this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
642 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24229 readers
2915 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 85 points 8 months ago (3 children)

"Once noble party" - ffs.

Jill Stein is a bad actor in this election, she understands how the electoral college works and she understands she's weakening the democratic party position. But let's not blame shift - the Democrats could be much better on climate change then they are today and if they were better Stein's BS wouldn't have such an easy time attracting voters. I dislike the title posing it as "Stein may hand Trump the whitehouse again."

[–] [email protected] 55 points 8 months ago (8 children)

Even if the argument about getting X% of votes was true, the states to campaign heavy in would be the deep blue/red states. Especially since they tend to get ignored by candidates.

Instead she sticks to the states where <30k votes could decide the election and the market is saturated with the most expensive ad costs

It's blantantly obvious what's she's doing.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's the nature of the Electoral College. It sucks. Do you think the Electoral College is something Kamala Harris invented or even wants?

Hate the game, not the playa.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think you may have replied to the wrong person?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No I think the point is that of course she campaigns in swing states cause she wants to get to 5% of the vote so she can get access to more money. But it's the same stayes everyone is paying attention too.

Its false logic to say she's only dangerous in those states cause they are already close and we just have to pay extra attention to them because they are the swing states.

Is coincidental pattern seeking.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Its false logic to say she’s only dangerous in those states cause they are already close and we just have to pay extra attention to them because they are the swing states.

The 5% can come from Cali alone and not effect the race tho.

And it would be cheaper because of less competition for ads, the voters there are often ignored and would more receptive, and there are way more voters who are left of the Dem.party there

If she is honestly trying to do what she says, then she is doing it in the least efficient way possible and has been for a very long time.

If what she's really doing is trying to hand Republicans the election, then she seems to have put a lot of thought into the best possible way to do it and is focusing on that.

So take your pick:

  1. She's honest but a terrible leader and absolutely dog shit at planning.

  2. She's a liar but either her or her handlers have put a lot of thought into how to get trump elected.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Just an aside, this person thinks that the green party should just get 5% of the national population to vote for them from a single state and that it wouldn't change anything or cause any ripples.

5% of the US population is about 18 million people.

17 million voted in the state of California in total in 2020.

Remember everyone. Basic math isn't just a thing your teacher thought would be important for no reason. It does have use in the real world.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

the states to campaign heavy in would be the deep blue/red states.

Agreed. If a third party pulls off a major change in one of these states, it's still likely to go for it's color regardless so the presidential outcome is not affected, but it'd force the relevant parties to examine why the third party was able to make such huge inroads and what of their own policies that they should change.

It’s blantantly obvious what’s she’s doing.

But for posterity I'll state it; she's spoiling for a GOP win.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Without 3rd party options we still wouldn't vote for people that don't represent us.

[–] aubeynarf 43 points 8 months ago (4 children)

funny that with instant runoff voting, your vote would go to a larger party as soon as your fringe candidate got eliminated.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Perhaps, but I'd feel a lot better knowing I was able to vote for my fringe nutjob without handing their fringe nutjob the Whitehouse. And if my fringe nutjob lost, then I could still keep voting for who I truly believe is best. And by the time all my fringe nutjobs were eliminated, and I had to vote for a Democrat again, I'd at least know that we truly and democratically came to that answer. I don't have to be "right" about the best candidate, but I hate casting a damage control vote that feels like a lie.

So as it stands, I hate voting, I hate having to vote for Democrats, and I just suck it up and do it anyway because we don't have the time to collectively push for a better option.

Plus, if everyone could vote for their fringe nutjob without fear of giving the election to the worst possible option, we might find out that more people support ideas outside of the two party system. Maybe even shifting the Overton window and opening the door for a more representative electorate.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

This might surprise some people, but I actually agree with this. I'd love to take a risk on a Green or Socialist or even Libertarian candidate without risking throwing my vote away to the Republican. I'd still not do it with Presidents (the Electoral College fucks you over there), but I'm voting for RCV this November and look forward to eventually being able to not just vote for the lesser evil, nor have to vote for the crook because the other option in that election is a literal fascist...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Maybe those grifters should run for lower offices first instead of wasting peoples’ time and money on un-winnable elections that are entirely beholden to what congress’ makeup ends up being.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe, but since you don't know who my personal nutjobs are, maybe your assumptions are fundamentally flawed? Maybe they have run for lower office? Maybe they have won elections? Maybe they aren't grifters, but concerned citizens who truly want to make a difference in the best way they know how? Maybe assuming someone is falling for grifters is a bit unfair?

Or maybe I was taken in by a grifter all along and would still benefit from Ranked Choice Voting so I don't throw away my vote and let Trump back in the Whitehouse? Either way it's an improvement.

Fwiw, my personal nutjob is Bernie, and even if he didn't win, I consider the shift he made in American politics to have value in its own right.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Lol, okay, I'll give you that. I'm not well.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

Need 🤣 reaction. So ⬆ instead.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

not when the ballot looks like:

___ democrat
___ republican
___ independent
___ independent
_2_ honest guy without a chance in hell
___ who da fk is this guy
_1_ fringe nutjob

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

Run off voting would give the honest guy the greatest chance at winning. There would be no strategic voting, just voting for the one who best represents you, and a bare minimum contingency.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So you're saying that Jill Stein, the Russian asset who is actively working to get Donald Trump elected president, represents you and your group?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (3 children)

They need to earn votes.

The Senate investigated that dinner and found nothing. Everything you don't like isnt always Russian

[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

lol, what a stupid way to say "yes, Jill Stein and her active campaign to get Donald Trump elected does support my values"

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Third parties wouldn't be a threat to their power if they weren't shit parties.

Why don't liberals vote for Trump and push him left after the election, since that worked out so well with Biden.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago

Do you actually read comments, or do you just pull your bull shit out of a hat?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

Are you high?

Can you pass that shit my way? I'd like to lose contact with reality to the extent you have, looks fun.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago

Online trolls from the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency used social media to promote Stein’s candidacy during the 2016 campaign, according to an indictment brought by special counsel Robert Mueller against the Russian organization and 13 of its employees. The Russians’ pro-Stein efforts included paid advertisements on Facebook that explicitly encouraged Americans to vote for Stein, according to the indictment.

A summation of the report’s findings on “comprehensive anti-Hillary Clinton operations” said while the group’s assumed Twitter personas had some pro-Clinton content, “the developed Left-wing Twitter personas were still largely anti-Clinton and expressed pro-Bernie Sanders and pro-Jill Stein sentiments.”

Likewise, the report said “pro-Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein content” were among the group’s go-to themes across other platforms.

The tactics and strategies that the Kremlin directed included every major social media platform you can think of — Facebook, Instagram, Twitter — and a few you’d never suspect, including Pinterest, LinkedIn and 4Chan. The hashtags alone tell the story— #MAGA #TrumpTrain #Hillary4Prison #ZombieHillary #SickHillary. Along with anti-Clinton stories, they also pushed out messages against Trump’s primary rivals like Sen. Ted Cruz and former Gov. Jeb Bush. Once in the general election, they pumped up third-party candidates to siphon support away from Clinton with posts including, “A vote for Jill Stein is not a wasted vote.”

Not everything I don't like is Russian. But some Russian things, I don't like.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The Senate investigation found nothing illegal. That doesn't mean Stein isn't trying to help russian interests.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

And Trump is in Russias pocket, and Biden and Harris are in Israels.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

And trump is in Israel's too. He's in every pocket with a pocket book. You know he'll give israel everything they want and then some. I wouldn't be surprised at another Kent state over this if he gets elected.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

The only person who would represent me is myself, and I wouldn't vote for myself because I don't want that shitty job

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why aren't you so noisy during primaries?

Oh that's right, your true intentions are masked by bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

You must be new around here

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The GOP is the "drill baby drill" party though.

The Green Party is not going to win. The only message that voting for Jill Stein will send to the Democratic party is they need to move more to the center to get more reliable voters. It's already heppening. Harris doesn't like fracking but she's not going to ban it and she has to talk about increase US oil production to get votes from people she knows will turn up and won't flake out and vote green or be uncommitted or whatever.

If she wins she will be more inclined to fulfill promises made to the people who actually voted for her. Sure she'll need to represent everyone, but there'll be far more people that voted GOP she'll need to represent (and entice to maybe vote for her in the next election) than green party voters.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Voting isn't public so how the hell does everyone keep assuming we know who voted for her at the election?

The people that didn't vote for her didn't vote for her.
You can't claim she didn't get the trump republican voters so it's an indicator she needs to move to the left, right? Or Libertarian party?

Its weird false logic based on feelings about justifying a truly tiny group of people voting green as villians. the main base of Kamalas voters should also be Democrats who shouldn't pander and frack just cause she needed an extra 2% at the polls. We are gonna shift further right for that and more Republicans instead of going for any undecided first?

I don't get it. Make the logic make sense.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

I'm not saying people that vote green are villains. They're just ignorant of how things work and act irrationally because of their ignorance.