You answered not one drop of why the disenfranchised would motivate themselves to vote for a politician of either of these establishment parties that have left them disenfranchised over the years.The choice between Gore and Bush, Kerry and Bush, McCain and Obama, Romney and Obama and Clinton and Trump, these were all political choices. Establishment choices it's true, between Tweedledee Democrat versus Tweedledum Republican, but political choices, within the narrow bandwidth permitted, nonetheless
Now, after four years of Trump, we know that in this election that's not the case, and you know it too.
If this contest were between Biden and Romney I'd be with you, fuck em, who cares.
But it's not, it's why Sanders supports Biden, it's why Chomsky supports Biden, it's why you should too.
A good, but brief, look at the systemic issues, how early is starts, follows and, ultimately, where it will be why many don't vote for either party that have a hand in disenfranchisement.
Yes, it's 'moot' apparently, so nobody gives a shit. I'm just pointing out how intertwining the snake actually is with these neolib parties building upon each other's policies.
You answered not one drop of why the disenfranchised would motivate themselves to vote for a politician of either of these establishment parties that have left them disenfranchised over the years.
Notice; not one drop.
What's gone before and, logically, what comes after would make no difference to the shit they have to put up with here and now or the future, potentially.
I understand the forced positional logic of voting for Biden. Note, the policy highlighted is one from a JOINT task force, not one already derived from the Biden campaign which, of course, means it was overlooked until the Sanders team boarded.Thanks for the vid. It's disgusting but not surprising and successive "Neo-lib" govts, all over the world, have been equally culpable.
But, the conclusion/main point of the video is to show that it's got worse under Trump and that Biden, although being part of the Clinton admin which admittedly made things worse, realises his past mistakes, and has policies to start to make it better.
So, vote Biden!
No?
EWhat makes you think that over the many years of hearing this point made in one shape or another that these civilians, who have seen no change to their lives and so choose not to participate, will suddenly enter the fray in droves to support Biden...?
"Disinterested", correct.You move the goal posts to reinforce your viewpoint.
When you talk about the disenfranchised, you mean the disinterested, they are disinterested because they believe the political process is so skewed that it does not speak to their condition and offers no solution for their problems and no hope. Worse than that, some see the political process itself as the major driver behind their predicament, they're not just disinterested they are hostile to a system that is designed to enforce their oppression.
Which has nothing to do, whatsoever, with my point.
We'll see how big that number really is. I remember that during the 2008 elections, the same thing was said.E
The turnout has been huge already.
A large percentage being those who haven’t previously registered.
Well the fact they make it so hard to vote certainly won’t help.We'll see how big that number really is. I remember that during the 2008 elections, the same thing was said.
I see no numbers attached towards that "huge turnout". It may be 1%-2% more nationwide of those that didn't vote before and that would still hold true to it being a bigger turnout.
I can wait to see how much the needle has really moved with non-voters.
True, but I don't think that will impact of the intent to vote, do you...?Well the fact they make it so hard to vote certainly won’t help.
Because Trump was running. You think he's somehow a different guy now than he was four years ago? Or 30 years ago?How so?
"Disinterested", correct.
I wondered why 'disenfranchised' popped into my head. Well, that's everything to do with my point that you've so eloquently pointed out.
Your conclusion has nothing to do with my point. So, it's not me that moved the goalposts, intentionally, that was misspeak on my behalf.
So, in my original post on the matter I mentioned neither 'disenfranchised' nor 'disinterested', but the latter is what I meant as I clearly said in my reply to your last retort. In my original reply I mentioned you had answered the question at a point where neither word had been mentioned still.You did a swerve in your reply to my post by babbling on about the disenfranchised, your reply was completely tangential to the point I made.
I pointed out you'd moved the goal posts and added that, goal posts notwithstanding, you'd meant the disinterested. You latched on to the the disinterested bit in my reply, as if that was the basis of my accusation of goal post moving, it wasn't.
You're a conundrum, you're clearly not a complete doofus, because you know when to swerve when your threadbare diatribe backs you in to a corner.
I've come to the conclusion you're either deliberately disingenuous or simply don't get it.
I've wasted too much of my time on the left with monologuing ideologues like you.
Because Trump was running. You think he's somehow a different guy now than he was four years ago? Or 30 years ago?
So, in my original post on the matter I mentioned neither 'disenfranchised' nor 'disinterested', but the latter is what I meant as I clearly said in my reply to your last retort. In my original reply I mentioned you had answered the question at a point where neither word had been mentioned still.
That still holds true, despite my using a word I had not meant to, to which you've attached this pointless argument.
It's another way of steering conversation to where you want it.
I made a point, you evaded it. That's still the point.
I didn't attach your name to it, but you must have thought it interesting enough to answer, so answer it or leave it.
It's really that simple to strike up conversation to learn from/ be informed on.
Your reply, as I said then, was something that would not move the block of disinterested voter. The Ice Cube twitter post is a case-in-point.Get to the foot of our stairs!
I said the choice between Biden and Trump was not a political choice but a moral one. Your reply went on about the disenfranchised (disinterested).
In the context of my post, who gives a fuck about the disenfranchised (disinterested)?
It is an entirely unrelated topic.
That's why you are deliberately disingenuous, that's why you piss off even those with whom you might have common cause.
No, he's the same guy, but what was suspected by some in 2016, in 2020 it is know.
In the UK, there were quite a few on the right who thought a Trump presidency would be a bit like Eisenhower, lots of golf but steady as she goes. Well they fucked up. But we shouldn't be too harsh, the signs were there but hindsight makes them look obvious, they weren't at the time.
I was in the States in the four weeks in the run up to the election, whatever 2016 was, it was not perceived, primarily, as being a moral choice, even if looking back perhaps it should've been.
Your reply, as I said then, was something that would not move the block of disinterested voter. The Ice Cube twitter post is a case-in-point.
What does 'morality' have to do with the fact you're being shit on anyway??
Moral or political reasons do not matter at that point.
If you can't understand that, then you'll never understand the non-voter and that's why you believe it's "unrelated".
Maybe, just maybe, there's cause to think past your own bubble.