I don't understand why it is taken for granted that if Stein wasn't a candidate the people who vote for her would be voting for the Democrats instead. Just as likely they would not vote at all or vote for some other protest candidate.
Because people who are disillusioned that the green party would address their concerns are generally not complete shitheads like republicans; they're decent but misled people.
Because a vote abstention is a vote for the person in the lead. If Harris is in the lead, then every single American who abstains from voting is essentially helping her win, but the same is true if Trump is in the lead. Convincing Green voters that it makes more sense in a FPTP system to vote Democrat as its the closest party to their preferred ideology is a statistically productive activity.
Voting for genocide will never be something you can convince humans is in their best interest as close to their preferred ideology.
Genocide is bad. Multiple genocides, and faster, is worse. One genocide is closer to my preferred ideology of zero genocides than that same genocide but worse, plus additional genocides. The only people who are unconvinced by that arithmetic are idealists who care more about maintaining their ideological purity than actually helping people.
I'm not voting for any genocide, sorry.
It sucks you have no red line, no limit to your loyalty, no bottom depth to your depravity you willingly vote for, but I have a simple one:
No genocide.
Until the US stops contributing soft power, arms, cash, and troops on the ground to a genocide, the people in exclusive control of that don't get my vote.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how voting works, mechanically, in a FPTP system. You don't vote for things. You vote against them.
Once RCV takes hold (thank your local and state representatives) I'll be right there beside you voting my conscience. Until then, that's not a productive strategy. It does not achieve the intended goal.
Lesser evil buys time. Vote for progressives on your state ballots. If there aren't any, vote for progressives on your local ballots. If there aren't any, run for local office as a progressive.
You've been voting the lesser evil for 80 years, does it feel like it's bought you time?
I'm not voting for genocide, in voting against it, hence why I'm not voting for Dems or Reps.
Sounds like you're voting hard in favor of worse genocide. Either that or basic logic isn't your strong suit and you're doing it unknowingly
"worse genocide" do you people actually read what you type?
Say that out loud to yourself. That you are voting for less genocide instead of no genocide, and then tell me you're still the good guy.
I can use logic to defend my view much unlike yourself. Accelerationists are the fucking worst 🤮
Let me know when you start doing that, then. I'm sure the Palestinians appreciate that they're the only ones to be genocide by your direct choices, I'm sure they're happy you voted for "less genocide" instead of no genocide.
I no longer waste my time arguing with walls
You've been voting the lesser evil for 80 years, does it feel like it's bought you time?
Unequivocally yes. Imagine if the right wing clinched power in 1944 and never lost traction. You think civil rights would be better?
I'm not voting for genocide, in voting against it, hence why I'm not voting for Dems or Reps.
What's that accomplished in the last 80 years?
The right wing did clinch power in 1944, hence the dramatic stop to progressive legislation.
Also the civil rights movement was not supported by government, and especially not the Dems.
If we're being pedantic, we can go bank to the Magna Carta, or Hammurabi as the beginning of civil rights. But you're the one who set the 80 year mark, which coincides with the 20th century civil rights movement which was a distinct movement from the abolitionism of the 1830s.
But you're wrong either way. The 20th century civil rights movement was absolutely supported by Democrats, or was Lyndon Johnson not a Democrat when he signed the voting rights act?
And the 19th century civil rights movement was championed by the pre-switch liberal Republican party. So yes, the liberal party has been supportive, if not integral, to civil rights. You'd have to be pretty poorly educated in US history to be ignorant of that fact.
I don't understand why it is taken for granted that if Stein wasn't a candidate the people who vote for her would be voting for the Democrats instead. Just as likely they would not vote at all or vote for some other protest candidate.
Because people who are disillusioned that the green party would address their concerns are generally not complete shitheads like republicans; they're decent but misled people.
Because a vote abstention is a vote for the person in the lead. If Harris is in the lead, then every single American who abstains from voting is essentially helping her win, but the same is true if Trump is in the lead. Convincing Green voters that it makes more sense in a FPTP system to vote Democrat as its the closest party to their preferred ideology is a statistically productive activity.
Voting for genocide will never be something you can convince humans is in their best interest as close to their preferred ideology.
Genocide is bad. Multiple genocides, and faster, is worse. One genocide is closer to my preferred ideology of zero genocides than that same genocide but worse, plus additional genocides. The only people who are unconvinced by that arithmetic are idealists who care more about maintaining their ideological purity than actually helping people.
I'm not voting for any genocide, sorry. It sucks you have no red line, no limit to your loyalty, no bottom depth to your depravity you willingly vote for, but I have a simple one:
No genocide.
Until the US stops contributing soft power, arms, cash, and troops on the ground to a genocide, the people in exclusive control of that don't get my vote.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how voting works, mechanically, in a FPTP system. You don't vote for things. You vote against them.
Once RCV takes hold (thank your local and state representatives) I'll be right there beside you voting my conscience. Until then, that's not a productive strategy. It does not achieve the intended goal.
Lesser evil buys time. Vote for progressives on your state ballots. If there aren't any, vote for progressives on your local ballots. If there aren't any, run for local office as a progressive.
You've been voting the lesser evil for 80 years, does it feel like it's bought you time?
I'm not voting for genocide, in voting against it, hence why I'm not voting for Dems or Reps.
Sounds like you're voting hard in favor of worse genocide. Either that or basic logic isn't your strong suit and you're doing it unknowingly
"worse genocide" do you people actually read what you type?
Say that out loud to yourself. That you are voting for less genocide instead of no genocide, and then tell me you're still the good guy.
I can use logic to defend my view much unlike yourself. Accelerationists are the fucking worst 🤮
Let me know when you start doing that, then. I'm sure the Palestinians appreciate that they're the only ones to be genocide by your direct choices, I'm sure they're happy you voted for "less genocide" instead of no genocide.
I no longer waste my time arguing with walls
Unequivocally yes. Imagine if the right wing clinched power in 1944 and never lost traction. You think civil rights would be better?
What's that accomplished in the last 80 years?
The right wing did clinch power in 1944, hence the dramatic stop to progressive legislation.
Strange, that's right about when the entire civil rights movement started. What are you smoking?
The 1940s is the mid 1830s?
Also the civil rights movement was not supported by government, and especially not the Dems.
If we're being pedantic, we can go bank to the Magna Carta, or Hammurabi as the beginning of civil rights. But you're the one who set the 80 year mark, which coincides with the 20th century civil rights movement which was a distinct movement from the abolitionism of the 1830s.
But you're wrong either way. The 20th century civil rights movement was absolutely supported by Democrats, or was Lyndon Johnson not a Democrat when he signed the voting rights act?
And the 19th century civil rights movement was championed by the pre-switch liberal Republican party. So yes, the liberal party has been supportive, if not integral, to civil rights. You'd have to be pretty poorly educated in US history to be ignorant of that fact.