this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
1110 points (89.1% liked)
People Twitter
4809 readers
1975 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying.
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Says the people who swallowed the genocide every year they've been alive but decided to get unproductively upset at the moment it will help conservatives most.
Not in 2000. Republicans win when Democrats abstain or vote third-party. I’m not judging, but sharing personal experience. I voted for Nader along with plenty of others. In turn, we had Bush respond to 9/11 and decide how to address climate change instead of Gore.
Yes in 2000, third party didn't cede yhe election to Bush.
There were much more influential factors.
These " random, unforeseeable" technical problems across many states coincidentally disenfranchised black and white voters 10 to 1 vote.
Before the votes were counted, katherine Harris, who worked for Jeb Bush, the governor of California and George Bush's brother, requested that at that specific moment, while George Bush had a lead in the number of Florida votes recounted, Florida election officials be allowed to stop counting votes(If they kept counting, the projection was for Gore to win the count a second time)
That went to the supreme Court, who said "yea, election officials shouldn't be made to count every vote if they don't want to", so George Bush ended up winning in his Governor brother's state.
Those travesties had a much greater impact, a magnitude greater, than your perfectly legitimate vote for Nader.
In every election, you should vote for the candidate than most aligns with your views.
I'm voting for Biden because he has an impressive executive track record on civil rights, the environment, sustainable technology in his first term and I hope he does the same in the second.
No other candidate that I'm aware of is more likely to do as much for the issues I think should be most urgently addressed.
Anyone voting for the green party or any third party should not be dissuaded from doing so because the American election system is broken.
By voting for a third party, they're fixing that break.
Don't forget that the ballots in Florida were really poorly designed, and caused Pat Buchanan to get a very high number of Democratic votes.
Thanks, I'm glad you brought it up.
Instead of leaving that Chad.... Hanging??? 😅
Haha, niice
Please explain how voting third-party fixes anything when a third-party candidate has never received even one electoral vote ~~in the history of our nation~~ since 1968.
George Wallace got some electoral college votes because he was a flagrant racist.
I didn’t know that! I knew he was a famously bad candidate, but I just looked it up, and you’re right. Turns out he won 46 votes. Not bad.
In first world countries, voting third parties is called" "voting", where you vote for the preferred candidate.
Voting for a third party fixes The way that Americans think voting is supposed to work, that you choose the color you like the best and bleed for them regardless of what you believe in.
That’s nice and all, but in the US we use the Electoral College to vote for President. They are in no way obligated to follow the popular vote. Candidates need 270 electoral votes to become President. A third-party candidate has never received even one electoral vote since 1968.
Also, the US is no longer a first-world country due to wealth inequality and lack of accessible healthcare nationwide. We have been downgraded to a developing nation.
https://theconversation.com/us-is-becoming-a-developing-country-on-global-rankings-that-measure-democracy-inequality-190486
Yes, those are both of my points from the previous comment.
The voting system in the US is broken and people need to start voting correctly.
They are too afraid to.
As I've mentioned, the US is not a first world nation. That's why I said that first world countries know how to vote, while the US does not.
Why are you framing my own points defensively?
You're missing the point. As long as the electoral college and first past the post remain, third party candidates will never win. Never. It has nothing at all to do with people being "too afraid".
The last time a 3rd-party candidate got ANY electoral votes(despite what the other person said, it has happened) was in 1968, and that was literally only because it was during the tail end of the civil rights movement and Nixon wasn't quite racist enough for the south compared to the full blown white supremacist George Wallace.
The ONLY time a 3rd-party candidate has done better than one of the two major parties was over 100 years ago in 1912. The only reason for that is because the candidate in question was 2x former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, running as a 3rd-party specifically to oppose his handpicked successor turned rival Taft, who had become immensely unpopular with Rooseveltian Republicans. Well, two reasons: surviving an assassination attempt & giving a speech leaking blood with the bullet still in him like a total badass, just weeks before the election, probably helped too. Guess what though, it caused a huge spoiler effect that gave Woodrow Wilson a landslide 81.9% of the electoral vote despite only getting 41.8% of the popular vote.
Third parties are just inherently incompatible with our current election system. We need to adopt ranked choice voting and ditch the electoral college first.
I'm not missng the point, you're agreeing with me without realizing it.
As i said, the us voting system is broken, needs reform and is teaching Americans to be afraid of voting.
A broken system doesn't make the voters wrong. The system is wrong.
Voting for your candidate, whichever numbered party they are, is the right way to vote.
Republicans win close races via fuckery. While US Americans are all distracted by the presidential race, republicans around the country are plotting all kinds of fuckery to rig the congressional races, the ones that are collectively far more important than the presidency.
Everyone is focused on Joe Biden, but the reality is that, without a democratic congressional majority, very little will continue to happen. Even with a majority in both the house and senate, i don't think Democrats will fix (or want to fix) many of the broken parts of the system, like Citizen's United, FISA, Copyright, DMCA, healthcare, supreme court expansion, gerrymandering, anti-trust and regulations, regulating Wall Street, regulating banks, fixing the housing market, taking power back from the supreme court, etc.
It’s not fuckery. It’s voter disengagement. Republicans know that they have limited numbers, but they vote with party loyalty. All they need to do is sour the left on their candidate to win. The largest historical Democratic turnout was 2020.
Brooks brothers riot was absolutely republican fuckery.
That’s fair. I should’ve written it’s not exclusively fuckery.
Regardless, voter disenfranchisement has been their main play for decades. They keep doing it because it works without having to speak to the good qualities of their own candidate.
Voter disengagement helped along by media consolidation. It's not profitable to cover House races anymore unless something crazy is happening, so people aren't made aware of it. State and local elections are even worse. Sometimes the only information about a candidate I can find is their private Facebook profile.
100%. Many fly under the radar and hope to catch a downballot win.
I'm referring to Jan 6th, the widespread election deniers, and the fake elector's plot. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
Thank you for saying the truth. I've cared since the 80s. It's cute people turned on the news. Gaza has nothing to do with our elections unless you're a Russian plant.
Absolutely, or a limp maga.
People have gone from blindly supporting anything #Israel and condemning anything #Palestine without making any distinctions between civilians and their government, and then once they couldn't deny the violence, they were like "got it, so Israel always bad and Palestine always good" without learning anything more about the situation.
Exactly. Everything is a binary now. No nuance.
Oh we've cared. It's just that previous democratic presidents were working to stop settlements and work towards the two state solution.
This turbo kill approach is new.
Biden is the first US president to issue sanctions against Israeli colonizers on Palestinian land.
Previous presidents of any side for the past 70 years have been sending military aid to Israel.
You got your facts way wrong.
Yeah sure, he sanctioned 5 of them. While he's supplying massive amounts of war material for their genocide. It's performative at best. And those settlers are still blocking aid with the help of the Israeli authorities who tell them where to find the shipments and don't clear them off the road.
They're sanctions against illegal Israeli colonization and he's the first president to issue them.
He even paused military aid to Israel, which I don't think has ever happened before either.
Biden was also the first president to directly contradict Israel and enact consequences over the idfs policy even though the IDF have been executing civilians for decades.
You couldn't be more off base.
That pause is evidence itself that he knew they were committing war crimes with our military aid. Which he did not pause even 90% of. He paused airplane bombs. Everything else from Bullets to Artillery shells was still getting sent the entire time.
And your statement is false, Bush got them to remove settlements. I was just talking about previous democrats but if we want to include all presidents then there are certainly some who have done more to slow down Israel. For example in the 1990's there was the Oslo Accords.
Performative actions do not absolve you of illegally supplying weapons to a criminal regime.
So your contention is that
Although Biden is the only president to actively contradict and issue sanctions against the Israeli government and its settlers for their colonization and war crimes,
Biden's the least active president to actively contradict and issue sanctions against the Israeli government and its settlers for their colonization and war crimes.
Even though nobody else has contradicted Israel or issued sanctions and Biden has.
You are confused.
You are ignoring key issues I've brought up to continue your counter factual narrative. I'm used to dealing with this from Republicans. Getting this from Democrats is seriously disappointing.
This is the historical narrative.
You might not want to make up stores if you don't want to be disillusioned.
No it isn't. You're doing the same thing Trump's supporters do and creating alternative facts.
All the things I'm saying are correct.
Biden was the first president to issue sanctions and directly contradict the Israeli government over civilian settlers and IDF war crimes and executions.
I know that throws off your make-believe, but that's the nature of the truth.
Nope
Nope Again.
And Nope.
Again. Performative sanctions on 3 people isn't a consequence. And you cannot "contradict" someone committing a crime while you hand them the gun to do it. Next you're going to tell me the wheel man at the bank robbery wasn't part of the crew because he said mean things about the point man.
I know it makes you feel better to make things up when you don't have a substantive rebuttal to biden's sanctions and actions taken against Israel completely destroy your tantrum, but that doesn't make the facts any less true.
I enjoy fiction though, keep at it.
Giving them weapons is not taking action against them.
You're right, the sanctions, and then directly contradicting netanyahu and telling them you won't support a continued and then pausing weapon shipments is taking action.
You're crawling there.
He sent those bombs. And he never stopped sending everything else
Oh you mean like every other us president for 70 years?
Except that Biden actually paused military aid imposed sanctions and stood up to Israel?
The first us president to do any of those things.
Fascinating.
He hasn't imposed any sanctions on Israel. He's sanctioned 3 people who aren't even in government.
And if you read the links you'd know he's not the first.
Also, if those previous shipments were also illegal, that does not mean it's any better now.
Your arguments just get worse. Please stop. Seriously.
You don't like it when people contradict your false statements with the truth?
Shocking.
Unfortunately, some of us know what we're talking about and don't need to make up the fictions you need to.
Biden is doing the specific work you're throwing a tantrum about.
Happy to rain on your fantasy.
Whatever drugs you're taking I'm going to want some when you guys zombie walk us into another Trump presidency.
I agree, you should definitely be medicated.
See what you're talking about is every single other president in US history.
What I'm talking about is Biden taking direct action by sanctioning, contradicting and pausing weapon shipments to Israel.
You made a whoopsie there. Confusing one person with every other person in the group.
This was you.
Wow, how did you manage that deduction?