Agree about the lesser of evils being a shit choice and part of the problem. However when you consider the lesser evil in comparison to what the Republican party has become, Fox News, the Tea Party, the anti science, the anti environment, the bigotry . . . the confederate flag still flying over South Carolina, there is some kind of dire necessity for the lesser of two evils. Let´s take what we can get and continue to move on from there.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
The lesser of two evils is actually poor way of couching the discussion. You simply go with the candidate who represents your views the most. Obviously Hillary won't appeal to the left-wing socialists who seem smitten by the likes of Sanders and Warren, but those two will never be elected so you have to go with the candidate who most represents your views over the one who least (or doesn't) represent them. Non participation is also an option, but those that do have no right to complain if the new administration don't perform.Hillary and getting money out of politics. Now I have heard it all.I agree with @FCBarca
The "lesser of two evils" logic is integral part of the problem.
Wishing for a candidate who isn't somehow tied to corporations is daft. Even if one got in they'd accomplish nothing without the congress....which is even more beholden to corporate money than any presidential candidate.
If that would be the choice, I´d agree. Its not. Rhetoric and action are different things. If you compare the actions of rep and dem presidents in the past, they are quite similar.
If nobody votes for anyone but the two major candidates, nobody else will ever be elected. That is indeed true. You also don´t need to vote for anyone to earn the "right" to complain.
Its a primary system - Democrats decide who they want to vote for, as do Republicans, before the two major candidates face off in the general election. Sanders, being a bit too fringe for even most Democrats, doesn't stand a chance. Not because his ideas are bad, but because a majority disagree with them.
You can complain if you don't vote but you won't be taken seriously. Only people who participate in the system have the right to shape its future outcome
It's impressive that whilst hamming it up there, he was aware that literally 24 hours later they were going to raid Bin Laden.
Well that's bollocks. Who told you that you got to set the rules?
Surprised to hear Trump say of the last 4 presidents Clinton was the best and W the worst. He'll lose some votes for that!
Its not rocket science really. The rules are inherent in the system. Not participating in the democratic process means your interests are less likely to be represented by policy makers. In that sense, non-participation is for losers (literally).
A non-vote can be a form of participation.
Kind of a useless one though, you're just going to be ignored. Reliable voters get listened to.
How so ?
If none of the candidates on a ballot appeal then you don't vote. Why should you have to vote for somebody to participate?How so ?
How about 'none of the above'?
Because not voting removes your ability to influence the policy choices your government makes and usually results in the candidate who you hate increasing his/her chances of election. Why do you think the GOP have been trying to suppress voter turnout with voter ID laws and gerrymandering congressional districts - it's all an attempt to skew turnout to enhance their chances of staying in power. By not voting, you're merely enabling the opposition to gain the upper hand. Even Russell Brand stepped off his revolutionary soap box and encouraged people to vote last month.
One should definitely participate in the election process (instead of staying in bed), but if no candidate is good for the Country, you should also be able to draw a big dick over the candidates names in the ballot, and that dick should have the same value as a vote for any candidate.
I agree that there are occasionally no decent candidates to vote for, but people usually use this as an excuse to moan from the sidelines rather than participate in the process.
Rubbish. There are plenty of ways to influence policy other than voting.
Possibly in authoritarian dictatorships, but not in liberal democracies. The official process is for citizens to vote for their elected representatives to "represent" their preferred policy choices.
Poll tax riots, civil rights movement, Greenham Common women, strikes, sit-ins, marches etc. etc.
So you moved away from "you can´t criticise the administration, if you didn't vote" to "not voting means, that your interests are not represented". Both are quite different statements. The first is rubbish and the second somewhat true. Its also only "somewhat" true because voting doesn't necessarily mean, that you interests are actually getting represented.
I am also not an advocate for not-voting. I am just saying that nobody should vote for candidates, that don´t represent their interest. Hillary certainly doesn't represent the interest of the majority of the USA.
You still need amenable politicians to affect policy change.
Its not rocket science really. If you don't participate in the process of civic responsibility, you have no say in how your views are represented in your community or country. Pretending you can just sit on the sidelines and watch life pass you by, occasionally complaining about the system failing you, is pretty silly.
And what about executive orders?
Still require an elected President to "execute" them. There's no way around it.
Participation in the process of civic responsibility is all very well, but you get a lot more from a substantial bung to the campaign fund.
Last edited:
That isn't the point you were making though.
It's related. If enough people don't vote, the Presidential candidate from the opposition party is likely to win the election and go to town with executive orders. George Bush and embryonic stem cells is a good example. There are many more.
Bollocks, you were saying that some numbskull who votes every 4 years even though they may know jack-shit about the issues is more entitled to complain than somebody who may attend protest marches, or go on strike, or engage in civil disobedience over an issue or issues, yet chooses not to vote because they believe that the system is rigged or that the candidates are bought and paid for already.
That's true. Marching doesn't change policy like voting does. There may be one off exceptions but there's a reason elections are held - to vote in politicians who represent voter policy preferences. Civil disobedience in contrast, generally results in little more than civil disobedience. That's why anyone who deliberately doesn't vote literally gives up their say in how their government is run.
You seem confused about voting leading to policy changes. Fair enough.
you should have clicked on that link to learn that he doesn't do that for the majority of Americans. At least not in a sufficient way.
I don't disagree that politicians often pander to big money and that the way campaigns are financed forces politicians to consider the interests of those doing the financing. That doesn't however absolve citizens from voting or lend credibility to the idea that not voting somehow gives people an equal voice to those who do vote. Not voting simply puts the opposition in power, much as it did in 2000 and 2004 where elections came down to a few thousand votes.
you are caught up in this partisan theatre. Yes, for you not voting means, that "the opposition" has a better chance to win an election. Its a completely different situation for people who don´t support either of the two big parties. I still think that its worth voting for smaller candidates - if there are viable ones. Still this has absolutely no influence on who is winning an presidential election.
I also understand people who think that elected politicians will never fix the problem from inside. At this point not-voting becomes is the reasonable action. The whole argument, that people who don´t vote lose their "moral" credibility to criticize politics is nonsense. Its a technocratic top/down argument used to discredit parts of the opposition, who reject the political process.
In the end Hillary won´t take money out of politics. Her husband did the very opposite and she is also the darling of certain rich elites. Naturally she´ll appoint liberal supreme-court judges, but thats like a drop in the ocean. The right direction, but simply not enough.
Obviously she isn´t honest about this, because that would be terribly unpopular. "We need more money in politics - Hillary approves this message." That would look rather silly. So she is doing what politicians do best: Some vague promises; nothing substantial; nothing that can´t be ignored afterwards.
It's actually not a "drop in the ocean". If the Supreme Court reverses their 2012 citizens united ruling it will completely change the way political campaigns are funded, which is at the heart of the entire discussion. If politicians can't get money from wealthy donors or labor unions, they will be forced to fund their campaigns from smaller individual contributions from citizens, and by extension, be more beholden to citizen policy preferences. This is the difference between Hillary and a Republican winning the next election, as they will almost certainly have to replace one or two ageing Supreme Court justices.
Civil disobedience also won India its freedom -- by refusing to participate and not officially saying anything, they managed to voice their concerns louder than they ever could have otherwise. I know these are selective/sensationalist examples, but marching worked quite well for many civil rights movements.
I largely agree with this.
I'm talking mainly about the USA in the present. Political systems in other countries and even the USA during the past are a different story altogether. My main point here is you can affect far more change by reforming the system than not participating in it.
In non-revolutionary states (like present day USA), then yeah, you're probably correct. Although you'd have to view the system as being capable of reformation, which I largely do, but some people don't, so participation would be illogical for them. I think it's a matter of perspective.
Hopefully these sorts of stories get more press and become more engrained in the collective consciousness of voters and citizens as opposed to the typical Republican propaganda that "welfare queens" and shifty, lazy minorities are the ones mainly abusing entitlement programs.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/this-is-what-government-fraud-looks-like/396317/
The True Face of Medicare Fraud
A $712 million bust, the biggest in U.S. history, shows that the people most likely to bilk the system are doctors and medical providers, not “welfare queens.”
A specter is still haunting American politics—the mythological specter of the welfare queen. Even after Clinton-era welfare reforms, and despite an ever-growing list of state restrictions on how public benefits can be used, Americans remain convinced that there’s waste, fraud, and abuse in the system, and that stronger controls would keep undeserving citizens from bilking the taxpayer. There is fraud, it’s true. But it’s not nearly large enough to make a dent in the federal budget, and it’s not freeloading welfare queens who are taking advantage of the system.
Nearly lost Thursday in the response to the atrocity in Charleston was Attorney Loretta Lynch’s announcement of arrests in what she called “the largest criminal healthcare fraud takedown in the history of the Department of Justice.” A total of 243 people were arrested and charged with stealing $712 million from Medicare. The arrests included 46 doctors, nurses, pharmacy owners, and other medical professionals. Facilities billed the federal government for therapy sessions where patients were actually just moved, never treated. In a particularly disturbing case, a Michigan doctor allegedly “prescribed unnecessary narcotics in exchange for patients' identification information, which was used to generate false billings. Patients then became deeply addicted to the prescription narcotics and were bound to the scheme as long as they wanted to keep their access to the drugs.” . . . (cont)
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/this-is-what-government-fraud-looks-like/396317/
The True Face of Medicare Fraud
A $712 million bust, the biggest in U.S. history, shows that the people most likely to bilk the system are doctors and medical providers, not “welfare queens.”
A specter is still haunting American politics—the mythological specter of the welfare queen. Even after Clinton-era welfare reforms, and despite an ever-growing list of state restrictions on how public benefits can be used, Americans remain convinced that there’s waste, fraud, and abuse in the system, and that stronger controls would keep undeserving citizens from bilking the taxpayer. There is fraud, it’s true. But it’s not nearly large enough to make a dent in the federal budget, and it’s not freeloading welfare queens who are taking advantage of the system.
Nearly lost Thursday in the response to the atrocity in Charleston was Attorney Loretta Lynch’s announcement of arrests in what she called “the largest criminal healthcare fraud takedown in the history of the Department of Justice.” A total of 243 people were arrested and charged with stealing $712 million from Medicare. The arrests included 46 doctors, nurses, pharmacy owners, and other medical professionals. Facilities billed the federal government for therapy sessions where patients were actually just moved, never treated. In a particularly disturbing case, a Michigan doctor allegedly “prescribed unnecessary narcotics in exchange for patients' identification information, which was used to generate false billings. Patients then became deeply addicted to the prescription narcotics and were bound to the scheme as long as they wanted to keep their access to the drugs.” . . . (cont)
Supreme Court upheld ACA. 6-3, 4 liberals plus Kennedy and Roberts. Scalia's dissent is hilarious.
- Status