It’s too late for me too. But I could still GOTV-ish one CA vote for the straight donkey ticket, including the stupid potato (down from the 4 I could to start).
If anyone was wondering why I have sabos ass on ignore…
I don’t want to hear any posts talking about his valuable different perspective. You’re confusing him with the good leftist posters I don’t have on ignore.
4 Likes
It’s a worthwhile discussion on how to improve the political choices people have, which in this case is between the worst US president in living memory and a MOR washout bereft of ideas and so old that if he does win he might not even complete his term.
No one outside a few hundred people actually reads this forum, and it has no influence on election outcomes. It exists mainly as a release for a small number of understandably anxious and pissed off Americans to talk about brighter prospects than the ones they actually face.
And no one really cares or is interested in who someone has on ignore. To think otherwise would be disturbingly egoistical.
5 Likes
Really?
I think a slam-dunk argument can be made that the “childish beliefs” of certain faith-based activists, like those from the Peace Churches, or groups like Catholic Worker, are a huge,huge,huge net positive.
2 Likes
The posts above received 23 
's so far. It seems 18 unique posters have signed onto this ideal: To avoid measurable and significant IRL consequences, we as a community, should self-censor our topics of discussion. These posters comprise roughly a quarter of our community here…
@-bigt2k4 (2), @-boredsocial (2), @-Bobnewton, @-CaffeineNeeded, @-clovis8, @-Chuckleslovakian (3), @-cuserounder (3), @-DrChesspain, @-dreamcrusher28 (2), @-EpicWestern, @-Incorporeal, @-jbro, @-jmakin, @-LouisCyphre, @-MimosaDef, @-poopypants, @-simplicitus, @-Trolly (3).
Make no mistake, the posts above are literally calling for self-censorship. Leaving aside the heartfelt but off-topic emotional outpouring in one, we have these plain and simple expressions of this self-censorship ideal…
A week before the election that will literally decide whether we fall under right wing dictatorship, but sure let’s have a stupid fucking thread
It also seems like this thread has little functional upside being posted now vs in two weeks
Which all just seems absurd to me. So… it’s time for “I’m Outta Here” Poll #2…
To avoid measurable and significant IRL consequences, we as a community, should self-censor our topics of discussion.
- I literally believe this above
- Those posters were surely trying to make an on-topic point by sarcasm/etc
- Ignore the trolls
0 voters
This is still a pretty abusive take to post on this board a week out from the election. We’re all collectively looking for any data point that shows we might lose. Sabo coming in here and talking about how the best thing for people to do is not vote (I did not read the OP and I’m not going to, I’m getting this from context) is giving a bunch of people an anecdote to trigger their anxiety.
Super shitty thing to do very representative of the not even level 1 analysis that got me to ignore Sabo. Both him and Vict0ar are super toxic humans who would need to literally pay me cash money to critique their blatant stupidity. Neither one has ever added any content to this board, and they both actually do quite a bit of harm.
2 Likes
Oh man are we at the part of the thread where sabo starts butthurt heart-counting? That’s my favorite part!
6 Likes
I didn’t take the OP as being aimed especially at this election, but at elections per se:
This OP is general in nature… covering both the US and those other parts of the world, and covering the history, contemporary applications, and in theory.
It’s fine to quibble about the timing I guess (despite the forum having minimal to no material impact on the GE result), but if it tilts you then you can mute the thread.
I guess it’s natural to look for data points that you might lose despite most of the signs being good (admittedly I did take Trump at 2.5 a while ago as an emotional insurance bet) when the stakes are so high.
Also I wouldn’t bracket Sabo and Victor together in that sense.
1 Like
Dude responds to himself more than any poster in history too.
Regardless of the reason(s) that someone would have for not voting: voter suppression, conscientious objector, no interest or desire, etc. Everyone that does not vote is effectively involved in Political Abstention.
If we look at how eligible voters acted during the 2016 POTUS Bowl:
Total # of eligible voters: 230.6M(note there are an additional 20M people who were of voting age, but not voting eligible–I am not including them in these calculations)
Abstainers: 93.93M or 40.7%
Clinton: 65.85M or 28.6%
Trump: 62.98M or 27.3%
Other: 7.84M or 3.3%
Abstainers won the plurality!
Let’s poll this. I am not asking you if the US constitution says the politicians would still be legitimate and have a mandate to govern. Obviously, because the first POTUS Bowl only had ~1% of the population voting, so the constitution could basically not GAF if 90%+ of the population abstains. I’m asking what your opinion is.
What percent of the voting eligible population would have to abstain for you to consider the politicians elected to be lacking legitimacy? Select as many options as you’d like.
- 90%+
- 80%+
- 70%+
- 60%+
- 51%+
- If less than 50% abstain, yet they are the plurality, the politicians are illegitimate.
- The founding fathers were wise beyond their years, even if less than 10% of the population participate in an election, the government is legit.
0 voters
2 Likes
“I didn’t read his post, but here are his motivations, what he means, and why he’s a bad person.”
Check yourself, man. This is unhinged posting.
5 Likes
You are conflating abstaining with apathy. The former is a conscious decision. The latter is not.
1 Like
You’re definitely right. Reading the title plus 30 something posts of response, and knowing a decent amount about the posting history and style of sabo… definitely not enough to figure out what’s going on from context without letting him spew his bullshit and then scream at me about it until I finally leave. Definitely totally unhinged to avoid doing that to appear fair.
I’ll take being actually honest about not having read his terrible terrible posting over either being dishonest about it (because honesty is a real virtue, unlike appearing fair) or basically agreeing to be abused in the interest of fairness.
Calling my position unhinged is ironically pretty unhinged. This is what being the devils advocate for the sake of being the devils advocate gets you. Being a contrarian is great and all, but the problem with it is that you do actually end up being wrong most of the time.
OK. I feel like I addressed this in my post. To clarify, we can’t read people’s hearts and minds and know whether they are: voter suppressed, apathetic, conscientious objectors, etc. etc. etc. There are myriad reasons that someone who is eligible to vote does not in fact vote. The end result is the same–they did not vote.
What level of non-participation in an election would make the election illegitimate to you?
1 Like
3 Likes
lol, ok bud.
3 Likes
You are asking two questions that will confuse the results.
One is legal the other moral. The answer won’t the the same for both.
Did you read my post, because you’ve now brought up two objections that were both addressed.
In case that is not clear to you, I am not asking about your opinion on the legality.
I’m sad to announce that the window has just closed on the last of the four IRL CA votes for the stupid potato I could have “created” (all legal GOTV). I gave my fellow UnStuckers ample opportunity to make a positive argument why I should do so.
Alas, all I got back was trolling. GJGE. SMH.
1 Like
And yet here we are. If 10-20% fewer people vote, what exactly do you think would happen besides governance that is even less in line with our goals/preferences?