[coroutines]

I was happy to see the disgust people had for the CIA black sites operated in other countries when that came to light during the Bush presidency. Not because of the torture, but because people here expected alleged terrorists to have the same rights as detained American citizens. I feel this is important to note, because we have a large population of young voters who I feel have concern for everyone - not just the US. This is very different from how my grandparents vote and I do think it's split along generational lines. In regards to overreaching surveillance: It's not ideal, but we over here do think of you when we vote.. I do.

[imglorp]

Remember that outrage over the Patriot act abuses? Obama 2008 platform promised to restore the Constitution:

> We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. We reject torture. We reject sweeping claims of "inherent" presidential power. We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years. We will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine duly enacted law. And we will ensure that law-abiding Americans of any origin, including Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans, do not become the scapegoats of national security fears.

but as we have seen, every word of this has been reversed. I don't trust either party at this point. Both are scalp deep in this.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78283

[lettergram]

That's part of the reason I spend every political conversation discussing the merits of a multiparty (not biparty) system.

Pretty sure I've convinced at least a handful of people to vote Gary Johnson as a protest vote. Though personally I'm all about that #Snowden2016

[grandalf]

I don't think a responsible person can possibly vote for a major party candidate. Doing so just results in the same powerful interests remaining entrenched.

There's always the "oh no what if so and so gets elected" but it always turns out that any major party candidate does pretty much the same stuff once elected. Obama continued and extended the Bush Doctrine on foreign affairs, for example.

[jgroszko]

All first past the post systems like we have in the US will trend towards a two-party system. It sucks because voting third party just takes votes away from the major party candidate that most closely represents your views. To maximize your influence you have to hold your nose and vote for the major party candidate that most closely represents your views...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

[grandalf]

Perhaps that is true in terms of maximizing your influence in the next election.

But to maximize your influence over a longer time period, you should vote for the third party candidate that most closely matches your views.

Then, when the major party candidate you would have resorted to loses, the post mortem reveals votes lost to the candidate you voted for, and in the subsequent election the major party adapts its platform to win some of those lost votes.

If politicians expected voters to vote on principle and to hold them accountable, we'd have an entirely different sort of politicians.

[dragonwriter]

> But to maximize your influence over a longer time period, you should vote for the third party candidate that most closely matches your views.

That might, arguably, resemble truth if the details of the political system itself were guaranteed stable over time and not subject to alteration by the same people who gain power over other policies through electoral victories. But, in the real world, to maximize your influence over a long-time period, you should organize and advocate for both electoral reform and the minor party you most prefer during periods between elections (the former to work to mitigate the perverse effects of the existing system, the second to maximize the likelihood that, in the next election, the competitive major parties -- which can change over time -- will include the party you most prefer.)

But, once its clear who the major candidates are in the present election, you should still generally vote for the one least harmful to your interests if they win.

> If politicians expected voters to vote on principle and to hold them accountable, we'd have an entirely different sort of politicians.

With no changes to the electoral system, what we'd have with that is "major" parties representing even smaller pluralities (well, technically, only the biggest would be a plurality), and more negative campaigning directed by each major candidate at getting voters best served by the other to not vote for them to "hold them accountable" for something. Which is a change of degree, not kind, from what we have now.

[lettergram]

I'm pretty morally opposed to voting for a ruler I don't personally support. At least if Hillary decides she wants to break some more laws I have the excuse I didn't support her at any point.

Unfortunately, with Trump (if he's elected), there's a chance not supporting him would mean I'm imprisoned so... you win some, you lose some.

[nononosisisi]

More than two parties is not that great either. At least here in the USA you need to win a majority of the electoral college to win the presidency or else congress will elect one for you.

[blockross]

unfortunately you're part of a minority. The mere fact that the election will happen between Clinton and Trump makes me think that mass surveillance and lack of respect for other countries are going to continue and probably worsen.

Clinton: http://time.com/4150694/hillary-clinton-calls-for-more-surve...

Trump (not that it's really necessary): http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/26167...

[dmix]

> “We have to stop jihadists from radicalizing new recruits in person and through social media chat rooms, and what’s called the dark web,” Clinton said.

> Clinton said she would ask technology companies in Silicon Valley to expand their oversight of posts that could be used to radicalize recruits. Tech companies, she said, should enforce strong service agreements and track questionable content.

She scares me as much as Trump.

[Mtinie]

I'm hesitant to consider the next presidential election's results as a harbinger of the state of politics during the 2020 or 2024 races.

The Baby Boomer generation's influence is waning and I'm optimistic that the next generations who did not grow up in a period of extreme mutual distrust like we saw post-WW2 and during the Cold War will be better suited to lead.

It's going to take us, as a global group of people on the planet, a long time to unwind a lot of the hawkish and nationalist policies that have evolved over the past 150 years. Certainly there will be periods where charismatic leaders with latent agendas drag us backwards and temper the progress, but ultimately if each successive generation is even just a bit more inclusive and globally considerate than the last, we'll find a way to make this work.

[talmand]

That sounds nice. It won't happen, but it sounds nice.

Every generation has felt they could do things better than the previous (old people shouldn't be allowed to vote has been stated lately), until they learn what it was the previous generation had to deal with. The mutual distrust among certain parties do go away after time, look at all the countries that were at war in WW2 that are now allies. But there is always somebody that jumps in to take advantage of the newfound peace and harmony to further their agenda. Sometimes it leads to a return of mistrust, sometimes it leads to war.

What you are describing is every agency of authority agreeing with each other across numerous nation-states, economies, cultures, and more. Some of which are directly opposed to each other, possibly violently.

The human race is simply not ready for that level of cooperation and will not for a very long time. Losing sight of that will only lead to hardship and suffering. Likely the only way for such a thing to happen is for it to be forced among people with violence. Then that status maintained for multiple generations until the old ways have been forgotten.

But your way is a nice thought and should be attempted at least.

[coroutines]

1) Global trade was not as established prior to WWII - there is a market incentive to maintain alliances. We don't even have the production means to make everything we need anymore - we're too inter-dependent.

2) Facebook and Snapchat and other social venues made possible by the Internet make it hard to sew mutual distrust among the nations of the world. If the Cold War happened today we'd see the propaganda from both sides on Twitter - I think it would be harder to mislead people with 2+ perspectives.

Every generation does think it can do better than the last - but I personally think there are a few major differences to set us apart. :>

[dmix]

> old people shouldn't be allowed to vote has been stated lately

Really? I'd be interested to see a source on that. Not questioning the validity, I so many of these college aged kids calling for restrictions on speech and political organization of people they disagree with. I'm not surprised that this would come up.

Looks like we can expect a mommy-state as much as we can expect a liberalization of out-dated baby boomer policies.

[talmand]

I've seen it in connection with the Britain leaving the EU vote.

I wasn't implying I've seen it here, so I hope it didn't come across that way.

[cm3]

You know Hillary is a bad idea when Trump is a more considerate choice in terms of security policies and also not being bound to campaign funders' priorities, despite his otherwise out-of-this-world views on important topics. Trump said he'd like to pull out troops from places like Europe, which makes one believe he wants to concentrate on local issues.

[ensignavenger]

Johnson: https://johnsonweld.com/issues/

[ams6110]

I think it's age more than generational. Every generation is idealistic in youth. By the time you've lived 50 or 60 years you see that you cannot wish the world to be the way you want it to be, and things are more complicated than they seemed when you were 22.

[soylentcola]

To some extent, sure. But also I've noticed that easy, cheap global communication enabled by the web and similar technologies has given people wider access to info and viewpoints from around the world whereas in past generations, you had to study abroad or live in a cosmopolitan city to get a lot of that.

I don't mean to suggest that provincialism is dead and buried but I do think that a 20-year-old today has much greater odds of at least being aware of the views and outlooks of people in other parts of the world than a 20-year old in 1970 or 1980.

[talmand]

That doesn't necessarily make them wiser.

[pessimizer]

Once you've reached 50 or 60, you don't want to risk your house price, your stock value, or that job that you worked for a quarter of a century getting up to. With little working time left, you're not likely to recover. So you rationalize your self-interest with generalized vagaries when what you really want is for things to stay how they are for your own safety.