this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
523 points (93.2% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4132 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (14 children)

And Stein's answer every single time this comes up?

"What about Gaza?"

She is literally an operative for Russia and the Republicans. This isn't even a meme or conspiracy theory, it's simply a plain truth.

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I don't understand how a genocide can be taken so lightly. Some people have trouble casting a vote for any political party that sponsors one.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I support the college protestors even when people say they're hurting the cause, but I would say Jill Stein definitely hurts the cause.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lengau@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I've given more details elsewhere, but the short version:

We can classify US presidential votes into three categories:

  1. Vote for the Democrat
  2. Vote for the Republican
  3. Vote third-party/independent or don't vote

The most effective vote to make on an anti-genocide platform is #1.

Voting for a Republican is voting for a party that appears to be profoundly okay with the genocide in Gaza AND wants to start some genocides of their own (e.g. against trans folks, immigrants and racial minorities). This is the most pro-genocide vote.

Voting for a Democrat is voting for a party that has a fairly significant group that opposes the genocide, and which appears to be movable on the topic.

Any other vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. On the presidental front, there is no chance in this election that anyone other than a candidate from one of the main two parties is elected, and that's also true for most senate or house races. (Possibly all, but I don't want to make that strong claim since I haven't actually researched all the races.) Voting for a candidate who you know won't win is explicitly choosing not to have a say between the tho feasible candidates.

I do have one caveat though...

If you live in West Virginia for example, it's a bit more complex. There your choice is essentially "the Republican or not the Republican," so third-party/independent moves into category 1. However, then I'd argue that voting for the Democrat for president may still be the preferable response because if the Republican wins the electoral college but, (as has happened in every presidential election since 1990 except 2004) the Democrat still wins the popular vote, it further delegitimises the Republican's presidency and the electoral college.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You put it much much better than I ever could. Best comment 10/10

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)