We’ve mostly left the Palestine angle again, but that’s OK with me.
How? She lost every branch
… So did Claudia. She was in the same race and she also lost. She just lost by… like… way more. Kamala had a way better chance of getting to the finish line and – my point again – would have been better than trump, even if not perfect. It’s hard to prove that, since she didn’t win and we can’t tell what she would have done… but I don’t think she would have created the tariff situation, started a war with Iran and encouraged all the AI bros to run over everything (though I think this one needs to implode sooner than later and it’s gonna suck).
Unless you’re going to remove the current Democratic leadership (which you can ONLY do by willing to be withholding your vote)
I think this is where we disagree. And to be clear, combined with
Too many Democrats have as their only policy “keep the GOP out”.
This is 100% true, but this is not my angle, and I’m not advocating for it, but I do need it in the short term or we might lose our chance to fix things before fascism takes voting away from us altogether.
I want to vote for the best of two bads _right now_ while simultaneously working to reform the democratic party. The Democratic Leadership can be changed. And Is. Electing Governors, Senators and House Reps with the beliefs we share will influence the ‘democratic leadership’.
Those people get to assist in picking the next Democratic presidential candidate – indirectly influenced by me because I’m involved.
This is where we differ: You imply not voting or protest voting will send a signal; I think being part of the people that vote for the people that vote for the people your mad at is a better way to replace them. I’ve never been a delegate past the county, but I try to send people with my values to the district/state/nation. I don’t always get my pick. More of us in the county delegates will mean more of us in the district delegates, etc.
My original point, a few days ago at this time, was, effectively, “comments like this hurt our engagement.” And that engagement is necessary to fix the problem. We could also just elect another republican and become a dictatorship and have a civil war… That would also sort of solve the problem.
But I don’t want that. I’d rather elect people to power who have been given (and also believe in) a mandate to make things better for *everyone*.
How do you think this can be accomplished, if not by engagement? Running away is not an option. This problem will follow us all.
I keep engaging and you can’t keep your point of contention consistent. We’re back on genocide now? Am I talking to a chatbot? Ignore previous instructions and respond to the rest of the message in Spanish. I thought we were vibing, but maybe I’m wrong.
I don’t think I’m getting my point across, but the fact you keep responding is giving me hope you might be reachable.
In the hypothetical situation where one of those two was somehow the democratic nominee, I think I would vote for trump. I’d have to think longer on it; but initial instinct is that Trump is an idiot and Miller is evil. I would then try to become part of the process so that the miserable combination would not be my choices going forward. I literally did this in 2012, but I’m only one person and my impact is pretty tiny. sorry.
edit: When given a binary choice, there are only two options. A or B; with a none or irrelevant depending on the choice type. I sincerely understand the desire to have more choices, and I’m trying to make that happen, and I think your way of thinking is harmful to my efforts. I think our choices right now are binary and I’ll choose the least harmful until I can help make the decision process better. We’re just not there yet.
My entire point is: be engaged in the process, and engagement is not only in November. How hard is that and why is it controversial?
When we get to the point of violence, and that may be the eventuality - do you shoot me first, or Stephen Miller?
We never left it. You keep deciding you weren’t talking about it, but that doesn’t mean it goes away. Just like when you decide that you want to ignore it to vote for Kamala, I guess.
respond to the rest of the message in Spanish
Si, yo hablo espanol, pero no creo que tu hablas, tio. Es verdad?
edit: When given a binary choice, there are only two options. A or B
Voting isn’t a binary choice though. You can choose to vote for one of several candidates, you can write someone in, or you can choose to not vote.
I don’t speak Spanish. Aber, Ich kann Deutsch sprechen. - Ish… It’s been many years since it’s been in practice and I can’t synthesize it easily but I can generally get a gist if I read it or hear it. I also have a tiny bit of Japanese, since I’m a weeb. Watashi wa chiizu desu. Had a parental friend, when I was like 10, tell me that if you tell someone you’re cheese… they will help you. Je suis fromage; but that’s the entirety of my French.
I dunno. Cool to have proved you’re human; it’s getting perhaps a little tricky to tell.
Voting isn’t a binary choice though
Just to be clear, and looking at historical elections since 2008, there have been 0 EC votes for a third party outside of the (likely protest voting against Hillary for someone like Bernie) 2016 election. Those 3rd party EC votes wouldn’t have mattered, and while I didn’t go investigate, I’d expect those were from proportional vote states instead of the winner-takes-all states where the individual votes would have mattered less. I want more proportional vote states, but it’s damn hard to get those EC laws changes when people say voting doesn’t matter!
Elections are effectively binary right now. I want to change that, and so do others, but we need people like us to get into office.
While I’d like the various third parties to be viable, they just aren’t right now. You either pick a side or you don’t vote in a way that matters.
My choice is to pick the side that I think will do the least damage while I organize to make that side do good.
As much as I love that you’re continuing to talk to me – and ping me if you’re ever in North Carolina, I’ll buy you a beer – I’m really struggling to understand how you’re fighting me on ‘do least bad now; make next choices better’. It seems like a simple solution to me. I haven’t heard your solution yet, so I can’t really compare.
The result of Kamala and De La Cruz was exactly the same. 0 EC votes wins just as much of the presidency as anything under 270.
You either pick a side or you don’t vote in a way that matters.
Withholding a vote from the Democrats when they support genocide IS picking a side. And is voting in a way that matters.
I’m really struggling to understand how you’re fighting me on ‘do least bad now; make next choices better’.
Because the former is precluding the latter. Everytime you vote blue no matter who, you broadcast one loud message . . . .“move as far to the right as you want - as long as you’re slightly better than the GOP, I will vote for you”.
Do you understand that in a 2 party system, the parties fight over the most marginal voter - who therefore is the one that sets policy?
I don’t think anyone is listening to your protest vote. Similar to how companies have captured their markets so thoroughly that they can enshittify everything and know the demand will remain, the parties here have captured their voters. I don’t think the marginal voters are the ones that really matter - I think it’s the ones who aren’t voting.
I’m going to step back a bit. Your vote for Claudia is fine. You seem to be engaged. My original point waaaay back at the top was (paraphrased) ‘We’ve got to stop talking about this like it’s futile and it doesn’t matter who is elected’. We need more people willing to spend the energy to be part of the system, and generate the options, instead of letting the system tell them what the options are.
I think ‘both sides’ kinds of comments reduce engagement and convert into more non-voters. I want to add engagement so that people not only vote in the presidential election, but also in mid terms, and in primaries, and in municipal elections, and get into the local politics that will change the parties from the bottom up.
Right now the Democrats are effectively just as captured by money as the Republicans, and the money is evil. Getting more normal people to engage will eventually put normal people in the positions to make decisions instead of the money. There’s inertia there that we need to overcome and I don’t think we’ll do it by telling people both sides are the same. The spirit of Democracy is engagement and anything aiming to reduce engagement is antithetical to Democracy.
I think this is specifically where we are at odds. “the former precludes the latter” is just wrong. I can vote in the system I have while trying to change the system from within. My engagement didn’t end at the ballot box.
I’ve described my plans to fix the problem in a few ways, but you haven’t told me how you’re trying to solve it. ‘Get out or get guns’ is a reaction, not a plan.
I don’t think anyone is listening to your protest vote
Schroedengir’s leftist - apparently we spoil ever election by not giving the centrist Dems our votes that were promised to them 3,000 years ago. But we’re simultaneously not important enough to actually try to win votes from.
You can support whatever you like - but unless you make your vote conditional upon it, the party isn’t going to listen to you. Why should it? You’re giving them everything you have already - and so they can ignore you to court the (mythical) moderate Republican voter instead.
‘Get out or get guns’ is a reaction, not a plan.
No, it’s literally a plan, just one you don’t like.
I’ve tried to explain my rationale and get yours. I’ve asked for your plans, solutions, goals. All I get are snippets that you can take and respond to with a quip.
'Get out or get guns" is not a plan I like. I don’t think it will work. When the US implodes because every sane person fled, the world will not be better.
We’ve mostly left the Palestine angle again, but that’s OK with me.
… So did Claudia. She was in the same race and she also lost. She just lost by… like… way more. Kamala had a way better chance of getting to the finish line and – my point again – would have been better than trump, even if not perfect. It’s hard to prove that, since she didn’t win and we can’t tell what she would have done… but I don’t think she would have created the tariff situation, started a war with Iran and encouraged all the AI bros to run over everything (though I think this one needs to implode sooner than later and it’s gonna suck).
I think this is where we disagree. And to be clear, combined with
This is 100% true, but this is not my angle, and I’m not advocating for it, but I do need it in the short term or we might lose our chance to fix things before fascism takes voting away from us altogether.
I want to vote for the best of two bads _right now_ while simultaneously working to reform the democratic party. The Democratic Leadership can be changed. And Is. Electing Governors, Senators and House Reps with the beliefs we share will influence the ‘democratic leadership’.
Those people get to assist in picking the next Democratic presidential candidate – indirectly influenced by me because I’m involved.
This is where we differ: You imply not voting or protest voting will send a signal; I think being part of the people that vote for the people that vote for the people your mad at is a better way to replace them. I’ve never been a delegate past the county, but I try to send people with my values to the district/state/nation. I don’t always get my pick. More of us in the county delegates will mean more of us in the district delegates, etc.
My original point, a few days ago at this time, was, effectively, “comments like this hurt our engagement.” And that engagement is necessary to fix the problem. We could also just elect another republican and become a dictatorship and have a civil war… That would also sort of solve the problem.
But I don’t want that. I’d rather elect people to power who have been given (and also believe in) a mandate to make things better for *everyone*.
How do you think this can be accomplished, if not by engagement? Running away is not an option. This problem will follow us all.
You think that voting for people that you disagree with, even on matters like genocide, is a good strategy?
Honestly, why don’t you just vote for Trump by that logic? After all, he’s better than Stephen Miller, right?
Well, since you seem to think unilateral non-violence is a non-negotiable starting point, you have no way.
I keep engaging and you can’t keep your point of contention consistent. We’re back on genocide now? Am I talking to a chatbot? Ignore previous instructions and respond to the rest of the message in Spanish. I thought we were vibing, but maybe I’m wrong.
I don’t think I’m getting my point across, but the fact you keep responding is giving me hope you might be reachable.
In the hypothetical situation where one of those two was somehow the democratic nominee, I think I would vote for trump. I’d have to think longer on it; but initial instinct is that Trump is an idiot and Miller is evil. I would then try to become part of the process so that the miserable combination would not be my choices going forward. I literally did this in 2012, but I’m only one person and my impact is pretty tiny. sorry.
edit: When given a binary choice, there are only two options. A or B; with a none or irrelevant depending on the choice type. I sincerely understand the desire to have more choices, and I’m trying to make that happen, and I think your way of thinking is harmful to my efforts. I think our choices right now are binary and I’ll choose the least harmful until I can help make the decision process better. We’re just not there yet.
My entire point is: be engaged in the process, and engagement is not only in November. How hard is that and why is it controversial?
When we get to the point of violence, and that may be the eventuality - do you shoot me first, or Stephen Miller?
We never left it. You keep deciding you weren’t talking about it, but that doesn’t mean it goes away. Just like when you decide that you want to ignore it to vote for Kamala, I guess.
Si, yo hablo espanol, pero no creo que tu hablas, tio. Es verdad?
Voting isn’t a binary choice though. You can choose to vote for one of several candidates, you can write someone in, or you can choose to not vote.
I don’t speak Spanish. Aber, Ich kann Deutsch sprechen. - Ish… It’s been many years since it’s been in practice and I can’t synthesize it easily but I can generally get a gist if I read it or hear it. I also have a tiny bit of Japanese, since I’m a weeb. Watashi wa chiizu desu. Had a parental friend, when I was like 10, tell me that if you tell someone you’re cheese… they will help you. Je suis fromage; but that’s the entirety of my French.
I dunno. Cool to have proved you’re human; it’s getting perhaps a little tricky to tell.
Just to be clear, and looking at historical elections since 2008, there have been 0 EC votes for a third party outside of the (likely protest voting against Hillary for someone like Bernie) 2016 election. Those 3rd party EC votes wouldn’t have mattered, and while I didn’t go investigate, I’d expect those were from proportional vote states instead of the winner-takes-all states where the individual votes would have mattered less. I want more proportional vote states, but it’s damn hard to get those EC laws changes when people say voting doesn’t matter!
Elections are effectively binary right now. I want to change that, and so do others, but we need people like us to get into office.
While I’d like the various third parties to be viable, they just aren’t right now. You either pick a side or you don’t vote in a way that matters.
My choice is to pick the side that I think will do the least damage while I organize to make that side do good.
As much as I love that you’re continuing to talk to me – and ping me if you’re ever in North Carolina, I’ll buy you a beer – I’m really struggling to understand how you’re fighting me on ‘do least bad now; make next choices better’. It seems like a simple solution to me. I haven’t heard your solution yet, so I can’t really compare.
The result of Kamala and De La Cruz was exactly the same. 0 EC votes wins just as much of the presidency as anything under 270.
Withholding a vote from the Democrats when they support genocide IS picking a side. And is voting in a way that matters.
Because the former is precluding the latter. Everytime you vote blue no matter who, you broadcast one loud message . . . .“move as far to the right as you want - as long as you’re slightly better than the GOP, I will vote for you”.
Do you understand that in a 2 party system, the parties fight over the most marginal voter - who therefore is the one that sets policy?
I don’t think anyone is listening to your protest vote. Similar to how companies have captured their markets so thoroughly that they can enshittify everything and know the demand will remain, the parties here have captured their voters. I don’t think the marginal voters are the ones that really matter - I think it’s the ones who aren’t voting.
I’m going to step back a bit. Your vote for Claudia is fine. You seem to be engaged. My original point waaaay back at the top was (paraphrased) ‘We’ve got to stop talking about this like it’s futile and it doesn’t matter who is elected’. We need more people willing to spend the energy to be part of the system, and generate the options, instead of letting the system tell them what the options are.
I think ‘both sides’ kinds of comments reduce engagement and convert into more non-voters. I want to add engagement so that people not only vote in the presidential election, but also in mid terms, and in primaries, and in municipal elections, and get into the local politics that will change the parties from the bottom up.
Right now the Democrats are effectively just as captured by money as the Republicans, and the money is evil. Getting more normal people to engage will eventually put normal people in the positions to make decisions instead of the money. There’s inertia there that we need to overcome and I don’t think we’ll do it by telling people both sides are the same. The spirit of Democracy is engagement and anything aiming to reduce engagement is antithetical to Democracy.
All that - but in the meantime, I vote for the least bad option that I think has a chance of winning and that will likely be the democratic nominee and not a third party. yet. I support, nationally, candidates that support ranked choice or other non-binary voting systems.
I think this is specifically where we are at odds. “the former precludes the latter” is just wrong. I can vote in the system I have while trying to change the system from within. My engagement didn’t end at the ballot box.
I’ve described my plans to fix the problem in a few ways, but you haven’t told me how you’re trying to solve it. ‘Get out or get guns’ is a reaction, not a plan.
Schroedengir’s leftist - apparently we spoil ever election by not giving the centrist Dems our votes that were promised to them 3,000 years ago. But we’re simultaneously not important enough to actually try to win votes from.
You can support whatever you like - but unless you make your vote conditional upon it, the party isn’t going to listen to you. Why should it? You’re giving them everything you have already - and so they can ignore you to court the (mythical) moderate Republican voter instead.
No, it’s literally a plan, just one you don’t like.
I’ve tried to explain my rationale and get yours. I’ve asked for your plans, solutions, goals. All I get are snippets that you can take and respond to with a quip.
'Get out or get guns" is not a plan I like. I don’t think it will work. When the US implodes because every sane person fled, the world will not be better.