3 ms·

By voting.

by davidw 7mo ago

By voting.

don_esteban 7mo ago
Did the nsa's spying on everyone change between democratic and republican governments?
- ori_b 7mo ago
  Did you vote in the primaries for a candidate that might change it?
  - jrflowers 7mo ago
    I like that I can’t tell if this is some sort of admonition for not voting centrist enough in a primary that didn’t happen or for not voting left enough in a primary that did not happen. It seems like if you’re going to be so bold as to do a callout you might as well say what for (and why you either picked or specifically skipped a primary that did not happen)
  - don_esteban 7mo ago
    Did democrats offer primaries in the last elections? Did voting for Bernie Sanders in the last two primaries (especially the ones when Trump won for the first time) amount to anything? I wonder how long can the American public keep the self delusion that the elections are anything but a theater for the naive, to keep the pretense the public has any say in things that matter. How much has the current administration asked the public about going to war with Iran?
    - wilg 7mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presiden... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presiden... Skill issue. Run your candidate. Convince people to vote for them. > How much has the current administration asked the public about going to war with Iran? THE ELECTIONS are how the public weighs in.
      - don_esteban 7mo ago
        Re: Skill issue Money issue. This is not level playing ground, the field is severely tilted. The referee is bought. But you are saying: You lost fair and square, wait 4 years to have any say in what is going on. Re: THE ELECTIONS are how the public weighs in. When the choice is between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the public's choice is meaningless. To say nothing about politicians outright shamelessly lying (e.g. Trump campaigning on 'no more wars').
        wilg 7mo ago
        Money issue is also a skill issue, but I have no doubt in the era of free media someone could figure it out. Sorry I didn't invent the idea that there are federal elections every two years, I'm just telling you that you have to win them. Bonus points: this is also how you can change the election schedule or political system! If you're saying both candidates were bad when one was Trump, and the other was Hillary, Kamala, or Joe, then you don't have very good judgement. I agree Trump lying about not starting a war was bad. Many of us have said for years that he is a terrible liar. Please help us.
        don_esteban 7mo ago
        I agree that Clinton/Harris/Biden are not equally bad as Trump. Trump is monstrously bad (= force the shit hitting the fan NOW), the democratic alternatives were just 'normally' bad (= continue the same old crap driving the shit closer to the fan, ignoring the looming disaster).
        astrange 7mo ago
        Bernie had the most money. Political campaigns get money from people using ActBlue to give them $25. (Also, political donors are unusually engaged upper-middle-class people which means they are left of the average voter.)
      - tremon 7mo ago
        > THE ELECTIONS are how the public weighs in That's the second box only. There's also the soapbox (that you also referred to), the jury box and ultimately the ammo box.
    - wasabi991011 7mo ago
      > Did voting for Bernie Sanders in the last two primaries (especially the ones when Trump won for the first time) amount to anything? He didn't win the primaries though. It would have amounted to something if he got enough votes.
      - don_esteban 7mo ago
        1) He did not win primaries, in significant part also because DNC was heavily against him. The level playing field thing. 2) If he won the primaries, there is still no guarantee that that would have amounted to anything. First, he might not have won the elections (mainstream media and the whole ruling elites were heavily against him). And even if he won, he might not have been able to do much against the permanent state. I still think the main cause of Trump's wins is the deep disillusionment of the democratic voters by Obama's failure (inability/unwillingness) to impact a meaningful change.
        wilg 7mo ago
        Everything you're saying here is the exact delusional cynicism that got us here. Stop.
        don_esteban 7mo ago
        Yes, my stance is cynical. Sadly, it is also factually correct (i.e. not delusional). Which of my statements are you contesting? From my point of view, your stance (play fairly, according to the rules set by your stronger opponent) is delusional. Note that the opponent is not 'republicans', but the whole ruling elites. And no, I can't help you, I am not USian, just an outside observer. Sadly, due to its weight, whatever USA does, heavily influences everybody else as well.
        JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > it is also factually correct No, it isn’t. Sanders’ supporters didn’t have the votes. That’s a fact. If people believe in something, they should call their electeds and vote. The fact that a lot of people with a certain confluence of views (privacy, anti-war, et cetera) are too lazy to do either (regardless of post rationalization), but not self aware enough to not complain about it, is delusional cynicism.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > How much has the current administration asked the public about going to war with Iran Here is the 2026 Senate map [1]. Do you suggest any of them will flip over Iran? (I don’t. The folks who regularly vote simply don’t show any sign that this is a priority. Folks who stay at home grumbling don’t matter.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elec...
    - davidw 7mo ago
      > Did democrats offer primaries in the last elections? Uh, yeah? I voted for Biden/Harris. And in any case, focusing almost exclusively on one race is part of the problem. Where I live, we also had a Dem primary for the house district, and a more electable candidate won - and then went on to win in the general. It was one of the very few red->blue flips in 2024. Our former congresswoman, incidentally: https://newrepublic.com/post/207234/trump-labor-secretary-chavez-deremer-government-funds-birthday-party https://newrepublic.com/post/207234/trump-labor-secretary-ch... Then there are all the races for school boards, city council, county commission and all those things that provide the base and the bench to build off of.
- vkou 7mo ago
  No. ... But the government flooding cities with thousands of masked thugs with a license to do whatever they want... has so far been an entirely Republican thing. There are more colours to the world than pure black and pure white. There are also a million shades of grey in between, and most of us have the ability to distinguish between them.
raincole 7mo ago
Voting changes the name of the department. It doesn't change if the government wants mass surveillance. See PRISM.
- davidw 7mo ago
  This is my Senator: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/issues/domestic-surveillance-reform https://www.wyden.senate.gov/issues/domestic-surveillance-re... He may not be perfect on everything, but elect more people like him and it starts moving the needle. Or elect some more that are even more opposed to some of these things. It doesn't happen overnight. Change is difficult.
  - mmooss 7mo ago
    > Change is difficult. I agree, though notice that the GOP/MAGA have and continue to make enormous changes. The difference is that they believe they can do it while others sit around talking about hopelessness and powerlessness. The only difference is belief.
- mmooss 7mo ago
  > Voting changes the name of the department. You're conceding that the name has already changed, without voting. > It doesn't change if the government wants mass surveillance. That can be prevented by Congress with enough political will.

By voting.

by davidw 7mo ago

By voting.

don_esteban 7mo ago

Did the nsa's spying on everyone change between democratic and republican governments?

ori_b 7mo ago
Did you vote in the primaries for a candidate that might change it?
- jrflowers 7mo ago
  I like that I can’t tell if this is some sort of admonition for not voting centrist enough in a primary that didn’t happen or for not voting left enough in a primary that did not happen. It seems like if you’re going to be so bold as to do a callout you might as well say what for (and why you either picked or specifically skipped a primary that did not happen)
- don_esteban 7mo ago
  Did democrats offer primaries in the last elections? Did voting for Bernie Sanders in the last two primaries (especially the ones when Trump won for the first time) amount to anything? I wonder how long can the American public keep the self delusion that the elections are anything but a theater for the naive, to keep the pretense the public has any say in things that matter. How much has the current administration asked the public about going to war with Iran?
  - wilg 7mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presiden... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presiden... Skill issue. Run your candidate. Convince people to vote for them. > How much has the current administration asked the public about going to war with Iran? THE ELECTIONS are how the public weighs in.
    - don_esteban 7mo ago
      Re: Skill issue Money issue. This is not level playing ground, the field is severely tilted. The referee is bought. But you are saying: You lost fair and square, wait 4 years to have any say in what is going on. Re: THE ELECTIONS are how the public weighs in. When the choice is between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, the public's choice is meaningless. To say nothing about politicians outright shamelessly lying (e.g. Trump campaigning on 'no more wars').
      - wilg 7mo ago
        Money issue is also a skill issue, but I have no doubt in the era of free media someone could figure it out. Sorry I didn't invent the idea that there are federal elections every two years, I'm just telling you that you have to win them. Bonus points: this is also how you can change the election schedule or political system! If you're saying both candidates were bad when one was Trump, and the other was Hillary, Kamala, or Joe, then you don't have very good judgement. I agree Trump lying about not starting a war was bad. Many of us have said for years that he is a terrible liar. Please help us.
        don_esteban 7mo ago
        I agree that Clinton/Harris/Biden are not equally bad as Trump. Trump is monstrously bad (= force the shit hitting the fan NOW), the democratic alternatives were just 'normally' bad (= continue the same old crap driving the shit closer to the fan, ignoring the looming disaster).
      - astrange 7mo ago
        Bernie had the most money. Political campaigns get money from people using ActBlue to give them $25. (Also, political donors are unusually engaged upper-middle-class people which means they are left of the average voter.)
    - tremon 7mo ago
      > THE ELECTIONS are how the public weighs in That's the second box only. There's also the soapbox (that you also referred to), the jury box and ultimately the ammo box.
  - wasabi991011 7mo ago
    > Did voting for Bernie Sanders in the last two primaries (especially the ones when Trump won for the first time) amount to anything? He didn't win the primaries though. It would have amounted to something if he got enough votes.
    - don_esteban 7mo ago
      1) He did not win primaries, in significant part also because DNC was heavily against him. The level playing field thing. 2) If he won the primaries, there is still no guarantee that that would have amounted to anything. First, he might not have won the elections (mainstream media and the whole ruling elites were heavily against him). And even if he won, he might not have been able to do much against the permanent state. I still think the main cause of Trump's wins is the deep disillusionment of the democratic voters by Obama's failure (inability/unwillingness) to impact a meaningful change.
      - wilg 7mo ago
        Everything you're saying here is the exact delusional cynicism that got us here. Stop.
        don_esteban 7mo ago
        Yes, my stance is cynical. Sadly, it is also factually correct (i.e. not delusional). Which of my statements are you contesting? From my point of view, your stance (play fairly, according to the rules set by your stronger opponent) is delusional. Note that the opponent is not 'republicans', but the whole ruling elites. And no, I can't help you, I am not USian, just an outside observer. Sadly, due to its weight, whatever USA does, heavily influences everybody else as well.
        JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > it is also factually correct No, it isn’t. Sanders’ supporters didn’t have the votes. That’s a fact. If people believe in something, they should call their electeds and vote. The fact that a lot of people with a certain confluence of views (privacy, anti-war, et cetera) are too lazy to do either (regardless of post rationalization), but not self aware enough to not complain about it, is delusional cynicism.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > How much has the current administration asked the public about going to war with Iran Here is the 2026 Senate map [1]. Do you suggest any of them will flip over Iran? (I don’t. The folks who regularly vote simply don’t show any sign that this is a priority. Folks who stay at home grumbling don’t matter.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elec...
  - davidw 7mo ago
    > Did democrats offer primaries in the last elections? Uh, yeah? I voted for Biden/Harris. And in any case, focusing almost exclusively on one race is part of the problem. Where I live, we also had a Dem primary for the house district, and a more electable candidate won - and then went on to win in the general. It was one of the very few red->blue flips in 2024. Our former congresswoman, incidentally: https://newrepublic.com/post/207234/trump-labor-secretary-chavez-deremer-government-funds-birthday-party https://newrepublic.com/post/207234/trump-labor-secretary-ch... Then there are all the races for school boards, city council, county commission and all those things that provide the base and the bench to build off of.
vkou 7mo ago
No. ... But the government flooding cities with thousands of masked thugs with a license to do whatever they want... has so far been an entirely Republican thing. There are more colours to the world than pure black and pure white. There are also a million shades of grey in between, and most of us have the ability to distinguish between them.

raincole 7mo ago

Voting changes the name of the department. It doesn't change if the government wants mass surveillance. See PRISM.

davidw 7mo ago
This is my Senator: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/issues/domestic-surveillance-reform https://www.wyden.senate.gov/issues/domestic-surveillance-re... He may not be perfect on everything, but elect more people like him and it starts moving the needle. Or elect some more that are even more opposed to some of these things. It doesn't happen overnight. Change is difficult.
- mmooss 7mo ago
  > Change is difficult. I agree, though notice that the GOP/MAGA have and continue to make enormous changes. The difference is that they believe they can do it while others sit around talking about hopelessness and powerlessness. The only difference is belief.
mmooss 7mo ago
> Voting changes the name of the department. You're conceding that the name has already changed, without voting. > It doesn't change if the government wants mass surveillance. That can be prevented by Congress with enough political will.