Trump

[nimrod]

I cannot really see the comparison between a meal, where you pay for your food, and a free vote. Personally, I vote at every election, whether local or national. If others choose not to vote, then that is their prerogative, but having not bothered to vote, they can have no complaints about the outcome. In every election, it is the stay aways who ultimately decide on the outcome.

the meal reference is an analogy, to illustrate a point. that point being, if someone is unhappy with both choices put to them, then they're entitled to complain about the choice that ends up being selected regardless of the process. talking about "payment for the meal" is completely missing that point. whether you're doing that deliberately or unintentionally is anyone's guess.

 

[nimrod]

I didn't vote in the EU referendum, not because I couldn't be bothered, but because I really didn't know which way to vote. Does that mean I can't complain about the impact it has on me now and in the future?

of course it doesn't.

 

[Penk Wolf]

of course it doesn't.

Exactly, just trying to back up your point.

 

[Boozad]

It is, but people who can't be bothered to vote cannot really complain about the result.

None of us could vote in the Presidential election but there's a hell of a lot of us complaining about it. And what if you don't agree with any of the policies being put forward? Do you automatically lodge a protest vote? Why vote for something you don't agree with?

I've always hated this 'Didn't vote? Don't complain' mantra.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Sorry Frank but I disagree with you on this.

Take the EU referendum. Two choices, diametrically opposed. So as a voter you have two choices on the paper, and one third available if like Penk you really don't know what way to vote, or willingly don't want to. You could just about make a case in that vote that a Penk, or willing non-voter maybe have to accept their lot. However, without knowing circumstances it is still quite a leap.

Now, let's contrast the US election. There are two realistic choices. Votes for other names on the ballot paper effectively mean absolutely nothing, as there is no representation for those votes if the State you are registered in overall goes Democrat or Republican. Equally there are basically plenty of the states where your vote means very little. California has been democrat forever. Texas has been republican forever. So there is very little point in bothering with the election if you are a Republican living in San Francisco or a Democrat in Dallas. Clinton was getting California, and Trump was getting Texas no matter what, your vote means nothing.

Let's then narrow it down to the swing states. Say Florida. Wow - everybody's vote means something. Well, sort of. Everyone's vote means something as long as it is for Republican or Democrat. Votes elsewhere on the ballot paper mean absolutely nothing. There is no reward for the protest or none of the above vote. Nothing. Therefore, if you hate both Clinton and Trump, or would rather vote for anyone than the two main candidates, not bothering gets you just the same result. You had no say in it whatsoever, unless you decided to vote purely on the "who is less of a bad candidate" basis and transfer your vote from what you want to try and have some tiny influence.

So to say those not voting can have no complaints, is frankly absolute and complete nonsense in a US presidential election.

 

[Langers]

I understand where Frank is coming from on this but I tend to agree more with other posters.

We have the democratic right NOT to vote if none of the options appeal. But I think it's fair to say that if someone just can't be bothered and has shown zero effort to at least do SOME research into the candidates then don't come crying about the outcome.

Indeed, I'd argue it's sometimes better not to vote than to give a vote to a dangerous individual as a protest about another candidate.

 

[nimrod]

Exactly, just trying to back up your point.

yeah, sorry if i was abrupt there.

and nevermind your right not to vote and your right to complain being ignored, just look at the choice and process. a media circus full of untruths, two billionaire candidates both of whom have demonstrated to different extent their own economies with the truth, both with allegations of criminality against them, allegations of vote rigging and often a result that goes against the popular vote, billions of $US spent/wasted on the charade so that the winning candidate can favour his 'sponsors' for the next 4 years. public manipulation at its finest.

i don't think it's just the US election this applies to either. to a lesser degree and in some areas to a greater degree (eg boundary manipulations, lack of representation of minorities) these things apply in many other elections. especially the lies.

 

[So Long Architect]

I kind of agree with that - though my personal view is that the left views tend to be theoretical, whereas right views tend to be practical. People tend to love to discuss theories, but less so practicalities. I have friends on both sides (All intelligent, compassionate, sensible people), the lefties tend to shower facebook in links, the righties tend to just get on with life.

If you judged by forums or facebook you'd assume the left would romp home every time.

Yeah, right-wingers always like to believe they're telling it like it is and everyone else is living in a fantasy world. It seems to me it's more likely that they lack the imagination to put themselves in someone else's shoes and see that their experience of the world doesn't hold true for the vast majority of people.

 

[Donegal Wolf]

I understand where Frank is coming from on this but I tend to agree more with other posters.

We have the democratic right NOT to vote if none of the options appeal. But I think it's fair to say that if someone just can't be bothered and has shown zero effort to at least do SOME research into the candidates then don't come crying about the outcome.

Indeed, I'd argue it's sometimes better not to vote than to give a vote to a dangerous individual as a protest about another candidate.

Old George W and his misses didnt vote for Trump but couldnt bring themselves to vote for Clinton either, so they left the Presidential section of the ballot blank, but voted for republican option in whatever other elections were being carried out at the same time (presume senate, local district).

(Its bad when your using him to prove a point)

 

[Premier Quality]

Yeah, right-wingers always like to believe they're telling it like it is and everyone else is living in a fantasy world. It seems to me it's more likely that they lack the imagination to put themselves in someone else's shoes and see that their experience of the world doesn't hold true for the vast majority of people.

My perspective is that both sides have arrogant people who think only their view is true - to blanket one side or the other is naive at best.

 

[So Long Architect]

My perspective is that both sides have arrogant people who think only their view is true - to blanket one side or the other is naive at best.

Well, of course, people are people, which means a good proportion are unpleasant arseholes whatever their political views.

But the fundamental divide between left and right is one of society and individual. As a leftie, I'm inclined to think that societies function best for most people when governments and politicians (via voters) make efforts to protect and enhance the lives of those at the bottom of society. I actually think that improves the lives of those at the top as well as it makes the world a nicer place to be in.
Righties seem too favour a sink-or-swim attitude which is no doubt of benefit to certain individuals, doesn't improve the lives of the majority.

Anyway, that's moving us quite a long way off topic so I'll have my lunch now.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Can't see how this is true or we'd never have a Conservative government. People on the Liberal left (including myself in this) tend to talk a good game, like to try and persuade other with their brilliant arguments and will generally blather on till the cows come home, and thus seem like they're more numerous than they really are. The rest of the populace either doesn't engage at all or votes according to what they think is in their self-interest, which tends not to be left-wards.

34% voted conservative, but u know my views on the system

 

[Lord Knows]

Reaction from a colleague at work to Trump's victory - 'As long as it doesn't affect my life, I don't really care.' Sums up why the world is the way it is really.

As if Trumps foreign policy doesn't effect us all, especially concerning his views on trade and NATO.

 

[Kenny]

Anyone able to translate this Mexican newspaper front page

 

[FrankMunro-371]

the meal reference is an analogy, to illustrate a point. that point being, if someone is unhappy with both choices put to them, then they're entitled to complain about the choice that ends up being selected regardless of the process. talking about "payment for the meal" is completely missing that point. whether you're doing that deliberately or unintentionally is anyone's guess.

I do not think I missed the point, but fair enough I understand your point of view.

Personally, I think people disagree with me on here just for the sake of it.

 

[Kenny]

Personally, I think people disagree with me on here just for the sake of it.

No they don't....

 

[Deleted Cyber]

so you agree that choosing not to vote is not a disgrace? in which case, why did you say it was?

Not voting is a choice. Not registering to vote is a disgrace. Especially when the first thing you hear post election includes the phrase middle aged whites fucked us over followed by graphs that show how the 18 to 25 year olds voted. Apathy again from the future generation?

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

Forget the mild acceptance speech.
This is a guy who campaigned using out and out racisism, sexism and a huge dollop of narcisissum.
He openely called Mexican people racists, drug dealers and murderers, related to all women as a bunch of cheap hookers, made sexualy inclined comments about his own daughter, and reduced openess and tolerance in religion to a place somewhere near the Crusades.
Anyone expecting this guy to remain meek and humble once the knowledge that he really is the "big bull goose loony in charge of it all" finally sinks in, is a bigger fool than the man himself.

America has returned to the days of Dodge City and Wyatt Earp, and the world has just got final confirmation that the "Me Me Me" culture is now the way to go.

Watch the upcoming elections in Austria, France and Germany for conformation.

I worry for all of us, even the fools who rate "The Donald" as anything more than a poor impression of a reality TV figure.

 

[nimrod]

I do not think I missed the point, but fair enough I understand your point of view.

Personally, I think people disagree with me on here just for the sake of it.

not sure if that's directed at me but please note my earlier post about people playing the victim. i mean i didn't liken you to lenin did i?

i made an analogy, you dismissed it and imo missed the point of it, so i explained it and now you understand my point of view. no need for the melodrama.

the point was about the available "choice" not about whether your paying for it or not, wasn't it?

 

[The Saturday Boy]

If you take the left/right Conservative/Labour choice in this country there is very little evidence that supports the notion that the Conservatives are better for the individual (money in the pocket argument) and Labour are the saviours of the state. For each, you can point to isolated examples of such to back up the argument but for both there is plenty more evidence against.

I do believe people will vote Conservative because it is better for them personally but in most of my adult life the Conservatives have presided over some of the worst of the economic conditions. Occasionally they have reduced tax.

Labour have at times invested heavily in education and the NHS, for example, but in recent times have kick started the privatisation of both reducing the size of the state - an ideology often associated with the Tories.

Only the most ardent Tory would argue with any conviction that the Tory economic policy of recent years was competent. Likewise only the most ardent Tory places the blame for the current economic plight all at the door of the Labour Party.

I still see so many in Labour whitewash the failings of Blair and Brown - unable or unwilling to recognise their failure to represent the communities they purport to represent.