Because a First-Past-The-Post voting system doesn’t care about your ideals. Until we have a different system, literally your only hope of effecting change is to vote for one of the two partied candidates and work locally to influence your party from the bottom-up.
Voting third party doesn’t send a message you want it to send. It doesn’t send any message at all except “I approve of whatever you choose for me.”
Because capitalism profits from genocide. The question then is, are you ok with diet Palestinian genocide or would you prefer the supersized Palestinian genocide combo with a side of homegrown genocide?
My issue is that while we squabble over social issues, the ruling class fucks us with fiscal ones.
Greed and the growing disparity in wealth is the worst issue we face as a species.
If Biden wins we lose. If Trump wins we lose harder. Each option results in a loss because we don’t want actually want to address the disparity in wealth.
If Biden wins we lose. If Trump wins we lose harder.
…and you think we need to lose harder?
Or do you actually believe that the system that has had the same outcome literally every single election has a chance to produce a different result? How many third-party candidates have received more than 1.5% of the vote? I’ll help: exactly FOUR in the past HUNDRED YEARS.
Or do you actually just want Trump to win and are using your enlightened centrist persona to disguise that fact?
I think a slow loss is still a loss and we shouldn’t cheer when people like Biden get elected over people like Bernie.
If you notice, the disparity in wealth is still growing at an increasing-rate. That’s why “the economy is doing good.” Not for me or you. But for the rich people who control who we can vote for.
The minuscule amount of support for third parties exemplifies the number of people who actually want to reduce the disparity in wealth.
It really puts into perspective who is a useful idiot, and who is not.
The Overton window is not something that can be changed electorally. Candidates can only get on the ballot in the first place if they’re within the Overton window, as anybody outside the window is “radical” or “extreme”, and the existing political powers forbid their candidacy. The electoral window is moved outside the electoral process, and only then can the electoral system permit new candidates with new ideas.
Lol yes it can. Why are we having idiotic discussion to disband the EPA? Because Trump won an election. That moved the Overton window, drastically at that. Why can’t Biden do ______? Because the Republicans still have a very real chance of winning. When the GOP has no chance of winning, then the Overton window can move more.
How do you get that? By moving the Overton window. And how do you get that? By VOTING. But it seems you want to yell at a cloud instead. Something tells me you’ll just keep at this ‘whoo is me’, so I’m out.
Wrong. The party that can “move left” went to court to assert their right to do what they want regardless of voters, and have an equal hand in moving the goalposts anytime a third party comes close to the requirements for inclusion. Hell, just look at their messaging - they don’t even talk about Republicans or their policies, they just namedrop trump then blame leftists for all their woes.
“MoVe ThE oVeRtOn WiNdOw (even though they openly and pointedly snipped completely off anything left of mid right genocide Joe)”
The answer is guillotines and anyone who says otherwise are well off liberals who would rather have Trump than redistribute wealth and resources.
Meanwhile, the Overton window has been shifting right radically. Seems like this lesser of two evils nonsense is actually doing the opposite of what you claim.
Moved because Trump won an election. But you want to suggest that’s just random? C’mon.
*Btw it’s moving the Overton window, not lesser of two evils as you want to put it. You want policy number 426? You have to vote for policy 1 first. You have to walk before you can run.
What are you talking about? We have been moving rightward ever since the Clinton administration, baring a handful of social issues. Are you genuinely telling me that we are more left leaning now than we were under the new deal politics before Reagan?
All we’ve progressed in is gay and civil rights, which is good. Economically and by most other metrics, we’ve slid Faaaaar to the right.
It’s not a good look for your position on slow incremental change that the entire apparatus can collapse in one election.
You said radical, that was Trump. You think Clinton change was radical? No that was Trump. Can’t forget Bush either! You know the one that lied his way into war. But you want to suggest everything was all Clintons fault or something? C’mon be better than this weird game you’re playing. Like really, do you think it would be more right or more left without Bush and Trump? That’s the Overton window.
BTW Clinton had to be moderate because he was going against an incumbent.
Yeah I could go over different issues, but you’re already trying to poopoo them away. So I’ll broadly address economics with we have regulated capitalism. One party wants to remove regulation (Gop because I think you’re trying to be obtuse) and be entirely free for all, no EPA or anything. And one wants proper regulation (again, Dems because think you’re trying to be obtuse).
Self-righteous bullshit. I want to solve problems someday and that’s precisely why I vote for Democrats. Letting Trumpists take over now will make any progress vastly harder for the foreseeable future.
Ah, so since one of your two options doesn’t give you everything you want, you’ve decided that you’re okay with the one that wants to take away everything you have. Cool story, good luck with that.
It has to be supporting policies that reduce the disparity in wealth, not exacerbate it.
Looking at how many people actually vote for 3rd parties puts into perspective how many people actually want to solve this issue.
Also, try letting people use their own words. You were wrong about your assumptions and hyperbole, but i think instead of admitting you’re wrong you’re just going to assume more.
Looking at how many people actually vote for 3rd parties puts into perspective how many people actually want to solve this issue.
…effectively no-one, as far as country-wide population statistics are concerned? What percentage of the vote went third-party in the last three elections? Gary Johnson (8 years ago) got a whole 3%, and that was massive compared to anyone in the past 30 years… basically unprecedented. Those numbers barely broke 1% last time.
I’m sorry, but no, it doesn’t. Most people are just living in a reality where voting third-party gets the worst option elected, because that’s historically its only effect.
Look, I’m not gonna fight you, it’s clear that your mind is made up. Just think about the probability of your choices, and think about how much you appreciate the ability to even vote… because that’s the actual argument, here. Trump has laid out his plans, and you’re welcome to ignore them, but most people don’t have that luxury, they need to vote in ways that don’t have a chance to lead to their culling.
You’re making false assumptions about what people’s voting habits say about what they want, drawing absurd conclusions as a result, and then doubling down on your false assumptions even when real people tell you what they want why they vote the way they do. Here’s a clue for you: other people know their own beliefs and motivations a hell of a lot better than you do. It’s supremely arrogant for you to think otherwise.
Why is it so hard to ask for an option that isn’t genocide?
Because a First-Past-The-Post voting system doesn’t care about your ideals. Until we have a different system, literally your only hope of effecting change is to vote for one of the two partied candidates and work locally to influence your party from the bottom-up.
Voting third party doesn’t send a message you want it to send. It doesn’t send any message at all except “I approve of whatever you choose for me.”
Because capitalism profits from genocide. The question then is, are you ok with diet Palestinian genocide or would you prefer the supersized Palestinian genocide combo with a side of homegrown genocide?
There are 2 sets of voters in this nation.
Those who want to solve the problems we face, and those who just want to kick the can down the road for someone else while rich people get richer.
If you vote for republicans or democrats, you’re in the latter camp.
It really puts things into perspective when you think about it like this.
What problem do you believe you’re solving by making it easier for Trump to take office?
Are you offended that women still have some control over their reproductive health, and you need to see that eroded further?
Is it a problem that we aren’t allowed to sexually assault people without repurcussion?
Do you see issues with people still being allowed to vote?
Do you hate legal immigrants, which have consistently lost rights and been victimized by the Republican party over the past few administrations?
Do you dislike your ability to relatively-freely travel abroad, due to our many alliances?
Do you wish we had a giant wall that has been proven ineffective by virtually every single study on the subject, including GOP-backed ones?
Do you wish we were helping Israel commit genocide even harder than they already are?
My issue is that while we squabble over social issues, the ruling class fucks us with fiscal ones.
Greed and the growing disparity in wealth is the worst issue we face as a species.
If Biden wins we lose. If Trump wins we lose harder. Each option results in a loss because we don’t want actually want to address the disparity in wealth.
…and you think we need to lose harder?
Or do you actually believe that the system that has had the same outcome literally every single election has a chance to produce a different result? How many third-party candidates have received more than 1.5% of the vote? I’ll help: exactly FOUR in the past HUNDRED YEARS.
Or do you actually just want Trump to win and are using your enlightened centrist persona to disguise that fact?
I think a slow loss is still a loss and we shouldn’t cheer when people like Biden get elected over people like Bernie.
If you notice, the disparity in wealth is still growing at an increasing-rate. That’s why “the economy is doing good.” Not for me or you. But for the rich people who control who we can vote for.
The minuscule amount of support for third parties exemplifies the number of people who actually want to reduce the disparity in wealth.
It really puts into perspective who is a useful idiot, and who is not.
If you want to move the Overton window, you vote. That’s the perspective you need.
The Overton window is not something that can be changed electorally. Candidates can only get on the ballot in the first place if they’re within the Overton window, as anybody outside the window is “radical” or “extreme”, and the existing political powers forbid their candidacy. The electoral window is moved outside the electoral process, and only then can the electoral system permit new candidates with new ideas.
So… were just ignoring the current candidates? And the current debates and policies that each have pushed?
Lol yes it can. Why are we having idiotic discussion to disband the EPA? Because Trump won an election. That moved the Overton window, drastically at that. Why can’t Biden do ______? Because the Republicans still have a very real chance of winning. When the GOP has no chance of winning, then the Overton window can move more.
Then Biden should be listening to the people he’s depending on to get re-elected.
You get more from the center than you do the fringes. Aka you can’t do radical policy unless you know you’ll still win.
Well here’s a poll.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-israeli-palestinian-conflict-divide/
Yeah. You need to vote for candidates that don’t just look out for rich people.
Those people are never on my ballot, unfortunately.
How do you get that? By moving the Overton window. And how do you get that? By VOTING. But it seems you want to yell at a cloud instead. Something tells me you’ll just keep at this ‘whoo is me’, so I’m out.
I said “we need to vote for candidates that don’t just look out for rich people.”
Wrong. The party that can “move left” went to court to assert their right to do what they want regardless of voters, and have an equal hand in moving the goalposts anytime a third party comes close to the requirements for inclusion. Hell, just look at their messaging - they don’t even talk about Republicans or their policies, they just namedrop trump then blame leftists for all their woes.
“MoVe ThE oVeRtOn WiNdOw (even though they openly and pointedly snipped completely off anything left of mid right genocide Joe)”
The answer is guillotines and anyone who says otherwise are well off liberals who would rather have Trump than redistribute wealth and resources.
Meanwhile, the Overton window has been shifting right radically. Seems like this lesser of two evils nonsense is actually doing the opposite of what you claim.
Moved because Trump won an election. But you want to suggest that’s just random? C’mon.
*Btw it’s moving the Overton window, not lesser of two evils as you want to put it. You want policy number 426? You have to vote for policy 1 first. You have to walk before you can run.
What are you talking about? We have been moving rightward ever since the Clinton administration, baring a handful of social issues. Are you genuinely telling me that we are more left leaning now than we were under the new deal politics before Reagan?
All we’ve progressed in is gay and civil rights, which is good. Economically and by most other metrics, we’ve slid Faaaaar to the right.
It’s not a good look for your position on slow incremental change that the entire apparatus can collapse in one election.
You said radical, that was Trump. You think Clinton change was radical? No that was Trump. Can’t forget Bush either! You know the one that lied his way into war. But you want to suggest everything was all Clintons fault or something? C’mon be better than this weird game you’re playing. Like really, do you think it would be more right or more left without Bush and Trump? That’s the Overton window.
BTW Clinton had to be moderate because he was going against an incumbent.
Yeah I could go over different issues, but you’re already trying to poopoo them away. So I’ll broadly address economics with we have regulated capitalism. One party wants to remove regulation (Gop because I think you’re trying to be obtuse) and be entirely free for all, no EPA or anything. And one wants proper regulation (again, Dems because think you’re trying to be obtuse).
And because or your silly weird games, I’m out.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
You are truly privileged that you don’t need to worry about more utterly corrupt Fundamentalists on SCOTUS.
Self-righteous bullshit. I want to solve problems someday and that’s precisely why I vote for Democrats. Letting Trumpists take over now will make any progress vastly harder for the foreseeable future.
You’re one of the latter.
Let me know when democrats start supporting policies that reduce the disparity in wealth.
We saw everything we needed to see with Bernie. Neither establishment party cares about regular, working class people.
Ah, so since one of your two options doesn’t give you everything you want, you’ve decided that you’re okay with the one that wants to take away everything you have. Cool story, good luck with that.
No, it doesn’t have to be everything I want.
It has to be supporting policies that reduce the disparity in wealth, not exacerbate it.
Looking at how many people actually vote for 3rd parties puts into perspective how many people actually want to solve this issue.
Also, try letting people use their own words. You were wrong about your assumptions and hyperbole, but i think instead of admitting you’re wrong you’re just going to assume more.
…effectively no-one, as far as country-wide population statistics are concerned? What percentage of the vote went third-party in the last three elections? Gary Johnson (8 years ago) got a whole 3%, and that was massive compared to anyone in the past 30 years… basically unprecedented. Those numbers barely broke 1% last time.
Yes. That’s my point. A ridiculously minuscule amount of people actually want to reduce the disparity in wealth.
Support for 3rd parties exemplifies that.
I’m sorry, but no, it doesn’t. Most people are just living in a reality where voting third-party gets the worst option elected, because that’s historically its only effect.
Look, I’m not gonna fight you, it’s clear that your mind is made up. Just think about the probability of your choices, and think about how much you appreciate the ability to even vote… because that’s the actual argument, here. Trump has laid out his plans, and you’re welcome to ignore them, but most people don’t have that luxury, they need to vote in ways that don’t have a chance to lead to their culling.
You’re making false assumptions about what people’s voting habits say about what they want, drawing absurd conclusions as a result, and then doubling down on your false assumptions even when real people tell you what they want why they vote the way they do. Here’s a clue for you: other people know their own beliefs and motivations a hell of a lot better than you do. It’s supremely arrogant for you to think otherwise.
Let me know when another party gets more than a single digit percent of the vote.
We’re working on it. Demonstrating the Democratic party is no longer viable is our current strategy.
But, you know if moderate and liberal voters wanted to show up in force at these protests that might not be necessary.