Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Wow, so surprising they would pick one of the most hotly contested senate races in the country with a vulnerable incumbent Democrat. Total coincidence I'm sure, and not at all an effort to help the Republican.
The green party cares about the environment man.
It's just that it's the political environment. Fucking trash.
Well that's YOUR opinion. Which you totally have a right to. As I have a right to my opinion, which differs from yours.
Funny how your opinion only comes around every 4 years and then Disappears back to russia
Funny how your opinion only comes around every 4 years and then Disappears back to russia
I'm not sure what you mean. I vote in local elections too, so not just every 4 years.
And I have been voting for longer than you have been alive.
And Greens are in other elections besides presidential:
Californians have elected 55 of the 226 office-holding Greens nationwide. Other states with high numbers of Green elected officials include Pennsylvania (31), Wisconsin (23), Massachusetts (18) and Maine (17). Maine has the highest per capita number of Green elected officials in the country and the largest Green registration percentage with more than 29,273 Greens comprising 2.95% of the electorate as of November 2006.[68] Madison, Wisconsin is the city with the most Green elected officials (8), followed by Portland, Maine (7).
Also:
https://montanafreepress.org/2024/08/21/green-party-candidate-files-to-join-u-s-senate-race/
And I have been voting for longer than you have been alive.
Wish I was wrong. I voted for first time in 1988. You?
Wish I was wrong. I voted for first time in 1988.
If that's true, it just makes your advocacy seem even more politically ignorant.
It's not my problem if you don't believe my age—I know when I started voting, and I’m confident in my choices.
What possible reason would I have to admit that I am in my mid-50's?! Dude, I'd trade what I have for your age any day of the freakin' week, brother.
But anyway, voting with my values doesn’t make me politically ignorant; it makes me true to what I believe in. And there is no reason to get personal just because you don't agree with my opinions. I respect and support your right to have your own opinions, please respect mine.
There's a bit of a history of the Republicans in Montana funding the Green Party to serve as spoilers.
The way first-past-the-post elections work makes this pretty much inevitable.
Let's look at 3 scenarios:
Scenario 1:
Tester wins
Scenario 2:
Tie between Tester and Sheehey, forcing a special election (Montana rules; other states use games of chance)
Scenario 3:
Sheehey wins
This means that voting for a minor third party instead of the Democrat actively harms the ability to elect somebody who is better-aligned with your views.
Vote your heart in the primary. Vote strategically in the general.
None of that matters to me. I'm still voting green this election.
Exactly what a Republican would say.
Exactly what a Republican would say.
I don't really know much about that.
For me personally, if I were Republican, I'd say so. And probably vote Trump. But I'm not either of those things.
So were you implying that I personally am a Republican, or just that some republicans may vote Green Party?
You do realize that the majority of my postings are for socialism causes, right? https://lemmy.world/c/socialist
You were shown a simple demonstration of the Spoiler Effect, which may cause Republicans to win the race if a third party manages to draw votes away from Democrats.
You're still endorsing voting third party, saying you don't care.
You're endorsing helping Republicans.
What the other poster is implying isn't that Republicans may vote Green. On the contrary, it's that Democrats may vote Green and split their vote, while Republicans will stand united.
At the end of the day, when the votes are counted, your ideology doesn't matter. Why you voted the way you did doesn't matter. What matters is who wins the election, and if you're consciously proposing an election strategy that may aid the Republicans, you're contributing to their chances of victory.
And if you're helping Republicans, don't be surprised if people call you a Republican.
Blaming third-party voters for a potential Republican victory is totally misguided. Lemmy has been crying about this in every post that is about third parties.
If Democrats are so worried about the spoiler effect, they should focus on putting forward stronger candidates who can unite their base.
Voting third-party is not an endorsement of Republicans; it's a demand for better representation and a push for real change.
If the Dem Party fails to inspire its voters, the fault lies with their candidates. Blame them, not the people who choose to vote their conscience.
So you'd rather have a Republican victory than a mediocre Democrat?
So you’d rather have a Republican victory than a mediocre Democrat?
I’d rather vote for a candidate who truly represents my values than settle for mediocrity just to avoid a Republican win.
Accepting "mediocre" candidates only perpetuates a cycle of compromise without real progress.
That's a yes then.
The point is that this isn't just about conscientious voting. There is a strategic element to it. That's the unfortunate reality, and standing on principles alone won't change it.
Support efforts to abolish the FPTP system to replace it with something like RCV, where you could then in good conscience vote Green first and Dem second. Support efforts at proportional representation to have Green members in the Houses. Support anything thay breaks up the two-party monopoly so that voting for a candidate who truly represents your values no longer becomes a political gamble.
But if you're saying "I'd rather split the left-wing votes and risk a Trump victory than vote for Harris", people will rightly call you a Republican muppet, because you'd essentially prefer Trump over Harris.
I’d rather vote for a candidate who truly represents my values than settle for mediocrity just to avoid a Republican win.
Voting based on principles is essential because it challenges the very system that forces voters into choosing the lesser of two evils. Real change begins when we stop accepting the status quo and demand a system where all voices are fairly represented.
Supporting third-party candidates isn't about splitting the vote—it's about pushing for the reforms necessary to break the two-party monopoly that limits our democracy.
And no, I'm not a "republican muppet" just because I am not voting for your candidate. If I wanted to vote republican, then I'd vote republican.
If Democrats are so worried about the spoiler effect, they should focus on putting forward stronger candidates who can unite their base.
Voting third-party is not an endorsement of Republicans; it’s a demand for better representation and a push for real change.
If the Dem Party fails to inspire its voters, the fault lies with their candidates. Blame them, not the people who choose to vote their conscience.
You're repeating yourself.
Supporting third-party candidates isn't about splitting the vote
...but that's the practical effect
—it's about pushing for the reforms necessary to break the two-party monopoly that limits our democracy
...which you expect to happen, if Trump wins?
And no, I'm not a "republican muppet" just because I am not voting for your candidate. If I wanted to vote republican, then I'd vote republican.
I don't think you want to vote Republican. I don't think you want a Republican government. I think you consider it an acceptable alternative to sacrificing principles. And therein lies the issue.
The question at the heart of it all - and try to answer just yes or no - is this:
Do you think Trump is preferable to Harris?
Do you think Trump is preferable to Harris?
They are both exactly the same to me.
I don't like either one. I won't vote for either one.
"The demented felon rapist backed by christofascist authoritarians seeking to abolish democracy is just as bad as the lawyer that promises tax credits to the lower and middle class, banning price gouging and has sued Big Oil in the past, whose running mate publicly endorses RCV which would make additional parties viable"
💀
They are both exactly the same to me.
I don’t like either one. I won’t vote for either one.
And if your candidate is so awesome and is such a hero, then you have no worries about winning the election. So why so mad?
Looks like a Republican engaged in cosplay
Nah, you know if someone wants to be a Republican, they can just be Republican, right? No need to cosplay.
There's a lot of stuff exactly like what you do designed to trick people into doing things that benefit Republicans
There’s a lot of stuff exactly like what you do designed to trick people into doing things that benefit Republicans
I have every right to share news and opinions about third parties, just as you have the right to share your views.
Disagreeing with my posts doesn’t mean I’m part of some grand conspiracy; it simply means we have different perspectives.
In a democracy, diverse viewpoints are essential to healthy debate, not something to be feared or dismissed.
Exactly the argument a Republican would make
I wouldn't know, because I'm not a Republican.
Most of my posting history is for Socialist causes, so not sure if you are implying I am a Republican or not.
If so, that would be laughingly disconnected from reality.
You have a 16 day old account created in the midst of an election season filled with propaganda bots.
Your posting history is simply not valid evidence. Your logic sure seems disconnected from reality.
You have a 16 day old account created in the midst of an election season filled with propaganda bots.
Yep, there does seem to be plenty of Democrat propaganda bots.
You have a 16 day old account created in the midst of an election season filled with propaganda bots. Your posting history is simply not valid evidence.
It’s funny that you point out the age of my account as evidence for your argument, yet you ignore my posting history, which actually provides stronger evidence for mine.
So is there a particular time limit, after joining Lemmy, that I have to wait to start posting my views? I didn't see that disclaimer when I signed up. How long did YOU wait to post after signing up?
I came here from reddit when the rumor of them starting to charge starting taking effect, so I didn't come here based on any magic election timing.
Nice that you decided to look up my profile, but unfortunately I haven't looked yours up, because I don't care that much.
Voting out of fear rather than conviction only perpetuates a system that fails to represent all voices; real change starts when people vote for what they truly believe in, not just what seems strategically safe.
There is a reasonable amount of time that could be considered with post history as demonstrating you aren't a bot, but 16 days just ain't it. You made the claim about your post history as evidence, I responded to YOUR claim based on a whopping 16 days worth of comments.
You are still fully disconnected from reality and reason. Your arrogance seems to drive your ego.
I didn't look up your profile, my mobile app automatically puts a tag next to a username on any new user with the number of days the account has existed. You're not that important or interesting.
I've never voted out of fear and never will. It's an easy choice to not vote for Jill Stein when I don't let cognitive dissonance blind me to her Putin associations. My strategy is always to vote in favor of People rather than Politics.
There is a reasonable amount of time that could be considered with post history as demonstrating you aren’t a bot, but 16 days just ain’t it.
Well considering that I respond to posts and have had discussions with plenty of people on here and that I have created and mod 15 Lemmy communities, I actually have proven I am not a bot.
Also, how much time do I have to be on Lemmy before you consider me not a "bot"? Also, how long did YOU wait to start posting on Lemmy after you signed up?
You are still fully disconnected from reality and reason. Your arrogance seems to drive your ego.
But if I am a "bot," then how can i have arrogance and ego?!
You’re not that important or interesting.
I agree.
It’s an easy choice to not vote for Jill Stein when I don’t let cognitive dissonance blind me to her Putin associations. My strategy is always to vote in favor of People rather than Politics.
And I support and respect your choice to vote for who you want. Do you respect and support my choice to vote for who I want?
Also that photo has already been discussed.
https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-ties-vladimir-putin-explained-1842620