3 ms·

> These five words are, as far as I can tell, the poison in the pudding of American politics today. > 2) The fact that huge outcry over the NSA is not visible

> These five words are, as far as I can tell, the poison in the pudding of American politics today. > 2) The fact that huge outcry over the NSA is not visible might just mean we're looking in the wrong places. I've traveled across the country by land twice in two years, stopping at hundreds of rural campfires and urban watering holes. My experience is that people are very upset with the state and want their rights back. And that, one way or another, they'll get 'em. If they genuinely wanted to be alone, in substantial numbers, they wouldn't be voting for either major party in the US which are both "big government" parties. I understand its a popular meme and thing to bitch about. The reality of people's actions, the degree of effort they expend in that direction, and so forth sends a completely different message. Actions speak far louder than words. Now, you can argue those aren't "their" actions but if you do so you are conceding the OP's point that the problem is ignorance. To be honest, I think its a combination of those things. Some people "care" but not more than they care about enforcing a certain social conservative world view. Some people simply do not have the time/energy for politics and simply believe the words that politicians say. Let me know when those people delete their FB accounts and stop using most of Google's services.

CobrastanJorji 10y ago
> If they genuinely wanted to be alone, in substantial numbers, they wouldn't be voting for either major party in the US which are both "big government" parties. Sure they would, so long as they are trying to have their vote directly effect a change. Outside of "sending a message that I support someone else," the logical voter must consider that their vote will only change an outcome if there's a tie between candidates, and it's usually obvious which two candidates that tie will be between. Such a voter will need, then, to choose the candidate between those two that they would prefer, even if they hate them both. To do otherwise may help send a message, may help them feel that they are uncompromising in their moral fortitude, or may feel good, but their actual vote will not matter. That's one of the reasons that ranked voting systems are so nice. It allows you to say "I prefer X to Y if it comes down to that, but I much prefer N,A,D, and Q over them both."
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  > Sure they would, so long as they are trying to have their vote directly effect a change. Outside of "sending a message that I support someone else," the logical voter must consider that their vote will only change an outcome if there's a tie between candidates, and it's usually obvious which two candidates that tie will be between. Such a voter will need, then, to choose the candidate between those two that they would prefer, even if they hate them both. To do otherwise may help send a message, may help them feel that they are uncompromising in their moral fortitude, or may feel good, but their actual vote will not matter. That logic presumes that A over B results in government getting less involved in people's lives which is what the person I was responding to argued. If you are genuinely voting on that issue as your primary and core issue, "sending a message" even if it renders your vote otherwise worthless is the only option that has the slightest chance of success. Voting for A or B (as both do nothing in relationship to your single issue) will always ultimately bring about failure. I guess what I'm trying to say is if people never stand on principle, the principle isn't relevant and is not a genuine want but rather a trivial wish of no real impact. I can also wish to win the lottery or to become a millionaire through an inheritance too. It doesn't mean its a genuine desire I take action on.

CobrastanJorji 10y ago

> If they genuinely wanted to be alone, in substantial numbers, they wouldn't be voting for either major party in the US which are both "big government" parties. Sure they would, so long as they are trying to have their vote directly effect a change. Outside of "sending a message that I support someone else," the logical voter must consider that their vote will only change an outcome if there's a tie between candidates, and it's usually obvious which two candidates that tie will be between. Such a voter will need, then, to choose the candidate between those two that they would prefer, even if they hate them both. To do otherwise may help send a message, may help them feel that they are uncompromising in their moral fortitude, or may feel good, but their actual vote will not matter. That's one of the reasons that ranked voting systems are so nice. It allows you to say "I prefer X to Y if it comes down to that, but I much prefer N,A,D, and Q over them both."

fictioncircle 10y ago
> Sure they would, so long as they are trying to have their vote directly effect a change. Outside of "sending a message that I support someone else," the logical voter must consider that their vote will only change an outcome if there's a tie between candidates, and it's usually obvious which two candidates that tie will be between. Such a voter will need, then, to choose the candidate between those two that they would prefer, even if they hate them both. To do otherwise may help send a message, may help them feel that they are uncompromising in their moral fortitude, or may feel good, but their actual vote will not matter. That logic presumes that A over B results in government getting less involved in people's lives which is what the person I was responding to argued. If you are genuinely voting on that issue as your primary and core issue, "sending a message" even if it renders your vote otherwise worthless is the only option that has the slightest chance of success. Voting for A or B (as both do nothing in relationship to your single issue) will always ultimately bring about failure. I guess what I'm trying to say is if people never stand on principle, the principle isn't relevant and is not a genuine want but rather a trivial wish of no real impact. I can also wish to win the lottery or to become a millionaire through an inheritance too. It doesn't mean its a genuine desire I take action on.