The reason is of course because you can't form a winning coalition without those people, and they aren't the ones who will immediately feel the effects of having the likes of Stephen Miller back in charge if you don't. People in the UK know all about having to vote for their second-least favourite party. Meanwhile in France the left have just botched their opportunity to form a government because they couldn't agree among themselves.
I don't know why anyone in any state would support the American Green Party, whose one and only achievement was getting George W Bush elected over Al Gore. Bernie Sanders has more influence and political power as an independent than the Green Party has ever had as a party, and he did it all without being a spoiler for the Democrats.
Re: Politics
2542Why would anyone vote for the anti war, pro universal healthcare candidate, its baffling...
Anthony Flack wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 2:23 am I don't know why anyone in any state would support the American Green Party
Re: Politics
2543To be fair, I've always found the "My vote is the deepest expression of my identity" folks to be primarily white cishet dudes. It seems most of the rest of the potential coalition is grappling with the same strange game as pragmatically as the rest of us.Hex wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2024 6:22 pmThat is missing my point: why is that only ever fucking directed at marginalized people who do that but not likewise for transphobes and zionists who vote as expressions of their personal beliefs? There is an huge fucking double standard here and it’s fucking shitty to constantly encounter this. I *never* see anyone complaining about transphobes or zionists in the Democratic party who wouldn’t get in line to vote if Harris explicitly supported trans rights or not sending arms to Israel. Instead I log on the internet every day to see cis people fucking hammering on and on against trans people for this and it fucking feels like shit, especially when it’s coming from people who claim they aren’t transphobic despite always seeming to aim their ire at us if we don’t completely fall in line. Jesus fucking christ I hate that I even have to explain thisAnthony Flack wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2024 3:31 pm
It's people who see voting as an expression of their personal beliefs rather than as a tactical decision who are narcissistic.
The Dem platform on trans issues seems to have been at a plateau for some years and if we're counting on anyone to underline the lack of political courage there, it's folks like you. I can't imagine how uncomfortable it would be to back a party that is the only defense against legal and cultural persecution while they're not prepared to publicly acknowledge you because of a potential political liability. The ever shifting state of semi-progress in this country is bizarre.
Re: Politics
2544Setting aside aside the impossibility of a win, how would someone with zero public service experience make that happen in a divided Congress.dumbass wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 7:38 am Why would anyone vote for the anti war, pro universal healthcare candidate, its baffling...
Anthony Flack wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 2:23 am I don't know why anyone in any state would support the American Green Party
Re: Politics
2545classic duopoly talking points, sorry the Dems would rather attack a 3rd Party than end a genocide
penningtron wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 8:15 amSetting aside aside the impossibility of a win, how would someone with zero public service experience make that happen in a divided Congress.dumbass wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 7:38 am Why would anyone vote for the anti war, pro universal healthcare candidate, its baffling...
Anthony Flack wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 2:23 am I don't know why anyone in any state would support the American Green Party
Re: Politics
2546Classic tantrum voter, can't answer a simple question how their zero-chance candidate would accomplish that either.
Re: Politics
2547classic liberal. shames voters for having convictions
penningtron wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:57 am Classic tantrum voter, can't answer a simple question how their zero-chance candidate would accomplish that either.
Re: Politics
2548Ah, mature. Not that I'm super worried about Stein votes at the end of the day, it's just awfully convenient to back a candidate that's not required to have actual policies or face real scrutiny.
This says it better than I can:
This says it better than I can:
Re: Politics
2550I'm going to encourage you to have more conviction than a Stein vote. Write in candidate: the resurrection of Cesar Chavez ghost.dumbass wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 10:02 am classic liberal. shames voters for having convictions
penningtron wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 9:57 am Classic tantrum voter, can't answer a simple question how their zero-chance candidate would accomplish that either.
Pros: Not a white person. Better labor and civil rights credentials.
Cons: Not living, but really it's a draw here as he has equal chances to Stein of being elected.
All said, Cesar Chavez is a better pick than Jill Stein.