5 ms·

>risking your life for a counterproductive endless war that the American public barely knows is happening. Yet the American public happily votes for these wars

by magduf 8y ago

>risking your life for a counterproductive endless war that the American public barely knows is happening. Yet the American public happily votes for these wars over and over.

kevinventullo 8y ago
As an American voter, I can assure you my choices have always been war or war.
- magduf 8y ago
  There have always been 3rd-party choices on the ballot.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - reallydude 8y ago
    I think it's ironic that your comment was downoted. The mentality of Americans is warped beyond repair. If you don't think you have a chance of winning, it's not "realistic" or what-have-you, until you get to the lottery... See the sister comment about voting for HC against DT because it's all or nothing.
    - hindsightbias 8y ago
      Well, 600-ish votes in Florida did arguably end with the entire Iraq War. Those are real stakes.
    - asark 8y ago
      It's a structural problem with how our elections work. No sense blaming individual voters for chosing "vote with the intent to maybe (but almost certainly not) affect the outcome" versus "definitely do not affect the outcome, but maybe (but almost certainly not) send a message".
      - reallydude 8y ago
        > No sense blaming individual voters You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth. There is no change unless the behavior changes, which is at the individual level. Why not dispense with the public altogether, if the individuals don't matter? Just leave it to the political parties?
        asark 8y ago
        > You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth The truth is the current system stabilizes at two parties due to how the rules are written, and that most voters are de facto disenfranchised at the federal (and, largely, state as well) level for a bunch of reasons. Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way to try to work within that system for change, versus someone (uselessly) ignoring (or misunderstanding) that system and voting some other way, is counterproductive. An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot, for one's own definition of better, voting in local elections and advocating for or against local candidates, and educating fellow voters on issues that matter to you. This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point and expand the effective franchise, if you care about those things—the means to fix that are the same as anything else.
        magduf 8y ago
        >Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way... is counterproductive. No, it's really not, because there is no alternative: the voters are the ones who have the ultimate power and responsibility here. This isn't China where the Party controls everything. >An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot People have been trying that for ages, and it doesn't work; the system itself is broken, and when they do get "better" candidates elected, those candidates don't actually make any big changes because they don't really want to. >This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point The only way to do this is to change the voting system altogether to one like those used in Europe. Working to get "better" candidates on the ballot isn't going to accomplish that. I've never seen any popular candidates talk about changing the voting systems.
  - a3n 8y ago
    Which I always voted for, as a "none of the above" vote. (The above being the two main party candidates.) In 2016 I voted for HC (no love) as a vote against DT. Some things are more existential than others.
    - magduf 8y ago
      In 2016, I voted for Stein, because Hillary and her supporters (esp. all the really nasty, condescending supporters on Reddit) clearly told me they didn't want or need my vote (as a Bernie fan), and the media told me my state was absolutely certain to go to Hillary. Well, the media was right, but not as right as they thought, but Hillary did win my state by a reasonable margin. Honestly, I can kinda understand why some people would be turned into Trump voters after seeing what kind of people Hillary fans are really like. They're truly horrible human beings. I even had the displeasure of having to sit through a nasty argument between a Trump fan and a Hillary fan while in a carpool last year, and it was pretty interesting how the Trump fan was the one who actually cared about rural voters, and the Hillary fan's attitude was seriously "let them die". It's no wonder things are falling apart in this country.
- chrischattin 8y ago
  Tulsi Gabbard.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    The coming election will be a measurement of American voters. Now they do have a choice. There is actually a candidate opposed to mass murder as our official policy. Now we've learned she's also the only major-party candidate wise enough to correctly judge the whole Assange situation, as well.
  - averros 8y ago
    Yes, she's the only human in the current posse presidential wannabe reptiloids. Too bad that her understanding of economics is lacking. (Rand Paul / Tulsi Gabbard (in whatever order) anti-war ticket would be great... not gonna happen).

by magduf 8y ago

>risking your life for a counterproductive endless war that the American public barely knows is happening. Yet the American public happily votes for these wars over and over.

kevinventullo 8y ago

As an American voter, I can assure you my choices have always been war or war.

magduf 8y ago
There have always been 3rd-party choices on the ballot.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- reallydude 8y ago
  I think it's ironic that your comment was downoted. The mentality of Americans is warped beyond repair. If you don't think you have a chance of winning, it's not "realistic" or what-have-you, until you get to the lottery... See the sister comment about voting for HC against DT because it's all or nothing.
  - hindsightbias 8y ago
    Well, 600-ish votes in Florida did arguably end with the entire Iraq War. Those are real stakes.
  - asark 8y ago
    It's a structural problem with how our elections work. No sense blaming individual voters for chosing "vote with the intent to maybe (but almost certainly not) affect the outcome" versus "definitely do not affect the outcome, but maybe (but almost certainly not) send a message".
    - reallydude 8y ago
      > No sense blaming individual voters You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth. There is no change unless the behavior changes, which is at the individual level. Why not dispense with the public altogether, if the individuals don't matter? Just leave it to the political parties?
      - asark 8y ago
        > You're literally restating the tactic, as if that countermands the truth The truth is the current system stabilizes at two parties due to how the rules are written, and that most voters are de facto disenfranchised at the federal (and, largely, state as well) level for a bunch of reasons. Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way to try to work within that system for change, versus someone (uselessly) ignoring (or misunderstanding) that system and voting some other way, is counterproductive. An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot, for one's own definition of better, voting in local elections and advocating for or against local candidates, and educating fellow voters on issues that matter to you. This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point and expand the effective franchise, if you care about those things—the means to fix that are the same as anything else.
        magduf 8y ago
        >Spending any time or energy getting worked up at someone (uselessly) voting one way... is counterproductive. No, it's really not, because there is no alternative: the voters are the ones who have the ultimate power and responsibility here. This isn't China where the Party controls everything. >An effective use of one's time is working at the party level (by which, yes, I mean the two that get elected, not the rest) to get better candidates on the ballot People have been trying that for ages, and it doesn't work; the system itself is broken, and when they do get "better" candidates elected, those candidates don't actually make any big changes because they don't really want to. >This includes working to change the way our elections work to break the two-party stability point The only way to do this is to change the voting system altogether to one like those used in Europe. Working to get "better" candidates on the ballot isn't going to accomplish that. I've never seen any popular candidates talk about changing the voting systems.
- a3n 8y ago
  Which I always voted for, as a "none of the above" vote. (The above being the two main party candidates.) In 2016 I voted for HC (no love) as a vote against DT. Some things are more existential than others.
  - magduf 8y ago
    In 2016, I voted for Stein, because Hillary and her supporters (esp. all the really nasty, condescending supporters on Reddit) clearly told me they didn't want or need my vote (as a Bernie fan), and the media told me my state was absolutely certain to go to Hillary. Well, the media was right, but not as right as they thought, but Hillary did win my state by a reasonable margin. Honestly, I can kinda understand why some people would be turned into Trump voters after seeing what kind of people Hillary fans are really like. They're truly horrible human beings. I even had the displeasure of having to sit through a nasty argument between a Trump fan and a Hillary fan while in a carpool last year, and it was pretty interesting how the Trump fan was the one who actually cared about rural voters, and the Hillary fan's attitude was seriously "let them die". It's no wonder things are falling apart in this country.
chrischattin 8y ago
Tulsi Gabbard.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  The coming election will be a measurement of American voters. Now they do have a choice. There is actually a candidate opposed to mass murder as our official policy. Now we've learned she's also the only major-party candidate wise enough to correctly judge the whole Assange situation, as well.
- averros 8y ago
  Yes, she's the only human in the current posse presidential wannabe reptiloids. Too bad that her understanding of economics is lacking. (Rand Paul / Tulsi Gabbard (in whatever order) anti-war ticket would be great... not gonna happen).