(September 14, 2016 at 2:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(September 14, 2016 at 2:43 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I'm going to vote, just not for Clinton or Trump.

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for strongly rejecting Clinton, assuming it isn't simply a strong yearning for moving beyond a two party system.  What I mean is, what is it about Hillary that you don't like other than her being grade A establishment?

The question wasn't directed at me, but as a third-party voter myself, I'll give it a go.

I don't trust her. I know all politicians play fast and loose with the truth, but she seems to engage in it to an extent that approaches gaslighting -- the sniper-fire whopper springs to mind immediately as being an attempt to recalibrate reality in the minds of others. Another aspect of my mistrust for her is her tolerance of Bill's philandering. Surely she was strong enough to stand up for herself, her dignity, when she learnt of his dalliances, yet she stayed with him anyway. Why? Why would anyone tolerate such disrespect in their own marriage?

And yes, a sincere desire to see the downfall of the two-party system informs my choice to vote third-party as well. The system is obviously broken. The two parties distract us by finger-pointing at the other, while the same old song-and-dance unfolds. You know the Internet definition of insanity; we Americans are practicing it in our politics.

(September 14, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 14, 2016 at 2:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for strongly rejecting Clinton, assuming it isn't simply a strong yearning for moving beyond a two party system.  What I mean is, what is it about Hillary that you don't like other than her being grade A establishment?

The question wasn't directed at me, but as a third-party voter myself, I'll give it a go.

I don't trust her. I know all politicians play fast and loose with the truth, but she seems to engage in it to an extent that approaches gaslighting -- the sniper-fire whopper springs to mind immediately as being an attempt to recalibrate reality in the minds of others. Another aspect of my mistrust for her is her tolerance of Bill's philandering. Surely she was strong enough to stand up for herself, her dignity, when she learnt of his dalliances, yet she stayed with him anyway. Why? Why would anyone tolerate such disrespect in their own marriage?

And yes, a sincere desire to see the downfall of the two-party system informs my choice to vote third-party as well. The system is obviously broken. The two parties distract us by finger-pointing at the other, while the same old song-and-dance unfolds. You know the Internet definition of insanity; we Americans are practicing it in our politics.

You might say that, but apart from anything else, she is a human being and as such, perhaps she had a duty to stand by her husband at not just at that time, but also afterwards. Either that, or she had some long-term plan to be President-elect so, it would have been in her best interests to stay with Bill. I'll have to go with human instinct and marriage is forever lark.

(September 14, 2016 at 2:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for strongly rejecting Clinton, assuming it isn't simply a strong yearning for moving beyond a two party system.  What I mean is, what is it about Hillary that you don't like other than her being grade A establishment?

While not directed toward me, I would like to reply to this question, Whateverist.

Being establishment is by itself a very strong point against Clinton. At the very least, Clinton reinforces the status quo, as would any other of rejected Republican candidates. I believe the reason partisanship has become so divisive is because both sides (establishment types) are stuck in the 20th century. They are fighting the last war.

The big government/small government debate is stupid. Government needs to be sufficiently empowered and funded to be effective in the most efficient and least intrusive way possible. I don't know whether that is "big" or "small". The debate between having the wealthy "pay their fair share" and lowering taxes to stimulate the economy is also outdated. It's about finding the sweet spot that provides the minimally necessary state revenue and maximizing capital in the private sector - not social engineering or protecting favored industries.

Both candidates talk about domestic employment but each still sees those problems through the lens of modern mass-production industrial structures and paradigms. Manufacturing jobs are gone for good. Pretty soon labor won't just be cheap, it will be free. Any job for which you can write instructions will be automated if it isn't already. What are the policies for an economy powered by robots and artificial intelligence? I don't know, but I do know that the entrenched interests behind both parties are heavily invested in preserving the obsolete economic infrastructure - unions, trade organizations, etc.

Both parties talk about reforming education but their solutions still rely on the old paradigm of producing uniformly equipped citizens to be workers and consumers by interchangeable teachers using standardized methods. 21st century education needs an organic model not a machine model.

END RANT

Chad, I wonder if there is a scale of government anywhere in the world you think is 'doing it right'?

As regards the movement toward automation and the off shoring of jobs, these are the reasons to my mind why we need to move toward a more intrusive style of government. Wide open capitalism which leaves a zombie horde of homeless and impoverished unemployed is not in anyone's best interest, not to mention that we already make way too much use of incarceration in this country. I'd like to see us move toward a socialist democracy of the sort you see in some northern european countries. Sadly, we don't have the history of mutual concern they have. Of course, we're a melting pot of immigrants so it isn't too surprising that we have less concern for each other. We find it far too easy to discount the suffering of others exactly because we see them as 'other'.

(September 14, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 14, 2016 at 2:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for strongly rejecting Clinton, assuming it isn't simply a strong yearning for moving beyond a two party system.  What I mean is, what is it about Hillary that you don't like other than her being grade A establishment?

The question wasn't directed at me, but as a third-party voter myself, I'll give it a go.

I don't trust her. I know all politicians play fast and loose with the truth, but she seems to engage in it to an extent that approaches gaslighting -- the sniper-fire whopper springs to mind immediately as being an attempt to recalibrate reality in the minds of others. Another aspect of my mistrust for her is her tolerance of Bill's philandering. Surely she was strong enough to stand up for herself, her dignity, when she learnt of his dalliances, yet she stayed with him anyway. Why? Why would anyone tolerate such disrespect in their own marriage?

And yes, a sincere desire to see the downfall of the two-party system informs my choice to vote third-party as well. The system is obviously broken. The two parties distract us by finger-pointing at the other, while the same old song-and-dance unfolds. You know the Internet definition of insanity; we Americans are practicing it in our politics.

I don't have much sympathy for your first two reasons.  Politicians lie, everyone lies.  The truth is too often inconvenient.  Meh.  As for how she handles infidelity in her marriage, I think that doesn't have a black and white best answer.  People vary.  Meh.

Sure democrats are too often wed to unions in dysfunctional ways.  But Bill and Barrack have not been that kind of democrat and I don't think she would be either.  Now, how far can we let the system implode in the hopes that real change might emerge?  I have no patience for that and I'm not a gambler, not with so much on the line.  Politics is about compromise.  No new party will be a savior or be pure and benevolent.  The same human failings which plague those who pursue leadership in government now, will always be there.  I prefer to see steady, incremental progress in ways that take into account the needs of the entire population to live a viable life.  Democrats offer more hope of that than republicans for my money.  So I'm sticking to them.

(September 14, 2016 at 4:19 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Chad, I wonder if there is a scale of government anywhere in the world you think is 'doing it right'?

I don't know. I'm saying that scale and size is not the issue, but rather the ability to do more with less, to honestly evaluate the results of policies and not just the intentions, to develop infrastructure that directly benefits everyone instead of just a few and intangibly everyone else.

(September 14, 2016 at 4:19 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I'd like to see us move toward a socialist democracy of the sort you see in some northern european countries.

It seems that Northern European socialism seems to be sustained mostly by abundant natural resources, fossil fuels in particular. Southern European and South American countries have very similar policies but they seem unable to sustain them. Also, Fabian models are based on the industrial paradigm's of standardization and mass-production that I mentioned. Government housing apartments are built for the normative occupants. Transport is centrally organized to shuttle people along predetermined routes to designated districts. Socialism treats people like parts in a machine. I see the future as more organic, individualized, and more decentralized. Technology is putting power directly in the hands of people like never before. I can do more with my laptop than an large architecture firm could do 20 years ago.

Now I agree, this could go a couple of different ways. Maybe we are headed towards a Gibson dystopia. Maybe a Asimov utopia. Or maybe a little of both. I'm thinking the solution looks less like Fabian socialism and more like Capitalism 2.0. Instead of spreading the wealth, maybe the better approach is to making everyone a shareholder. Not a universal income, but universal capital - a minimum asset portfolio for each individual wherewith the productivity gains of corporations create prosperity with dividends. Just a thought. Maybe unworkable, but my point is that the old solutions will not work for much longer.

(September 14, 2016 at 4:19 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Sadly, we don't have the history of mutual concern they have.

I do not think that is a fair statement. Americans have always had preference of local community effort over universal governmental action. Each approach has its down-sides but that doesn't not make either one less compassionate.

(September 14, 2016 at 4:28 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(September 14, 2016 at 3:53 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The question wasn't directed at me, but as a third-party voter myself, I'll give it a go.

I don't trust her. I know all politicians play fast and loose with the truth, but she seems to engage in it to an extent that approaches gaslighting -- the sniper-fire whopper springs to mind immediately as being an attempt to recalibrate reality in the minds of others. Another aspect of my mistrust for her is her tolerance of Bill's philandering. Surely she was strong enough to stand up for herself, her dignity, when she learnt of his dalliances, yet she stayed with him anyway. Why? Why would anyone tolerate such disrespect in their own marriage?

And yes, a sincere desire to see the downfall of the two-party system informs my choice to vote third-party as well. The system is obviously broken. The two parties distract us by finger-pointing at the other, while the same old song-and-dance unfolds. You know the Internet definition of insanity; we Americans are practicing it in our politics.

I don't have much sympathy for your first two reasons.  Politicians lie, everyone lies.  The truth is too often inconvenient.  Meh.  As for how she handles infidelity in her marriage, I think that doesn't have a black and white best answer.  People vary.  Meh.

Sure democrats are too often wed to unions in dysfunctional ways.  But Bill and Barrack have not been that kind of democrat and I don't think she would be either.  Now, how far can we let the system implode in the hopes that real change might emerge?  I have no patience for that and I'm not a gambler, not with so much on the line.  Politics is about compromise.  No new party will be a savior or be pure and benevolent.  The same human failings which plague those who pursue leadership in government now, will always be there.  I prefer to see steady, incremental progress in ways that take into account the needs of the entire population to live a viable life.  Democrats offer more hope of that than republicans for my money.  So I'm sticking to them.

Yeah, I don't expect you would agree with my points given your support of her -- it's all good. We have different priorities and ways of seeing things. I just thought I'd put my own reasons out there even though the question wasn't directed at me.

Sorry for the interruption -- as you were, carry on.

Whateverist Wrote:Chad, I wonder if there is a scale of government anywhere in the world you think is 'doing it right'?

As regards the movement toward automation and the off shoring of jobs, these are the reasons to my mind why we need to move toward a more intrusive style of government.  Wide open capitalism which leaves a zombie horde of homeless and impoverished unemployed is not in anyone's best interest, not to mention that we already make way too much use of incarceration in this country.  I'd like to see us move toward a socialist democracy of the sort you see in some northern european countries.  Sadly, we don't have the history of mutual concern they have.  Of course, we're a melting pot of immigrants so it isn't too surprising that we have less concern for each other.  We find it far too easy to discount the suffering of others exactly because we see them as 'other'.

We could have our cake and eat it, too. 500 billion dollars is enough to give the 41 million poorest Americans a thousand dollars a month, no strings attached. It would transform poverty in America, for hundreds of billions of dollars less than we spend on welfare now (nearly a trillion dollars); without touching Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security.

It's not that we don't spend enough money, it's that we're obsessed with controlling the lives of the poor to make sure they never do something with a benefit that we don't approve of. It costs a lot of money to oversee the disadvantaged.

That is like giving a minimal living wage to people whether they work or not. We wouldn't be the first. I'm not immediately opposed.

(September 14, 2016 at 5:12 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I'm thinking the solution looks less like Fabian socialism and more like Capitalism 2.0. Instead of spreading the wealth, maybe the better approach is to making everyone a shareholder. Not a universal income, but universal capital - a minimum asset portfolio for each individual wherewith the productivity gains of corporations create prosperity with dividends. Just a thought. Maybe unworkable, but my point is that the old solutions will not work for much longer.

This caught my attention, and I think it's a rather interesting proposal. I'm not asking for chapter and verse, Chad, but how do you see this working out in a rough sort of way? Does the government buy into a stock index fund at a certain value for each citizen up front, until they can take over the portfolio's management? Are employers to be responsible for doing so, rather than the government? And, if so, how would that work for the chronically unemployed?

And what about public goods that do not appear on the corporate balance sheets? Do you think an entire nation glued to quarterly reports and earnings projections would be more or less likely to hold corporations' feet to the fire when it comes to environmental and similar concerns? I don't ask that rhetorically or as a gotcha question. I'm curious to know if you think there is a point at which citizens' minimal financial wellness being so closely tied to the stock and bond markets might lead to a degradation of their sense of stewardship of and concern for public goods, or the reverse? Do you imagine this leading to more or less corporate regulation? Would sensible corporate regulation even be possible in a political climate in which all citizens stand to benefit by corporations continuing to take the view that short term gains trump long term investment or pro-active initiatives to curb pollution, etc.?

I'm curious to read your thoughts on this. As I said, I found the idea interesting, and I'm trying to envision how something like your proposal might work.