5 ms·

-as a democratic american - why bother? -roughly half of the us populace supports the current authoritarian regime and the other half's senators and representa

by emeril 2y ago

-as a democratic american - why bother? -roughly half of the us populace supports the current authoritarian regime and the other half's senators and representatives are largely useless and aren't even doing what they can except for say wearing an adult diaper while giving a 25 hour speech -I fully plan on eventually moving to canada (or elsewhere) when the time comes - much easier to move than any other option

e40 2y ago
Half the voters. 36% didn’t even vote.
- brookst 2y ago
  Sure they did. They voted that they were fine with either option.
  - speed_spread 2y ago
    Or did not approve of either option. No way to tell. Same result.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      If you don't bother to vote, then you're [almost literally] saying you're OK with whoever wins. If that wasn't your intention, you would vote for some third party that you were OK with.
      - HPsquared 2y ago
        It's not an opinion poll. People vote to try and get their desired outcome. If someone views their preferred minor candidate as a lost cause in electoral terms, they won't bother going to vote because it won't make any difference to the outcome. Or, worse, there isn't a single candidate on the list in their district who shares their views.
        ryandrake 2y ago
        Whatever people's reasons and motivations are for not voting, the actual effect is implicit endorsement of whoever everyone else picks.
        XorNot 2y ago
        To wit: actions speak louder then words.
      - dontlaugh 2y ago
        Boycotting votes is a legitimate political choice, especially when done in an organised manner.
        ryandrake 2y ago
        It is absolutely a legitimate choice: It's a choice for "whoever wins."
        barbazoo 2y ago
        No. At least go and make your vote invalid. Are people really THAT lazy?
      - salawat 2y ago
        What we need is to start counting votes of no confidence. Until we can explicitly shoot down what the elites or representatives think is best for us, at best, voting is just a thin veneer of legitimacy over an ossifying oligarchy.
        Propelloni 2y ago
        Italy's parliament had for a long time a system where you could vote "no confidence" without picking a constructive option. It did not serve them well and they abolished it eventually. While I understand the disenchantment, just adding "none of the above" without committing to one of the offered options is not going to change a thing. You getting out on the streets and into politics is what changes things.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Those who cared voted for a third party not stayed home.
    - barbazoo 2y ago
      People need civics classes, or wherever people learn about their system of government, to learn that that's not a smart move.
  - AngryData 2y ago
    That is such a reductionist view as to be totally worthless. You think there are zero other reasons someone might not vote, be able to vote, or not support either candidate?
    - vanviegen 2y ago
      > either candidate? There are more than two candidates. At least in theory.
- chpatrick 2y ago
  That's the same as voting to let it happen.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    Can you explain this logic a bit more because it genuinely confuses me, but I hear it articulated so often that I feel I must be missing something. I find it helpful to walk through the logic: For example, it is frequently framed that there are only two (real) candidates, not voting or voting for a third party is the same thing as voting for <person I don't like>. The <person I don't like> is always Trump if you're talking to someone more on the left, and is Hilary/Biden/Kamala if talking to someone on the right, but the logic is the same (a contradiction should already be starting to be apparent). Both people are using the same logic to make the same claim, but they obviously can't both be correct. It seems to me that the choice isn't actually binary. At least, if you insist that it is, then you must also conclude that a person actually gets two votes, because consider the following scenario: Imagine that both major candidates (Candidate A and Candidate B) each deadlock and get 10 votes per, and a third party Candidate C gets 1 vote. I also have a vote, with the following possible outcomes: 1. I vote for Candidate A. This brings the total to A: 11, B: 10, C: 1 2. I vote for Candidate B. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 11, C: 1 If it were a binary, there wouldn't be any more possible outcomes. Yet, 3. I vote for Candidate C. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 10, C: 2 4. I abstain from voting. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 10, C: 1 All four of those outcomes are mathematically different, which doesn't seem possible if it's actually just a binary choice. If the outcome is different when I vote for Candidate B vs voting for Candidate C or not voting at all, then it seems self-evident that they are not the same thing. If I vote for A or B then they win, but if I vote C or not at all then there's a deadlock and a runoff. Clearly those are not the same thing.
    - vladms 2y ago
      I have seen people consider the outcome is one of "candidate A wins" or "candidate B wins" (so binary). I do not fully agree, but practically it seems to be a good approximation - as in 30 years nobody reached something significant, and there was only one instance in 1872 when the 3rd candidate had more than 30% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_independent_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_indepe...) Any of the supporters of "candidate A" or "candidate B" will have a vested interest to model it this way, because it can mean more votes for their candidate.
squigz 2y ago
> -I fully plan on eventually moving to canada Why, so another country can fall apart because citizens throw their hands up in the air when they disagree with the other side - instead of trying to, say, change minds and fix things?
- euroderf 2y ago
  Yup, changing minds is a snap when you're dealing with a mass cult.
  - freedomben 2y ago
    It does get much easier to throw up your hands and dismiss "the other side" if you dehumanize them and think of them as just a mass cult. I actually agree that most of the people involved with politics are pretty cult-ish (especially the die-hard MAGAs), but I refuse to believe that 60 million people in the US are like that. Maybe it helps that I live in a very red area so I have regular and routine contact with a lot of people who I know voted for Trump but are generally and genuinely thoughtful and contemplative, but have different opinions/conclusions on the best solutions than I do. It strikes me as incredibly arrogant to assume that you are always right and someone else is always wrong. Changing minds isn't easy, and it isn't fast, but it is clearly possible. Else how do you explain the shifts back and forth? Bush 41 -> Clinton -> Bush 43 -> Obama -> Trump -> Biden -> Trump? How do you explain the relatively rapid swing from opposition to support of gay marriage?
    - squigz 2y ago
      > It does get much easier to throw up your hands and dismiss "the other side" if you dehumanize them and think of them as just a mass cult. Funnily enough, I have a harder time convincing people that they do this and that it's significantly contributing to the problem, than I do arguing against those who those people would lump in with the "mass cult" Funny, but tragic.
senko 2y ago
Do antibiotic-resistant bacteria respect borders?
- skyyler 2y ago
  No, but the tax revenue I give to the government does.
DeathArrow 2y ago
Godspeed!
1234letshaveatw 2y ago
The discussion on here has lowered to reddit levels of yuck. But I digress- happy trails!
RankingMember 2y ago
> -I fully plan on eventually moving to canada (or elsewhere) when the time comes - much easier to move than any other option I completely understand this sentiment but hope you don't. Things are bad, but they're not going to get better if everyone who thinks they're bad leaves. The problem with a U.S. descent is that the negative impact will hit just about anywhere you try to parachute to.
staunton 2y ago
> I fully plan on eventually moving to canada Wherever you move, presumably it won't be a place where people think like you do (or you'll soon be moving again).

by emeril 2y ago

e40 2y ago

Half the voters. 36% didn’t even vote.

brookst 2y ago
Sure they did. They voted that they were fine with either option.
- speed_spread 2y ago
  Or did not approve of either option. No way to tell. Same result.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    If you don't bother to vote, then you're [almost literally] saying you're OK with whoever wins. If that wasn't your intention, you would vote for some third party that you were OK with.
    - HPsquared 2y ago
      It's not an opinion poll. People vote to try and get their desired outcome. If someone views their preferred minor candidate as a lost cause in electoral terms, they won't bother going to vote because it won't make any difference to the outcome. Or, worse, there isn't a single candidate on the list in their district who shares their views.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        Whatever people's reasons and motivations are for not voting, the actual effect is implicit endorsement of whoever everyone else picks.
        XorNot 2y ago
        To wit: actions speak louder then words.
    - dontlaugh 2y ago
      Boycotting votes is a legitimate political choice, especially when done in an organised manner.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        It is absolutely a legitimate choice: It's a choice for "whoever wins."
      - barbazoo 2y ago
        No. At least go and make your vote invalid. Are people really THAT lazy?
    - salawat 2y ago
      What we need is to start counting votes of no confidence. Until we can explicitly shoot down what the elites or representatives think is best for us, at best, voting is just a thin veneer of legitimacy over an ossifying oligarchy.
      - Propelloni 2y ago
        Italy's parliament had for a long time a system where you could vote "no confidence" without picking a constructive option. It did not serve them well and they abolished it eventually. While I understand the disenchantment, just adding "none of the above" without committing to one of the offered options is not going to change a thing. You getting out on the streets and into politics is what changes things.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Those who cared voted for a third party not stayed home.
  - barbazoo 2y ago
    People need civics classes, or wherever people learn about their system of government, to learn that that's not a smart move.
- AngryData 2y ago
  That is such a reductionist view as to be totally worthless. You think there are zero other reasons someone might not vote, be able to vote, or not support either candidate?
  - vanviegen 2y ago
    > either candidate? There are more than two candidates. At least in theory.
chpatrick 2y ago
That's the same as voting to let it happen.
- freedomben 2y ago
  Can you explain this logic a bit more because it genuinely confuses me, but I hear it articulated so often that I feel I must be missing something. I find it helpful to walk through the logic: For example, it is frequently framed that there are only two (real) candidates, not voting or voting for a third party is the same thing as voting for <person I don't like>. The <person I don't like> is always Trump if you're talking to someone more on the left, and is Hilary/Biden/Kamala if talking to someone on the right, but the logic is the same (a contradiction should already be starting to be apparent). Both people are using the same logic to make the same claim, but they obviously can't both be correct. It seems to me that the choice isn't actually binary. At least, if you insist that it is, then you must also conclude that a person actually gets two votes, because consider the following scenario: Imagine that both major candidates (Candidate A and Candidate B) each deadlock and get 10 votes per, and a third party Candidate C gets 1 vote. I also have a vote, with the following possible outcomes: 1. I vote for Candidate A. This brings the total to A: 11, B: 10, C: 1 2. I vote for Candidate B. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 11, C: 1 If it were a binary, there wouldn't be any more possible outcomes. Yet, 3. I vote for Candidate C. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 10, C: 2 4. I abstain from voting. This brings the total to A: 10, B: 10, C: 1 All four of those outcomes are mathematically different, which doesn't seem possible if it's actually just a binary choice. If the outcome is different when I vote for Candidate B vs voting for Candidate C or not voting at all, then it seems self-evident that they are not the same thing. If I vote for A or B then they win, but if I vote C or not at all then there's a deadlock and a runoff. Clearly those are not the same thing.
  - vladms 2y ago
    I have seen people consider the outcome is one of "candidate A wins" or "candidate B wins" (so binary). I do not fully agree, but practically it seems to be a good approximation - as in 30 years nobody reached something significant, and there was only one instance in 1872 when the 3rd candidate had more than 30% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_independent_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_indepe...) Any of the supporters of "candidate A" or "candidate B" will have a vested interest to model it this way, because it can mean more votes for their candidate.

squigz 2y ago

> -I fully plan on eventually moving to canada Why, so another country can fall apart because citizens throw their hands up in the air when they disagree with the other side - instead of trying to, say, change minds and fix things?

euroderf 2y ago
Yup, changing minds is a snap when you're dealing with a mass cult.
- freedomben 2y ago
  It does get much easier to throw up your hands and dismiss "the other side" if you dehumanize them and think of them as just a mass cult. I actually agree that most of the people involved with politics are pretty cult-ish (especially the die-hard MAGAs), but I refuse to believe that 60 million people in the US are like that. Maybe it helps that I live in a very red area so I have regular and routine contact with a lot of people who I know voted for Trump but are generally and genuinely thoughtful and contemplative, but have different opinions/conclusions on the best solutions than I do. It strikes me as incredibly arrogant to assume that you are always right and someone else is always wrong. Changing minds isn't easy, and it isn't fast, but it is clearly possible. Else how do you explain the shifts back and forth? Bush 41 -> Clinton -> Bush 43 -> Obama -> Trump -> Biden -> Trump? How do you explain the relatively rapid swing from opposition to support of gay marriage?
  - squigz 2y ago
    > It does get much easier to throw up your hands and dismiss "the other side" if you dehumanize them and think of them as just a mass cult. Funnily enough, I have a harder time convincing people that they do this and that it's significantly contributing to the problem, than I do arguing against those who those people would lump in with the "mass cult" Funny, but tragic.

senko 2y ago

Do antibiotic-resistant bacteria respect borders?

skyyler 2y ago
No, but the tax revenue I give to the government does.

DeathArrow 2y ago

Godspeed!

1234letshaveatw 2y ago

The discussion on here has lowered to reddit levels of yuck. But I digress- happy trails!

RankingMember 2y ago

> -I fully plan on eventually moving to canada (or elsewhere) when the time comes - much easier to move than any other option I completely understand this sentiment but hope you don't. Things are bad, but they're not going to get better if everyone who thinks they're bad leaves. The problem with a U.S. descent is that the negative impact will hit just about anywhere you try to parachute to.

staunton 2y ago

> I fully plan on eventually moving to canada Wherever you move, presumably it won't be a place where people think like you do (or you'll soon be moving again).