politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure "respect" is the word I'd chose, but "support," sure. As I've said before, you have the right to write in "Bozo the Clown" for president; it'd have as much impact, but it's your vote.
However, I will not stop trying to convince people to not make the mistake I made in 2000. I hated Tipper Gore because of her involvement in the founding of the PMRC, and didn't want her anywhere near the White House. So I voted Green Party. I take resposibility that my vote, which would otherwise have gone to Gore (if I'd been smarter) and contributed to the election of Bush Jr. and consequently the invasion of Iraq (I believe Afghanistan was inevitable after 9/11, but Iraq was opportunistic Jingoism). My "protest" vote, among a wave of other protest votes, contributed to a needless war and very likely led to politics and policies that ultimately resulted in the Trump Presidency.
Maybe you're able to divorce yourself from responsibility, and blame other people for your actions; if you vote for Stein and Trump wins, you'll blame Democrats - you've said as much elsewhere. That's an attitude I have no respect for. Take responsibility for the consequences of your own actions, and if the greater of two evils wins, at least have the ethical fortitude to admit you helped it happen through your vote.
I don't say all of this for you, but for any other person considering a protest votes: please look back at the 2000 election and the measured analysis of the impact of spoiler parties and the subsequent ripple effects which have led to today.
As your yourself, I'm still not convinced you're not an agent saboteur; your posts consistently target Democrats more than Republicans, and if you were a true Green Party activist, you'd be attacking Trump and Republicans more than any Democrat. The Democratic party plank aligns far more with the Green party than does the Republican party's; the current conservative agenda is supposedly completely counter to the Green party's, and yet Jill Stein and her supporters target Kamala more than Donald because that's where they know they can siphon votes. And this is the very definition of a spoiler in a FPTP election system.
I second this.
You have the right to vote whoever you want in the election. Hell, I could say I am voting for Harris or Stein here, and do the exact opposite, and nobody would know the difference. You even have the right to try to convince others to change their votes. That's actually how a Democracy is supposed to work. But that right extends to everyone...including those of us who think Stein is a spoiler.
Exactly. And I can vote for whoever I want as well. Whether the people in this community like it or not. And they don't. lol
You can! But you know what you don't have the right to do? Come in here, unchallenged, and say you're going to vote Third Party. That's our freedom of speech telling you you're a ... ahem, censored for Rule 3 purposes and that nobody should listen to you because you will make things worse for everyone. Between the downvotes and the comments, you should have gotten that. But keep up with that martyr complex! We just need to make sure you're shouted down by Election Day.
But I am voting Third Party. It's not my job to make you believe it.
And for the record, you are getting mad over a news article that is widely available on a site MUCH more accessible than Lemmy, and I didn't write the article.
I posted it. Anyone can find it. More people read it off lemmy than on lemmy. So calm yourself.
And be mad all you want, I'm STILL not voting for your candidate. There is no law that says I have to vote for your candidate. There is no rule that says I have to vote for you candidate.
Shouting to who? This is Lemmy. Everyone here is voting for Harris anyway. Just who is it you are shouting to? lmao
So bully all you want. I'm not voting for Harris. If you wanna believe I'm voting for Trump, ok, go for it. I don't care. :)
Removed, civility.
Please PM me about this. I wish to understand what specifically you found objectionable, and who I may appeal the removal to.
"I'm saying you're an idiot".
Rule 3:
"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."
I edited that to say 'you're making idiotic choices'. Did that not take? And would that be acceptable? If not, then how can I express that sentiment?
We shouldn't be forced to fight with one hand tied behind our back here, Jordan. There ARE bad-faith debaters here, pushing misinformation and disinformation for the sole purpose of ratfucking us out of our vote. What passes your smell test for civility when calling these groups out? Are we supposed to just pretend like there are no bots or paid actors? Or is there a way that will pass your muster for calling out those bad actors without violating Rule 3?
And is there any way to get your decisions reviewed? It sure feels like you leave up an awful lot of incivil posts by the 'Genocide Joe' people, while targeting us who call them out for their nonsense? Can we get your moderation decisions reviewed for fairness?
PS: I asked you to PM me so we didn't have this conversation in public. Having a public grievance on moderation decisions was not my choice. If you'd rather take this private, I'm still game for that.
If there are bad faith debaters, feel free to report them. If you engage with them, do so without attacking them.
The mods and admins had a sidebar on this user and concluded that, yes, they have shitty opinions, but having shitty opinions is not a violation.
I did restore the comment long enough to verify the original language is still there and re-removed it.
Good, because I'm not going to.
Nice personal insult. You can't get your point across without calling me names? Now I won't take anything else you say seriously.
You've also broken the civility rule of this sub. See rule 3.
But I'm NOT voting for Jill Stein.
Dude, it's not that hard to make a point without name calling. I haven't called anyone names. But here you are calling me names. All because I am not voting for your candidate. Think about that. You can't have a discussion with me without name-calling. Wow, just wow.
I'll just let the 7 downvotes you have do all the talking. And to make sure I'm sticking EXACTLY to Rule 3, I'll clarify that your choices are idiotic and stupid. If the Mods remove my comment over that, they're making idiotic choices as well, allowing you to talk crap to us while tying our hands behind our backs when we fight back against your crap.
Have a nice day!
What?! I think the mods here do awesome. They have to put up with a LOT of crap and hate. What are you even talking about?!
The downvotes are nothing but proof that I've struck a nerve, exposing the fear and desperation of those clinging to the corrupt system. The truth always shakes the foundations of the status quo!
I totally respect and support your right to vote for who you want. Do you respect and support my right to do the same?
It is.
The majority of my posts are socialist, and yes, I do critique both sides. The reason it might seem like I'm targeting Democrats more is simply because the majority of Lemmy users lean Democratic, and they often assume that not supporting their candidate means supporting Trump.
I've contributed over 200 posts and comments to my Lemmy socialist community. I'm a member of the Socialist Workers Party, and I support them financially. You can check out the sub here:
https://lemmy.world/c/socialist
and see my post history here:
https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts.
I also post and moderate communities on education, another thing Republicans typically dislike. Even in this sub, my posts are mostly news articles about third parties, not attacks on the Democratic party. When I share articles about third parties, Libertarian ones are included, and they often take votes away from Republicans.
So, would I really do all this—things Republicans despise—just to help Trump win? If that were my goal, wouldn't it be easier for me to just vote for him?
Why is it that just because I’m not voting for your candidate, you automatically think I’m rooting for Trump? I get daily comments and DMs accusing me of being a Russian simp, a Trump supporter, or a troll—just because I post socialist articles, mainly about unions, and a few posts covering all third parties. Think about that.
Regarding your claim that I would blame Democrats if Trump wins because I voted for Stein—I've never said that. What I have said is that if Democrats are so concerned about Stein, they should find a stronger candidate and work harder to incorporate Green values, welcoming Green supporters into their party. I’m a good example.
Many here find out I’m voting for Stein, and instead of welcoming me, they accuse me of being a Russian Trumper troll. Does that make me want to join your party?
And a side note: Republicans hate me too, because of my socialist views. But honestly, they’re not nearly as hostile as Democrats are towards me—probably because Lemmy is overwhelmingly Democratic.
This sub often has to remove comments directed at me because of how uncivil they are. Check out this sub's modlog for proof and an example of some Dem-generated hate. You'll see a some ugly comments by Republicans, but the vast majority are Democrats hating and belittling people who have a different point of view than they do: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252
What you and others miss is that while you have a right to advocate for whatever political positions you wish, we have a right to call them out and point out that in the system we have, the Jill Steins spoil the election for Donald Trump, just like the Libertarian spoils Trump (though realistically, Libertarians can take votes from both Major Parties for different reasons). You do NOT have the right to push your agenda unchallenged.
I disagree with the civility rule because there are Republicans and Russians posing as far-Leftists to push enough left-leaning voters to vote third party so that Trump can steal enough states by hook or by crook to win it and subject all of us to Project 2025. The civility rule has us fighting with one hand behind our back against factions that see no problem with being uncivil to us and will use our rules to censor our speech about them.
Since I can't call people out on this sub, the only answer I have now is to point out every single time one of you people pop in with this 'nuh, we aren't spoiling it' is my example of how, yes, you are. So, here it is again.
This poster would have you believe that your vote cannot result in you getting the worst possible outcome. Allow me to make it clear that yes, you can screw yourself and those you care about if you make the wrong choice on your vote.
Let's take a class of High School students. The class is pretty evenly divided between Jocks (49) and Nerds (51), and there's an election for the SGA coming up. Looking at the numbers, it looks like the Nerds have a good chance of winning, by two votes, but let's say that this isn't as clear as the numbers show.
The candidates are pretty distasteful for a lot of students at the school. On the Nerds' side is a geeky boy, with square glasses, buck teeth, and a taste for pocket protectors. This kid is stereotypical Nerd, with the personality to match. He's vaguely unpalatable, being too much into D&D and video games, but he's also really damn smart, and his platform are things the Nerds would really like -- pushing the school to fund after-school activities like Book Swap, the D&D Club, Debate Team, Chess Club, and so on.
On the Jock's side is a pretty blonde cheerleader, the Homecoming Queen and heart-throb for many a boy in that school. But she's a massive jerk, with an entitlement streak a mile wide, known for throwing temper tantrum(p)s when she doesn't get her way, and a platform that includes taking all the money that would have gone to the nerdy after-school activities and putting it into prom and sports.
Of course, this stereotypical school of the 1980s will use the voting system used by the USA back in the 1980s, the classic voting system of First Past the Post, where all the votes are counted, and at the end, the one with the most votes wins.
In a 49 to 51 election, it's clear that the Nerds win by a squeaker, but that's not how elections work in the USA, and Cheerleader has a secret weapon. Most of her friends are of course fellow cheerleaders, dance team members, and athletes. But counted among her number is a bookish girl who is good with her studies, someone that were you to glance at her, you'd assume she's with the Nerds. But she and Cheerleader have known each other since they were toddlers, and while Bookish Girl is smart, she's also desperate for attention and acceptance. Bookish Girl is Cheerleader's key to victory.
Cheerleader and Bookish Girl sit down after school and go over strategy. It's clear that the numbers don't support Cheerleader. All 51 Nerds are pretty sweet on that whole "Nerd After School Activities" thing. But they aren't all as firmly dedicated to voting. For one thing, Nerd Boy is not well liked, with no social skills what-so-ever. He's the kind of guy that doesn't get a girl easily, and is awkward around girls and does things that can easily be styled as being demeaning and degrading to girls. Nerds are also notoriously flakey when it comes to making appointments when those appointments collide with what they would rather be doing.
Bookish Girl suggests three strategies to Cheerleader. They are:
Let's say Election Day, 3 gamers skip out on the vote, one of the feminists stay home on the accusations, and the other, plus two more Nerds, vote for Bookish Girl. The tally of votes comes out to:
Remember what the rules were? The one with the most votes wins. Those 7 kids ended up denying themselves and the 44 other kids the Nerd Boy's platform. Hopefully they'll enjoy the prom they'll be excluded from and the constant bullying and teasing by the Jocks, because there will be no book club to go to, or D&D night to play in, or so on.
Really, all Cheerleader needed was for Bookish Girl to run, with a side dose of that other cheerleader's accusation (let's just call her Tara Reade...), and it's 49 to 48 to 3, which is STILL a win for Team Jock. And that's how narrow our elections are today.
You may think that Harris is a lockin to win, and you're convinced by someone like this poster that you can vote third party. The problem is you can't know how many Jocks and Nerds are in this school. Are there 55 Nerds and only 45 Jocks? Can you vote for the Bookish Girl over the Nerd Boy because Nerd Boy did something you don't agree with in Junior High, or because he dissed your favourite pop culture icon, or he's a GURPS player rather than a D&D player, or so on, and Bookish Girl is idealic? How will you feel when you wake up the next morning and come to school and see that Jocks won 45 to 44 to 11, and you and 10 other people are absolute dufuses who let the nerd activities go by the wayside?
And to make this REAL...how will you feel come the next morning if you wake up, see your State went to Trump, and thus gave Trump the 270 EVs he needed to win. Remember, Trump's Jock-favoured activities can be read about in Project 2025...
In conclusion, you shouldn't listen to dufuses like this poster. We saw what happened last time we let them poison our minds. Your vote CAN get you the absolute worst outcome, and the only people who want that to happen are accelerationists and Trump Plants. I'll leave it to you to determine what THIS poster is.
As I have noted in my previous comment, the vast majority of my posts are for workers rights, socialist causes, union issues, and education. I've contributed over 200 posts and comments to the Lemmy socialist community I created and that I mod. I'm a member of the Socialist Workers Party, and I support them financially. You can check out the sub here:
https://lemmy.world/c/socialist
and see my post history here:
https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts.
Don’t you get it?
This poster is a Mormon Satanist Transracial Socialist Workers Party Kopimist Monk. Debt-free, Alcohol-free. Drug-free, Caffeine-free, Woke-free (famously something a leftist socialist would say).
It’s in their bio so it must be true.
Satanist, I could respect, although Satanism is a rather comical religion: basing the name of your religion on the villain of the holy book of another religion is pretty funny. But regardless, at least they're pushing back against fundamentalist Christians in a way no other religion is.
The rest of it is cringe, and the "woke-free" is a dead give-away, as you point out. The combination is disconcordant, which reinforces my suspicion this is a propaganda account.
The only people who truly believe in Satan are christians.
You'll have to enlighten me, because I know very little about modern Satanists (I read some Crowley and his ilk decades ago), but doesn't the Church of Satan (Satanists) believe in Satan? I thought they did, they just had their own version of the Bible where (the Christian) God is a bad guy and Satan is really the good guy.
Aleister Crowley included barely Satan or Satanism in his writing, in the Church of Satan they believe Satan is "a name for the reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will", Anton LaVey (the founder of the Church of Satan) says he Satanist's concept of a god is described as the Satanist's true "self"— a projection of his or her own personality, not an external deity. Satan is used as a representation of personal liberty and individualism.
The Satanic Temple is a satirical religion that was established in reaction to the "intrusion of Christian values on American politics".
Your argument is steeped in fear and defeatism, assuming that the only way to navigate this broken system is to bow down to the two-headed snake that has dominated our political landscape for far too long.
What you fail to see is that every vote for a third party is a stand against the status quo, a demand for something better, and a refusal to be complicit in a system that continually fails the people.
While you’re busy trying to silence voices of real change, I’m fighting for a future where our choices aren’t limited to the lesser of two evils.
I support and respect your right to vote for whoever you choose, just as I expect you to respect my right to do the same. You're absolutely entitled to disagree, and that same freedom applies to me as well.
And I have a right to disagree with you.
Knowing that Harris and Trump are the only real options in this race and trying to get people to vote for spoilers IS supporting Trump
Supporting a candidate other than Harris or Trump doesn't automatically equate to supporting Trump. The idea that the only "real" options are Harris and Trump is a false dilemma. The real problem is the stranglehold the two-party system has on our democracy, stifling any chance of meaningful change. My vote isn't about choosing between two evils—it's about standing for the values I believe in. If that threatens the status quo, then so be it.