-62
At Seattle rally, Sawant says Harris deserves to lose ‘1,000 times’
(www.seattletimes.com)
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 16 Oct 2024
-62 points (4.4% liked)
politics
19096 readers
1825 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
I'm not sure if the "you" you're referring to is the person in the article or me.
I know for me personally, that I've supported and voted for ranked choice voting from the beginning. In fact, my local city ballot had ranked choice on the ballot this year, and I supported it.
I didn't vote for Jill Stein. I appreciate the conversations she has started though, and I hope that what she's done will stir the Democrats into being more pro-active about issues rather than just yelling "vote against Trump!"
Not everything is about you
Which is why I asked for clarification. It's public forum, and I can express my opinions even without being directly asked. As many here do. And as you have done just now.
Thank you, friend! :)
Turns out he WAS talking about and to me. So no, not everything is about me. But the comment that we're referring to is. Thank you! :)
You have made 15 comments that reference ranked choice voting in any way, with several of those emphasizing that in your opinion, Green Party support needs to come first, and only after that, can ranked choice voting come about.
Here are some examples:
There's also this absolute gem:
You've also made two posts about ranked choice voting. I don't know how many of your 5,000+ postings have dealt with Jill Stein, since the API doesn't let me count up that high, but if we conservatively say that one-third of what you say is supportive of third parties in some fashion, that means you've posted approximately 99% content supportive of third parties within our current FPTP framework, and 1% supportive of changing the framework in a way that would let third parties get some traction, which in the current system they cannot.
The question I was asking, which you didn't answer, was: Why? It seems like putting 99% effort to changing the system to allow the third parties to succeed, and 1% effort into supporting them in their currently-doomed effort, would be a better use of your time to accomplish the future you claim that you're trying to accomplish. What am I missing?
I support both. I am just not going to wait for RCV first. I don't feel that Democrats or the Republicans have taken it very seriously, but to your point, it IS starting to make some headway. But I'm not going to wait for it to vote for who I want to vote for. I still don't like the democratic candidates or the republican candidates.
Right - you said you voted for Rachele Fruit, who is vocally pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. Odd that you find this article interesting to share when the main thrust of the event is that Harris is bad for not doing enough about Gaza and needs to be "punished". Is your problem with Harris that she isn't more strident in demanding more Palestinian civilian deaths? Just curious as that seems to be the stance of the candidate you claim to have voted for.
More information:
https://themilitant.com/2024/03/22/rachele-fruit-for-president/
Here's what Rachele Fruit says about the war in Gaza:
Here's what UniversalMonk said about her:
https://lemmy.world/comment/12350294
https://lemmy.world/comment/12377155
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. She aligns with my values the most and I voted for her. I don't agree 100 percent with everything she says, but she aligns the closest to what I like. Especially when it comes to workers rights, which is the issue that I most care about in the election.
That hasn't changed. And I voted for her. Thank you! :)
Did you not just post an article which said:
Do you agree with that, meaning you agree you've endorsed, affirmed, and enabled genocide? Or do you reject it, meaning it's okay to support genocide-enabling candidates as long as they align with your values the most, and you make sure to disclaim that you don't agree 100 percent with everything they say?
Because it sounds like you voted for a candidate who is furious at the existing administration for "backpedaling from defense of Israel and stepping up pressure on its government to stop the war, claiming they’re concerned about the humanitarian disaster in Gaza."
Just because I post an article doesn’t mean I endorse everything in it. That seems to be a big misunderstanding here on Lemmy.
I read a lot of political news—some I like, some I don’t. Since this is a political news community, I post links to articles from various sources. There’s no rule that says we have to agree with everything in the articles we share.
For example, if I post a Trump article from Newsweek, it doesn’t mean I support Trump, no matter how many people jump in claiming I do. It’s like a newspaper reporting that Trump is leading in a poll—that doesn’t mean they endorse him. It’s just the news.
This isn’t a “Pro-Harris only” community. There’s plenty of pro-Harris content already, so having some opposing views won’t hurt anyone. And, by the way, I don’t support Trump and don’t care if he wins or not, but I don’t think he has any real chance.
Yes, I voted for Rachele Fruit. And yes, I am aware that her view is different than some of the other candidates. Tho I don't agree with her on every issue, I do agree with her on most.
My main interest is worker's rights stuff, not Gaza war stuff. Again, this is different than most Lemmy's. And that's ok. This community supports diversity of political thought.
So she's the candidate that most closely aligned with my views. Thanks! :)
Wow, could you be any more dismissive of the senseless deaths of innocent civilians? Workers rights don't mean a thing when you're dead.
This sentence fragment alone should get you banned from the platform, but for some reason you're allowed to continue your election interference campaign with only a biweekly slap on the wrist.
I completely agree. For me, it's a serious thing. My safety will definitely be impacted if Trump wins. I might go to prison or have my livelihood upended. But I'm not even the lowest on the pole. There are people who could die at the drop of a hat, or at the very least get kicked out of the country. There are whole nations whose fate is at stake. And, of course, making genuine progress on economic justice and real representation of the people is a key thing I would love to see, now or in the future. That's why it's irritating to see someone trying to undermine it under the guise of advancing it.
It's pretty obvious that this whole "lol" "don't care" "Gaza war stuff" pretense is just that. The guy clearly cares about the election, or he wouldn't make such a full-time mission out of posting his flood of content. It's only because he's being backed into a corner where he has to justify it that he's all of a sudden pretending that none of it means anything.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” -Jean-Paul Sartre
The technology and tactics have evolved since 1944. "Intimidate and disconcert," in online spaces, has turned into "confuse and overwhelm." But the strategy is the same. Truth is irrelevant, an obstacle to be ignored or attacked, until it becomes a casualty.
Completely agree. I'm sorry you're one of the more vulnerable members of society... that sucks. Lemmy mods are letting us down here. Sure, this guy won't redirect millions of votes but this is (pathetically) a tight race. This is supposed to be a left leaning platform, but mods aren't acting like that is true.