Current Events > Obama: "the biggest threat to our democracy is apathy"

(+) Yeah! (+)

hockeybub89 posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

Apathy is a symptom of the absence of democracy in this case, not the cause of it.

Exactly. Don't demand that people pick shit over and over and then blame them for things being shitty.

Who's demanding what?

Who's fault is it if it isn't Americans?
---

well if you live in a swing state your vote does count, and choosing not to vote means you don't either don't care or you think both sides are the same. Either case is indefensible
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Anteaterking posted...

spudger posted...

we vote these worthless f***s into office

The people to blame for Trump being voted into office are people who voted for Trump or chose not to vote, period.

Same goes for any other government official.

ftfy

Are you trying to shame people for exercising their right to vote by not voting? You're encouraging more ignorant votes.

Trump lost the popular vote anyway. People vote for third parties or write in Batman and then they get mocked for hurting the only 2 candidates that have a shot and not making a real vote. This was a historically unpopular election where the "popular" winner didn't even get elected. Perhaps our election system is the issue, not pessimism towards it.

what is your stance on self accountability?

we are all responsible for our own actions, or lack of action. we are also responsible for the messages we put out and we're responsible for using the tools provided to us to do our civic duty. that includes, but not limited to: the internet for research. ignorance is an option in 2016.

if you feel shame for not voting, that's a YOU problem. don't put that on me.

And yet there are millions of uninformed voters every single election.

I was extremely informed. That's why I didn't vote for President in 2016. People who voted for Trump are responsible for voting for Trump, and once again, he lost the popular vote which would matter in a real democracy.

Don't talk about people having rights and responsibility and then blame them for not holding their nose and voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

No one would be screaming about doing your duty (Is this a fucking dystopia) if Hillary won, so spare me the lecture on civic responsibility.

My vote would literally not have mattered as I vote on what people are, not who they aren't. When you give me a senile jackass, the least popular Democrat, and several batshit third party candidates, what's left? Writing in a candidate and patting myself on the back for doing my civic duty the "correct" way? I didn't make an apathetic decision, I made a realistic one.

Trump would have really had to be Hitler to get me to protest vote for Hillary.

look man, all that was a choice.

no need to explain it. just partake next time since you're so informed now.

If there's a candidate I want to vote for, sure. Stop being so pedantic about my use of the word shame. You were throwing around blame on who is responsible for Trump. It's not self-conscious to tell you to stop blaming people after you literally blame them.

A no-vote is a vote for no one. How can you call it good for Trump, but not Hillary? And again, Trump fucking lost the people's vote. Votes should be for someone, not against someone else.
---

spudger posted...

great take, actually. we vote these worthless fucks into office so we only have ourselves to blame.

we, as a people, voted in a fat, orange, reality tv star.

What happened there was the very opposite of apathy. People came out in droves to vote Trump. He had an average of 2 million more votes as a Republican than the past 3 Presidential elections. And that's not just because of population rise, because in 2004, Bush came within 900k of Trump in 2016.

Hillary had basically the same number of votes as Obama in 2012.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Exactly. Don't demand that people pick s*** over and over and then blame them for things being s***ty.

Look, I don't agree with Ricky, but it's also reductionist to look at 2016 and say "Both options were ****, why do you expect me to vote?" By not voting, you're implicitly saying that the differences between the two candidates aren't enough for you to sufficiently prefer one over the other. That can still be wrong headed if there is enough of a difference between the two options.

Sad_Face posted...

I want to believe that but the Bernie bros, by and large, swallowed their pride for the good the Democratic party and voted for Clinton. Only 15% of those who voted for Bernie voted for Trump. A smaller percentage that the people who voted for Clinton voting for McCain in '08 instead of Obama (25% I believe).

Slightly disingenuous though, since ordering your preferences "Sanders, Trump, Clinton" is almost always idiotic whereas if you were a centrist in 2008 "Clinton, McCain, Obama" is a reasonable ordering.
---

If Trump benefits from less people voting then he benefits. That's the system you guys have set-up. That's the stuff you need to keep in mind when it's voting time.

If you don't want to vote because you feel you only have shit candidates to vote for then you shouldn't care who wins. If you do care then you should vote. Simple.
---

Anteaterking posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Exactly. Don't demand that people pick s*** over and over and then blame them for things being s***ty.

Look, I don't agree with Ricky, but it's also reductionist to look at 2016 and say "Both options were ****, why do you expect me to vote?" By not voting, you're implicitly saying that the differences between the two candidates aren't enough for you to sufficiently prefer one over the other. That can still be wrong headed if there is enough of a difference between the two options.

Sad_Face posted...

I want to believe that but the Bernie bros, by and large, swallowed their pride for the good the Democratic party and voted for Clinton. Only 15% of those who voted for Bernie voted for Trump. A smaller percentage that the people who voted for Clinton voting for McCain in '08 instead of Obama (25% I believe).

Slightly disingenuous though, since ordering your preferences "Sanders, Trump, Clinton" is almost always idiotic whereas if you were a centrist in 2008 "Clinton, McCain, Obama" is a reasonable ordering.

what did I say that you disagree with?
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

what did I say that you disagree with?

I don't think that non-voters are always to blame. After all, voting for someone who has no hope of winning has the same impact, but I wouldn't blame third party voters for the results of most elections either.
---

Anteaterking posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

what did I say that you disagree with?

I don't think that non-voters are always to blame. After all, voting for someone who has no hope of winning has the same impact, but I wouldn't blame third party voters for the results of most elections either.

I believe we were being specific, though. nobody said "non-voters are always to blame." but in this 2016 election? yeah?
---

bevan306 posted...

well if you live in a swing state your vote does count, and choosing not to vote means you don't either don't care or you think both sides are the same. Either case is indefensible

I don't really live in a swing area and I think there are other reasons to not vote.

Now I kind of hope some fucking celebrity wins the Democratic nomination in 2020. It would be hilarious and sad to see people moaning about doing their duty by actively picking sides in a joke of an election. Sides are the entire problem. "Both sides" aren't the same, but that doesn't make one side good. They are the same in the sense that conformity is essentially required on election day. And independent voters have absolutely no say in who gets on that ballot. The system is rigged against change and dissent.

Playing by the rules isn't going to change the rules. No one was shaking the establishment to its very core by picking Hillary over Trump in 2016. That election was a testament to America's failures, not a bright opportunity for change. The failure wasn't Trump winning. And once again, he lost the popular vote. The failure was having a system where 2016 happens. It made all the pitfalls of our political system as clear and ugly as ever. If we're going to change, it will be from below, not from the very top.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

I believe we were being specific, though. nobody said "non-voters are always to blame." but in this 2016 election? yeah?

Oh sure, then yeah.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Slightly disingenuous though, since ordering your preferences "Sanders, Trump, Clinton" is almost always idiotic whereas if you were a centrist in 2008 "Clinton, McCain, Obama" is a reasonable ordering.

I am not following what you're saying here.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

bevan306 posted...

well if you live in a swing state your vote does count, and choosing not to vote means you don't either don't care or you think both sides are the same. Either case is indefensible

I don't really live in a swing area and I think there are other reasons to not vote.

Now I kind of hope some fucking celebrity wins the Democratic nomination in 2020. It would be hilarious and sad to see people moaning about doing their duty by actively picking sides in a joke of an election. Sides are the entire problem. "Both sides" aren't the same, but that doesn't make one side good. They are the same in the sense that conformity is essentially required on election day. And independent voters have absolutely no say in who gets on that ballot. The system is rigged against change and dissent.

Playing by the rules isn't going to change the rules. No one was shaking the establishment to its very core by picking Hillary over Trump in 2016. That election was a testament to America's failures, not a bright opportunity for change. The failure wasn't Trump winning. And once again, he lost the popular vote. The failure was having a system where 2016 happens. It made all the pitfalls of our political system as clear and ugly as ever. If we're going to change, it will be from below, not from the very top.

that's quite a petty, spiteful, immature and indignant viewpoint, but it's your right to have.

maybe it's better that you don't vote after all, lolololol
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Anteaterking posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

what did I say that you disagree with?

I don't think that non-voters are always to blame. After all, voting for someone who has no hope of winning has the same impact, but I wouldn't blame third party voters for the results of most elections either.

I believe we were being specific, though. nobody said "non-voters are always to blame." but in this 2016 election? yeah?

Trump lost the popular vote though. How do you know those non-votes wouldn't have helped him win that too?Anteaterking posted...

Look, I don't agree with Ricky, but it's also reductionist to look at 2016 and say "Both options were ****, why do you expect me to vote?" By not voting, you're implicitly saying that the differences between the two candidates aren't enough for you to sufficiently prefer one over the other. That can still be wrong headed if there is enough of a difference between the two options.

I thought Hillary and Trump were very different from each other. I just can't think how the country wants me to think. I think Trump is an embarrassing idiot, but I want to vote for his opponent, not just because they are better than him. There are Republicans better than him, but I wouldn't vote for them if they somehow won the Democratic nomination.
---

Nice to see dems shitting on non-voters now. It really is everyone's fault but theirs that Hillary didn't win. Apathy and indifference doesn't come out of thin air. You want people to vote? How about you put out a candidate worth a damn?
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

bevan306 posted...

well if you live in a swing state your vote does count, and choosing not to vote means you don't either don't care or you think both sides are the same. Either case is indefensible

I don't really live in a swing area and I think there are other reasons to not vote.

Now I kind of hope some fucking celebrity wins the Democratic nomination in 2020. It would be hilarious and sad to see people moaning about doing their duty by actively picking sides in a joke of an election. Sides are the entire problem. "Both sides" aren't the same, but that doesn't make one side good. They are the same in the sense that conformity is essentially required on election day. And independent voters have absolutely no say in who gets on that ballot. The system is rigged against change and dissent.

Playing by the rules isn't going to change the rules. No one was shaking the establishment to its very core by picking Hillary over Trump in 2016. That election was a testament to America's failures, not a bright opportunity for change. The failure wasn't Trump winning. And once again, he lost the popular vote. The failure was having a system where 2016 happens. It made all the pitfalls of our political system as clear and ugly as ever. If we're going to change, it will be from below, not from the very top.

that's quite a petty, spiteful, immature and indignant viewpoint, but it's your right to have.

maybe it's better that you don't vote after all, lolololol

I was joking about that celebrity part. I clearly don't want that. I was really just saying how messed up things are. That people can see a joke of an election and still give the whole civic duty spiel. Voluntary elections should be about who you want, not who you want the least.
---

Sad_Face posted...

I am not following what you're saying here.

I'm saying in 2008, Hillary was closer to center than Obama (and McCain was also closer to center than McCain was later in life). So depending on your policy positions, you could be a Hillary supporter who shares more in common with McCain than Obama. So that 25% isn't necessarily people who are voting for McCain out of spite.

As a contrast, it's hard to come up with a set of actual policy positions where you're a Bernie supporter where the second closest politician to you policy wise is Trump rather than Clinton. That indicates that more of the Bernie to Trump voters did so out of spite or had only a superficial understanding of the candidates.

It doesn't really matter, all I'm saying is that you can't just look at the vote movements in this case. If 10% of Bernie's supporters voted for Trump out of spite (and 5% for other reasons), that's worse than if 20% of Hillary supporters voted for McCain because he matched their policies better, even if that means more crossover voters.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Anteaterking posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

what did I say that you disagree with?

I don't think that non-voters are always to blame. After all, voting for someone who has no hope of winning has the same impact, but I wouldn't blame third party voters for the results of most elections either.

I believe we were being specific, though. nobody said "non-voters are always to blame." but in this 2016 election? yeah?

Trump lost the popular vote though. How do you know those non-votes wouldn't have helped him win that too?

we don't. but they'd still be to blame for a Trump win if they voted for Trump, which brings us back home to the point of the post I originally quoted.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Sad_Face posted...

I am not following what you're saying here.

I'm saying in 2008, Hillary was closer to center than Obama (and McCain was also closer to center than McCain was later in life). So depending on your policy positions, you could be a Hillary supporter who shares more in common with McCain than Obama. So that 25% isn't necessarily people who are voting for McCain out of spite.

As a contrast, it's hard to come up with a set of actual policy positions where you're a Bernie supporter where the second closest politician to you policy wise is Trump rather than Clinton. That indicates that more of the Bernie to Trump voters did so out of spite or had only a superficial understanding of the candidates.

It doesn't really matter, all I'm saying is that you can't just look at the vote movements in this case. If 10% of Bernie's supporters voted for Trump out of spite (and 5% for other reasons), that's worse than if 20% of Hillary supporters voted for McCain because he matched their policies better, even if that means more crossover voters.

Oh okay, that makes sense.
---