this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
527 points (94.1% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5400 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 234 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Agreed. The Green Party sits on their ass until presidential election. They haven’t moved the needle. Best case scenario, they’ve convinced a few non-voters to participate. Worst case, they’re dishonest opportunists.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 111 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This angle also needs to be considered). She’s not running in good faith. She’s essentially functioning as a 5th column to pull away voters who would otherwise vote for Harris.

I’m not saying Harris shouldn’t be pushed on environmental issues. I am saying that trying to do that by voting for Stein is actively harmful to the goal of not letting the fascists win this election.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 72 points 2 months ago (1 children)

More importantly, if you are voting for her because of the environment, voting for stein is actually harmful to that goal because it helps trump win, which means instead of making baby steps in the right direction, we'll run full steam in the wrong direction.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Fascists and Putin are sure to support her however they can. Cue the trolls.

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 49 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Most of the greens here on Lemmy convinced me to never consider a green canidate.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 35 points 2 months ago

I would absolutely vote Green but to do so would be unthinkable until we have ranked choice voting. We should band all the leftists together for one big push to get that enacted everywhere. Once we do that we can go back to our divisive bickering.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The trouble with supporting a third party -- and I say this as someone inclined to support a third party -- is that anybody who actually does it is either (a) an idiot who doesn't understand the game theory of first-past-the-post voting, or (b) an incredibly fringe nutjob. The result is that all third parties absolutely destroy all their credibility and ruin any chance of getting more mainstream.

If you're a third-party-inclined person who isn't an idiot or a nutjob, your only real option is to vote for Democrats in general, and ones who support ranked choice voting in particular (because you sure as Hell aren't gonna get it from the Republicans), and then switch to your third party of choice only after ranked-choice voting is passed.

[–] blandfordforever@lemm.ee -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

My state is nowhere near anywhere close to being a swing-state. My vote for president carries very little weight. For this reason, I vote for whichever party actually aligns with my ideology.

An acquaintance once tried to scapegoat me and my vote for Jill Stein as the reason that Donald Trump won in 2016.

That's not how the electoral college works.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

If you live in a deep Red or deep Blue state, you definitely aren't responsible for Donald Trump's win in 2016, BUT we need to defeat Trump, and we need every vote we can get, everywhere we can get it, so Trump finds it hard to steal the election, because we know he will.

At least, if you live in California or Oklahoma, your nonsense vote won't give us Trump, but unless you are CERTAIN you can throw your vote away, I'd ask you to look at your wife, sister, and/or mother and ask yourself if you want them subjected to Project 2025. If you don't, and I hope you don't, save the protest votes for your city/county/state governments where they might actually accomplish something.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Virtue signalling into the void. Don't get me wrong, I did it too in 2012 because I was disillusioned with Obama and I live in a deeply blue state. But that's all it is. You're better off writing an encouraging letter to your candidate of choice, or talking to your neighbors about the city council, or any number of other things that might actually make a material impact on someone's life.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

It doesn't do anything, but neither does voting for a Democratic president in a non-swing state. They could just leave the box blank too. They're not choosing "should I check the president box or talk to my neighbors", they're at the voting booth, presumably because other races matter, and filling in the box because it's there. None of the options in that race matter and the comment you're replying to is explicitly about how it doesn't matter, so why are you even complaining?

[–] blandfordforever@lemm.ee -3 points 2 months ago

Your point is that doing something is more effective than doing nothing? You sure got me there. I have to say that I agree.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 months ago

Libertarians == conservatives who smoke weed