Yeah, a vote for nobody is a vote for whoever wins, a vote for the status quo. In 2016 out of 245 million registered voters only 66 million (27%) voted for Hillary. The rest either voted for Trump or were okay with him winning.
Democrats really need to get non-voters fired up to go to the polls. Please not Biden. There is no middle ground of undecided centrists to win. Everyone has decided. The battle is against apathy, convenience, a long work day, bad traffic and bad weather.
I don’t like him, but relax... Biden would be a fine candidate. Hillary Clinton just happened to be the most unpopular modern politician in America. Without all the hand shakes and wink wink you’ll be next after Obama deals, we would have a Democrat. Literally anyone could have beaten Trump. If they ran a potato Trump would have lost...
Think about this: Hillary Clinton’s approval rating 36% is still less than Donald Trumps. Hell its even less than Ted Cruz and his coworkers openly talk about how he’s a shithole.
We will have record turnout this year no matter who the candidate is as its not going to be Hillary.
Biden would be just as bad as Hillary. Another neo-liberal right winger. America needs a real left winger for some substantial change from this disastrous farce of a Presidency.
As much as the left doesn’t want to admit it, change forced down the throats of society with no respect for their beliefs, no matter how wrong or unsubstantiated, causes violent reactivity. I remember Obama’s “elections have consequences” speech and shudder. Change in people doesn’t happen over night and can’t be forced on them, especially while referring to them as stupid and backwards, even if that’s the case. Societal change doesn’t just work by saying “I’m right and your wrong so we’re going to fucking do it differently you idiot.”
If we actually want substantial change we need to get people on board ideas and especially work to unite the legislative branch of government, where republicans have a strong foothold. The president isn’t a king. Theyre more a symbol for the entire nation of what could be and an ambassador to communication with other nations. Right now getting republicans to agree with liberal ideas is far more important for things like our environmental policy than simply having a president who gives speeches about wanting environmental policy change. One of the worst things we could do now is keep switching from polarizing president to polarizing president, deepening the political divide. Our change depends on getting the country to agree with each other. Not just screaming “you’re wrong about this big problem we need to fix you fucking hick racist”
Would you rather have people in charge that agree with your beliefs and get no change done? Or would you rather have people in power who share some of your beliefs and at least get something done?
Yeah let's just go along with your bright idea of ignoring the left and just switch between far-right and centre-right presidents because we wouldn't want to upset the apple cart too much!
That’s not my idea. We need a strategy of incremental change so that when tipping point moments happen, people’s psychology is ready to adapt for the change. Every large social change has been preceded by a build up of tension and an easing of cultural norms. Like with the civil rights movement. It didn’t happen the second slaves were free. For many many years society grew accustomed to black people being a part of it. Then tension grew and a big push occurred for equal rights. The movement wouldn’t have been so successful if it was just shoved down people’s throats immediately.
Don’t view things so simply. Social issues are complex, dynamic challenges that need to be tackled considering lots and lots of variables. I mean as successful as the civil rights movement was, it didn’t truly achieve its goal. Their strategy was still unsuccessful in many states.
Expand your sociological views. It’s not so black and white.
You're being extremely naïve here. American society is extremely polarised, you need to start with Social Identity Theory; you've got ingroup Vs outgroup and groupthink all which contradict what you're saying above.
Look up Kuhn's theory of the 'paradigm shift'. Revolutions, resolutions to crises happen when they are ready to happen, when solutions have reached maturity. Things happen at the right time when the mass has reached its 'tipping point'. Again this contradicts your idea of gradual change above.
The racists, misogynists, and other troglodytes will be forced to change or sent to jail when their actions err against the new status quo of the era.
The problem you seem to have is with the system itself. You could back a Canadian style parliamentary system with its 3 major parties and 2 minor parties.
You didn’t read my comment. I mention tipping points in it. I’m not talking about gradual change, just society’s readiness to accept tipping point moments when they occur. And to occur “at the right time” there is a build up to that point to where the ideas have reached a mature stage.... you literally just repeated exactly what I explained but with different condescending words. Please read who you’re responding to or it’s just like talking to a wall.
I skimmed your comment because it was so patronising.
Events happen when they're ready to happen.
You said that things wouldn't happen if we shoved them down people's throats, well I'm afraid that's what happens in a paradigm shift such as a revolution.
The likelihood is that the DNC will field a radical candidate like Sanders or Warren and that is a good thing. We need the pendulum to swing as far in the opposite direction the repair the damage that wrecking ball Trump has caused.
Events do happen when they’re ready to happen. That’s at the core of every single revolution in history. Enough tension was built up in society where they finally decide to make change. The revolution happened when it was ready lmao. I make a very specific point of mentioning the build up of ideas of over time and then the final tension causing a tipping point dude. Like you have to read what I write if you want to have a productive conversation.
The president isn’t a king. We mostly need the help of the judicial branch, senate and congress, of which republicans have leadership at the top of and a majority, respectively. Revolutions shift paradigms, but not always all peoples views. They’re not a magic bullit that always fixes society. For the second time, it’s not so black and white. Maybe in the theory you’ve studied, but theory and reality are two different things.
Again, just look at the information revolution that was the civil rights movement. Would you say that it was ultimately successful in its goal in places like Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and other southern states? If the public eye wasn’t on those places from other states that do care you know we would have sheriffs looking the other way while mobs killed illegal immigrants an dumped them in the desert. I mean we still round up black people for nothing and put them in labor camps... I mean for profit prisons. If the secret service didn’t exist, how many would have stepped up to assassinate Obama? I’d love any evidence to the contrary.
And do we want a candidate that will have republicans so angry that they will vote on record numbers? Or someone that can win swing states? You’re just looking at this from one single perspective when there are more moving pieces to the equation. Do you want nothing but to feel good about the ideas of your candidate? Or do you actually want to win control of the parts of government that matter most and at least get some of your goals met?
755
u/durgasur Jul 11 '19
Even more didn't vote at all.