Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

To help us breathe easier, he served 14 months in jail for mailing a death threat directly to the secret service promising to kill Obama. He is apparently barred from office for this reason.

Was barred. He got campaigning rights (and therefore also presumably for theoretical office-ascendance) restored under a later thing reversing the whole disenfranchising thing for many people doubtless less objectionable-to-participate, like (vanilla) armed robbers, drug dealers and murderers perhaps.

I'm not going to lie, I've seen stories based upon the kind of world this guy seemingly advocates (I haven't seen The Handmaiden's Tale, but shall we say that they're well beyond what I understand of that) and so the language involved isn't exactly something I am immediately looking for the brain-bleach for, but those were clearly (someone's) fantasy, fictions pretty much like A Song Of Fire And Ice, or somesuch, in correspondence to the Real World that can be tripped over occasionally in a not particularly dark corner of the Internet. But not to be taken as Party Policy, if that's this guy's true thoughts (rather than a less-than-generous paraohrasing/recontextualising of what is only his mindcanon stories that he dares to shares).

I would defend the possibility of putting such words as he has used in thr order that he uses, up to the point that he ever starts to act upon them, or that any baseless claims he makes encourages someone else to step over that line. It is heavily suggested that he went over that line with his ex- (and now late-) wife, but I'm not privvy to any more than the article's own suppositions. If true, that should have him re-incarcerated under any judicial system thst has sufficient bite to it, and back out of the running.

But by his words, not deeds, he shall surely squash his own futile hopes of election, so if that's all he's got I say give him the rope enough to hang himself (as it were). It's also a rare instance where I'd hope someone could de-anonymise anyone of the few who I imagine would put in a voting slip for him, just to flag those people for especially checking them for risk-factors and profiling. Slippery slope or not, if there truly is Benevelent Backroom Illuminati (or at least only trivially malevolent, like with financial crime or whatever) this'd surely be something they should infiltrate the system for.


To have no such kooks at all would actually be suspicious, Too many kooks spoil the broth elect a Trump, but my optimism (such that it still is) leads me to think that seeing this guy poke his head above the parapet shows a relatively tolerably low level of undue suppression, whilst also still fully confident that he will never rise ascendent.

[Trekkin]

still fully confident that he will never rise ascendent.

Much like everyone was after the Access Hollywood tape came out.

[hector13]

still fully confident that he will never rise ascendent.

Much like everyone was after the Access Hollywood tape came out.

The FBI probably won’t tell everyone they’re investigating his opponent a few days before the election this time.

[WealthyRadish]

The guy running on the pedo-platform doesn't seem terribly serious about what he's saying. From the tone and subject of the samples of his writing in the article, I'd guess that he does have a kernal of what he would consider to be a serious grievance against society, but is only putting out the more outlandish statements as a pseudo-ironic outgrowth of general bitterness and contempt. In other words, his statements seem deliberately abhorrent and almost sarcastic, as though the thought of people taking them seriously is part of the "joke", but he probably does have some real frustrations and conclusions behind it which (though probably still abhorrent) are not in the same batshit-ballpark as the views he's displaying.

Though it is a pretty trivial thing to speculate about, since the stunt isn't significant anyway.
 

[Trekkin]

In a weird way it's almost worse if this is strategic, because it would mean that being abhorrent looks to people like a viable strategy now. You can see how it would happen, too, with enough people casting a joke vote or a vote to tweak the nose of their opponents or a nihilistic what-the-hell-burn-down-everything vote to constitute a voting bloc and making bad comedy a viable path to enough votes to matter. Or, if not that, to disillusion enough people to drive more people into that bloc.

We live in a country where would-be rapist pedophiles run for elected office while schoolchildren are routinely shot. It sounds like a parody of a dystopia, but if we treat it like such it will only get worse.

[Dorsidwarf]

So many big companies offset a cost center with a profit center.  Trump is doing a similar thing here; by mandating that these dirty assed broken coal plants get business, he ensures local coal operations stay in business, which increases his voter base/voter favorability (profit), at the expense of increasing total energy costs for everyone in the impacted area (cost). It may also get him added campaign funds from the fossil fuel and nuclear industries who are sweating over the rise in popularity of solar and wind energies (that they have tried to keep down artificially for decades, but are losing control of due to global climate change and subsequent shifts in consumer/voter behavior.)
The more cunning would look to see if he is also planning to make appearances to local coal industry lobbies/reps/communities for some PR.

On the other hand, he pissed off the major oil/gas power suppliers, because they weren't invited to his pollution party, just as much as he pissed off the renewables people

[Reelya]

I came across some articles promoting lowering the voting age, mostly the examples they point out where teens voting could make a difference are all left-wing issues (gun control etc, get rid of Trump etc). the proposals are partisanly motivated even if they don't come out and say it. However, I think the idea would be dangerous to the left in the long run.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If 16-17 year olds became a significant voter-bloc you can bet that the right-wing would spend more effort targeting that group than they do now, for both short and long term gains. With the amount of kids on social media now, they'd be easier to reach and right-wing outrage spreads faster on social media than the left-wing type, too. You'll get right-wing funded Logan Paul types popping up all over. Also, in high school, you lack the sort of cultural stuff that goes on in colleges, so the Right Wing would see infiltrating highschools as an easier foot in the door compared to the college years. It would be much easier to foster some ill-informed political beliefs in highschool seniors. i.e. you'd only need to convince a bunch of 16 year olds to support your side for some short-term votes, and they might realize it was stupid once they grow up, but by then it's too late. Also, since Presidential elections are only every 4 years, some "batches" of 16 year olds would matter, and others wouldn't.

And if adults are swayed easily by bullshit, how are kids going to be any better? There's some handwavey bullshit about the "clarity of youth" or some shit, but that's utter bullshit basically. It amounts to a sort of nostalgic utopian claptrap about the innocence of youth, untouched by the cynicism of the world. "Clarity of youth" is rubbish basically. Children are mean and stupid, no less than adults. They're little adults but with less judgement ability.

tl;dr: young people are stupid. and the right-wing are stupid. Stupid, left me introduce you to Stupid.

[MorleyDev]

Are 16-18 year olds still pretty much required to go to school in America? Or have to explicitly 'drop out' instead of just choosing to not sign up for the next two years. High School is until 18 in America, right? Basically, are those two years 'opt-in', or are they 'opt-out'?

In Britain, 16+ are out of 'secondary education' and either go to college, do an equivalent degree like a BTEC, or just go straight into work. But you have to choose which one to do, it's not decided for you (well-meaning parents and emotional blackmail not withstanding).

So I'd say there's definitely a case to be made in countries with education systems more like that for it to be 16+ voting age, basically saying that if the state thinks 16+ old enough to work a full-time job as an adult, then you are also adult enough to be allowed to vote.

But to me it does look like American seems to 'extend' the juvenile phase for people longer than I personally would think it healthy, so there also could be a case for fixing that one first to prevent the problems Reelya mentioned (still find it very odd that 21+ is the drinking age. I couldn't have made it through 18-21 those years without alcohol to ease the social wheels xD).

[Reelya]

Some online articles tried out a questionnaire you have to fill out showing that you read the actual article. Quality of discussion shoots up amazingly high.

 Maybe we should allow eveyone to vote on any issue, however you also have to fill out a multiple-choice questionnaire about what your voting on for your vote to count. Then, sure, misinformers on either side could use misinformation to get their supporters out on election day, but it would backfire.

[Starver]

TL;DR;,  but +1 anyway because I like you.

[Frumple]

tl;dr: young people are stupid. and the right-wing are stupid. Stupid, left me introduce you to Stupid.

Which is a stupid position, because people are stupid, if you're going to vomit stupidity claims all over the place. Young people aren't much more stupid when it comes to political involvement than old ones, if at all, and just as impacted by the various bits of stupidity that emerge from it as anyone. They have as much right to a say as every senile fucker in my town, if stupidity is going to be the what you evaluate whether they get political franchise or not with.

... also, quite frankly, if it led to the GOP pandering to issues primarily screwing the youth, even short term ones, instead of buggering everyone to pander to the rich and/or old, mission bloody accomplished. Sub-mission, anyway.

Are 16-18 year olds still pretty much required to go to school in America? Or have to explicitly 'drop out' instead of just choosing to not sign up for the next two years. High School is until 18 in America, right? Basically, are those two years 'opt-in', or are they 'opt-out'?

It's opt out, though not necessarily until you're 18 per se. It's grade based, not age based, so you get variance.

That said, if you're going by that sort of evaluation, I'd still hand it out around age 16; that's around the point dropping out actually becomes legally feasible without substantial parental support, iirc, i.e. it's when we think it's okay for people to go screw themselves and die in a ditch. Might as well let 'em vote if they want to vote.

... though yeah, at least part of the alcohol thing is driving (and guns, for that matter) is a much bigger issue in the US than in the UK. Drunk teens get enough people killed or hospitalised as is to make it even easier for 'em to get at the stuff. Not that underaged drinking laws are particularly enforced, but eh.

Some online articles tried out a questionnaire you have to fill out showing that you read the actual article. Quality of discussion shoots up amazingly high.

 Maybe we should allow eveyone to vote on any issue, however you also have to fill out a multiple-choice questionnaire about what your voting on for your vote to count. Then, sure, misinformers on either side could use misinformation to get their supporters out on election day, but it would backfire.

Means testing the vote in any way, shape, or form, is stupidity of the highest goddamn order, unfortunately.

Maybe if the questionnaire didn't have a failure state and it didn't matter what was answered, I'unno. It's still a proposition riddled with problems from who designs to questionnaire, to when it's filled out, to the costs involved and gods know what else. There's plenty of reasons we don't do that shit anymore.

[MorleyDev]

A thought I just had is that if you wanted to capture the attention/support via schools for 18+ year olds, you'd be trying to include the 16 year olds two years before the vote to get maximum coverage so wouldn't they already be targeting schools?

Or have I just discovered some horrifying new strategy? Should I delete it before a politician reads it?

[Frumple]

There's actually been push in that vague direction recently-ish. Not that young, yet, but towards allowing folks that would be of age during a general election to vote in primaries and whatnot, if I'm not misremembering what was going on. It's certainly something that probably should be on the table more than it is, though.

Getting kids/young adults involved in the political process is only horrifying if you're currently a member of the GOP, heh.

[Trekkin]

A thought I just had is that if you wanted to capture the attention/support via schools for 18+ year olds, you'd be trying to include the 16 year olds two years before the vote to get maximum coverage so wouldn't they already be targeting schools?

They would and they are. Depending on the state, Young Republicans Clubs, Teen Age Republicans and the more diffuse Democratic equivalents can have significant official support, although admittedly that's partly because they can do grunt work for cheap.

EDIT: Forgot the TAR.

[Reelya]

Doing a time-restricted google search, I'm looking back on 2016 polling of Teens about Trump, just before the election. Had these people voted in the general election, then Trump's lead would have been larger.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/01/health/students-mock-presidential-election-results/index.html

This article, right before election day, at the start notes that students did some polling analysis, came to the conclusion that Clinton had a 97% chance of victory. Well, that clearly didn't work out but it's neither here nor there. Polling analysis is a different topic.

Then there's a headline "Student mock election has perfect record". Which is nice, but since it follows the bit where you just read about Clinton having a 97% chance of victory, if you stopped reading right there, you'd be pretty mislead. Whereas the students used polling analysis to predict a 97% chance of victory for Clinton, less than 1 in 3 students actually expressed a preference to vote for Clinton.

In the next bit, we get into the actual student votes cast in the mock election itself. 47.1% voted for Trump, 32.6% voted for Clinton, and 20% for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. While that's good news for Libertarians and Green votes, it's not so great for the Democrats. So if the mock election does in fact have the perfect record the article claimed, then they should have been calling it for Trump at that point, not leading with analysis that Clinton was a shoe-in.

There was another mock election that showed different results, so the article went with that one as being indicative and the pro-Trump one as being the outlier. However, the spread in the pro-Clinton one was much smaller, 6%, vs 15% in the pro-Trump one. Also exit polls even in the pro-Clinton poll reveal "terrorism" as being by far the #1 issue cited by the teens as their top issue.

However, the big difference is that the pro-Trump poll was of 100,000 highschoolers only, but the pro-Clinton one was of 300,000 grade school / middle school and highschool students. i.e. if highschoolers specifically, were more pro-Trump, and they're the exact ones we'd be extending the vote to, then what elementary school kids think would seem to be irrelevant.

So, perhaps young voters aren't in fact a shoe-in for the Democrats, young voters are strongly influenced by whatever is going on at that moment. They seem to have supported Trump with a far bigger lead than the mainstream voters did, after all. Sure, people don't magically get better judgement at 18, but they develop more overall judgement as they get older, to some limit. The question is then how much less informed is a typical 18 year old vs e.g. a 25 year old, is it valuable to skew things more in that direction by adding in 16 and 17 year olds? Those ages are overlooked now, but they'd be targets for political polarization if we allow that. The question is whether a voice is worth extending partisan politics to totally consume the high-school years the way it does college and beyond.