July LC thread so PVN will stop posting LAST
07-15-2017
, 07:22 PM
07-15-2017
, 07:47 PM
07-15-2017
, 07:50 PM
07-15-2017
, 08:04 PM
07-15-2017
, 08:17 PM
07-15-2017
, 08:44 PM
Quote:
We're into JAQing off territory; this is your third round of I JUST GOT ONE QUESTION FOR YINZ.
But I'll play along:
In a close election lots of variables could have mattered. Russian involvement was an input. So were the inputs of an Australian guy (Murdoch) and his media empire. So were the failings of the Clinton campaign. A mainstream media that covered Clinton scandals as breathlessly as Trump ones.
I don't know if Russian inputs were dispositive and conclusive. Maybe? For the sake of the argument, assume I say yes: Russian involvement, from funding fake news mills to getting the Podesta emails and greasing the skids of America's aggressively idiotic media along with potentially the GOP and the Trump campaign to make them public in the most embarrassing way possible -- that swayed the outcome. That was the 60k votes across the Midwest.
And? It's a big global world. Foreigners have been influencing our elections in the way you are describing forever. I'm alarmed by the criminal stuff; the thought-influencing meddling is a bit intractable.
So which are the crimes which merit action, and which are the natural consequences of the world we live in?
Collusion between Trump and Russia? Debatably criminal and active federal under investigation. I hope Trump and his cronies go to prison if they did.
Fake news? Not criminal. The collusion between Russia and Wikileaks, Russia and Alex Jones, Russia and America's racist olds? Not criminal.
Now if you're asking if ONLY Russian criminal interference and collusion with the Trump campaign was dispositive, our confidence goes down. No one knows how deep that went. I sure don't.
We can say with far more confidence other assorted meddling and influencing was consequential but then most of that stuff isn't criminal.
So again: what would you have good people to do stop Russian influence peddling? Some of non-criminal stuff is just part of the electoral environment. There's nothing to do. The potentially criminal stuff is with Mueller now; I don't have any inputs to that process.
Hold up yo. What you are citing is not what the paper says.
You wrote:
"I think you're forgetting that the American voter has not controlled the federal government for decades"
That's not even what the paper is about but the conclusions you're drawing aren't there either:
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/...litics.doc.pdf
So the authors agree that actually, about 2/3rds of the time, the median voter is getting what they want. And some minority of the time but not never, during the cases they examined, the general public is getting what they want some of the time.
They point to the pro-status-quo bias of the US system (acknowledged) and that when the median voter favors the status quo, they get what they want, but when they want change, they get it less often; only about 30% of the time.
That's probably a bad ratio, I agree democracy-by-coincidence is not a glowing point on our resume, and I don't defend it but no where in the article is the claim "I think you're forgetting that the American voter has not controlled the federal government for decades" and it's on you to defend it, not simply make it and then JAQ off for a while.
The conclusion you get from an honest reading of the study is that the median voter is getting what they want by happenstance roughly 2/3rds of the time; and the median voter is likely to get what they want if what they want is already the status quo. The median voter is likely only to get what they want 30% of the time if it involves a policy change.
That's a low percentage, we can and should do better, but that's hardly "no power."
Also, related and important!
Get organized! The story here is that mass-influence groups are powerful and influential but there's way more business-interest groups and they are far more active. That's a shame-on-us moment, not a conspiracy.
But I'll play along:
In a close election lots of variables could have mattered. Russian involvement was an input. So were the inputs of an Australian guy (Murdoch) and his media empire. So were the failings of the Clinton campaign. A mainstream media that covered Clinton scandals as breathlessly as Trump ones.
I don't know if Russian inputs were dispositive and conclusive. Maybe? For the sake of the argument, assume I say yes: Russian involvement, from funding fake news mills to getting the Podesta emails and greasing the skids of America's aggressively idiotic media along with potentially the GOP and the Trump campaign to make them public in the most embarrassing way possible -- that swayed the outcome. That was the 60k votes across the Midwest.
And? It's a big global world. Foreigners have been influencing our elections in the way you are describing forever. I'm alarmed by the criminal stuff; the thought-influencing meddling is a bit intractable.
So which are the crimes which merit action, and which are the natural consequences of the world we live in?
Collusion between Trump and Russia? Debatably criminal and active federal under investigation. I hope Trump and his cronies go to prison if they did.
Fake news? Not criminal. The collusion between Russia and Wikileaks, Russia and Alex Jones, Russia and America's racist olds? Not criminal.
Now if you're asking if ONLY Russian criminal interference and collusion with the Trump campaign was dispositive, our confidence goes down. No one knows how deep that went. I sure don't.
We can say with far more confidence other assorted meddling and influencing was consequential but then most of that stuff isn't criminal.
So again: what would you have good people to do stop Russian influence peddling? Some of non-criminal stuff is just part of the electoral environment. There's nothing to do. The potentially criminal stuff is with Mueller now; I don't have any inputs to that process.
Hold up yo. What you are citing is not what the paper says.
You wrote:
"I think you're forgetting that the American voter has not controlled the federal government for decades"
That's not even what the paper is about but the conclusions you're drawing aren't there either:
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/...litics.doc.pdf
So the authors agree that actually, about 2/3rds of the time, the median voter is getting what they want. And some minority of the time but not never, during the cases they examined, the general public is getting what they want some of the time.
They point to the pro-status-quo bias of the US system (acknowledged) and that when the median voter favors the status quo, they get what they want, but when they want change, they get it less often; only about 30% of the time.
That's probably a bad ratio, I agree democracy-by-coincidence is not a glowing point on our resume, and I don't defend it but no where in the article is the claim "I think you're forgetting that the American voter has not controlled the federal government for decades" and it's on you to defend it, not simply make it and then JAQ off for a while.
The conclusion you get from an honest reading of the study is that the median voter is getting what they want by happenstance roughly 2/3rds of the time; and the median voter is likely to get what they want if what they want is already the status quo. The median voter is likely only to get what they want 30% of the time if it involves a policy change.
That's a low percentage, we can and should do better, but that's hardly "no power."
Also, related and important!
Get organized! The story here is that mass-influence groups are powerful and influential but there's way more business-interest groups and they are far more active. That's a shame-on-us moment, not a conspiracy.
Hold up yo.
Quote:
The net alignments of the most influential, business-oriented groups are negatively related to the average citizen’s wishes. So existing interest groups do not serve effectively as transmission belts for the wishes of the populace as a whole.“ Potential groups” do not take up the slack, either, since average citizens’ preferences have little or no independent impact on policy after existing groups’ stands are controlled for. Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent” citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence.
...
What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.
...
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
...
What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.
...
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
Like I said, the American voter does not control the federal government.
Quote:
assume I say yes: Russian involvement, from funding fake news mills to getting the Podesta emails and greasing the skids of America's aggressively idiotic media along with potentially the GOP and the Trump campaign to make them public in the most embarrassing way possible -- that swayed the outcome.
If we are concluding Russia literally swung the election for Trump, there is no point discussing America's political future, what the left should do next. Who cares? the jig is up. None of the arguments that follow are worth having or discussing. Move to Canada, try seastedding, blast off to space, go off the grid, get caught up on some sleep and read a book, embrace Quietism religious movements. Yoga is fun. I dunno what to tell you.
Quote:
We're into JAQing off territory
Quote:
Racist old white grandma in Bumble**** Midwesttown, USA simply has more in common with a Siberian paid to write about degenerate immigrant criminals invading American than her smart alecky woke grandson who shames her bad tastes.
Hey Dvaut1, I had a great time JAQing off with you!
Last edited by AllCowsEatGrass; 07-15-2017 at 08:50 PM.
07-15-2017
, 08:57 PM
pvn, you better watch out or I'll get one of David's parrots to have sex with your hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
May you have a GNUful evening
Quote:
the term hacker ethic is attributed to journalist Steven Levy as described in his 1984 book titled Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. The key points within this ethic are access, freedom of information, and improvement to quality of life. While some tenets of hacker ethic were described in other texts like Computer Lib/Dream Machines (1974) by Ted Nelson, Levy appears to have been the first to document both the philosophy and the founders of the philosophy.
...
Richard Stallman, is referred to by Steven Levy as "the last true hacker".
...
Richard Stallman, is referred to by Steven Levy as "the last true hacker".
May you have a GNUful evening
07-15-2017
, 08:59 PM
07-15-2017
, 09:16 PM
Quote:
Okay, I misunderstood your claim. I thought you meant that starting in 2008 the Democrats started moving to the center, which was why they started losing voters. If instead you are talking about the entire New Democrat Clinton and Obama era starting 1992, then I'll reject your premise - Democrats have done fairly well electorally over this span.
I'm saying that it may have worked in the past, but it fairly clearly seems to be failing now.
07-15-2017
, 09:18 PM
07-15-2017
, 09:23 PM
07-15-2017
, 09:36 PM
07-15-2017
, 09:48 PM
07-15-2017
, 09:53 PM
07-15-2017
, 09:54 PM
07-15-2017
, 10:02 PM
07-15-2017
, 10:20 PM
07-15-2017
, 10:37 PM
Stay the course, Big Ned, you're doing super.
07-15-2017
, 11:31 PM
07-15-2017
, 11:47 PM
07-16-2017
, 02:04 AM
