shelven Posted September 9 Posted September 9 Just now, Communion said: Yes, and it's not the Green Party's responsibility to shore away right-wing independents from this mindset in favor of Dems instead of just thanking them for the support. Then... stay silent? Don't like the comment? I feel like we're at an impasse here because you keep repeating that the Green Party doesn't have an obligation to discourage that mindset, but what Stein did was actively endorse it. That's... not the same thing! Nobody (in here) is expecting Stein to look for every comment like this and reply to each one saying "hey now, don't tell people to vote for Trump! Dems are bad but Trump's not the solution." But people understandably take issue with her going beyond doing nothing to dissuade right-wing independents from voting Trump and endorsing them voting for him. That's all I'm trying to get across here. If we can't at least agree on the fact that the Green Party shouldn't be actively endorsing voting for Trump as a preferred option to Harris winning, then frankly I've misunderstood your position this entire time on what outcome you want to see in November, because this really then starts to sound like you're rooting for a Trump win so that the Dems "learn their lesson", which I certainly hope isn't the case. 4
Sannie Posted September 9 Posted September 9 1 minute ago, shelven said: Then... stay silent? Don't like the comment? I feel like we're at an impasse here because you keep repeating that the Green Party doesn't have an obligation to discourage that mindset, but what Stein did was actively endorse it. That's... not the same thing! Nobody (in here) is expecting Stein to look for every comment like this and reply to each one saying "hey now, don't tell people to vote for Trump! Dems are bad but Trump's not the solution." But people understandably take issue with her going beyond doing nothing to dissuade right-wing independents from voting Trump and endorsing them voting for him. That's all I'm trying to get across here. If we can't at least agree on the fact that the Green Party shouldn't be actively endorsing voting for Trump as a preferred option to Harris winning, then frankly I've misunderstood your position this entire time on what outcome you want to see in November, because this really then starts to sound like you're rooting for a Trump win so that the Dems "learn their lesson", which I certainly hope isn't the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test 2
ks_dollar Posted September 9 Posted September 9 11 minutes ago, clee95 said: How is this election this close? America is truly stupid....I cant. !!!! shockingly dumb
byzantium Posted September 9 Posted September 9 1 minute ago, Sannie said: Sure, it's counterproductive, but it's also important to point out weird inconsistencies like this. Polling is the only way to know what's going on so if there are polls trying to push a narrative, it's good to point it out. I mean every poll has a margin of error of 3-6%. The polling error that user pointed out would make for a less than 1% shift which is in the window you should already be accounting for. Polling is useful because it shows you where most of the states are going. Like it would not be productive for either candidate to spend money in New York or Tennassee. But its not really useful for gaining certainty on razor thin margins in the key swing states. (By definition they are swing states because they are within the margin of error where polling cannot predict with certainty how they will sing). Its just not really productive to accuse X or Y poll of spinning an agenda when their results are precisely what you would expect a well designed poll to reach. 1
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 2 minutes ago, shelven said: endorsing them voting for him. Again, the issue is these complaints are not based on anything material. This person is not endorsing people voting for Trump: This isn't to say that I think the anger expressed - that much-so already existed - is coming from a malicious place. I'm sure people who are emotionally invested in and feel a duty to ensure Democrats win are genuinely upset or depressed at the sight of and reality that there are people who have been so negatively polarized by Democrats' antics that they now don't feel at all a responsibility that Dems win. But then that means this entire conversation is 1) more-so emotional catharsis for Dem partisans over the weight of this election than anything Jill Stein is or isn't doing and 2) for me, more-so than about this being a result of Democrats anti-democratic actions and behaviors first and foremost. I mean, it's ultimately ***-for-tat as this rhetoric for me is jarring: 12 minutes ago, shelven said: like you're rooting for a Trump win because it aims frustrations with Greens at someone *8 years* consistently holding the same position that political parties are not entitled to or owed votes, that no individual voters bare the responsibility for any candidates losing, and that it is the job of the candidate to simply win votes through persuasion. The conversation is dangerously close to creeping into the argument that having any kind of policy red line or demand that means you'll withhold from Democrats - and thus won't help them in winning because you don't feel a sense of duty to - is somehow "rooting for a Trump win". If Kamala Harris loses, it won't be because of Green Party voters, but because her campaigning was simply not persuasive enough to voters that mattered. If Jill Stein fails to hit 5% at the end of the election, it won't* be because Democratic voters withheld votes from her she was owed, but because the threat of Trump was simply far more persuasive of an argument than anything she could offer. *- Democratic-aligned election officials and state judges using the state apparatus to arbitrarily kick off non-corporate parties muddies these waters. 1
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 1 hour ago, Mr. Mendes said: But unfortunately, there are times when that commitment to those beliefs leads to a conversation where no alternate view is acceptable I appreciate why you may feel emotional, but truthfully, statements like this show the actual basis of this conversation. That none of this is about anyone actually feeling Jill "Defeat the Dem-Rep Uniparty" Stein is endorsing Trump, but emotional catharsis for Dem partisans for 8 years of having to navigate a political party that makes choices not around material reality but around contradicting whims of donors that make winning elections an uphill battle. You're sitting here saying: "I'm being made to feel that I'm not allowed to have my view and that alternative view points aren't acceptable." ...in response, ironically, to Democrats literally using the legal powers of the state apparatus to censure and deny a 3rd party ballot access? Your views are not being de-platformed. Your views are not being repressed via powers of the state. Your support for corporate Democrats is institutionally supported! People who simply disagree with your support of Dems are themselves often faced with the full brutality of the police state the party in question supports:
shelven Posted September 9 Posted September 9 13 minutes ago, Communion said: Again, the issue is these complaints are not based on anything material. This person is not endorsing people voting for Trump: Okay, so then we're at scenario 1 in my earlier post, which is that she carelessly liked a comment that objectively was endorsing people voting for Trump. If you're right that she doesn't think that Trump winning is actively preferable to Harris winning, then you should share my desire for her to stop being so careless in the future. Because people are rightfully going to assume that her liking "vote for Trump if you want as long as we stop Harris" comments means she views the order of preferred outcomes as: Green Party winning > Trump winning > Harris winning. 13 minutes ago, Communion said: The conversation is dangerously close to creeping into the argument that having any kind of policy red line or demand that means you'll withhold from Democrats - and thus won't help them in winning because you don't feel a sense of duty to - is somehow "rooting for a Trump win". If someone likes comments saying "vote Trump", then yes, I will assume they are rooting for a Trump win because... they have just told me through their likes that they are rooting for a Trump win So again, let's give her the benefit of the doubt that she was just being careless and didn't mean to endorse the full content of that comment! But that's the only plausible alternative to conceding that Stein would prefer a Trump presidency over a Harris presidency. Trying to convince anyone that Stein still wouldn't be rooting for a Trump win even if she had intended to co-sign someone literally telling people to vote Trump as a preferable option to voting for Harris is silly. 1
GhostBox Posted September 9 Posted September 9 Jill Stein has been and always will be a grifter nothing more. She doesn't care about the issues she pretends to. That's why she doesn't care if Trump wins. 3rd party candidates and their chances would be so much better if Jill stein never existed.
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 (edited) 29 minutes ago, shelven said: If you're right that she doesn't think that Trump winning is actively preferable to Harris winning, then you should share my desire for her to stop being so careless in the future. This is just going to go in circles because I think some of you don't really give thought to the idea that you're operating at a base level of some level of hypocrisy by endorsing Dems at all during their giant shift towards to the right. It's hard to believe anyone vocally championing Kamala Harris is concerned with the normalizing of Republicans. You're suggesting I don't share your desire, while I could simply point out that I do hold that desire - I've already pointed out that *I* feel a knee-jerk responsibility to shoot down conservatives when they begin to dominate a conversation about the failures of Democrat - yet also understand that liking an instagram or TikTok comment has almost no material impact on the direction of the electorate. And that, more so, those concerned about the carelessness of endorsing the right would be more dedicated in their time to the harmful impact in shifting the Overton window to the right when major liberal candidates honor Dick Cheney, for example: Like the elephant in the room is that there's no real way to believably feel outraged and believe in this idea of some crypto far left-far right alliance while... defending for and voting for an actual center-right and right-wing political alliance taking formation. By all means, vote for Kamala and defeat Trump. I'm not going to hold her failures and right-wing views over anyone's head rightfully fearful of Trump and make them feel bad and try to personally victimize anyone, but surely I'm not insane in recognizing that there's an awkwardness when those voting the same way as Dick Cheney are paranoid of some horseshoe occurring. You're the horseshoe! I just hope you're right it's needed for now! Edited September 9 by Communion
shelven Posted September 9 Posted September 9 8 minutes ago, Communion said: This is just going to go in circles because I think some of you don't really give thought to the idea that you're operating at a base level of some level of hypocrisy by endorsing Dems at all during their giant shift towards to the right. It's hard to believe anyone vocally championing Kamala Harris is concerned with the normalizing of Republicans. I think you're failing to make a distinction between the people who are truly championing Harris as an objectively great option vs. people who are endorsing voting for the Dems this cycle out of what they feel is an important need for harm reduction. For the former group, I can definitely see the hypocrisy. But I fail to see it for the latter group. If someone is openly dissatisfied and frustrated by Harris's move to the right but nonetheless considers it necessary to bite their tongue and vote for her anyways because the only practical alternative will be worse on every issue they care about and so they want to mitigate the amount of damage being done, it's not a hypocrisy for them to call out people who are actively endorsing voting for Trump despite claiming that they view Trump at minimum to be equally as bad as Harris (and let's be honest, if pressed, Stein would probably admit that Harris's policies are at least closer to the Green Party's policies than Trump's). For what it's worth, on an individual level, I personally don't believe in Horseshoe Theory and I think the people online who are encouraging others to vote for Trump as a preferable alternative to stopping Harris are a small minority that shouldn't be used to paint broad strokes about all Green supporters or the leftist movement as a whole. But seeing Stein co-sign that small minority - even if it actually was out of carelessness - is frustrating and it makes me doubt her seriousness as a good faith political leader, which I was already starting to feel some doubts about after other behaviour I've seen from her that ranges from counterproductive to simply petty. 3
ClashAndBurn Posted September 9 Posted September 9 If the shoe were on the other foot, liberals would absolutely view Republicans as a lesser evil than Greens, and practically no one would be batting an eye at the idea of Harris liking a post advocating for people to vote for Trump over Stein. Yet here we are expecting Stein to implicitly endorse the party that is suing multiple states' election administrators to get her kicked off of ballots. Something that, instead of viewing it as a threat to democracy, people here cheer when it happens because they assume it means they'll have an easier path to win instead of just leading to Green voters staying home. 2
shelven Posted September 9 Posted September 9 7 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: Yet here we are expecting Stein to implicitly endorse the party For like the 5th time tonight, nobody in here is expecting that. We are simply expecting her to not explicitly endorse voting for Trump. The bar is... very low. This is really starting to feel like an intentional strawman now Also the first sentence of your post is a baseless what-if that certainly doesn't apply to me and I very highly doubt would apply to literally any regular poster in this thread (maybe Kassi or that Argentinian user who got threadbanned, but nobody currently in here). I've been trying to have a rational discussion about this, but I'm not going to bother to continue with that if we're now at the point of inventing opinions that simply do not exist in this thread, so I guess this is where I call it a night 6
ClashAndBurn Posted September 9 Posted September 9 (edited) 11 minutes ago, shelven said: For like the 5th time tonight, nobody in here is expecting that. We are simply expecting her to not explicitly endorse voting for Trump. The bar is... very low. This is really starting to feel like an intentional strawman now Also the first sentence of your post is a baseless what-if that certainly doesn't apply to me and I very highly doubt would apply to literally any regular poster in this thread (maybe Kassi or that Argentinian user who got threadbanned, but nobody currently in here). I've been trying to have a rational discussion about this, but I'm not going to bother to continue with that if we're now at the point of inventing opinions that simply do not exist in this thread, so I guess this is where I call it a night Was more referring to GhostBox (and yes, Kassi would certainly apply too) with that and not you. I'd consider you more of a "pragmatic progressive" than a liberal anyway. Whereas liberals absolutely are forming alliances with neocons to shut out the left. Look at France, where Macron just did exactly that after he lost the snap election he just called, naming a right-wing PM as a direct backstab to Mélenchon's party after they won a clear plurality over Marine Le Pen. It seems foolish to think that isn't going to happen here with Harris literally courting endorsements from the Cheneys and very publicly and directly snubbing leftists and the Uncommitted movement. She even said she'd be open to putting Republicans in her cabinet, so I mean... Edited September 9 by ClashAndBurn 2 1
shelven Posted September 9 Posted September 9 2 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: Was more referring to GhostBox (and yes, Kassi would certainly apply too) with that and not you. I'd consider you more of a "pragmatic progressive" than a liberal anyway. Whereas liberals absolutely are forming alliances with neocons to shut out the left. Look at France, where Macron just did exactly that after he lost the snap election he just called, naming a right-wing PM as a direct backstab to Mélenchon's party after they won a clear plurality over Marine Le Pen. It seems foolish to think that isn't going to happen with Harris literally courting endorsements from the Cheneys and very publicly and directly snubbing leftists and the Uncommitted movement. Thanks for clarifying (and sorry for my somewhat aggressive tone - I was just getting a bit worn down after I assumed I was being misconstrued again after explaining myself a few times tonight). You raise a valid point with the France example and I can see where the fear of a liberal/neocon alliance comes from. I'm just skeptical that your specific Trump example would apply, mainly because so much of center-left liberalism in the US right now is dominated by a visceral fear of and/or hatred towards Trump. I think most Harris supporters would support literally anybody over Trump (which is both a good and a bad thing ), regardless of where that alternative falls on the political spectrum. But yes, when looking at the longer term future of the Dem party, I understand (and share) your concern about where everything is going to sit once Trump is finally out the picture, whenever that may be. 1 1
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 (edited) 34 minutes ago, shelven said: I think you're failing to make a distinction between the people who are truly championing Harris as an objectively great option vs. people who are endorsing voting for the Dems this cycle out of what they feel is an important need for harm reduction. For the former group, I can definitely see the hypocrisy. But I fail to see it for the latter group. If someone is openly dissatisfied and frustrated by Harris's move to the right but nonetheless considers it necessary to bite their tongue and vote for her anyways because the only practical alternative will be worse on every issue they care about and so they want to mitigate the amount of damage being done, it's not a hypocrisy for them to call out people who are actively endorsing voting for Trump despite claiming that they view Trump at minimum to be equally as bad as Harris (and let's be honest, if pressed, Stein would probably admit that Harris's policies are at least closer to the Green Party's policies than Trump's). For what it's worth, on an individual level, I personally don't believe in Horseshoe Theory and I think the people online who are encouraging others to vote for Trump as a preferable alternative to stopping Harris are a small minority that shouldn't be used to paint broad strokes about all Green supporters or the leftist movement as a whole. But seeing Stein co-sign that small minority - even if it actually was out of carelessness - is frustrating and it makes me doubt her seriousness as a good faith political leader, which I was already starting to feel some doubts about after other behaviour I've seen from her that ranges from counterproductive to simply petty. I don't want this to take over the thread, so I'll just say that I think it's ultimately driven by a difference in interpreting what Harris' right-wing transformation means. Personally, voting for Harris with clear support and voting for Harris with hesitation or doubts still just results in a vote for Harris and the agenda she wants. Harris isn't going to reflect on the people who half-heartedly voted for her and expressed doubts and promises to come after her once elected as meaningful or noteworthy. She... won! So thus it just feels like paranoia and projection for anyone voting for her to feel comfortable enough to have the free time to look outward and away from Harris, now at others with suspicious eyes. Of course I'm not saying anyone does or doesn't have a right to form opinions on the Green Party if they're voting for Harris, but that's just why some of the analysis is going to be met with an eye roll by some leftists when this is basically where myself and many others are at: Basically I just think some liberals are not fully aware of how blackpilling and polarizing this is all is getting to be for some leftists and progressives and there's a growing disparity between how liberals and progressives understand how to navigate this election and the sentiments around the major themes of it. This has nothing to do with you nor really directed at you, but just trying to articulate that the other result of Harris moving the Democratic Party to the right means a meaningful amount of those on the left.... end up, simply, kicked out of it, and that's in effect the difference in sentiment. I just think those who are still welcomed within the party are not going to get the current reactions to those that have been orphaned from it. Edited September 9 by Communion 1
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 Anyway let's go back to collectively hating Josh Shapiro! 3 hours ago, Relampago. said: Okay, I know I was in here saying that Shapiro might have been a smarter pick just a few days ago since he might have helped with PA but Kamala picking Walz is possibly the ONLY thing she's done thus far to not "tack to the center" And ultimately, I think the dynamic Walz and Harris have is pretty remarkable. The awkward power struggle and inevitable intraparty division that Shapiro would have caused would have been a terrible way to start the campaign. No one reasonable was upset at a Walz pick, but there would have been a million reasons to be upset at a Shapiro pick. All we would have gotten from that is some help in PA, which would still admittedly be very nice, but possibly at the cost of decreased enthusiasm in certain demographics and states like MI. He's so out of touch lately. Everything he says and puts out reads as bitter and pressed commentary that he was wrong or biased about something, not actual meaningful commentary. If Harris loses, it will not be because she wasn't appealing to the center, goodness. ! 1 1
ClashAndBurn Posted September 9 Posted September 9 2 minutes ago, shelven said: Thanks for clarifying (and sorry for my somewhat aggressive tone - I was just getting a bit worn down after I assumed I was being misconstrued again after explaining myself a few times tonight). You raise a valid point with the France example and I can see where the fear of a liberal/neocon alliance comes from. I'm just skeptical that your specific Trump example would apply, mainly because so much of center-left liberalism in the US right now is dominated by a visceral fear of and/or hatred towards Trump. I think most Harris supporters would support literally anybody over Trump (which is both a good and a bad thing ), regardless of where that alternative falls on the political spectrum. But yes, when looking at the longer term future of the Dem party, I understand (and share) your concern about where everything is going to sit once Trump is finally out the picture, whenever that may be. The fear and hatred of Trump mostly stems from bitterness over Hillary's loss. If Hillary had lost the primary to Bernie instead, there's certainly a non-zero chance that they would have treated Trump winning as a lesser evil than Bernie prevailing and steering the future direction of the party away from their beloved neoliberalism. I find myself skeptical to believe that they would ever have actually fully gotten behind him, and I also feel they would have worked with Republicans to obstruct and undermine him from within Congress had he won in the General. There's also the fact that Greens and Democrats have a genuine hatred of each other that goes beyond either's dislike of Republicans. So to me, the idea that you stated earlier (Greens winning > Trump winning > Harris winning) doesn't seem all that surprising. I've personally never voted for Stein and was never going to. So I just don't find it compelling to fixate on her behavior as a candidate when she's kind of irrelevant to begin with, and is only the candidate because nobody else ever emerged to run. People thought Cornel West was going to do it, but he bailed on them and chose to run an unaffiliated independent campaign instead, leaving the Green Party with no other choice than to run Stein again or not at all (which would spell doom for the party as a whole). It's just kind of funny to me that the left hating liberals more than Republicans is seen as an unreasonable and delusional position to take but... the hatred is mutual, and liberals' cleaar distate for the left and willingness to fight the left harder than they fight against Republicans isn't seen even remotely the same way.
Mr. Mendes Posted September 9 Posted September 9 (edited) 2 hours ago, Communion said: I appreciate why you may feel emotional, but truthfully, statements like this show the actual basis of this conversation. That none of this is about anyone actually feeling Jill "Defeat the Dem-Rep Uniparty" Stein is endorsing Trump, but emotional catharsis for Dem partisans for 8 years of having to navigate a political party that makes choices not around material reality but around contradicting whims of donors that make winning elections an uphill battle. You're sitting here saying: "I'm being made to feel that I'm not allowed to have my view and that alternative view points aren't acceptable." ...in response, ironically, to Democrats literally using the legal powers of the state apparatus to censure and deny a 3rd party ballot access? Your views are not being de-platformed. Your views are not being repressed via powers of the state. Your support for corporate Democrats is institutionally supported! People who simply disagree with your support of Dems are themselves often faced with the full brutality of the police state the party in question supports: You're making a great deal of assumptions about me. And I understand that I likely have about you as well, but let's clear the air on that. I am not a Dem partisan. You and I first got to be connected through our mutual criticism of the Democrats on many things from Biden's inability to make good on an agenda that should've been relatively easy to pass, to the way they have handled (or rather not handled) the situation in Gaza. I do not hold a loyalty to the party simply because they are the party. I am not registered with their party. I am not registered to any political party. This is the point that I'm trying to get at here, friend. You're assuming that anyone who is voting for a Democrat or making a critique of someone further left of themselves is therefore a Democratic partisan lapdog. I'll give you that some truly are. But some are trying their absolute damndest to vote according to the principle of harm reduction. I don't believe in any shape, form, or fashion that the Democrats are going to save us all. I know better. But I am also aware that in the year 2024, we're going to have the nominee from one of only two parties entering the White House. There will be no third party winner. You know that, I know that. We can sit here all day and talk about whether that is right or wrong, and you know what, I'll bet you anything we'd agree. I don't think it's right that third parties get shafted off the ballot. I think they ought to be on the ballot if they have met the criteria necessary to do so. But I also believe, and I'm sure you can at least in part agree, that if they were on the ballot they still would not be taking home a win this election. Their gains would be a stepping stone, not their entry into the White House because they are, at least for now, still a smaller group that does not yet have the national awareness required to win an election. I look forward to the election where we have more than two choices and that third or fourth choice actually has a really decent shot of getting it. I do, wholeheartedly, and I support any and all movement to try and make that future happen where I can. But given the state we're in at the moment, people are faced with an incredibly uncertain future at the moment. We have a major political party that is actively and loudly campaigning on a promise to roll back basic human freedoms that have been fought for for decades and only just recently earned. When you've got an election that is guaranteed to be between only two parties and one of those parties actively wants to do these things, it stands to reason that most people are going to decide to vote for the party who does not want to do those things, and in fact say out loud that they support those individuals and their right to life and freedom. Most of us are not under any delusions that voting for them will be a fix all. But there are leftists (I am not saying you as I believe you are much smarter than that) that seem to believe that Donald Trump getting into office is going to play out just the same as if Kamala Harris gets into office. That is absolutely not the case. It just isn't, friend. I have asked you this question before, and it didn't get answered because a whole separate discussion got kicked up and it got lost in the shuffle but I'll ask it again: what do you really expect or want these vulnerable, disadvantaged people to do? Why must they be so berated and talked down to and lectured to for casting a vote for the party that is the only electable opposition to an agenda that, if enacted, will destroy their lives? Why are trans people, women, people of color, immigrants, and the unhealthy being shamed for deciding that presented with the two choices in front of them--Trump and Harris--that Harris is the choice that gives them the most opportunity to escape that fate? That's what I'm talking about. There is not a single ounce of consideration given to what these people are currently going through or the fear that they're forced to live in as their country takes a dramatic cultural shift backward. They are simply spoken to or spoken of like brain deed sheep, fools, or even sometimes as if they're just evil for making a choice that they believe is going to help them? I understand that you hate the game of US politics and the rules required to play it. I know that you don't want to play that game. I respect that wholeheartedly. I don't want to play it either. Most of us don't. But, unfortunately, at this moment in time, some of us have to. We have to at the very least try to take the path of least harm for these individuals who are more vulnerable now than they have been for quite literally my entire lifetime. Just because someone is standing up to say that no, it is not okay to sit there and claim that everyone voting for a Democrat has a "derangement" (as you put it earlier). Some people are just trying to do the best that they can with what they have, and to constantly be dogpiled on by the left because their best isn't what the left wants does nothing but put those people in an even worse position. You don't know what is going on in people's lives that makes them decide to do what they decide to do in regards to politics. You don't know what they're struggling through. You don't know what personal hells they're in. You don't know the fear that they live with every single day. You don't just don't know and you could never know based only upon a message on a forum or a vote casted at a ballot box. And yet, it seems very often you just decide completely who they are by those metrics. That if someone says "no, Kamala Harris is not as bad/dangerous and not the same as Donald Trump", then they're automatically some lapdog for corporate democrats. That isn't how it works. I don't say any of this with the intention of being disrespectful to you and i hope that it does not come across that way. And i hope you can understand where I am coming from by saying all of this. I would like to see leftists gain more ground. I really would. Their policies, their desires for the future, their beliefs, I agree with so much of it all. I think there's a growing place for leftist politics in the mainstream. We're not standing as far apart in our beliefs as it appears on the surface. It's just that there are people out there, myself included, who cannot currently take the risk of looking outside the two party system right now. Not when our lives are quite literally being debated as policy. I am very glad that you can, and that you are. But I will not be called what I get called so often in all corners of discussion on these matters because my personal situation doesn't allow me to right now. I don't hate leftists. I don't want to war with them. I don't want to see them crash and burn. I don't want that at all. But the tone in which we get spoken to by leftists at times leaves it very hard to feel as if that's not what they feel or want for us. It's a hostility that exists on both sides, absolutely. Liberals and Dems can be and are just as nasty to leftists as leftists are to them. But I am genuinely trying to extend an olive branch and have a real conversation about things, and it is very disheartening to have the response be a grand assumption of my character painted with a hostile judgement of what that character is perceived to be. I do hope that we can finally have that real, genuine, respectable discussion. I don't want to debate all the time. I want to talk about where we both stand so that if for nothing else we can understand one another better. Because, in the grand scheme of things, we both do want the same things. Edited September 9 by Mr. Mendes 7
mylicious Posted September 9 Posted September 9 the Essays in here, can we stick to relevant news? 4 1 2
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 (edited) @Mr. Mendes Sister, the Democratic Secretary of State for Nevada directly provided this form to the NV Green Party after the NV Dems originally sued and forced the Greens to have to re-validate all 29,000 signatures for ballot access a second time: The NV Democratic Party then amended their affidavit and successfully got the Green Party kicked off the ballot because item "(6)" is incorrectly copied + pasted by the SOS's office from the language meant for referendums and not minor party ballot access despite the form being labeled as such by the SOS. This sample form is still readily accessible via the Nevada Secretary of State's website: https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showpublisheddocument/10564/638266480307830000 Supporting Democrats is not a form of suppressed speech. There is no mass movement in action by leftists to disenfranchise people who want to vote Democratic. Not to say you believe such, but I am just making it clear what the context of the conversation is. I've already said I'm not going to hold such over anyone's head and try to like personally attack anyone, whether in real life or online who votes for Harris. But yet it feels like you're under the assumption I am, and even - correct me if I'm wrong - are claiming it is evidence of such that I similarly don't judge Green Party voters for hating Democrats, especially in light of things like the above, and not agreeing with the sentiment that they're a lesser evil but an equal evil to Republicans. I do not personally care how any individual votes. I am much more terribly disturbed and focused on interrogating Dems on examples of corruption like the above. Ironically, Jill Stein winning 5% of the national vote would solve these issues and automatically reclassify the Green Party from a minor party to a major party and end these unethical lawsuits over ballot access that make leftists resent Democrats. One might even imagine Democrats would suddenly support rank choice voting if Green were solidified as a national party for ballot access. Edited September 9 by Communion
Relampago. Posted September 9 Posted September 9 Something about "No Tax On Tips" being one of Trump's main campaign points is so funny to me. I see so many ads about it, and while I support helping service workers, it's also such a niche point to make a big point of a campaign. Not to mention, I've seen so many opinions saying it's not even that helpful in the long run. 2
Harrier Posted September 9 Posted September 9 11 hours ago, shelven said: If Harris ends up losing, there will be a lot of different thinkpieces about her campaign and what she could have done differently, but I think the actual reason will have simply been that the election was already decided over a year ago when most Americans' views on the economy and inflation became settled in. People decided that Biden/the Dems were to blame for those issues, that Trump was capable of fixing it and that his ability to fix it was more important than his threats to democracy and his increasingly unhinged behaviour. To be clear, I'm not saying that is what's going to happen - I've maintained that I think voters care about January 6 and Trump's threats to democracy more than what Twitter circles would have you believe, as election denialism (along with abortion) was the main unifying thread that connected all the GOP candidates who tanked in midterm races where they should have been favoured. But in the event that Trump does manage to overcome all that and win anyways, I don't think Harris could have done much differently in hindsight to prevent it, since the takeaway will have been that voters cared more about returning to a pre-2020 economy than any other issue and they believe that Trump can do that. Agreed. Covid lost Trump the 2020 election, but if he wins this year, it will have also be responsible. Voters have this nostalgic, rose coloured glasses view of the pre-COVID economy, which Trump is associated with, and that alone may get him over the line. It's turned what should have been a cakewalk for democrats into a nailbiter 4
Armani? Posted September 9 Posted September 9 Has this grifter popped up in anyone's fyp page yet? She keeps trying to get in the Black Tik Tok algorithm
Recommended Posts