The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[Ocean1]

Ummm that line of thought has contributed to the Alice in Wonderland situation the USA currently finds itself in.

It's the "American Dream" if you work hard you will be successful - and therefore wealthy. Being poor is regarded as evidence of a character flaw, a sign of weakness. Poor white people in the USA do not regard themselves as poor that would mean they were weak. They regard their situation as a temporary setback, one lucky break and they'll be rolling in it. Before the steel mills, the coal mines, and the ports etc, all shut down the dream had some validity even if it wasn't quite real. For some time now though it has been pure fantasy.

Trump made promises which appealed to them as the answer to their problems ,so they bought into his nonsense. People are asking, "What happens when they realise they were lied to?" Most likely they'll be just that much poorer, because nobody else thinks Trump considers poor whites a priority.

Ted Cruz has apparently put himself foward as a candidate for the Supreme Court. Cruz is a prick. As another Republican said, he had better start sucking up to the politicians he has been pissing off for years if he has any expectation that he would be confirmed for the position.

The sun is shining, I should be riding the bike instead of reading about all this stuff...

I tend to think the situation the US currently finds itself in is more to do with their belief that they can have "first world wages" and still pay $200 for a 56" TV.

And, like seemingly everyone else outside the US I don't really understand how they can fall for some snake oil salesman telling them they deserve and can have both.

[Ocean1]

What about the dumb fucks that simply inherited their money?

What about them?

[Katman]

What about them?

Is their vote worth more than a 'poor' persons?

[Brian d marge]

Is their vote worth more than a 'poor' persons?

In Washington it is ..

sent for a divine source

[bogan]

It's a mistake to equate bad behaviour by rich pricks as symptomatic of all rich pricks. In fact statistically, poor behaviour is far more prevalent among poor pricks.

So either change the rules to discourage poor behaviour or enforce existing rules so they work. Most rich pricks won't give a shit, people who show a propensity to do well in a given environment usually do well in any environment.

And that depends what you define as welfare voters. Over half of NZ households receive more in benefits that they pay in tax, now why do you suppose that's just over 50%?

Of course it would be. It's also a mistake to let such fuckwits have a say when coming up with a system in which fuckwits shouldn't get a say...

That's the chicken egg scenario, how do you change the rules to discourage a thing if the rule makers are doing that thing? Be it rich pricks burning trees, or stupid worlders craving handouts...

Those whose main source of income is a welfare benefit; net tax contribution is a relative metric, in a similar fashion to relative poverty, doesn't reflect the absolute measure of value to society that person has.

[Ocean1]

Is their vote worth more than a 'poor' persons?

Well if they're paying $1000 for it, yes.

And if they aren't as productive as their parents then they won't be in any position to be buying votes for long, trust me.

[Ocean1]

Of course it would be. It's also a mistake to let such fuckwits have a say when coming up with a system in which fuckwits shouldn't get a say...

That's the chicken egg scenario, how do you change the rules to discourage a thing if the rule makers are doing that thing? Be it rich pricks burning trees, or stupid worlders craving handouts...

Those whose main source of income is a welfare benefit; net tax contribution is a relative metric, in a similar fashion to relative poverty, doesn't reflect the absolute measure of value to society that person has.

Well if the poor bahaviour isn't endemic, or even if it's not as widespread among rich pricks then such fuckwit's don't get as much influence, do they? Maybe we start at the other end, criminals, lawyers and artificial inseminaters don't get votes....

Are the rule makers behaving badly compared to the rest of us? Some places, obviously, but I'm pretty sure the transgressions you're talking about are already outside the rules. If the're no effective then obviously we need to fine the pricks more. Still, it's a fucking good argument for binding referendums.

If they're paying for a vote then it sure reflects their financial value to society.

[bogan]

Well if the poor bahaviour isn't endemic, or even if it's not as widespread among rich pricks then such fuckwit's don't get as much influence, do they? Maybe we start at the other end, criminals, lawyers and artificial inseminaters don't get votes....

Are the rule makers behaving badly compared to the rest of us? Some places, obviously, but I'm pretty sure the transgressions you're talking about are already outside the rules. If the're no effective then obviously we need to fine the pricks more. Still, it's a fucking good argument for binding referendums.

If they're paying for a vote then it sure reflects their financial value to society.

Why should they get any say? such things will make the peasantry revolt, with good cause.

I don't think so, but nor do I think society at large is behaving as well as it could. The most example worthy are transgressions we can agree are outside the rules; but other things like conservationism, animal welfare, medical welfare, education; these are long term things which your successful capitalists may not think are worth investing in.

I was defining welfare voters, as per your earlier question. But no, paying for a vote does not reflect value to society as somebody of high value may have many dependents, or reinvest in local community, etc. Taxed income is a far better reflection of value as it decouples the value produced from the value consumed or otherwise passed on.

[Ocean1]

Why should they get any say? such things will make the peasantry revolt, with good cause.

I don't think so, but nor do I think society at large is behaving as well as it could. The most example worthy are transgressions we can agree are outside the rules; but other things like conservationism, animal welfare, medical welfare, education; these are long term things which your successful capitalists may not think are worth investing in.

I was defining welfare voters, as per your earlier question. But no, paying for a vote does not reflect value to society as somebody of high value may have many dependents, or reinvest in local community, etc. Taxed income is a far better reflection of value as it decouples the value produced from the value consumed or otherwise passed on.

There isn't a system that eliminates everyone who's behaviour we don't like from voting. Not even just those I don't like. Isn't it better to make a change for the better and stick with simple criteria rather than wait for the impossible? I think this is a problem, that many people perceive a few arseholes to be representitive of bad behaviour across "that other" demographic.

There are rules controlling conservation, animal welfare, medical welfare and education. And I'd suggest the majority of people actually follow them, almost all of the time. As for lawful behaviour that you still don't like then obviously you'd want to change those rules. But what makes you think that a) rich pricks are mostly capitalists and b) rich pricks would vote against rules designed to encourage what you should expect to demonstrate clearly is good behaviour?

I'm not trying to reward altruistic behaviour, simply reward productive behaviour. I'd like to reward good dudes for being good, but everyone's idea about that is different. You simply can't define it in a set of coherent rules. So apportion votes by tax contribution?

[bogan]

There isn't a system that eliminates everyone who's behaviour we don't like from voting. Not even just those I don't like. Isn't it better to make a change for the better and stick with simple criteria rather than wait for the impossible? I think this is a problem, that many people perceive a few arseholes to be representitive of bad behaviour across "that other" demographic.

There are rules controlling conservation, animal welfare, medical welfare and education. And I'd suggest the majority of people actually follow them, almost all of the time. As for lawful behaviour that you still don't like then obviously you'd want to change those rules. But what makes you think that a) rich pricks are mostly capitalists and b) rich pricks would vote against rules designed to encourage what you should expect to demonstrate clearly is good behaviour?

I'm not trying to reward altruistic behaviour, simply reward productive behaviour. I'd like to reward good dudes for being good, but everyone's idea about that is different. You simply can't define it in a set of coherent rules. So apportion votes by tax contribution?

Yes but who's better? Do rich people make objectively better long term decisions? The same could be said for the poor, only some of them are delinquents of no value to society who should be prevented to vote.

Indeed I am talking about to change or maintain those rules, it's what the political system is there for. Rich prick being capitalists is surely more highly correlated than rich pricks makes good decisions for wider society. I'm not saying they would vote against such rules, just questioning why they would be more likely to vote for them than the poor?

Yeh, tax contribution is better than simply buying the right to vote, with tax you'd quite literally, earn it.

[Ocean1]

Yes but who's better? Do rich people make objectively better long term decisions? The same could be said for the poor, only some of them are delinquents of no value to society who should be prevented to vote.

Indeed I am talking about to change or maintain those rules, it's what the political system is there for. Rich prick being capitalists is surely more highly correlated than rich pricks makes good decisions for wider society. I'm not saying they would vote against such rules, just questioning why they would be more likely to vote for them than the poor?

Yeh, tax contribution is better than simply buying the right to vote, with tax you'd quite literally, earn it.

I think rich people are, for the most part rich because they're productive. And I think productive people have therefore demonstrated an understanding of cause and effect with regards to productive behaviour. I wonder how many delinquents are represented in either end of the income spread. Again, there is no precise measure of who is better qualified to decide how to structure those rules to produce prosperity, but I'm picking you're not going to find too many of them among the less productive.

I don't believe you're correct, there. I've known more relatively wealthy genuine philanthropists than otherwise.

I'd suggest that by far the majority of all income is earned, no? Outside of the obvious, almost caricaturist Stupid World bogymen.

[Brian d marge]

I think rich people are, for the most part rich because they're productive. And I think productive people have therefore demonstrated an understanding of cause and effect with regards to productive behaviour. I wonder how many delinquents are represented in either end of the income spread. Again, there is no precise measure of who is better qualified to decide how to structure those rules to produce prosperity, but I'm picking you're not going to find too many of them among the less productive.

I don't believe you're correct, there. I've known more relatively wealthy genuine philanthropists than otherwise.

I'd suggest that by far the majority of all income is earned, no? Outside of the obvious, almost caricaturist Stupid World bogymen.

Nothing to do with borrowing very cheap money ...

Or winning the lottery ....

You seriously cannot believe what you have written ...

sent for a divine source

[Ocean1]

Nothing to do with borrowing very cheap money ...

Or winning the lottery ....

You seriously cannot believe what you have written ...

sent for a divine source

Well no, borrowing money isn't actually a trait you see among rich pricks.

Nor have very many rich pricks won a lottery.

And you, on the other hand, who obviously believe both of the above, also believe that rich pricks have stolen all their money?

[bogan]

I think rich people are, for the most part rich because they're productive. And I think productive people have therefore demonstrated an understanding of cause and effect with regards to productive behaviour. I wonder how many delinquents are represented in either end of the income spread. Again, there is no precise measure of who is better qualified to decide how to structure those rules to produce prosperity, but I'm picking you're not going to find too many of them among the less productive.

I don't believe you're correct, there. I've known more relatively wealthy genuine philanthropists than otherwise.

I'd suggest that by far the majority of all income is earned, no? Outside of the obvious, almost caricaturist Stupid World bogymen.

I agree with that. But there is a difference between attaining personal productivity, and understanding societal productivity. It would make sense if they were more strongly correlated than personal unproductively and understanding societal productivity; but there'd need to be a hell of a lot more data to come in before I'd look to base a voting/political system on such an assumption.

Does being a philanthropist exclude being a capitalist though?

Of course, which is why it is a better metric to base voter eligibility on than a 1k buy in. Personally, I'd probably not vote if it were a 1k buy in (maybe if it looked close and it was a Trump vs Obama level mismatch), but I'm certainly a productive member of society by any other metric (outside of the obvious Stupid Worlder delusions).

[Brian d marge]

Well no, borrowing money isn't actually a trait you see among rich pricks.

Nor have very many rich pricks won a lottery.

And you, on the other hand, who obviously believe both of the above, also believe that rich pricks have stolen all their money?

Oh yes my bad

It came out of their arse.....

They were all like bill gates and their "productivity" made them rich



sent for a divine source