A vote for Jill Stein, West, Chase, or not voting, is a vote for Trump. Palestinian lives don't matter to Trump.
A vote for Jill Stein, Cornel West, Oliver Chase, or not voting, is a vote for Trump. Palestinian lives don't matter to Trump, nor do they really matter to Harris; however in general, Harris will be better for Americans than Trump, so vote for Harris.
A vote for Jill Stein, Cornel West, Oliver Chase, or not voting, is a vote for Trump.
Just as a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.
Imagine if Nader didn't run. Imagine there was no Green Party candidate for US President.
Gore would have probably won, and America would have been the better for it. Probably no Iraq war, maybe not even a 911. As a result Iran probably wouldn't be as strong, and Putin probably would have less to legitimately oppose about the US, and would himself be seen as less legitimate—indeed Ukraine might still be whole today.
A new Green deal would probably be in full swing.
Granted, Harris doesn't really care about Palestinians, and some elements of the Democratic party care even less; but Trump cares even less than Harris, and what he will do to the US will be worse.
So while Israel massacres civilians and steals more land, at least under Harris American women would still more easily get abortions, we will have fewer TGs committing suicide (maybe), and health care will be a little more universal.
Also with the 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, the Big 3 will be able to better produce good inexpensive cars (as they've been at least somewhat intending these past several decades), and fascism will have less of a hold on the US.
Therefore: vote for Harris.
If you are a progressive: vote for Harris.
If you are an environmentalist: vote for Harris.
If you are a libertarian: vote for Harris.
If you support voting reforms such as proportional representation, rank balloting, the abolition of the Electoral College, and/or more political diversity: vote for Harris.
If you are nauseated at the idea of voting for Harris: take a barf bag with you while you vote for Harris.
If you are a Palestinian-American who has a relative who was injured, maimed, or even murdered, in Gaza, you should still vote for Harris, because again, Trump doesn't care about them either, but at least you, as an American citizen, will get a better deal Harris than under Trump.
(I'm not entirely sure if I agree with all the above, but I find it hard to refute.)
Voting 3rd party or abstaining for progressivism is the biggest self own in history.
With Gore, there definitely wouldn't have been a war in Iraq. For Afghanistan, who knows. Even if it started out the same, without the drain of Iraq who knows what would have happened long term in Afghanistan.
With Gore, there might not even have been a 9/11 attack. The Clinton administration knew about Al Qaeda and was already actively working against them. The bush administration on the other hand chose to ignore numerous warnings from the CIA that an unprecedented attack was coming and that urgent action was needed.
A quote from the then CIA director of counter terrorism: “To me it remains incomprehensible still. I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened? It’s kind of like The Twilight Zone.”
But later when it came to the torture bit, the Bush administration was very hands on.
https://www.politico.eu/article/attacks-will-be-spectacular-cia-war-on-terror-bush-bin-laden/
And even with 9/11 things could have been different. There was a chorous of people at the time calling for a new Manhattan Project-style focus on renewable energy. Why didn't anyone hear it? W Bush's chants of 'Drill baby drill' were much louder - obviously because he and his party were in charge.
Trump's term was not inconsequential either. For one - he installed three ultra-conservative Supreme Court justices - whatever your left leaning stripes are sure you realize that was devastating to the causes you hold dear. They'll rule for their orthodox conservative Christian capitalist darlings for the rest of their lives and we can't afford another one like them.
A lot can change very fast in this world and I fear a lot of Americans don't realize how serious and cruel life can suddenly get. The corruption that will be encouraged in another Trump administration WILL touch your life and it could be anything from higher expenses via his tarrifs and unclean drinking water via weakening the EPA, to your mom or sister or wife being denied life saving care and watching our environment go from bad to worse.
Bush had billions of personal reasons to allow a 9/11 type event. His family profited immensely from the wars that followed, and he used the event as a catalyst for the Patriot Act and other sweeping changes which he had ready to go. He and his ilk were waiting and hoping for a major event to usher in their new world order.
Well said.
I am fucking sick and tired of all these terminally-naive ideologues trying to destroy all of us with their purity-test-turned-suicide-pact.
Politics is compromise.
Except with fascists. You never, ever compromise with them.
The "compromise" that you vote for the DNC's chosen one, or else!? That's not compromise, broheim.
Trump must not win.
I don't disagree with you there, but I do disagree with pretty much everything else you said.
There is only one way for him not to win, and it's not by voting third party.
Voting third party is worrying about your flat tire while the car is in fire going 100 mph. Yes the flat tire is a very real concern but if the car blows up the flat tire won't matter.
There's other ways for him not to win.
Democrats might help out Chase Oliver.
Harris might also get, say, 5% of Americans who typically vote for the apathy party to vote Democrat.
This issue is far more Nuance then this post would have you believe...
Before I go on let me say I'm voting blue and want Democrats to win.
But if the only support you are willing to show our Palestinian and Arab brothers and sisters are these half hearted, backhanded, and condescending social media posts about how you know what's best. Well, you are in for a rude awakening. People that actually care about genicide will just stay home on election day.
These comments and posts do nothing but prove we don't care about each other, unless it personally effects us in some way. If you really care get off you ass and actual help the Palestinian and Arab communities! the least you can do is call your federal and state senators daily to demand they publicly condemn Israel and the IDF and divest from all institutions that give money to them. But no these posts and comments will get Palestinians and Arabs on our side? This is what conservatives do. We are better than this.
The most you should be doing is calling your senators, marching with anti zionest, getting partitions, and getting involved with the Palestinian and Arab communities to help. Show them the blue base cares and won't abandon them the moment Harris or Trump is in office. I have Palestinian friends and they would spit in your face if you said this kind of bullshit to their face because of how absurd it is. Some comments call them selfish for people caring about the genicide of their friends and family and saying Trump would be worse. Ya no shit, but it wasn't Trump that enabled the killing of 40k people in the last 12 months. That's not accounting for the Yemen deaths we the democrats have enabled. You should be more mad at your own parties actions as it's your vote that current has blood on it.
All I'm saying is these posts and comments aren't helping anyone. Get involved. Don't just post behind a screen and expect people to see the light. If we don't care why should they?
I'm Canadian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada
We have a Liberal leader who is about as useless on this issue as Biden and Harris, a Conservative leader who's a Trump-wannabe, an NDP leader who wants Canada to recognize Palestine, a BQ leader who might have similar sentiments, and 2 Greens who might be less pro-Palestinian than the NDP.
I also know a Palestinian. He's a good man. I don't think I ever talked about politics with him as I think he has a long enough row to hoe as it is.
The sad thing is, at this point it should be a no-brainer, but here we are. Two weeks from what might be the single most important election of our lifetimes, and we’re STILL having to explain it to people.
Common sense can’t be taught, but one would think it should be learned by example. It clearly Isn’t.
In American Presidential politics it's the short term that matters: don't vote for Harris because she's good (she's not), but vote against Trump because he's a monster.
Americans are sick and tired of hearing this every four years. We want a functional government that isn't on the cusp of destruction at all times.
America is too mixed (culturally, politically, religiously) for that. If you want a government that is stable you'll need to move to a different country or invent some framework of cooperation in which an act (such as being gay or having an abortion or not wanting to pay as much in taxes to bomb colored kids in other countries for seemingly no reason) won't be construed as blasphemy by those who see it as such. It's an impossible ask that ignores the divide in who we are.
I’m certain that doing nothing or voting third party will move mountains towards the change you’d like to see.
Obligatory /s.
I've voted in every election for longer than many Lemmings have been alive. That doesn't change the statement I made. It's possible to be frustrated and still participate.
This is true. Won’t deny that. Absolutely be frustrated. It’s a frustrating time to be alive right now.
Then maybe focus on that goal for the other 3 years of the cycle. And focus on local first and building a foundation.
You know, like all the people here repeatedly tell you.
And now that actually fascism is at our doorstep people are too exhausted to care? We have to always care. Keeping a democracy in tact and free of corruption isn't a set it and forget it system.
This is not the first time we've faced fascism, nor will it be the last. I didn't say people are too tired to care, but they are sick of the hyperbole.
I get that, but if the risk is real is it really hyperbole? I'm honestly not trying to be extreme but the guy said you won't have to vote again and that he wants to be a dictator. He said he wants to lock up news channels that say bad things about him. I mean, it doesn't feel like hyperbole to me.
That's true, but the guy also lies about literally everything. If he's talking, he's lying. So I question if he actually has the will to implement the changes he rants about, or if it's just his regular word salad string of consciousness, and if he does have the will, I seriously doubt he has the ability.
So the defense to him saying and doing terrible things is that he lies, I dunno.
My honest take is they would boot him pretty quick and have JD step up once elected. There's enough there to deem him unfit after he pulls in the votes they want. Plus JD could run again.
In no way, shape, or form, have I ever, nor will I ever defend trump.
Yawn…
Yeah so I got downvoted for pointing out Michigan only got gerrymandering removed because it was a non partisan demand introduced via petition, and even then it took until 2020 to be passed as law because both parties fought back until the dems gave in when they realized it would help them win for the next election. And yes I still voted blue and I also voted for that measure.
Not only does this failure of a post completely ignore how people react to policy, it actually claims that the big 3 OEMs will manufacture cars worth a damn, let alone be inexpensive, which everyone in
DetroitSE Michigan, regardless of their political affiliation, will tell you is a load of horseshit.So I will be sitting here watching you fools do a repeat of 2016 since evidently no one learned from their mistakes.
Been saying Michigan will be red since last year just over the basic demand of maybe not funding a genocide.
I'm sure after no one believed Clinton's liberal shilling, people will definitely believe in Harris's local policies with her excellent history of state prosecutor.
If Harris loses, the first thing the DNC and all you corporate shills will do is blame 3rd party voting and not actually the fact that they refused to meet constituents' demands. No one out here is voting 3rd party because they think they're going to win.
The whole purpose of a Democracy is that you should be able to utilize your voting power to demand significant change. Harris already blew off the uncommitted movement, which means that:
At least a seasoned politician would try to maximize appeal if he/she knew their opponent was dangerous if he wins.
Flailing and talking about how Trump would be worse at the same time as willingly ignoring a significant portion of voters is not the marking of a quality campaign nor candidate. It only makes Trump sound less severe, and Harris sound more useless.
I can't even imagine actually walking up to a Palestinian American with this argument in hand. Best case you get shoved away. Worst case scenario you get socked in the jaw.
I just got a call from "the spoiler effect" and it says you trying to give 3rd parties credit for all the hard work it and FPTP voting have been doing to ensure people's voices aren't heard.
Please watch the most important political video in the history of youtube:
Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
It even has cute jungle animals!
I just watched it.
(It's 6:30 long.)
It's a good video. 🙂
It's amazing how it's always up to millions of Americans to ignore their principles and vote Kamala to defeat Trump and never on just one person - Kamala Harris - to uphold the principles she claims to stand for (you know, not being a fucking Fascist) and stop supporting the sending of weapons and ammo to an ethno-Fascist State actively and shamelessly commit Genocide.
It's almost as if whatever person gets the candidacy in the Democrat Party (which as we know since Bernie Sanders vs Hilary Clinton is really all about what the people in the DNC want) immediately become some kind of Monarch anointed by God Almighty himself and hence whose wishes are Immutable Law and beyond criticism.
The whole thing is a ridiculous display of mindless tribalism and brainless muppet mindset.
It's amazing to me to hear that you believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that millions of Americans have any principles whatsoever.
There's 350 millions of Americans and even if only 1% had any real principles, that's still 3.5 million people.
Personally I don't think the problem in the US is any greater lack of principles than anywhere else, but rather the constant brainwashing from the local Media environment and quite a lot of Stockholm Syndrome derived from being in the main de facto powerless in that deeply disfunctional political system (which, frankly, I'm not so sure qualifies as an actual Democracy).
It's not giving up your principals, it's living in reality. If candidate A will make the world perfect but would never get elected, you voting for them does nothing. And if you think Trump and Harris are usually as bad, and can't acknowledge the risl he poses then you have your head in the sand. The man said people wouldn't have to vote again, he wants to lock up news stations who say he things about him, he said he wants to be a dictator, he wants to just give Russia parts of Ukraine. Come on, seriously.
People need to look at options and see where they can make impact. Voting third party is saying %10 better isn't good enough, I'll vote for %100 better and risk things getting much worse. This is rigid morals causing more harm than good.
The term "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" has never been more true.
If my only choice is one person that I don't like, who nobody voted for in the primaries, then I question the assumption that I had a choice at all. Democracy? Is it?
First past the post needs to die. I challenge you to look up which politicians have tried to fix it, and which side of the current two-sided political climate they were on.
or at least add something like a run-off.
So many easy ways to fix it. Politicians just haven't been interested, and it's a shame we have to focus on things like the culture war, wealth divide, and etc vs just fixing our outdated political system. Especially in a republic that considers itself to be the bastion of democracy and freedom :/
Non-votes and votes for third parties are counted as votes for republicans? What kind of electoral magic is this and why can't democrats get the same effect?
If you abstain from voting for the "lesser of two evils", you make things more difficult for that candidate and easier for the other.
Lemmy happens to be a more left-leaning bunch so often this means hurting Harris and helping Trump. The same post would be reversed if posted on Truth Social.
Unfortunately, the US election system is a 2-party system. Protest votes do nothing to change that.
Then the effect balances out. They should try being appealing to voters instead of using the threat of "the other guy" in a hopeless race to the bottom.
They don't seem to want to help Chase Oliver, I suppose.
Good logic. A vote for them is also a vote not for trump. So a vote for them is a vote for Harris.
That doesn't work simply because in this election one side wishes to uphold democracy, while the other is on the record stating they'll "have it fixed" and you "won't have to vote in 4 years". So you do you... But what you've said is just ignorant of the actuality of the choice you currently have. (Lol @ the down votes. The cognitive dissonance is lovely. Hope ya'll hold remember it when the civil war breaks out as democracy dies because you refused to vote in a binary election against agent orange)
and it ain't gonna change.
I suppose—assuming the US lasts under it's present constitution (as it has been for over 240 years)—the next, say, 20 Presidents (from now until 2104 to 2184) will either be Democrat or Republican.
I suppose too, in a few decades, Palestine will be mostly "Palestinian-frei."
Well done Democrats.
Well done, Democrat.
an upvote for you—for nothing.
back at ya. 😁🙂
This is true for most ideologies that require crazy explanations and eventual capitulation to counter-intuitive logic. If your claims require entire social movements to make sense, they're probably bullshit.
Thank you for saying this!
I'm so sick of these disingenuous voting posts.
Single issue voting for Palestine cause is foolish if you vote for any of the candidate. US politicians have taken a lot of money from Israel to stop them.
If that is the criteria to choose then it would be better of not choosing. At least you would not have contributed in genocide.
If you think somebody who supports sending weapons and ammo to those using them to mass murder children is a good person who will think about what's good for other people when she's POTUS, I have a bridge to sell you.
Anybody who is actively helping what Israel is doing is a full-blown Sociopath and socipaths don't work for anything but their own personal upsides when in a leadership position.
The Israeli Genocide (well on its way to Holocaust) is such an extreme thing to actively support that unlike plenty of other things politicians might support, there is no doubt whatsoever on the nature of the character of somebody who supports it.
We're not talking about "how far should Regulators intervene" or "were should Public stop and Private start" here, we're talking about looking at 17 pages of dead babies age 1 year of less (only counted up until Israel bombed all hospitals to stop the counting) and thinking "yeah, we should send those mass murderers of babies more weapons".
It's hard to find most definitive proof of a "will fuck you up for even the slightest of personal gains" personality than this.
Lol you are just that. A dreamer refusing to acknowledge reality.
If you actually want Harris to win, what do you actually think this bullying does to help her?
Just for like a second, consider the person you suppose yourself to be trying to reach, isn't ready to vote for Harris. What do you think this abusive approach to rhetoric does? Do you think it helps Harris?
Israel's current policy is to shoot babies in the head and light them on fire.You've provided no argument for why anyone should vote for Harris, simply an abstract argument that Trump would "be worse". If you really cared about getting Harris elected, you would never dare engage in this kind of obtuse rhetoric that only serves to distance voter Harris herself abandoned even further.
When Harris loses this election, which she is on course to do, the people parroting this idiotic rhetoric will be the ones to blame for her loss. You can't bully or vote shame people into doing what you want them to. It DOES NOT WORK and has significantly impacted Harris' electability among the key constituencies she needs to win. Harris needs Arab and Muslim voters in the upper midwest. Rhetoric like this makes building a bridge to overcome the damage Harris did all the more difficult. Obama literally just used the same rhetorical approach, and it almost assuredly lost Harris a couple points in the south.
If you want Harris to win, you need to do better and focus your criticism on the candidate. No one is owed your vote, and if Harris has policies that are so unpopular she can't get elected with them, focus your rhetoric on fixing the candidate. Otherwise, you are just making the situation worse with this obtuse, play-ground bully approach to electoralism.
Discussing how reality works is not bullying. Discussing how in the current election system, 3rd parties are spoilers is not abusive.
Opponent do indeed "be worse" when that is supported by past actions (in the very elected role,even) , and present statements. Avoiding worse is a meaningful voting strategy, albeit a bleak one. Opponent "be worse" requires abstract goal seeking because we do not "downvote" when we vote. You can't vote against someone, explicitly. You have to assemble the goal of "for trump to be out, someone else must be in". That's unsavory to someone who only thinks of their vote as a seeming love letter, not a political lever (albeit a small one).
It's like you totally missed the point. Vote shaming DOES NOT WORK. No matter how much you try, no matter how you approach it, you will never, ever, be successful with vote shaming. Tell people to vote. That's it. Don't try to tell people why their choice is dumb, because it will either entrench the position or dissuade someone from voting at all, which hurts down-ballot Democratic candidates.
To be fair he's probably made this post in direct reaction to the rather obnoxious "Both sides are the same" folks that also happen to parrot "If you vote for Harris, you support Genocide". I was on Reddit for over a decade and even I'm sick of seeing those replies.
Not saying it's an excuse, only that it's a possible reason.
but Harris does support genocide, but the lives of >330 million Americans are more important than a few million Palestinians.
Again with Trump, both Americans and Palestinians will be worse off;
but with Harris, it's only the Palestinians who will suffer.
It's the greater good, or more aptly, the lesser evil.
If their position is not shifted by sharing the realities of a 2 party, first past the post election happening in 2 weeks then no information will have any impact, regardless of medium, tone, or speaker. This topic has been discussed in every possible way across the internet over the last year. Some more friendly, some more stark.
And that's the point. If the democratic party loses legitimately in this election, it's the democratic party's fault. Not the handful of 3rd party voters. In 2016, we saw that 3rd party voters would not have voted if their choice wasn't on the ballot. You can get pissy about 3rd parties and strategy, but vote shaming will always be ineffective.
Edit My conclusion is that there has been much quality discussion over the past year, educating isn't shaming.
Oh I assure you, what OP (and somewhat yourself) is doing IS bullying. Right now the Green's are polling at sub 1%. Without looking anything up, can you tell me who the libertarian candidate is and how they are polling? I bet you cant.
Quite literally, the Libertarians beat the Greens in every single one of each electoral college race, usually by 2-3x the count of votes. There were no spoilers in 2016, only a shitty candidate and an even shittier party (and their apologists) who don't want to be held accountable for forcing deeply unpopular candidates on the electorate.
Right now Lemmy is running with this schtict because they see the writing on the wall and its clear Harris isn't going to win. And its Harris's fucking fault and we're all going to suffer the consequences for it. Harris could have distanced herself from Biden and taken a better stance: she created this situation we're in right now, no one else. Its not Jill Stein or the green's fault if Harris loses. Its not Muslim americans or actual progressives fault. It will be Harris's and her army of apologists who instead of demanding better from the candidate (so we can actually get her elected), demanded little and less and blamed other for their failure, to the detriment of us all.
Lots of assumptions there, but you can enjoy them, doesn't bother me.
On topic: check out Pennsylvania in 2016. sub 1% actually matters.
https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/SummaryResults?ElectionID=54&ElectionType=G&IsActive=0
Gary Johnson, 2.4%
Jill Stein, 0.8%
If you are going to claim Stein as a spoiler (which is arguable, separate conversation), you have to also accept then that Johnson also is a spoiler.
In which case Trump would have won handily.
Now you're getting it. When did I suggest I wouldn't?
I discussed the spoiling effect in FPTP elections, and refuted the sub 1% comment.
No shit, Sherlock!
Except for the part where Trump is the polar fucking opposite of Gary Johnson and there's no good reason to think that Johnson votes would've gone to Trump.
Do you see how you have one set of rules for Stein voters and a second set of rules for Johnson voters to construct the narrative you want?
IIUC, there's a lot of early voting, and I think most of that is for Harris.
Show me that data then. Because every swing states poll I see at this point has Trump up and has had Trump trending up and Kamala trending down for almost 5 weeks
If she loses the election, Stein (and to a lesser extent West) will be blamed.
Oh they'll get blamed. The people blaming them will be wrong in their blame of course, but yes, they'll get blamed. I mean shit, look at your post. We haven't even had an election and you are already blaming them.
But if Harris loses this election, its no-ones fault but her own, and those who tried to use abuse as a cudgel.
Like Republicans, Democrats will do pretty well anything to win.
Except ending funding for genocide, of course
but don't Americans, particularly American Christians and Jews, hate Muslims and love Israel?
Is the media giving us a distorted image of USA?
I happen to actually like Harris (more or less) but the one good thing about Trump winning would be getting to laugh at all the self-owning leftists.
What do you think of her support of Israeli genociding the Palestinians?
3rd party votes are valid votes and anyone who tells you your vote isn't yours is the problem.
advocates for flawed parisan fear-mongering and bullying are the reason the US has a self-fulfilled and self-perpetuating, broken, two-party system.
voting for Jill Stein, West, Chase, Trump, or Harris is up to you.
It's your right to vote for who you vote for.
you have to be wildly ignorant or violently prejudiced to vote for Trump, but that doesn't mean you don't have the right to vote for who you vote for.
I also can't see why you would vote for a third party instead of Harris given that almost all their policies overlap and Harris has made actual progress on green party policies, but that isn't my call because your vote isn't mine.
Of course everyone is free to vote for the cancer instead of the cure. No one is arguing this so put the straw man away for a moment and try and follow:
The argument here is about the lack of understanding of what is at stake, and the sheer ignorance it requires to chose the cancer over the cure.
Democrats aren't the cure, they're just slower cancer.
lol…. k.
Why else would democrats support genocide and cozy up to war criminals like george w bush and dick cheney?
I’m not going to discuss this with someone that insists democrats are supporting genocide.
Do better.
Do you agree that israel is committing genocide?
What part of-
do you not understand?
"Of course everyone is free to vote..."
OP disagrees, which is the point I am addressing.
"No one is arguing this"
The OP is arguing this.
"put the straw man away for a moment
frustrating that you all learned these buzzwords and regurgitate them without understanding what they mean or taking the trouble to use them properly.
I am directly refuting their points using their own quotations as supporting evidence.
that is not a straw man. that is a direct, contextual, referenced response.
"The argument here is about the lack of understanding of what is at stake."
it should be, but it is not.
that is your "straw man".
You clearly have a reading comprehension problem-
They never once’s said you cannot vote for who you want. Maybe read it again from the perspective of someone that isn’t trying to build a straw man.
"You clearly have a reading comprehension problem-"
hm.
"They never once’s said"
hm.
"Maybe read it again from the perspective of someone that isn’t trying to build a straw man."
using words you hear a lot in every situation doesn't mean you're using them correctly.
I am directly refuting their points using their own quotations as supporting evidence.
that is not a straw man. that is a direct, contextual, referenced response.
So it’s not my job to educate you here, but I will if it helps you to better understand how to read for context. Ready?
Shouldn’t doesn’t mean can’t.
For example:
“You shouldn’t vote third party. It is an incredibly selfish and stupid thing to do at the eleventh hour of a critical election.”
Is not the same thing as:
“You can’t vote third party!”
I sincerely hope this helps you understand how OP didn’t one time tell anyone that they can’t vote for who they want to- only that it’s ignorant and irresponsible to do so.
Now… I’m not entertaining your bullshit any further because this is the most basic I can get with regards to explaining the fundamentals of the written word.
The rest is up to you.
Good luck.
If the Harris team could make it harder for 3rd parties to register, it will be good for her chances, and thus probably a bit better for the US.
What would probably be better still is Harris being President for the next 10 to 12 years, without the need for Presidential elections—which are distracting from her necessary work.
"So it’s not my job to educate you here..."
or within your skill set, since you're clearly confused about even the simplified comments written for you.
"OP didn’t one time tell anyone that they can’t vote"
Cool, nobody said they did.
did you finally look up what a "strawman" is?
are you trying to make up strawmen until I make one up back or something?
I don't really truck with those.
"...only that t’s ignorant and irresponsible to do so."
it is not ignorant or irresponsible to vote for a third party if you find that candidate best represents your policies and are socially responsible people.
as stated in my original comment, people like you and op who don't believe in the right to vote are the reason the US has a two-party system in the first place.
you and op are part of the reason the US electoral system has devolved until someone like Trump could win in the first place.
vote for your candidate, people.
You said right here after I said that everyone is free to vote- that OP is suggesting people aren’t free to vote their choice. So, stop lying.
No one said they’re not valid. Just that at this point in time, they’re fucking stupid.
Again, no one said they can’t vote for who they want.
Again, this ain’t up for debate as it’s not being argued against. No one said anyone can’t vote for who they want.
Redundant, because this was already covered several times already-
Redundant. See above.
So you see. YOU have said several times that OP is trying to insinuate that people don’t have rights to vote for their chosen candidate- or you wouldn’t be rebutting it.
These are bad faith accusations. The proof is above in direct quotes from you. I’m not arguing this any further.
Enjoy the last word.
All those words, what a waste of effort.
Just say "let the Palestinians die, that will show that politician I disagree with!".
why do you want Palestinians to die?
as a "gotcha?"
you have deep problems, sicko.
What do you think of the 100% tariff on Chinese EVs?
OAO
You get to feel good morally at the cost of a few thousand Palestinian lives.
Great work 👌
Palestinians are going to be genocided and there's nothing (at least nothing effective) Americans can do about it in their choice for President.
A vote for Trump is a vote for genocide.
A vote for Harris is a vote for genocide.
A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump and is thus a vote for genocide.
As a voter for US President, you are powerless to stop the genocide.
you just bragged in the other comment about how you're excited to let Palestinians die for political motivations; I don't know what moral stance you think you should feel good about.
A vote for Harris is the lesser evil because while under her, perhaps another 40 000 Palestinians will be murdered during her term (perhaps her 1st of 2 terms) and perhaps a multiple of Palestinian lives will be injured, maimed, and/or otherwise ruined;
while Israel murders many Palestinian babies, murder perhaps 100s of Palestinian LGBTQIs—perhaps more than what Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have done combined in the past 10 years; and Palestinian houses destroyed and orchards denuded;
while all the while Netanyahu wags his finger and lectures her through CNN and other MSN;
at least over 330 million Americans will be a bit better off, and a few 100s of American women and LGBTQs will be greatly better off.
are you asking for confirmation?
some of that sounds correct, some of it is laughably incorrect, none of it seems particularly relevant to the matter at hand.
are you just voicing a general agreement with my support for Harris?
I'm taking the anti-third-party sentiments I've encountered on Lemmy and reddit and distilling it a bit further.
Vote for the lesser evil, the ends justify the means, politics is the art of compromise, it's not how you play the game, winning isn't the biggest thing (it's the only thing), laws are like sausages, always be closing, etc ...,
If you know how absurd anti-third-party sentiments are, why did you make this post?
I suppose I'm debating with myself.
Their arguments, AFAIK, for now at least, aren't easily refuted.
The Bush Presidency of 2001 to 2009 was bad, and arguably if Nader wasn't around, Gore would have won; and no Presidential candidate will stop the genocide, but Trump will be worse for the US.
Some of my counter arguments are here: https://lemmy.world/post/21081704
Perhaps I should create a page on Wikidebates: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Category:Wikidebates
Democrats don't want to hold themselves accountable for how uniquely un-democratic their party is (internally). If the Democrats can't win elections, thats on them for running candidates that are uniquely unpopular or who support unpopular policies. And the worst of it all, right, is this assinine supposition that they are owed your vote because you've got no-where else to go. I mean look at 2016. Bernies running away with it and the Hillary campaign quite literally colludes with the DNC to box him out. Sure the e-mails weren't meant to get out: but their contents where never disputed. 2020, and it was a practical fucking coup on Super-Tuesday (well, the weekend before), with all the middling moderates dropping out on the same day and Warren sticking it out to split the progressive vote. 2024, calls for Biden to not run started in 2023, and they dragged it out till so close to the end we didn't even get to have a primary.
Yet its the voters fault when they don't vote for the candidate. Maybe read the room.
Thank you saying this.
"Democrats don't want to hold themselves accountable for how uniquely un-democratic their party is (internally)."
vague, unsupported take.
"If the Democrats can't win elections"
they can and did win against the most popular demagogue in US history a few years ago.
they can win just fine.
and if they don't, they don't.
It's an election.
"is this assinine supposition that they are owed your vote because you've got no-where else to go"
Yes, that's exactly the problem with this position.
this post forces upon two options to choose from and people should throw away their rights to vote so that they can support tribes rather than candidates or policies, which I agree is asinine.
"Yet its the voters fault when they don't vote for the candidate"
It's the voter's fault when they do vote for their candidate
I'm not sure what you're confused about here.
are you saying that because the US electoral system is corrupt you have to fight back with corrupt methods?
I literally can't tell what you're arguing by the end of that post.
Please don't do this each sentence is a paragraph writing style.
I separate by paragraphs and subject, rather than sentences.
Either way, I don't think I should oblige.
Keeping distinct points clear is a courtesy.
People have trouble following cluttered paragraphs.
You put one topic together as a paragraph. What you're doing now makes it harder to follow, not easier.
that hasn't happened, you're confused.
? Correct, you haven't put one topic together in a paragraph. Aka, that hasn't happened. And I'm saying you should put one topic together in a paragraph.
"I found it difficult to read what you wrote because of the style."
because of disctinct paragraphs? color me skeptical.
you find a single block of text simpler to follow than reading separate statements organized by subject?
If this is true, do you have trouble reading every book and article written because they are not single blocks of text?
do you find single blocks of text somehow easier to read?
or:
"I found it difficult to read what you wrote because of the style."because of distinct paragraphs? color me skeptical.you find this single block of text simpler to follow than reading separate statements organized by subject? If this is true, do you have trouble reading every book and article written because they are not single blocks of text? do you find single blocks of text somehow easier to read?
Bruh I offered 3 legs of support, enough to build a table, stfu.
Yeah how did they do that? Because what I recall happening is that Joe Biden took significant steps to the left after beating Bernie on super-tuesday to build a winning coalition. Harris is running to the right of Biden on literally everything right now.
No ones' confused about anything, you just have wrong/ incoherent response.
"Bruh I offered 3 legs of support"
If one of those legs is your faith in the american auto industry, I eviscerated that a couple comments over.
nobody asked me about the other two.
"Yeah how did they do that?"
Trump lost because more people voted for Biden.
"you just have wrong/ incoherent response."
examples?
what are you confused about?
Literally the only person confused here, in both style and content, is you.
I'm making very clear, logical points and responding immediately and directly to comments from dozens of people, quoting them so that people can easily apprehend the context of my comments.
you are the only one who keeps complaining that you don't understand what you're reading or what very simple words and concepts mean.
You are confused.
You can ask for clarification on what you're confused about.
some people are picking it up faster; you need a little extra help.
go ahead and ask.
No I'm not. Other people are calling you out in this very thread for being obtuse.
There doesn't appear to be anything to understand because you are blithering.