Government employees abolished slavery, defeated Hitler, built the Interstates, and landed on the motherfucking moon. Then there's everything they've done to safeguard your health, beat diseases, ensure you have safer food, cleaner air and water...
yeah, but imagine if the employees of GloboCorp could have taken those things on instead. the civil war would have been finished in 2 years, at a quarter of the cost, Stalin and Mao would have perished along with Hitler after issuing public apologies, the interstates would have extra lanes, and the moon would be a gas station on the way to alpha centauri.
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:32 (seven years ago) link
Government employees never do anything right, you see! And they have no incentive to do anything right because they're impossible to fire. People who work for _real_ businesses have to be competent, because if they aren't, they get fired. omg heard a guy on the train this morning say the same exact thing becasue the train was running about 10 mins late. must have been all those government workers just taking their breaks on the tracks .
― (•̪●) (carne asada), Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:34 (seven years ago) link
tbf i heard many government employees make the same argument themselves.
if only amtrak was run like model corporation megabus, where the buses are always on time and there's always someone on hand to let you know which line to stand in.
― Karl Malone, Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:43 (seven years ago) link
The only thing that makes the private sector good at ANYTHING is competition. Government services that are monopolies anyway are not going to be run better just because they're suddenly in the hands of someone taking a profit.
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:45 (seven years ago) link
The biggest problem with that standpoint isn't 'private corps will do it more efficiently' it's whether efficiency is the proper metric, especially when it's code for 'profitability.' I don't want prisons or transit or Medicare to be judged by efficiency; they should be evaluated by their contribution to the public good.
I know it's a trenchant argument, but I'm surprised how often it's overlooked.
― the ilx meme is critical of that line of thought (lion in winter), Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:47 (seven years ago) link
Like I don't think there's a single profitable public transit system in the world. Hence the name.
― the ilx meme is critical of that line of thought (lion in winter), Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:48 (seven years ago) link
Did Thatcher and Reagan fight and die in vain?
― The Doug Walters of Crime (Tom D.), Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:48 (seven years ago) link
we can only hope
― ¶ (DJP), Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:50 (seven years ago) link
https://twitter.com/dick_nixon/status/678455833957670912
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:51 (seven years ago) link
oops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w
Like I think you see some of the worst imaginable abuses in situations where the govt just takes some monopoly service (e.g. prisons) and hands it over to one or two corporations. You still have the monopoly and the lack of incentive to do anything well, but with less oversight or concern.
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:51 (seven years ago) link
The private sector often does *efficiency* better than the government, because that's one of the ways it earns profit. But the benefit of every service can't be boiled down to *efficiency.* Sometimes efficiency is even antithetical to the benefit.
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:54 (seven years ago) link
Donald J. Trump@realdonaldtrumpMcCartney is responsible for something like 5,000 suicides every Christmas due to "Wonderful Christmastime." Ask him about it.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 1 December 2016 19:56 (seven years ago) link
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/804407177368715265
just posting this to get it out of the way
― k3vin k., Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:15 (seven years ago) link
it feels exhausting to blame jill stein or other third party candidates at this point
― I've read Ta-nehisi Coates. (marcos), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:18 (seven years ago) link
the blamefest in general is exhausting
― Al Moon Faced Poon (Moodles), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:19 (seven years ago) link
mhm
― k3vin k., Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:23 (seven years ago) link
people who still vote 3rd party in swing states are probably beyond reasoning w/ anyway
― iatee, Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:27 (seven years ago) link
Yeah, as I've been saying on that point -- she had a pretty bad showing as a third-party candidate, you're not going to get a much weaker one than that. So, assuming this is all her fault, your options are:1) Ban third party candidates2) browbeat the candidates and or their supporters even harder, hoping you will finally make it so that no one runs and/or no one votes for them3) Come up with a better campaign strategy so that someone with like 20k votes in a swing state doesn't cause you to lose
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:27 (seven years ago) link
yeah and what iatee said. If you want to bang your head against a wall, spend it on the registered dem trump supporter -- they're worth twice as much as the stein supporter!
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:28 (seven years ago) link
(a vote lost for Trump plus a vote gained for Clinton)
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:29 (seven years ago) link
sry for weird metaphor, spending banging your head makes no sense
banning 3rd party candidates wouldn't be a terrible idea. the problem is that we have what is in practice a runoff voting system, but a few people just don't understand that and given room to pretend otherwise. bernie and trump were the real '3rd party candidates', sanders and johnson were just ways to express that you decided not to vote.
― iatee, Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:32 (seven years ago) link
and *are given room
― iatee, Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:33 (seven years ago) link
and ugh 'sanders and johnson' should be 'stein and johnson'
fwiw, the one thing I liked in the Stein interview I listened to was that she advocated ranked or instant runoff voting.
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:33 (seven years ago) link
jill stein advocates changes to help save us from jill stein, basically
― iatee, Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:37 (seven years ago) link
lol true
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:39 (seven years ago) link
obvs you still have the problem of how many of those people would have gone Clinton. PA in particular seems pretty unlikely - you'd need nearly all of her voters to go Clinton rather than another candidate or stay home.
the weird thing about this election is that similar to brexit I think, if you had a repeat election 3 days later, I think the outcome would have been reversed. not all of those stein voters would go clinton, but many would and more importantly I imagine a lot of lethargic voters would have shown up. plus I bet there were some trump voters who were just trying to make a statement.
― iatee, Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:42 (seven years ago) link
people love to have someone or something concrete and simple to blame, particularly when it can be tied into a moral failure on the part of voters (an extension of the "personal responsibility" ethos they've internalized from conservative talking points) xp
― k3vin k., Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:45 (seven years ago) link
yeah. I think Brexit helped convince me to vote Clinton in a solidly blue state. Did not want to contribute to a "surprise." It also helped that the greens seem so flaky and useless.
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:46 (seven years ago) link
― k3vin k., Thursday, December 1, 2016 3:45 PM (forty-eight seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
sure, and it also means you don't have to do the hard work of thinking about what to do differently
banning 3rd party candidates wouldn't be a terrible idea
Dem blamefesters are seldom this forthright!
They will never give up on Nadercursing, and that's been 16 years. Wait til they insist All Good People vote for Cuomo or Booker in 2020.
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:47 (seven years ago) link
my my, how can any citizen of a democracy possibly find fault with either of our diametrically-opposed-in-all-things parties
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:50 (seven years ago) link
Banning third party would have had the opposite effect in this election and would have given Trump a bigger win; Gary Johnson with 1.4M votes peeled way more votes off Trump than Stein with 0.4M did off Clinton, even under very conservative assumptions about how many Libertarian would not have voted for Trump (in which case you would have to make the opposite assumption about Stein: that every Stein voter would have voted for Clinton)
― flopson, Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:50 (seven years ago) link
In complete befuddlement I find myself agreeing with Morbius. Banning third parties because your team lost is not only nagl, it's undemocratic. Have your team do better next time.
― Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:52 (seven years ago) link
The good news is that we may not have much longer to worry about whether something is undemocratic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/americas/western-liberal-democracy.html
― ¶ (DJP), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:53 (seven years ago) link
― iatee, Thursday, December 1, 2016 3:42 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Yeah, I think making a big spectacle of how much she was owning him in the polls may have hurt turnout. if it had seemed closer, people would have had to more seriously consider what Trump POTUS would feel like, rather than having it both ways (cozy in moral superiority for not having had to vote for Crooked Hillary but also not having to live under Trump)
― flopson, Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:54 (seven years ago) link
Venezuela, for instance, enjoyed the highest possible scores on Freedom House’s measures of political rights and democracy in the 1980s.
Ok, sorry, disqualified.
― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:55 (seven years ago) link
the point is that our parties are very weak structures. they don't mean anything, they certainly don't believe in anything, and they barely control anything. they are just brand names that help voters figure out which candidate is more right wing and which candidate is more left wing. jill stein, the human being, could have ran as a democrat. nobody would have stopped her. and if her message were popular enough, she would have got the nomination, similar to trump. sanders came close.
instead she decided to pretend like our political system is actually a different country's political system. we give her, and people like you, the option to play make believe. I'm not sure that really benefits anyone.
― iatee, Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:56 (seven years ago) link
plenty of places have runoff voting. they are not 'undemocratic' just because they prevent all the other guys from running in the 2nd round. we have what is in practice runoff voting, it just isn't formally structured that way.
― iatee, Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:58 (seven years ago) link
Clinton voters engaged in all sorts of Make Believe.
You know what all my post-Mondale prez votes have been? This: "FUCK YOUUUUU." Nothing more or less.
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:58 (seven years ago) link
the Mondale vote was "FUCK MEEEEE"
A large chunk of the electorate in this country don't vote "wings," they just eat em. They vote "Time to shake things up or not."
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 21:00 (seven years ago) link
idk it seems conceivable that a lot of johnson voters were disgusted by trump and johnson offered them a way to not actually have to vote for clinton, despite preferring that outcome. and it's not like trump appealed to the 'true libertarian' crowd either, he's pushing the party wildly in the opposite direction. I haven't seen any numbers on this though.
― iatee, Thursday, 1 December 2016 21:01 (seven years ago) link
lol stop, the most plausible explanation is clearly flopson's
― k3vin k., Thursday, 1 December 2016 21:05 (seven years ago) link
oh i have the perfect thread to bump w this
― Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 21:06 (seven years ago) link
― iatee, Thursday, December 1, 2016 9:58 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Not the same though. If in a first round this would have been the result, many Stein voters could have changed their vote in the second round. People who didn't vote could have voted anyway in the second round if they wanted to prevent Trump becoming president. Completely different dynamic in the race.
― Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 1 December 2016 21:09 (seven years ago) link
xps iatee- some of the Libertarians would have voted for Clinton, others would have not voted, still others would have voted for Trump. And not all Stein voters would have voted for Clinton. It's not impossible but difficult to split all those up in a way that gives Clinton more votes
Having said that I still don't think they should let third parties run in what's essentially a run-off election. It's like a tax on the votes of the innumerate
― flopson, Thursday, 1 December 2016 21:10 (seven years ago) link