2 ms·

If voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it. Stop blaming the victims.

by recursivedoubts 1mo ago

nicman23 1mo ago
lol trump got voted in. i blame the voters - there are not victims here
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- RobotToaster 1mo ago
  You think Cop Kamala would've opposed flock? lol, lmao even.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
    I think memes and political bubbles are making it very hard for people to reason through the actual principles and mechanisms of democratic governance. The reason the system keeps trying to make you vote for people like "Cop Kamala" is that most Americans like the police (https://news.gallup.com/poll/690959/racial-divide-policing-narrows-years-floyd-death.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/690959/racial-divide-policing-n...); there's no secret set of popular anti-police candidates who some shadowy "they" aren't allowing you to vote for.
    - nicman23 1mo ago
      accountability? for MY actions?
saghm 1mo ago
Can you be more specific? Are you claiming that the winner is not actually whoever gets the most votes (e.g. voter fraud, corrupt vote counting), or that someone who would not authorize something like this would literally not be allowed to show up on the ballot? Those are the only two scenarios I can think of that would result in the conclusion you're stating. As far as I can tell, people who claim the former are almost overwhelming the ones voting for the people who are worst about stuff like this. I've honestly never seen anyone claim the latter though, so if that's what you believe, elaborating more would be helpful.
- RobotToaster 1mo ago
  The last person to stand for president who managed to get political momentum and wanted real change in the system was Eugene Debs, and they arrested him.
  - iamnothere 1mo ago
    Two others: Bernie Sanders (prevented from winning the primary via unelected superdelegates) Ross Perot (suddenly withdrew under murky circumstances and later claimed his family was threatened) Both wanted significant change, although they were reformists rather than revolutionaries.
    - runako 1mo ago
      Am I missing something here? Perot was on the ballot in 1992, and he won a bunch of votes. IIRC he was the most successful independent candidate in modern times, by vote count. Sanders ran an insurgent campaign while denigrating the party, and didn't win more votes. I seriously don't understand the argument that the person with fewer votes should win the nomination, although I am receptive to hearing a coherent articulation thereof. (Superdelegates did not enter the picture until tens of millions of votes were cast, with Sanders trailing by millions of votes.)
      - iamnothere 1mo ago
        Perot dropped out, then reentered the race at the last minute. This cost him a lot of votes and the media framed him as unstable. He had many more votes before withdrawing. Sanders was on track to win in 2015 but the media counted all superdelegates for Clinton throughout the campaign, costing him votes in later states where voters didn’t show up, assuming he lost. I guess this isn’t entirely the party’s fault and they did reform the system somewhat afterwards.
        runako 1mo ago
        > This cost him a lot of votes and the media framed him as unstable This was...an eminently reasonable response to Perot's own actions? > Sanders was on track to win in 2015 Yes, like Clinton was "on track" to win in 2007. "On track to win" is necessarily filtered through a set of lenses that don't mean anything compared to actual votes. He didn't earn the votes, so he lost. There's nothing unfair about that.
Clent 1mo ago
Except there are multiple efforts to make voting more difficult.

If voting made a difference they wouldn't let us do it. Stop blaming the victims.

nicman23 1mo ago

lol trump got voted in. i blame the voters - there are not victims here

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
RobotToaster 1mo ago
You think Cop Kamala would've opposed flock? lol, lmao even.
- SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
  I think memes and political bubbles are making it very hard for people to reason through the actual principles and mechanisms of democratic governance. The reason the system keeps trying to make you vote for people like "Cop Kamala" is that most Americans like the police (https://news.gallup.com/poll/690959/racial-divide-policing-narrows-years-floyd-death.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/690959/racial-divide-policing-n...); there's no secret set of popular anti-police candidates who some shadowy "they" aren't allowing you to vote for.
  - nicman23 1mo ago
    accountability? for MY actions?

saghm 1mo ago

Can you be more specific? Are you claiming that the winner is not actually whoever gets the most votes (e.g. voter fraud, corrupt vote counting), or that someone who would not authorize something like this would literally not be allowed to show up on the ballot? Those are the only two scenarios I can think of that would result in the conclusion you're stating. As far as I can tell, people who claim the former are almost overwhelming the ones voting for the people who are worst about stuff like this. I've honestly never seen anyone claim the latter though, so if that's what you believe, elaborating more would be helpful.

RobotToaster 1mo ago
The last person to stand for president who managed to get political momentum and wanted real change in the system was Eugene Debs, and they arrested him.
- iamnothere 1mo ago
  Two others: Bernie Sanders (prevented from winning the primary via unelected superdelegates) Ross Perot (suddenly withdrew under murky circumstances and later claimed his family was threatened) Both wanted significant change, although they were reformists rather than revolutionaries.
  - runako 1mo ago
    Am I missing something here? Perot was on the ballot in 1992, and he won a bunch of votes. IIRC he was the most successful independent candidate in modern times, by vote count. Sanders ran an insurgent campaign while denigrating the party, and didn't win more votes. I seriously don't understand the argument that the person with fewer votes should win the nomination, although I am receptive to hearing a coherent articulation thereof. (Superdelegates did not enter the picture until tens of millions of votes were cast, with Sanders trailing by millions of votes.)
    - iamnothere 1mo ago
      Perot dropped out, then reentered the race at the last minute. This cost him a lot of votes and the media framed him as unstable. He had many more votes before withdrawing. Sanders was on track to win in 2015 but the media counted all superdelegates for Clinton throughout the campaign, costing him votes in later states where voters didn’t show up, assuming he lost. I guess this isn’t entirely the party’s fault and they did reform the system somewhat afterwards.
      - runako 1mo ago
        > This cost him a lot of votes and the media framed him as unstable This was...an eminently reasonable response to Perot's own actions? > Sanders was on track to win in 2015 Yes, like Clinton was "on track" to win in 2007. "On track to win" is necessarily filtered through a set of lenses that don't mean anything compared to actual votes. He didn't earn the votes, so he lost. There's nothing unfair about that.

Clent 1mo ago

Except there are multiple efforts to make voting more difficult.