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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
Yes for you all we have to do is convince 45% of voters to do something they would literally never do to succeed. And then if we don't succeed, burning the country the rest of the way to ground at the expense of every vulnerable person is not only not cruel, it's a fine choice. And that's the only way to be a logical true leftist. Limiting suffering is clearly a horrible choice. I guess once we realize that suffering and cruelty is the whole point, your positions do make a lot of sense.
It's worse than that. And understanding this is key to understanding why voting third party will never work in the USA without reforming our electoral system.
Suppose tomorrow, a genie grants one of these posters' wishes and suddenly it's Stein with 48.0% of the vote in critical swing states, and Harris and other candidates on the Left sit on 3% of the vote, while Trump has 51% of the vote. Suddenly, it's Harris who's the spoiler and we end up with Trump because 10k voters thought Jill was too cosy-cosy with Russia.
I have specific issues with Stein that would definitely have me far less sure of my vote, but I'd still take her over Project 2025 and DJT. I'd still be calling as hard against voting third party as I am in this universe where it's the Greenie and not the Democrat that would spoil the election.
Exactly, this is not an ideological dispute, this is statistics. And that is the key to understanding why the third party astroturf posts and replies are not credible.
Every time someone helpfully responds with a statistics explanation, these users respond with ideological escalation. It always reframes the debate to be about an entrenched system or Gaza or miming offense or generic DARVO. (All of which coincidentally mirror right-wing talking points or known election disinformation goals - i.e., push deep state conspiracy theories, escalation political divisions to fray unity - if you find that coincidence interesting.)
What they never try to do is explain how a vote for a third party in our FPTP system results in a desirable outcome for their stated "third party" policy priorities.
Which is why none of it is convincing: they cannot be both ideologically so pure that it's a moral imperative to vote third party, and simultaneously so ideologically aloof that they do not care that that vote can only undermine that outcome. So it's either bad faith, or reckless ignorance.