cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14778555
@MaxBlumenthal
“Democracy is on the ballot”
@DrJillStein
BREAKING: Jill Stein and her Campaign Manager and Deputy Campaign Manager, Jason Call and Kelly Merrill-Cayer, have been arrested at Washington University in St. Louis while supporting a protest against WashU’s ties to the war on Gaza. Video from @KallieECox
Direct video link: https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1784410882627227648/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/0RbEXrPU8hvKoqwU.mp4
Source: https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1784440127734812900
Excuse me, OP. Please provide a presidential voting strategy that you would like me to employ with the goal of maximizing positive impact. That's generally my goal. I try to things that will have a positive impact on society. Please note that ineffective actions don't have any impact, by definition.
I ask for a voting strategy because you seem to be drawing a line connecting a phrase used to argue in favor of voting for Joe Biden for president (over Trump) with an incident that has recently happened in St. Louis. Presumably you think this incident is bad (on the surface I think it is, too) and would like for things to improve. Presumably you also think Biden is in favor of the outcome with this incident. Do you think Trump would be against this outcome?
There are, of course, other ways to deal with the negative incident that don't center around your individual vote for president, but you seem to be suggesting that the two are directly connected, which is why I asked my question.
Goal of maximizing positive impact?
Vote Biden.
There are two viable candidates, Biden and Trump. Taking votes away from Biden only helps Trump. So not voting, voting Stein, Kennedy, West, all of that only helps Trump.
Helping Trump is supporting:
https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritarian-presidential-election-f27e7e9d7c13fabbe3ae7dd7f1235c72
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-mexico-military-cartels-war-on-drugs-1234705804/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/30/trump-interview-jail-political-opponents-glenn-beck
https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-israel-pr-hugh-hewitt-21faee332d95fec99652c112fbdcd35d
https://visitukraine.today/blog/3712/trumps-peace-plan-is-to-surrender-crimea-and-donbas-to-russia-wp-reveals-details
https://apnews.com/article/trump-nato-presidential-election-congress-republicans-20e902788e8701999ce0424f73d478cc
So, yeah, when the alternative is maximizing negative impact, the only voting solution is to vote for the one person who can defeat that agenda... and that's Biden.
Why do you claim that is unidirectional? Why not:
"There are two viable candidates, Biden and Trump. Taking votes away from Trump only helps Biden. So not voting, voting Stein, Kennedy, West, all of that only helps Biden."
E: I only inversed this claim to highlight how ridiculous it sounds. I don't believe either statement is true. Do you truely not believe that someone would be deciding between Trump and Kennedy, without any consideration for Biden?