves your desired outcome, that's a dictatorship, not democracy.

In either case, smart voters does not mean voters that necessarily agree with you, me, or anyone else. It simply means voters that understand that which they are voting on, not fed lies by media or echo chambers, not voting based on dirty politics, and not voting based purely out of self interest (though arguably that last one might cancel out a bit).

You assume that I was putting forwards "my" ideas. And as we've done this dance before and your desire to lead trips us both up, tis kind of pointless trying to offering you any information or finding. Your cup is full. Good luck with that.

[husaberg]

Yet they picked Trump over Cruz, Hilary over Sanders, and Trump over Hilary. Like I said, we need smarter voters...

The party picked the candidates, the people choose out of those candidates.

If Bogan is a stupid Cunt, for agreeing with something you said - that logically makes you an even more Stupid Cunt....

Even more so that he katman never even figured out he was agreeing with him in the first place.

[bogan]

You assume that I was putting forwards "my" ideas. And as we've done this dance before and your desire to lead trips us both up, tis kind of pointless trying to offering you any information or finding. Your cup is full. Good luck with that.

Semantics, could be somebody else ideas that you agree with. Either way, it's pushing the ideas you wish to see happen. The effectiveness of the system is still in no way tied to how well it agrees with your ideals. You need to see past yourself in this regard, there is a bigger picture if only you open you eyes.

The party picked the candidates, the people choose out of those candidates.

Yeh, same shit, different butthole.

[Ocean1]

Tax weighted voting would be a better way to that sort of end, actually paying to vote skews towards disposable income, and also apathy (who the fuck would have spent 1k on labor last (or the coming) election).

But I think the linkage between wealth and robust decision making is not so strong that we would wish to go down that path.

Depends. If you think rich pricks are simply lucky then you might have a point. Although Larry Niven might have something to say about that...

If you think they're rich because they made decisions that directly resulted in a prosperous lifestyle then I'd say they'd probably vote for whoever supports that behaviour.

Which has to be better than having a significant number of voters simply voting themselves more welfare entitlements. Where "Better" = both ethically more correct and representing an actual positive feedback control strategy.