-50
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
-50 points (13.2% liked)
politics
19072 readers
4206 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'll stick with calling them naive.
Are they building a coalition toward ranked choice?
They are naive at best… BUT malicious in appearance.
The fight for ranked choice voting is crucial, but it shouldn't be an excuse to dismiss third parties. Supporting third parties now is how we build the momentum for change, including reforms like ranked choice voting.
The more we challenge the status quo, the more pressure we put on the system to evolve.
Sub out the term “affect”.
Sub out damn near anything… “Change” should matter more than your BS rhetoric. Where can you point to change?
What change have you affected? What’s your accomplishment?
What have third parties done, other than fail at every goal?
The Populist Party in the late 19th century pushed for direct election of senators, which later became the 17th Amendment.
The Socialist Party of America, under leaders like Eugene V. Debs, advocated for policies like the eight-hour workday, child labor laws, and social security—many of which were eventually implemented by the major parties.
More recently, the Green Party has kept issues like climate change, electoral reform, and corporate influence in politics at the forefront of national discourse.
Third parties may not always win elections, but they succeed in driving important issues into the national conversation and pushing the political landscape toward real change.
And hey, if third parties don't accomplish anything, then why is the Duopoly always trying to get them removed from the ballots?! I mean, if they don't do anything, then you guys have no reason to fear them or be angry with them. Right?
Yea and Nader brought in seat belts yet also specifically gave us GWB.
Can we please have the seatbelts without the conservative mass murderer or is it a package deal?
Is there no nuance or do you want to force GWB on the entire world just to feel your point?
The idea that third-party candidates are responsible for the failures of the duopoly is a desperate lie spun by those who refuse to hold their own parties accountable.
Blaming Nader for Bush’s rise is a convenient way to avoid facing the deeper rot within a system that constantly fails the people, choosing corporate interests over the lives and safety of everyday citizens.
Blaming Nader is a recognition that WITHIN this system you either work for change or admit defeat.
You get out of the hole before telling everyone how shitty they are for being in the hole.
Or you make enemies and tell everyone they are shitty cause the hole is full of shit. You’re doing a good job with the latter.
Blaming Nader is just a convenient excuse for not facing the real enemies—those who keep digging the hole deeper while pretending to lift us out.
We can't stay silent about the rot at the top just to make people feel comfortable in the mess they've created.
If people are uncomfortable with what I have to say, we have a great blocking system here on Lemmy that they can use.
So how do you actually deal with that?
Just blame everyone? Cause the “top” isn’t so different from the “bottom”? Just say “rot” “rot” “rot” until you get your way?
Or “block” “block” “block”?
Dude, I made my viewpoints known. And you disagree. That's ok. It's ok to disagree.
But I've let you know where I stand. I'm not voting for Harris. Just accept it and move on. Thanks.