Trump vs. Biden

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

This why, as I have said before, we need more parties. Split the GOP into the traditional defense hawk/fiscal conservatives and the Trumper populists. Also split the Democrats into the socialists and the centrists. With 4 parties no one can get the upper hand and compromise will be unavoidable. If the smaller groupings make parties like the Greens viable, well, even better.

Yes, I would really prefer to not be in the same party as Joe Biden.

 

[The Cat]

This why, as I have said before, we need more parties. Split the GOP into the traditional defense hawk/fiscal conservatives and the Trumper populists. Also split the Democrats into the socialists and the centrists. With 4 parties no one can get the upper hand and compromise will be unavoidable. If the smaller groupings make parties like the Greens viable, well, even better.

I suppose, though I'm starting to see the allure of no hierarchies...

 

[Jonny]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I suppose, though I'm starting to see the allure of no hierarchies...

Problem with anarchism as I've seen it practiced is that a few people end up dominating the groups anyway. What's the point, then? There'd have to be some sort of organization in place for it to have any actual meaning.

 

[The Cat]

Problem with anarchism as I've seen it practiced is that a few people end up dominating the groups anyway. What's the point, then? There'd have to be some sort of organization in place for it to have any actual meaning.

yeah. I'm pretty sure I'm too cynical these days to believe it'd be any different, long term apart from just seeding the next cycle of civilization, where very little changes... still though it reminds me of back when I was graduating high school before I joined the military and got most of my utopian ideals beaten the fuck out of me...but I like that there are folk who are still making a good case for it... researching it has helped rekindle a bit of my passion for people helping people though so...

if i didnt live somewhere with a closed primary id likey be a part of the green party...

 

[Tater]

Here's an answer for you guys- climb down off of your sanctimonious high horses and realize the following:

1) If they're in a cult, so are you.

2) Now that you understand you're the same, whatever would get you to abandon your own convictions might work on them, so try that.

3) Finally grasp human nature with those big righteous brains of yours and move on to something productive in your lives.

A couple weeks ago, a coworker of mine showed me a picture of the MAGA march happening at the time.

I told her that I thought it was a cult.

Dejected, she told me that she thought I was in a cult, too.

I told her that I wasn't even that enthusiastic voting for Biden.

And you wanna know what else? I voted for a government who will keep people at their stations. I voted for a government who will govern. I voted for a government. Period.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

yeah. I'm pretty sure I'm too cynical these days to believe it'd be any different, long term apart from just seeding the next cycle of civilization, where very little changes... still though it reminds me of back when I was graduating high school before I joined the military and got most of my utopian ideals beaten the fuck out of me...but I like that there are folk who are still making a good case for it... researching it has helped rekindle a bit of my passion for people helping people though so...

if i didnt live somewhere with a closed primary id likey be a part of the green party...

I think the DSA route is really the best way to go. Which is why I'm trying to be more active in that organization.

 

[The Cat]

I think the DSA route is really the best way to go. Which is why I'm trying to be more active in that organization.

I'm just starting to look into what theyre about, got any recommendations?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm just starting to look into what theyre about, got any recommendations?

I don't know where you live, but i'd recommend just tracking down your local chapter and seeing what kind of virtual events you could attend. If you can find contact info, I'd also recommend reaching out to them.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

This Twitter thread is a pretty strong argument against democracy.

HCR's comment about it: The thread is very, very sad. And disturbing. People left behind since 1980 and they need a cause and someone to blame.

 

[Red Herring]

Highest voter turnout ever at US presidential elections: 66.7% (2020)
Lowest voter turnout ever at German parliamentary elections: 70.8% (2009)
Average voter turnout in Western Europe: 77%

Vote turnout in New Zealand general elections 2020: 82.2% (it was over 90% in the 1980s without being compulsory and now there is some talk of making it compulsory because of the relative drop!)

(Careful: this is based on the voting age population, not the registered or elegible population, for example the official voter turnout for Germany in 2017 was 76.2% of elegible voters, not 69.1%)

In past elections, U.S. trailed most developed countries in voter turnout | Pew Research Center

In many countries, the national government takes the lead in getting people’s names on the rolls – whether by registering them automatically once they become eligible (as in, for example, Sweden or Germany) or by aggressively seeking out and registering eligible voters (as in the UK and Australia). As a result, turnout looks pretty similar regardless of whether you’re looking at voting-age population or registered voters.

In the U.S., by contrast, registration is decentralized and mainly an individual responsibility. And registered voters represent a much smaller share of potential voters in the U.S. than in many other countries. Only about 64% of the U.S. voting-age population (and 70% of voting-age citizens) was registered in 2016, according to the Census Bureau. The U.S. rate is much lower than many other OECD countries: For example, the share of the voting-age population that is registered to vote is 92% in the UK (2019), 93% in Canada (2019), 94% in Sweden (2018) and 99% in Slovakia (2020). Luxembourg also has a low rate (54%), although it represents something of a special case because nearly half of the tiny country’s population is foreign born.

As a consequence, turnout comparisons based only on registered voters may not be very meaningful. For instance, U.S. turnout in 2016 was 86.8% of registered voters, fifth-highest among OECD countries and second-highest among those without compulsory voting. But registered voters in the U.S. are much more of a self-selected group, already more likely to vote because they took the trouble to register themselves.

Voter turnout - Wikipedia

International differences
Voter turnout varies considerably between nations. It tends to be lower in North America, Asia and Latin America than in most of Europe and Oceania. Based on all parliamentary elections between 1945 and 1997, Western Europe averages a 77% turnout, and South and Central America around 54%.[68] The differences between nations tend to be greater than those between classes, ethnic groups, or regions within nations. Confusingly, some of the factors that cause internal differences do not seem to apply on a global level. For instance, nations with better-educated populaces do not have higher turnouts. There are two main commonly cited causes of these international differences: culture and institutions. However, there is much debate over the relative impact of the various factors.
(...)
Cultural factors

Wealth and literacy have some effect on turnout, but are not reliable measures. Countries such as Angola and Ethiopia have long had high turnouts, but so have the wealthy states of Europe. The United Nations Human Development Index shows some correlation between higher standards of living and higher turnout. The age of a democracy is also an important factor. Elections require considerable involvement by the population, and it takes some time to develop the cultural habit of voting, and the associated understanding of and confidence in the electoral process. This factor may explain the lower turnouts in the newer democracies of Eastern Europe and Latin America. Much of the impetus to vote comes from a sense of civic duty, which takes time and certain social conditions that can take decades to develop:

trust in government;
degree of partisanship among the population;
interest in politics, and
belief in the efficacy of voting.[73]

Demographics also have an effect. Older people tend to vote more than youths, so societies where the average age is somewhat higher, such as Europe; have higher turnouts than somewhat younger countries such as the United States. Populations that are more mobile and those that have lower marriage rates tend to have lower turnout. In countries that are highly multicultural and multilingual, it can be difficult for national election campaigns to engage all sectors of the population.

The nature of elections also varies between nations. In the United States, negative campaigning and character attacks are more common than elsewhere, potentially suppressing turnouts. The focus placed on get out the vote efforts and mass-marketing can have important effects on turnout. Partisanship is an important impetus to turnout, with the highly partisan more likely to vote. Turnout tends to be higher in nations where political allegiance is closely linked to class, ethnic, linguistic, or religious loyalties.[74] Countries where multiparty systems have developed also tend to have higher turnouts. Nations with a party specifically geared towards the working class will tend to have higher turnouts among that class than in countries where voters have only big tent parties, which try to appeal to all the voters, to choose from.[75] A four-wave panel study conducted during the 2010 Swedish national election campaign, show (1) clear differences in media use between age groups and (2) that both political social media use and attention to political news in traditional media increase political engagement over time.[76]

Institutional factors
Institutional factors have a significant impact on voter turnout. Rules and laws are also generally easier to change than attitudes, so much of the work done on how to improve voter turnout looks at these factors. Making voting compulsory has a direct and dramatic effect on turnout. Simply making it easier for candidates to stand through easier nomination rules is believed to increase voting. Conversely, adding barriers, such as a separate registration process, can suppress turnout. The salience of an election, the effect that a vote will have on policy, and its proportionality, how closely the result reflects the will of the people, are two structural factors that also likely have important effects on turnout.

Ease of voting
Ease of voting is a factor in rates of turnout. In the United States and most Latin American nations, voters must go through separate voter registration procedures before they are allowed to vote. This two-step process quite clearly decreases turnout. US states with no, or easier, registration requirements have larger turnouts.[91] Other methods of improving turnout include making voting easier through more available absentee polling and improved access to polls, such as increasing the number of possible voting locations, lowering the average time voters have to spend waiting in line, or requiring companies to give workers some time off on voting day.[which?] In some areas, generally those where some polling centres are relatively inaccessible, such as India, elections often take several days. Some countries have considered Internet voting as a possible solution. In other countries, like France, voting is held on the weekend, when most voters are away from work. Therefore, the need for time off from work as a factor in voter turnout is greatly reduced.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Highest voter turnout ever at US presidential elections: 66.7% (2020)
Lowest voter turnout ever at German parliamentary elections: 70.8% (2009)
Average voter turnout in Western Europe: 77%

Vote turnout in New Zealand general elections 2020: 82.2% (it was over 90% in the 1980s without being compulsory and now there is some talk of making it compulsory because of the relative drop!)

.....

Yes, everything you said should be true. But for me the bottom line is that people in US probably don't have enough of good social programs at disposal to be really interested in voting. I think they even have a budget split in two, one and larger part is certain and the smaller part is "we can talk about this". Plus voting in safe states is kinda waste of time, especially on the working day. Therefore if the main parties can't guarantee access to healthcare, pay college tuition for the young people, make sure that water supply is clean or guarantee general public safety then this really opens the question of what is the point of voting. Since fundamentally voting revolves around content and if that content is minimal that will not spark public interest. Especially since in US just about everyone can block just about everything. You can have all 3 branches of the government, good situation on the supreme court and you can still get blocked until you lose control over something. What basically indicates that your vote doesn't really mean anything since nothing can fundamentally get done.


Ironically in the case that there are no conspiracy theories and drama US politics would mostly be quite boring and uninteresting. While on the other hand I am from the country that is nobody on the global stage or in global history, but even we are getting quite close to their general social success level and we even surpassed them in a number of basic or progressive issues. What is exactly since there is no fundamental status quo in politics. Therefore even if there is a low turnout on a certain year the things can still change. If anything simply due to changes between the ratios that all parties in the multiparty system have in the parliament, town hall or wherever. What prevents linearity, because at least some parties will make pushes in order that they get more votes in the next elections (or they simply believe in what they are proposing). Or in other words the parties that don't do anything will be phased out completely with time. While in US this political mechanism doesn't really exist.

 

[ceecee]

Roger Stone Says North Korean Boats Delivered Ballots Through Maine Harbor As Trump Boosts Fraud Claims

"I just learned of absolute incontrovertible evidence of North Korean boats delivering ballots through a harbor in Maine, the state of Maine," Stone said. "If this checks out, if law enforcement looked into that and it turned out to be true, it would be proof of foreign involvement in the election."

Kooko sure but this is called blame shifting/projecting.

Just like when someone says if they are in a cult, so are you.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

like a rhinestone cowboy

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Roger Stone Says North Korean Boats Delivered Ballots Through Maine Harbor As Trump Boosts Fraud Claims




Kooko sure but this is called blame shifting/projecting.

Just like when someone says if they are in a cult, so are you.

their conspiracy theories just get sillier and sillier. this reads like something from a 90s comedy sketch like Mr Show. or the plot of an old south park episode.

the satire almost writes itself at this point

 

[Totenkindly]

their conspiracy theories just get sillier and sillier. this reads like something from a 90s comedy sketch like Mr Show. or the plot of an old south park episode.

Too bad Butters wasn't there to shoot them all in the dick

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Too bad Butters wasn't there to shoot them all in the dick

'well that's not where I aimed, HONEST!'

 

[ygolo]

I don't understand this graphic, but I would like to.

What context does this data come from? Is this a what-if scenario? Where does 750 come from? Are these explicitly calling out the coalition that is formed to make the Democratic and Republican parties?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

It would be interesting to see how much electoral college interferes with that^ representation.

 

[anticlimatic]

To be clear, I am not talking about all Republicans, nor all people who voted for Trump, nor even people who like Trump.

I am specifically talking about people who believe that the mainstream sources of information have so much bias as to twist the reporting of facts with the specific aims to be against a particular person (in this case Trump). Facts, not color commentary and opinion being against him--the reporting of facts of who did what when and where being against him.

This notion has spread from mainstream media, now including even Fox News, to national intelligence people, including people Trump himself appointed, to election officials, many of whom were Republicans. There had already been people that believed things like evolution just being a theory, climate science being a hoax, Obama not being born in the US, that the moon landings were faked on a Hollywood set, and now even that Democrats have pedophile ring that eats babies. The pace of moving away from the mainstream understanding of reality is what is so alarming.

I am willing to believe that it is me who is in the cult, though keep in mind I don'e belong to a political party, and probably never will. I don't trust mainstream sources of information implicitly, but one has to start from somewhere when comes to the raw facts, and I'd prefer the scientific and medical journals, as well as news sources like the AP over InfoWars and Q-annon.

If you see my trust in scientific sources of information and the Associated Press over Info Wars and Q-annon as cult behavior, then please tell me how would you pull me out of the cult I am in?

Yeah I feel you, dude. The right has some serious trust issues, and the less or casually informed members end up going down all kinds of rabbit holes. There's no shortage of things to be concerned about right now, so I often feel like this is a game of yelling your own concerns as loud as you can so they don't get drowned in the sea of other people yelling different concerns. My point with the cult thing is that nobody is in a cult. Reason and evidence will ultimately win the day, but until then in the sea of uncertainty, everybody has specific ideas that they even have the capacity to entertain, based on their unconscious interests and political priors. You might be a bad example as an independent, but how many people on the left would dismiss the idea of Russia hacking voting machines shortly after the 2016 election as ridiculous on its face- before any investigation occurred? How many republicans would bother even entertaining the possibility? People have much the same form- it's their content that's arbitrary. The MSM might come through with hard facts once in a while, but the overwhelming spin and bias puts everything they say into question. Whose fault is that? Would anyone on the left trust the media if it was 100 branches of Fox News, and only one CNN standing in contrast to it? Or would they trust the only news source speaking anything close to their own language? The media thing is a big mess, and a big problem. We need trust in....something/anything. The overton window must be reopened somehow. I know I'm doing my best, I assume we all are.