- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Just voting Harris and mobilizing others to do the same. That’s the plan, regardless of how the poll numbers change. The media spin changes from day to day and will continue to until election day.
I’m looking for new ways to get the vote out in my area now. We just need enough ppl to go vote. We have the numbers.
And that’ll end the Gaza Genocide?
Yes. Of the two choices, I think obviously. Remember Trump’s record on Israel?
It might not end the Gaza genocide. It will also not cure cancer, end climate change, or stop political violence in the United States. However, electing Harris will produce a hugely better outcome on all of those fronts than will electing Trump.
If you care about the Palestinian people, and you’re risking Trump getting into power again, you don’t actually care about the Palestinian people. You just enjoy grandstanding gestures, and while you’re making your gestures, you’re flirting with making their already horrifying situation absolutely infinitely worse.
they are letting perfection be the enemy of good.
Neither vote will. Trump’s even worse on Gaza, if that’s possible. So you may as well vote on other issues.
The U.S. voter base does not realistically have a choice regarding Gaza in this election. None. Zero. Nada. Do not even try going on about third parties or withholding votes. I know from your comment history that you’re trying to dampen harm reduction votes, so I’m not trying to convince you. But when it comes to casting a vote in the 2024 election, failing to cast a strategic vote against Donald Trump when so many people will suffer if he comes back is a completely indefensible position. It’s probably safe to say that everyone on Earth, save perhaps Russia, will be worse off if that monster comes back. I voted uncommitted in the primaries. I’m fucking massively pissed off about the genocide the U.S. government is aiding and abetting. But there isn’t shit I can really do about it save protest. This is a first-past-the-post voting system. It punishes and discourages third party voting. If you oppose Trump, and vote Stein, then you threw away a perfectly good vote that could have been used to block Trump. That’s the thing about this system, and why it sucks so bad: you’re forced to cast a vote against the viable candidate that you dislike more by casting one for the other viable candidate. It doesn’t mean you particularly like or support the candidate you voted for, but the system actively punishes doing anything else. U.S. voters aren’t exactly the cream of the crop, but even they get this, and with the massive upswing in polarization lately, even fewer people would vote for a third party. Voting third party in the U.S. is completely useless. In a general election, votes are not endorsements. People can and do swallow their pride and do what needs to be done. And what needs to be done is to prevent a second Donald Trump presidency and Project 2025 from becoming reality. That’s it. Fascism’s coming and only a fool(based on the emotions involved, I will give American Muslims a pass, though it is very much not in their best interest to have Trump Part II) would screw around here because they’re so desperate to feel superior to others because they “took the high road”.
Harm reduction voting makes sense in swing states. How is voting third party useless in a non-swing state?
Tell them that the Nazis never really went away […] And we’ll never rest again until every Nazi dies
- The Day The Nazi Died by Chumbawamba
When the third party candidate admits that their campaign is solely to siphon away votes from Democrats? With the Green Party being primarily funded by Republican donors, like Home Depot, and Trump saying the quiet part out loud,
"Trump, has embraced Kennedy as an ally, has previously spoken fondly of both Stein and West.
“Cornel West, he’s one of my favorite candidates,” Trump said during a campaign rally in Philadelphia in June. “I like her also, Jill Stein, I like her very much. You know why? She takes 100% from them. He takes 100%.”
What is the purpose of the Green Party taking away swing states from Democrats? All that leads to is Trump in office again. So what is the purpose? So that Trump can continue the genocide instead of the Democrats?
Even in that case, there really isn’t much reason to vote for a third party. Especially if they’re one that only pops up on presidential elections while making zero effort to build an overall movement. There are some that probably are genuine, but I suspect most people willing to stand in a third-party presidential candidacy are likely either grifting or intentionally trying to act as a spoiler. Honestly, unless one of the major parties collapses or we actually somehow move past the first-past-the-post voting systems, third parties in general are just a waste of time and effort that could be used on something more effective. I honestly think that if you’re in a state where your vote in the presidential election doesn’t matter, writing in the name of someone like Bernie Sanders or leaving it blank would be a better use of a vote than a third party.
Absolutely spot on. This election isn’t about who we want. It’s about the ability to even be able to wage a fight for a better world after the election. Trump will be 100 times worse than anything people imagine. We will never have a free and legitimate election in this country again if he’s elected. It’s the end of the road. Harris isn’t great and she’s milquetoast af on most issues. But a Harris admin wont be the kind of hindrance on attempting to make things better that a Trump admin would be.
I’m looking for new ways to get the vote out in my area now.
Wow. This is the worst one of these I’ve read yet. You don’t even have a plan. You’re sitting there thinking up as yet unknown strategies to change the minds of thousands of people, but apparently just persuading one strategy team to change one policy is ‘unrealistic’?
What makes you think that all these uncommitted voters can be persuaded, but the Democrat strategists cannot?
My plan is to ignore nay sayers and vote and help others vote. Thought I was pretty clear about that.
So basically ignore people like you… Vote anyway. That’s the plan.
The clarity of your plan was not in question.
I asked a very simple question about that plan. Why do you think you can change the minds of all these people who currently are not going to vote, but you don’t think you can change the minds of the Democrat strategists?
You seem to be implying that getting Democrats to actually change policy to help them win is a lost cause, but then have this tremendous optimism toward changing the minds of thousands of people, many of whom are withholding their vote in protest against genocide. I asked why.
I did not ask “could you repeat your plan”. This is a discussion forum, it should have been obvious you might expect some scrunity of an argument put forth on it. If your intention is to ignore “naysayers” then might I suggest a discussion forum is not the best place for you to be posting. Maybe a blog, or Substack?
Ignoring people who sit about complaining ‘both sides/it doesn’t matter/stay home/reeeee’ who care so little about things they won’t take an action as simple as voting. Yet you have all the time in the world to go online and gripe about the one viable party that’s marginally closer to your purported ideals without spending a breath on the party actively hostile to everything these supposed leftists want.
I don’t agree that the Dems need to change policy to win. Sure they could pick up some votes from the left but would sacrifice votes from other areas to achieve that. At the end of the day, those protesting will need to decide, Trump or not Trump. I hope enough of them will decide Harris is better and hold their noses, vote, then work from the inside on changing policy. That could actually work. If they don’t, and they help Trump get elected, things will be infinitely worse for the Palestinians.
I don’t agree that the Dems need to change policy to win. Sure they could pick up some votes from the left but would sacrifice votes from other areas to achieve that.
What makes you think that, given the evidence to the contrary?
At the end of the day, those protesting will need to decide, Trump or not Trump.
Again, why are thousand of voters responsible for keeping Trump out, but not the Democrats?
Or, a slightly different question, why do you pin your hopes on these thousands and not on the Democrats? Do you think they’re more likely to change their minds? Do you think people are actually going to vote in favour of a party committed to facilitating genocide, often of their distant relations, than the Democrats are to change policy.
Don’t you think that’s an absolutely devastating indictment of democracy? That no amount of voting block pressure can actually get a party to change policy.
work from the inside on changing policy.
I don’t understand what this means. Voters vote. They don’t control party policy “from the inside”, they just vote on stuff.
If they don’t, and they help Trump get elected, things will be infinitely worse for the Palestinians.
And again, blaming the electorate for being moral, not blaming the Democrats for refusing to listen.
Because the policy isn’t going to change before the election. Harris would be stupid to alienate Jewish voters going into the election. All of your philosophical discussion of morality means nothing if Trump is reelected. Objectively, Palestinians will suffer far greater under Trump than Harris. The protesters have a decision with actual consequences on front of them. If they help Trump get elected, I don’t see how that = a moral choice in anyone’s mind. I believe enough will come around. If not, we all suffer the consequences. Simple as that.
Harris would be stupid to alienate Jewish voters going into the election.
On what evidence do you believe this. All the evidence provided thus far shows the opposite to be the case. The overwhelming majority of Democrats want to end arms sales to Israel. By what twisted mathematics does gaining a majority of supporters risk losing the vote?
The evidence in question, to save trawling through posts
Establishment politician… or despot… that’s a hard one /s
Corporate would like you to find the difference between these two pictures
Roe v wade?
Genocide v genocide?
Maybe Genocide (dems) v GENOCIDE (GOP). Dems: maybe have a cease fire? but if not here are some weapons. Trump: no cease fire. Finish Hamas.
are you kidding?
