- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
“The election has already started. Absentee ballots have been sent. We need to catch up rapidly. We need everyone here to get active. We need to be clear about what our goals are. We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic, we could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.”
Trump is actively attempting to court these dissatisfied voters. In September, he received the endorsement of Democrat Amer Ghalib, the Muslim mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan.
Many Arab American leaders, meanwhile, have strongly opposed a Trump presidency, citing his so-called Muslim ban on immigrants from several majority-Muslim countries.
You must log in or register to comment.
I say this all as someone who often supports the greens in my own country:
If they are even entertaining the idea of Harris losing being a positive for them, they are as deranged as Trump.
Trump gets in, we might as well start building bunkers, because climate change will accelerate under him, and these next 5 years are probably the most important if we’re going to stand any chance of turning this around.
I don’t know who still needs to see this, but: Voting Green in this election is the most environmentally damaging thing you can do aside from directly voting for trump.
If you vote green in this election, you will be directly responsible for everything that follows should Harris lose.
So, their goal is Kamala loses and Trump wins, then what? It’s almost like she never actually cared about the environment or workers and only ever wanted to be a spoiler for Kamala. Trump will get rid of the EPA and appoint oil execs in their spot.
Then she collects her Gazprom shares and starts her lucrative career as a pundit on Russia Today.
deleted by creator
Trump is actively attempting to court these dissatisfied voters. In September, he received the endorsement of Democrat Amer Ghalib, the Muslim mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan.m
Woah, you mean they can do that?!
Wild
Yeah. so if climate and peace are her two biggest motivations…
letting trump win… is not just counter productive. it’s suicide.
rational people know this. Jill stein is either not rational… or she’s bought and paid for by somebody who benefits from a trump presidency. Russia funds her campaign. she’s had lunch meetings with putin. she’s a russian stooge, pure and simple.
Yeah she’s a huge piece of shit and if I have to read anymore moronic comments about how voting for Democrats is about loving genocide I might go fucking postal.
Make sure you use the FREEDOM stamps! They won’t exist much longer.
yea no fucking shit. and the “i’m not voting because of my MoRaAaAaAaALLLs” crowd will be here in about a minute to accuse everyone of literal genocide
That crowd is so naive…the turnip has literally said Israel is going to slow…yet they’re willing to teach the dems a lesson by giving trump the presidency… I mean you can’t be that fucking stupid can you…
it’s actually a better scenario that they’re getting paid by russia, otherwise yes, they are that stupid. honestly both possibilities are equally plausible
Drag heard a great name for them today: Socialism Angels
They think that by choosing to abstain from democracy by not voting or voting third party, they’re not culpable for their country’s genocides. They can just sit on their clouds, polishing their halos, gloating about their moral purity, while Gaza burns.
Socialism Angels are the middle path
This might actually bring some of those people to vote for Harris. There’s a difference between high minded moralism and watching the worst case scenario happen. Like knowing something intellectually, and actually seeing it.
NO SHIT.
Stein has only been saying this every day for a month. She should be facing legal consequences for running shoulder campaigns.
Quick question: is the US more or less democratic than if it were a one party state, and if the answer is more, then which other party is it that makes it more democratic?
You seem like someone who would do GREAT in politics, or very poorly in legal. What an absolutely well crafted thought and question.
You’re so special.
Roger that, you can’t answer because your worldview is incoherent.
Downvoters are welcome to answer the question too. Too bad none of them can either 💅
Ok, not a downvoter, but I’ll bite. A system with more than one party is more democratic than a system with a single party. Are you asking which of the two major parties in the US is the “second” party, making the US more democratic than if there were a single party? If so, I see why no one is answering. If not, perhaps you could clarify your question?
Are you asking which of the two major parties in the US is the “second” party, making the US more democratic than if there were a single party?
Yes, that is what I’m asking. To say that having more than one party makes our system more democratic means that there must be at least two parties whose existence both make the system more democratic. So, does the Republican party, whose candidate tried to overturn an election, make the system more democratic? Does the Green party, which the person I responded to said should face legal retribution for their role as a “spoiler,” make the system more democratic? Maybe the Libertarian party? Which one?
I’ll bite. The US is democracy version 1.5. One of the known issues of democracies before version 2 is that when a major party is falling apart it can seem like a single party system. However this is usually temporary.
Of course the recommended action is to upgrade to at least version 2 with proportional representation.
Proportional representation would be good. But the true fix is to change the voting system to one that supports multiple parties.
The easiest system that does this is Approval. The slightly better option is called STAR.
Both systems have proportional versions, but single winner is honestly good enough.
Proportional representation absolutely supports multiple parties. By definition it gets rid of FPTP in congressional elections because it seats representatives by proportion of votes gained.
Also STAR is really just FPTP with the primary and general happening at the same time. You give a rating from 0 to 5 to each candidate and the two with the highest rating face off in a classic FPTP election.
In RCV they drop the lowest and go to the next round until someone gets enough votes.
STAR is approved and backed by the major parties because it would still act the same way. The fear of the other party means even if you vote 5 stars on the third party you’re going to vote 4 stars on the main party, lest they not have enough points in the run off. This creates a bar to third parties that’s at the same level as FPTP, the main party candidate for that dude if the electorate must be a complete deal breaker. This is because STAR gifts the main candidate extra points from people who would really rather see the third party elected and only want the main candidate as a back up. But they still get those 4 points in the first round.
So strategic voting, without fear of the other side, in STAR turns out to be rating everyone zero except your choice. Which is just back to FPTP.
RCV allows you to rank your preferred candidate first and your backup second without fear this will somehow help the other side or give undue weight to your first candidate.
Not an answer to my question.
That’s because you’ve already decided what answer you want.
What answer is that? All I’m doing here is interrogating your worldviews, and it seems I’ve found a pretty significant bit of cognitive dissonance, haven’t I?
This is what’s called sophistry. The current system is the second least democratic option possible. There are countless ways to make it better and only one way to make it worse. So why, if you’re truly asking in good faith, fixate on the one way to make it worse as the only possible change?
First off you didn’t answer the question, second off you put words in my mouth saying that I’m “fixating” on that as “the only possible change.”
You’re asking the question in bad faith. Yes, you are correct that there exists a way to make our current system less democratic than it is. This is why Trump has openly stated he wants to use military force to murder his political opposition and create a one party state. The fact that it could be worse doesn’t mean we should be thankful to the Republicans for giving us a choice, that’s like thanking someone who robbed you at gunpoint for the generous choice of your money or your life.
All that this bitch is doing is damaging the Green Party’s reputation by being associated with it. She’s just as batshit as the GOP.
It’s already damaged by FPTP system to be honest. If I didn’t had that issue, I would vote to the left of the democratic party without spoiling my vote. There’s left-wingers in the downballot with regards to Democratic Party, so hey, there’s that at least.
It’s interesting that we use the word “damage” to talk about making something worse, even if it should be worse. Bins are supposed to be full of garbage. If drag throws garbage in the bin, is drag “damaging” the bin? No, the bin is supposed to be that way. So that’s why it’s funny that we say it’s damage when Kshama Sawant makes us think less of the Greens. Sawant is being very logical and factual about what impact the Greens are really having. It makes us like the Greens less, but is that really damage?
No shit?
It’s useful idiots all the way down.
At this point I’m getting optimistic she’s stealing more votes from Trump than from Harris.
If you have a family member who supports Trump, it’s too late now to change their mind. Give Stein a shot instead - tell them all about how she hates Harris, is business friendly, is a version of Trump that is just slightly less of whatever your family member might not like about him.
Use her for what she’s worth. Get those Trump voters derailed.
…um, where is the second half of this article?
Least dishonest LW politics OP quoting an entire article out of context
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
