Comments by "0IIIIII" (@0IIIIII) on "Generation 'meh': the battle to win millennial voters | Anywhere but Washington" video.

  1. TheRobstargames it is apathy. By not voting you are literally doing nothing. That is stupid and indefensible.
    25
  2. thelousyllama because many Bernie Bros know nothing about politics. It's sad really
    9
  3. Filio Kuntag but it is a fact that most Millenials don't vote.
    7
  4. camabron1 you are a fool if you believe that. Go read her actual campaign promises.
    5
  5. FreekinEkin2 Stop romanticizing it.  The factors causing their disinterest is their own stupidity and ignorance.  Also, if you read the Corruptions Perceptions Index, you will see that despite the crap you read from the sensationalist, partisan media, that the US is one of the least corrupt countries on Earth.
    5
  6. FreekinEkin2 by not voting you are forfeiting your only chance to change the system. In fact your idea that the government is corrupt is false.
    3
  7. Herb Doobington quit being such an emo and do something about it, like voting
    2
  8. FreekinEkin2 They are choosing not to get involved, they are acting willfully ignorant, therefore they are not being smart (id est, stupid).  Corruption Perceptions Index is an NGO, housed in databases used by Harvard and others.  It's a reputable and definitive source.  The US has problems, but my point is they are relatively rare and minor, and the US is not corrupt by any conventional definition.   
    2
  9. Gary Johnson seems like a swell guy. Maybe there's a place for him. But he's a bad politician.
    2
  10. camabron1 so what?  That's just political talk.  It's meaningless.  Obama has changed his mind anyways what's your point?
    1
  11. per sebra Her record is one that toes Democratic policies what is your point? 
    1
  12. per sebra That shouldn't surprise or repulse you at all, it's completely normal. Hillary Clinton is educated and experience in politics and law, so naturally she has her own opinions, and maybe they are more valid than those of the laymen. At the same time, she is bound to honor the wishes of her constituents, while also considering that they are too ignorant to make decisions for themselves, (which is why the US is a representative democracy). So as a result, her own ideals are tempered by pragmatism and by her constituents. Nothing unique about that at all. Flip flopping is also not that big of a deal. She wants to please her base, so she changes her stances for them. Why is that so bad?
    1
  13. FreekinEkin2 If you have proof that the US is corrupt, show it.  You are getting hung up over trivial definitions and are not respecting the very respectable source. 
    1
  14. FreekinEkin2 You are making a big deal out of trivial stuff.  The Chilean Coup happened decades ago and is no longer relevant.  The Iraq War is not evidence of corruption.  How is it?  How could Bush or the US have benefited from the Iraq War?  The Iraq War costed trillions of dollars, US gives billions of dollars to Iraq every year, and all this was expected when the war started.  Nobody started the war thinking the US would extort Iraq, take their oil, and leave with a tidy profit.  That is a fantasy.  Your claim that the Iraq War is proof of American corruption is flawed.  And the thing is, even if you're correct, it's not even that damning.  It doesn't make the US corrupt, it just makes the US imperfect. You are also making a big deal out of lobbying.  Lobbying is not bribery nor is it election fraud.  Lobbyists cannot buy votes, and at the end of the day, politicians need votes to get in power, not lobbyist dollars.  Therefore, politicians are still bound to honor their campaign promises and serve their constituents.  They may be compromised by lobbying to an extent, but not to the extent that it ruins democracy or comes at everyone else's expense.  Therefore your claim that lobbying makes the US corrupt is flawed.  You also have illogical doubts about the Index.  The Corruptions Perceptions Index measures corruption in countries, and that's it.  It does not list illusions of corruption, nor do countries have the ability to conceal widespread corruption.  Therefore you attacks on this NGO are baseless. 
    1
  15. FreekinEkin2 you can't just say crap without proof.  That's your opinion without evidence
    1
  16. FreekinEkin2 How exactly does that prove that the NGOs who inconveniently disagree with you are wrong?
    1
  17. FreekinEkin2 ok so you have no proof.  Why do you think you know better than the experts who actually compiled and published the data?  Even if the Corruptions Perceptions Index is flawed, other NGOs which measure corruption and development, like the Democracy Index, rank countries in a similar order, which kinda suggests that the CPI is reliable and correct.  You also have no evidence that the US is corrupt.  You sound like a pseudo-intellectual. 
    1
  18. FreekinEkin2 You gave your amateurish opinion without any proof, you said the EIU and others are corrupting the government, and didn't even list how or why, or any proof that they are.  CPI is run by Transparency International, a renowned NGO, probably professional.  And these NGOs are considered scholastic sources and are used in college databases.  So I think that if Harvard trusts it, you should too. 
    1
  19. FreekinEkin2 Appeals to authority are perfectly valid if that authority is trustworthy.  Is it an appeal to authority to take medical advice from your doctor, and only your doctor?  Is it an appeal to authority to trust the universal consensus on Climate Change?  No&No.  What I did is called research, and I gave evidence that sources I researched were reliable.  You're just saying "no it's not true" And if you have proof that "this whole economic model is rigged" and can explain how and why, please show me.  One isolated case with a single professor and student, in a single college, doesn't mean much in the grand scheme
    1
  20. FreekinEkin2 Just because some doctors take some money from some corporations doesn't mean that they are completely compromised, or that all doctors do it.  So it's still a good idea to trust doctors on medicine, which I think demonstrates that appeals to authority aren't always bad.  I have proof that the NGOs are credible.  The fact that they are trusted by the most elite and global professionals around the world, means either A. Everyone is corrupt and lying, which also means that this NGO is bribing everyone, which is crazy and beyond the capabilities of an NGO to perform. B.  The NGOs are simply telling the truth and deserve to be trusted, the fact that they all independently tell the same story further suggests this.    Besides, what would you say to me if I looked at your studies, and then called them biased?  You'd think I was being unreasonably suspicious and dismissive, which is exactly what you are doing to the NGOs I cited. 
    1
  21. FreekinEkin2 The "science" behind the NGOs ring true too.  If you actually come to the US you can see for yourself that-despite a few scandals, the US is not a corrupt country.  The government works reliably and well, when it doesn't it's a scandal, the press is free.  So it's not really blind loyalty to the NGOs as you say.  The NGOs are just a conveniently objective metric.
    1
  22. FreekinEkin2 You are cherrypicking and ignoring the fact that the US does not censor the media and is not a corrupt country.  Besides, if claim that the non-profit, scholarly NGOs are biased then why on Earth are you trusting Jon Oliver's for-profit, non-scholarly tv show? 
    1
  23. +FreekinEkin2 If the NGOs really were as flawed as you say then I doubt they would be considered scholastic sources.  There is a method to it and they don't just grab random scrubs off the street.  Besides the conclusions they make is pretty simple and easy to see for yourself.  The Democracy Index asks basic questions like "is the media free from government meddling?"  "Is transition of power smooth and predictable?"  Is the rule of law strong, fair, and consistent?"  "Do elected officials and bureaucrats abuse their power?" In the US.  The answer to all of these is good.  Americans have free access to many media sources, so even if Fox News is biased, there are plenty of other websites, papers, and tv shows to patronize.  All in all there is no evidence that the US is a corrupt country.
    1
  24. These idiots who don't vote are hopeless
    1