OT: The Avalounge: Mmm... Steamed Yams!

[Cousin Eddie]

I really hope he was wiping his ass with the ballot.

 

[Foppa2118]

I'm pretty convinced when the boomers finally kick the bucket we'll be in a much better place. Horrible to say, but this generation has just tainted so much with greed and hypocrisy. In 1969 all these Boomers wanted drastic change but in 2o20 they want to shut down any change and never pay a dime out of their pockets into the tax base. As a generation X'er that's watched this for my entire life I'm pretty appalled by how their generation has just destroyed so much and just consumed/taken so much. They do not want to give control to anyone but themselves - in government, job markets, pretty much everything......It's not shocking to me that we have two 70 year old boomers today running for president...and that no other generation has the funds to even muster a competitive campaign against them.

/rant

They stay in power because people don't vote them out of power.

Democracy gives us the power to decide who's in power, we just don't use it to its full effect. It's like having a magic wand that can fix problems, but we choose to only use it at half power, and then we get upset that it doesn't fix the problems.

We haven't had over 60% of the electorate vote for president since 1964 and it was 61.4%. We haven't had more than 61.4% since 1916 when it was 61.6%.

It's even lower for Congressional mid term elections. In 2010 it was 41%. In 2016 it was 36%.

But Americans will vote when they're motivated by big issues. Turnout was 70-80% in the years around the Civil War. Which is when mail in voting began as well.

If America can come up with some kind of promotional push that actually works, and get to around 70-80% again, all the boomers you're worried about would be voted out in favor of politicians that are actually motivated to do what the people want, because they will then be relying on your vote to win, and not donations from the wealthy, big corporations, and big insurance.

Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections - Wikipedia

 

[henchman21]

I really hope he was wiping his ass with the ballot.

Right now, I'd vote for that ballot for president.

 

[Foppa2118]

Actually, you are wrong.

There is no thread on this subforum where politics should be discussed according to the forum rules:

4) Threadjacking/OT/Politics: Posts that waste space or time on the site, annoy users due to characteristics or repetition, disrupt the site functionality, or cause threads to veer off topic may be considered “threadjacking/OT”. This also applies to signatures, user titles, avatars, profile fields, and so forth. Stay on topic as much as possible. Post new threads in the appropriate forum only. Political discussion is not permitted on the forums except within the narrowly defined scope of hockey-related matters.

Not that I think it'll be helpful to get into specific political issues or candidates today, but you can't really thread jack a designated OT thread.

 

[BrickNHL]

What if the mods take the OT thread from us again like in 2013

 

[henchman21]

What if the mods take the OT thread from us again like in 2013

 

[Avs9296]

Not that I think it'll be helpful to get into specific political issues or candidates today, but you can't really thread jack a designated OT thread.

I'm not talking about thread jacking.

I'm referring to the last sentence in that paragraph.

Political discussion is not permitted on the forums except within the narrowly defined scope of hockey-related matters.

 

[Foppberg]

What if the mods take the OT thread from us again like in 2013

Brick, you are a mod remember?? We can do whatever the f*** we want in this dojo. f*** RL and the French one, we run this joint.

 

[Foppa2118]

I'm not talking about thread jacking.

I'm referring to the last sentence in that paragraph.

Political discussion is not permitted on the forums except within the narrowly defined scope of hockey-related matters.

Why don't we wait until it gets out of hand, and then act accordingly, before we just start blanket censoring political discussion online?

 

[JWK]

hi avs fans i know a lot of y'all dont like me but im dating one of you now so i apologize for anything i said about y'all lol <3

I'm not kidding, why don't Avs fans like you? Like, who are you?

 

[MarkT]

They stay in power because people don't vote them out of power.

Democracy gives us the power to decide who's in power, we just don't use it to its full effect. It's like having a magic wand that can fix problems, but we choose to only use it at half power, and then we get upset that it doesn't fix the problems.

We haven't had over 60% of the electorate vote for president since 1964 and it was 61.4%. We haven't had more than 61.4% since 1916 when it was 61.6%.

It's even lower for Congressional mid term elections. In 2010 it was 41%. In 2016 it was 36%.

But Americans will vote when they're motivated by big issues. Turnout was 70-80% in the years around the Civil War. Which is when mail in voting began as well.

If America can come up with some kind of promotional push that actually works, and get to around 70-80% again, all the boomers you're worried about would be voted out in favor of politicians that are actually motivated to do what the people want, because they will then be relying on your vote to win, and not donations from the wealthy, big corporations, and big insurance.

Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections - Wikipedia

It's not so simple. The political system is designed to produce apathy. In the U.S. as long as there's only two viable parties, there's always going to be huge numbers (often the minority) who don't particularly support either candidate. And even in situations where there's multiple candidates, who chooses the initial pool of candidates? Even in an election where literally anyone can run, the establishment (the political parties, media, donors, etc) will pre-select the candidates they are okay with winning. The result is almost always the public is left with a list of candidates who all represent establishment interests in various ways.

The only way to really beat the system is to find a candidate who is independently wealthy to the point where they don't need establishment support, who also has charisma, ideas the people can get behind, and an incredibly thick skin. Oh, and they have to somehow have become rich without becoming completely in bed with the establishment. Trump is mostly an example of such a person and look where that led. The establishment certainly didn't want him in power - the right wing only got behind him when they had no other choice.

Yes, people will go out a vote more when they get riled up about something, but that doesn't mean it will cause any significant change.

 

[Emell]

I'm not talking about thread jacking.

I'm referring to the last sentence in that paragraph.

Political discussion is not permitted on the forums except within the narrowly defined scope of hockey-related matters.

A sentence used to describe part of the "Off topic" nature of the "Off topic" parts that are disallowed

The point is to stop any given thread that is supposed to be about hockey from devolving into political bickering.

And if you have a designated Off topic thread... I think you're just completely missing the point of the rule or the premise to try and interpret as you have.

 

[Foppa2118]

It's not so simple. The political system is designed to produce apathy. In the U.S. as long as there's only two viable parties, there's always going to be huge numbers (often the minority) who don't particularly support either candidate. And even in situations where there's multiple candidates, who chooses the initial pool of candidates? Even in an election where literally anyone can run, the establishment (the political parties, media, donors, etc) will pre-select the candidates they are okay with winning. The result is almost always the public is left with a list of candidates who all represent establishment interests in various ways.

The only way to really beat the system is to find a candidate who is independently wealthy to the point where they don't need establishment support, who also has charisma, ideas the people can get behind, and an incredibly thick skin. Oh, and they have to somehow have become rich without becoming completely in bed with the establishment. Trump is mostly an example of such a person and look where that led. The establishment certainly didn't want him in power - the right wing only got behind him when they had no other choice.

Yes, people will go out a vote more when they get riled up about something, but that doesn't mean it will cause any significant change.

I disagree. Apathy is a choice. You can choose not to be apathetic, and others can motivate you not to be so.

If you want to get better candidates, either get the money and special interest influence out of the election, or negate its impact by teaching the electorate about the issues that impact them, and motivating them to vote.

Do that and you will get a bunch of candidates that people are enthusiastic about instead of apathetic about. People will have a chance to vote for them in the primaries, and if they win people can vote for them in the general.

Easier said than done, but the two party system is far from the biggest problem. You could have multiple candidates and then the wealthy and special interest will fund more Kanyes and Jill Steins, and that will end up splitting the vote from "good" candidates, and potentially make it even easier for them to put corrupt candidates in office.

 

[BrickNHL]

Brick, you are a mod remember?? We can do whatever the f*** we want in this dojo. f*** RL and the French one, we run this joint.

Hell yeah!

My goal is to get banned before 2021

 

[MarkT]

I disagree. Apathy is a choice. You can choose not to be apathetic, and others can motivate you not to be so.

Obviously. I was presenting some reasons why many people are apathetic. A lot of things (which we discuss below) would need to change to remove those reasons.

If you want to get better candidates, either get the money and special interest influence out of the election, or negate its impact by teaching the electorate about the issues that impact them, and motivating them to vote.

I totally agree. How? How would you realistically go about getting the money and special interest influence out of elections? How would you teach the electorate about the issues that impact them? The only source of information about this things that have a broad enough impact are funded by the people currently in power and motivated to keep things the same. In order to enact the changes you're talking about, you would need to get the vast majority of people to reject mainstream sources of information while at the same time preventing them from falling victim to the type of misinformation that's rampant in non-mainstream sources.

Do that and you will get a bunch of candidates that people are enthusiastic about instead of apathetic about. People will have a chance to vote for them in the primaries, and if they win people can vote for them in the general.

As long as the media, political parties, and corporate interests are all in bed with one another, by the time you get to the primaries all the best candidates (from the people's perspective) will have been weeded out, and the ones who remain will be taken down at any opportunity.

Easier said than done, but the two party system is far from the biggest problem. You could have multiple candidates and then the wealthy and special interest will fund more Kanyes and Jill Steins, and that will end up splitting the vote from "good" candidates, and potentially make it even easier for them to put corrupt candidates in office.

I never said the two-party system is the biggest problem, but it's an obvious one when it comes to voter apathy. What percentage of people do you think genuinely agrees with either the Republican or Democrat party? How many would prefer a different party? I'd wager if you asked people honestly the majority would prefer a different party that more closely matched their views and beliefs.

I'm not saying doing away with the two-party system would solve the issue though. It would just be one step in the right direction. I don't think the two-party system is going anywhere though because there are too many rich and powerful people who benefit from it.

 

[Foppa2118]

Obviously. I was presenting some reasons why many people are apathetic. A lot of things (which we discuss below) would need to change to remove those reasons.



I totally agree. How? How would you realistically go about getting the money and special interest influence out of elections? How would you teach the electorate about the issues that impact them? The only source of information about this things that have a broad enough impact are funded by the people currently in power and motivated to keep things the same. In order to enact the changes you're talking about, you would need to get the vast majority of people to reject mainstream sources of information while at the same time preventing them from falling victim to the type of misinformation that's rampant in non-mainstream sources.



As long as the media, political parties, and corporate interests are all in bed with one another, by the time you get to the primaries all the best candidates (from the people's perspective) will have been weeded out, and the ones who remain will be taken down at any opportunity.



I never said the two-party system is the biggest problem, but it's an obvious one when it comes to voter apathy. What percentage of people do you think genuinely agrees with either the Republican or Democrat party? How many would prefer a different party? I'd wager if you asked people honestly the majority would prefer a different party that more closely matched their views and beliefs.

I'm not saying doing away with the two-party system would solve the issue though. It would just be one step in the right direction. I don't think the two-party system is going anywhere though because there are too many rich and powerful people who benefit from it.

The problem is people have been conned into worrying about boogey man issues like so and so is coming to take your guns, immigrants are coming to take your jobs and kill and rape your family, the most conservative democrat in the primary is somehow a socialist, etc. Then they define themselves as the party who care about those issues, and people vote by party lines.

The antidote to that is truth and education. Again easier said then done, but both parties in the US aren't that motivated to tell the truth. They'd rather stick with the status quo because both parties are influenced by special interests that pay them not to shake things up too much, because that means they can only make say 8 billion a year instead of 9 billion a year.

Find inspirational candidates, build on grass roots campaigns to teach the electorate about the problems in smart innovative ways, pass new election laws to take the money out of elections, give $100 tax breaks for voting, get the voter turnout up to 70-80%, and you will see a complete transformation in both the candidates that you can vote for, and how much they can accomplish to help people's lives because the politicians that have been roadblocks to progress are gone.

If you can do that just once and get results that actually help people's lives, people will see that, and it's going to be very difficult for the special interests to gain back control.

 

[Murzu]

Wtf America what's happening AGAIN

 

[MarkT]

The problem is people have been conned into worrying about boogey man issues like so and so is coming to take your guns, immigrants are coming to take your jobs and kill and rape your family, the most conservative democrat in the primary is somehow a socialist, etc. Then they define themselves as the party who care about those issues, and people vote by party lines.

The antidote to that is truth and education. Again easier said then done, but both parties in the US aren't that motivated to tell the truth. They'd rather stick with the status quo because both parties are influenced by special interests that pay them not to shake things up too much, because that means they can only make say 8 billion a year instead of 9 billion a year.

Find inspirational candidates, build on grass roots campaigns to teach the electorate about the problems in smart innovative ways, pass new election laws to take the money out of elections, give $100 tax breaks for voting, get the voter turnout up to 70-80%, and you will see a complete transformation in both the candidates that you can vote for, and how much they can accomplish to help people's lives because the politicians that have been roadblocks to progress are gone.

If you can do that just once and get results that actually help people's lives, people will see that, and it's going to be very difficult for the special interests to gain back control.

I totally agree with the first two paragraphs. I'll tell you what will happen during the 2nd paragraph. When the grass-roots campaigns start to become popular, the media will do everything in their power to destroy them. That may mean finding something about the candidate that ruins them, refusing to give the campaign coverage, promoting someone else who is similar but doesn't represent actual changes, etc.. The campaign remains popular online but when it comes time for actual voting, the average person, who relies on mainstream news to make political decisions, votes for someone else, and the grass-roots campaigns die. Then the next time someone tries to make a similar campaign, they find less support because people are now jaded and don't think it will work, or they find the support but the same thing happens. In any case, none of the rest of your paragraph happens.

The reason I'm so confident in this is it's happened so many times before. Both Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul have been seen as candidates who represent genuine positive changes to the system, and look at what happened to them. Wildly popular among people who distrust mainstream news sources, and soundly defeated when the votes were actually counter. Also, look at Obama's campaign. He originally campaigned on Hope and Change and represented a genuine change for the better. What actually happened? The status quo remained in almost every way. Even Trump campaigned in part on "Drain the Swamp", which was about reforming politics in Washington, and again, nothing has really changed. I think even if someone who actually believed in fixing the system were elected, they might find once they get into power that there are too many forces acting against them to get any meaningful changes made. The story of the character Tommy Carcetti in The Wire illustrates this phenomenon well.

I know I'm being really pessimistic here, but I think a lot of changes on a more fundamental level need to happen in society before the changes you want can realistically happen. Either that or a unicorn candidate needs to arrive who starts a political movement that leads to genuine change. I'm not holding my breath waiting for either of those things. There's a reason I don't live in that part of the world anymore.

 

[Foppa2118]

I totally agree with the first two paragraphs. I'll tell you what will happen during the 2nd paragraph. When the grass-roots campaigns start to become popular, the media will do everything in their power to destroy them. That may mean finding something about the candidate that ruins them, refusing to give the campaign coverage, promoting someone else who is similar but doesn't represent actual changes, etc.. The campaign remains popular online but when it comes time for actual voting, the average person, who relies on mainstream news to make political decisions, votes for someone else, and the grass-roots campaigns die. Then the next time someone tries to make a similar campaign, they find less support because people are now jaded and don't think it will work, or they find the support but the same thing happens. In any case, none of the rest of your paragraph happens.

The reason I'm so confident in this is it's happened so many times before. Both Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul have been seen as candidates who represent genuine positive changes to the system, and look at what happened to them. Wildly popular among people who distrust mainstream news sources, and soundly defeated when the votes were actually counter. Also, look at Obama's campaign. He originally campaigned on Hope and Change and represented a genuine change for the better. What actually happened? The status quo remained in almost every way. Even Trump campaigned in part on "Drain the Swamp", which was about reforming politics in Washington, and again, nothing has really changed. I think even if someone who actually believed in fixing the system were elected, they might find once they get into power that there are too many forces acting against them to get any meaningful changes made. The story of the character Tommy Carcetti in The Wire illustrates this phenomenon well.

I know I'm being really pessimistic here, but I think a lot of changes on a more fundamental level need to happen in society before the changes you want can realistically happen. Either that or a unicorn candidate needs to arrive who starts a political movement that leads to genuine change. I'm not holding my breath waiting for either of those things. There's a reason I don't live in that part of the world anymore.

I certainly agree that a lot of changes need to be made and that the media is a big problem.

Not because they're fake news like the President claims but because since going to cable news, the news has gone away from the Robert R Murrow school of thought to keep the network advertising pressures isolated from the news department so they can just report the news as it is.

Murrow famously scolded news directors in a 1958 speech for turning the news into, "an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news.” How telling that was.

Now the news media is driven by their ratings. Which means they're motivated to sensationalize things and follow the shiny toys. Trump being the brightest shiny toy, which is why they cover him so much. Which some think led to him being elected from all the free promotion.

The other problem is the lack of "gatekeepers" in print news who would be the ones to determine what the most important and accurate news was to report. Now that everything is online, click bait and sensationalism outperforms boring 'just the facts' style news.

Regarding Obama, the status quo prevailed because Mitch McConnell and other republicans explicitly said they wouldn't work with him on anything, because they wanted to make him a one term President. And since they controlled the Senate they didn't let them pass anything. Which is why Obama started doing so much by executive order in his second term.

Even in the second term McConnell refused to bring 105 Obama federal judges to a vote, as well as the Supreme Court nominee he was constitutionally allowed to make, which let them point their own judges under Trump. They also scuttled the entire mechanism of Obamacare and its funding so that it couldn't work properly, and then they could complain about it not working properly.

So yes lots of changes need to be made, but I'm certain that once you start to knock down a couple key dominoes, the momentum will be very difficult to stop. Get the money out, turn out the vote, and watch people's lives get a lot better.

 

[MarkT]

I certainly agree that a lot of changes need to be made and that the media is a big problem.

Not because they're fake news like the President claims but because since going to cable news, the news has gone away from the Robert R Murrow school of thought to keep the network advertising pressures isolated from the news department so they can just report the news as it is.

Murrow famously scolded news directors in a 1958 speech for turning the news into, "an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news.” How telling that was.

Now the news media is driven by their ratings. Which means they're motivated to sensationalize things and follow the shiny toys. Trump being the brightest shiny toy, which is why they cover him so much. Which some think led to him being elected from all the free promotion.

The other problem is the lack of "gatekeepers" in print news who would be the ones to determine what the most important and accurate news was to report. Now that everything is online, click bait and sensationalism outperforms boring 'just the facts' style news.

Regarding Obama, the status quo prevailed because Mitch McConnell and other republicans explicitly said they wouldn't work with him on anything, because they wanted to make him a one term President. And since they controlled the Senate they didn't let them pass anything. Which is why Obama started doing so much by executive order in his second term.

Even in the second term McConnell refused to bring 105 federal judges to a vote, as well as the Supreme Court nominee he was constitutionally allowed to make, and also scuttled the entire mechanism of Obamacare and its funding so that it couldn't work properly, and then they could complain about it not working properly.

So yes lots of changes need to be made, but I'm certain that once you start to knock down a couple key dominoes, the momentum will be very difficult to stop. Get the money out, turn out the vote, and watch people's lives get a lot better.

I understand the media very well, which is why I highlighted their influence in this, and I don't see you offering a way to achieve your goals in spite of media opposition. But the media is just one of the ways that the status quo can be maintained. Advertising is another. Campaign finance is another. So is lobbying. Funding social media campaigns. Paying trusted/liked people to say what you want them to say. Even if you somehow convince enough people not to trust the media, the fight wouldn't end there.

As for Obama, regardless of the reason, he wasn't able to make any significant changes. As I said, it would probably take a whole political movement, not just a President, to make any changes. And at the end of the day, you'd be expecting people in power to make changes to the system that put them in power.

Look, I love your optimism, but I think every single domino would be fought tooth and nail, and the people you're fighting against are the ones with all the power, money and influence. I have a whole list of changes I'd like to see made to politics and society (including getting money out of politics), but until I see a realistic pathway to change, I'm going to remain pessimistic about all this. What you're describing would represent an absolutely monumental change in the political system, and such changes aren't easy, are unpredictable, and often come at great cost.

 

[Frenchy]

Actually, you are wrong.

There is no thread on this subforum where politics should be discussed according to the forum rules:

4) Threadjacking/OT/Politics: Posts that waste space or time on the site, annoy users due to characteristics or repetition, disrupt the site functionality, or cause threads to veer off topic may be considered “threadjacking/OT”. This also applies to signatures, user titles, avatars, profile fields, and so forth. Stay on topic as much as possible. Post new threads in the appropriate forum only. Political discussion is not permitted on the forums except within the narrowly defined scope of hockey-related matters.

read the second comment in this thread , it should answer your interrogations:
OT: - The Avalounge: The Anti-Hijack Non-Politics Lounge