2020 US Presidential Election Discussion (primary & general)

[Sheba]

Bernie Sanders have exactly called what would happen because he have seen and have not forgotten Trump and his bullies band's efforts to sabotage the postal services. Because THEY KNEW that the very populations they tried to stop from voting via voter suppression tactics would jump at the opportunity to vote without having to move dozen of miles away to reach the nearest polling stations or NOT HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN VOTING OR LOSING A DAY OF WORK.

But NOOooooooooo, here we are discussing there are fraud because some people cant believe that COVID19 have made democrat voter more cautious, but the spreading of vote by mail due to the pandemic have made them more likely to vote, where they would not usually vote under other circumstances.

[Guardian Enzo]

Bernie Sanders and pretty much every other Democrat and never-Trump Republican on the planet.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

That's just an attempt to legitimize conspiracy theories. Beliefs are nothing more than speculation without evidence and absolutely worthless until proven.

That's fine. My interest is purely academic and I'm not trying to convince anybody else.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by Jaden

That's fine. My interest is purely academic and I'm not trying to convince anybody else.

No true academic would say something like "Hard evidence may be a standard to get certain relief in court, but it's not like that applies for every single thing we believe in."

The academic world requires hard observable evidence in order to confirm a hypothesis, just as the legal world would.

Your stance is not that dissimilar from conspiracy theorists since by brushing off evidence requirement in favour of subjective observations opens the can of a whole bunch of biases. So please don't use the word academic to describe your "interest".

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Kakurin

No true academic would say something like "Hard evidence may be a standard to get certain relief in court, but it's not like that applies for every single thing we believe in."

The academic world requires hard observable evidence in order to confirm a hypothesis, just as the legal world would.

Your stance is not that dissimilar from conspiracy theorists since by brushing off evidence requirement in favour of subjective observations opens the can of a whole bunch of biases. So please don't use the word academic to describe your "interest".

The Collins English dictionary has this kind of alternative meaning for "academic" :

Academic, adj. You can say that a discussion or situation is academic if you think it is not important because it has no real effect or cannot happen. (=theoretical)
"Such is the size of the problem that these arguments are purely academic. "

That's what I meant. No disrespect to the sciences.

[Johnny Dy]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Yes, it gives the outgoing President time to muck with the institutions of government and serve up a mess to his successor.

I much prefer the British model where the moving vans arrive at 10 Downing Street the morning after the Prime Minister loses an election.

Much of the timing of events in the American electoral calendar derive from historical periods where travel was much more difficult than today. It's ridiculous to continue those same institutions when lawmakers can get on a plane and be in DC in a few hours.

You'll find no argument with me. The whole political class is obsolete. It was invented because the people can't move every day to the centre to make it's views known. That was centuries ago, now we can make our views known without moving at all. Why are we still not killing them all? I mean not dismissing them all? Because we stupid gave them power and they will never willingly give it away.

[coded321]

Originally Posted by Jaden

The Collins English dictionary has this kind of alternative meaning for "academic" :

Academic, adj. You can say that a discussion or situation is academic if you think it is not important because it has no real effect or cannot happen. (=theoretical)
"Such is the size of the problem that these arguments are purely academic. "

That's what I meant. No disrespect to the sciences.

So basically what you're saying is your academic beliefs about widespread voter fraud is unimportant because widespread voter fraud has had no real effect or cannot/did not happen.

[Ithekro]

I college we started to suggest a fourth check and balance via The People due to the Internet allowing people to actually pay attention. It was put down because even with the Internet, people don't have time to be informed about government enough to be that fourth check and balance.

[Key Board]

The Q anon phenomenon has gone global, and that to me, says people do not want to be properly informed.

//

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Johnny Dy

You'll find no argument with me. The whole political class is obsolete. It was invented because the people can't move every day to the centre to make it's views known. That was centuries ago, now we can make our views known without moving at all. Why are we still not killing them all? I mean not dismissing them all? Because we stupid gave them power and they will never willingly give it away.

Slow the fuck down.

Are you drunk on Tyler Durden's kool aid where we should be all on our own hunting the deer or plowing our own field?

Are you even aware of what a world without the strong arm of governments would be like? Just imagine Amazon jackbooting the citizens instead, or the people listening to religious leaders advocating hate in worst cases. That's what we are heading to. Yes to less corruption, less lobbies and a clean up of the politics. No to being at the mercy of corporations ruling without the regulation of governments or people slipping into obscurantism because religious or charismastic leaders are the only things left as form of authority.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I college we started to suggest a fourth check and balance via The People due to the Internet allowing people to actually pay attention. It was put down because even with the Internet, people don't have time to be informed about government enough to be that fourth check and balance.

I suggest you watch Gatchaman Crowds Insight which considers the possibility of "direct democracy" over the Internet. It's not a pretty sight.

[Anh_Minh]

My guess is that you get the Boaty McBoatface of policies and lawmaking.

[serenade_beta]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Slow the fuck down.

Are you drunk on Tyler Durden's kool aid where we should be all on our own hunting the deer or plowing our own field?

Are you even aware of what a world without the strong arm of governments would be like? Just imagine Amazon jackbooting the citizens instead, or the people listening to religious leaders advocating hate in worst cases. That's what we are heading to. Yes to less corruption, less lobbies and a clean up of the politics. No to being at the mercy of corporations ruling without the regulation of governments or people slipping into obscurantism because religious or charismastic leaders are the only things left as form of authority.

I'm pretty sure there is at least one anime that has done this story. And probably a bunch of those satire Western cartoons.

[GDB]

At the very least, I know Doctor Who has done episodes with it as either a theme or a backstory to the setting of the episode.

[Anh_Minh]

Kino no Tabi had a country with total democracy.

[Johnny Dy]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Slow the fuck down.

Are you drunk on Tyler Durden's kool aid where we should be all on our own hunting the deer or plowing our own field?

Are you even aware of what a world without the strong arm of governments would be like? Just imagine Amazon jackbooting the citizens instead, or the people listening to religious leaders advocating hate in worst cases. That's what we are heading to. Yes to less corruption, less lobbies and a clean up of the politics. No to being at the mercy of corporations ruling without the regulation of governments or people slipping into obscurantism

Hmmm... there's something to what you say there, but not a whole lot. We would control the corporations as we control the laws on which they function. And we wouldn't screw the worker in favor of the enterprise anymore, like politicians do for part of the profit.

Strong arm of governments? You mean tyranny. Yes, I can imagine a better world, just like many others have imagined it before me and made it happen. I just want the next step.

Plowing what field? Jobs would pretty much remain the same except payed more as to the corruption fees would add the money politicians take and thrown back into the budget pool, as well as the overall rise in payment people would get from the stoppage of the bleeding politicians endowed the worker in favor of his employer.

Medicine would be available for everyone as one of the laws people might ensue would be to never cost more than 50% it's manufacturing price in land and 100% abroad. Because last time I checked, everyone should have the right to medicine, a right far above the one to get rich by selling it however the fuck you want; people dyeing, as long as you make a big profit.

That's just from the top of my head <--> etcetera into a world much better lived for the other 98% that actually do the plowing for the fat mother-fuckers at the other end. Thanks for the tasty kool aid! Who is Tyler Durden? Dunno but sure makes a good kool aid! Thank him for me when you see him.

PS:

Originally Posted by Sheba

because religious or charismastic leaders are the only things left as form of authority.

That's just funny, religion is and always will be much less important that economics since half a century ago into eternity, and losing it's grip over people every decade all the more.

[Magin]

I'd be careful about advocating for the political class to completely be erased- the last time people actually tried that, you ended up arguably worse than where you started. Or in other words... go check out more of the French Revolution. You are aware that it's been HEAVILY romanticized by the Internet, right? You might see it as political leaders losing their heads and allowing the people to gain control, but my understanding is that that's the whitewashed version. It was more like chaos and more people dying until a new government actually came into power and was able to quell the people.

It's no secret that what we're dealing with is a corrupt government in America. I'll really oversimplify things and say this: a true run-by-the-people democracy can't fully work in a place as huge as America, because you need 330 MILLION (give or take a million) people to agree to one overall set of rules. Otherwise, you end up going back to Colonial times, and just let me know if you want to hear about the shitshow that was the Federalist papers and other early forms of trying to get 13 pseudo-independent governments to cooperate.

Some would argue it's only because of the War of 1812 that the US even managed to make it beyond its initial 30 years, because we got an enemy that we could go shooty-shooty bang-bang at.

[Johnny Dy]

I'm not saying it's not though. But it can be made. We would need a very competent administration to put the people's will into a lucrative governing. I'm not saying it should be done all at once either, but step by step. That would be ideal. To replace not all the political class just the obvious choices like the parliament. That would be a big 1st step. I don't see why we shouldn't make our own laws, the government must listen to the law, so by logic it would be a big step in cleaning it up.

I've seen pretty much every ecranisation of the French Revolution there is (I hope, if there is one I didn't, I would like to), the anime La Rose Des Versailles, the new french serial made in 2020 with some fantasy (blue blood vampire nobiles lol), Danton '83, but the best of them is La Revolution Francaise from '89. Too much bloodshed, way too much. I'm against bloodshed, I consider it to be past millennium way of settling things. If I am for (slowly) replacing the political class, I am definitely for it to be decent and humane, without ultimate sacrifices. I am just simply stating that such a thing is more like a dream, we won't be able to get them to budge from the power seats, unless we kill them all (which we will not, because we are not like that anymore), or if an alternate real cheap energy source would be found in the future. My money is on this source, that will solve our political problem for us, so in a way, there's nothing more to discuss about it. It's futile.

[Magin]

Originally Posted by Johnny Dy

Why are we still not killing them all? I mean not dismissing them all? .

Originally Posted by Johnny Dy

I'm against bloodshed, I consider it to be past millennium way of settling things. If I am for (slowly) replacing the political class, I am definitely for it to be decent and humane, without ultimate sacrifices. I am just simply stating that such a thing is more like a dream, we won't be able to get them to budge from the power seats, unless we kill them all (which we will not, because we are not like that anymore

Pick a narrative and stick with it, or you end up sounding like Trump who contradicts himself with every other word. Are you for killing off people, or are you for doing things in a humane way? It sounds like you're going for the former, but have to say the latter because Internet.

[Johnny Dy]

Nah, I was using the 1st narrative because of 2 things:
1. You can't get rid of them except by killing them, no other realistic way.
2. (Failed) comedy.

But just because that's the only way, doesn't mean one should do it, that's what I mean.
I'm the sort of guy who ain't in favour of this retarded shit "The end justifies the means.", I think the means define the end and define the people who apply them. (I have surprisingly well defined moral definitions, for me morality is a heavy table with 4 side legs and one thick centred, so 5 legs. The 4 legs are freedom, tolerance, diversity and empathy while the thick one at the centre that can sustain the table all by itself is compassion; with other words morality is 50% compassion and 12,5% the other 4. But when the other 4 get violated they transform into rage, so morality transforms into 50% compassion, 50% rage = 100% pain => pretty much what happens during riots or revolutions, La Revolution Francaise included - where compassion for the oppressed transformed into rage for the oppressors, both equally painful. But I'm not gonna get into more details, no point here.)

I am waiting for the 2nd narrative to get rid of politicians (at least in their current form), unrealistic as it may be right now: the cheap energy thing, available to everyone and corporations won't be able to hide it much, just to keep their profit. That will be the solution to most our troubles, and some predictions (Baba Vanga/Old woman Vanga) say it will be this decade that is just about to begin, more towards the end. I would be surprised to find out what it actually is, it's hard for me to think it's something we've missed entirely, maybe just a completely revolutionary way of harnessing energy, probably solar.

Originally Posted by Magin

but have to say the latter because Internet.

Couldn't disagree more. In fact I was just writing on this forum I like "Bakabt (index)" - the very reason I am here, because I was banned there for a few months , that the internet is actually the tool against the oppression that reality poses: the reluctance of saying exactly what you mean to people, for fear of bringing shame to your family. In a way, we are more of a family here because we're being completely honest. At least I am. I can't understand people who fear to be honest on the internet, more so than in their real lives. Doesn't make sense. No family here except by words and thoughts, in a sense, a more real family than the blood one from reality, at least a more honest one. For the love of God...