In what ways is the constitution and the 2025 Plan comparable? I want examples, but I know you won't do that because you're just an edgelord who doesn't actually have anything intelligent to say. The 2025 Plan seeks to circumvent certain parts of the constitution, just so you know. Just like Stein is helping to weaken the position of the left, RFK is thankfully weakening the stance of the right. Trump would be in an even stronger position if he didn't have so much competition on the right. RFK could be a real spoiler for Trump, especially considering he's running as an independent and will appear alongside Trump on the ballot. Still no way RFK could win, though, which is why a vote for him would also be a vote wasted.
It was an actual path to fascism which is what you asked for. Stein is strengthening the position of the left, because the Democrats are not left. RFK pulling votes from the right is huge, and a big chance for an actual left party like the Greens to gain ground. RFK could actually win in my opinion because of how disliked the current duopoly is.
Stein is strengthening the left, because the Democrats are not left.
I don't agree because I feel a far-right Trump presidency would be much worse for the actual left than a centrist neolib Biden presidency. There's a lot riding on this; access to abortion, trans rights, environmental protections, restricting voter access, etc. I think that a Trump would probably even damage the left more than a miraculous Stein victory would help it.
a far-right Trump presidency would be much worse for the actual left than a centrist neolib Biden presidency.
Voting for a centrist neolib is the worst thing you can do for the left.
There’s a lot riding on this; access to abortion, trans rights, environmental protections, restricting voter access
Biden has been terrible on abortion by not getting roe v wade codified his whole career, terrible on environment just approved the willow pipeline, terrible on voting rights since hes a Dem and used undemocratic super delegates to win.
And how exactly is a centrist leader worse than a far-right leader? That makes no sense. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's like having the choice between being in an abusive relationship where they always tell you they'll do better next time or being with someone who actually wants to murder you, and you choose the murderer because you're tired of being manipulated. No one would fault you for being tired of that, but to say that the alternative is preferable is utterly absurd. Lay out for me why Trump would be better than Biden.
Trump is far worse on all those issues. Do you want your life to be merely bad, or completely awful? It's a shitty choice, but it does actually matter. Sometimes it might feel like the answer is "I don't care anymore," but I feel like you're being careless with regard to the people who's lives would be unmistakably worse under Trump than under Biden. Not even just here, but in Palestine, in Ukraine, in Armenia, in Tigray, in Rojava, etc.
And how exactly is a centrist leader worse than a far-right leader? That makes no sense.
Because you're ensuring wealthy people control the political system by voting for them. Wealthy people win whether Trump or Biden is elected.
So atleast you admit you're in an abusive relationship, next step is to leave.
Except you often can't simply just leave an abusive relationship. You can say you're leaving, but the dems will always be there as one of only two real options; there's no escape. Just like I thought, you were just making wild, spiteful assertions without even any justification to back them up. The centrists are worse than the far-right because they're both rich? And you expect to be taken seriously with logic like that? The right is even richer and openly hates you/actively works against you.
there’s no escape.
Holy shit, you are truly a battered spouse. You can leave, vote for anyone else.
Congrats, you've voted for someone else. That person didn't win and the old people are still in charge, genius. Literally going back to Lincoln times, it's always been a dem or a rep. That's what I mean by no escape and all you've done this whole time is say "Nuh-uh!" based on nothing at all. You've said nothing substantive this whole time and have yet to support a single statement. This is nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do with strategy. So far you've proudly declared you have no real strategy and no real basis for your beliefs. At best, you've tricked yourself into thinking you've escaped the system, but you're sitting right here in the same sinking boat with all of us. You can try and bail water, or you can complain that a better boat wouldn't need to be bailed. Grab a bucket or jump out.
That person didn’t win and the old people are still in charge, genius.
And your plan is to keep voting for them. you've already lost.
everything to do with strategy.
Yours failed.
So far you’ve proudly declared you have no real strategy
Vote for Greens to get atleast 5% for federal funding.
jump out.
Exactly.
There're those baseless assertions again. It's like you double down by making a new one every time I ask for sources, or even to merely explain your thinking. Just saying something doesn't make it true, especially not when said by you lol.
What strategy exactly? How exactly has it failed? I'd argue it's worked infinitely better than your suggestion because democrats have at least been president a bunch of times and prevented the right from having those opportunities. How many Green presidents (or even house reps) have we had again?What practical pattern or information do you get from looking at past presidents? Again, cite your sources or this is just as false and ill-conceived as everything else you've said. I can back up my statement that your strategy is worthless by pointing out that the Green Party is so fringe as to never have won a national election, or even have much awareness among voters. The Green Party would have to do at least 5 times better than it has anytime in the last several elections in order to qualify for federal funding. You're even more naive than I thought if you're banking on that. It's not gonna happen anytime soon, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. It's also genuinely laughable that you'd complain about democrats being beholden to moneyed interests and then suggesting the Green Party should get all of its money from the federal government, which it would also have to agree to in order to receive that money. Do you have a single consistent thought in your head?
I'm afraid your expectations for the US electoral system is much too high. This is the US we're talking about, remember? You think they'd let us have someone actually good? Bad or abjectly terrible are your options and always will be. You can say "I refuse to participate in this matter," but I don't want to hear any complaints when it turns out the worse one gets chosen for you anyway.
every time I ask for sources
I provided you an actual source for fascism. You are clearly emotionally incapable of leaving your abusive husband and that's really sad.
even to merely explain your thinking
You are a triggered lib that can't handle the reality of your votes. You vote for genocide, and I do not. I already explained that you need to support another party to oppose that.
What strategy exactly? How exactly has it failed?
Voting for Democrats. It failed to oppose the right, that is very clear. We have to move to another party, very obvious.
democrats have at least been president a bunch of times and prevented the right from having those opportunities.
And passed right wing economic policy. Nice job.
Again, cite your sources
You keep saying that but you don't know what it mean. You have to ask a question for that.
I can back up my statement that your strategy is worthless by pointing out that the Green Party is so fringe as to never have won a national election
They have won many local elections like you liberals claim to care about, and need support but you refuse to help. You instead spend time and effort opposing the obvious solution: vote for them.
You’re even more naive than I thought if you’re banking on that.
Banking on them winning the president in 24? You don't even listen, it's about building a party to oppose the Democrats that are fake left.
It’s also genuinely laughable that you’d complain about democrats being beholden to moneyed interests and then suggesting the Green Party should get all of its money from the federal government
Never said that, you're talking complete bullshit. I'm glad I triggered you this much :)
Unlike the Democrats, the Greens don't take bribes from moneyed interests like you know.
Do you have a single consistent thought in your head?
Yes, I have quite clearly said to vote for the Green party.
I’m afraid your expectations for the US electoral system is much too high. This is the US we’re talking about, remember? You think they’d let us have someone actually good? Bad or abjectly terrible are your options and always will be. You can say “I refuse to participate in this matter,” but I don’t want to hear any complaints when it turns out the worse one gets chosen for you anyway.
Voting for the Green party is the literal least you can do if you actually don't have any hope for the political system. Literally 10 minutes of your day, get over it.
Your "source" was just a link to the whole constitution of the Confederacy. You didn't actually cite any specific examples to back up your point, you just said they were comparable without elaborating. Did you even read it before linking? They may be comparable in some ways, but perhaps rather different in others. It's probably arguable, but you didn't bother, so I don't know what your thought process was. It doesn't matter what it was now, but that's what citations and sources are for. What specific parts of the constitution are you referencing? Which specific parts are similar to the 2025 Plan or fascistic political ideology and what are the parallels? You've already demonstrated for me in practical terms that you don't know when to use a source or how to cite it. Your only defense is projecting your ignorance onto me. They are not for questions at all, but for statements, of which you make many unfounded and unsupported ones. If I say Ronald McDonald is actually a Mormon and when asked for proof, I simply link the entire Book of Mormon, that wouldn't prove my point at all and you'd have no idea what I meant.
Also, the CSA was really bad, right? In listing the CSA's constitution as a kind of predecessor to the 2025 Plan, you acknowledge that this is a big deal. Shouldn't that make you way more willing to do whatever it takes to defeat the plan, even if it means sucking it up and voting for a centrist if there's no other chance?
My strategy has worked about 45% of the time in the last 100 years (8/18 times) and yours has worked exactly 0% of the time. The Greens' membership fell by about 27% between 2004-2009 and has remained mostly stagnant in terms of growth since then (that's a citation, a direct or paraphrased quote from a source I used so you'd know I didn't just pull it from nowhere. You haven't done that, so I don't know the same for your state Its just the important bit, so you don't have to read the whole thing, but you are able to go find a cited quote if you feel compelled). Your strategy is failing utterly right before our eyes and all you can do to distract from it is to point at others. My strategy actually accomplishes real harm reduction because during a significant amount of the time, less extreme policies are being passed than if they were under a republican. Dems at least pump the breaks a little bit, while the Greens aren't there to pump the breaks at all. Don't worry, though, they said that they would totally have stopped the crash singlehandedly if they were there. The DNC certainly aren't the revolutionaries I wish they were, but it's obviously better than letting the right have total free reign. The Greens have never been around to effect any legislation one way or another. Your strategy accomplishes literally nothing as opposed to at least something demonstrable. Failed idealism is still failure.
You seem to be under the impression that the Green Party would stay true to their beliefs better than the DNC, but this also would appear untrue. In the few places where the Greens have won any elections, they have to compromise with the right just as the DNC does. Here they are approving a new lignite mine (very similar to coal, used in same ways) in Germany under pressure from the right and wealthy. If they wouldn't actually be capable of being much better than the DNC because of opposition, then what's the point of working so hard to build a party and letting the right take the advantage in the meantime, only for basically the same outcome? Sounds like a whole lot of wasted chances when we could have just voted for the people already doing this.
Everything you've criticized Biden for, you haven't acknowledged that Trump would be worse on all accounts, as he's already demonstrated in his presidency. The Green Party can't offer an immediate solution for that. As only one example, Trump was setting records for so many drone strikes that he stopped publishing the numbers. In his first year, Biden reduced drone strikes by 54% from Trump's final year. 100% would be better, but you'd be a fool to reject a reduction that big. That is real harm reduction. Those are families who didn't get blown up, when they would have under Trump. Biden also made it harder for the Pentagon and CIA to launch their own drone strikes.
Here's a list of inconsistent thoughts regarding your stated reasons for advocating for the Greens; criticizing the DNC for being ineffective when the Greens have little at all to point to whatsoever; criticizing the DNC for compromises with the right when the Greens would have to make those same compromises; complaining the dems get the right elected and telling people to vote for someone unelectable which only ends up helping the right by diluting votes.
You said it, voting Green really is the least one can do lmao. It might be easier to simply bring down the whole government and start from scratch than it would be to get a Green president elected anytime in the next 20 years. It took me about as long as it takes to vote Green to write this comment and the time I spent was just as "valuable" lol.
In what ways is the constitution and the 2025 Plan comparable? I want examples, but I know you won't do that because you're just an edgelord who doesn't actually have anything intelligent to say. The 2025 Plan seeks to circumvent certain parts of the constitution, just so you know. Just like Stein is helping to weaken the position of the left, RFK is thankfully weakening the stance of the right. Trump would be in an even stronger position if he didn't have so much competition on the right. RFK could be a real spoiler for Trump, especially considering he's running as an independent and will appear alongside Trump on the ballot. Still no way RFK could win, though, which is why a vote for him would also be a vote wasted.
It was an actual path to fascism which is what you asked for. Stein is strengthening the position of the left, because the Democrats are not left. RFK pulling votes from the right is huge, and a big chance for an actual left party like the Greens to gain ground. RFK could actually win in my opinion because of how disliked the current duopoly is.
I don't agree because I feel a far-right Trump presidency would be much worse for the actual left than a centrist neolib Biden presidency. There's a lot riding on this; access to abortion, trans rights, environmental protections, restricting voter access, etc. I think that a Trump would probably even damage the left more than a miraculous Stein victory would help it.
Voting for a centrist neolib is the worst thing you can do for the left.
Biden has been terrible on abortion by not getting roe v wade codified his whole career, terrible on environment just approved the willow pipeline, terrible on voting rights since hes a Dem and used undemocratic super delegates to win.
And how exactly is a centrist leader worse than a far-right leader? That makes no sense. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's like having the choice between being in an abusive relationship where they always tell you they'll do better next time or being with someone who actually wants to murder you, and you choose the murderer because you're tired of being manipulated. No one would fault you for being tired of that, but to say that the alternative is preferable is utterly absurd. Lay out for me why Trump would be better than Biden.
Trump is far worse on all those issues. Do you want your life to be merely bad, or completely awful? It's a shitty choice, but it does actually matter. Sometimes it might feel like the answer is "I don't care anymore," but I feel like you're being careless with regard to the people who's lives would be unmistakably worse under Trump than under Biden. Not even just here, but in Palestine, in Ukraine, in Armenia, in Tigray, in Rojava, etc.
Because you're ensuring wealthy people control the political system by voting for them. Wealthy people win whether Trump or Biden is elected.
So atleast you admit you're in an abusive relationship, next step is to leave.
Except you often can't simply just leave an abusive relationship. You can say you're leaving, but the dems will always be there as one of only two real options; there's no escape. Just like I thought, you were just making wild, spiteful assertions without even any justification to back them up. The centrists are worse than the far-right because they're both rich? And you expect to be taken seriously with logic like that? The right is even richer and openly hates you/actively works against you.
Holy shit, you are truly a battered spouse. You can leave, vote for anyone else.
Congrats, you've voted for someone else. That person didn't win and the old people are still in charge, genius. Literally going back to Lincoln times, it's always been a dem or a rep. That's what I mean by no escape and all you've done this whole time is say "Nuh-uh!" based on nothing at all. You've said nothing substantive this whole time and have yet to support a single statement. This is nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do with strategy. So far you've proudly declared you have no real strategy and no real basis for your beliefs. At best, you've tricked yourself into thinking you've escaped the system, but you're sitting right here in the same sinking boat with all of us. You can try and bail water, or you can complain that a better boat wouldn't need to be bailed. Grab a bucket or jump out.
And your plan is to keep voting for them. you've already lost.
Yours failed.
Vote for Greens to get atleast 5% for federal funding.
Exactly.
There're those baseless assertions again. It's like you double down by making a new one every time I ask for sources, or even to merely explain your thinking. Just saying something doesn't make it true, especially not when said by you lol.
What strategy exactly? How exactly has it failed? I'd argue it's worked infinitely better than your suggestion because democrats have at least been president a bunch of times and prevented the right from having those opportunities. How many Green presidents (or even house reps) have we had again?What practical pattern or information do you get from looking at past presidents? Again, cite your sources or this is just as false and ill-conceived as everything else you've said. I can back up my statement that your strategy is worthless by pointing out that the Green Party is so fringe as to never have won a national election, or even have much awareness among voters. The Green Party would have to do at least 5 times better than it has anytime in the last several elections in order to qualify for federal funding. You're even more naive than I thought if you're banking on that. It's not gonna happen anytime soon, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. It's also genuinely laughable that you'd complain about democrats being beholden to moneyed interests and then suggesting the Green Party should get all of its money from the federal government, which it would also have to agree to in order to receive that money. Do you have a single consistent thought in your head?
I'm afraid your expectations for the US electoral system is much too high. This is the US we're talking about, remember? You think they'd let us have someone actually good? Bad or abjectly terrible are your options and always will be. You can say "I refuse to participate in this matter," but I don't want to hear any complaints when it turns out the worse one gets chosen for you anyway.
I provided you an actual source for fascism. You are clearly emotionally incapable of leaving your abusive husband and that's really sad.
You are a triggered lib that can't handle the reality of your votes. You vote for genocide, and I do not. I already explained that you need to support another party to oppose that.
Voting for Democrats. It failed to oppose the right, that is very clear. We have to move to another party, very obvious.
And passed right wing economic policy. Nice job.
You keep saying that but you don't know what it mean. You have to ask a question for that.
They have won many local elections like you liberals claim to care about, and need support but you refuse to help. You instead spend time and effort opposing the obvious solution: vote for them.
Banking on them winning the president in 24? You don't even listen, it's about building a party to oppose the Democrats that are fake left.
Never said that, you're talking complete bullshit. I'm glad I triggered you this much :)
Unlike the Democrats, the Greens don't take bribes from moneyed interests like you know.
Yes, I have quite clearly said to vote for the Green party.
Voting for the Green party is the literal least you can do if you actually don't have any hope for the political system. Literally 10 minutes of your day, get over it.
Your "source" was just a link to the whole constitution of the Confederacy. You didn't actually cite any specific examples to back up your point, you just said they were comparable without elaborating. Did you even read it before linking? They may be comparable in some ways, but perhaps rather different in others. It's probably arguable, but you didn't bother, so I don't know what your thought process was. It doesn't matter what it was now, but that's what citations and sources are for. What specific parts of the constitution are you referencing? Which specific parts are similar to the 2025 Plan or fascistic political ideology and what are the parallels? You've already demonstrated for me in practical terms that you don't know when to use a source or how to cite it. Your only defense is projecting your ignorance onto me. They are not for questions at all, but for statements, of which you make many unfounded and unsupported ones. If I say Ronald McDonald is actually a Mormon and when asked for proof, I simply link the entire Book of Mormon, that wouldn't prove my point at all and you'd have no idea what I meant.
Also, the CSA was really bad, right? In listing the CSA's constitution as a kind of predecessor to the 2025 Plan, you acknowledge that this is a big deal. Shouldn't that make you way more willing to do whatever it takes to defeat the plan, even if it means sucking it up and voting for a centrist if there's no other chance?
My strategy has worked about 45% of the time in the last 100 years (8/18 times) and yours has worked exactly 0% of the time. The Greens' membership fell by about 27% between 2004-2009 and has remained mostly stagnant in terms of growth since then (that's a citation, a direct or paraphrased quote from a source I used so you'd know I didn't just pull it from nowhere. You haven't done that, so I don't know the same for your state Its just the important bit, so you don't have to read the whole thing, but you are able to go find a cited quote if you feel compelled). Your strategy is failing utterly right before our eyes and all you can do to distract from it is to point at others. My strategy actually accomplishes real harm reduction because during a significant amount of the time, less extreme policies are being passed than if they were under a republican. Dems at least pump the breaks a little bit, while the Greens aren't there to pump the breaks at all. Don't worry, though, they said that they would totally have stopped the crash singlehandedly if they were there. The DNC certainly aren't the revolutionaries I wish they were, but it's obviously better than letting the right have total free reign. The Greens have never been around to effect any legislation one way or another. Your strategy accomplishes literally nothing as opposed to at least something demonstrable. Failed idealism is still failure.
You seem to be under the impression that the Green Party would stay true to their beliefs better than the DNC, but this also would appear untrue. In the few places where the Greens have won any elections, they have to compromise with the right just as the DNC does. Here they are approving a new lignite mine (very similar to coal, used in same ways) in Germany under pressure from the right and wealthy. If they wouldn't actually be capable of being much better than the DNC because of opposition, then what's the point of working so hard to build a party and letting the right take the advantage in the meantime, only for basically the same outcome? Sounds like a whole lot of wasted chances when we could have just voted for the people already doing this.
Everything you've criticized Biden for, you haven't acknowledged that Trump would be worse on all accounts, as he's already demonstrated in his presidency. The Green Party can't offer an immediate solution for that. As only one example, Trump was setting records for so many drone strikes that he stopped publishing the numbers. In his first year, Biden reduced drone strikes by 54% from Trump's final year. 100% would be better, but you'd be a fool to reject a reduction that big. That is real harm reduction. Those are families who didn't get blown up, when they would have under Trump. Biden also made it harder for the Pentagon and CIA to launch their own drone strikes.
Here's a list of inconsistent thoughts regarding your stated reasons for advocating for the Greens; criticizing the DNC for being ineffective when the Greens have little at all to point to whatsoever; criticizing the DNC for compromises with the right when the Greens would have to make those same compromises; complaining the dems get the right elected and telling people to vote for someone unelectable which only ends up helping the right by diluting votes.
You said it, voting Green really is the least one can do lmao. It might be easier to simply bring down the whole government and start from scratch than it would be to get a Green president elected anytime in the next 20 years. It took me about as long as it takes to vote Green to write this comment and the time I spent was just as "valuable" lol.