Will Wiley
Veteran Member
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Ho8OrBzig[/YOUTUBE]
-
Features
‘The truth is… there was no one to vote for’
- Thread starter Will Wiley
- Start date
There's been nobody to vote for for a long time. There are still those to vote against, though.
whichphilosophy
Contributor
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2004
- Messages
- 6,803
- Basic Beliefs
- Energy is itself a Life form
That's not news. It's a matter of voting for one to keep the other out.
untermensche
Contributor
There was Bernie.
He was worth voting for.
He was worth voting for.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
He did get a lot of votes, just not enough.....
The intro of the video is enough to dismiss it. A coughing hillary? Where is the "bing bing bong" Trump?
If there is something of value in this video then present it
LordKiran
Veteran Member
It's the russian media proxie, you're surprised?
Terrell
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,198
- Location
- DMV
- Basic Beliefs
- socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
Yeah and...
Most of the time you're not going to get your ideal candidate. In some cases you're going to have to pick the candidate you agree with more than the other, or disagree with less than the other. Same for like/dislike. It's cold hard pragmatism. Which major party's policies are more compatible with your beliefs, vote accordingly; don't expect to be inspired.
Most of the time you're not going to get your ideal candidate. In some cases you're going to have to pick the candidate you agree with more than the other, or disagree with less than the other. Same for like/dislike. It's cold hard pragmatism. Which major party's policies are more compatible with your beliefs, vote accordingly; don't expect to be inspired.
Ok, don't expect to win much of anything ever again then.
untermensche
Contributor
It was not a clean election, even for US standards.
The party taking sides polluted the whole process.
I saw this thing on Youtube. These pudgy people stumbling around in new York streets holding their phones up in the air. Chanting something stupid and annoying. That isn't what was funny though. The uploader added some music to it. It was the funniest thing. Like Herb Alpert or some really off the wall stuff like that. I think the video is gone now because I can't find it.
The upoader would be expected to add some dramatic music, if any. I prefer no music in stuff like that. Think about it though, the people make a drama out of things. A drama out of another drama. Because that seems to be what things are.
It is really odd that people who are protesting will be more concerned with how it looks, than what it does. Making sure the focus is right and laughing while doing it. Like yes this is a joke and I know it, but isn't it fun to film?
And that is the symptom now. How it looks is how it is, but video and pictures aren't real. Neither are social media profiles and the cute shit people put on them. I think someone has achieved perfection in making illusion irresistible. And it seems irresistible to contribute to with our own bullshit. It really irritates me that I'm never agreed with on this.
Cut to the chase I think losing cell service for a month would advance everyone. A break from the constant flashing is needed. People are too tied up with their social profiles to give a fk about their physical bodies and the actual world. You've got another example how powerful illusions can be if you travel back through some social media timelines and read how utterly stupid and confused the average person was during the past ten days. Seriously it will be worth it.
The upoader would be expected to add some dramatic music, if any. I prefer no music in stuff like that. Think about it though, the people make a drama out of things. A drama out of another drama. Because that seems to be what things are.
It is really odd that people who are protesting will be more concerned with how it looks, than what it does. Making sure the focus is right and laughing while doing it. Like yes this is a joke and I know it, but isn't it fun to film?
And that is the symptom now. How it looks is how it is, but video and pictures aren't real. Neither are social media profiles and the cute shit people put on them. I think someone has achieved perfection in making illusion irresistible. And it seems irresistible to contribute to with our own bullshit. It really irritates me that I'm never agreed with on this.
Cut to the chase I think losing cell service for a month would advance everyone. A break from the constant flashing is needed. People are too tied up with their social profiles to give a fk about their physical bodies and the actual world. You've got another example how powerful illusions can be if you travel back through some social media timelines and read how utterly stupid and confused the average person was during the past ten days. Seriously it will be worth it.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
There will never be a perfect or clean election. The US election process is based on an incredibly shaky foundation. However, one side will still get more votes than the other. Look at all the Trump advantages (Benghazi BS, Comey, fox news, and etc.) and yet HRC still won more votes.
untermensche
Contributor
Nobody is asking for anything perfect.
But Democratic Party leaders should not be deciding who the candidate should be.
They gave us Trump because they wanted Hillary over Bernie when Bernie was the better choice.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,438
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
By the barest of margins.
When the results lead to almost half of voters feeling totally devastated, that's a good indication that you chose the wrong methodology for selecting presidents.
Save democracy for the legislature. Judges and presidents need to know what the fuck they are doing; you can't afford a selection process that could put any crazy loon in such positions; nor is it wise to put politicians in those spots - impartiality is too important for executive and judiciary. Leave partisan bickering in the legislature where it belongs.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Sorry, but I'm not following you. You are saying that we shouldn't have popular vote for president? And if we do, we'll get someone crazy? I think that we have someone crazy now. Certifiable. I think that if the presidency were decided by popular vote rather than the EC, our country would be in a better place today. The majority made the right decision.
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
That is only your opinion. Reality is that only about 7% made the right decision.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,438
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
By the barest of margins (and not by enough margin to avoid defeat in the EC).
Do you seriously think that if you got this close in the popular vote this time, and you keep re-doing the process every four years, that you can go for long without getting a crazy person? It's inevitable.
That's one reason why the founding fathers didn't go for direct elections to begin with, and instead passed the buck to the States.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
I think that history will show that the majority would have picked the correct president in both 2000 and 2016. Bottom line for me, the presidency has incredible power. The power to create alliances, appoint lifetime judges, set the direction of an entire branch of government, and create wars. I think that a person who has the power to create a war that could involve millions should have the mandate from the majority. The stakes are too high to allow a minority to set so much policy.
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
History can not show any such thing. There is no way history can know what would have happened if either Gore or HRC had won. Any kind of scenario from a Utopia to an apocalypse can be offered with equal justification.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,438
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I agree that the presidency has great power; and that's why I disagree that it should be given to the winner of a popularity contest, without regard for any other characteristics that winner might have.
Do you seriously think that the best way to select a single person out of 300,000,000 who is best able to create beneficial alliances, appoint wise lifetime judges, set the direction of an entire branch of government for the benefit of the people as a whole, and create wars only when this is necessary for the benefit of the people, is to see how popular they are?
I know it is drummed into people that democracy is the best thing since sliced bread; But it's only one way to make decisions, and it is NOT always the best. Some decisions are too important to be made by the winner of a popularity contest.
Of course, the people need to have a voice, and to be protected from tyranny - that's what the legislature is there for. They can veto judicial appointments by the president, and they are the body that initiates legislation. The people have a voice.
Representative democracy works, when the fact that the people are diverse is reflected in at least some diversity amongst their representatives. But there is only one president. Short of a president with multiple personality disorder, it is impossible for him to represent the will of the people - at best, he represents the will of the fraction of voters who voted for him. How many presidents in recent history have been elected by more than 50% of eligible voters? Hell, how many presidential elections recently have even been participated in by 50%+ of eligible voters? I agree, the stakes are too high to give that decision to a minority - but given that it will be made by a minority anyway, why not make it on the basis of reason and merit?
The president cannot represent 'the people' in their entirety - other than by being selected on merit, rather than popularity. Pick someone who cares about doing what is best for the nation - or at least who can demonstrate an understanding of what might be best.
Shit, it would be better to pick a random citizen for president, than to restrict the pool of possible candidates to the kind of narcissistic, glad-handing, wheeler-dealing, lying, scumbags who can get elected in a partisan popularity contest. Save those guys for congress, where at least they cancel each others worst excesses out to some extent.