Let's break down this bullshit: A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein. The election clerks count ballots marked for Stein and report the vote totals that Stein received. A vote for Jill Stein is literally a vote for Jill Stein.
The statement that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump is, of course, metaphorical. It's asserting that a vote for Stein is morally equivalent to a vote for Trump by the speaker's moral reckoning. It's a rhetorical shortcut. This shortcut rests on the notion that either the voter would have voted for Harris, or that it is a moral imperative to stop Trump above all else.
That's a moral judgement call. Other people may judge differently. Flatly stating that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump so vehemently and absolutely elides any possibility of discourse and clearly tells the Stein voter that the speaker will not listen to or consider any of their views, or reasons to vote for Stein.
Fine, you believe that, but when has telling people more or less directly that you do not have any intention of considering their political beliefs won them over to your side? How is that a good tactic? If it worked, then why not employ it on Trump supporters? Go ahead, tell them that the party you support will ignore what they think and want, and demand they vote for your candidate.
If it doesn't work on them, why should it work on Stein voters?
At best, third party voting has led to splitting votes and Woodrow Wilson winning despite having only 41% of the votes and at worst, it's done absolutely nothing.
This is why a vote for third party is a vote for trump. Because no trump supporter is gonna vote third party. If you're voting third party, it means one less vote for Harris which means less smaller chance of her winning which means higher chance of trump losing. Anyone saying otherwise is either dumb as fuck or is purposefully trying to split the votes to help trump win.
No, this is absolute bullshit.
Well, now that you put it that way...
More accurately, a vote for Stein is a vote for whichever major party candidate the voter wouldn't have voted for. In most cases, someone voting for the Green Party would vote for Harris, so it's a vote for Trump.
That isn't a moral judgement, it's the facts of a two party system. -1 vote for Harris = +1 vote for Trump, no other votes matter.
And that's not telling someone you don't consider their political beliefs. Considering their political beliefs, they should vote for the major party candidate that they agree with the most, or they will effectively be voting for the one they agree with least.
That's not the approach with Trump supporters because Trump is the major party candidate they agree with most, by definition. If anything one should try to get Trump supporters to vote 3rd party, Libertarian or for RFK or whoever.
Nailed it... Probably gonna catch a lot of down votes from lib shills... But fuck 'em, this is exactly right. Honestly, I think any of these bullshit articles that will clearly push people further away must be part of the plan to help Trump... Or are the libs really still just this stupid? Have learned absolutely nothing from all their time losing
Thanks! I knew what kind of replies I'd get, and did. Essentially, doubling-down on the electoral calculus argument, and not considering that other people have different motivations.
I am soooo happy to see how many people are disagreeing with the "a vote for third party is a vote for Trump!" bs that usually so approved here. This discussion thread has made my day! lol
Fucking thank you for saying it.
(and for saying it more eloquently than I have been able to.)
Right?! I need to use parts of his post for the endless people yelling at me for voting third party. lol
Or you could optionally pull your head out of your ass and stop the campaign
Let's break down this bullshit: A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein. The election clerks count ballots marked for Stein and report the vote totals that Stein received. A vote for Jill Stein is literally a vote for Jill Stein.
The statement that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump is, of course, metaphorical. It's asserting that a vote for Stein is morally equivalent to a vote for Trump by the speaker's moral reckoning. It's a rhetorical shortcut. This shortcut rests on the notion that either the voter would have voted for Harris, or that it is a moral imperative to stop Trump above all else.
That's a moral judgement call. Other people may judge differently. Flatly stating that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump so vehemently and absolutely elides any possibility of discourse and clearly tells the Stein voter that the speaker will not listen to or consider any of their views, or reasons to vote for Stein.
Fine, you believe that, but when has telling people more or less directly that you do not have any intention of considering their political beliefs won them over to your side? How is that a good tactic? If it worked, then why not employ it on Trump supporters? Go ahead, tell them that the party you support will ignore what they think and want, and demand they vote for your candidate.
If it doesn't work on them, why should it work on Stein voters?
What a bunch of horseshit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_and_independent_performances_in_United_States_elections
At best, third party voting has led to splitting votes and Woodrow Wilson winning despite having only 41% of the votes and at worst, it's done absolutely nothing.
This is why a vote for third party is a vote for trump. Because no trump supporter is gonna vote third party. If you're voting third party, it means one less vote for Harris which means less smaller chance of her winning which means higher chance of trump losing. Anyone saying otherwise is either dumb as fuck or is purposefully trying to split the votes to help trump win.
No, this is absolute bullshit.
Well, now that you put it that way...
More accurately, a vote for Stein is a vote for whichever major party candidate the voter wouldn't have voted for. In most cases, someone voting for the Green Party would vote for Harris, so it's a vote for Trump.
That isn't a moral judgement, it's the facts of a two party system. -1 vote for Harris = +1 vote for Trump, no other votes matter.
And that's not telling someone you don't consider their political beliefs. Considering their political beliefs, they should vote for the major party candidate that they agree with the most, or they will effectively be voting for the one they agree with least.
That's not the approach with Trump supporters because Trump is the major party candidate they agree with most, by definition. If anything one should try to get Trump supporters to vote 3rd party, Libertarian or for RFK or whoever.
Nailed it... Probably gonna catch a lot of down votes from lib shills... But fuck 'em, this is exactly right. Honestly, I think any of these bullshit articles that will clearly push people further away must be part of the plan to help Trump... Or are the libs really still just this stupid? Have learned absolutely nothing from all their time losing
Thanks! I knew what kind of replies I'd get, and did. Essentially, doubling-down on the electoral calculus argument, and not considering that other people have different motivations.
I am soooo happy to see how many people are disagreeing with the "a vote for third party is a vote for Trump!" bs that usually so approved here. This discussion thread has made my day! lol
Fucking thank you for saying it.
(and for saying it more eloquently than I have been able to.)
Right?! I need to use parts of his post for the endless people yelling at me for voting third party. lol
Or you could optionally pull your head out of your ass and stop the campaign
Well said, not horse shit.
Not surprised to see your bullshit here.
Negativity is not the solution.
Great post!