Young women are alright, right wing support amongst <35 y.o. men is surprisingly high...
Agreed. I'm a teacher and see it in my classrooms. I often feel that they're not taught how to have healthy community, so they become lil fascists...
If they're like my nephew, the "manosphere" gives them easy answers as to why everything seems to suck.
It's also the only answer. Society has really neglected boys for a long time now.
Yup. Patriarchy did them dirty. Society told them they had to be strong, stoic, and without emotion. And when that butted up against the realities of being a human we didn't have any community to lead them towards living a good and healthy life.
You can fault the Right for a lot of things but they got there first on this one. They have a story for why things suck and they’re pounding the drum on it relentlessly. It doesn’t matter that this story is full of holes when the alternative is not compelling.
Yup. The propaganda machine moved quick when they realized this population could be manipulated into action outside of message boards.
Calling it "patriarchy" is thinly-veiled victim blaming, implying that men suffer primarily because of other men's decisions. Everything you describe is perpetuated and maintained by both sexes. The social fabric of modern society, its implicit rules and conventions, is not a male establishment.
Western society is not, at all, a "patriarchy".
Patriarchy did em dirty, but feminism also left them behind. It's not just patriarchal society that forces men to be strong and stoic, it's also self-professed feminists, especially women. Feminists say men should be more in touch with their emotions, but when they do so women have no interest in them. That's one of the realities of life you mentioned.
That's still patriarchy, my guy. They've been raised to be complicit in a system that doesn't benefit them, and they're perpetuating it because they don't like how it feels to step outside of it.
I disagree that it's fair to call that patriarchy, but that's beside the point. The failure of feminists to take any action against it or even to sound like they care is what I was getting at. That is by definition not patriarchy, it's the indifference of feminism.
Feminism may not be directly attacking men, but it's also not helping men except as an occasional side effect of helping women. Men have no acceptable paradigm to help them navigate society.
Any attempt at "Men's theory" or some such gets simultaneously attacked by feminists and misogynists and quickly gets subsumed into one of those two camps.
See? Dismissive, refusal to acknowledge systemic issues, rugged individualism. That's holdovers from patriarchy and feminists should reject that thought process.
When women have a problem, it is society's fault and we should fix it. When men have a problem, it's their own fault and they individually should fix it. That's not fair, and the fact that no one in the feminist sphere seems to give a shit leaves young men deciding to turn to misogynists for moral support.
Red pill types will say, "we see you. This is a problem. You're not crazy." That's very powerful when there's no alternative.
You have a lot more sympathy for right-wing incels than you do for people who don't support genocide.
right wing support amongst <35 y.o. men is surprisingly high…
The media is flush with fascist attitudes in a country where going on the computer and listening to fascist rants is all you're allowed to do with your time.
"in a country where [...] all you're allowed to do with your time."
Eh... The same phenomenon is observed all over first world countries and all of those countries you're allowed to do mostly whatever the fuck you want with your free time...
you’re allowed to do mostly whatever the fuck you want with your free time…
You're free to do what you want and the police are free to rough you up for loitering.
all you're allowed to do with your time.
If you stopped listening to fascist folks you could step outside and see that you have a lot more options.
I have great hope that they'll be better than our generation, just as we were better than our parents. Fuck the 'fuck the kids' mentality.
I'm a classroom teacher, and I find that you've gotta sometimes have both "fuck them kids" and "for the kids" in different measures. But overall, I feel like they're doing a lot of cool things.
That's a good point. I think that one of the myths that needs to die is that if the cherubic, sweet, innocent, and pure child. Many children, without guidance, are sociopathic assholes. We're not born "good" then corrupted by the world, we're born with some personality traits that may or may not help us as social creatures and need help to learn how to handle our emotions and cooperate with others in a manner that is pro-social.
Yup. Like John Green, I'm generally in favor of humans, but we've got some perfectly natural tendencies that can really harm others if left unchecked. I think kids want to do good, but they need to be taught how to, given the space to practice, and corrected with grace when they fuck it up.
A side effect of me being terminally online is that you can predict the top comment of some posts
Anything that helps legitimize trump (increase overall pop vote numbers, regardless of loss) or props up green party and stein with a stated intention to get trump elected, in fact "helps trump"
Considering a vote for Dr. Jill Stein? I'm open if you have some insight I'm missing, but in my experience the green party has some exciting ideas on the surface, as lip service, but the party doesn't put in meaningful work in interim government outside of a presidential election cycle every 4 years. So it's a meaningless party.
You may think, "I'm in a solid red or blue state where my vote can't influence at the national level", but I find it hard to support Green/Stein in any capacity with how blatantly Stein has, in my opinion, been knowingly running as a spoiler candidate. The Green party has a (now publicly stated) intention to have Harris lose Michigan specifically. Below is clip from a Stein rally in Dearborn, Michigan. A surrogate for Stein is about to introduce her and spells out their intentions very clearly during remarks,
"We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic... we could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.”
I would ask anyone considering a vote for Stein, in any state, to consider that truth they speak openly - When they are admitting that they can't win, stating a goal to defeat the Harris campaign and acknowledging that Harris likely cannot win the election without Michigan, the undeniable net of that is that they are working to directly secure a second trump presidency, in my opinion.
As I see it, we just cannot have it both ways in a two party system. If the green party was a serious movement working against two party politics (and I would personally embrace and support this) they would become THE platform for ranked choice voting with a green party candidate in every meaningful on/off year election to make that issue ubiquitous with green. They speak endlessly about the flawed two party system (with a clear bias towards shitting in dems), but in the current two party system we actually have, you can't cast a protest vote without actually casting a vote for trump in this election - And that cannot be stated more clearly than this green party spokesperson states it at this event before Stein speaks.
Here is a link to direct feed of that green party rally in Dearborn Michigan if anyone wants to see first hand to consider. It's a longer video, but it starts at the point discussed and surrogate makes the above quoted statement within about the first minute speaking. https://youtu.be/WKSm2FQ8z60?t=5153
And trump acknowledges as much directly mentioning Stein and green party campaign by name recently,
"Cornel West — he’s one of my favorite candidates, Cornel West," Trump said. "And I like — I like her also. Jill Stein. I like her very much. You know why? She takes 100% from [Biden]. [West] takes 100%. Kennedy’s probably 50/50, but he’s a fake.”
I've heard individual positions I like from West, Stein and others in the past, but in my opinion if they aren't fighting to be the bridge to engage the flawed structure of elections in this country as third parties, these are just campaigns driven more by individual candidate ego than a motivation for systemic change.
Those are my thoughts.
I get the logic you put forth. Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I'm always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone's vote by default.
In this case, let's say there aren't any other parties on the ballot other than the Democrats and Republicans. In Michigan specifically you have a voter group, that says that they cannot vote for genocide especially if it is against their own families or people that look like them. And both parties are either promising the continuation thereof or have been engaged in it and have been excluding anything related to addressing it, or people representing that voter group, from their campaign. So the presumption, that if there wasn't a Green Party to vote for that they would be coming out to vote for the Democrats is imho just flawed. They might just as likely stay home.
What I find even more baffling is that this party can't seem to clearly outperform the even more clearly dangerous candidate to democracy. The Arabic or Muslim population in Michigan should not be this decisive for the outcome, if the Democrats were able to actually persuade voters to turn out by delivering an attractive policy plan, thereby earning the votes, instead of just arrogantly thinking, they're entitled to them.
Nobody thinks they are entitled to votes. This is about triage during an emergency.
To make it simple, let's assign a number out of 100 - Likelihood that a second trump presidency enthusiastically and loudly helps Israel escalate and "finish" their genocide in Gaza: 98.9
Likelihood that post inauguration, a Harris presidency does something that doesn't go as far as the above, but still does meaningful damage, just more quietly through diplomacy and weapons shipments: 32
Now it isn't great that the Harris number isn't zero, even negative, but the reasoning for her campaigns current position is likely a combination of election politics plus the vestiges of Biden's outdated and misguided position on blind support for an Israel that's in his mind and not in front of him.
So first up in a triage... You get Harris in because less likelihood for absolute annihilation. I'd then wager a likely softening at worst to full end of support at best once Biden and election are out of the active picture. Most importantly, we eject Harris because a Harris presidency will preserve your right to protest Harris. A second trump presidency likely leads to the end of American democracy and the freedoms Americans take for granted.
After a Harris admin victory she needs to be sworn in the following January, but on day one, I fully support that we FILL the streets across the country, a la Vietnam era protests. We block freeways and interrupt commerce until a Harris administration ends all US support of Israel's genocide. We will have that right and that chance with Harris, you'll get shot in the fucking eye and tackled into an unmarked minivan if you try that in a second trump administration.
Realize the weight of this decision, and listen to Stein's own campaign telling you they are doing to get trump elected. Time to get WIDE awake and ADULT on the reality here.
I'm familiar with First-Past-The-Post voting and the spoiler effect. I'm also familiar with choosing to vote for whom you'd prefer to fight when elected. We are dealing with the crimes of crimes here and I can absolutely understand anyone whose family is affected to not want to take an active role in their killing. Especially since the campaign has not signaled to that voter block, that they are seen or heard. The best example is denying a Palestinian-American a shortened and cleared speech at the DNC. It could have been only a ceremonial thing, less weight than lip-service, but they opted for exclusion instead, i.e. the opposite.
My main point though: How can this party not be clearly ahead of that menace to democracy and its institutions? This one voter block should not be the deciding thing. Overlooking the agency of the Democratic Party in this and putting full blame on the people rubs me very anti-democratic. Implying them to be immature and other forms of voter shaming is not making a good case either.
If you're in a poorly made boat that has a hole in it with two other people...
And you are all actively sinking in that faulty boat, about to die in the middle of the ocean...
And one of the people states they will make more holes so you all drown....
And the other wants to work to keep the boat floating enough to get to shore, but not to your ideal...
Who do you help in that moment, or do you fold your hands and sink on principle? And you understand that sinking is not a neutral, moral victory here, because you've effectively supported the person who wanted to make more holes and sink the boat.
If you don't get to shore, you won't live to attempt to sue that horrible boat company to hold them accountable and keep others from using their faulty boats. And if you don't help the person bailing out water, the person making more holes will kill you all with less effort.
The "people" above are to represent general philosophies of the two "sides" in this discussion, not individual candidates. There is no option to truly stay neutral here, direct action or willful inaction, both have impacts that you are responsible for.
What do you do?
Look, I get what you are saying and even agree to a certain degree. Yet, the premise here is that one of both parties is opposed to genocide, which is false. For the affected voter group, who are getting shamed for making the crime of crimes their litmus test, both people are trying to make more holes albeit of different sizes.
So, what would you do? I would probably throw both of them over board ;)
The boat is already full of holes, so who put them there? Why didn't they spend the last 4 years patching them, why haven't they thrown the other guy off the boat already, and why have they adopted his boat-cutting rhetoric? Why do you have to deny the democrat's agency in this situation in order to make your point? Their platform is not immutable, it can and should change to one that captures more voters, and the fact it hasn't at such a supposedly critical point with such loud opposition should be a clear message to you: either this election isn't as important as they say it is, or they think they can leave us behind and we will vote for them anyways.
This does not bode well for your future protests, which by the way have already been happening on college campuses and have been met with police violence, uncontested smearing in the media, and not even the barest minimum of defense or policy change from your candidate and current vice president.
You can sit here and try to convince me and the other guy all you want but ultimately we snd the rest of lemmy are a drop in an ocean. Nothing will change unless there's a change in strategy at the top. Their strategy is actively working against your efforts to convince us and yet they urge you to believe that Trump is the most dangerous man on the planet and that they fear for the country if he wins.
If this is true, then why aren't they running a more dynamic and broad-reaching campaign and making real compromises with voters that would split their vote if they broke away? Do you not see the glaring contradiction in their actions vs their words? Is that really a strategy you want to endorse? To promote fear instead of democracy?
Do you not see the value in demonstrating that their losing strategy is, in fact, a losing strategy? How it does you a disservice to cave so easily - to genocide, I might add - without first making demands? What should motivate them to meet your demands if you're just going to vote for them anyways and you never exercise any of your bargaining power to make them sweat?
You're argument hinges on a "both sides are the same" false premise. It's just not true. January 6th was unprecedented in the 250 years of this country. Things are different, this is not the time historically for political posturing. This isn't a Romney versus Obama election. Shit is fundamentally different and you're likely operating from the muscle memory of a time when it was a more of a "polite disagreement". This is the "grandpa sitting with an assault rifle at the polling place" timeline. Wake up.
Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.
If you live in a democracy where the spoiler effect isn't an issue, then just be happy, whistle, and move on.
If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.
The spoiler effect is where you vote for someone (Jill Stein in this case) who you think better aligns with your particular set of policy goals, but since they have no chance of actually winning you help the candidate most opposed to your policy goals (Trump in this case) by subtracting votes from the less aligned candidate (Harris in this case) that actually does stand a chance of winning.
It's an ironic outcome of voting in our system. By voting for the person most aligned with your preferences you actually help the person least aligned with your preferences.
Trump is worse on genocide and climate and will be assisted greatly by idiots voting for Jill Stein in swing states.
They've done research and provided these assholes aren't on the ballot, people usually choose a ballot-present major party option instead.
I did say that I live in a democracy with more parties, not that it does not include elections where there is the "first past the post" principle, so I'm familiar with the spoiler effect.
Trump is worse on genocide
Although that might be true in some sense, please try to understand the people affected here. If your family is the one affected, it doesn't get more dead, than dead. I'm not saying, I would vote the same way, but I can understand not wanting to actively vote for killing your family.
In a US presidential election, your vote supports Israel no matter what party it is for.
If people are actually interested in choice on this and many other issues, they'll have to organize to change the electoral process. But this is America so instead we will sit around in threads like these all day pretending that pissing away your vote with Stein will somehow change that when it obviously will not.
If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.
If you understand, then you understand that only swing states matter and you're essentially free to vote as you feel in solid red or blue states.
For President specifically. Downballot still matters.
And if you're not in a swing state, but are in a state that "leans" R or D, your vote matters.
In a nutshell, the Democrats can't convince people to vote against the dangerous candidate because right-wing populism inoculates people against facts and logic by making those things out-group markers, per se. Identity is powerful, and the human brain treats threats to identity in exactly the same way as physical threats.
And, on the other side, Democrats can't recognize this and respond appropriately, because they've made not-recognizing-it a marker of in-group identity, and they are thereby unable to decode what would make an attractive policy plan.
The situation is thus there are so many white people especially white men voting essentially for Hitler no matter what anything in fact more liberal than Obama risks losing enough votes on the margins to plunge our nation into darkness and chaos. A US where 35% of white men wanted hitler instead of 55% wouldn't have this problem.
Oh BTW Trump wants to help Bebe kill 2 million gazans and build condos. If you can't distinguish between Trump and Harris positions or realize that Congress is who authorizes aid you might need help
If the dems lose votes to the greens it will be because of their own fucking policies including genocide. They could always change their policies. But instead they blame the public.
If the greens lose votes it will be because of their own lack of policy including untested bullshit lip-service that no one with a brain is buying. They could always do the work between elections. But instead, they’d rather play spoiler.
Green policies poll at 50 to 80% regularly. They also do work between elections, given 150 or so candidates are in office currently. Instead of paying attention to politics every four years so you can smugly pretend you were ever a good citizen, maybe pay attention between elections.
Pipe dreams will usually poll well with people stupid enough to believe them.
And the irony of a leftist thinking they have any podium to stand behind while accusing someone of not paying attention until elections…
fucking hilarious.
Pipe dreams will usually poll well with people stupid enough to believe them.
What's with y'all always being so willing to show how you bleed when scratched?
So every actually developed country and more than.50 developing countries don't exist to you people now?
They're non-existent because they accomplished in the 1970s what you people call impossible pipe dreams?
I'm sorry Reagan with a vagina just isn't a good candidate.
The fuck are you even taking about?
My point was that greens don’t give a shit until elections, and do-nothing-3-of-every-4-years leftists have the memory of goldfish and always forget this every election.
I sad what needed to be said to call you out. There’s no further point in discussing this with you.
Shouldn't be hard to convince anyone not to vote for her who doesn't hate minorities.
Just let him know that David Duke endorsed Jill Stein.
If that isn't a literal mic drop on her campaign idk what more can be done. Just make sure everyone knows before they approach a voting booth.
She rejected the endorsement. Even if she is throwing the election don’t put that crap on her. She can’t control David Duke
Dick fucking Cheney endorsed Harris and she embraced it. And her poll numbers plummetted. That’s a bigger problem with an actual consequence.
Wait til you find out Dick Cheney endorsed Harris! Probably the chief architect of the "GWOT", responsible for over 1 million dead. Fuck David Duke, but he's fuckin small potatoes compared to Dick-Vader.
Duke endorsed Stein because she does not support Israel.
The Stein campaign called David Duke trash and disavowed him.
The dishonesty here staggering.
Ooh that's some good /agedlikemilk
Duke is endorsing for Stein, because Stein does not support Israel and Duke is antisemitic.
Koch's is voting for Harris, because she works for the billionaire class and he is a billionaire.
One of these two is not like the other.
Because as everyone should know by now. The only acceptable hypocrisy is leninist hypocrisy.
Stein earned the endorsement from a bad person by doing something good.
Harris earned the endorsement from a bad person by doing something bad.
Lmao bro David Duke is an overt white supremacist. The association alone is damning, despite the disavowal.
Your argument is that anyone who does not support Israel is a KKK member.
That is absolutely not what I am saying
If you're saying that earning an endorsement from antisemites for going against Israel makes Stein an antisemite, by extension, for going against Israel, because that is why Duke endorsed her, then yeah that kinda is what you're saying...
The association alone is damning
He just said he supports her. That's not an association. He agrees with her on her policy towards Israel. Unless you think her policy towards Israel is unreasonable and only would be held by a white supremacist, then its a ridiculous position to try and maintain, because it basically says that anyone who opposes us support of Israel agrees with David Duke and thus is "associated" with him.
Huh, the Nazi agrees with her stance on Israel? I mean, fuck Israel, but I wouldn't want that endorsement on me.
And she denounced him. So clearly she doesn't want it either.
I heard a piece on Here And Now today about a group of single issue voters in Dearborn that is actively working to disrupt and damage the Harris campaign. They are trying to get dems to vote for Stein.
"single issue voters" 🤣 🤣 🤣
"stop blowing up my family"
okay SiNgLe IsSuE vOtEr
Thing is, there is no "stop blowing up my family" vote in this election.
It's "status quo, maybe some improvements but don't hold your breath about anything major" vs "corruption, corruption, corruption, fuck everyone who isn't a billionaire or has their lips firmly attached to billionaire assess, especially the entirety of Palestine" vs "I won't vote for either of those options but will still need to live with the one everyone else votes for".
It seems like they're using multiple strategies in an effort to put pressure on the Dems. Some are saying that they are going to vote for Trump even though they are also anti-Trump. Their logic is that Kamala is actively contributing to a genocide, whereas Trump is not.
I doubt there is anything they can do to actually make Democrat politicians feel pressure, but I do agree with their sentiments. I'm not voting for some who is pro-genocide. Trump is both pro-genocide and fascist. I'm also not going to vote for a 3rd party candidate because most 3rd parties focus on the presidential race more than they focus on grassroots efforts.
Their logic is that Kamala is actively contributing to a genocide, whereas Trump is not.
This is literally the most braindead political take I've ever heard, and that's saying a lot
It's a classic "technically true, but not particularly useful" information tidbit. Harris is in office, Trump isn't.
Of course, you could argue that Vance - as a powerful member of the US Senate - is participating in the genocide while Walz - a governor of a midwestern state with no meaningful role in foreign policy - isn't. Equally true, but meaningless.
The problem Harris has isn't that Trump gets innocence-by-default by being out of office for four years. Its that she's doggedly clinging to the "both sides" framing of the Israeli genocide and scaring off Arab-American voters as a consequence. It doesn't matter whether Harris is better or worse than Trump when the baseline of US policy is the mass slaughter of your friends and family.
It’s a classic “technically true, but not particularly useful” information tidbit. Harris is in office, Trump isn’t.
Harris is in an office that is entirely powerless (yes, she casts a vote in the event of a Senate tie, but no bill funding Israel has come down to that). She and Trump have nothing to do with the (current) Palestinian genocide.
Harris is in an office that is entirely powerless
Harris has enormous amounts of power by simply having access to the President's phone 24/7. That's before you get into how much authority she's been delegated by a man whose brains are leaking out of his ears.
And you've confirmed that you don't understand how the President works. He isn't simply the King of America who can wave a magic wand and do what he wants.
you don’t understand how the President works
Tell it to Dick Cheney. He goes into this at great length in his autobiography
The problem that Harris has is the mountains of propaganda working against her.
Not saying she's perfect, but in a practical sense the spin matters FAR more than the facts.
I agree that it's a bad take. But at this point I think that they're desperate, trying anything they can to get Kamala to change course. It's an urgent issue that can be solved easily: just stop supplying weapons and aid to Israel. Four years from now, most Palestinians living in Palestine will already be dead.
That loses older uninformed democrat voters unfortunately
it's not just uninformed voters, my grandfather is a retired history teacher and, he firmly believes that while Isreal is in the wrong, that it's not in the US best interest to drop them. He's worries that the destabalization of the area further will invite other foreign adversaries to invade it while also losing basically the only is friendly territory around. He's worried it'll be a repeat of the last time
I mean, that does make sense actually...
Voting is a strategic choice, not an endorsement. You should vote for the candidate who you would rather have in office.
Their logic is that Kamala is actively contributing to a genocide, whereas Trump is not.
Even though he literally is, has put the Israeli Embassy in Jerusalem, and has advocated for the deployment of nukes in Gaza...
I mean they're naming an illegal settlement after trump and Netanyahu is explicitly advocating for trump. What's crazy is polls show Kamala would get like a 6 point poll boost by breaking with biden on this and saying something a little more forceful about a peace deal, such as a deadline where arms deals are halted. It would almost singlehandedly secure michigan.
At this point, I wonder if opposition to Israel is dangerous for the lives of Western leaders.
I think its more that they're afraid of being labeled antisemitic by the media and there's pressure from the military to maintain status with Israel.
Edit: I don't think people really understand how brutal the corporate media is about Israel. If you want an example, Jeremy Corbyn criticizes Israel and the labor right manufactured a fake antisemitism crisis which the corporate press used to throw the election.
I don't blame Kamala for trying to sit the fence given the past behavior of corporate media on this topic. Its possible the fascist genocide of Gaza by Netanyahu has opened the door to more criticism but I expect at least fox news to gleefully accuse democrats of being the "real nazis" if they drift even into skepticism of Netanyahu.
G.R.E.E.N
Get
Republicans
Elected
Every
November
The Green Party thanks Lemmy for all the publicity it has given to the Jill Stein campaign
any news is good news
Who?
Some rando
hahahah, yep!
How do you do fellow young adults.
Uncommited movement: "Guess I won't vote"
Reminder: Jill is a transphobic ableist who doesn't believe autism exists
Didn't I read something somewhere about her being a Nazi or Russian spy or some shit?
What the fuck
Shill who?
What would be harassment on Lemmy (learn to take a hint already), actually makes sense on tiktok. With it's giant, young user base, there should be someone you can convince to vote for Harris.
However, I do think getting Jill Stein's name out there could backfire. Remember, it was the media that made trump a viable candidate.
they should probably focus more on voting for Kamala Harris
A lot of (and probably most of) the people supporting Stein currently are Muslims whose main interest in voting is regarding the genocide, and on social issues are generally more conservative (and may not agree with her on stuff like LGBTQ) and may not align with either major political party so likely wouldn't be voting otherwise. I've seen a lot of Muslims support Stein on social media and the Stein rally I went to was almost entirely Muslims which is where I'm getting this impression. This is a case where the main parties need to earn their votes, and voting for Stein does not mean voting for Trump because they might not have voted blue either way.
(And regarding Lemmy drama most of the people here are voting PSL anyways so trying to convince people here not to vote for Stein is pointless because it's the wrong audience.)
hmm PSL.. Party for Socialism and Liberation? Claudia de la Cruz? I got no beef with them, how do you think that's popular on Lemmy? Ohhh you're on lemmy.ml
look Gaza and the wider Levant or whatever is not just potential real estate. But that is Trump's milieu, is real estate scams, and he loves the idea of selling off Gaza to rich white folk. So vote for a third party at your peril.
if you live in a state with preferential voting (eg alaska, maine?) wouldn't you be better off voting green if they represent you views better?
The Green Party, maybe. Jill Stein, with the stuff she's been saying I am not quite sure if she would actually present your views better or if she's an actual competent leader. Of course you can have the question of the best of the worst, but then still I'm not sure if she compares well.
What states have ranked choice?
Alaska and Maine.
ah yes the party of "wifi causes brain damage"
So much energy from democrats that they should instead spend on pressuring their party leadership to change their evil policy of genocide support.
Gen Z advocacy group
Is just code for "DC Consulting firm". The energy is less popular appeals and more paid professional trolls.
I read "totally organic grassroots movement" and hear "PAC funded astroturf campaign"
Probably a fair assessment. Honestly, the energy I'm thinking of is all these Lemmy users.
I'm honestly wondering how many Lemmy nodes are out there vote-bombing topics like this. It would be the easiest thing in the world to do.
I don't know. I don't pay much attention to votes, and I basically assume that whatever someone tells me is their genuine opinion.
I don't know, this might be a pretty effective strategy
It might.
::: spoiler NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for NBC News:
If you’re getting convinced by anti-green rhetoric, I don’t blame you. The greens are pretty bad.
You can always vote for the party for socialism and liberation instead. They’re running de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to israel.
Or don't vote against your own interests by voting third party. Because First Past the Post means that any third party is going to act as a Spoiler, siphoning votes away from the major party that is ideologically closest to the Spoiler.
What you should do is hold your nose and vote against the literal fascist.
Then on November 10th or so (for incumbents that win) and Jan 10th or so (for the newly elected), start writing actual letters to your congressmen, Call them, email, seek them out in person at meet and greets, and push for voting reform.
Now, the temptation will be to advocate for RCV. This is the wrong move as well. RCV is inherently broken and can actually produce worse results than First Past the Post, while also having some diehard fans who promise the fucking moon. No, if you want third parties to have any chance at all of growing and possibly winning, you need to advocate for Approval or STAR.
So remember, start pushing voting reform the second we kick the fascist to the curb. Push on day one of the new session, and keep pushing. Do the work ahead of time, and maybe, we can revisit the third party issue in the future.
there is at least one state that has implemented ranked choice voting
And again, Ranked Choice is flawed to its core. It's the only voting system in existence that fails the monotonicity criterion. Basically it's the only voting system in existence where you can rank someone lower and it increases their chances of winning the election.
Ranked Choice is so flawed that every place that implementes it, has a movement to repeal it. Sometimes a successful movement (Like in Burlington Vermont)
Ranked Choice is a step back and actively harms real efforts at Voting Reform.
No.
I haven’t held my nose for a democrat for going on fourteen years and I’m not going to start now.
I’m politically active far beyond voting and have spoken face to face with several representatives. They don’t care or listen.
No amount of voting reform will fix the fundamentally unjust American political system.
I have been doing the work and will continue to do so. Voting for PSL in this election is part of that work.
If you’re reading this, don’t fall for the “oh if only we had star or ranked choice” fiddlefarting around the edges garbage. We live in under a fundamentally unjust political system and especially when both major parties are advocating in support of genocide there is no reasonable argument for performing the calculus required to declare one the lesser evil.
Walk away from omelas.
it must be really nice to be privileged enough to have this viewpoint. and all for what? so you can give yourself a nice ethical pat on the back when you help siphon from the dems, and the gop comes after women and minorities? not sure what your background is but damn dude that's some fucked up shit
Ok I've heard all kinds of different reasons someone might be privileged, but doing work on the ground for years and laying the groundwork for real activism rather than whatever the hell you call this terminally online bullshit, is now what you people call privilege?
This shit is why Occupy died.
ground activism is great! but this person's comment pretty much sums up to "whichever if the two candidates win in November, I won't be effected enough to consider not tossing my vote into the trash to prove a point," as do all 3rd party arguments. that's privileged.
many many people quite literally have their lives on the line with this election, it's extremely disrespectful to put them all in danger for some self centered, ill-thought out attempt at morality.
Occupy died because of "terminally online bullshit"? I guess that terminally online bullshit is either more effective than what you're suggesting or your analysis sucks.
One whole paragraph followed by a comment like that implies someone is usually talking about the whole episode going on and not just the keywords you singled out.
I still don't get why you think occupy died, but regardless it wasn't because of online shit or coopted lingo.
I've bumped into a bunch of you online socialists before and every one of you thinks your efforts made some profound difference when in reality socialism is still a nothing nowhere movement in the US and we get more fascist every election cycle.
we get more fascist every election cycle
And whose fault is that? When you give your vote away for free you get rightward drift. Make the fuckers earn it instead of leaving the switch on Vote Blue No Matter Who like the good little liberal you are.
It's the collective fault of the American electorate.
Yep, people here call me privileged too.
Um, I'm biracial, bisexual, and barely make above minimum wage. But because I disagree with some on here, I'm "privileged." lmao
Friend, people say I'm privileged just because I'm shilling for Trump, er, I mean Stein, or Socialist stuff or something. Can you believe that shit?!
"Debt-free"
"Woke-free"
(Both according to your profile)
You're privileged as hell dude.
How does that make me "privileged"?
I'm not white. I'm not straight. I grew up in poverty. I'm not rich. I don't have a high-paying job. I don't have college education (yet). So tell me, how am I privileged?!
I grew up in poverty. I'm not rich. I don't have a high-paying job.
And yet somehow you're debt-free.
I'm not straight.
And yet somehow you're woke-free.
I can't connect the dots for you, but geeze.
And yet somehow you’re debt-free.
I saved to buy my crappy car. I saved to buy my crappy bike. And I pay for school, one course at a time (which is why I still don't have a degree.) I took a job as a janitor so that I could work somewhere with tuition reimbursement. Networked my way up to teacher's aide. Pay is 10 cents more.
And yet somehow you’re woke-free.
What does that have to with anything about sexuality or being privileged?!
You know, just because someone believes differently than you, doesn't make them privileged.
I'm a biracial, bisexual, poor dude. Nothing about me is privileged. You make more money than me, I promise. Are you privileged?
Maybe they just like the GOP but don't want to admit that they like them.
They also completely disregard the fact that the Voting System itself causes the very problems they have with the political system.
First Past the Post is 100% the reason why we vote against a party, rather than for a candidate.
That combined with the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 have caused all sorts of problems. That too is something to advocate against. But one thing at a time.
What background do I need to have in order to be allowed to recognize that the mathematics of lesser evils don’t make any sense?
Is there some amount of subjugation I can be under that allows me to have a materialist analysis?
Literally me: Don’t encourage these scumbags, don’t wait another moment to stand up for what you know is right, voting is the easiest way to make your voice heard!
You: wow, must be nice!
If youre reading this, don’t listen to people who try to mobilize identity politics against you. They don’t know or care who you are and would hate you more if you were a minority speaking out.
What background do I need to have in order to be allowed to recognize that the mathematics of lesser evils don’t make any sense?
A mathematically illiterate one.
See, we live under a system of First Past the Post, otherwise known as Plurality.
It's a system that forces a two party system. Not as a conscious choice, but as a consequence of the very system itself.
Here's the kicker. Plurality voting actively punishes you for supporting a third party.
If you siphon votes away from the lesser of two evils, the greater evil wins.
It's a pretty simple concept. And since we are just weeks away from the election, anyone who is actively pushing for third parties is automatically suspect.
Because the problems with Plurality are not some newly discovered quirk. They've been studied for centuries, but most extensively by Kenneth Arrow in the 70s.
What I'm saying is that most of the money given to support Third Parties, comes from people who are on the opposite side of the spectrum from those Third Parties.
Simply put, Trump and company throw money at the Greens and Socialists to siphon support away from the Dems, so that Trump and company can win with fewer votes.
So you, advocating for a third party, are mathematically indistinguishable from a Trump supporter.
Wow if third parties are so powerful then how come you’re not voting for one too?
It seems like a great way to force the major party of your choice to pay attention to your politics.
I'm not voting Third party because I'm not a Trump Supporter.
But you may be one. Mathematically speaking.
My vote isn’t going to be counted for trump, and is for a party in opposition to his program.
You have a funny way of figuring out if someone is a trump supporter. Is it perhaps based on the old “with us or against us” chestnut?
You should know before you keep pushing that line, I will not vote Harris. If there was no party for socialism and liberation, I’d vote a different third party. If there were no third parties, I’d write a candidate in.
If you want to pick up a Harris vote, look elsewhere.
But you're publicly advocating for others to drop their support of Harris in favor of a third party.
Which is mathematically identical to telling people to vote for Trump. So I name thee a Trump supporter, because that's the only person who benefits from your actions.
Man. Its really sad seeing people out here pretending they've got a math degree. Out here saying shit like not 7 equals 6. Get the fuck out of here with that dumb shit. Being a part of the subset does not make you the whole fucking set. If a vote for PSL or Green or fucking whatever, means more left leaning politicians elected locally and nationally, then great. It absolutely does not support Trump. It supports making the DNC maybe fucking listen to the left for once. Stop fucking going further and further right into pushing back against immigration. Stop supporting committing literal genocide in the hopes israel takes over iran for its lithium deposits and the rest of the middle east for the oil. Instead y'all would rather shill for genocide & becoming more and more evil as long as the other party gets evil fastererer.
But since you love math so much: The Libertarian/Constitution party has 3x the vote of green/PSL. Green/PSL was 0.31% of the total vote last presidential election. Which was 0.1% of the total number of possible votes. Stop focusing on shaming the few who absolutely won't vote DNC but still likely will vote down ballot and instead maybe focus on making your party actually have policies people would give a shit about, or focus on the DNC doing something to actually energize voters outside of making sure Trump runs against them so they can point to big scary. Or like, literally anything that might help you. Shaming 3rd party voters is just going to lose you more elections. Like, holy fuck do y'all learning nothing from 2016? Y'all look at Michigan and freak out about green party, ignoring that even fucking the constitution party had more votes than the tiny gap. and the libertarian party had 3x the amount. Even if the DNC successfully made it illegal to vote 3rd party like they seem to want to, they would've lost Michigan in 2012. They know that too. They just want to scapegoat someone instead of themselves. Stop blaming people other than the DNC. They're the ones who actively fought as hard as they could against any progressive policies. Letting Clinton using the "victory fund" well before securing the nomination in order to campaign against Bernie. literally just shooting itself in the face. Not a surprise they lost while doing that.
Anyways, sorry, people being shills for stupid DNC talking points made to alienate leftists and lose more elections annoys the fuck out of me.
For some fucked up reason, this election is close enough to make every vote matter. So, yes, pulling support from Harris is mathematically indistinguishable from supporting Trump.
Also, I always look down on idiots who think they can accomplish anything by separating themselves from the system. No, we work to fix it from within, or we don't get to fix it at all.
Where?
My top level reply is an attempt to get Green Party voters who are starting to not feel so good to switch over to psl.
Also it’s not mathematically identical because my third party vote isn’t counted for trump.
I’m kinda surprised you care. Your party has written us off, do you not agree with their decision?
[Nobody cares]
[Jill Stein is a vapid, forgettable cunt with 0 plans for governance or policy change]
[You supporting her only makes you look like the same type of human-garbage]
Hope this helps 🫶
I’m literally suggesting people vote for a party and candidate different than stein.
Did you reply to the correct comment?
I'm with you, friend. Stay strong and don't let this community bully you into changing yourself! I support you!
Well, more and more people are pushing back against those thoughts. I'm see lots of people tired of waiting and going for third party this year. And it's awesome to see!
Literally throwing away their vote, and helping Trump.
You cannot have a third party under First Past the Post. It it literally impossible and only aids Trump. So yeah. It's not awesome to see. It's aggravating. Because if you advocate for third parties, you're a stealth Trump supporter pretending to actually care.
If the Democrats want my vote they are more than welcome to adopt a thing or two from the third parties that split their vote. How else would I communicate my size as a voter bloc and the specific policies we support, and how could I have any sway in any direction if my vote is to be taken for granted?
They seem to understand this when it comes to Republicans... I wonder why it never goes the other way. Seems that kind of strategy would be much more effective as a viable party in winning voters from a non-viable party, and much easier to triangulate, no?
You want your voice heard? Then actually speak up. Call your Representative. Their phone numbers are public. Write letters, send emails.
Be engaged.
Or throw your vote away. See, the two major parties don't give a shit about what third party platforms are. Well, Republicans sure as hell don't. And since the election is projected to be depressingly close, throwing your vote away on third parties will actively hurt you and your interests. And telling other people to abandon Harris for some rando third party who only runs a candidate once every 4 years, is equivalent to directly supporting Trump.
Because if you advocate for third parties, you’re a stealth Trump supporter pretending to actually care.
Nah. If I wanted to support Trump, I'd just vote for him. But I didn't vote for him. I voted third party. Happily! Thank you!
Mathematically you are indeed a a Trump supporter.
Claiming that not voting for Harris means supporting Trump is flawed; using that logic, anyone who isn’t voting for Trump must be supporting Harris.
Voting for a third-party candidate is a choice to support what aligns with your values, not an automatic endorsement of the opposition.
Welcome to Plurality voting, advocating for third parties is mathematically indistinguishable from advocating for Trump.
Stop it unless you want Trump to win, in which case, fuck off.
If I wanted Trump to win, I would have voted for him.
Advocating for third parties is mathematically indistinguishable from advocating for Trump
So yeah, you want Trump to win, because you've been Advocating for Third Parties.
I disagree. But I don't think you should be upset. Trump isn't going to win anyway.
Lots of disagreement with math on your end.
Why the fuck can't we worshill for the Christ-Hating Christian Worker’s Party in peace? God-Satanic dammmiiit!
I applaud you for voting, and for being willing to admit
in the Politics Community that you voted third party. Unfortunately this place is so convinced that certain votes are owed to their party that they'll actually downvote you for saying that you voted for the candidate that best represents your interests.
Thank you. We can't let the bullies intimidate or pressure us into silence or from doing what we believe is right. Thank you, friend! :)
Yep! I voted for a different socialist candidate, but I really like de la Cruz. She's awesome.
According to the "lesser evil" rhetoric Jill Stein is the lesser evil candidate and anyone who doesn't vote for her is supporting fascists.
Nice gotcha, but she's not going to win, so she's not practically a choice. "Vote for the lesser evil" is a good shorthand, but it's still shorthand; the philosophy is to vote in a way that will cause the least harm. If your candidate has no chance of winning, then you aren't doing that, since your vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. Voting for a third party only makes sense if you weren't going to vote at all, and in that case it's a better choice but still not the best one. Hope that helps clear up any confusion around the lesser evil sentiment.
Jill Stein recently, in an interview with Mehdi Hasan, repeatedly deflected when asked directly if Putin is a war criminal
Repeatedly, with obvious contrast from her (correctly) calling Netanyahu a war criminal.
She is cozy with fascists.
Being cozy with fascists is "lesser evil" than being a fascist yourself or aiding fascists in a genocide. "do you want things to be x10 times worst?"
Isn’t this just effectively giving her more attention? I’m not convinced that this helps.
I’m not convinced that saying "I’m not convinced that this helps" helps.
I know you think you’re really clever and that’s great. Howard Stern became popular because people started protesting him. Sometimes you should just ignore things and they go away.
The kids are alright.
Young women are alright, right wing support amongst <35 y.o. men is surprisingly high...
Agreed. I'm a teacher and see it in my classrooms. I often feel that they're not taught how to have healthy community, so they become lil fascists...
If they're like my nephew, the "manosphere" gives them easy answers as to why everything seems to suck.
It's also the only answer. Society has really neglected boys for a long time now.
Yup. Patriarchy did them dirty. Society told them they had to be strong, stoic, and without emotion. And when that butted up against the realities of being a human we didn't have any community to lead them towards living a good and healthy life.
You can fault the Right for a lot of things but they got there first on this one. They have a story for why things suck and they’re pounding the drum on it relentlessly. It doesn’t matter that this story is full of holes when the alternative is not compelling.
Yup. The propaganda machine moved quick when they realized this population could be manipulated into action outside of message boards.
Calling it "patriarchy" is thinly-veiled victim blaming, implying that men suffer primarily because of other men's decisions. Everything you describe is perpetuated and maintained by both sexes. The social fabric of modern society, its implicit rules and conventions, is not a male establishment.
Western society is not, at all, a "patriarchy".
Patriarchy did em dirty, but feminism also left them behind. It's not just patriarchal society that forces men to be strong and stoic, it's also self-professed feminists, especially women. Feminists say men should be more in touch with their emotions, but when they do so women have no interest in them. That's one of the realities of life you mentioned.
That's still patriarchy, my guy. They've been raised to be complicit in a system that doesn't benefit them, and they're perpetuating it because they don't like how it feels to step outside of it.
I disagree that it's fair to call that patriarchy, but that's beside the point. The failure of feminists to take any action against it or even to sound like they care is what I was getting at. That is by definition not patriarchy, it's the indifference of feminism.
Feminism may not be directly attacking men, but it's also not helping men except as an occasional side effect of helping women. Men have no acceptable paradigm to help them navigate society.
Any attempt at "Men's theory" or some such gets simultaneously attacked by feminists and misogynists and quickly gets subsumed into one of those two camps.
Bro, you're almost there...
Get me over the finish line then.
He/she already tried.
You need to hang out with better women, my man.
See? Dismissive, refusal to acknowledge systemic issues, rugged individualism. That's holdovers from patriarchy and feminists should reject that thought process.
When women have a problem, it is society's fault and we should fix it. When men have a problem, it's their own fault and they individually should fix it. That's not fair, and the fact that no one in the feminist sphere seems to give a shit leaves young men deciding to turn to misogynists for moral support.
Red pill types will say, "we see you. This is a problem. You're not crazy." That's very powerful when there's no alternative.
You have a lot more sympathy for right-wing incels than you do for people who don't support genocide.
Personally, I find my experience to be much the opposite. But, I'm also in my late thirties so, experiences may differ.
Every single woman I know wants a guy in touch with their emotions. And those who found them, married them.
Tell your friends to stop trying to date under 25 year olds. We get over that shit at about this age.
Cool, good for you. That's not the norm. At any age.
It doesn't help that every time we point out how society failed boys, there's always someone who says it's misogynistic to show men any concern....
Being a guy is no cake walk, and if anyone can say that with a straight face it's me.
lights up a cigarette They say women like a bad boy, well, I was so bad at being a boy I became a girl.
Yup. And it's always women and brown folks.
Don't forget LGBTQ and furries. 🙄
The amount of times I've had to address the "students using litter boxes" schtick is absolutely mind boggling.
It's always a school two towns over, and it's always someone who has no attachment to the school attempting to push it.
Tell your nephew that Trump just said he’ll ban video games if he wins.
They know this shit isn't working, so they're siding with the ones who give them someone to blame... It's that simple....
The media is flush with fascist attitudes in a country where going on the computer and listening to fascist rants is all you're allowed to do with your time.
"in a country where [...] all you're allowed to do with your time."
Eh... The same phenomenon is observed all over first world countries and all of those countries you're allowed to do mostly whatever the fuck you want with your free time...
You're free to do what you want and the police are free to rough you up for loitering.
If you stopped listening to fascist folks you could step outside and see that you have a lot more options.
Sorry you're in this rut!
I have great hope that they'll be better than our generation, just as we were better than our parents. Fuck the 'fuck the kids' mentality.
I'm a classroom teacher, and I find that you've gotta sometimes have both "fuck them kids" and "for the kids" in different measures. But overall, I feel like they're doing a lot of cool things.
That's a good point. I think that one of the myths that needs to die is that if the cherubic, sweet, innocent, and pure child. Many children, without guidance, are sociopathic assholes. We're not born "good" then corrupted by the world, we're born with some personality traits that may or may not help us as social creatures and need help to learn how to handle our emotions and cooperate with others in a manner that is pro-social.
Yup. Like John Green, I'm generally in favor of humans, but we've got some perfectly natural tendencies that can really harm others if left unchecked. I think kids want to do good, but they need to be taught how to, given the space to practice, and corrected with grace when they fuck it up.
A side effect of me being terminally online is that you can predict the top comment of some posts
Anything that helps legitimize trump (increase overall pop vote numbers, regardless of loss) or props up green party and stein with a stated intention to get trump elected, in fact "helps trump"
Considering a vote for Dr. Jill Stein? I'm open if you have some insight I'm missing, but in my experience the green party has some exciting ideas on the surface, as lip service, but the party doesn't put in meaningful work in interim government outside of a presidential election cycle every 4 years. So it's a meaningless party.
You may think, "I'm in a solid red or blue state where my vote can't influence at the national level", but I find it hard to support Green/Stein in any capacity with how blatantly Stein has, in my opinion, been knowingly running as a spoiler candidate. The Green party has a (now publicly stated) intention to have Harris lose Michigan specifically. Below is clip from a Stein rally in Dearborn, Michigan. A surrogate for Stein is about to introduce her and spells out their intentions very clearly during remarks,
"We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic... we could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.”
I would ask anyone considering a vote for Stein, in any state, to consider that truth they speak openly - When they are admitting that they can't win, stating a goal to defeat the Harris campaign and acknowledging that Harris likely cannot win the election without Michigan, the undeniable net of that is that they are working to directly secure a second trump presidency, in my opinion.
As I see it, we just cannot have it both ways in a two party system. If the green party was a serious movement working against two party politics (and I would personally embrace and support this) they would become THE platform for ranked choice voting with a green party candidate in every meaningful on/off year election to make that issue ubiquitous with green. They speak endlessly about the flawed two party system (with a clear bias towards shitting in dems), but in the current two party system we actually have, you can't cast a protest vote without actually casting a vote for trump in this election - And that cannot be stated more clearly than this green party spokesperson states it at this event before Stein speaks.
Here is a link to direct feed of that green party rally in Dearborn Michigan if anyone wants to see first hand to consider. It's a longer video, but it starts at the point discussed and surrogate makes the above quoted statement within about the first minute speaking. https://youtu.be/WKSm2FQ8z60?t=5153
And trump acknowledges as much directly mentioning Stein and green party campaign by name recently,
"Cornel West — he’s one of my favorite candidates, Cornel West," Trump said. "And I like — I like her also. Jill Stein. I like her very much. You know why? She takes 100% from [Biden]. [West] takes 100%. Kennedy’s probably 50/50, but he’s a fake.”
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/trump-speech-jill-stein-cornel-west-rcna158627
I've heard individual positions I like from West, Stein and others in the past, but in my opinion if they aren't fighting to be the bridge to engage the flawed structure of elections in this country as third parties, these are just campaigns driven more by individual candidate ego than a motivation for systemic change.
Those are my thoughts.
I get the logic you put forth. Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I'm always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone's vote by default.
In this case, let's say there aren't any other parties on the ballot other than the Democrats and Republicans. In Michigan specifically you have a voter group, that says that they cannot vote for genocide especially if it is against their own families or people that look like them. And both parties are either promising the continuation thereof or have been engaged in it and have been excluding anything related to addressing it, or people representing that voter group, from their campaign. So the presumption, that if there wasn't a Green Party to vote for that they would be coming out to vote for the Democrats is imho just flawed. They might just as likely stay home.
What I find even more baffling is that this party can't seem to clearly outperform the even more clearly dangerous candidate to democracy. The Arabic or Muslim population in Michigan should not be this decisive for the outcome, if the Democrats were able to actually persuade voters to turn out by delivering an attractive policy plan, thereby earning the votes, instead of just arrogantly thinking, they're entitled to them.
Nobody thinks they are entitled to votes. This is about triage during an emergency.
To make it simple, let's assign a number out of 100 - Likelihood that a second trump presidency enthusiastically and loudly helps Israel escalate and "finish" their genocide in Gaza: 98.9
Likelihood that post inauguration, a Harris presidency does something that doesn't go as far as the above, but still does meaningful damage, just more quietly through diplomacy and weapons shipments: 32
Now it isn't great that the Harris number isn't zero, even negative, but the reasoning for her campaigns current position is likely a combination of election politics plus the vestiges of Biden's outdated and misguided position on blind support for an Israel that's in his mind and not in front of him.
So first up in a triage... You get Harris in because less likelihood for absolute annihilation. I'd then wager a likely softening at worst to full end of support at best once Biden and election are out of the active picture. Most importantly, we eject Harris because a Harris presidency will preserve your right to protest Harris. A second trump presidency likely leads to the end of American democracy and the freedoms Americans take for granted.
After a Harris admin victory she needs to be sworn in the following January, but on day one, I fully support that we FILL the streets across the country, a la Vietnam era protests. We block freeways and interrupt commerce until a Harris administration ends all US support of Israel's genocide. We will have that right and that chance with Harris, you'll get shot in the fucking eye and tackled into an unmarked minivan if you try that in a second trump administration.
Realize the weight of this decision, and listen to Stein's own campaign telling you they are doing to get trump elected. Time to get WIDE awake and ADULT on the reality here.
I'm familiar with First-Past-The-Post voting and the spoiler effect. I'm also familiar with choosing to vote for whom you'd prefer to fight when elected. We are dealing with the crimes of crimes here and I can absolutely understand anyone whose family is affected to not want to take an active role in their killing. Especially since the campaign has not signaled to that voter block, that they are seen or heard. The best example is denying a Palestinian-American a shortened and cleared speech at the DNC. It could have been only a ceremonial thing, less weight than lip-service, but they opted for exclusion instead, i.e. the opposite.
My main point though: How can this party not be clearly ahead of that menace to democracy and its institutions? This one voter block should not be the deciding thing. Overlooking the agency of the Democratic Party in this and putting full blame on the people rubs me very anti-democratic. Implying them to be immature and other forms of voter shaming is not making a good case either.
If you're in a poorly made boat that has a hole in it with two other people...
And you are all actively sinking in that faulty boat, about to die in the middle of the ocean...
And one of the people states they will make more holes so you all drown....
And the other wants to work to keep the boat floating enough to get to shore, but not to your ideal...
Who do you help in that moment, or do you fold your hands and sink on principle? And you understand that sinking is not a neutral, moral victory here, because you've effectively supported the person who wanted to make more holes and sink the boat.
If you don't get to shore, you won't live to attempt to sue that horrible boat company to hold them accountable and keep others from using their faulty boats. And if you don't help the person bailing out water, the person making more holes will kill you all with less effort.
The "people" above are to represent general philosophies of the two "sides" in this discussion, not individual candidates. There is no option to truly stay neutral here, direct action or willful inaction, both have impacts that you are responsible for.
What do you do?
Look, I get what you are saying and even agree to a certain degree. Yet, the premise here is that one of both parties is opposed to genocide, which is false. For the affected voter group, who are getting shamed for making the crime of crimes their litmus test, both people are trying to make more holes albeit of different sizes.
So, what would you do? I would probably throw both of them over board ;)
The boat is already full of holes, so who put them there? Why didn't they spend the last 4 years patching them, why haven't they thrown the other guy off the boat already, and why have they adopted his boat-cutting rhetoric? Why do you have to deny the democrat's agency in this situation in order to make your point? Their platform is not immutable, it can and should change to one that captures more voters, and the fact it hasn't at such a supposedly critical point with such loud opposition should be a clear message to you: either this election isn't as important as they say it is, or they think they can leave us behind and we will vote for them anyways.
This does not bode well for your future protests, which by the way have already been happening on college campuses and have been met with police violence, uncontested smearing in the media, and not even the barest minimum of defense or policy change from your candidate and current vice president.
You can sit here and try to convince me and the other guy all you want but ultimately we snd the rest of lemmy are a drop in an ocean. Nothing will change unless there's a change in strategy at the top. Their strategy is actively working against your efforts to convince us and yet they urge you to believe that Trump is the most dangerous man on the planet and that they fear for the country if he wins.
If this is true, then why aren't they running a more dynamic and broad-reaching campaign and making real compromises with voters that would split their vote if they broke away? Do you not see the glaring contradiction in their actions vs their words? Is that really a strategy you want to endorse? To promote fear instead of democracy?
Do you not see the value in demonstrating that their losing strategy is, in fact, a losing strategy? How it does you a disservice to cave so easily - to genocide, I might add - without first making demands? What should motivate them to meet your demands if you're just going to vote for them anyways and you never exercise any of your bargaining power to make them sweat?
You're argument hinges on a "both sides are the same" false premise. It's just not true. January 6th was unprecedented in the 250 years of this country. Things are different, this is not the time historically for political posturing. This isn't a Romney versus Obama election. Shit is fundamentally different and you're likely operating from the muscle memory of a time when it was a more of a "polite disagreement". This is the "grandpa sitting with an assault rifle at the polling place" timeline. Wake up.
If you live in a democracy where the spoiler effect isn't an issue, then just be happy, whistle, and move on.
If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.
The spoiler effect is where you vote for someone (Jill Stein in this case) who you think better aligns with your particular set of policy goals, but since they have no chance of actually winning you help the candidate most opposed to your policy goals (Trump in this case) by subtracting votes from the less aligned candidate (Harris in this case) that actually does stand a chance of winning.
It's an ironic outcome of voting in our system. By voting for the person most aligned with your preferences you actually help the person least aligned with your preferences.
Trump is worse on genocide and climate and will be assisted greatly by idiots voting for Jill Stein in swing states.
They've done research and provided these assholes aren't on the ballot, people usually choose a ballot-present major party option instead.
I did say that I live in a democracy with more parties, not that it does not include elections where there is the "first past the post" principle, so I'm familiar with the spoiler effect.
In a US presidential election, your vote supports Israel no matter what party it is for.
If people are actually interested in choice on this and many other issues, they'll have to organize to change the electoral process. But this is America so instead we will sit around in threads like these all day pretending that pissing away your vote with Stein will somehow change that when it obviously will not.
If you understand, then you understand that only swing states matter and you're essentially free to vote as you feel in solid red or blue states.
For President specifically. Downballot still matters.
And if you're not in a swing state, but are in a state that "leans" R or D, your vote matters.
In a nutshell, the Democrats can't convince people to vote against the dangerous candidate because right-wing populism inoculates people against facts and logic by making those things out-group markers, per se. Identity is powerful, and the human brain treats threats to identity in exactly the same way as physical threats.
And, on the other side, Democrats can't recognize this and respond appropriately, because they've made not-recognizing-it a marker of in-group identity, and they are thereby unable to decode what would make an attractive policy plan.
The situation is thus there are so many white people especially white men voting essentially for Hitler no matter what anything in fact more liberal than Obama risks losing enough votes on the margins to plunge our nation into darkness and chaos. A US where 35% of white men wanted hitler instead of 55% wouldn't have this problem.
Oh BTW Trump wants to help Bebe kill 2 million gazans and build condos. If you can't distinguish between Trump and Harris positions or realize that Congress is who authorizes aid you might need help
If the dems lose votes to the greens it will be because of their own fucking policies including genocide. They could always change their policies. But instead they blame the public.
If the greens lose votes it will be because of their own lack of policy including untested bullshit lip-service that no one with a brain is buying. They could always do the work between elections. But instead, they’d rather play spoiler.
Green policies poll at 50 to 80% regularly. They also do work between elections, given 150 or so candidates are in office currently. Instead of paying attention to politics every four years so you can smugly pretend you were ever a good citizen, maybe pay attention between elections.
Pipe dreams will usually poll well with people stupid enough to believe them.
And the irony of a leftist thinking they have any podium to stand behind while accusing someone of not paying attention until elections…
fucking hilarious.
What's with y'all always being so willing to show how you bleed when scratched?
So every actually developed country and more than.50 developing countries don't exist to you people now?
They're non-existent because they accomplished in the 1970s what you people call impossible pipe dreams?
I'm sorry Reagan with a vagina just isn't a good candidate.
The fuck are you even taking about?
My point was that greens don’t give a shit until elections, and do-nothing-3-of-every-4-years leftists have the memory of goldfish and always forget this every election.
I sad what needed to be said to call you out. There’s no further point in discussing this with you.
Well Putin and xi genocided my ability to give a fuck what your husk of a soul thinks about it.
Enjoy your greenpartylossparty
You probably should care, though. The DNC should absolutely care. Stein is not wrong that the Greens might stop Kamala from winning Michigan.
Preach, friend!
Shouldn't be hard to convince anyone not to vote for her who doesn't hate minorities.
Just let him know that David Duke endorsed Jill Stein.
If that isn't a literal mic drop on her campaign idk what more can be done. Just make sure everyone knows before they approach a voting booth.
She rejected the endorsement. Even if she is throwing the election don’t put that crap on her. She can’t control David Duke
Dick fucking Cheney endorsed Harris and she embraced it. And her poll numbers plummetted. That’s a bigger problem with an actual consequence.
Wait til you find out Dick Cheney endorsed Harris! Probably the chief architect of the "GWOT", responsible for over 1 million dead. Fuck David Duke, but he's fuckin small potatoes compared to Dick-Vader.
Duke endorsed Stein because she does not support Israel.
The Stein campaign called David Duke trash and disavowed him.
The dishonesty here staggering.
Ooh that's some good /agedlikemilk
Duke is endorsing for Stein, because Stein does not support Israel and Duke is antisemitic.
Koch's is voting for Harris, because she works for the billionaire class and he is a billionaire.
One of these two is not like the other.
Because as everyone should know by now. The only acceptable hypocrisy is leninist hypocrisy.
Stein earned the endorsement from a bad person by doing something good.
Harris earned the endorsement from a bad person by doing something bad.
Lmao bro David Duke is an overt white supremacist. The association alone is damning, despite the disavowal.
Your argument is that anyone who does not support Israel is a KKK member.
That is absolutely not what I am saying
If you're saying that earning an endorsement from antisemites for going against Israel makes Stein an antisemite, by extension, for going against Israel, because that is why Duke endorsed her, then yeah that kinda is what you're saying...
He just said he supports her. That's not an association. He agrees with her on her policy towards Israel. Unless you think her policy towards Israel is unreasonable and only would be held by a white supremacist, then its a ridiculous position to try and maintain, because it basically says that anyone who opposes us support of Israel agrees with David Duke and thus is "associated" with him.
Huh, the Nazi agrees with her stance on Israel? I mean, fuck Israel, but I wouldn't want that endorsement on me.
And she denounced him. So clearly she doesn't want it either.
Oh okay, so they're just ideological comrades...
The politician you like best and the former head of the KKK are ideological comrades
Say that out loud a few times.
I heard a piece on Here And Now today about a group of single issue voters in Dearborn that is actively working to disrupt and damage the Harris campaign. They are trying to get dems to vote for Stein.
"single issue voters" 🤣 🤣 🤣
"stop blowing up my family"
okay SiNgLe IsSuE vOtEr
Thing is, there is no "stop blowing up my family" vote in this election.
It's "status quo, maybe some improvements but don't hold your breath about anything major" vs "corruption, corruption, corruption, fuck everyone who isn't a billionaire or has their lips firmly attached to billionaire assess, especially the entirety of Palestine" vs "I won't vote for either of those options but will still need to live with the one everyone else votes for".
It seems like they're using multiple strategies in an effort to put pressure on the Dems. Some are saying that they are going to vote for Trump even though they are also anti-Trump. Their logic is that Kamala is actively contributing to a genocide, whereas Trump is not.
I doubt there is anything they can do to actually make Democrat politicians feel pressure, but I do agree with their sentiments. I'm not voting for some who is pro-genocide. Trump is both pro-genocide and fascist. I'm also not going to vote for a 3rd party candidate because most 3rd parties focus on the presidential race more than they focus on grassroots efforts.
This is literally the most braindead political take I've ever heard, and that's saying a lot
It's a classic "technically true, but not particularly useful" information tidbit. Harris is in office, Trump isn't.
Of course, you could argue that Vance - as a powerful member of the US Senate - is participating in the genocide while Walz - a governor of a midwestern state with no meaningful role in foreign policy - isn't. Equally true, but meaningless.
The problem Harris has isn't that Trump gets innocence-by-default by being out of office for four years. Its that she's doggedly clinging to the "both sides" framing of the Israeli genocide and scaring off Arab-American voters as a consequence. It doesn't matter whether Harris is better or worse than Trump when the baseline of US policy is the mass slaughter of your friends and family.
Harris is in an office that is entirely powerless (yes, she casts a vote in the event of a Senate tie, but no bill funding Israel has come down to that). She and Trump have nothing to do with the (current) Palestinian genocide.
Harris has enormous amounts of power by simply having access to the President's phone 24/7. That's before you get into how much authority she's been delegated by a man whose brains are leaking out of his ears.
And you've confirmed that you don't understand how the President works. He isn't simply the King of America who can wave a magic wand and do what he wants.
Tell it to Dick Cheney. He goes into this at great length in his autobiography
The problem that Harris has is the mountains of propaganda working against her.
Not saying she's perfect, but in a practical sense the spin matters FAR more than the facts.
I agree that it's a bad take. But at this point I think that they're desperate, trying anything they can to get Kamala to change course. It's an urgent issue that can be solved easily: just stop supplying weapons and aid to Israel. Four years from now, most Palestinians living in Palestine will already be dead.
That loses older uninformed democrat voters unfortunately
it's not just uninformed voters, my grandfather is a retired history teacher and, he firmly believes that while Isreal is in the wrong, that it's not in the US best interest to drop them. He's worries that the destabalization of the area further will invite other foreign adversaries to invade it while also losing basically the only is friendly territory around. He's worried it'll be a repeat of the last time
I mean, that does make sense actually...
Voting is a strategic choice, not an endorsement. You should vote for the candidate who you would rather have in office.
Even though he literally is, has put the Israeli Embassy in Jerusalem, and has advocated for the deployment of nukes in Gaza...
I mean they're naming an illegal settlement after trump and Netanyahu is explicitly advocating for trump. What's crazy is polls show Kamala would get like a 6 point poll boost by breaking with biden on this and saying something a little more forceful about a peace deal, such as a deadline where arms deals are halted. It would almost singlehandedly secure michigan.
At this point, I wonder if opposition to Israel is dangerous for the lives of Western leaders.
I think its more that they're afraid of being labeled antisemitic by the media and there's pressure from the military to maintain status with Israel.
Edit: I don't think people really understand how brutal the corporate media is about Israel. If you want an example, Jeremy Corbyn criticizes Israel and the labor right manufactured a fake antisemitism crisis which the corporate press used to throw the election.
I don't blame Kamala for trying to sit the fence given the past behavior of corporate media on this topic. Its possible the fascist genocide of Gaza by Netanyahu has opened the door to more criticism but I expect at least fox news to gleefully accuse democrats of being the "real nazis" if they drift even into skepticism of Netanyahu.
G.R.E.E.N
Get
Republicans
Elected
Every
November
The Green Party thanks Lemmy for all the publicity it has given to the Jill Stein campaign
any news is good news
Who?
Some rando
hahahah, yep!
How do you do fellow young adults.
Uncommited movement: "Guess I won't vote"
Reminder: Jill is a transphobic ableist who doesn't believe autism exists
Didn't I read something somewhere about her being a Nazi or Russian spy or some shit?
What the fuck
Shill who?
What would be harassment on Lemmy (learn to take a hint already), actually makes sense on tiktok. With it's giant, young user base, there should be someone you can convince to vote for Harris.
However, I do think getting Jill Stein's name out there could backfire. Remember, it was the media that made trump a viable candidate.
they should probably focus more on voting for Kamala Harris
A lot of (and probably most of) the people supporting Stein currently are Muslims whose main interest in voting is regarding the genocide, and on social issues are generally more conservative (and may not agree with her on stuff like LGBTQ) and may not align with either major political party so likely wouldn't be voting otherwise. I've seen a lot of Muslims support Stein on social media and the Stein rally I went to was almost entirely Muslims which is where I'm getting this impression. This is a case where the main parties need to earn their votes, and voting for Stein does not mean voting for Trump because they might not have voted blue either way.
(And regarding Lemmy drama most of the people here are voting PSL anyways so trying to convince people here not to vote for Stein is pointless because it's the wrong audience.)
hmm PSL.. Party for Socialism and Liberation? Claudia de la Cruz? I got no beef with them, how do you think that's popular on Lemmy? Ohhh you're on lemmy.ml
look Gaza and the wider Levant or whatever is not just potential real estate. But that is Trump's milieu, is real estate scams, and he loves the idea of selling off Gaza to rich white folk. So vote for a third party at your peril.
if you live in a state with preferential voting (eg alaska, maine?) wouldn't you be better off voting green if they represent you views better?
The Green Party, maybe. Jill Stein, with the stuff she's been saying I am not quite sure if she would actually present your views better or if she's an actual competent leader. Of course you can have the question of the best of the worst, but then still I'm not sure if she compares well.
What states have ranked choice?
Alaska and Maine.
ah yes the party of "wifi causes brain damage"
So much energy from democrats that they should instead spend on pressuring their party leadership to change their evil policy of genocide support.
Is just code for "DC Consulting firm". The energy is less popular appeals and more paid professional trolls.
I read "totally organic grassroots movement" and hear "PAC funded astroturf campaign"
Probably a fair assessment. Honestly, the energy I'm thinking of is all these Lemmy users.
I'm honestly wondering how many Lemmy nodes are out there vote-bombing topics like this. It would be the easiest thing in the world to do.
I don't know. I don't pay much attention to votes, and I basically assume that whatever someone tells me is their genuine opinion.
I don't know, this might be a pretty effective strategy
It might.
::: spoiler NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for NBC News:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/gen-z-advocacy-group-launches-tiktok-campaign-voting-jill-stein-rcna175498 ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
If you’re getting convinced by anti-green rhetoric, I don’t blame you. The greens are pretty bad.
You can always vote for the party for socialism and liberation instead. They’re running de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to israel.
Or don't vote against your own interests by voting third party. Because First Past the Post means that any third party is going to act as a Spoiler, siphoning votes away from the major party that is ideologically closest to the Spoiler.
What you should do is hold your nose and vote against the literal fascist.
Then on November 10th or so (for incumbents that win) and Jan 10th or so (for the newly elected), start writing actual letters to your congressmen, Call them, email, seek them out in person at meet and greets, and push for voting reform.
Now, the temptation will be to advocate for RCV. This is the wrong move as well. RCV is inherently broken and can actually produce worse results than First Past the Post, while also having some diehard fans who promise the fucking moon. No, if you want third parties to have any chance at all of growing and possibly winning, you need to advocate for Approval or STAR.
So remember, start pushing voting reform the second we kick the fascist to the curb. Push on day one of the new session, and keep pushing. Do the work ahead of time, and maybe, we can revisit the third party issue in the future.
https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/alaskas-presidential-election-allows-voters-to-rank-up-to-eight-candidates/
there is at least one state that has implemented ranked choice voting
And again, Ranked Choice is flawed to its core. It's the only voting system in existence that fails the monotonicity criterion. Basically it's the only voting system in existence where you can rank someone lower and it increases their chances of winning the election.
Ranked Choice is so flawed that every place that implementes it, has a movement to repeal it. Sometimes a successful movement (Like in Burlington Vermont)
Ranked Choice is a step back and actively harms real efforts at Voting Reform.
No.
I haven’t held my nose for a democrat for going on fourteen years and I’m not going to start now.
I’m politically active far beyond voting and have spoken face to face with several representatives. They don’t care or listen.
No amount of voting reform will fix the fundamentally unjust American political system.
I have been doing the work and will continue to do so. Voting for PSL in this election is part of that work.
If you’re reading this, don’t fall for the “oh if only we had star or ranked choice” fiddlefarting around the edges garbage. We live in under a fundamentally unjust political system and especially when both major parties are advocating in support of genocide there is no reasonable argument for performing the calculus required to declare one the lesser evil.
Walk away from omelas.
it must be really nice to be privileged enough to have this viewpoint. and all for what? so you can give yourself a nice ethical pat on the back when you help siphon from the dems, and the gop comes after women and minorities? not sure what your background is but damn dude that's some fucked up shit
Ok I've heard all kinds of different reasons someone might be privileged, but doing work on the ground for years and laying the groundwork for real activism rather than whatever the hell you call this terminally online bullshit, is now what you people call privilege?
This shit is why Occupy died.
ground activism is great! but this person's comment pretty much sums up to "whichever if the two candidates win in November, I won't be effected enough to consider not tossing my vote into the trash to prove a point," as do all 3rd party arguments. that's privileged.
many many people quite literally have their lives on the line with this election, it's extremely disrespectful to put them all in danger for some self centered, ill-thought out attempt at morality.
Occupy died because of "terminally online bullshit"? I guess that terminally online bullshit is either more effective than what you're suggesting or your analysis sucks.
One whole paragraph followed by a comment like that implies someone is usually talking about the whole episode going on and not just the keywords you singled out.
I still don't get why you think occupy died, but regardless it wasn't because of online shit or coopted lingo.
I've bumped into a bunch of you online socialists before and every one of you thinks your efforts made some profound difference when in reality socialism is still a nothing nowhere movement in the US and we get more fascist every election cycle.
And whose fault is that? When you give your vote away for free you get rightward drift. Make the fuckers earn it instead of leaving the switch on Vote Blue No Matter Who like the good little liberal you are.
It's the collective fault of the American electorate.
Yep, people here call me privileged too.
Um, I'm biracial, bisexual, and barely make above minimum wage. But because I disagree with some on here, I'm "privileged." lmao
Friend, people say I'm privileged just because I'm shilling for Trump, er, I mean Stein, or Socialist stuff or something. Can you believe that shit?!
"Debt-free" "Woke-free" (Both according to your profile) You're privileged as hell dude.
How does that make me "privileged"?
I'm not white. I'm not straight. I grew up in poverty. I'm not rich. I don't have a high-paying job. I don't have college education (yet). So tell me, how am I privileged?!
And yet somehow you're debt-free.
And yet somehow you're woke-free.
I can't connect the dots for you, but geeze.
I saved to buy my crappy car. I saved to buy my crappy bike. And I pay for school, one course at a time (which is why I still don't have a degree.) I took a job as a janitor so that I could work somewhere with tuition reimbursement. Networked my way up to teacher's aide. Pay is 10 cents more.
What does that have to with anything about sexuality or being privileged?!
You know, just because someone believes differently than you, doesn't make them privileged.
I'm a biracial, bisexual, poor dude. Nothing about me is privileged. You make more money than me, I promise. Are you privileged?
Maybe they just like the GOP but don't want to admit that they like them.
They also completely disregard the fact that the Voting System itself causes the very problems they have with the political system.
First Past the Post is 100% the reason why we vote against a party, rather than for a candidate.
That combined with the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 have caused all sorts of problems. That too is something to advocate against. But one thing at a time.
What background do I need to have in order to be allowed to recognize that the mathematics of lesser evils don’t make any sense?
Is there some amount of subjugation I can be under that allows me to have a materialist analysis?
Literally me: Don’t encourage these scumbags, don’t wait another moment to stand up for what you know is right, voting is the easiest way to make your voice heard!
You: wow, must be nice!
If youre reading this, don’t listen to people who try to mobilize identity politics against you. They don’t know or care who you are and would hate you more if you were a minority speaking out.
A mathematically illiterate one.
See, we live under a system of First Past the Post, otherwise known as Plurality.
It's a system that forces a two party system. Not as a conscious choice, but as a consequence of the very system itself.
Here's the kicker. Plurality voting actively punishes you for supporting a third party.
If you siphon votes away from the lesser of two evils, the greater evil wins.
It's a pretty simple concept. And since we are just weeks away from the election, anyone who is actively pushing for third parties is automatically suspect.
Because the problems with Plurality are not some newly discovered quirk. They've been studied for centuries, but most extensively by Kenneth Arrow in the 70s.
What I'm saying is that most of the money given to support Third Parties, comes from people who are on the opposite side of the spectrum from those Third Parties.
Simply put, Trump and company throw money at the Greens and Socialists to siphon support away from the Dems, so that Trump and company can win with fewer votes.
So you, advocating for a third party, are mathematically indistinguishable from a Trump supporter.
Wow if third parties are so powerful then how come you’re not voting for one too?
It seems like a great way to force the major party of your choice to pay attention to your politics.
I'm not voting Third party because I'm not a Trump Supporter.
But you may be one. Mathematically speaking.
My vote isn’t going to be counted for trump, and is for a party in opposition to his program.
You have a funny way of figuring out if someone is a trump supporter. Is it perhaps based on the old “with us or against us” chestnut?
You should know before you keep pushing that line, I will not vote Harris. If there was no party for socialism and liberation, I’d vote a different third party. If there were no third parties, I’d write a candidate in.
If you want to pick up a Harris vote, look elsewhere.
But you're publicly advocating for others to drop their support of Harris in favor of a third party.
Which is mathematically identical to telling people to vote for Trump. So I name thee a Trump supporter, because that's the only person who benefits from your actions.
Man. Its really sad seeing people out here pretending they've got a math degree. Out here saying shit like not 7 equals 6. Get the fuck out of here with that dumb shit. Being a part of the subset does not make you the whole fucking set. If a vote for PSL or Green or fucking whatever, means more left leaning politicians elected locally and nationally, then great. It absolutely does not support Trump. It supports making the DNC maybe fucking listen to the left for once. Stop fucking going further and further right into pushing back against immigration. Stop supporting committing literal genocide in the hopes israel takes over iran for its lithium deposits and the rest of the middle east for the oil. Instead y'all would rather shill for genocide & becoming more and more evil as long as the other party gets evil fastererer.
But since you love math so much: The Libertarian/Constitution party has 3x the vote of green/PSL. Green/PSL was 0.31% of the total vote last presidential election. Which was 0.1% of the total number of possible votes. Stop focusing on shaming the few who absolutely won't vote DNC but still likely will vote down ballot and instead maybe focus on making your party actually have policies people would give a shit about, or focus on the DNC doing something to actually energize voters outside of making sure Trump runs against them so they can point to big scary. Or like, literally anything that might help you. Shaming 3rd party voters is just going to lose you more elections. Like, holy fuck do y'all learning nothing from 2016? Y'all look at Michigan and freak out about green party, ignoring that even fucking the constitution party had more votes than the tiny gap. and the libertarian party had 3x the amount. Even if the DNC successfully made it illegal to vote 3rd party like they seem to want to, they would've lost Michigan in 2012. They know that too. They just want to scapegoat someone instead of themselves. Stop blaming people other than the DNC. They're the ones who actively fought as hard as they could against any progressive policies. Letting Clinton using the "victory fund" well before securing the nomination in order to campaign against Bernie. literally just shooting itself in the face. Not a surprise they lost while doing that.
Anyways, sorry, people being shills for stupid DNC talking points made to alienate leftists and lose more elections annoys the fuck out of me.
For some fucked up reason, this election is close enough to make every vote matter. So, yes, pulling support from Harris is mathematically indistinguishable from supporting Trump.
Also, I always look down on idiots who think they can accomplish anything by separating themselves from the system. No, we work to fix it from within, or we don't get to fix it at all.
Where?
My top level reply is an attempt to get Green Party voters who are starting to not feel so good to switch over to psl.
Also it’s not mathematically identical because my third party vote isn’t counted for trump.
I’m kinda surprised you care. Your party has written us off, do you not agree with their decision?
[Nobody cares]
[Jill Stein is a vapid, forgettable cunt with 0 plans for governance or policy change]
[You supporting her only makes you look like the same type of human-garbage]
Hope this helps 🫶
I’m literally suggesting people vote for a party and candidate different than stein.
Did you reply to the correct comment?
I'm with you, friend. Stay strong and don't let this community bully you into changing yourself! I support you!
Well, more and more people are pushing back against those thoughts. I'm see lots of people tired of waiting and going for third party this year. And it's awesome to see!
Literally throwing away their vote, and helping Trump.
You cannot have a third party under First Past the Post. It it literally impossible and only aids Trump. So yeah. It's not awesome to see. It's aggravating. Because if you advocate for third parties, you're a stealth Trump supporter pretending to actually care.
If the Democrats want my vote they are more than welcome to adopt a thing or two from the third parties that split their vote. How else would I communicate my size as a voter bloc and the specific policies we support, and how could I have any sway in any direction if my vote is to be taken for granted?
They seem to understand this when it comes to Republicans... I wonder why it never goes the other way. Seems that kind of strategy would be much more effective as a viable party in winning voters from a non-viable party, and much easier to triangulate, no?
You want your voice heard? Then actually speak up. Call your Representative. Their phone numbers are public. Write letters, send emails.
Be engaged.
Or throw your vote away. See, the two major parties don't give a shit about what third party platforms are. Well, Republicans sure as hell don't. And since the election is projected to be depressingly close, throwing your vote away on third parties will actively hurt you and your interests. And telling other people to abandon Harris for some rando third party who only runs a candidate once every 4 years, is equivalent to directly supporting Trump.
Nah. If I wanted to support Trump, I'd just vote for him. But I didn't vote for him. I voted third party. Happily! Thank you!
Mathematically you are indeed a a Trump supporter.
Claiming that not voting for Harris means supporting Trump is flawed; using that logic, anyone who isn’t voting for Trump must be supporting Harris.
Voting for a third-party candidate is a choice to support what aligns with your values, not an automatic endorsement of the opposition.
Welcome to Plurality voting, advocating for third parties is mathematically indistinguishable from advocating for Trump.
Stop it unless you want Trump to win, in which case, fuck off.
If I wanted Trump to win, I would have voted for him.
Advocating for third parties is mathematically indistinguishable from advocating for Trump
So yeah, you want Trump to win, because you've been Advocating for Third Parties.
I disagree. But I don't think you should be upset. Trump isn't going to win anyway.
Lots of disagreement with math on your end.
Why the fuck can't we worshill for the Christ-Hating Christian Worker’s Party in peace? God-Satanic dammmiiit!
I applaud you for voting, and for being willing to admit in the Politics Community that you voted third party. Unfortunately this place is so convinced that certain votes are owed to their party that they'll actually downvote you for saying that you voted for the candidate that best represents your interests.
Thank you. We can't let the bullies intimidate or pressure us into silence or from doing what we believe is right. Thank you, friend! :)
Yep! I voted for a different socialist candidate, but I really like de la Cruz. She's awesome.
According to the "lesser evil" rhetoric Jill Stein is the lesser evil candidate and anyone who doesn't vote for her is supporting fascists.
Nice gotcha, but she's not going to win, so she's not practically a choice. "Vote for the lesser evil" is a good shorthand, but it's still shorthand; the philosophy is to vote in a way that will cause the least harm. If your candidate has no chance of winning, then you aren't doing that, since your vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. Voting for a third party only makes sense if you weren't going to vote at all, and in that case it's a better choice but still not the best one. Hope that helps clear up any confusion around the lesser evil sentiment.
Jill Stein recently, in an interview with Mehdi Hasan, repeatedly deflected when asked directly if Putin is a war criminal
Repeatedly, with obvious contrast from her (correctly) calling Netanyahu a war criminal.
She is cozy with fascists.
Being cozy with fascists is "lesser evil" than being a fascist yourself or aiding fascists in a genocide. "do you want things to be x10 times worst?"
Isn’t this just effectively giving her more attention? I’m not convinced that this helps.
I’m not convinced that saying "I’m not convinced that this helps" helps.
I know you think you’re really clever and that’s great. Howard Stern became popular because people started protesting him. Sometimes you should just ignore things and they go away.