5 ms·

Does anyone share my apathy toward politics in general? My logic is that we have no, as in zero, control over the entire apparatus. In a country with two sides,

Does anyone share my apathy toward politics in general? My logic is that we have no, as in zero, control over the entire apparatus. In a country with two sides, there will be a natural bifurcation that will not allow for constructive... _anything_. Couple that to the beltway insider club AKA lobbying and you have a situation where only those with serious capital have a voice in the capital.

jackmott 9y ago
That fact that we elected Trump indicates we have incredible control. What an awful mistake.
- monkmartinez 9y ago
  The thing is, half or nearly half the country disagrees with you on paper. I bet its not anywhere near that in practice, as in there is a range of political spectrum. If we had more choice we wouldn't have align to the poles of a bipartisan system.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Trump got 46% of the vote. Which is normally rather far from 1/2 in election terms, ~25% of registered voters, and about 19.5% of the total US population. So, yea the guy won, but it's hard to extrapolate that to much popular support. At best you can say this is based on the electoral collage, but Maine and Nebraska split their delegates by district making it an even odder system than generally talked about.
    - Grue3 9y ago
      >but it's hard to extrapolate that to much popular support. Actually, it's pretty easy, given the ridiculously large sample size.
      - atomi 9y ago
        You're forgetting it was a volunteer sample size, there were active disenfranchisement campaigns, and his opposition garnered millions of more votes.
      - Retric 9y ago
        It's a biased sample, but even then for every 100 people that voted for him 117 voted for someone else. Most striking the turnout as % of the population was down significantly presumably because many people could not bring themselves to vote for either candidate. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-... So, he would have gotten crushed by Bush, McCann, or Romney adjusting for population size.
  - jmedefind 9y ago
    It's not even half. Only ~25% of registered voters, voted for Trump[1]. It's a problem of how to drive turn out and get people to the polls. Trump is the result of apathy toward politics in this country. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/american-non-voters-election-donald-trump https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/american-non...
- redtuesday 9y ago
  As a non american I would have agreed if Sanders would have won against Shillary and then Trump.
sumedh 9y ago
> My logic is that we have no, as in zero, control over the entire apparatus Did you vote?
- monkmartinez 9y ago
  Of course... but I didn't vote for a donkey nor an elephant. 5% or so of us did that. The rest just watch the media that supports their side and votes for the party to which they have declared allegiance. It is an absolutely brilliant system if you are an elite.
  - sumedh 9y ago
    I am assuming that your sarcastic reply means you did not vote for Clinton or Trump. So essential you wasted your vote in a winner take all system.
    - nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
      Technically it is not wasted unless that one person's vote would have changed the outcome. A pattern of people not voting, however, could tip the scales one way or another.
- anoonmoose 9y ago
  Had I voted, every candidate I would have voted for would have lost.
sillysaurus3 9y ago
I do. And a growing number of people are feeling the same way. Check out neoliberalism. It's a centrist movement, so you get to pull in the good ideas from the Democrats and the Republicans while calling out bad ideas from both. If you're a Dem, it's difficult to do that.
- dhimes 9y ago
  I'll have to check this out as I am neither D nor R; in the past I have registered as both, but they both end up sucking in the end.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  It's an old movement and the election of Trump and the rise of the alt-right is a reaction to its failings. Early roots of neoliberalism were laid in the 1970s, during the Jimmy Carter administration, with deregulation of the trucking, banking, and airline industries.[76][77][78] This trend continued into the 1980s, under the Reagan Administration, which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion.[79] Likewise, concepts of supply-side economics, discussed by the Democrats in the 1970s, culminated in the 1980 Joint Economic Committee report, "Plugging in the Supply Side." This was picked up and advanced by the Reagan administration, with Congress following Reagan's basic proposal and cutting federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[80] During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration also embraced neoliberalism[68] by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[79][81][82] The neoliberalism of the Clinton Administration differs from that of Reagan, as the Clinton Administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues.

jackmott 9y ago

That fact that we elected Trump indicates we have incredible control. What an awful mistake.

monkmartinez 9y ago
The thing is, half or nearly half the country disagrees with you on paper. I bet its not anywhere near that in practice, as in there is a range of political spectrum. If we had more choice we wouldn't have align to the poles of a bipartisan system.
- Retric 9y ago
  Trump got 46% of the vote. Which is normally rather far from 1/2 in election terms, ~25% of registered voters, and about 19.5% of the total US population. So, yea the guy won, but it's hard to extrapolate that to much popular support. At best you can say this is based on the electoral collage, but Maine and Nebraska split their delegates by district making it an even odder system than generally talked about.
  - Grue3 9y ago
    >but it's hard to extrapolate that to much popular support. Actually, it's pretty easy, given the ridiculously large sample size.
    - atomi 9y ago
      You're forgetting it was a volunteer sample size, there were active disenfranchisement campaigns, and his opposition garnered millions of more votes.
    - Retric 9y ago
      It's a biased sample, but even then for every 100 people that voted for him 117 voted for someone else. Most striking the turnout as % of the population was down significantly presumably because many people could not bring themselves to vote for either candidate. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-... So, he would have gotten crushed by Bush, McCann, or Romney adjusting for population size.
- jmedefind 9y ago
  It's not even half. Only ~25% of registered voters, voted for Trump[1]. It's a problem of how to drive turn out and get people to the polls. Trump is the result of apathy toward politics in this country. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/american-non-voters-election-donald-trump https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/american-non...
redtuesday 9y ago
As a non american I would have agreed if Sanders would have won against Shillary and then Trump.

sumedh 9y ago

> My logic is that we have no, as in zero, control over the entire apparatus Did you vote?

monkmartinez 9y ago
Of course... but I didn't vote for a donkey nor an elephant. 5% or so of us did that. The rest just watch the media that supports their side and votes for the party to which they have declared allegiance. It is an absolutely brilliant system if you are an elite.
- sumedh 9y ago
  I am assuming that your sarcastic reply means you did not vote for Clinton or Trump. So essential you wasted your vote in a winner take all system.
  - nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
    Technically it is not wasted unless that one person's vote would have changed the outcome. A pattern of people not voting, however, could tip the scales one way or another.
anoonmoose 9y ago
Had I voted, every candidate I would have voted for would have lost.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

I do. And a growing number of people are feeling the same way. Check out neoliberalism. It's a centrist movement, so you get to pull in the good ideas from the Democrats and the Republicans while calling out bad ideas from both. If you're a Dem, it's difficult to do that.

dhimes 9y ago
I'll have to check this out as I am neither D nor R; in the past I have registered as both, but they both end up sucking in the end.
aaron-lebo 9y ago
It's an old movement and the election of Trump and the rise of the alt-right is a reaction to its failings. Early roots of neoliberalism were laid in the 1970s, during the Jimmy Carter administration, with deregulation of the trucking, banking, and airline industries.[76][77][78] This trend continued into the 1980s, under the Reagan Administration, which included tax cuts, increased defense spending, financial deregulation and trade deficit expansion.[79] Likewise, concepts of supply-side economics, discussed by the Democrats in the 1970s, culminated in the 1980 Joint Economic Committee report, "Plugging in the Supply Side." This was picked up and advanced by the Reagan administration, with Congress following Reagan's basic proposal and cutting federal income taxes across the board by 25% in 1981.[80] During the 1990s, the Clinton Administration also embraced neoliberalism[68] by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[79][81][82] The neoliberalism of the Clinton Administration differs from that of Reagan, as the Clinton Administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues.