Man, that is the most apathetic criminal ever!

"there's got to be more to the equation than just nuttiness times membership."

Absolutely agreed.

Regarding white supremacist killings and violence, and classing right/left and tada the left is less violent is something I don't agree on.

Now I don't say that to disagree with any particular fact you present, I just reject the methodology of creating 2 categories(left/right) and lumping everyone into one or the other and drawing conclusions. I think it oversimplifies things to the point of being a problem of it's own. It makes it easy to be apathetic(clearly the problem is the 'other' guys) and even dehumanizing("they" are clearly evil or in bed with evil).

The two camps thing is way too easy to get pulled into(I'm imperfect staying out of it too), but it just ends in horrible divisive garbage like refusing to vote Democrat because they are "left" and antifa is left, so can't promote them...

Well said. I'm fairly comfortably in "weasel" territory, and I don't bitch about it. Too much. Any more.

Actually, in all seriousness, while I am one of those cynical beaten-down types in terms of how much I care about corporate / management expectations, I do take pride in holding myself to rather higher standards than those external ones. That's a good thing, and it means that I can look myself in the mirror and honestly feel like I'm contributing something real, even if the machine that I'm in is apathetic, highly inefficient, and moderately pointless to begin with.

As (the great) Kurt Vonnegut said, "so it goes."

Bob's pretty much right, by the only numbers that matter (electoral votes). Is that a stupid system, that both sides should be clamoring to resign to the scrap heap? Yes. But they aren't, in spite of the D's getting screwed by it twice in very recent memory, and even the R "beneficiaries" have had to try to deal with some uncomfortable infighting and internal strife as a result (cue world's tiniest violin).

I don't think Trump is some sort of super genius and that he "played the game under the existing rules" better than Hillary or anything. He won by a technicality, just as you say -- but the mere fact that anyone can actually win by such a technicality ought to be an unbearable affront to our very conceptions of Democracy and Government. Instead, entirely too many of us seemed too complacent and apathetic to give a fuck, moments later. I really wish I could muster some surprise at this point.

I don't agree with Bob's other assertion that Trump stands a great chance of beating anyone that gets the D nod in 2020. On the other hand, 2016 proved the old adage about what happens when we assume.

I do completely concur with (both of) you that President Oprah isn't the answer.

Given the polls put support for gay marriage in Aus between 65 and 85%, the only way the no vote will win is through voter apathy.

Conservatives are motivated and will fill out their postal votes. Staunch equal rights activist will of course vote yes. The middle ground in Australia is mostly apathetic and that's where you might find this whole thing falls on it's tits unfortunately.

Annnnnd the plebiscite is not binding... So if the gov still doesn't want to go ahead with it, they don't actually need to (although I suspect they will cop a short term shellacking in the polls because of it).

Sad thing is, the current PM is on record repeatedly as being in favour of same sex marriage, but he is only in power because of right wing power brokers in his party and if he came out openly in support (ironic, I know...) he would likely be spilled out of office.

Fuck politics.

i have to agree that when the election was nearing the end,and it was time to vote.the choice was pretty clear.

i never liked the "lesser of two evils" argument,but when faced with a choice of:

soft fascist,narcissistic used car salesman,who spoke in bombastic and racially charged rhetoric,but really said nothing.

or...

a war-mongering corporatist,who never saw a war she didn't want to send your kids to go die in,or a corporation she didn't want to extract donations from for political favors and who basically said nothing as well.except for 'well,at least i am not that THAT guy"--->points to trump.

i am still gonna say...go with the corporatist.

because in the end,at least on domestic policy,hillary would have been adequate.oh she would have signed the TPP,and fucked millions of american workers,and she would have most likely expanded the drone campaign,and continued with the american empires policy of "regime change",but she had/has the knowledge and capabilities to actual lead a government.

hillary knows how to politic,and understands how shit gets done in washinton,and things would have remained relatively unchanged here in america.maybe..maybe.... some incremental change due to the political pressure the sanders campaign brought.

so i get it,and maher is not exactly wrong per se",but i think he is missing the bigger picture that so many in the beltway have missed,and CONTINUE to miss,because they reside in their own,tiny and insulated bubble.

the american people were desperate for change,and they have been for decades.after obama's campaign of 2008,and his "hope and change" platform,which ignited the american people,only to see,not "hope and change" but rather "more of the same".

and what was hillary offering?
a new message or vision? a new path for america that would include everybody to blaze a new path of invention,creativity and imagination to create an america everyone could be proud of? and feel a part of?

nope..she was offering "more of the same".

well,americans had already had their fill of "more of the same".they had lost faith in a system that appeared to no longer represent them.so they chose the nuclear option for change.terrifying and horrifying change.

so go ahead and blame the "bernie bros".feel free to slap responsibility on those "uneducated and redneck hillbillies".cry and whine and point the finger at those liberals who refused to abandon their principles,and by all means bask in the glory of your own self-righteous moralizing,and condescendingly condemn anyone who voted for trump,or who refused to vote at all.

you can sit in a small room with everybody else who voted for hillary,and self-righteously smell each others farts and call it a rose,because you are obviously a better quality human being than the rest of us.

and by all means,refuse to examine the fact that hillary ran a shit campaign,and had no real message,vision or path to the future.ignore the corruption and blatant,and politically motivated shenanigans of the DNC.god forbid you experienced a moment of honesty.

is trump going to be a disaster of presidency?
well,it sure is shaping up to look that way isn't it?
but we have survived horrible presidents before,and we shall survive trump.

and on a positive note:
trump has brought many people out of their apathetic slumber,and they are scrutinizing everything he does with a fine toothed comb.the amount people who are becoming politically engaged is quite impressive.

there is nothing in our representative democracy quite as powerful as people gathering together to put pressure on our elected representatives.

town hall meetings,that used to be wastelands,are now being packed to over-flowing.with citizens calling out their representatives..to their FACE..on how unhappy they are.

so go ahead and ridicule those who voted for trump,but it is due to trump that so many have gotten off their couches and are taking it to their congressmen and senators.

just a non-controversial,and easily predicted side effect,when you put someone like trump in power.

man,the politics in my country is getting really fucking interesting!i cannot WAIT to see what happens in the next episode!

what do you guys think?
/end rant

*promote

Everyone in this video is doing something wrong. Rather than picking a side to blame, why don't we judge the situation neutrally. I definitely blame the drivers because they're driving like assholes during poor weather conditions -- but that doesn't make Comcast employees who apathetically enforce safety protocols or a vigilante transit authority with a smartphone right either. Fails all around.

Please pass legislation that forbids for-profit companies from supplying life-saving services.

You could also force every employee of a corporation to watch their own company's advertising schtick to understand what is expected of them by their clients.
Such a massive, apathetic disconnect there.

I have friends in Scotland. They think it is highly unlikely either Ireland or Scotland will leave the U.K. over this. Apparently there are some vocal groups calling for a vote but public opinion in general seems apathetic to the idea, especially as the Scots apparently enjoy a great deal of financial support from being in the U.K. and losing that support would cost more than any benefits gained from independence.

I dunno. I'd say the vast majority of government works adequately, at least at first, but over time that tends to slip as people get more and more apathetic about closely scrutinizing it.

I'd say the video is saying precisely that -- things tend to go to hell, get wasteful, and people get disillusioned with government in general (like bobknight33) when government actions aren't continuously and fairly assessed.

You said that people notice it when government doesn't work. I'd say that Trump's rise, and the division in the Democrat party / support for Bernie Sanders are pretty strong bits of evidence suggesting that a LOT of people are noticing that the government isn't working the way they want it to...

The problem is the GOP as constructed is already the minority party at least nationally. Since 1992, they've won the popular vote once in presidential races. Demographics favor voting blocs that track for Democrats. If the GOP splits into a moderate party and Tea Party, that is the effective end of the GOP, and the Tea Party would also be politically castrated. The people who built the Tea Party understood that the way to gain influence was as an insurrection within the GOP, not as a third party. For the Tea Party, it was a smart move. They've gained massive influence nationally compared to their numbers. But it is a cancer to the Republican Party that they've proven they're completely unable to control.

Every single problem or mistake you've listed is all due to one common thread - there are too many supporters of the GOP that are too radical. Why did McCain pick Palin? He was too moderate for the base, so he needed to up his conservative street creds, and he needed a minority splash to combat Obama being black. Combine those two, and you can't get Olympia Snow or Susan Collins, but you could get to either of them if you drop the "needs to be hard right conservative". Why did McCain move to the right in the first place? The base demanded it.

Why can't Obama do anything right according to no one in the GOP pretty much? Base is too rabid and demands it. Why did Romney shift to the right? Base.

You can blame the party for catering to the extreme too much, but the problem is the extreme makes up so much of what they have for support, they have no choice. Tea Party organizers astutely realized that, radicalized their supporters to threaten to not turn out for moderate candidates, and even to primary challenge even guys like Eric Cantor for compromising too much.

I mean this sincerely - the GOP party leadership is not at fault. Blame the original Tea Party organizers. Blame Tea Party candidates. Blame the media environment for increasingly favoring more radical candidates by creating partisan bubbles to carefully dissimenate information that suites partisan goals. Blame an electorate too stupid and/or apathetic to understand that neither conservative nor liberal ideology solves every problem (which is so painfully obvious that I can prove that in about 5 minutes), so you need to learn about each issue, and use those ideologies to form options, and then choose the one that's more likely to work, regardless of its ideological foundation. Yeah, that actually takes work and critical thinking, but you'll actually solve problems!

But that ain't happening, so it's time to sit back and watch the slow decline of the GOP as it eats itself alive, and Democrats will increasingly win because we'll keep being presented more with GOP candidates a majority of candidates can't stomach, and hope like heck the Democrats nominate at least someone semi-competent for office, because that's pretty much all we got.

I couldn't stomach voting for a single GOP nominee for president since George Bush, Sr. It's gotten worse because I couldn't stomach my choice for VA governor last year either. I had to choose between a batsh1t insane Cuccinelli or political sleeze in McAulliffe, and it was both the fastest choice to make for me, yet I was the least happy about having to make it for McAulliffe.

And just when I thought you couldn't get much lower from the GOP, they're on the doorstep of nominating Trump or Cruz for president of the entire country.

As nice and heartwarming as these videos are, they always make me feel shit about the apathetic response I got... but whatevs.

Dunno why this got downvoted because it's bang on the mark. A government only has power as long as it's allowed to govern. Does anyone think a government would continue to function if 100 million American's just up and decided they weren't going to pay taxes any more until shit got sorted out? Or actively rise up?

It's waaay to easy to shift the blame because people are apathetic and lazy. It's the government, thanks Obama, get on a forum somewhere and rant their ass off and what changes? Not a damn thing. And when the voters aren't willing to take the responsibility for watching over their democracy, is the government going to volunteer when they are already balls deep up the ass?

BK33, I believe that you believe the shit you are peddling, which is far more tragic than if you were just a troll. Both parties are too blame for taking advantage of citizen apathy, but citizens are to blame for letting things get that way in the first place.

American's are always big on their rights. Well, with rights comes responsibility. BK33, you don't want to take any responsibility, you'll end up with no rights, simple as that.

Well i can't say I'm overly surprised, if a little disappointed.

@bobknight33 Had they done that originally no one would have ever heard about it. It did make it to the front page of virtually every major news site.

The apathetic way we as a country have just sort of forgotten about the various government surveillance programs, I'll take literally anything to remind people and get some kind of conversation going. I don't think we're going to get to many chances to walk back some of them back before they're thought of as just part of daily life.

Obama was a cleverly created product.
made solely to appeal to a disenfranchised and apathetic voter base.
and it succeeded brilliantly.
obama was a corporate owned subsidiary from day one and if anyone had paid attention to his campaign speeches they would have known and not been so shocked when he acted,politically,exactly how he said he was going to act.

instead they focused on the emotional and inspirational rhetoric because the american people were incredibly desperate for that kind of message (8 yrs of bush will do that to ya).

warren,unlike obama,has been speaking this language for twenty years,and while i cannot begin to guess what kind of president she would be,or if even that is her desire (though many are trying to compel her),i will say she has been relentless in regards to wall street and big finance.her senate record is pretty consistent with her message.

but i get your reference "absolute power corrupts blah blah....."
you are probably right.