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.
Yes, we’ve established that. So, since you don’t like that, your plan is to keep trying the same “vote for lesser evil” plan that’s been failing for decades.
In the face of an dying empire (dying much faster now due to the Iran War), climate change, and the rest.
In my opinion . . .
When the US implodes because every sane person fled, the world will not be better.
Meh, as we’ve seen for a while, the US is a dangerous force against peace. So maybe the chaos being directed inwards instead of outwards for once will be better for the rest of us.
Neat. Your plan? Run from the responsibility vs violence? Still haven’t heard it beyond those two options. “Get out or get guns” is defeatist and surrenders the initiative to the chaos.
The US is a dangerous force against peace
When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man. I’d like to prevent the US from being the next one. Am I making things worse by trying to reverse our destruction? I don’t think I am.
Putting words in your mouth, you’re saying “it’s too late” and I should just run? What happens when the US is 100% “republican”? I don’t think that will help on the global stage and I think it will be worse for everyone when things fail here, so I’m trying to prevent that. I think we get an imperialist nation with crumbling infrastructure that needs to take what it can’t produce and will do so with force. We’re like mostly there - see Iran.
I guess one last try. Attack my position again without a solution and I’ll give up.
With some detail, and not in a one-liner, how do we make this better?
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.
Yes, we’ve established that. So, since you don’t like that, your plan is to keep trying the same “vote for lesser evil” plan that’s been failing for decades.
In the face of an dying empire (dying much faster now due to the Iran War), climate change, and the rest.
In my opinion . . .
Meh, as we’ve seen for a while, the US is a dangerous force against peace. So maybe the chaos being directed inwards instead of outwards for once will be better for the rest of us.
Neat. Your plan? Run from the responsibility vs violence? Still haven’t heard it beyond those two options. “Get out or get guns” is defeatist and surrenders the initiative to the chaos.
When I was growing up, Russia was the global boogie man. I’d like to prevent the US from being the next one. Am I making things worse by trying to reverse our destruction? I don’t think I am.
Putting words in your mouth, you’re saying “it’s too late” and I should just run? What happens when the US is 100% “republican”? I don’t think that will help on the global stage and I think it will be worse for everyone when things fail here, so I’m trying to prevent that. I think we get an imperialist nation with crumbling infrastructure that needs to take what it can’t produce and will do so with force. We’re like mostly there - see Iran.
I guess one last try. Attack my position again without a solution and I’ll give up.
With some detail, and not in a one-liner, how do we make this better?