3 ms·

> Whenever leftists say that "Trump is a symptom of an illness that has been metastasizing for a long time" this is what we mean. It's also the thing I don't u

> Whenever leftists say that "Trump is a symptom of an illness that has been metastasizing for a long time" this is what we mean. It's also the thing I don't understand about party loyalty. When candidate George W. Bush was running for President, he was saying all kinds of things about how big government is bad and regulation destroys small businesses etc. Clearly not consistent with what he did once he was in office. When candidate Obama was running for President, he was saying how those things Bush actually did were bad and unconstitutional, and then once he's in office he signs a Patriot Act extension, fails to pardon Snowden, etc. When candidate Trump, well, you know. Most of this is structural, not partisan. And a lot of it is Congress even though people mostly talk about the President. The partisanship itself is structural -- get your state to use STAR voting instead of first past the post and you get more than two choices, and then liars can be evicted even if their state/district goes >60% to the left or right.

godelski 1y ago
> get your state to use STAR voting instead of first past the post and you get more than two choices, and then liars can be evicted even if their state/district goes >60% to the left or right. This. Or any cardinal voting, such ask approval, ends up being a huge win. The system is flawed from its roots. People need a voting system that allows them to specify their conscious, not vote on strategy only. The latter only leads to a race to the bottom. Unfortunately ranked voting systems do not allow for this, and we've seen those predictions come true in places like New York. > It's also the thing I don't understand about party loyalty. What I don't understand is how a lot of people will state both parties are corrupt and then also be party loyal. My parents are some of these types of people, but it is also pretty common. Together we'll happily criticize any member of the left, we'll happily criticize the abstract notion of politicians, but as soon as a name like Donald Trump leaves my mouth there's accusations of communism. I've literally had conversations where we both agree Biden is too old, we both agree that the country shouldn't be run by geriatrics or anyone over 60, but as soon as the next part is mentioned about how this means I don't want Trump then they start talking about how he's a special case and will contradict everything that they said before. They literally cannot understand how I voted Biden but also happily criticize him and state that I think he was unfit to be president. We've turned politics into religion. It's not just the right (though I'd argue it's more common), but so many people love to paint everything as black and white. Anyone who thinks the world isn't full of shades of gray is a fucking zealot and we've let that go on for too long.
- michaelt 1y ago
  > What I don't understand is how a lot of people will state both parties are corrupt and then also be party loyal. Both teams are corrupt, but in different ways. On my team it’s rules being bent but not broken, a few bad apples, everyone was doing it, parents wanting to give their children the best start in life, the inevitable results of the need to raise campaign funds to continue their great work, and/or they’ve already rightly been suitably punished. On the other team it’s a problem that runs through all of them, reflecting their poor character, the lack of basic decency resulting from their hollow look-out-for-number-1 political beliefs, and is undoubtedly representative of a much wider problem that’s being covered up.
  - godelski 1y ago
    I think you missed my entire point, so much that I thank you for demonstrating it. Rather than some abstract "my parents", I can say "like this." > Both teams are corrupt, but in different ways. Who has denied this? Is this not such an obvious assumption that it need not be explicitly stated? Need I make clear that you and I are not in fact the same person? This is a given. > On my team > On the other team And what? We obviously have decided who we believe the lesser of evils is. That was never the point. The point is that by showing strong devotion to the lesser of two evils is still showing devotion to evil! There's a big difference between begrudgingly choosing between two evils in a rigged game and aligning with that evil. One does not need always compare. We can both evaluate a single political party by its merits, absent of everything else, while also being able to evaluate how they stand comparatively. In fact, you can't even do the latter without doing the former first! All you've accomplished is perpetuating the two evils. You perpetuate the evil you vote for my allowing them to excuse their actions in justification of fighting the greater. You have no power to change what you've chosen as greater and you've abdicated the power to make your lesser even less evil, instead choosing to gave it power to become more evil! Think carefully about what you say. It's not only Siths who speak in absolutes, but evil does thrive on over-simplification.
    - lazyasciiart 1y ago
      Jesus. They were literally answering your question of “how can anyone be committed to someone they describe as a lesser evil”, very clearly not even using a specific side as the lesser evil, and you’re mad that anyone is able to elucidate or understand the reasoning used? You didn’t want to know how people do that, you just wanted to mention that they are terrible people and it’s a bad choice?

godelski 1y ago

> get your state to use STAR voting instead of first past the post and you get more than two choices, and then liars can be evicted even if their state/district goes >60% to the left or right. This. Or any cardinal voting, such ask approval, ends up being a huge win. The system is flawed from its roots. People need a voting system that allows them to specify their conscious, not vote on strategy only. The latter only leads to a race to the bottom. Unfortunately ranked voting systems do not allow for this, and we've seen those predictions come true in places like New York. > It's also the thing I don't understand about party loyalty. What I don't understand is how a lot of people will state both parties are corrupt and then also be party loyal. My parents are some of these types of people, but it is also pretty common. Together we'll happily criticize any member of the left, we'll happily criticize the abstract notion of politicians, but as soon as a name like Donald Trump leaves my mouth there's accusations of communism. I've literally had conversations where we both agree Biden is too old, we both agree that the country shouldn't be run by geriatrics or anyone over 60, but as soon as the next part is mentioned about how this means I don't want Trump then they start talking about how he's a special case and will contradict everything that they said before. They literally cannot understand how I voted Biden but also happily criticize him and state that I think he was unfit to be president. We've turned politics into religion. It's not just the right (though I'd argue it's more common), but so many people love to paint everything as black and white. Anyone who thinks the world isn't full of shades of gray is a fucking zealot and we've let that go on for too long.

michaelt 1y ago
> What I don't understand is how a lot of people will state both parties are corrupt and then also be party loyal. Both teams are corrupt, but in different ways. On my team it’s rules being bent but not broken, a few bad apples, everyone was doing it, parents wanting to give their children the best start in life, the inevitable results of the need to raise campaign funds to continue their great work, and/or they’ve already rightly been suitably punished. On the other team it’s a problem that runs through all of them, reflecting their poor character, the lack of basic decency resulting from their hollow look-out-for-number-1 political beliefs, and is undoubtedly representative of a much wider problem that’s being covered up.
- godelski 1y ago
  I think you missed my entire point, so much that I thank you for demonstrating it. Rather than some abstract "my parents", I can say "like this." > Both teams are corrupt, but in different ways. Who has denied this? Is this not such an obvious assumption that it need not be explicitly stated? Need I make clear that you and I are not in fact the same person? This is a given. > On my team > On the other team And what? We obviously have decided who we believe the lesser of evils is. That was never the point. The point is that by showing strong devotion to the lesser of two evils is still showing devotion to evil! There's a big difference between begrudgingly choosing between two evils in a rigged game and aligning with that evil. One does not need always compare. We can both evaluate a single political party by its merits, absent of everything else, while also being able to evaluate how they stand comparatively. In fact, you can't even do the latter without doing the former first! All you've accomplished is perpetuating the two evils. You perpetuate the evil you vote for my allowing them to excuse their actions in justification of fighting the greater. You have no power to change what you've chosen as greater and you've abdicated the power to make your lesser even less evil, instead choosing to gave it power to become more evil! Think carefully about what you say. It's not only Siths who speak in absolutes, but evil does thrive on over-simplification.
  - lazyasciiart 1y ago
    Jesus. They were literally answering your question of “how can anyone be committed to someone they describe as a lesser evil”, very clearly not even using a specific side as the lesser evil, and you’re mad that anyone is able to elucidate or understand the reasoning used? You didn’t want to know how people do that, you just wanted to mention that they are terrible people and it’s a bad choice?