politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Fucking lulz.
Leftists don't actually have to be against capitalism as a concept. Some of us do support european-esque capitalism because of easier access to healthcare and education.
And that's the bare minimum, but the most impactful, and the most realistic. You, the 3rd party voter, can't even cite when they have ever made a dent in the nation-wide scale, and you very well know that you can't convince educated leftists to split their vote to give it to Trump. But, do try, and I'll be laughing at the attempts.
>Leftists don’t actually have to be against capitalism
there is a cure for political illiteracy
Note that capitalism is everywhere, and politicians that do not want to change their economic system to socialism are still counted to left for strong support toward welfare, healthcare, etc. Heavily regulated capitalism is left to the center. Do you have an argument against this?
>you very well know that you can’t convince educated leftists to split their vote to give it to Trump
leftists certainly wouldn't give their vote to trump
Yeah, if they were leftists, they vote left on downballot and vote for realistic options that is closest to left on general. That means, third parties are out unless ranked choice is a thing.
>That means, third parties are out unless ranked choice is a thing.
why would a leftist vote for a conservative politician? they wouldn't
In context of Biden, it's to have him on the white house to get some benefits possible, and he is the most realistic option because of Duverger's Law. Which goes back to my point of there is no good answer as to when was the last time third party has made a huge dent electorally.
if you're a leftist, and you are voting for biden, don't pretend it's because he's a leftist or will help leftists. he's not and he won't.
Let's see. Student debt cleared to some degree. Pay raise for low wage workers. Yes, there were some.
Also, love that you ignored the issue of Duverger's Law.
>you ignored the issue of Duverger’s Law.
just as i would have if you'd raised the book of revelation. lots of people believe it predicts the future, but it doesn't.
One is observed, and the other is guess work. Nice try, anyway.
both have equal predictive power
By what evidence do you have for that? We can look at vote records and note that Duverger's Law matches electoral records, and it is based on real world observation of elections. The other one has zero predictive power because it's not based on anything other than guess work.
>We can look at vote records and note that Duverger’s Law matches electoral records, and it is based on real world observation of elections
so? so tell me what the split is going to be in november using duverger's law. make a prediction using it.
At this point in time, 2.5%(+/-).5% . Easy to figure out when it's only 2 parties since 1968 and looking up election results.
>Fucking lulz.
this is an appeal to ridicule.
>You, the 3rd party voter, can’t even cite when they have ever made a dent in the nation-wide voter
you never asked, and, frankly, there is a cure for historical illiteracy, too
Sure, try arguing when was the last time third party has made a dent, and by what percentage. Cure my supposed historical illiteracy please.
>Sure, try arguing when was the last time third party has made a dent
the prohibition party got an amendment passed
Ooh, wow, a party no one heard of, and are you talking about 1919? And this has nothing to do with vote percentage?
Color me shocked and amazed by your argument.
this is called a "horse laugh" fallacy or, formally, an appeal to ridicule
Did you know that I pointed out issues with your arguments? So, address them.
>Did you know that I pointed out issues with your arguments?
no. you raised irrelevant objections.
Then, explain it if that's the case.
what's the point?
i don't believe you're open to learning anything here. anyone who is reading this conversation can easily make up their own mind about who's right.
Other people reading the room is precisely why I am with you in the room now. I'm not doing this to change your mind.