-71
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
-71 points (13.4% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2598 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Or you could realize that those two drivers are not your only options. Get a cab, walk to a bus stop, or find a different driver.
It’s not about teaching Tim a lesson. It’s about getting yourself home safely.
What is the other option in American democracy? A third party that's not going to win?
Voting isn't just about winning. It's about telling the powers-that-be what you want.
You know how people describe the free market as "voting with your dollar"? Voting is like voting with your dollar. Except it's voting with your vote.
Honestly, I think American democracy is already almost dead. America is a corporatocracy. The politicians think their job is to please the corporations, and the corporations will squeeze the life out of America as far as possible. Our communities are dead. People are broke and miserable. Families are falling apart. We're turning against each other. The Democrats aren't going to fix this. The Democrats helped create this.
The Democrats have to give us a reason to vote for them. They should be working to earn our vote rather than working to serve the corporations. "Vote blue no matter who" gives the Democrats no incentive to be better.
Do you think that people should ONLY vote for a party that is going to win? That's not very democratic.
I'm voting third party. And proud of it.
I mean, if you want things to get better, yes.
Voting a third party is fine as long as you understand you are enabling trump and are making things worse for Palestineans and the millions who will suffer from worse climate change outcomes etc.
If that's something to feel proud about, that's, well, up to you.
Like I said, that's not very democratic. And I'm very glad that not everyone believes that.
Nope. If I wanted to vote for Trump, I'd vote for Trump. Like almost half of the country is doing.
Very proud to vote third party! Thank you!
Pretending your choices don't have consequences is childish and not a position worthy of respect.
If you see a toddler running into traffic and you don't stop them, sure you didn't make it happen but you are still responsible. Similarly, if you understand the pain that trump will cause and you don't help stop it, that's on you.
It's your choice but be adult enough to admit the consequences of your choice.
Pretending that just because one doesn't vote for democrats, MUST be enabling Trump, is childish and not a position worthy of respect.
Voting for a candidate that aligns with my values is a responsible and thoughtful choice, not a refusal to acknowledge consequences.
Supporting third-party candidates challenges the status quo and pushes for the real change that major parties often ignore.
Blaming voters for the actions of others oversimplifies the complexity of our political system and ignores the importance of advocating for what we truly believe in.
Yes, it IS my choice, and I explained why I am doing it, and I'm proud of it. Nothing you have said has changed my mind at all. I vote for Green Party and Socialist causes/issues. And I will continue so. Regardless of how many try to bully me or try to sway my vote.
Really? The trumpian "I'm rubber, you're glue" style of rhetoric?
I think though, you're missing the point of the earlier example so I'll simplify by labelling.
You want to eat some ice cream. (That's voting third party.) As you're about to take a bite, a small child runs into the road (this is the consequences of a trump victory, say more dead Palestineans, no chance to mitigate climate change etc.) Now, you are the closest "adult." Sure, the kid's parents (the rest of America) should be there to stop this from happening so you can just enjoy your ice cream. Unfortunately, saving the child requires dropping the ice cream.
That's kind of the scenario. Now, legally, I don't think you would be liable for choosing the ice cream over saving the child. But, morally.... Well, I'm just curious as to whether the answer is still "meh, screw 'em, I'd like my ice cream." or how the analogy doesn't apply.
To be a responsible member of a democratic society, it is important to consider, appreciate and acknowledge the choices of our votes.
I’m proud to vote third party because I believe in standing by my principles, without fear of what may or may not happen in the election outcome.
Voting should be about advocating for the future we want, not settling for what feels safe or easy.
Just because the analogy tries to guilt me into conformity doesn’t mean I should abandon my values—real change comes from voting with conviction, not fear.
Which is exactly why I am voting for who I want to. As I respect your right to vote for who you want to.
So that principle is "I won't be affected so screw everyone else who will be!" ?
And the future your preferences reveal is one governed by a trump administration.
Again, please explain the difference between your position and the analogy. If you would continue to eat the ice cream because the ice cream would make you feel good and you're not that child or that child's parents, just say so. Empathy isn't something with which everyone is blessed and while that's not ideal, it's life.
And how will "everyone else" be screwed? You all said that last time he was president. World didn't end then. Won't end this time. Regardless of who wins.
If I wanted to vote for Trump, I'd vote for Trump. Like almost half the country is going to do.
The analogy oversimplifies the situation and unfairly equates voting with neglecting a child in danger. My vote is about advocating for systemic change and challenging a broken system, not about disregarding the consequences, and it's possible to care deeply about the future while still voting according to my principles.
Again, I get to vote for who I want. Just like you do. Our rights are the same. Me and many of my friends are voting Green Party. Accept it, friend.
And the future that you want is one where trump wins the presidency. Otherwise you would act differently.
Now, if a trump presidency won't affect you that much, makes sense. I get that. I personally won't be harmed. But, I know others will be. So this is important.
Still waiting for an explanation of why the analogy doesn't hold up rather than just "I DON'T LIKE IT!"
No, if I wanted to vote for Trump, I'd vote for Trump.
But I'm not voting for Trump.
I'm also not voting for your candidate. I don't care how mad you get, how bullying you get, how much you call me a Trumper or a russian, or a troll or spin analogies, etc.
I'm not voting for your candidate. I've explained why. You don't like that. Ok, well that's fine.
This conversation is done. I've explained my viewpoints several times. You just don't like it. Then you turn around and say that I am acting like "I JUST DON'T LIKE IT!"
Nothing you have said has changed my mind.
Me, and many of my friends, are not voting for Harris. Accept it. Move on. You haven't changed my mind at all.
In fact, speaking with you has made me more determined than ever to not vote for Harris. So good job, friend!
It's a revealed preference. And your preference is to help trump, which is absolutely your right. As is enjoying ice cream while a child runs into traffic.
I haven't bullied you, called a stooge, russian, troll or anything of the sort. I have called your simplistic and nonsense opinion childish which seems appropriate.
I haven't "spun" an analogy (how would one even do that?) Though you seem to realize how accurate it is as you've refused to articulate why it doesn't apply other than that it highlights the moral abdication of your choices.
The folks who fought for democracy probably wanted even more progressive candidates but, thank heavens they, unlike you, realized the importance and consequence of their votes.
And after all that, I am still voting for Jill Stein. :)
Nah, if I wanted to vote for Trump, I'd just vote for Trump. I'm actually voting for Jill Stein.
And you totally respect and support my right to vote for who I want, just like I support and respect your rights to vote for who you want, right? Right?
As if anyone believes for even a moment that this cat is actually going to vote for Jill Stein and not Trump. lol
Says the person who takes their ball and goes home to the Green party because the Dems aren't "perfect" enough.
I haven't done anything of the sort.
A third-party candidate brings crucial issues to the forefront, challenging the dominance of the major parties and sparking conversations that otherwise wouldn’t happen.
Even if they don’t win, their presence on the ballot helps build momentum and awareness, laying the groundwork for future success.
True change starts with challenging the status quo, and every candidate who dares to run contributes to that process. Even if you don't like it.
I, and many of my friends, are NOT voting for Harris. Accept it and move on. Thank you!
Nope. Bar is 100 miles from anywhere, no bus, no one else left with a car.
Nobody puts a bar 100 miles from anywhere. People don't drive an hour and a half to go to bar.
It's an unrealistic hypothetical, like a third party candidate in the first place lol
I bet there are more third-party candidates in America than bars that are 100 miles from anything.
Probably true. What's your point? The hypothetical situation is anything but realistic. It's a conversational vehicle to expose a forced choice dynamic, and to a lesser extent harm-reduction.
Do you think we're in the bar right now?
I love that you have to make up impossible scenarios to justify why you won't vote third party.
They aren't the only way to discuss a situation, but the above comment deemed a simplified hypothetical was conversationally useful.
I guess they were optimistic lol
But you're the one who suggested the bar was 100 miles away from anything.
And even then, you could still probably get an Uber. It would be pricey, but that's your fault for going to a bar 100 miles away from anything.
I specified it to try to help with your...troubles. No Uber.
Stop trying to dodge the scenario, that's how a kid tries to squirm out of rules about chores.
You either get it, and address it, or you don't.
Fiddling with how you don't accept the details is just making it clear you aren't ready to address the underlying concept.
I'm just gonna assume you're not old enough to drink since you don't know how bars work.
Mmk. Assume all you like, bothers me not.
I don't need to assume anything about what you've put on display.