-52
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
-52 points (12.9% liked)
politics
19096 readers
4860 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yesterday, I happily voted third party and dropped off my ballot. And I support RCV. People can do both. Thank you! :)
Congrats on helping Trump (if you are in a swing state) or wasting your vote!
I didn't vote for Trump. Thanks! :)
That's not what I said.
By your logic, anyone who votes for anyone is “helping” someone else.
If I truly wanted to help Trump, I would have voted for him—not a third-party candidate. So no, I didn't help Trump. I also didn't help Harris--and that's your main point.
And I'm proud I didn't help Harris. Because I didn't want to vote for her. Thank you! :)
I didn't especially "want" to brush my teeth last night, but I did anyway. Because I know that the alternative is opening up the door to things I don't want, even more than I don't want to brush my teeth.
If someone woke up and said, I'm proud I didn't brush my teeth, because I didn't want to, I would have trouble looking at them as a source of wisdom about how to accomplish the goals they're trying to pursue.
Cute analogy, But that doesn’t apply to voting because voting isn’t a routine obligation—it’s an opportunity to choose what you believe in.
Just like choosing not to brush your teeth doesn’t change the necessity of dental hygiene, choosing to vote third party isn’t ignoring reality, it’s actively rejecting a system that fails to represent true change. Thanks! :)
You're so close to getting it. Millimeters away.
And yet I already voted. For exactly who I wanted to vote for. Thank you! :)
Yeah, for Trump. Because that’s what a vote for Jill Stein is.
Your refusal to accept reality in circular logic does not make you correct.
No, they're voting for Pro-Israel candidate Rachele Fruit. Quoted earlier this year:
No, a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Stein is a vote for Stein.
I've already voted. And I didn't vote for Stein. Or Trump. Or Harris. Thank you! :)
That’s obviously not how it works. You refusal to accept that reality does not make you correct.
https://www.axios.com/2024/09/27/jill-stein-democrats-2024-republicans
It appears lots of people disagree with you. Which is why Democrats are so afraid. Thank you! :)
Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy: being popular doesn’t make you correct. And obviously not many really think that, or Stein would actually be a viable candidate.
Once again, Your refusal to accept reality does not make you correct. And, by the numbers, it doesn’t make you popular either.
Well then you guys and the Democratic Party have nothing to worry about! Right? So no stress. Thank you! :)
How did you arrive at that conclusion? The facts don’t support it. Democrats were ever worried that Stein would be elected.
Well Dems are definitely worried that enough people will vote for her that it'll cause them problems. They even started an ad campaign against her! LOL
So like I said originally, "looks like lots of people disagree with you." If there weren't lots of people disagreeing with you and voting third party, then you'd have nothing to worry about. Thank you! :)
Like everything you’ve ever said here, that makes no sense.
Dems are concerned she’ll be a spoiler candidate whose votes will help Trump win (and they’re right about that), not that Stein would be a viable candidate— this has been explained to you. You’re conflating the two.
And, more faulty logic:
Once again, Dems aren’t worried she would win or that she’s popular (as neither are true). And it doesn’t take “lots” to spoil the election, just “enough”.
Single-digit percentages - a tiny fraction - does not constitute “a lot” nor “popular”.
Again, your refusal to accept reality does not make you correct. It doesn’t even make you popular.
They are worried that enough people don't agree with them and will vote third party. They even made an ad about it. Thank you! :)
So? That certainly doesn’t explain your nonsense logic.
Well there are enough people who believe in my "nonsense logic," that it's causing Democrats to be scared. Oh well. Thanks! :)
Argument as populum— being popular does not make you correct. Neither does your refusal to accept reality.
Again, what led you to the conclusion you made? The facts don’t support it.
I stand by what I said. Thank you! :)
Which was flawed logic and not based on facts.
Why would you do that?
You are simply wrong about this. Completely wrong, and blindly pretending you’re right. I pride myself on giving people as much benefit of the doubt as possible, but you appear to be willingly trolling now, or you are incapable of learning new concepts and ideas and understanding the consequences of your actions. It’s quite selfish and concerning actually. In any case, I’m done trying. If that was your plan, to tire us out of arguing against your complete lack of logic or willingness to understand reality, then you win. Just know, you’re still wrong about some very fundamental concepts of our society.
I gave my opinion. I voted for who I wanted to vote for. And I think everyone has the right to vote for whoever they want to vote for. Thanks! :)
You are boring and since you don’t reply to me anymore you apparently know when you are beat.
Unlike the candidates you choose.
Voting is routine and an obligation. Brushing those one’s teeth is not “a moral or legal duty”. Your reasoning is flawed.
No one has to vote either. Not everyone has the same morals as you. Thanks! :)
Nobody claimed that voting was compulsory. Just an obligation. Those aren’t the same thing.
So you know that what you said was false. Then why did you say that?
Not everyone feels it's an obligation. Plenty of people don't vote. I did though. Thank you! :)
So? That doesn’t address the question— it’s just a non-sequitur. And clearly you do believe it’s an obligation, because you did vote.
Now that you’ve acknowledged that your claims were false, why did you say them?
You gave me a definition of obligation. I point out that not everyone feels voting is an obligation. Thank you! :)
So? Peoples feelings, don’t change the meaning of a word, and you are still avoiding the question. Why are you too scared to answer?
Rejecting the system by participating in it? And how does a candidate that will definitely never win “represent change“?
Like I said, definitely still possible. It is certainly an action that you can take.