• jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    19 days ago

    The point is, the winner of our elections will be either the Democrat or the Republican. There is no viable 3rd choice.

    So, you hold your nose and vote for whoever is closest to your view who will actually get elected to prevent the person farthest from your view from taking office.

    And don’t give me that bullshit about “well, neither one is close to my view” because if Gore won in 2000 we wouldn’t have been attacked on 9/11 and burned trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if Clinton had won in 2016, we wouldn’t have a packed right wing Supreme Court and lost Roe.

    Both sides are NOT the same, one is CLEARLY better than the other for you and everyone else.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      Its like you are allergic to the plain understanding that how you present this case, is just fucking wrong. No matter how much you wish it was that there were only two choices in this race, thats just not true. You drank the kool-aid. We get it. You see no other options. Other people do. Other people in the world see things differently than you, and clearly, Rashida Tlaib is one of them.

      Voters don’t have to vote. You can vote green, or blue, or red or purple. Or you can write in some other name. You can’t force your opinion on the world when your opinion doesn’t match objective reality.

      This fantastic world you’ve locked yourself in, its not the real world. Its an opinion that you have (which is fine), but which is not the same as the objective reality, because people actually can (and should, my opinion) vote however they please.

      Both sides are NOT the same, one is CLEARLY better than the other for you and everyone else.

      I don’t disagree, but you @jordanlund@lemmy.world , are going to have to take responsibility for the fact that this rhetorical approach you are using has done more damage to Harris’ chances than it has convinced anyone that they need to vote Democrat. Its a view point that has been cultivated, selected for across lemmy which is toxic, not based in reality, and counter productive to the actual goals you suppose to have. Everyone that thinks the way you do has been convinced. Now what are you going to do about the people who don’t think the way you do? How are you going to get the voters for whom a genocide is unacceptable? Its too late at this point, but what I’m showing you is how this this toxic culture divided the party and its ability

      Blue MAGA/ Blue no matter who; they were always going to vote Democrat. You don’t need to work on them. They’re just followers and setting your rhetoric up to convince them is a waste of time, because you’ve already got their votes. Its the people for whom certain issues are a bridge too far that need to be convinced. And when you offer an argument that “they have no choice but to do what you want them to”, do you think that is going to convince them. When you abuse them and gaslight them, how convincing do you think they’ll find that?

      I’m of the opinion that you can’t ask a Palestinian or Muslim voter to vote Democrat this year, since Democrats don’t even see them as people. They wouldn’t even allow a Muslim 3 minutes on stage to make the case to other Muslims why they should vote for Harris. What Tlaib is doing here is probably the right move politically if she wants to hold her seat. Her job is to represent her constituents, not the party, and if she thinks this is the right thing to do, I support her in that.

      My argument, is that Democrats have left a lane wide open, and from a purely strategic/ cynical view of things, it would be stupid for some-one/ anyone to not just hop in and take that lane. I think we see Talib, Omar, maybe Porter, any other progressives who’ve been ratfucked by the DNC/ DCCC take that lane as independents. Its a blue ocean/ wide open opportunity that rarely shows itself in politics.

      If the Democrats are going to keep heading to the right like Harris has, I expect more progressive Independents to start appearing, striking back to the approach that Bernie Sanders used to great effect in the senate over his tenure.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        19 days ago

        There are only two choices WHO CAN WIN.

        Stein can’t win, the Greens don’t have the power and have NEVER had the power. Their best shot was Nader with name recognition and he couldn’t crack 3%.

        Without Nader the very best they have done was 1.07% in 2016. Other than that? Sub 1% over, and over.

        The Libertarian candidate could have pulled it out if disaffected Republicans had become Libertarians instead of Independents. Pro-Tip - they have not.

        Kennedy’s out.

        The idiot socialist isn’t even on the ballot in enough states to win.

        West is on the ballot in fewer states than that.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election

        I agree, I’d love for our system to have multiple VIABLE parties, but we don’t. Your choice is the Democratic or Republican candidate, full stop.

        If you want to change that, you aren’t going to do it by voting for fringe candidates who will get 1% of the vote or less.

        The correct way to change it is to pass ranked choice balloting. If you have a chance to support that (we did, on our ballot!) then go for it!

            • Count042@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              18 days ago

              I haven’t voted on 118 yet. It’s the only bit unfilled. Not sure which way I’ll go. Probably no, and then walk the ballot to a Dropbox in my neighborhoods library.

              • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                18 days ago

                My beef with it is that it’s just a Robin Hood law. They want to replicate Alaska’s oil dividend, but we don’t have a natural resource like that so the plan is to just soak the largest companies in the state instead.

                I’m all for fairly taxing the wealthiest companies, but the money should be used to reduce our tax burden, not just kick it back to everyone else. Phil Knight doesn’t need $1,600 back.