5 ms·

Elections have consequences. Although it's decidedly unfair, it would seem, when some of those consequences fall on those who don't even get a vote.

uoaei 2y ago
The spectrum of political opinion isn't 1D. The causal links between political opinion and someone's propensity to vote are also far from straightforward. The feedback loops between media and the evolution of people's political opinions might be stronger than any principles people imagine themselves having. Altogether, Bernie was the compromise candidate, except that companies with "news" in the name but who emphatically argue in the courts that they are not news and only idiots would believe that they are, are the ones who really won this election, at the expense of nearly everyone else.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ajross 2y ago
  > The spectrum of political opinion isn't 1D Immigration policy was the single largest policy issue of the Trump campaign. No, you can't play this game. No one is surprised that this is the policy. Everyone heard what he said about immigrants. What I think you're trying to say is that some people fooled themselves that this was all a bit[1], and that he wouldn't actually do the things he was very clearly and very loudly saying he would do. But he would, and he did, and now he has. And that's on you, not some fiction you told yourself about the candidate. [1] Not the only such area. See the embarassing mess in Bill Ackman's twitter output over the past week.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    People on temporary student visas aren't immigrants and have nothing to do with immigration. What's next? Mass deportation of tourists?
    - uoaei 2y ago
      Maybe you would need to explicate your definition of "immigrant" before continuing. All visas are "temporary" so that is a meaningless qualification in this context.
      - Aloisius 2y ago
        > immigrant (noun) - a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country. The US has two classes of visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. Student visas are the latter along with things like tourist visas. People here simply to go to school on student visas are not immigrants.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        It's worth noting that this is another example of the "Trump would never do that" to "Okay, first of all, I don't agree with your definition of 'concentration camp'" pipeline.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Altogether, Bernie was the compromise candidate Maybe if your politics are far left, but nationwide polling showed that he was consistently trailing Clinton. Even diehard Bernie supporters would admit he was left of Clinton, and considering that there are Republican candidates as well, it's laughable to claim he was a "compromise" candidate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for...
  - uoaei 2y ago
    Please re-read my comments about the feedback loop between media and voting behavior. There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the depiction of both candidates in mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders. Making the obvious conclusion, of course polls would reflect this disparity.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the depiction of both candidates in mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders. So you take national poll numbers, apply a handwavy fudge factor for "mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders", and conclude that Sanders is the "compromise candidate"? Doesn't seem very rigorous. It also doesn't address the fact that Sanders was the left-most candidate, and there are republicans to the right of him and Clinton. On a spectrum of Sanders, Clinton, and whatever other Republicans there are, there's no plausible case to be made that Sanders is somehow the "compromise" (median?) candidate. Finally, the" mainstream news" denigrated Trump as well, arguably more. Does that make him the "compromise candidate" even more?
      - uoaei 2y ago
        Certainly not, and you should be ashamed to shove such falsities in my mouth. The studies I saw focused on the negative sentiments toward Clinton: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-does-sanders-do-better-clinton-against-trump-n586476 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-does-sand... and section 3 of https://sbp-brims.org/2016/proceedings/PO_139.pdf https://sbp-brims.org/2016/proceedings/PO_139.pdf Would you like to revise your comments now that you understand your assumptions are misplaced? I suggest you do a lot more reading into the sentiments depicted by mainstream news sources on each candidate before replying.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
anonfordays 2y ago
[flagged]
palmotea 2y ago
> Elections have consequences. Although it's decidedly unfair, it would seem, when some of those consequences fall on those who don't even get a vote. That sentiment sounds nice, but it's kinda messed up: it implies non-citizens should have more rights and privileges than citizens (i.e. be insulated from the consequences of elections). It's like, if someone loans you their car, insisting they shouldn't be able to ask for it back because you didn't have say in the decision. Ultimately, if you're actually for democracy, you have to be fine with policy changing in whatever way the electorate decides it should change.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant. I think we’re almost at that point, but not quite yet (depends on whether checks and balances on illegal actions of the executive branch are successful). “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” —- attributed to Ben Franklin (The US is a federal republic, not a democracy)
  - palmotea 2y ago
    > I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant. That's a tricky line, because it's on the path to: "You have the 'freedom' to vote for whoever you like, just as long as they're a Communist who will loyally implement Communist policies." Personally, I don't think many people in the US are actually committed democrats. They're mostly partisans committed to their party/ideology, and there's a lot of maneuvering to confuse people that their party's policy is set in stone ("constitutional/constitutionally required") and entrench it against democratic action.
    - 2y ago

uoaei 2y ago

The spectrum of political opinion isn't 1D. The causal links between political opinion and someone's propensity to vote are also far from straightforward. The feedback loops between media and the evolution of people's political opinions might be stronger than any principles people imagine themselves having. Altogether, Bernie was the compromise candidate, except that companies with "news" in the name but who emphatically argue in the courts that they are not news and only idiots would believe that they are, are the ones who really won this election, at the expense of nearly everyone else.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ajross 2y ago
> The spectrum of political opinion isn't 1D Immigration policy was the single largest policy issue of the Trump campaign. No, you can't play this game. No one is surprised that this is the policy. Everyone heard what he said about immigrants. What I think you're trying to say is that some people fooled themselves that this was all a bit[1], and that he wouldn't actually do the things he was very clearly and very loudly saying he would do. But he would, and he did, and now he has. And that's on you, not some fiction you told yourself about the candidate. [1] Not the only such area. See the embarassing mess in Bill Ackman's twitter output over the past week.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  People on temporary student visas aren't immigrants and have nothing to do with immigration. What's next? Mass deportation of tourists?
  - uoaei 2y ago
    Maybe you would need to explicate your definition of "immigrant" before continuing. All visas are "temporary" so that is a meaningless qualification in this context.
    - Aloisius 2y ago
      > immigrant (noun) - a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country. The US has two classes of visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant visas. Student visas are the latter along with things like tourist visas. People here simply to go to school on student visas are not immigrants.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        It's worth noting that this is another example of the "Trump would never do that" to "Okay, first of all, I don't agree with your definition of 'concentration camp'" pipeline.
gruez 2y ago
>Altogether, Bernie was the compromise candidate Maybe if your politics are far left, but nationwide polling showed that he was consistently trailing Clinton. Even diehard Bernie supporters would admit he was left of Clinton, and considering that there are Republican candidates as well, it's laughable to claim he was a "compromise" candidate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for...
- uoaei 2y ago
  Please re-read my comments about the feedback loop between media and voting behavior. There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the depiction of both candidates in mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders. Making the obvious conclusion, of course polls would reflect this disparity.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >There is overwhelming statistical evidence that the depiction of both candidates in mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders. So you take national poll numbers, apply a handwavy fudge factor for "mainstream news channels favored Clinton and denigrated Sanders", and conclude that Sanders is the "compromise candidate"? Doesn't seem very rigorous. It also doesn't address the fact that Sanders was the left-most candidate, and there are republicans to the right of him and Clinton. On a spectrum of Sanders, Clinton, and whatever other Republicans there are, there's no plausible case to be made that Sanders is somehow the "compromise" (median?) candidate. Finally, the" mainstream news" denigrated Trump as well, arguably more. Does that make him the "compromise candidate" even more?
    - uoaei 2y ago
      Certainly not, and you should be ashamed to shove such falsities in my mouth. The studies I saw focused on the negative sentiments toward Clinton: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-does-sanders-do-better-clinton-against-trump-n586476 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-does-sand... and section 3 of https://sbp-brims.org/2016/proceedings/PO_139.pdf https://sbp-brims.org/2016/proceedings/PO_139.pdf Would you like to revise your comments now that you understand your assumptions are misplaced? I suggest you do a lot more reading into the sentiments depicted by mainstream news sources on each candidate before replying.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

anonfordays 2y ago

[flagged]

palmotea 2y ago

> Elections have consequences. Although it's decidedly unfair, it would seem, when some of those consequences fall on those who don't even get a vote. That sentiment sounds nice, but it's kinda messed up: it implies non-citizens should have more rights and privileges than citizens (i.e. be insulated from the consequences of elections). It's like, if someone loans you their car, insisting they shouldn't be able to ask for it back because you didn't have say in the decision. Ultimately, if you're actually for democracy, you have to be fine with policy changing in whatever way the electorate decides it should change.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant. I think we’re almost at that point, but not quite yet (depends on whether checks and balances on illegal actions of the executive branch are successful). “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” —- attributed to Ben Franklin (The US is a federal republic, not a democracy)
- palmotea 2y ago
  > I think it’s fair to believe that democracy has failure modes where we say, “Nope, this outcome didn’t work.” For example, if fellow citizens start getting rounded up in camps or deported, regardless of due process, what the electorate wants and the votes communicate are no longer relevant. That's a tricky line, because it's on the path to: "You have the 'freedom' to vote for whoever you like, just as long as they're a Communist who will loyally implement Communist policies." Personally, I don't think many people in the US are actually committed democrats. They're mostly partisans committed to their party/ideology, and there's a lot of maneuvering to confuse people that their party's policy is set in stone ("constitutional/constitutionally required") and entrench it against democratic action.
  - 2y ago