this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
27 points (68.0% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2610 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

If you really want to avoid a Trump win, supporting a viable alternative outside the two-party system is the only way to push the conversation forward.

Ok so this is bad faith or you clearly have no idea how this country works. Or maybe even both.

So let me get this straight... In order to avoid another Trump term, we must vote for a party that, mathematically, has no chance of winning? Taking votes from the only candidate running against Trump that might win in the process?

Let's remember that Trump said he will not run again if he loses. That means winning in 2024 is the only way that "another win" can happen.

So please, I would love for you to explain to me, how voting third party in 2024 will "avoid a Trump win"?

Again, and perhaps you just don't know how elections here work, but these candidates can not possibly win.

That's not hyperbole, they are literally incapable of securing the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Please tell me you understand this. Like you get the basic arithmetic being used here, right?

So with that said... I would LOVE to hear how voting third party will avoid another Trump term.

[–] ctkatz@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

part of me shitting on third parties is the fact they enable the bad stuff they want to happen, see the elections of 2000 and 2016. but it also needs to be pointed out, repeatedly, loudly, this other point you just nade:

IT IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE TO WIN ENOUGH ELECTORAL VOTES TO BECOME PRESIDENT.

they don't have an answer for that. if they do respond they never address that specific point only saying well enough people just have to vote third party.

none of these people have any clue how our government or elections or voting works. I'll bet some of them are convinced that because the cheneys endorsed harris it means she's an even bigger genocider even though they both have said they don't agree with her politics except for the politics that preserve the constitution. they're dead enders man.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

IT IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE TO WIN ENOUGH ELECTORAL VOTES TO BECOME PRESIDENT.

saying it doesn't make it true

[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In this election cycle, as well as all previous ones, their statement is accurate. In the future? Who knows. But their statement, as written is correct.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

you haven't presented any evidence for any claims. saying it doesn't make it true.

[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A basic grasp of math and statistics is all that's needed.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

more handwaving

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

this still isn't evidence. it is just handwaving.

[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Let's flip the script. Please provide evidence the green party has won a presidency, or there strong evidence they will this cycle.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I haven't made any such claim. I'm not defending a claim I didn't make.

[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I made a statement, not a claim. My statement was that the green party has not won a presidency. You demanded I provide evidence. I was merely showing you how silly that request was.

Your statement was a bad faith argument, and had been reported as such.

[–] PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

we can all see that you are not accurately characterizing this thread. it's public.

[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I am grateful for it being public