Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

The bit about the third party voters and the "she didn't earn my vote" plus the whole "Sanders was cheated, he would have won!" stuff in that newsweek article are why the protesters, of which apparently an unfortunately high percentage didn't even vote, are so annoying.

What makes you think a high percentage of the protesters didn't vote?

Was it this article?

At least 69 of the 112 demonstrators captured during marches against the incoming President-elect either were not registered to vote in Oregon or did not return their mail-in ballots, KGW-TV reported Monday. The revelations followed police accounts of violence and destruction at the protests.

It's a huge leap to extrapolate from those few people to all the protesters at all the anti-trump protests across the nation.

Some of the demonstrators were also unable to vote for president or other federal offices, due to not being citizens. Dreamers, green card holders, etc. Telling them that they should have voted, no, blaming them for Donald Trump's election and calling them hypocrites because they didn't vote and are now protesting, is just absurd. (Or oblivious)

P.S. Republicans didn't get 60 votes in the senate, so if the Democrats are willing to Hold The Line, they can block anything* still. But that wouldn't be polite.

* anything that isn't passed through reconciliation, and as long as the republicans don't use the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster entirely

[Frumple]

Probably the voting turnout,SL

Other news, this is kinda' an interesting bit of yammering. Series of tweets giving an opinion on the economic woes thread of commentary we've been seeing, among other things. How well researched et al it actually is I don't really know, and it's both too late and I don't really care enough to rummage through it anyway, but it's an outlook I haven't personally seen much, and at least appears better supported than many, on the face of it. Figured someone might be interested and willing to read through a tweet storm.

And sorta' neutered neo, but sorta' not, too -- especially in the case of a divided GOP and a lack of filibuster breaking majority (again assuming the GOP isn't going to commit long term suicide and abolish it), their house and congress members have a fair amount of kingmaker style leverage. State level stuff's a lot messier on that front regardless, too.

[Rockphed]

The bit about the third party voters and the "she didn't earn my vote" plus the whole "Sanders was cheated, he would have won!" stuff in that newsweek article are why the protesters, of which apparently an unfortunately high percentage didn't even vote, are so annoying.

What makes you think a high percentage of the protesters didn't vote?

Was it this article?

At least 69 of the 112 demonstrators captured during marches against the incoming President-elect either were not registered to vote in Oregon or did not return their mail-in ballots, KGW-TV reported Monday. The revelations followed police accounts of violence and destruction at the protests.

It's a huge leap to extrapolate from those few people to all the protesters at all the anti-trump protests across the nation.

Some of the demonstrators were also unable to vote for president or other federal offices, due to not being citizens. Dreamers, green card holders, etc. Telling them that they should have voted, no, blaming them for Donald Trump's election and calling them hypocrites because they didn't vote and are now protesting, is just absurd. (Or oblivious)

Personally, I don't hold it against the protestors that they didn't vote.  I laugh at them that they didn't vote.  Here they are, cogs in the democratic machine, yet they have nothing except their rage to offer in exchange for favors.  It is a similar case with minorities, particularly blacks, whose votes the democrats have come to expect.  If you never consider voting for anyone except the person you are told to vote for, the people telling you who to vote for don't ever actually have to fulfill any of their promises.

I hold it against them that they are causing property damage in their third-world attempt to overturn a fair election.  It is like they have no capacity for realizing that anything they push through by their vitriol and rage, the republicans can push through by vitriol and rage.  And aren't they claiming that the Republicans have enough vitriol and rage to replace our nuclear arsenal?

[Shadowlord]

I'll point to Flint as an exampel of why people who could vote for President might not have, Rockphed.

You wouldn't vote for the party that poisoned your home and that of everyone else who lives near you, and left you with corroded city pipes and unsafe water.

But you also might be so deeply disappointed by what Obama did that you won't vote for his chosen successor either. Specifically, coming down to drink a glass of water to assure everyone that it was all perfectly safe, when it wasn't, after which the media more or less left and everyone stopped paying attention.

[Baffler]

The bit about the third party voters and the "she didn't earn my vote" plus the whole "Sanders was cheated, he would have won!" stuff in that newsweek article are why the protesters, of which apparently an unfortunately high percentage didn't even vote, are so annoying.

What makes you think a high percentage of the protesters didn't vote?

Was it this article?

At least 69 of the 112 demonstrators captured during marches against the incoming President-elect either were not registered to vote in Oregon or did not return their mail-in ballots, KGW-TV reported Monday. The revelations followed police accounts of violence and destruction at the protests.

It's a huge leap to extrapolate from those few people to all the protesters at all the anti-trump protests across the nation.

Some of the demonstrators were also unable to vote for president or other federal offices, due to not being citizens. Dreamers, green card holders, etc. Telling them that they should have voted, no, blaming them for Donald Trump's election and calling them hypocrites because they didn't vote and are now protesting, is just absurd. (Or oblivious)

P.S. Republicans didn't get 60 votes in the senate, so if the Democrats are willing to Hold The Line, they can block anything* still. But that wouldn't be polite.

* anything that isn't passed through reconciliation, and as long as the republicans don't use the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster entirely

So... they aren't voters who should have voted, but foreigners, kids, and protest tourists? I don't really see how that makes them less ridiculous, tbh.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I frankly trust exactly zero reports on "paid/bused protestors" after the Charlotte protests. The police commissioner lied straight to everybody's faces (shocking) and claimed 80% weren't from North Carolina at all when in reality not only were most arrested people Charlotte residents, all of them were from the city and immediately surrounding areas.

The cops are liars. This is demonstrable fact. Any claims they make as to the identities of the people they've arrested is inherently untrustworthy, and there is nothing legally obligating them to tell the press the truth on these matters. Fuck the police and FTFE.

[PTTG??]

Ok, so if we consider intentional non-voting to be a vote against both the big-party candidates, AND we assume that everyone who failed to vote did so intentionally, then third parties would have gotten 50%+ of the vote.

If people who wanted to send a message of disatisfaction actually did so, they'd make a very major difference! The problem is they've been told that it's 'throwing their vote away,' which one can only do by failing to actually vote.

That said, we're actually in the midst of a modern high point in voter turnout. Ever since 2000, voter turnout has been higher than most of the 20th century. For some reason, there was a much higher voter turnout in the 19th century.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

19th century turnout rates are probably unreliable. I'd have to look, but I wouldn't be surprised if the advent of citizen tabulation and modern statistics precipitated a radical "drop" in turnout.

[Sergarr]

I frankly trust exactly zero reports on "paid/bused protestors" after the Charlotte protests. The police commissioner lied straight to everybody's faces (shocking) and claimed 80% weren't from North Carolina at all when in reality not only were most arrested people Charlotte residents, all of them were from the city and immediately surrounding areas.

The cops are liars. This is demonstrable fact. Any claims they make as to the identities of the people they've arrested is inherently untrustworthy, and there is nothing legally obligating them to tell the press the truth on these matters. Fuck the police and FTFE.

Ah.

The more I hear stuff like this, the more I think that, unless we employ AI's to manage our media in order to achieve re-convergence of society, we're pretty much screwed.

[TheBiggerFish]

Ok, so if we consider intentional non-voting to be a vote against both the big-party candidates, AND we assume that everyone who failed to vote did so intentionally, then third parties would have gotten 50%+ of the vote.

If people who wanted to send a message of disatisfaction actually did so, they'd make a very major difference! The problem is they've been told that it's 'throwing their vote away,' which one can only do by failing to actually vote.

That said, we're actually in the midst of a modern high point in voter turnout. Ever since 2000, voter turnout has been higher than most of the 20th century. For some reason, there was a much higher voter turnout in the 19th century.

Can we just mandate voting for all citizens already?

[wierd]

The economy would stop dead on election day if we did.

Truth be told, even if I had wanted to vote, I was tied to my cube that day. True, I could have arranged time, but then I still would not have been in my cube.

When you remove everyone from their places of employment on election day (which includes the cops!), things get silly very fast.

Elections would need to span an entire week to balance the lost productivity out.


Of the 3rd parties, I most favored Stein, however- I did not align with large portions of it [her platform] that were deal breakers. No candidate sufficiently reflected my views on how this country should be run.

[Frumple]

... well, yes, which is why early, mail-in, and absentee voting is a thing. In most states, anyway. There's a lot of decent reasons for folks to not be able to vote, but not being able to get off work on election day generally isn't exactly sufficient by itself. Pretty sure there's either a federal or pervasive state law mandating businesses give their workers at least a couple hours off to vote, too, for all m'totally aware how much of an actual (non)option that is in a lot of cases.

Not to say we couldn't do a hell of a lot more to make things easier on folks, but there's usually at least something of an attempt by states to give people an alternative. If the voter actually cares enough to use them, anyway.

[Rolan7]

Ok, so if we consider intentional non-voting to be a vote against both the big-party candidates, AND we assume that everyone who failed to vote did so intentionally, then third parties would have gotten 50%+ of the vote.

If people who wanted to send a message of disatisfaction actually did so, they'd make a very major difference! The problem is they've been told that it's 'throwing their vote away,' which one can only do by failing to actually vote.

That would have been great.  I agree, not voting just seems like a waste.  You ought to be there anyway to vote on local issues, and you can abstain from any race you want.

So why not write-in "instant runoff" or "Batman" or even this asshole.  Or the Green party or the Libertarians, possibly giving them a seat at the next debate.
Putting in the effort to vote, but not for either main party, is an ideal protest of the 2-party system. 

Heck I almost voted Green but eh...  I guess I have my head in the sand regarding Clinton's badness

That said, we're actually in the midst of a modern high point in voter turnout. Ever since 2000, voter turnout has been higher than most of the 20th century. For some reason, there was a much higher voter turnout in the 19th century.

That's interesting...  Of course, this particular race was a lot lower than 4 years ago.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Elections would need to span an entire week to balance the lost productivity out.

Deal, let's do it.

[wierd]

I feel so privileged to be on that list Rolan! LOL

MSH: keep the polls open 24/7 on that week, and you have a deal.  closing at 7pm is bastardly to 2nd and 3rd shift employees.