A vote for Jill Stein, Cornel West, Oliver Chase, or not voting, is a vote for Trump. Palestinian lives don’t matter to Trump, nor do they really matter to Harris; however in general, Harris will be better for Americans than Trump, so vote for Harris.
A vote for Jill Stein, Cornel West, Oliver Chase, or not voting, is a vote for Trump.
Just as a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.
Imagine if Nader didn’t run. Imagine there was no Green Party candidate for US President.
Gore would have probably won, and America would have been the better for it. Probably no Iraq war, maybe not even a 911. As a result Iran probably wouldn’t be as strong, and Putin probably would have less to legitimately oppose about the US, and would himself be seen as less legitimate—indeed Ukraine might still be whole today.
A new Green deal would probably be in full swing.
Granted, Harris doesn’t really care about Palestinians, and some elements of the Democratic party care even less; but Trump cares even less than Harris, and what he will do to the US will be worse.
So while Israel massacres civilians and steals more land, at least under Harris American women would still more easily get abortions, we will have fewer TGs committing suicide (maybe), and health care will be a little more universal.
Also with the 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, the Big 3 will be able to better produce good inexpensive cars (as they’ve been at least somewhat intending these past several decades), and fascism will have less of a hold on the US.
Therefore: vote for Harris.
If you are a progressive: vote for Harris.
If you are an environmentalist: vote for Harris.
If you are a libertarian: vote for Harris.
If you support voting reforms such as proportional representation, rank balloting, the abolition of the Electoral College, and/or more political diversity: vote for Harris.
If you are nauseated at the idea of voting for Harris: take a barf bag with you while you vote for Harris.
If you are a Palestinian-American who has a relative who was injured, maimed, or even murdered, in Gaza, you should still vote for Harris, because again, Trump doesn’t care about them either, but at least you, as an American citizen, will get a better deal Harris than under Trump.
(I’m not entirely sure if I agree with all the above, but I find it hard to refute.)
If you actually want Harris to win, what do you actually think this bullying does to help her?
Just for like a second, consider the person you suppose yourself to be trying to reach, isn’t ready to vote for Harris. What do you think this abusive approach to rhetoric does? Do you think it helps Harris?
Israel’s current policy is to shoot babies in the head and light them on fire.You’ve provided no argument for why anyone should vote for Harris, simply an abstract argument that Trump would “be worse”. If you really cared about getting Harris elected, you would never dare engage in this kind of obtuse rhetoric that only serves to distance voter Harris herself abandoned even further.
When Harris loses this election, which she is on course to do, the people parroting this idiotic rhetoric will be the ones to blame for her loss. You can’t bully or vote shame people into doing what you want them to. It DOES NOT WORK and has significantly impacted Harris’ electability among the key constituencies she needs to win. Harris needs Arab and Muslim voters in the upper midwest. Rhetoric like this makes building a bridge to overcome the damage Harris did all the more difficult. Obama literally just used the same rhetorical approach, and it almost assuredly lost Harris a couple points in the south.
If you want Harris to win, you need to do better and focus your criticism on the candidate. No one is owed your vote, and if Harris has policies that are so unpopular she can’t get elected with them, focus your rhetoric on fixing the candidate. Otherwise, you are just making the situation worse with this obtuse, play-ground bully approach to electoralism.
Discussing how reality works is not bullying. Discussing how in the current election system, 3rd parties are spoilers is not abusive.
Opponent do indeed “be worse” when that is supported by past actions (in the very elected role,even) , and present statements. Avoiding worse is a meaningful voting strategy, albeit a bleak one. Opponent “be worse” requires abstract goal seeking because we do not “downvote” when we vote. You can’t vote against someone, explicitly. You have to assemble the goal of “for trump to be out, someone else must be in”. That’s unsavory to someone who only thinks of their vote as a seeming love letter, not a political lever (albeit a small one).
It’s like you totally missed the point. Vote shaming DOES NOT WORK. No matter how much you try, no matter how you approach it, you will never, ever, be successful with vote shaming. Tell people to vote. That’s it. Don’t try to tell people why their choice is dumb, because it will either entrench the position or dissuade someone from voting at all, which hurts down-ballot Democratic candidates.
To be fair he’s probably made this post in direct reaction to the rather obnoxious “Both sides are the same” folks that also happen to parrot “If you vote for Harris, you support Genocide”. I was on Reddit for over a decade and even I’m sick of seeing those replies.
Not saying it’s an excuse, only that it’s a possible reason.
but Harris does support genocide, but the lives of >330 million Americans are more important than a few million Palestinians.
Again with Trump, both Americans and Palestinians will be worse off;
but with Harris, it’s only the Palestinians who will suffer.
It’s the greater good, or more aptly, the lesser evil.
deleted by creator
If their position is not shifted by sharing the realities of a 2 party, first past the post election happening in 2 weeks then no information will have any impact, regardless of medium, tone, or speaker. This topic has been discussed in every possible way across the internet over the last year. Some more friendly, some more stark.
And that’s the point. If the democratic party loses legitimately in this election, it’s the democratic party’s fault. Not the handful of 3rd party voters. In 2016, we saw that 3rd party voters would not have voted if their choice wasn’t on the ballot. You can get pissy about 3rd parties and strategy, but vote shaming will always be ineffective.
Edit My conclusion is that there has been much quality discussion over the past year, educating isn’t shaming.
Oh I assure you, what OP (and somewhat yourself) is doing IS bullying. Right now the Green’s are polling at sub 1%. Without looking anything up, can you tell me who the libertarian candidate is and how they are polling? I bet you cant.
Quite literally, the Libertarians beat the Greens in every single one of each electoral college race, usually by 2-3x the count of votes. There were no spoilers in 2016, only a shitty candidate and an even shittier party (and their apologists) who don’t want to be held accountable for forcing deeply unpopular candidates on the electorate.
Right now Lemmy is running with this schtict because they see the writing on the wall and its clear Harris isn’t going to win. And its Harris’s fucking fault and we’re all going to suffer the consequences for it. Harris could have distanced herself from Biden and taken a better stance: she created this situation we’re in right now, no one else. Its not Jill Stein or the green’s fault if Harris loses. Its not Muslim americans or actual progressives fault. It will be Harris’s and her army of apologists who instead of demanding better from the candidate (so we can actually get her elected), demanded little and less and blamed other for their failure, to the detriment of us all.
Lots of assumptions there, but you can enjoy them, doesn’t bother me.
On topic: check out Pennsylvania in 2016. sub 1% actually matters.
https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/SummaryResults?ElectionID=54&ElectionType=G&IsActive=0
Gary Johnson, 2.4%
Jill Stein, 0.8%
If you are going to claim Stein as a spoiler (which is arguable, separate conversation), you have to also accept then that Johnson also is a spoiler.
In which case Trump would have won handily.
Now you’re getting it. When did I suggest I wouldn’t?
I discussed the spoiling effect in FPTP elections, and refuted the sub 1% comment.
No shit, Sherlock!
Except for the part where Trump is the polar fucking opposite of Gary Johnson and there’s no good reason to think that Johnson votes would’ve gone to Trump.
Do you see how you have one set of rules for Stein voters and a second set of rules for Johnson voters to construct the narrative you want?
deleted by creator
IIUC, there’s a lot of early voting, and I think most of that is for Harris.
Show me that data then. Because every swing states poll I see at this point has Trump up and has had Trump trending up and Kamala trending down for almost 5 weeks
If she loses the election, Stein (and to a lesser extent West) will be blamed.
Oh they’ll get blamed. The people blaming them will be wrong in their blame of course, but yes, they’ll get blamed. I mean shit, look at your post. We haven’t even had an election and you are already blaming them.
But if Harris loses this election, its no-ones fault but her own, and those who tried to use abuse as a cudgel.
deleted by creator
Like Republicans, Democrats will do pretty well anything to win.
Except ending funding for genocide, of course
but don’t Americans, particularly American Christians and Jews, hate Muslims and love Israel?
Is the media giving us a distorted image of USA?
deleted by creator
I think that you are right; and that it’s almost as if the MSM (including Fox and CNN) are in a sort of collusion with the government, and that advertisers tend to be timid when it comes to non-conservative politics.
I happen to actually like Harris (more or less) but the one good thing about Trump winning would be getting to laugh at all the self-owning leftists.
What do you think of her support of Israeli genociding the Palestinians?