• @jordanlundM
    link
    42 months ago

    There are only two choices WHO CAN WIN.

    Stein can’t win, the Greens don’t have the power and have NEVER had the power. Their best shot was Nader with name recognition and he couldn’t crack 3%.

    Without Nader the very best they have done was 1.07% in 2016. Other than that? Sub 1% over, and over.

    The Libertarian candidate could have pulled it out if disaffected Republicans had become Libertarians instead of Independents. Pro-Tip - they have not.

    Kennedy’s out.

    The idiot socialist isn’t even on the ballot in enough states to win.

    West is on the ballot in fewer states than that.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election

    I agree, I’d love for our system to have multiple VIABLE parties, but we don’t. Your choice is the Democratic or Republican candidate, full stop.

    If you want to change that, you aren’t going to do it by voting for fringe candidates who will get 1% of the vote or less.

    The correct way to change it is to pass ranked choice balloting. If you have a chance to support that (we did, on our ballot!) then go for it!

    • @Ensign_Crab
      link
      English
      1
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      There are only two choices WHO CAN WIN.

      It’s clear from this sentence alone that you are completely ignoring the comment to which you are responding.

      • @jordanlundM
        link
        32 months ago

        The comment I’m responding to is attempting to change the subject.

        The winner of the Presidential race will be either Harris or Trump. There is no other viable choice.

        • @Ensign_Crab
          link
          English
          22 months ago

          Do you think they don’t understand that? Everyone understands that. You seem unwilling to move beyond that and confront a broader perspective than the vote of one person.

          • @jordanlundM
            link
            32 months ago

            They keep arguing for an alternate choice where there is none, so, yeah, I’m pretty sure they aren’t getting it.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              No, they aren’t. That literally is nowhere in their post.

              You either didn’t read it all, or you’re lying, or you have poor reading comprehension skills.

              I doubt it’s the latter for a mod on a text based platform.

              P.S. I’m an admin on a fairly large platform for a fairly large group. When the group took off, I started interacting on it a LOT less because my moderation responsibilities (which also increased with the groups growth, why are so many people just blatant assholes or trolls?) required that people view me as impartial and unbiased.

              Choosing to engage frequently in controversial topics and using straw man arguments against posts that literally don’t say anything related to what you say they say is certainly… a choice… for a mod to make.

              Don’t get me wrong, I miss my ability to interact with the group I admin like a normal person, but my duties to the group take precedence. I understand the desire, but there are other options.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness
        link
        fedilink
        12 months ago

        You have no idea how relatable this is. This community has gone feral these past two weeks.

      • @jordanlundM
        link
        42 months ago

        You’d be wrong, but I did vote against 118.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 months ago

          I haven’t voted on 118 yet. It’s the only bit unfilled. Not sure which way I’ll go. Probably no, and then walk the ballot to a Dropbox in my neighborhoods library.

          • @jordanlundM
            link
            12 months ago

            My beef with it is that it’s just a Robin Hood law. They want to replicate Alaska’s oil dividend, but we don’t have a natural resource like that so the plan is to just soak the largest companies in the state instead.

            I’m all for fairly taxing the wealthiest companies, but the money should be used to reduce our tax burden, not just kick it back to everyone else. Phil Knight doesn’t need $1,600 back.