The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Danoff]

That's one way it could be interpreted. Another way is this: Believing in something doesn't change anything; doing something does. And one interesting thing I've learned about libertarianism while studying it - I think I landed on minarchism - is that libertarians don't agree on anything at all.

It's true the libertarians have a wide range of preferences. But they agree on a general philosophy of government. The libertarian party is more organized than each of its members, though, and has a platform. If you talk to republicans, you'd find that people who call themselves "republicans" don't agree on anything at all. And the same goes for democrats. The candidates, and the party, have platforms though, that you can subscribe to or not.

As a group, they achieve nothing. The philosophy is so ideological it actually precludes organization into a party with political clout. What I realized is that no matter how logical or ethical a philosophy might be, it's utterly useless if society rejects it. Even a simple trolley problem, 90% of people will say "flip the switch and kill the one person" and wholly believe it. Our society is utilitarian, that's just the way it is.

Actually 80% say they would flip the switch, and 80% say they would refuse, depending on how the question is asked. It's one of the more fascinating aspects of the trolley problem.

So my options are to either 1. simply stop caring that nothing is changing and go about my life like an idiot in an attempt to avoid pointless stress, or 2. shift focus away from ideology and toward practical baby-step changes.

I don't think that understanding the philosophical underpinnings of your positions is incompatible with a step-by-step approach.

I wholeheartedly agree with voting for one's beliefs which is why I voted for Ron Paul in both Ohio primaries that he ran in, and Gary Johnson in another. But I'm tired of associating with a group who cannot even manage to build a political party around the concept of limited government. It's a super simple concept shrouded in the absolute chaos they call "freedom".

It's true that the LP is not as organized or robust as the republicans or democrats. If you need a party that has a lot of supporters, and money, and organization, you're stuck with one of the main two. I don't vote based on how schnazzy the party is though, I vote based on what they're saying. Also, I don't "associate" with the group so much. I know some libertarians, but it's not like I look to my political party to provide me with a social group or identity. I have republican friends, and I have democrat friends.

EDIT: In a coalition-style legislature, voting for a libertarian party which actually exists would be a practical choice. But currently, they can barely get on all the ballots because one party in particular has rigged so many rules in their favor, and the other party actually hates their leading candidate. It's simply impossible. It cannot happen with the rules as they are. The rules have to change, and to do that we need people who actually want to change the rules. Even Ron Paul's son supports Trump and his conspiracies, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills out here.

Rand Paul is not his father. He's a party-line republican.

As long as you choose the lesser of two evils, you're going to get evil. I cast my vote the way I do because I'm saying what it takes to win my vote. If nobody is interested in winning my vote, that's fine. I'll cast my vote that way anyway. The moment I start lying about what I really want, or making it undecipherable, the moment my vote really ceases to matter. I'd rather cast my vote for someone who didn't win, but represented me, than vote for someone who does win, and doesn't represent me. That is the point of voting after all.

Edit:

Imagine that you weren't voting for a representative but instead were voting on how your HOA was going to spend its money. You have a ballot that says "add a community pool, add a fire pit, or reduce dues". Let's say that you really want reduced dues. But you know that it's not going to win. Let's say that you don't want a fire pit, and you don't want a pool. Let's say that you prefer the pool to the fire pit, just a little, but you don't really want either one.

Do you vote for the fire pit because it's the community favorite? Even though you don't wan it?
Do you vote for the pool because it's not quite as bad as the fire pit in your eyes even though you don't want it?
Or do you vote for reduced dues because that's what you actually want. And even though you know it's not going to win, you want it to be known that you didn't want the others.

Does this help? Or do you still want to pick the lesser of the evils. You're gonna end up with a pool you didn't want, but which everyone knows the community voted overwhelmingly in favor of.

 

[Biggles]

If you talk to republicans, you'd find that people who call themselves "republicans" don't agree on anything at all. And the same goes for democrats. The candidates, and the party, have platforms though, that you can subscribe to or not.

What has become painfully obvious, is that Republicans have become more "united" than at any other time in the last 50 years. When Trump became the GOP nominee I imagined that his divisive rhetoric & obnoxious behaviour would lead to a decisive defeat in the GE & the break up of the Republican party into warring factions. Instead, Trump won the election & rather than breaking into factions the GOP has coalesced around his idiosyncratic, contradictory "populist" agenda. Who knows what the Republicans party's platform is now? It's simply become the party of the cult of Trump.

In contrast, the Democratic candidates represent a whole raft of different ideas, from "Democratic socialism" to more traditional centrist positions. Normally this might be seen as a positive thing, but in the face of a Republican party that has abandoned many of its traditional principles to stand solidly behind Trump, it leaves Democrats in a vulnerable position. It's hard to see how they can emerge from the primaries united behind a single candidate in the same way that Republicans are.

 

[Imari]

It's hard to see how they can emerge from the primaries united behind a single candidate in the same way that Republicans are.

I think in the same way that the Republicans did, honestly.

Trump was an outside candidate with radical policies, and a lot of people voted for him in part because he was perceived as not part of "the system". Whether people took that to mean that he wasn't a lifetime politician like Hillary, or just someone who was against the current system of government or something else entirely, that was a big part of his draw. And while the party was pretty sure that he was going to be terrible, when it became clear that he had the most support amongst Republicans they went all in on him. It's turned out pretty well for them.

The Democratic Party has so far refused to do the same with "radical" candidates like Sanders or Warren. I think if Sanders ends up as the popular choice amongst Democrats, then the Democratic Party should do what the Republicans did and lean into it. I think that they'd benefit a lot from the same sort of "I'll vote for anything different" sentiment that was around in 2016, especially in the face of how Trump turned out to be more of the same corrupt political in-fighting that he was sent to drain the swamp of.

There are positive things to be learned from the Republicans and Trump. Democrats don't necessarily need to use the same tactics as Republicans, but they at least need to be on the same page with respect to how the political system works.

 

[Dotini]

Democrats don't necessarily need to use the same tactics as Republicans, but they at least need to be on the same page with respect to how the political system works.

"Money is the mother's milk of politics", famously quipped a notorious Democratic pol. Bernie has a genuine appeal to the most youthful and idealistic. But he is sternly opposed by the Democratic establishment who can manipulate rules and spend cubic money Bernie can't touch. We can look for a battle royal culminating in a brokered convention, the stuff of political dreams. Or maybe nightmares.

 

[mustafur]

No doubt in my mind the democratic establishment don't want Sanders ever, he will not win the nomination unless he dominates because the DNC will do something.

And republicans have done the same thing before(Think 2012 with Ron Paul) so it's not exclusive to one party.

 

[Danoff]

What has become painfully obvious, is that Republicans have become more "united" than at any other time in the last 50 years. When Trump became the GOP nominee I imagined that his divisive rhetoric & obnoxious behaviour would lead to a decisive defeat in the GE & the break up of the Republican party into warring factions. Instead, Trump won the election & rather than breaking into factions the GOP has coalesced around his idiosyncratic, contradictory "populist" agenda. Who knows what the Republicans party's platform is now? It's simply become the party of the cult of Trump.

In contrast, the Democratic candidates represent a whole raft of different ideas, from "Democratic socialism" to more traditional centrist positions. Normally this might be seen as a positive thing, but in the face of a Republican party that has abandoned many of its traditional principles to stand solidly behind Trump, it leaves Democrats in a vulnerable position. It's hard to see how they can emerge from the primaries united behind a single candidate in the same way that Republicans are.

The elected officials seem to have an otherwordly loyalty to them, which is cultivated by the religious shunning and persecution used on anyone who defects. But the people who call themselves republican are a little different. A lot of them don't like Trump (a lot of them do too). And they're republican for all kinds of reasons. The racist, misogynist republican does exist (I know one). But the small government anti-tariff person who will vote for Trump (again) because they don't like the democrat candidates also exists. People who don't like his position on immigration, refuse to take seriously his comments on certain ethnicities or other demographics, don't like his position on protectionist trade and protectionist domestic policy, etc. etc. are still willing to consider voting Trump because they don't like the democrat candidates. That was all I was trying to say.

 

[Liquid]

I wonder if Trump will have a lasting, positive Republican legacy like Reagan does.

 

[Keef]

I wonder if Trump will have a lasting, positive Republican legacy like Reagan does.

Reagan's tax system gives Republicans orgasms. It also injected cronyist steroids into a system that had been working rather well and has ultimately led us to where we are now. So yes, I'd say Trump will have a positive legacy because many Republicans actually want an authority state, they want racism because it's what they know, they want isolationism because they think it's exceptionalism, they want the president to be aggressive and belligerent because they are aggressive and belligerent. These people raised me in Ohio suburbs. They're all 60-70 years old now and believe they're blessing us with "the way it used to be". You know that old parenting technique, "because I said so"? Those are Trump people. They believe authority and discipline is the cure to society, and we millenials didn't amount to anything because we didn't listen.

I'm pretty sure I'm 80% right depending on who you ask.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Reagan's tax system gives Republicans orgasms. It also injected cronyist steroids into a system that had been working rather well and has ultimately led us to where we are now. So yes, I'd say Trump will have a positive legacy because many Republicans actually want an authority state, they want racism because it's what they know, they want isolationism because they think it's exceptionalism, they want the president to be aggressive and belligerent because they are aggressive and belligerent. These people raised me in Ohio suburbs. They're all 60-70 years old now and believe they're blessing us with "the way it used to be". You know that old parenting technique, "because I said so"? Those are Trump people. They believe authority and discipline is the cure to society, and we millenials didn't amount to anything because we didn't listen.

I'm pretty sure I'm 80% right depending on who you ask.

From my experience in Texas...your theory holds up. The last gasp of trying to hold onto power by the boomers. The same cohort that brought Proposition 13 to life in California, the ultimate "I got mine, go **** yourself" to future generations.

Gen-X and the Millennials need to team up to bring down big boomer.

 

[Dotini]

Early returns from New Hampshire have Bernie winning with 29%, Buttigieg 2nd at 22%, Klobuchar 3rd at 20% and Warren 4th at 12%.
Biden a distant 8% and Yang has dropped out.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Hopefully this isn't the last we've seen of Andrew Yang.

 

[mustafur]

Hopefully this isn't the last we've seen of Andrew Yang.

It is.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/andrew-yang-drops-out.html

 

[Imari]

It is.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/andrew-yang-drops-out.html

You know, I heard that they're going to have more elections after 2020. Like, maybe even every four years or something. And remove that silly rule that if you run for candidacy in one election you can never run for candidacy again, ever.

 

[mustafur]

You know, I heard that they're going to have more elections after 2020. Like, maybe even every four years or something. And remove that silly rule that if you run for candidacy in one election you can never run for candidacy again, ever.

Chill dude I thought he was referring this election. His ideas definitely opened up people but he needs more name recognition imo.

 

[Danoff]

If we end up with Bernie vs. Trump, that's basically just as partisan as it gets right? I mean that's two sides just flipping the bird at each other. Seems super healthy.

 

[Joey D]

If we end up with Bernie vs. Trump, that's basically just as partisan as it gets right? I mean that's two sides just flipping the bird at each other. Seems super healthy.

I think Sanders could win that bout too. The good thing about Sanders is that there's no way he'd be able to push through any of his extreme ideas, so we'd end up with a president who doesn't do a whole bunch, which isn't a bad thing. And at least Sanders wouldn't start a war since he seems decidedly anti-war and at the very least, I can't see him sitting on his phone 24/7 Twitting.

 

[Danoff]

I think Sanders could win that bout too. The good thing about Sanders is that there's no way he'd be able to push through any of his extreme ideas, so we'd end up with a president who doesn't do a whole bunch, which isn't a bad thing. And at least Sanders wouldn't start a war since he seems decidedly anti-war and at the very least, I can't see him sitting on his phone 24/7 Twitting.

I think people thought Trump couldn't screw things up too. A lot of his votes were supposedly anti-Hillary votes. How'd that work out? They became pro-trump. You can't vote against.

A Sanders presidency could be just what it takes to send this country completely off the rails. Same goes for a 2nd Trump presidency. There's a risk both ways. The retaliation from the republicans following a Sanders term could make Trump look like a stroll through the park.

I think if we can't calm down and find the middle ground we're kinda screwed here.

 

[Biggles]

Reagan's tax system gives Republicans orgasms. It also injected cronyist steroids into a system that had been working rather well and has ultimately led us to where we are now. So yes, I'd say Trump will have a positive legacy because many Republicans actually want an authority state, they want racism because it's what they know, they want isolationism because they think it's exceptionalism, they want the president to be aggressive and belligerent because they are aggressive and belligerent. These people raised me in Ohio suburbs. They're all 60-70 years old now and believe they're blessing us with "the way it used to be". You know that old parenting technique, "because I said so"? Those are Trump people. They believe authority and discipline is the cure to society, and we millenials didn't amount to anything because we didn't listen.

I'm pretty sure I'm 80% right depending on who you ask.

In a nutshell.

From my experience in Texas...your theory holds up. The last gasp of trying to hold onto power by the boomers. The same cohort that brought Proposition 13 to life in California, the ultimate "I got mine, go **** yourself" to future generations.

Gen-X and the Millennials need to team up to bring down big boomer.

As a "60 -70" year old I've got to say its pretty pointless blaming boomers. Remember boomers were the ones who first seriously challenged authority: the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, feminism, anti-racism etc. The thing is, these individuals always only represented a minority of their generation ... the same way that political activist Gen-Xer & Millennials only represent a minority of their generations.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

In a nutshell.



As a "60 -70" year old I've got to say its pretty pointless blaming boomers. Remember boomers were the ones who first seriously challenged authority: the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, feminism, anti-racism etc. The thing is, these individuals always only represented a minority of their generation ... the same way that political activist Gen-Xer & Millennials only represent a minority of their generations.

I suppose you're right. It's hard not to hold a grudge when that particular cohort has entrenched themselves in power to largely their own benefit. There are myriads of examples to cite. Not all boomer-age people are responsible for that though, so blanket boomer-hating isn't fair. Just the boomer power class.

It is.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/andrew-yang-drops-out.html

I meant my post as an acknowledgement of Yang's departure from the race. He was by far the most likable candidate, for me, in the race. Would UBI work? I kind of think no...but the idea of taxing automation seems like a good one. Yang needs to be in the government in some capacity...secretary of technology was a currently non-extant role he suggested.

 

[Biggles]

I think if we can't calm down and find the middle ground we're kinda screwed here.

What's the "middle ground"? The reality is, your vision is as extreme as it gets. For better or for worse, very few people in the US seem to support your ideological position.

As far as Andrew Yang is concerned, I don't really see him as a politician. Should the Democrats win the Presidency, I could easily see him taking a position in the administration. Yang's ideas seem to reflect a modern viewpoint that acknowledges that the economy in the US has moved on from large-scale manufacturing. The "losers" in this development need to receive support from the "winners" - the billionaires who have benefitted from the changes in the economy: automation, outsourcing & globalization. In other words: "spread the wealth".

 

[Danoff]

What's the "middle ground"? The reality is, your vision is as extreme as it gets. For better or for worse, very few people in the US seem to support your ideological position.

This is not so much a question of deeply held political positions. Like socailism vs. libertarianism vs. authoritarianism. This is a question of who we're electing, and whether these people have the capacity or the inclination to actually work on practical solutions. In particular, the current political climate seems to be "when my party is in power, screw the rest of you" and I find this to be unhealthy and generally counter-productive. Bernie strikes me like Trump in that regard.


Edit:

To put it succinctly, I don't think flopping back and forth between Bernie and Trump is good for the country.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

This is not so much a question of deeply held political positions. Like socailism vs. libertarianism vs. authoritarianism. This is a question of who we're electing, and whether these people have the capacity or the inclination to actually work on practical solutions. In particular, the current political climate seems to be "when my party is in power, screw the rest of you" and I find this to be unhealthy and generally counter-productive. Bernie strikes me like Trump in that regard.


Edit:

To put it succinctly, I don't think flopping back and forth between Bernie and Trump is good for the country.

I read somewhere once that the periodic nature of the Presidency has always established this sort of "rocking ship" effect on the direction of the country. The problem, as you point out, is that that ship is in a pretty darn big storm right now and capsizing seems like a distinct possibility (IE: Full Fascist or Full Socialist, neither one a particularly good outcome). Our lot (libertarians, or libertarian-lite, like me) seem to have the most to lose, because neither version has much room for the individual....

 

[mustafur]

Bernie isn't even a socialist, he never once has talked about controlling the means of production.

 

[Biggles]

This is not so much a question of deeply held political positions. Like socailism vs. libertarianism vs. authoritarianism. This is a question of who we're electing, and whether these people have the capacity or the inclination to actually work on practical solutions. In particular, the current political climate seems to be "when my party is in power, screw the rest of you" and I find this to be unhealthy and generally counter-productive. Bernie strikes me like Trump in that regard.


Edit:

To put it succinctly, I don't think flopping back and forth between Bernie and Trump is good for the country.

Hmmm... that sounds like a suspiciously utilitarian point of view. What's happened to the Real Danoff?!

I'd give Bernie the benefit of the doubt. There's certainly no indication that he's ANYTHING like Trump in terms of personality, but hard to know what he would actually be like in a position of power, given that he hasn't been any kind of an "insider" for the last several decades.

 

[Danoff]

Hmmm... that sounds like a suspiciously utilitarian point of view. What's happened to the Real Danoff?!

I've long been a proponent that just about nothing I advocate can be done overnight. But it should be a goal that we should work toward incrementally. Pragmatism is a little different than utilitarianism.

 

[Biggles]

I've long been a proponent that just about nothing I advocate can be done overnight. But it should be a goal that we should work toward incrementally. Pragmatism is a little different than utilitarianism.

I was being ironic. You're the one who likes to call things "utilitarian". I would just go with "pragmatic".

 

[Imari]

Remember boomers were the ones who first seriously challenged authority: the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, feminism, anti-racism etc.

The first? I'm not so sure. Think about how America gained its independence, for starters. That was some time before boomers. I know feminism and anti-racism started way before boomers.

Every generation has its moments to shine, but don't get too revisionist in your history while doing it.

 

[Famine]

The first? I'm not so sure. Think about how America gained its independence, for starters. That was some time before boomers. I know feminism and anti-racism started way before boomers.

Every generation has its moments to shine, but don't get too revisionist in your history while doing it.

TIL Suffragettes were from the 1960s and 1970s.

 

[TheCracker]

I think Sanders could win that bout too. The good thing about Sanders is that there's no way he'd be able to push through any of his extreme ideas, so we'd end up with a president who doesn't do a whole bunch, which isn't a bad thing. And at least Sanders wouldn't start a war since he seems decidedly anti-war and at the very least, I can't see him sitting on his phone 24/7 Twitting.

I'm not sure that there's enough support or momentum in the western world for a proper left-wing president (or prime minister) right now.

As equally vocal as they are to their popularist right-wing supporters, i don't think left-of-centre supporters have the actual numbers as it stands to make the difference. Aside from the traditional 'lefties', who are probably mostly in their 60's and above, the rest are generally young. Although there's a wave building amongst the youth, the tide will take time to turn as the generally older right-wing authoritarians start doing what old people do and dying out.

Corbyn's results in the recent British elections should be a pointer to how Bernie will probably fair as a potential democratic candidate in the US elections.

 

[Scaff]

I'm not sure that there's enough support or momentum in the western world for a proper left-wing president (or prime minister) right now.

As equally vocal as they are to their popularist right-wing supporters, i don't think left-of-centre supporters have the actual numbers as it stands to make the difference. Aside from the traditional 'lefties', who are probably mostly in their 60's and above, the rest are generally young. Although there's a wave building amongst the youth, the tide will take time to turn as the generally older right-wing authoritarians start doing what old people do and dying out.

Corbyn's results in the recent British elections should be a pointer to how Bernie will probably fair as a potential democratic candidate in the US elections.

One does exist, Portugal.

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...al-election-progressives-left-winning/599518/