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.
- 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
Seems like you beat the coin flip today, and people agree with you. Watch out, next time the Libertarians and Communists will tell you that just getting on the ballot is enough to make a dent in the two party system...
It's a thread about the Green Party, those trolls don't bother coming here. The third party enthusiasts only show up for the Harris threads.
...speaking of good faith.
The communist party of the United States has consistently refused to run candidates for major offices very specifically to avoid spoiling the vote.
The Communist Party, yes. The air-quote Communists on Lemmy are just as happy to tell you to vote third party as anyone else.
Oh yeah the kind who will do anything so long as it won’t help
That's the best summary possible
I am a leftist and I celebrate everyone's right to vote how they please. If people would like to hear my reasons for voting for Kamala, or my concerns about third party spoiling, I can tell them. But a person's right to vote is more important to me than how they vote. That's what democracy and being for the people is about. Use your rights, I support that. We all deserve to use our rights.
What an insufferable position and way of arguing for it. To anyone reading this thread, she only gets worse with each reply. She's arguing for... Literally Everything necessarily taking a backseat to protecting people from even the mere concept of them feeling like their voting rights are taken away. Despite the fact that no one in this thread is trying to do that, and only Republicans are ever interested in such a thing, she's really oddly interested in making sure people vote for third parties, which helps Republicans, without ever hearing the truth about third parties because it might hurt their feelings. Which as we all know, is definitely taking their voting rights away.
She undoubtedly will point out some out of context quote about how the rational person in this discussion is a fAsCisT but each time she did that previously in the thread below, she wasn't doing it in good faith so you be the judge.
You realize your strawman here is a bad faith argument? In fact, I actually can't find a single good faith argument in anything you've written. You start out with an appeal to emotion. Then strawman. Then no true scotsman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Also we all know you're the """rational""" other person on an alt account. You type the same and it's been days since anyone responded to this thread. Lol.
I am voting for Kamala and I'm perfectly happy to tell people why. Maybe people will agree with me and that's great. Otherwise, I still support someone's right to vote no matter how they vote. Because that's what a right is, and that's what the right to vote grants. I disagree with any speech that advocates for limiting the right to vote, particularly because I'm a woman and women's rights are being taken away actively.
I also think that while yes, obviously Jill Stein is a Russian asset, that doesn't mean every independent or third party candidate is. I am on the side of the every day person and am fine with hearing criticisms of Dems and of the way we currently vote.
I will point out any speech that is a dog whistle to eroding our rights, though. I've quoted the specific issues with what you said. I don't really need to say more. I accept you think it's fine to control others. I accept that you refuse to learn about civil rights and the right to vote. I accept that you refuse to analyze propaganda and dog whistles in your speech. Whatever, it's your opinion. I also think your little comment serves as an advertisement anyway for any people reading this thread besides you, lol.
Quite conspiratorial to think I'm that other person.. do you do that? Why would you even think that people would go through the trouble? Weird.
More conspiratorial thinking. in any case it's pretty ridiculous to try and tell someone they shouldn't inform people about third parties because they might get their feelings hurt and then.... Feel unable to vote or something?
https://youtu.be/VbFmicUTb_k?si=KWic5pGj9STRmw4j
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-rightsadd.html
I already explained that you speak and type the same. No, that's not something I do, but that's something you seem to do. Based on you doing it.
I quoted the speech you engaged in exactly as it relates to anti-democracy speech and dog whistles.
I'm not engaging in conspiratorial thinking, that's not what that is. Conspiratorial thinkers are known for:
Gee, I think that voting really counts. Conspiratorial thinkers believe that voting is pointless. I also think people should run for office and use their rights and communicate with their government. I am not antigovernment. Wild, it's like you're wrong and you think that conspiratorial thinking just means suspecting anyone of being hostile. Lol.
I'm so tired of fascists.
Yikes, yeah you're just as wrong about this as you were about the things you're being criticized for in the first place.
OK. Agree to disagree.
https://youtu.be/VbFmicUTb_k?si=KWic5pGj9STRmw4j
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-rightsadd.html
No one here is trying to take anyone's rights away. The other person commenting that they prefer more informed votes to uninformed votes doesn't even begin to border on removing anyone's rights, nor is it a "dog whistle" for anything. It's patently ridiculous. As is the assertion that I am an their alt. Seriously, I write like them? They wrote long detailed responses to your bluster, I'm simply dismissing you on the grounds that your idea is so ridiculous it's not worth actually engaging in, clearly since no matter what the dude wrote you took away something weird and persecution-y from it. Us both using spellcheck and capital letters doesn't make us the same person. What reason would anyone have to care so deeply about what you wrote to switch accounts and pretend to be someone else? Even if it looked like we wrote exactly the same (we definitely don't), that still shouldn't be your first assumption. Yet it was, and that's delusional.
Disagree.
I have no issue with this statement. I quoted exactly what I took issue with, which is that they said "it should be a REQUIREMENT to have an education in order to vote." That's literally unconstitutional and illegal and fascist. Just like any other fascist speech, I am against that. That is indeed advocating to take away people's right to vote. Quite clearly.
That is not clear at all, it is either not literally meant, despite the wording -- that's normal now -- or it's an opinion I understand. It is not fascist to require education. We do that all the time in our society. So yeah, still patently ridiculous.
https://civilrights.org/blog/to-honor-brown-v-board-of-education-give-everyone-the-ballot/
I can link this literature allllll day
The reason for amendments is that conditions change. I can quote basic logic all day but I grow tired of this bullshit.
What conditions have changed in present day that would make denying someone their right to vote not fascist?
You mean you're quitting because you've obviously lost.
Making a fascist idea into an official amendment does not make it less fascist but instead more so.
The point of me referencing the constitution was to show that indeed, many many many people think like I do, so much so it's in our literal constitution. Keep up with your own arguments.
Absurd thing to think from what I've written. I'm so tired of people defending garbage ideas. And no I don't mean right to vote. The only people attacking that are republicans. The garbage idea in question is defending third party voters who refuse to be educated in a basic way.
No, itt alone there are Dems advocating for these ideas.
Taking away people's right to vote, or advocating for speech that does so, is fascist in nature, yes.
Practically no one would agree with you that what was said was fascist or taking rights away or any of these other scary words you're throwing out. Unless they are trying hard to justify third party voting.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-8-6-2/ALDE_00013450/
Kinda seems like majority opinion agrees with me that making education a requirement to vote would be blatantly unconstitutional. Because it denies people their right to vote. Which is literally fascism - an authoritarian dictatorship - when people don't have democracy or the ability to vote.
We all know the reasoning for that wording. Discrimination and such. We've made plenty of amendments in the past. Do you call those unconstitutional? You're very much overreacting to this very specific idea which btw practically no one throws around. But I understand it completely. It is not even in the same ballpark as fascism, that's ridiculous bullshit and the wrong thing to hyper focus on. We have a problem with people not understanding what they are even doing. That is something to try to address and calling that fascism is absolutely and plainly ridiculous af
A normal person would've said "careful about putting conditions on voting" or something. Not you, somehow it's supposed to not be sus AF that you're raging on about fascism and the constitution. It's an understandable sentiment that you could've talked through but what you chose instead is to demonize the sentiment and ignore the dude's point while insisting it's a dog whistle. And now you're doing it to me. No conversation is possible here. However it's clearer than ever that your priority is defending uneducated votes above all, like that's a worthy cause lol
Making education a REQUIREMENT to voting is 100% fascism, and saying fascist ideals and dog whistles isn't okay. Making education a requirement to voting is inherently discriminatory.
I get that you're trying to gaslight me, it's kinda cute. Rawr, you almost bamboozled me. I'm not overreacting and I've linked numerous very reputable sources. One of which is the literal constitution, which you're dismissing by saying it can be amended eventually lol. I mean lol. Yes but currently everyone else including Dem president Lyndon B Johnson and Bill Clinton and Obama and Biden and Harris currently all are fine with this constitution as it is. Like we have a ton of establishment agreement here. It actually hurts the Harris campaign to advocate for something like this - maybe you want people to vote 3rd party.
You want to amend the constitution to reduce people's ability to vote, which you claim is no biggie and def not fascism lol.
I agree we need more accessible education - through a free national online school with adaptive learning and no time limits or age restrictions. If grandpa wants to learn 5th grade science or computer science, let him and give him the educational credit. Build an educational legacy.
But we don't need to make education a reason to deny someone their right to vote.
I had it right the first message when I said INSUFFERABLE
That's not a valid argument, like I already stated.
I'm not sure you could be more milquetoast if you tried. Sure, it's important that everyone has the right to vote. It is equally as important that everyone understand that unless they vote one of two ways, their vote is essentially going to waste at best, and going against their best interests at worse. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote cast against your closest aligned Democrat or Republican candidate. A vote not cast for them is cast against them. That's just the way the system works. It sucks. I hate it. I want to change it, but wishful thinking isn't fixing the problem, and until its fixed, voting third party is a net loss for the voter. That's the shitty reality of it. People that tell you to vote third party are either idiots, or malicious, and no one should be listening to either of those groups when it comes to voting for the future of the country. Work on changing the system first, then cast the vote you want to cast.
It's not "equally important." No, the right to vote is more important. Period.
Sure, your perspective and how you and many others view this election, is that it's important to vote for either Kamala or Trump. But that's your perspective. Totally fine to discuss but it doesn't supercede the literal civil right to vote. Or to run for office.
Today and yesterday, I've seen people advocate for removing the right to vote and run for office here on Lemmy. I've seen people use the word "disenfranchised" wrong. Our civil rights are actively in jeopardy - see: abortion access. People being confused on how important voting rights are and what that means is BAD. I have seen a LOT of fascist rhetoric lately. It is NOT leftwing or radical or progressive to be fascist and deny people their vote just because you dislike it. It is NOT leftwing or radical or progressive to deny people the right to run for office because it makes another party's job harder. That is actually literally fascism. What the fuck.
And again, I'm voting for Kamala. I generally agree with your reasoning. I do not agree with the messaging or the idea that people should be forced into thinking and voting like me.
By that logic, the right to own a gun supersedes the need to be educated on how they work. "Here's a loaded 9mm, Timmy. I'm sure you can figure the rest out."
And I'm not saying that anyone should be forced to vote any one way. Vote however you want, but being educated on how it works is just as important as the act itself. If every voter were educated on the system and understood how it worked, then we wouldn't have third party candidates. Actually, strike that, we would have them. We wouldn't have this first past the post bullshit we do now, and third party candidates would have a chance at being elected if they represent the will of the majority.
Untl we have that, though, people should understand that voting doesn't work how they want it to, it works how it works. If you want to feed your family by fishing with cheetos, go for it, but don't tell everyone else that if we all fish with cheetos suddenly fish will take the bait. The nature of the beast is that we vote in a two party system, and we will until we change it at a fundamental level. The fact that we have people saying that third party voting is a viable option tells me that there is a lot of misinformation and a strong lack of education in our voting populace.
A gun is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the right to vote. It is fundamentally unique and vitally important.
People who are voting third party are at least voting. The majority of Americans don't or can't vote - that is a bigger concern than HOW someone votes, and is much more manageable with education and neutral conversations. Stacy Abrams did particularly well in Georgia a few years ago because she just got people to vote at all. Any political interest should be encouraged because we all have to start somewhere. As people vote and learn more, they will develop their own opinions about third party spoilers. They will have conversations about it with people like you and they might end up changing their mind. That's the beauty of being an individual and choice - we can pick to do different things.
As far as misinformation- that's a huge topic and would require we regulate advertising and media. Collectively though, people do really well and tend to get most answers right. We do better as a group. So the more votes we can get (including allowing felons to vote), the better and more just society will be.
We are talking about rights. I was using gun rights as an example, because like guns, if you don't know how to vote, you'll end up hurting yourself or others. Education is key. Everyone has the right to vote, but the ability to cast that vote should come with a caveat. You should know how to vote, and how your vote works. Ignoring the system and willfully playing dumb means that I don't want your vote to count alongside mine. I'm not saying that people should be educated to vote like me, but that there is a baseline level of education that should be a requirement to vote. And before you get your undies twisted, I'm not saying that we should take away the right to vote from the uneducated. I'm saying we should put more focus into education.
As you told me I was off topic with guns, I'll say you are off topic here. We aren't talking about non-voters. We are talking about voting 3rd party.
No, it doesn't. That's the lazy answer. That's the defeatist answer. It requires, say it with me, education. We have such a shit education system in this country that if we had to teach children how to breathe, the infant mortality rate would be at pre-industrial levels. We keep funelling money into special interests, corporate control, and foriegn wars that we have left several generations behind when it comes to education. If we focused on ensuring the education of our children, a lot of our issues would be solved within 50 years. It is the single greatest failing of this once-great country. "Why educate, when we can tell them how to act and outsource critical thinking?"
That is what I'm saying. I'm not trying to take away anyone's rights. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. I'm saying that if we invested in our youth the way we invest in war, we'd be waving to cancer in the rear view mirror of our generational ship bound for Alpha Centauri. Instead I have a bunch of rich cunts with more money than god spending my life measuring their dicks.
A gun is not the same as a vote. Your analogy is not a good one and doesn't work because voting is a unique right.
This is fascism. This is where we disagree. I am not the thought police for others. I am simply my own advocate and that's it. Others can agree or not.
I agree that education needs reform and that we have a misinformation issue.
I'm with you there - say THOSE things then. Advocate foe policy that increases education. Do not say stuff like "basic education should be a requirement for voting," because that's indeed saying you want to take away rights and tell people what to do.
Anything can be fascism when taken completely out of meaning. Maybe if you completed the quote you'd have a little bit of context for the argument. I'm done with this discussion, it seems you are more than willing to twist my words to give artistic license to what you want me to say than to actually read what I wrote. Take it easy, stranger. Hope you are able to make thoughts and prayers work out for a better world, because that seems to be all you are capable of.
Here's my other comment about what I think should be done for education. I have spoken with educators around the country about this idea and they tend to really like it, so long as they are paid for the work they do and they don't have more students to oversee directly.
https://lemmy.world/comment/12277181
I would like to not be hostile with you, although I can appreciate that I upset you. I would really be grateful if you would read about my educational idea above, because it's something we are both very passionate about and if you like it too, it's something you may enjoy talking to others about.
Okay, I hope this discussion has left you with at least some thoughts of your own regarding how you speak about voting. In today's climate where our civil rights are being eroded, it matters what people say and how they say it. No one wants to parrot old disenfranchisement dog whistles from ya know, the times when they denied black people the right to vote because they lacked an education white people found valid. And saying "basic education should be a requirement to vote," is LITERALLY a dog whistle from then. That's like saying gay people should wear a pink triangle and then acting confused when I take issue with that specific verbiage and idea. Please consider how propaganda affects all of us and we all may pick up problematic speech from time to time because we live in a dystopia. People who engage in problematic rhetoric also deserve a basic education in things like civil rights and hate speech right? Otherwise it's dangerous.
Lol, such a random stray out of no where. Also ableism agaiiiiin why
I really miss ~2016 Late Stage Capitalism on Reddit and I was hoping Lemmy would have some of those same people. I miss them.
The same thoughts I came in with, that education is needed now more than ever.
Which makes me wonder how you can be so smarmy with every sentence that you type. Your people skills leave much to be desired.
Ahh, we're back to twisting my words. I'll repeat them, so we can ensure that the context lives on: "I’m not saying that we should take away the right to vote from the uneducated. I’m saying we should put more focus into education."
You know, for posterity, since your brand of journalism leans into the yellow end of the spectrum.
It certainly is. Good thing I didn't say it. I said that we should make sure that we are educating people along with their rights. Giving people rights and hoping they know what to do with them is how we ended up with Trump in office.
Oh, let me see which logical fallacy this falls into. I'm thinking either Red Herring or Equivocation.
You seem to be the one drawing false equivocation and shielding yourself behind an unrelated argument because you know that you have no ground to stand on. But, please, tell me how I'm anti-LGBTQ+, again. I'm sure the second time you say it, it will come true.
Well, at least you seem to have a grasp on the lesson I am trying to teach you.
Is this red herring, again? I can't be sure, but I think you either don't understand what I said, or you don't understand ableism. Either way, that ain't me, chief.
No one is stopping you from making a triumphant return to the cesspool you crawled out of. You can ride a donkey in while they fan you with palm fronds.
So, there now. I've responded to every insipid argument you've made, and nothing you've said can be taken out of context. You are not the person you seem to think you are. You manipulate and twist words to serve your own ends, and people like you are the reason we have a lot of the issues we do. I'm gonna go ahead and block you now, so feel free to have the last word, I won't try to stop you.
I just read this whole argument and you are correct. This person seems to think talking about third parties honestly might hurt people's feelings and that somehow takes their rights away. Ri-fuckin-diculous
No self awareness on your projection here? Lol
You also said:
So you DO want to tell people who to vote for?
Ps Red Herring is a literary device. You mean strawman, I think.
Pss you may want to rethink your use of chief and yellow
Reddit and LSC was taken over by rightwingers, this is known. Can't go back bc everyone was banned for being leftwing. Literally, it was a scandal on a different small reddit that also got banned. Ironically, I was permabanned for advocating that people go vote. This was not a bannable position in 2016, when 60% of the sub was pro-Bernie.
Since you're blocking me anyway, I'm not going to take a lot of time with your comment. I will say that you misunderstood the example of a dogwhistle I was using regarding pink triangle - which I used because I thought you wouldn't be anti-queer and would notice it.
A good judge for ableism, I'd if you're saying something a Nazi would also say to justify gassing a prisoner. So lazy - yup. Incompetent -yup. Just has to be reactionary regarding someones abilities and hostile - hostility is an invitation to violence.
Here, try reading this again, the irony is really too funny:
Lol
Okay, block me, that was always allowed.
Yea... though President Debs would have been excellent.
Guys as soon as we've got 5% popular vote we get on the ballots automatically. That prevents unavoidable blockers like how our own campaign fucked up the paperwork! It will be all over for these fuckers, we will win it for certain after that.