A vote for Jill Stein, Cornel West, Oliver Chase, or not voting, is a vote for Trump. Palestinian lives don’t matter to Trump, nor do they really matter to Harris; however in general, Harris will be better for Americans than Trump, so vote for Harris.
A vote for Jill Stein, Cornel West, Oliver Chase, or not voting, is a vote for Trump.
Just as a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.
Imagine if Nader didn’t run. Imagine there was no Green Party candidate for US President.
Gore would have probably won, and America would have been the better for it. Probably no Iraq war, maybe not even a 911. As a result Iran probably wouldn’t be as strong, and Putin probably would have less to legitimately oppose about the US, and would himself be seen as less legitimate—indeed Ukraine might still be whole today.
A new Green deal would probably be in full swing.
Granted, Harris doesn’t really care about Palestinians, and some elements of the Democratic party care even less; but Trump cares even less than Harris, and what he will do to the US will be worse.
So while Israel massacres civilians and steals more land, at least under Harris American women would still more easily get abortions, we will have fewer TGs committing suicide (maybe), and health care will be a little more universal.
Also with the 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, the Big 3 will be able to better produce good inexpensive cars (as they’ve been at least somewhat intending these past several decades), and fascism will have less of a hold on the US.
Therefore: vote for Harris.
If you are a progressive: vote for Harris.
If you are an environmentalist: vote for Harris.
If you are a libertarian: vote for Harris.
If you support voting reforms such as proportional representation, rank balloting, the abolition of the Electoral College, and/or more political diversity: vote for Harris.
If you are nauseated at the idea of voting for Harris: take a barf bag with you while you vote for Harris.
If you are a Palestinian-American who has a relative who was injured, maimed, or even murdered, in Gaza, you should still vote for Harris, because again, Trump doesn’t care about them either, but at least you, as an American citizen, will get a better deal Harris than under Trump.
(I’m not entirely sure if I agree with all the above, but I find it hard to refute.)
3rd party votes are valid votes and anyone who tells you your vote isn’t yours is the problem.
advocates for flawed parisan fear-mongering and bullying are the reason the US has a self-fulfilled and self-perpetuating, broken, two-party system.
voting for Jill Stein, West, Chase, Trump, or Harris is up to you.
It’s your right to vote for who you vote for.
you have to be wildly ignorant or violently prejudiced to vote for Trump, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to vote for who you vote for.
I also can’t see why you would vote for a third party instead of Harris given that almost all their policies overlap and Harris has made actual progress on green party policies, but that isn’t my call because your vote isn’t mine.
Of course everyone is free to vote for the cancer instead of the cure. No one is arguing this so put the straw man away for a moment and try and follow:
The argument here is about the lack of understanding of what is at stake, and the sheer ignorance it requires to chose the cancer over the cure.
“Of course everyone is free to vote…”
OP disagrees, which is the point I am addressing.
“No one is arguing this”
The OP is arguing this.
"put the straw man away for a moment
frustrating that you all learned these buzzwords and regurgitate them without understanding what they mean or taking the trouble to use them properly.
I am directly refuting their points using their own quotations as supporting evidence.
that is not a straw man. that is a direct, contextual, referenced response.
“The argument here is about the lack of understanding of what is at stake.”
it should be, but it is not.
that is your “straw man”.
You clearly have a reading comprehension problem-
They never once’s said you cannot vote for who you want. Maybe read it again from the perspective of someone that isn’t trying to build a straw man.
“You clearly have a reading comprehension problem-”
hm.
“They never once’s said”
hm.
“Maybe read it again from the perspective of someone that isn’t trying to build a straw man.”
using words you hear a lot in every situation doesn’t mean you’re using them correctly.
I am directly refuting their points using their own quotations as supporting evidence.
that is not a straw man. that is a direct, contextual, referenced response.
So it’s not my job to educate you here, but I will if it helps you to better understand how to read for context. Ready?
Shouldn’t doesn’t mean can’t.
For example:
“You shouldn’t vote third party. It is an incredibly selfish and stupid thing to do at the eleventh hour of a critical election.”
Is not the same thing as:
“You can’t vote third party!”
I sincerely hope this helps you understand how OP didn’t one time tell anyone that they can’t vote for who they want to- only that it’s ignorant and irresponsible to do so.
Now… I’m not entertaining your bullshit any further because this is the most basic I can get with regards to explaining the fundamentals of the written word.
The rest is up to you.
Good luck.
If the Harris team could make it harder for 3rd parties to register, it will be good for her chances, and thus probably a bit better for the US.
What would probably be better still is Harris being President for the next 10 to 12 years, without the need for Presidential elections—which are distracting from her necessary work.
“So it’s not my job to educate you here…”
or within your skill set, since you’re clearly confused about even the simplified comments written for you.
“OP didn’t one time tell anyone that they can’t vote”
Cool, nobody said they did.
did you finally look up what a “strawman” is?
are you trying to make up strawmen until I make one up back or something?
I don’t really truck with those.
“…only that t’s ignorant and irresponsible to do so.”
it is not ignorant or irresponsible to vote for a third party if you find that candidate best represents your policies and are socially responsible people.
as stated in my original comment, people like you and op who don’t believe in the right to vote are the reason the US has a two-party system in the first place.
you and op are part of the reason the US electoral system has devolved until someone like Trump could win in the first place.
vote for your candidate, people.
You said right here after I said that everyone is free to vote- that OP is suggesting people aren’t free to vote their choice. So, stop lying.
No one said they’re not valid. Just that at this point in time, they’re fucking stupid.
Again, no one said they can’t vote for who they want.
Again, this ain’t up for debate as it’s not being argued against. No one said anyone can’t vote for who they want.
Redundant, because this was already covered several times already-
Redundant. See above.
So you see. YOU have said several times that OP is trying to insinuate that people don’t have rights to vote for their chosen candidate- or you wouldn’t be rebutting it.
These are bad faith accusations. The proof is above in direct quotes from you. I’m not arguing this any further.
Enjoy the last word.
“You said right here that OP is suggesting people aren’t free to vote their choice.”
you are incorrect again, scarecrow
OP says third party choices aren’t valid, and no matter what, you must vote for Harris
you and OP are the reason Trump got elected.
“…they’re fucking stupid.”
no, they are votes for good candidates that you personally don’t prefer.
their vote is not your choice, suck it up.
it doesn’t make 3rd party votes wrong or “stupid”.
you are attempting to invalidate the right and freedom to vote for one’s chosen candidate.
you’re the reason the US election system is broken.
“Again, no one said they can’t vote for who they want.”
The op said that you must vote for Harris no matter what.
you apparently agree.
you are the problem.
“…this[the right to choose your own candidate] ain’t up for debate”
maybe you should stop arguing against the freedom to vote then?
it is weird that you are arguing against voting.
“OP is trying to insinuate that people don’t have rights to vote for their chosen candidate”
there you go.
Yes, demanding that people only vote the way op wants them to vote is a problem.
If you were curious why I repeat very simple sentences for certain people, your leisurely dawning comprehension is why.
a vote for a good candidate is a vote for a good candidate.
All those words, what a waste of effort.
Just say “let the Palestinians die, that will show that politician I disagree with!”.
why do you want Palestinians to die?
as a “gotcha?”
you have deep problems, sicko.
What do you think of the 100% tariff on Chinese EVs?
the EV point from OP is flawed.
tldr: Auto tariffs will only help the big three American car manufacturers if their policy is to match Chinese EV production, but the big three have apparently decided to focus on traditional profit programs exclusive to producing EVS.
in full:
The EV paragraph from the post is nonsensical. their faith in the “Big 3” is misplaced and the implied understanding of auto manufacturing is coming from pride or historical intuition instead of current and recent historical events.
China is a factory economy that has switched in large part to manufacturing EVs and has invested more in EVs conforming to western auto regulations than western companies have.
The West has been asking china to produce car parts for 30 years, and China can do that at a much lower cost then anyone else can, even with 100% tariffs.
during the influx of articles about Chinese EV’s flooding the market before tariffs were enacted, I regularly wrote that you would have to have a 100% tariff for Western countries to even get close to Chinese EV prices, but you need 200% tariffs Stern manufacturers to match Chinese mass-market EVS.
It’s still cheaper to buy a Chinese EVs at 100% tariffs than buy a Western EV of comparable quality, politicians are trying to buy Auto manufacturers a few years to catch up with the auto manufacturing processes in China.
problem is, they appear to just assume Western Auto manufacturers will catch up instead of focusing production on catching up to Chinese production capacity.
the big three need more than a few years to catch up with the production capacity of a factory economy that’s been running at full capacity for over 3 decades.
they’ve already had those few years, and have flip-flopped on whether or not EVs are the way forward despite the obvious technological and production advantages.
China has kept their eye on the ball and has swept ahead of EV competition as a result.
each of the big three have decided to focus on their own company instead, so each individual American car company is traditionally flailing against a modern nationally subsidized Chinese EV industry.
aptera is the only company i know of that could take China on by themselves because they’ve refined a new type of mass-market EV for cheaper, but initial funding is necessary, and no other car manufacturer wants aptera to get that funding because then Tesla and everybody else’s ass is grass(by which I mean they would lose a couple million dollars a year to a superior product, but like an iPhone, many people would persist in choosing Tesla simply because of the brand).
Big American companies don’t normally take that kind of “risk”(fair competition) and do not inherently value the benefit of a level playing field.
the big three are very consistently focused on personal profit via conservative production policy instead of catching up to the production capacity of quality EVs that China is capable of and invested in, so the big three are are losing that fight on every front.
You get to feel good morally at the cost of a few thousand Palestinian lives.
Great work 👌
Palestinians are going to be genocided and there’s nothing (at least nothing effective) Americans can do about it in their choice for President.
A vote for Trump is a vote for genocide.
A vote for Harris is a vote for genocide.
A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump and is thus a vote for genocide.
As a voter for US President, you are powerless to stop the genocide.
you just bragged in the other comment about how you’re excited to let Palestinians die for political motivations; I don’t know what moral stance you think you should feel good about.
A vote for Harris is the lesser evil because while under her, perhaps another 40 000 Palestinians will be murdered during her term (perhaps her 1st of 2 terms) and perhaps a multiple of Palestinian lives will be injured, maimed, and/or otherwise ruined;
while Israel murders many Palestinian babies, murder perhaps 100s of Palestinian LGBTQIs—perhaps more than what Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have done combined in the past 10 years; and Palestinian houses destroyed and orchards denuded;
while all the while Netanyahu wags his finger and lectures her through CNN and other MSN;
at least over 330 million Americans will be a bit better off, and a few 100s of American women and LGBTQs will be greatly better off.
are you asking for confirmation?
some of that sounds correct, some of it is laughably incorrect, none of it seems particularly relevant to the matter at hand.
are you just voicing a general agreement with my support for Harris?
I’m taking the anti-third-party sentiments I’ve encountered on Lemmy and reddit and distilling it a bit further.
Vote for the lesser evil, the ends justify the means, politics is the art of compromise, it’s not how you play the game, winning isn’t the biggest thing (it’s the only thing), laws are like sausages, always be closing, etc …,
If you know how absurd anti-third-party sentiments are, why did you make this post?
I suppose I’m debating with myself.
Their arguments, AFAIK, for now at least, aren’t easily refuted.
The Bush Presidency of 2001 to 2009 was bad, and arguably if Nader wasn’t around, Gore would have won; and no Presidential candidate will stop the genocide, but Trump will be worse for the US.
Some of my counter arguments are here: https://lemmy.world/post/21081704
Perhaps I should create a page on Wikidebates: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Category:Wikidebates
i see.
I think you weren’t making clear question you wanted answered, I thought you were just attacking third party voters.
people are focusing on third party voters because it’s easy to bully them one way or the other, are not at all as statistically significant as the other problems with the elections.
bush didn’t win because of third party voters, bush won because his brother asked the secretary of State to stop counting the votes so that his brother would win. she did, the Supreme Court said yeah. counting votes is for losers anyway, and said they could stop camping votes.
and then W won.
voter suppression and direct election interference by conservatives are much more of a problem than third-party voters justifiably voting who they want to vote for.
harris is the best candidate this election, in many different areas.
you’re looking for reasons why she might not be the best candidate?
If you have a specific question you want to ask, let me know.
you sound like you’re not quite sure what you’re looking for, but if you figure it out, I have all day and I’m not as ignorant as everybody dunking on third party Canada to see him the right to vote in this threat seems to be.
let me know.
Democrats don’t want to hold themselves accountable for how uniquely un-democratic their party is (internally). If the Democrats can’t win elections, thats on them for running candidates that are uniquely unpopular or who support unpopular policies. And the worst of it all, right, is this assinine supposition that they are owed your vote because you’ve got no-where else to go. I mean look at 2016. Bernies running away with it and the Hillary campaign quite literally colludes with the DNC to box him out. Sure the e-mails weren’t meant to get out: but their contents where never disputed. 2020, and it was a practical fucking coup on Super-Tuesday (well, the weekend before), with all the middling moderates dropping out on the same day and Warren sticking it out to split the progressive vote. 2024, calls for Biden to not run started in 2023, and they dragged it out till so close to the end we didn’t even get to have a primary.
Yet its the voters fault when they don’t vote for the candidate. Maybe read the room.
Thank you saying this.
“Democrats don’t want to hold themselves accountable for how uniquely un-democratic their party is (internally).”
vague, unsupported take.
“If the Democrats can’t win elections”
they can and did win against the most popular demagogue in US history a few years ago.
they can win just fine.
and if they don’t, they don’t.
It’s an election.
“is this assinine supposition that they are owed your vote because you’ve got no-where else to go”
Yes, that’s exactly the problem with this position.
this post forces upon two options to choose from and people should throw away their rights to vote so that they can support tribes rather than candidates or policies, which I agree is asinine.
“Yet its the voters fault when they don’t vote for the candidate”
It’s the voter’s fault when they do vote for their candidate
I’m not sure what you’re confused about here.
are you saying that because the US electoral system is corrupt you have to fight back with corrupt methods?
I literally can’t tell what you’re arguing by the end of that post.
Please don’t do this each sentence is a paragraph writing style.
I separate by paragraphs and subject, rather than sentences.
Either way, I don’t think I should oblige.
Keeping distinct points clear is a courtesy.
People have trouble following cluttered paragraphs.
You put one topic together as a paragraph. What you’re doing now makes it harder to follow, not easier.
that hasn’t happened, you’re confused.
? Correct, you haven’t put one topic together in a paragraph. Aka, that hasn’t happened. And I’m saying you should put one topic together in a paragraph.
“you haven’t put one topic together in a paragraph”
incorrect again.
you’re requesting that I put several distinct topics together within one paragraph like that other person?
or you just don’t understand the difference between topics?
how is reading multiple topics in one block of text simpler than reading multiple paragraphs?
Even if you have one topic, how is one wall of text simpler than organizing a lengthy analysis of the topic by category?
I have a feeling you two are making this up, I’ve never heard about people being as confused as you two claim to be by short, organized paragraphs in my life.
Different people have different views, so please do whatever you feel like, but I found it difficult to read what you wrote because of the style. I’m not asking you to change, but I want to let you know that your style may be good for some but bad for others.
“I found it difficult to read what you wrote because of the style.”
because of disctinct paragraphs? color me skeptical.
you find a single block of text simpler to follow than reading separate statements organized by subject?
If this is true, do you have trouble reading every book and article written because they are not single blocks of text?
do you find single blocks of text somehow easier to read?
or:
"I found it difficult to read what you wrote because of the style."because of distinct paragraphs? color me skeptical.you find this single block of text simpler to follow than reading separate statements organized by subject? If this is true, do you have trouble reading every book and article written because they are not single blocks of text? do you find single blocks of text somehow easier to read?
Bruh I offered 3 legs of support, enough to build a table, stfu.
Yeah how did they do that? Because what I recall happening is that Joe Biden took significant steps to the left after beating Bernie on super-tuesday to build a winning coalition. Harris is running to the right of Biden on literally everything right now.
No ones’ confused about anything, you just have wrong/ incoherent response.
“Bruh I offered 3 legs of support”
If one of those legs is your faith in the american auto industry, I eviscerated that a couple comments over.
nobody asked me about the other two.
“Yeah how did they do that?”
Trump lost because more people voted for Biden.
“you just have wrong/ incoherent response.”
examples?
what are you confused about?
Literally the only person confused here, in both style and content, is you.
I’m making very clear, logical points and responding immediately and directly to comments from dozens of people, quoting them so that people can easily apprehend the context of my comments.
you are the only one who keeps complaining that you don’t understand what you’re reading or what very simple words and concepts mean.
You are confused.
You can ask for clarification on what you’re confused about.
some people are picking it up faster; you need a little extra help.
go ahead and ask.
No I’m not. Other people are calling you out in this very thread for being obtuse.
There doesn’t appear to be anything to understand because you are blithering.
“No I’m not”
you keep complaining that things don’t make sense to you, but you won’t ask questions about the things that are confusing you.
you are complaining about them instead of trying to find a solution.
“There doesn’t appear to be anything to understand…”
you are confused.
that doesn’t mean there aren’t any ideas to understand, it means you are unable to understand them.
That’s not a problem with the information; it’s a problem with your comprehension.