30
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 20 Sep 2024
30 points (67.4% liked)
politics
19145 readers
1994 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Good. One less State allowing her betrayal of America.
“We are stuck with Biden[/Harris] now, in a two-party duopoly, if one should be defeated ferociously, the logic is that the other one prevails.” (Ralph Nader, 2023)
Putin’s Shill Stein wants Nato disbanded, the US to give up their SC veto, and revoke weapons to help Ukraine defend itself while simultaneously forcing ‘peace’ (subjugation) negotiations with russia.
2015 Stein breaking bread with Putin, his senior staff, and Mike Flynn (later Trump's national security advisor
More context:
For those that don’t understand how the Electoral College + FPTP voting works, voting for her means helping donald become president due to the spoiler effect.
No, not good.
Anyone who votes for her is a fucking moron who is wilfully ignoring the reality of how FPTP voting works.
But they should still have that right. It's undemocratic to say otherwise. Saying they shouldn't be allowed to run just because you don't like the effect that voting for them might have is the mark of autocracy.
Couldn't agree more. They used the form provided to them. Withholding ballot access based on a technicality smacks of disenfranchisement.
Apparently "democracy should be open" is a controversial take.
Or maybe my comment got downvoted for saying that those voting for her are morons?
Your vote for Harris takes away a vote from a 3rd party candidate and gives it to Trump
This is why we need better education. People who think they can just say words and they don't even need to make any logical sense
That's what the bullshit coming from Democrats sounds like from a leftist point of view
Yes for you all we have to do is convince 45% of voters to do something they would literally never do to succeed. And then if we don't succeed, burning the country the rest of the way to ground at the expense of every vulnerable person is not only not cruel, it's a fine choice. And that's the only way to be a logical true leftist. Limiting suffering is clearly a horrible choice. I guess once we realize that suffering and cruelty is the whole point, your positions do make a lot of sense.
It's worse than that. And understanding this is key to understanding why voting third party will never work in the USA without reforming our electoral system.
Suppose tomorrow, a genie grants one of these posters' wishes and suddenly it's Stein with 48.0% of the vote in critical swing states, and Harris and other candidates on the Left sit on 3% of the vote, while Trump has 51% of the vote. Suddenly, it's Harris who's the spoiler and we end up with Trump because 10k voters thought Jill was too cosy-cosy with Russia.
I have specific issues with Stein that would definitely have me far less sure of my vote, but I'd still take her over Project 2025 and DJT. I'd still be calling as hard against voting third party as I am in this universe where it's the Greenie and not the Democrat that would spoil the election.
Exactly, this is not an ideological dispute, this is statistics. And that is the key to understanding why the third party astroturf posts and replies are not credible.
Every time someone helpfully responds with a statistics explanation, these users respond with ideological escalation. It always reframes the debate to be about an entrenched system or Gaza or miming offense or generic DARVO. (All of which coincidentally mirror right-wing talking points or known election disinformation goals - i.e., push deep state conspiracy theories, escalation political divisions to fray unity - if you find that coincidence interesting.)
What they never try to do is explain how a vote for a third party in our FPTP system results in a desirable outcome for their stated "third party" policy priorities.
Which is why none of it is convincing: they cannot be both ideologically so pure that it's a moral imperative to vote third party, and simultaneously so ideologically aloof that they do not care that that vote can only undermine that outcome. So it's either bad faith, or reckless ignorance.
Your vote for any candidate that isn't yourself takes away a vote from the only candidate whose opinions match yours perfectly.
Capitalists represent nothing I want in government.
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
This idiotic "point" will always fall flat. Your third party spoilers will get less than 3% combined nationwide. And your vote will be worthless unless you're trying to help Trump.
She doesn’t seem that far off from Trump based on both wanting daddy Putin’s policies anyways.
Meh, I'm not voting for her anyway.
Right, we know you're voting for trump
Russian shills can’t vote, at least not legally.