You don't decide your country's policy

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118

Updated expanded research building on a slightly flawed study from 2014.

tl;dr: the political system (in the USA at least) doesn't really give a shit what you think or want, unless any of you happen to be amongst the extraordinarily affluent. It is of course not a new story that money drives politics rather than political will, but it's interesting to see the research attempting to examine it.
 
Last edited:

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,582
2,290
118
Country
Ireland
So a combination of free market capitalism and representative democracy, two systems with power imbalances baked into them, came together to create a power imbalance. Fuck, if only anybody could have seen that coming.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,330
1,515
118
shocked.jpg


I for one am shocked, utterly shocked, that a study was able to determine that Corporations and The Rich are the ones who run everything while all the little people get shafted. SHOCKED!!! UTTERLY SHOCKED!!!!!

But it's OK, we've already assured The Rich that nothing will fundamentally change so I'm sure this go around, it'll be different!
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
I for one am shocked, utterly shocked, that a study was able to determine that Corporations and The Rich are the ones who run everything while all the little people get shafted. SHOCKED!!! UTTERLY SHOCKED!!!!!

But it's OK, we've already assured The Rich that nothing will fundamentally change so I'm sure this go around, it'll be different!
Another interesting story, about the hopelessness of elections:


" Now, the first thing to understand about this statement is that it was published in a town where five out of six city council members forgot to file their campaigns for re-election this year. So right out the gate the commenter is making plenty of sense. The local politicians are all so inept they can’t even get their paperwork in on time to run for re-election—what hope do we have that they’ll turn this place around? "

" The economy has changed so rapidly in rural America over the last few decades that it’s hard to even make sense of things. Such dramatic change will be familiar to urban areas too, but the size, dynamism and turnover of cities have made for a different kind of metabolism, more capable of absorbing and normalizing transformation. In rural areas, things aren’t supposed to change all that much. And yet, because of deindustrialization, the opioid epidemic, the proliferation of payday lenders, and changes in the gender economy, the rural areas been completely revolutionized in a relatively short period of time. But for all the dust kicked up by these evolutions underway, it never seems to rise to the level of electoral politics, whose main players never even recognize these changes in clear and honest terms. This would make even the sanest person question their commitment to the democratic process. "
 

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,224
3,362
118
ezgif.com-video-to-gif.gif

Is nice to have official confirmation I suppose.
But how do we get people to properly understand this and make more informed - aka actual informed - decisions within the tiny obscured window of democratic choice they are briefly allowed to have? I'm seriously fucking fed up with how easily manipulated people are, the extreme rewards this system provided for bad-faith actors to perpetuate this, and now schools being mandated into never criticising the status quo too. It just feels completely hopeless all the time.
 

Iron

BOI
Sep 6, 2013
1,741
259
88
Country
Occupied Palestine
We're not people, we're numbers.
Potential soldiers.
Corona-virus deaths.
GDP contributors.
Crime statistics.

Imagine throwing these numbers around and realizing that every single one is a person just like yourself. It boggles the mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,150
3,351
118
This is indeed quite shocking, absolutely and totally shocked. Next you'll tell me there are still people who believe we have too much say in our current system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kae and Seanchaidh

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,726
916
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Apparently even the president doesn't decide the policy. This guy outright admits to lying to the president about our troop numbers in order to keep the Afghan war going and he isn't facing any jail time.



I don't even know why more people aren't going nuts about this. I thought we on the left were supposed to be antiwar, even if that means agreeing with Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,121
5,842
118
Country
United Kingdom
I don't even know why more people aren't going nuts about this. I thought we on the left were supposed to be antiwar, even if that means agreeing with Trump.
There's potentially plenty to be angry about there. The fact that an unelected functionary was manipulating the elected government to direct policy on a major issue like this, for one. Of course, on the other hand, the President had shown himself to be incapable of mature decision-making.

The left should generally support withdrawal of US forces, yeah. But that doesn't mean supporting Trump's plan, which involved reneging on his country's agreed commitments and betraying a regional ally without even giving notice.
 
Last edited:

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,726
916
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
There' potentially plenty to be angry about there. The fact that an unelected functionary was manipulating the elected government to direct policy on a major issue like this, for one. Of course, on the other hand, the President had shown himself to be incapable of mature decision-making.

The left should generally support withdrawal of US forces, yeah. But that doesn't mean supporting Trump's plan, which involved reneging on his country's agreed commitments and betraying a regional ally without even giving notice.
Yet he was still elected. Should they also lie to Biden now because one could make a case for him being senile if they want to?

I think the principle here is that, no matter your judgement, if the people decide that this guy should be making policy, in a democracy you are supposed to just swallow your personal feelings and follow their leadership or quit.


That's a war-mongering excuse. There's never gonna be the perfect plan. It's still no reason to have our troops in some foreign country. No matter how bad the plan for leaving is, staying there is always infinitely worse. Please actually read the article, the guy clearly states that there was no actual Syrian withdrawal. We never withdrew in actuality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,117
1,872
118
Country
USA

Updated expanded research building on a slightly flawed study from 2014.

tl;dr: the political system (in the USA at least) doesn't really give a shit what you think or want, unless any of you happen to be amongst the extraordinarily affluent. It is of course not a new story that money drives politics rather than political will, but it's interesting to see the research attempting to examine it.
Are they all headed in the same direction? The Koch brothers and Bill Gates? Pro and Anti NRA?
Sounds like enough of them are for the same things that we are headed towards some sort of neo feudal system. You'll be allowed to live enough to be productive for the sovereign.
About the only comfort I can take from all of this is it may be a long term plan to avoid international nuclear war. Will the cure be worse than the disease?
 

Ravinoff

Elite Member
Legacy
May 31, 2012
316
35
33
Country
Canada
Another interesting story, about the hopelessness of elections:


" Now, the first thing to understand about this statement is that it was published in a town where five out of six city council members forgot to file their campaigns for re-election this year. So right out the gate the commenter is making plenty of sense. The local politicians are all so inept they can’t even get their paperwork in on time to run for re-election—what hope do we have that they’ll turn this place around? "

" The economy has changed so rapidly in rural America over the last few decades that it’s hard to even make sense of things. Such dramatic change will be familiar to urban areas too, but the size, dynamism and turnover of cities have made for a different kind of metabolism, more capable of absorbing and normalizing transformation. In rural areas, things aren’t supposed to change all that much. And yet, because of deindustrialization, the opioid epidemic, the proliferation of payday lenders, and changes in the gender economy, the rural areas been completely revolutionized in a relatively short period of time. But for all the dust kicked up by these evolutions underway, it never seems to rise to the level of electoral politics, whose main players never even recognize these changes in clear and honest terms. This would make even the sanest person question their commitment to the democratic process. "
Very interesting article there, it really does highlight how massive areas of the US have been abandoned by both parties. And before someone jumps on me with "well hurr durr they still vote Republican", the Republicans at least pay lip service to rural regions. Democrats have apparently decided to run up their total votes in solidly blue areas and use that as fodder to ***** about how the rules aren't fair.

I did feel that this was a particularly stupid take, though:
It’s been surreal to watch how, over the course of her campaign, her go-to inspirational story has become about the time she stood by to receive the order from President Bush to shoot down Flight 93 on 9/11. I may not be James Carville, but I believe it’s generally considered poor form to brag about your willingness to gun down your fellow Americans.
It's not "willingness to gun down your fellow Americans", dumbass, would you prefer if the hijackers had been able to fly that plane into another target on top of the towers and the Pentagon? Never mind that nothing scrambled from NAS Miramar on 9/11, and if not for the total incompetence of NORAD/Air Defense Command, United 93 would've been taken down by either a pair of National Guard F-16s or Andrews AFB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,380
809
118
Country
United States
This is why we need more direct democracy, only the upper-middle class, and the rich will have it good in this economy.

NI4D.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,364
1,662
118
Should be mentioned that while the article start by stating that its the 1%, the paper is actually about the top 10% (pretty shameful since the paper was published by the same institution, you'd think they'd get basic facts right), and only has a certainty of 70% (ie only 20% better than coin flip). Also I can't find the impact factor for the journal, which seems to have a very strong left wing policy, so I'm not super swayed by it.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
Are they all headed in the same direction? The Koch brothers and Bill Gates? Pro and Anti NRA? Sounds like enough of them are for the same things that we are headed towards some sort of neo feudal system. You'll be allowed to live enough to be productive for the sovereign.
Yes, the article does state that there are real and significant policy differences in many of the elites, so it should not be assumed they are all in lockstep.

But then there aren't differences, too. Possibly most in ways that matter: big money essentially means big business, because of both corporations themselves and that the elites are mostly business owners. Thus Bill Gates and the Koch brothers (well, brother - one of them's dead now) thus have one thing in common: their business should be free to do as it pleases without government regulation and tax.

It's not "willingness to gun down your fellow Americans", dumbass, would you prefer if the hijackers had been able to fly that plane into another target on top of the towers and the Pentagon? Never mind that nothing scrambled from NAS Miramar on 9/11, and if not for the total incompetence of NORAD/Air Defense Command, United 93 would've been taken down by either a pair of National Guard F-16s or Andrews AFB.
Depends how this is meant. As the article is written by someone trying to take the pulse of local comment, it could be something he/she had seen local people say. Whether they are right or wrong in the bigger picture does not matter as much as the fact that if that is what was perceived, then it was not a good thing for a candidate to emphasise.

Should be mentioned that while the article start by stating that its the 1%, the paper is actually about the top 10% (pretty shameful since the paper was published by the same institution, you'd think they'd get basic facts right),
This is addressed in the article.

and only has a certainty of 70% (ie only 20% better than coin flip). Also I can't find the impact factor for the journal, which seems to have a very strong left wing policy, so I'm not super swayed by it.
It's a think tank, they publish their own articles. It is certainly a left wing think tank, I don't know what "very strong left wing" really means. They aren't socialists, that's for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,121
5,842
118
Country
United Kingdom
That's a war-mongering excuse. There's never gonna be the perfect plan. It's still no reason to have our troops in some foreign country. No matter how bad the plan for leaving is, staying there is always infinitely worse. Please actually read the article, the guy clearly states that there was no actual Syrian withdrawal. We never withdrew in actuality.
Just because there'll never be "the perfect plan" is no reason to embrace the worst of the worst.

Nobody is advocating staying. I'm advocating fulfilling defensive commitments you've made to allies, and giving sufficient notice to allies before making major changes. You don't make commitments and then renege on them; that's infinitely worse than just not making the commitment at all, because strategies will have been drawn around them.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,298
3,115
118
Country
United States of America
Just because there'll never be "the perfect plan" is no reason to embrace the worst of the worst.

Nobody is advocating staying. I'm advocating fulfilling defensive commitments you've made to allies, and giving sufficient notice to allies before making major changes. You don't make commitments and then renege on them; that's infinitely worse than just not making the commitment at all, because strategies will have been drawn around them.
Is it necessarily worse than making the commitment and keeping it, though? That seems to be the question.