Quote (thundercock @ 12 Aug 2020 19:33)

You're right about progressives and liberals. I use white liberals and white progressives interchangeably because that's just my experience based on where I live. Why do you keep calling people like the late John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, etc. shills? These people have done great things for America and are the HEART of the Democratic establishment. I really don't think it's appropriate to make derogatory remarks towards POC. In addition, you need to be wary of tokenism. Kamala wasn't chosen because she is black. It helps but it's not like Biden said "find me the finest negress you got!" Instead, he looked at a list of qualified individuals (Warren included) and chose the person he thought would maximize his chances of an effective presidency (which includes getting elected). From my perspective, I thought that person would be Duckworth but I suppose Kamala was a better choice because she has far more media exposure and party connections.

Quote (thundercock @ 12 Aug 2020 19:33)

As for the video, I've seen it before and I reject some of the basic premises in it. IMO, there should NOT be a 1 to 1 correlation between public support and likelihood of a bill passing. I suppose my ideal scenario would be slightly misshapen sigmoid where the floor is around 30-40% and the ceiling is 60-70%. The inflection point should probably be around the 60% support IMO. But anyway, most policy shouldn't be geared towards "popularity." Rather, it should be geared towards popular principles. I think where it gets tricky is when two opposing parties AGREE that something should be done (i.e. less expensive healthcare or improved gun control) but they vehemently disagree with the implementation.

As for the rich getting a fair amount of what they want, that also makes sense because it's the rich who are affected MOST by the minutia of things. There are billions of dollars at stake so it's important that Congress gets it right. Now, a lot of it doesn't sit well with me and I imagine most people feel this way. But this is the system that the Founding Fathers WANTED. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this without taking a giant shit on the Constitution. We already KNOW who meets with Congressmen, how much $ is donated to campaigns, etc. That information is public and you can easily look it up. The problem is not enough Americans care to inform themselves. I can't blame them because they have more important shit to worry about such as making ends meet. The average Joe can also team up with average Janes to pool their resources (similar to a union). Just look at how much $$ Bernie raised! But wait! That's exactly what a PAC is! Why aren't more Americans forming PACs so that represent a common interest? The video that you linked belongs to an organization that is the EXACT THING that they are upset about! They even have legislation ready to go! Talk about a corrupt special interest group...

Quote (thundercock @ 12 Aug 2020 13:33)

You're right about progressives and liberals. I use white liberals and white progressives interchangeably because that's just my experience based on where I live. Why do you keep calling people like the late John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, etc. shills? These people have done great things for America and are the HEART of the Democratic establishment. I really don't think it's appropriate to make derogatory remarks towards POC. In addition, you need to be wary of tokenism. Kamala wasn't chosen because she is black. It helps but it's not like Biden said "find me the finest negress you got!" Instead, he looked at a list of qualified individuals (Warren included) and chose the person he thought would maximize his chances of an effective presidency (which includes getting elected). From my perspective, I thought that person would be Duckworth but I suppose Kamala was a better choice because she has far more media exposure and party connections.

As for the video, I've seen it before and I reject some of the basic premises in it. IMO, there should NOT be a 1 to 1 correlation between public support and likelihood of a bill passing. I suppose my ideal scenario would be slightly misshapen sigmoid where the floor is around 30-40% and the ceiling is 60-70%. The inflection point should probably be around the 60% support IMO. But anyway, most policy shouldn't be geared towards "popularity." Rather, it should be geared towards popular principles. I think where it gets tricky is when two opposing parties AGREE that something should be done (i.e. less expensive healthcare or improved gun control) but they vehemently disagree with the implementation.

As for the rich getting a fair amount of what they want, that also makes sense because it's the rich who are affected MOST by the minutia of things. There are billions of dollars at stake so it's important that Congress gets it right. Now, a lot of it doesn't sit well with me and I imagine most people feel this way. But this is the system that the Founding Fathers WANTED. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this without taking a giant shit on the Constitution. We already KNOW who meets with Congressmen, how much $ is donated to campaigns, etc. That information is public and you can easily look it up. The problem is not enough Americans care to inform themselves. I can't blame them because they have more important shit to worry about such as making ends meet. The average Joe can also team up with average Janes to pool their resources (similar to a union). Just look at how much $$ Bernie raised! But wait! That's exactly what a PAC is! Why aren't more Americans forming PACs so that represent a common interest? The video that you linked belongs to an organization that is the EXACT THING that they are upset about! They even have legislation ready to go! Talk about a corrupt special interest group...

Quote (fender @ Aug 12 2020 11:08am)

those two paragraphs perfectly illustrate why i call people like you establishment shills. it's really mindblowing how someone who does NOT belong to the donor class twists themselves into a pretzel trying defending the FACT that the people have literally NO say in policy making in the US.
also, you can disagree all you want, but facts and studies don't care, and a one to one correlation between public support and the likelihood of a bill passing is NOT what the makers of the video are aiming for, they explicitly acknowledge that even for the rich that is not the case. what they suggests is that there should be SOME statistically relevant impact on the passing of a bill if an idea has broad public support - that's a cornerstone of democracy. and no, proudly calling yourself a 'bit of an elitist' again is not a valid argument here (for the record, i fully agree that the majority of people are stupid) - the term that describes the system you support is 'oligarchy'.

Quote (thundercock @ 12 Aug 2020 20:33)

It's mindblowing to you because you're not capable of seeing other perspectives. I can TOTALLY understand why this would be upsetting to people. I understand that the system is convoluted, confusing, etc. and you get a lot of results that piss people off. I just happen to have different values. In addition, I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not disagreeing with facts. I'm disagreeing with the underlying premise that there should be a linear, 1 to 1 correlation between the two variables and that it's "ideal." I also pointed out WHY things can have broad public support but get nowhere. If Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders agree that X is a problem what do you think should happen if they disagree on the fundamental solution? I'd like to hear what you think should happen?

Quote (thundercock @ Aug 12 2020 01:33pm)

It's mindblowing to you because you're not capable of seeing other perspectives. I can TOTALLY understand why this would be upsetting to people. I understand that the system is convoluted, confusing, etc. and you get a lot of results that piss people off. I just happen to have different values. In addition, I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not disagreeing with facts. I'm disagreeing with the underlying premise that there should be a linear, 1 to 1 correlation between the two variables and that it's "ideal." I also pointed out WHY things can have broad public support but get nowhere. If Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders agree that X is a problem what do you think should happen if they disagree on the fundamental solution? I'd like to hear what you think should happen?

Quote (fender @ Aug 12 2020 11:55am)

i already pointed out to you that you're strawmanning the alleged premise of the video. doing it again just shows me that you're doing it on purpose, not accidentally. fact is that the will of the people has virtually NO influence on a bill passing, while the interest of the tiny minority, which is the donor class, has a significant impact. that's called an oligarchy - and you support that system.

pretending like the only alternative to that is some kind of unmanageable direct democracy, when in reality representative democracies have shown to do the trick quite well in most modern western states (even in the US, decades ago, before corporations were able to buy politicians), is therefore obviously dishonest. attempting to dismiss that by creating hypotheticals or pointing out the limitations of such systems (which no one even suggested they don't have) does not refute the truth of that statement.

Quote (thundercock @ Aug 12 2020 02:10pm)

Dude, watch from 25 seconds to 45 seconds. He SAYS that in an IDEAL REPUBLIC, the graph would look like a 1 to 1 linear correlation. I REJECT THAT NOTION and gave you a mathematical function along with the corresponding weights of what MY ideal republic would be.

I NEVER disputed that the "will of the people has virtually no influence on a bill passing." That's abundantly clear. I gave you an example that you have IGNORED for why that may be the case and I'd be happy to elaborate on that. I'll ask again, what SHOULD happen if we agree that a problem exists but disagree on the solution? I've also given no indication that you support an unmanageable direct democracy. You're projecting.

Corporations have been able to "buy" politicians since the founding of this nation....why do you pretend that this is something NEW as opposed to something by DESIGN? Why do you think Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury?

Quote (thundercock @ 12 Aug 2020 21:10)

Dude, watch from 25 seconds to 45 seconds. He SAYS that in an IDEAL REPUBLIC, the graph would look like a 1 to 1 linear correlation. I REJECT THAT NOTION and gave you a mathematical function along with the corresponding weights of what MY ideal republic would be.

I NEVER disputed that the "will of the people has virtually no influence on a bill passing." That's abundantly clear. I gave you an example that you have IGNORED for why that may be the case and I'd be happy to elaborate on that. I'll ask again, what SHOULD happen if we agree that a problem exists but disagree on the solution? I've also given no indication that you support an unmanageable direct democracy. You're projecting.

Corporations have been able to "buy" politicians since the founding of this nation....why do you pretend that this is something NEW as opposed to something by DESIGN? Why do you think Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury?

Quote (Thor123422 @ Aug 12 2020 12:42pm)

I agree somewhat, but I don't think it should be money that is the determinant. More about expertise. People with money aren't necessarily the ones who are the best at their field, nor are they necessarily interested in doing anything that would be good for public policy.

Quote (thundercock @ Aug 12 2020 02:56pm)

Expertise would certainly be the ideal scenario. When it comes to business interests though, I'm not sure how money CAN'T be involved in some way. I think where people see corruption is the inevitable link between campaign corruptions and legislation. There's a lot of blame to go around (media for failing to educate, people for not critically thinking, outreach requiring money, etc.) and there aren't many solutions. I suppose the first step would be "accountability." How do you make sure elected representatives are accountable? Ranked choice voting is at least a step in the right direction and we're getting there but it's going to take a couple more decades for it to be mainstream. The next would be to drastically increase the size of congressional staff so that THEY are the ones legislating and holding more hearings.