Re: Decision 2016
 

If I don't want to vote for either candidate, I won't vote against either candidate either. I'll vote when I feel that there is someone who deserves it and someone who can put it to use. The third parties unfortunately are not going to win with the big two still around, so I see no reason to vote third party unless I can see that those parties would make a substantial impact in the electoral arena.

I agree that full on, large scale political apathy is calamitous, but my decision to not vote in this one election, rather than every election, is harming nobody.

Re: Decision 2016
 

What's going on down-ticket? Any close races? Any issues in the balance?

And if you want change towards minor parties having a voice, and there's a minor party you agree with even though you don't think they will win, then voting for them is infinitely better than not voting at all when it comes to how you can affect the landscape for 2020. There might even be "hard" benefits like getting on ballots and into televised debates rather in addition to "soft" ones like potentially more media coverage.

What I'm Looking For
 

I'm still trying to figure out what'll need to happen to reroute the system to make more than two parties viable. I know what needs to go (first past the post winner take all method of victory) but I'm uncertain how to remove that or to make something else more viable. To this extent, I see voting third party as akin to taking ibuprofen for cancer. Shrug.

~Dysole, big picture gal

Re: Decision 2016
 

This. This exactly.

Re: What I'm Looking For
 

Pretty sure we'd need a Constitutional Amendment to change that, which, thankfully, Congress doesn't ever need to vote on, the States can do all that on their own.
Oh, and if I have cancer and I'm offered acupuncture, homeopathy, and ibuprofen, I'll take the ibuprofen every time.

Constitution Score
 

If I remember right, Congress still has to draft and vote on it. It has to be approved by most of the state legislatures though as well.

As for the analogy, I don't see Democrats and Republicans (the leadership) in that way. I see them as two mediocre health plans with pros and cons that are much more concerned with making a buck off of me than whether or not I recover but they still want my recovery because it's good PR.

~Dysole, who might be a bit cyncial on that front, but she finds neither party to be inherently broken; this whole election does feel like it's bringing out the dysfunctions in both parties though.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Not true.

Two thirds of the state legislatures (34) can propose an amendment, which then would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states (38 ), which bypasses Congress.

Re: Constitution Score
 

[QUOTE=Dysole;2105661]If I remember right, Congress still has to draft and vote on it. It has to be approved by most of the state legislatures though as well.

As for the analogy, I don't see Democrats and Republicans (the leadership) in that way. I see them as two mediocre health plans with pros and cons that are much more concerned with making a buck off of me than whether or not I recover but they still want my recovery because it's good PR.QUOTE]

And there is the Rub.

Business is about making money. No matter which way you cut it the point of a business is to get more money out than is put in for the profits of the Owner (shareholders).

Government SHOULD be different. The purpose of good government is the Protection and promotion of welfare of it's citizens (or happiness of it citizens). This includes facilitating the creation of Jobs, providing education, Ensuring basic necessities are available (like clean water and electricity), Protection from fire, crime, war, disease and prejudice.

How the government does these things is up for debate, but cost of letting "Business sort it out" has been paid repeatedly (see financial crashes, environmental destruction, and the wage gap for examples). When a politician goes into politics to make money something is wrong, in the same way you would hope that a doctor want to save lives first and foremost or a police officer wants to protect people, instead of just collecting a paycheck.

In a recent visit to a Native Reservation, Canada's current Prime Minster Justine Trudeau Promised to make sure clean water is available. I paraphrase: "It needs to be done, People will say it costs too much, It does not matter what it costs, it is the right thing to do". They have begun moving on the project, which is just the type of activity that government was created to do.


I don't know how government bodies can deal with anything, when people are starving. Shouldn't that end any discussion.


"I would like to propose that we re-negotiate the way taxes are..."
"People are starving, maybe we should focus on that first, eh?"

Re: Constitution Score
 

I agree that government should be involved in "facilitating the creation of Jobs, providing education, Ensuring basic necessities are available (like clean water and electricity), Protection from fire, crime, war, disease and prejudice." Yes, we should have clean water.


I'm not sure how to prevent financial crashes. I wouldn't want to be an oil field worker in Canada since the price of oil crashed. Outside of providing a safety net, what is the government supposed to do about the drop in the price of oil? Yes, you need regulations on businesses to prevent pollution and other similar negative events. But, if the regulations begin choking companies, you begin to hurt ""facilitating the creation of Jobs".

Are people starving in Canada? I would have thought that Canada's social safety net would make this unlikely.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Starving is a bit hyperbolic but That poverty line is fairly crappy. Sometimes it seems we focus on the details aND forget the goal.

You are correct about regulatons to a point. Canada still largely regulates the bank and insurance industry so we didn't get hit so hard in 2008.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The poverty line is crappy in the US as well. The hope is that people will not be satisfied with surviving at the poverty line and will attempt to raise themselves above it.

The Great Recession of 2008 was a very complex event and people on the right and left blame the other side. They both seem to have valid points.

Re: Decision 2016
 

My Son was born to a Insurance Professional and a Registered Nurse with university education. His parents are on track to own their own home, and will be able to afford him a full stomach, a computer, and a childhood where Skinned knees and cooties will hopefully be his biggest worries. He will also get lots of time with his parents to play and learn as neither work more than 35 hours a week. He will grow up with kids in generally the same economic situation. His local elementary school and high schools are clean and reasonability well staffed. Both his parents are qualified to help him with his homework. There are 4 Universities he can reach on public transit and multiple collages which his parents have set up a savings plan for and are not beyond his means due to scholarships bursaries and a reasonable student loan service. If either his parents lost their jobs it is unlikely they would be out of work for more than a month or two, and have savings enough to get them through rough patches.


Both my wife and myself were raised by single Mothers in "working" towns. My mother worked multiple jobs to make sure I was never hunger but I was lucky enough to have brains enough to avoid the seeder side of life (some of my friends were not so lucky). My wife is more impressive as her mother was on disability and there was no child support. She fought her way to where she is now, and again many of those she grew up didn't.


Few people "decide" that they are okay living at the poverty line. Both my wife and I lucked out to have brains enough (and maybe not be cool enough to get sucked in with the Cool bad kids) to get through those rough years. When you get to the other side and see the Morons that are successful because their lives were easy, you realize there are many at the bottom because that is where they were born.


My son has almost every advantage you would want. If he fails it is because of either REALLY, REALLY bad luck or because he is a Dumbass. The same cannot be said for most people growing up in poverty, who need to be lucky to succeed.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I have to admit, I always thought it to be idyllic in Canada but I imagine your cities have the same amount of corruption as any other major city.

Grats on your accomplishments wriggz. I can think of no better gift than a good childhood and the potential that lies beyond.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm not sure what leads to generations of people who live in poverty. My parents were immigrants into the US and had no money or education. As my father put it, he had "a willingness to work harder than anyone else" wherever he worked. He worked 2 jobs while my mother also worked for many years. He made sure that my brother and I went to college in a field in which we could earn a living. A friend of mine is the son of immigrants and he also remembers his father having multiple jobs. In the 1960's to 1970's, a willingness to work hard, with a push for your children's education seemed to be a path out of poverty. The market for blue collar labor seems much tighter today than it did years ago. I'm not sure what is needed today. I know of families that skate by with part time jobs and government assistance. They have enough to eat, but not enough to get ahead of living check to check.

One Thing
 

The U.S. is moving more and more to having most of its jobs be service based and more and more automation. Neither party is really addressing those concerns instead focusing on the manufacturing jobs that we will never regain to the level where we used to be.

Several things contribute to generational poverty not the least of which is that communities of minorities have several intrinsic disadvantages against them (location, lack of resources, etc.). Other things like the growing costs of education, increased access to credit, decisions by producers as a whole, decisions by investors as a whole, government gridlock, etc. all contribute without an individual necessarily being able to control them.

This is all kind of half remembered from stuff I've read over a period of time so some of it may be less accurate than I remember but the main gist is that there are things that contribute to an individual's poverty that that person has no control over (although I would say it's rare that they have zero control over everything).

~Dysole, still juggling potential solutions

Re: Decision 2016
 

Losing jobs to manufacturing will definitely be a problem in the far future. I'm not convinced it's having a devastating effect at the moment, and that the jobs haven't just moved to cheaper labor forces.

The idea has been discussed for a long time. So long in fact, that it's known as the Luddite Fallacy, after workers in the 19th century England who feared technological innovations would hurt their future employment prospects. I think calling it a fallacy is pretty flawed, but it seems to always be always on the horizon rather than a current problem. I think if we ever reach a point where global unemployment is an issue, politicians can address it, but at the moment, I think it is only a small piece of the problem for generational poverty.

Locally Grown
 

I was only referencing US jobs which have decreased and barring a minor miracle will not return. We can certainly adjust our economy to technological improvements; we just haven't as well as we could.

~Dysole, adding some clarifiers to her original statement

Re: Decision 2016
 

I really don't think it is the lack of jobs. Instead it is the lack of consumers that is stalling the economy. historically economy's have been fairly local. Local farmer, local barber, local kobler. Sure there was in ports and exports but much of the local wealth stayed local.

This has radically changed as more of our consumables are non physical. All the profits of candy crush and pokemon go are consolidated. Small economies are bled dry as business centers boom. Even more concerning us the massing of huge fortunes. GI've a billionaire a million dollar tax hike and he might spend it on investing in the local economy and even then expects to take more money out when he is paid back with profits. Give a ten thousand low income earners 100 dollars and that is a million dollars that is being pumped directly back into local economy's (as far as retail is local) illegal activities notwithstanding.

More jobs generally means more consumers and vise versa. however you need more consumers to drive more jobs. Taking money out of the economy in the form of multi billionaire stops that process.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I have had a theory that the economy was good during the Clinton era simply because people were spending money.
Those were good times, the last time we really were not at war and folks were buying and not saving. The more people bought the more jobs it created.
Again a theory, I have absolutely no statistics to back it up. :)

Re: Decision 2016
 

That is incredibly important, Tornado. Economies aren't 'good' when everyone saves money, they're good when everyone is spending. When I buy something, I hand a wad of cash over, and the recipient can immediately use that for goods and services for himself.

It's like that $100 bill story. A hotel own has a nice room available for $100 per night. A guy from out of town shows up and gives the Hotel owner $100 for a room, at which point he walks upstairs to the room. The manager runs over the grocer to pay for last week's food purchase for the Hotel's restaurant. The Grocer immediately runs to the local farmer and pays him for last week's deli meats. The Farmer owed one of his hired hands $100 for some overtime work, so pays him. This hired hand's parents are in from out-of-town and staying at the hotel tonight, so he runs to the Hotel to pay the manager so their room will be ready when they arrive. At this time the man from out-of-town walks back downstairs, says he doesn't like the room, and asks for his money back, which the manager gives him immediately.

A economy is great when people can buy things to improve their life. More purchases from any given location should lead to higher wages for employees, or more employees, which they can then use for their own self-improvement. Higher wages mean more tax revenue, and local/state/national governments can spend the revenue on more projects to support the general welfare. But if a lot of people decide to start saving (or hoarding, think banks pulling out of the stock market or something I guess) instead of spending, the numerical amount of money and resources remains the same, but much less gets done. Which really sucks, because saving money is generally quite beneficial to an individual.

Sort of a multiplayer prisoner's dilemma. Everyone (in theory) benefits when everyone is spending, but the individual who saves wisely reduces everyone else's quality of life by some value, while increasing his own by more.
Tragedy of the commons. Self interest is often in opposition to common good.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The only issue is the "individual".

I don't know who these economists think these common people are who are saving a bunch of money. Everyone I know from the Part time minimum wage earner to the small business owner is just about living pay check to pay check. I would be very surprised to meet anyone saving the recommend 10% for a rainy day.

Take retirement savings and petitions (like people have those anymore) out of the equation and most people are living on credit. Somewhere along the line the money is being collected and not spread around, and I don't think the average Joe has any extra money to squirrel away even if they had the choice (and even then average people tend to spend to their limit).

Shrug
 

It's very basic economics. Unfortunately, those basic economics assume everyone has perfect information and responds to that information completely rationally and instantaneously. These underlying assumptions are one of my biggest problems with the neoclassical model. The underlying principle is correct that the economy does best when consumption (people spending money) is high. Of course, then we discuss producer supply vs. consumer demand and all of the other fun little things you learn in the first part of econ. The problem is that real life is messy and no matter which economic model you use it won't actually fit real life perfectly. So you need to be aware of what your assumptions are and what the shortcomings are.

~Dysole, who if she remembers right at least in the US our current setup rips giant holes in every major economic theory

Re: Decision 2016
 

Naturally, the 'individuals' who have the most impact are actually the extra-wealthy bankers and jerks who love gaming the system and watching the little number that says 'net worth' get two or three or more digits than an average citizen have a much larger impact. I didn't mean to imply that a guy who makes sub 50k a year and manages to somehow save 5k per year makes a big impact.

Say, have you ever played Power Grid against an irrational player? It is absolutely infuriating.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Yes, but don't the consumers have money due to jobs?


The US has lost manufacturing jobs.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/29/news...obs/index.html

Why have we lost these jobs? Robots and better machines have taken a number of jobs. Trade deals and manufacturing moving to developing countries have taken others. I'm not a protectionist as most studies of protective tariffs show that they cost consumers more than they create wealth for workers who lose their jobs.

I'm not sure what the best path forward is. Turning protectionist as recommended by Trump and Sanders seems the wrong approach. Clinton suggests an increase in the minimum wage, but this runs the risk of eliminating some jobs. Trump's also suggested that illegal immigration hurts lower pay jobs. I can see how illegal immigrants (somewhere between 11 and 35 million in the US) would compete for the same jobs as blue collar workers, but you can pick your study based on your political orientation.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The ideal answer goes like this:
Production replaces people with robots
Company pays a smaller number of employees slightly better than before in order to maintain the robots
Lower cost to manufacture results in savings to the consumer
Lower price to consumer means that those still working (teacher, police, service worker, academic, engineer, anyone else) have more disposable income, due to prices dropping.
Those individuals now have their income freed up purchase nonessential life-enhancing products as they see fit, be they board games, massages, vacations, whatever.
More business spring up to fill this need for more service/life enhancing products, hiring the workers displaced by the reduction to production jobs.

This continues on to the point where few humans do manual labor, instead contributing to society either with a life-enhancing service, maintenance/operation of the robots, or research into future technologies.

Unfortunately, this all gets nipped in the bud when a company does not pass on its savings to the consumer, opting instead to sell their widgets at their original price, even after production costs drop to a half, quarter, or even less than what they were originally.

Re: Decision 2016
 

If the cost of production decreases, competitive forces should drive down the price. Do you agree?

What happens to the worker who doesn't have the skill set to maintain the robots, or do research into new technologies. These are the people who have been left behind in this economy. What type of life-enhancing service are you suggesting?

Sort Of
 

As long as barrier to entry (how difficult to enter the business) remains low and there is not active collusion to keep prices high then yes prices would decrease. Are you confident that these hold?

Your hypothetical worker is one of the reasons why focusing more on improving our service industry is going to be more helpful in the long term. But automation is nothing new. Similar concerns were expressed at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

~Dysole, always making sure she checks assumptions

Re: Decision 2016
 

#1: I absolutely agree, but the word 'should' is the key operator. Consider all the pushback Google is getting from Comcast/ATT/the dominant Internet provider in every city that they want to set up the infrastructure to run Google Fiber. Google's a company with all the resources and know-how to build their own network, but its would-be competitors keep the barrier of entry much higher than it needs to be.
Those companies know that if a new player comes to town, they will have to lower their prices or improve their services (both of which Comcast could easily do), but they love the current system of being only one or two players, and can rake in profits far in excess of cost. ( http://www.cutcabletoday.com/comcast...ernet-service/ )

They lobby (and pay off) the local/state/national governments wherever possible to keep that barrier of entry high, which hurts everyone except for the big company.

Which is why I'm voting Libertarian. Bust up the cronyism and those barriers of entry come slamming down.

And for life-enhancing services:
Restaurants, board games development, tourism, television programs, personal trainers, house cleaner, musicians/stage performers, stand-up comedians, grass-roots political efforts, R+D to improve each of these things. Basically, everything besides food, shelter, and transportation to one's place of work I would consider 'life-enhancing'.
If average citizens have more cash in hand, they can spend more on all these things.
I suppose I've got two grand goals for humanity:
#1: Get enough people off of this rock and two a number of different ones so that the species will be able to thrive long after the imminent meteor strike that wipes out 90% or more of life on Earth.

#2: Automation reaches the point where every individual can live comfortably by contributing to society in a profession that does not negatively impact one's health.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Google is one of the largest companies in the world. I'm sure that they lobby as well as anyone else.

Is there something you know about that the rest of us don't?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Exactly, here's a titan that is just barely able to gain new footing in the realm of being an ISP. The barrier of entry is such that a startup without Google's background has no chance of success.

Death by meteor seems to be an inevitability/eventuality, especially considering the votes its getting this year for President.

Re: What I'm Looking For
 

Incorrect. All elections, including those for federal office, are administered by the states, not by the federal government. Any individual state could decide to institute approval voting, or instant runoff voting, or Condorcet voting, to elect their senators, or to apportion their presidential electors, and neither the federal government or any other state could tell them otherwise. This is the idea behind things like the national popular vote project - you can do an end around on the electoral college by getting a group of states to agree to cast their electors for the popular vote winner.

Ditto for the House of Representatives: if New York wanted to elect its representatives to the house using a half-dozen multi-winner districts, or just one massive district using some sort of proportional representation, no other state could tell them not to. The Constitution just says how many representatives they have to send, and when they have to hold elections for them.

Is this America's idea of a joke?
 

Late in on this, will try to read more of everyone's posts later.

Anyways, some first thoughts. Just know I don't do research and pretty much go by what I hear/see on the news. I am complacency at its finest.

Trump - I thought the Democrats were the donkies? I was never big on the guy in the first place and I've heard about a damn wall for so long I might decide to go into demolition just so I could blow the things up.

Clinton - Pretty much a political name my entire life, as I'm only in my early 20's. I could live with her as President. The male in me says that her use of female issues dont matter to me whatsoever. The human in me says otherwise. The only real issue is that the human in me doesn't care enough to see if anything is major issues outside of the ivory walls.

I would have been ok with the other options had they not dropped out/lost. Sanders was really good, even if I could've cared less about college reform whatever. Plus, he is old. He really wouldn't have anything more to gain from being President other than being President, which goes miles when there are concerns about corruption across all of politics. Kasich was from Ohio, and I didn't see any horrific crap going on here because of him these last few years. Cruz was pretty much a walking internet meme.

I wonder, if at the end of these next 4 years, will I still be able to live the American dream? White picket fence, home, spoiled rotten kids and eating at mom and pop restaurants after a long week of work? If I can't, then what was the point in voting at all?

Fear is real, everyone.

Re: Decision 2016
 

@dok , I stand corrected. Here's to hoping a few state legislatures change elector decision methods.
@flameslayer93
#FeelTheJohnson my man.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Hillary has to win because women should have the right to their own bodies. A blastocyst or a fetus is not a person, therefore it should not override the rights of a an actual person.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Woah, you really jump in with both feet PGS. :)

I like your 'old' angle flameslayer.

Bernie is above corruption because he will die before reaping benefits. I have never seen it proposed in such a way. Nice perspective though I am not sure exactly how valid it is. :)

I am not sure if you know this but the current candidates would be the oldest(Trump) and second oldest(Clinton). Reagan was the oldest.
I hope I got those right. :)

Re: Decision 2016
 

What do you mean, my old angle?

I was inspired to check back in here by a post from TheVenocWarlord on the X-Wing reddit about how I terrorized Heroscapers in addition to the X-Wing community. Seems like /someone's/ angry that I'm correct about circumcision, religion, abortion, and how spawning more children instead of adopting currently existing ones is selfish and xenophobic.

So I'm chiming in with a post stating my beliefs. Better to be right than polite.

Re: Decision 2016
 

This may be bait, but other people take my bait often enough. I guess it's my turn. :)

While I have nothing but respect for people who do adopt, the far more selfish act is the creation of the "currently existing" children without parents. It's a biological imperative to want to raise your own children. It's not "xenophobic" to want to pass on your genes. If you really feel strongly about this issue, the most effective way to permanently fix it is to create a more educated population so fewer people conceive children that they cannot handle.

I was not aware that circumcision was major political issue this election. Maybe I am on the wrong news sites

Re: Decision 2016
 

I should have split up the post.
Only the first sentence was directed at you and was a light heart-ed attempt to acknowledge your willingness to express your views on a rather divisive subject. I respect your strength to be so honest.
I simply was trying to lighten things up a bit and failed miserably. :)

The rest of the post was in to reference to flameslayer93's post which I suppose I should have quoted but I just choose to refrain from quoting when I think I can get away with it. :)

Carry on.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Before it gets too out of hand remember for the religious it is a fact that an unborn child is alive. To them it is a crime.

This is an argument of definition (and tge morals that are a result) not ethics.

In Canada the stance is... there is no stance, each individual makes their choice. The pro choice group can make their choices and the pro life group can condem them to heLl safe in the knowledge that God will punish them.

Its a tough issue and a civil discussion is hard but valeable.

Re: Decision 2016
 

In the United States, as well, there is no stance. People may have them, or not have them, as they please. The people who would choose never to have abortions are also free to be hateful toward those who do (or even to those who believe in the *right* to have one, though they may not themselves choose that path), and are additionally free to attempt to bend the political process in order to control the bodies of others, if they can.

So we're pretty much using the Canadian model. Except that our political system is, apparently, more vulnerable to that kind of abuse than yours.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Okay, so if that is your single most important issue, Gary Johnson is the much better presidential candidate with that stance.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Unless you care enough that you want your vote to matter. If you're content to have a protest vote, and afterward, in the ruins, tell your friends that you proudly voted for a third party candidate, then go for it.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Sadly, do the polarizing nature of the issue, this is an "any one but Trump and Pence" (who is very much against woman's rights) decision. It sucks when you have to vote against someone one rather than for due to certain stances.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You have to play a longer game than that. 5% popular vote in the general election gets the Libertarian candidate federal funding in the next presidential election cycle.
Johnson has the potential to win several states, notably New Mexico, Utah, possibly Massachusetts, contingent on his performance in the upcoming debates. He doesn't need a majority of votes, just enough to send the decision to Congress.

I don't agree with all of Johnson's policies, but I agree with them far more than the others, and a vote with one's conscience is never wasted.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Why would I want Johnson to win? Clinton is perfectly qualified and, unlike the third party candidates or Trump, has piles of relevant job experience.

The more I hear about these grievances against Clinton, the more they sound like nonsense. Did you know previous Secretaries of State have had foundations that took money from foreign donors? No? I thought not. People don't like her, but I'm increasingly suspicious that the myths surrounding her are the product of an (speaking of a long game) industry of character assassination.

You say a "vote with one's conscience is never wasted." I think it's pretty easy to say that if you don't think your vote matters. Would you still say that in the ruins? "Our economy and national dignity are both in ruins, but at least I voted my conscience." Would you say it then?

No thank you. My vote is both more precious than that, and not as precious as that. I will make it count.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I find it hard to write off Clinton's flaws as "character assassination" while saying Trump's flaws are absolute truth (and vice versa). Both candidates have multiple news networks constantly putting out negative information about their past. Is one side consistently deluded while the other is consistently on the mark? I mean, you are free to think that is the case, but I don't think there are such major differences in mental capacity between Democrats and Republicans that would allow for either to be so convinced by blatant untruths.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Eh. Just because there are two perspectives does not mean one of them isn't right, or wrong. It could be that if one group is arguing that the sky is blue, and the other that the sky is green, one is wrong and one is right.

She's not perfect. I've said that before. But as for the list of grievances against her - email server, foundation, Benghazi - the closer I look, the more absurd each accusation appears.

Re: Decision 2016
 

He's not perfect. I've said that before. But as for the the list of grievances against Trump - failed businesses, racism, attraction to his daughter - the closer I look, the more absurd each accusation appears.

Just because there are two perspectives doesn't mean one of them has to be right. It could be that one group is arguing that the sky is yellow, and the other is arguing that the sky is red.