aalvare2 @ aalvare2 @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

131

Joined

2 yr. ago

Again. This isn’t about stopping apocalypse, or the end of the world, or anything like that. It’s about stopping a guy who has literally threatened to send the national guard into cities…just cuz.

And again. The irony of supposedly supporting the Green Party, while not caring about the threat of Trump on the environment. When caring about the environment is literally the namesake of the party……

Please, at least read my link to his Agenda 47 if you have not already done so. Or watch his official Agenda 47 videos, which are videos and not easily navigable text for a reason.

I, however, don't feel the need to do that.

So you aren’t concerned about any of the issues I brought up - the 4yrs of conservative SCOTUS supermajority, Project 2025, Schedule F, etc?

Are you not concerned about Trump potentially invoking the insurrection act, especially noting that has said he would consider sending troops into liberal cities “to curb crime waves”?

Even forgetting things he “plausibly might not want to do”, his official policy plans are very concerning to me.

I don’t think the world ends if Trump wins either, but I think it’ll be very bad. Furthermore, I think 4 years of the president having zero climate protection policy will be detrimental to the environment. It feels ironic that you support the Green Party but aren’t concerned about a Trump presidency in that regard.

If the American people choose someone else as president, regardless of who that is, I'm fine with the decision. We're a democracy.

Normally I’d feel the same way, but it sounds like you’re not concerned about a 2nd Trump term. I am VERY concerned.

If Trump wins, he’ll have 4 years with a SCOTUS supermajority, a platform that was written for him that will deal massive damage if even a fraction of it is implemented, and an already promised decision to implement Schedule F which’ll increase the appointive power of the presidency by a factor of 12-100. That’s literally not even the half of it.

We have to send a message that any of that is NOT OKAY. That message cannot be sent if he wins.

I put it towards both. I 100 percent agree with and fight for electoral form.

Perhaps you’re telling the truth, but it just doesn’t feel like that, simply because most of your posts appear to have been about defending third party candidates rather than speaking in favor of reform (I say “appear” because I have not combed through your entire post history or anything, nor will I).

I will say in your defense that recent news in the US doesn’t say anything about electoral reform, so there’d be no recent developments to post. I’m just talking about the impression it leaves that it appears to go unmentioned by you.

Neither party has, nor wants to.

This is not true in general. See this. Ranked choice is slowly being adopted at the local level, and made it to the state level in Alaska and Maine. Yes, it’s banned statewide in several states, but that’s a hell of a long way from being banned everywhere. It’s slow but steady progress, from the ground up.

Although ranked choice isn’t my preferred system, it’s something, and that something sets the precedent that reform is possible.

How am I bot? Feel free to look at my past posts and conversations. lol

My bad, I didn’t know you just had a copy-pasted snippet. That snippet didn’t feel like it answered my question at all, hence my suspicion.

Also, just because someone goes against the mainstream grain about who the vote for, doesn't make them a bot. Just saying...

Again, that suspicion had nothing to do with your apparent views, it was entirely because it didn’t feel like you were responding to my question at all - it was a long, well-written, yet generic, almost immediate response.

But I am sorry for sounding accusatory.

Also, voting for someone who is officially on the ballot gives the party more recognition, influence, and potential access to resources and ballot access in future elections, which wouldn't happen with a write-in vote that doesn't carry the same weight or visibility.

I do generally agree with this sentiment, so don’t get me wrong on that. However, I see this is a strategic/practical consideration in who to vote for. I don’t see it as a valid consideration in an honest vote.

My point is this: it sounds like you are a principled voter, but one who’s not blind to strategic or practical considerations. That’s how I feel as well, but I value the spoiler effect very highly in my strategic/practical consideration. Fighting the political science inches us both closer to our least preferred candidate getting elected.

I wish that your energy of “Consider voting for Jill Stein” was instead put towards “fight for electoral reform, so we can all honestly vote for candidates like Jill Stein without fear”.

Fair enough, thanks for the background. And I didn’t know that was a rule, so thanks.

I did also respond to the user organically in the second part of my post, so hopefully my post stays within the rules.

Okay, so to anyone who reads this exchange: I’m pretty sure this is a bot.

On top of it being a very botty response to my question, that didn’t even answer my question, they typed out three whole paragraphs with a thesis statement and conclusion, with some bold-face typing…in less than a minute. That’s fucking sketch.

But I’ll respond back at least once more:

Again, if you believe that the “electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate” and you don’t like voting “against your conscience”, then it seems like you value honest voting very highly.

But honest voting goes beyond parties. If you value voting honestly, then you should vote for the person you think is best suited for the presidency. It doesn’t have to be Jill Stein, it can be any of the other hundreds of millions of Americans, as a write-in.

What is your take on that?

If that’s how you feel, then why vote for a particular party at all?

Why not just write in whoever you most desire to be the president? There’s nothing against that, after all…

I get that this is a strong ticket on paper, but it’s really not the time for this.

Voting for Stein when somebody would’ve otherwise voted Harris basically just hands support to the voter’s least liked candidate.

It’s a well-known phenomenon, see the Spoiler Effect.

Do you have a source for that? Not for us coming down from the spike but for an explanation of the effect the bill had on that reduction?

I know it’s called the inflation reduction act so you’d expect it to…y’know, reduce inflation lol, but I was always under the impression that that was just a shitty name for what was always just a pro-climate control bill.

They definitely forgot the diplomatic attitude and wisdom.

Whether they forgot attractiveness depends on how you look at that. Apparently he was a handsome guy and went on cool nature expeditions and shit as a kid…on the other hand he used to hang out around rotting animal carcasses all the damn time and loved eating rotten meat so in a more general sense, yeah, super unattractive.

I think the bigger problem is a had a fucked up childhood where he got literally whatever he wanted cuz he had infinite fuck-you money/status, plus the Kennedy curse taking his super-famous uncle and father and otherwise scarring him for the rest of his life, plus taking a LOT of drugs, equals…the guy never had a chance.

I recently listened to the 4-part Behind the Bastards analysis of RFK Jr.

Not surprised that the man is desperate to get to the WH, considering that he was groomed more than any of his siblings into becoming the next JFK.

If Biden had a strong lead among independents in 2020 than harris does now and still lost there, doesn’t that suggest that Harris is currently less likely to take FL? Or is there something that’s changed between 2020 and 2024 that boosts Harris’ chances?

While I agree with that sentiment, I think it’s more important push overwhelmingly for electoral process reform first - switching to approval, star, or even ranked choice voting is a step up from first passed the post and encourages more honest voting over strategic voting, at least a little bit.

I think entertaining individual third parties shouldn’t come until that’s a bigger issue that America starts talking about.

That is fair

I literally laughed out loud. Accusing me of being in favor of genocide, and a faster one at that, is a pretty weird and insane interpretation of everything I’ve said.

I believe that a Harris presidency would be better for Gaza than a Trump presidency. That’s the motivation behind everything I’ve said.

But if you don’t agree with me? Fine. You’re entitled to your own opinion. I just hope you don’t accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being in favor of genocide against any people. That’s bad for the soul.

I suspect OP is just saying that she’s probably called him much worse in private, because a lot of us have done that lol

his unconditional support for Netanyahu's genocide

Biden has not given any “unconditional support for Netanyahu’s genocide”, because again, if that were the case, then Netanyahu’s mission would be over by now

And I asked which of her policies differs from Biden's

I was addressing the comment “I hear that plenty about Biden” and pointing out that the Biden administration has taken action behind the scenes, at least on a number of other issues.

I also have reason to believe that whatever behind-the-scenes talks are happening concerning Israel are pro-preace, because otherwise the US would be throwing enough military weight behind Israel that Palestine would be finished by now.

Doing the right thing behind the scenes is the kind of action that lead to the Russian hostage exchange, the satisfaction of the rail worker unions after the railroad strike, the steady increase in student loan relief after SCOTUS shut down the blanket 10k handouts, and the duping of republicans into getting the chips act passed.

I personally believe in their capacity to do the right thing behind the scenes, just like I believe in the other side’s capacity to do the wrong thing behind the scenes.

How does Tim Walz make Wisconsin and Michigan a lock? Is it simply that they’re neighboring states with a known similarity in demographics, or is there more I don’t know about Walz? (there’s almost definitely more I don’t know about Walz, haha)