4 ms·

> it allows today's leaders to create obligations for folks who didn't vote for them It's not practically possible for a person of any age to have voted to pre

by thunky 3y ago

> it allows today's leaders to create obligations for folks who didn't vote for them It's not practically possible for a person of any age to have voted to prevent the massive spending and subsequent debt created by it. Unpopular opinion: after politicians reach the level that you recognize their name, they're all the same.

shrimp_emoji 3y ago
I think that opinion is unpopular for the same reason that flat Eartherism is unpopular.
- thunky 3y ago
  It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle, 50/50 red/blue, swinging back and forth between the two. The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. You need to pick a team and stay on it. With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. But no, for the most part, nothing meaningful changes. Each team gets their small window of power and starts airdropping money on their doners...ahem voters. Rinse, repeat. What else can these politicians do? If they actually tried to reform something, they might goof it and it'll cost them their career. Gotta play it safe. After all, the status quo is that everyone already thinks they're all a bunch of corrupt boobs anyway, so nothing to lose really. Just go on CNN or Fox and talk shit about the other team; tell everyone that the other team is a bunch of corrupt boobs. That's money in the bank. Let's say they actually pull one out of their butt and get some meaningful reform accomplished: well now there's one less thing they can scream about to rally you up to vote for the team the next time. So best to stick to the script. They all look the same to me.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle That's true, but its not a conspiracy either. Supermajority is unstable because the faction of the supermajority party closest to the main opposition gains power to draw policy closer to its preference by joining the opposition, so the split between the main parties has a strong force driving toward rough parity. > The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. It’s literally not, demotivated voters on the other side (or, in extreme cases, tricking them into failing to vote) is a strategy central to, and incentivized by, the electoral system. > With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. They usually aren’t because our system is designed with lots of veto points, and the “swings” usually don’t swing all of them.
    - thunky 3y ago
      > That's true, but its not a conspiracy either I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. Everyone is just acting in their own self interest. > Supermajority is unstable It hasn't always been a 50/50 split. It's a relatively new phenomenon. > demotivated voters on the other side (or, in extreme cases, tricking them into failing to vote) is a strategy central to, and incentivized by, the electoral system. Both can be true. They want to get more votes. They want their opponent to get less votes. They use whatever tricks they have up their sleeve to accomplish both goals. I agree redistricting and other dirty games are big part of that process. But I don't think it's controversial to say that another big part of the game plan is to sow division. Have you ever witnessed any organization that is more publicly derogatory towards their collegues than congress? It's a complete shit show. > They usually aren’t because our system is designed with lots of veto points That's true, and in my opinion this makes a vote for policitian X even less important, despite all of the "the future of our country is at stake" talk we hear every single election.
atoav 3y ago
Depends how far you are willing to stretch your definition of "the same". I think the opinion that all politicians are the same is: 1. Impractical, if the underlying assumptions were true: in a democracy you got the right to vote people out who misbehave. If you are blind to the differences between those people, you are effectively letting those who are a little bit worse than the others stay. And so the spiral moves downwards and you will at some point in your life wake up and ask how it came to this. 2. Purely Self-protective: taking part in politics and being involved and observant comes at an (emotional) cost. Pretending there is no difference is an easy way of not having to get involved while still having a thinly vailed excuse to continue complaining. 3. Untrue: Each body of government will always have a few crazy corrupt politicians and some that are extremely principled (and a mixture of those things in between). Our task is to punish those who are crazy corrupt by not voting for them, where we can, while we are still allowed to vote. 4. Popularistic: Many unpolitical people share that opinion, it is not an "unpopular" opinion, it is the opinion of that drunkard you meet at the pub. If you ask them to name you politicians that are currently in positions they can't name any. If you tell tell them the name of politician A who got fined for corruption and politician B who has a Life-Long track record of doing a thing they stood for in their twenties they can't tell you the difference 5. Self-Defeating: You don't have to inform yourself, because everything is "the same" anyways. This has the downside that all it needs to get your vote is to look or feel not the same, because whether they act different is something you obviously cannot tell. It is a bit like if you ask a person who thinks "all computers are the same" to buy one for you and they select one because it had "a nice color", except that this actually has a huge impact on people's lives and maybe even the survival of the human race.
- thunky 3y ago
  > if the underlying assumptions were true: in a democracy you got the right to vote people out who misbehave. If you are blind to the differences between those people, you are effectively letting those who are a little bit worse than the others stay. And so the spiral moves downwards and you will at some point in your life wake up and ask how it came to this. Bingo. In my opinion, this is where we're at right now. Your choice as a voter is between bad and bad in part because the voting population has been stirred up to believe that the difference between the candidates is much bigger than it actually is. I think your other points are reasonable, but you seem to be trying to shame anyone that refuses to pick a team instead of considering that maybe both teams stink.

by thunky 3y ago

shrimp_emoji 3y ago

I think that opinion is unpopular for the same reason that flat Eartherism is unpopular.

thunky 3y ago
It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle, 50/50 red/blue, swinging back and forth between the two. The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. You need to pick a team and stay on it. With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. But no, for the most part, nothing meaningful changes. Each team gets their small window of power and starts airdropping money on their doners...ahem voters. Rinse, repeat. What else can these politicians do? If they actually tried to reform something, they might goof it and it'll cost them their career. Gotta play it safe. After all, the status quo is that everyone already thinks they're all a bunch of corrupt boobs anyway, so nothing to lose really. Just go on CNN or Fox and talk shit about the other team; tell everyone that the other team is a bunch of corrupt boobs. That's money in the bank. Let's say they actually pull one out of their butt and get some meaningful reform accomplished: well now there's one less thing they can scream about to rally you up to vote for the team the next time. So best to stick to the script. They all look the same to me.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle That's true, but its not a conspiracy either. Supermajority is unstable because the faction of the supermajority party closest to the main opposition gains power to draw policy closer to its preference by joining the opposition, so the split between the main parties has a strong force driving toward rough parity. > The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. It’s literally not, demotivated voters on the other side (or, in extreme cases, tricking them into failing to vote) is a strategy central to, and incentivized by, the electoral system. > With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. They usually aren’t because our system is designed with lots of veto points, and the “swings” usually don’t swing all of them.
  - thunky 3y ago
    > That's true, but its not a conspiracy either I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. Everyone is just acting in their own self interest. > Supermajority is unstable It hasn't always been a 50/50 split. It's a relatively new phenomenon. > demotivated voters on the other side (or, in extreme cases, tricking them into failing to vote) is a strategy central to, and incentivized by, the electoral system. Both can be true. They want to get more votes. They want their opponent to get less votes. They use whatever tricks they have up their sleeve to accomplish both goals. I agree redistricting and other dirty games are big part of that process. But I don't think it's controversial to say that another big part of the game plan is to sow division. Have you ever witnessed any organization that is more publicly derogatory towards their collegues than congress? It's a complete shit show. > They usually aren’t because our system is designed with lots of veto points That's true, and in my opinion this makes a vote for policitian X even less important, despite all of the "the future of our country is at stake" talk we hear every single election.

atoav 3y ago

Depends how far you are willing to stretch your definition of "the same". I think the opinion that all politicians are the same is: 1. Impractical, if the underlying assumptions were true: in a democracy you got the right to vote people out who misbehave. If you are blind to the differences between those people, you are effectively letting those who are a little bit worse than the others stay. And so the spiral moves downwards and you will at some point in your life wake up and ask how it came to this. 2. Purely Self-protective: taking part in politics and being involved and observant comes at an (emotional) cost. Pretending there is no difference is an easy way of not having to get involved while still having a thinly vailed excuse to continue complaining. 3. Untrue: Each body of government will always have a few crazy corrupt politicians and some that are extremely principled (and a mixture of those things in between). Our task is to punish those who are crazy corrupt by not voting for them, where we can, while we are still allowed to vote. 4. Popularistic: Many unpolitical people share that opinion, it is not an "unpopular" opinion, it is the opinion of that drunkard you meet at the pub. If you ask them to name you politicians that are currently in positions they can't name any. If you tell tell them the name of politician A who got fined for corruption and politician B who has a Life-Long track record of doing a thing they stood for in their twenties they can't tell you the difference 5. Self-Defeating: You don't have to inform yourself, because everything is "the same" anyways. This has the downside that all it needs to get your vote is to look or feel not the same, because whether they act different is something you obviously cannot tell. It is a bit like if you ask a person who thinks "all computers are the same" to buy one for you and they select one because it had "a nice color", except that this actually has a huge impact on people's lives and maybe even the survival of the human race.

thunky 3y ago
> if the underlying assumptions were true: in a democracy you got the right to vote people out who misbehave. If you are blind to the differences between those people, you are effectively letting those who are a little bit worse than the others stay. And so the spiral moves downwards and you will at some point in your life wake up and ask how it came to this. Bingo. In my opinion, this is where we're at right now. Your choice as a voter is between bad and bad in part because the voting population has been stirred up to believe that the difference between the candidates is much bigger than it actually is. I think your other points are reasonable, but you seem to be trying to shame anyone that refuses to pick a team instead of considering that maybe both teams stink.