863

Green politicians from across Europe on Friday called on U.S. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to withdraw from the race for the White House and endorse Democrat Kamala Harris instead.

“We are clear that Kamala Harris is the only candidate who can block Donald Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian policies from the White House,” Green parties from countries including Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ukraine said in a statement, which was shared with POLITICO ahead of publication

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Incorrect. Did you ever learn about the monty hall problem? You seem to struggle with applying priors to a situation.

In my state the prior is: trump isnt even a blip of a possibility. We're talking 0.00001% not a blip. Not gonna happen. Harris is literally the greater evil in my state. Go through my history.

Its going to suck in a few days if harris loses because you nits thought that throwing labor, arabs and other minorities under the proverbial bus was a winning strategy.

[-] philthi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I don't know about all that, I just enjoy logic. I'm replying to you saying "I'd choose not to vote", that is not the same as saying "none of the above", it's the same as saying "any of the above"

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

and you'd be wrong. shrug you're essentially saying anyone who doesn't vote doesn't have an preference. which is trivially incorrect. ask felons if they have a preference. ask teenagers.

if the prior is 'harris will win' me not voting for her isn't a statement of 'either' its a statement of 'I don't need to support her shittiness' you don't get to assert what my preferences are certainly.

[-] philthi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I'm not talking about the narrative you've got in your head about what statements you're making with your actions, I'm also not including what you suppose or predict the result of the vote to be, that's not logical or helpful..

I'm talking about simple actions and consequences, let me lay this out more simply:

No vote: no change for either candidates chances of success == no preference

A vote for either: a change for both candidates chances of success (slightly improved and slightly decreased) == a preference

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

And like all children your simple mental model doesnt apply to reality.

My preference between harris and trump is harris.

Me pulling the lever for harris will not change her result in my state. (Shes won)

Harris is still an absolutely atrocious candidate who never would have won a democratic primary.

Me pulling the lever for her only prevents me from pressuring my critters on certain issues.

Your failure to apply priors to a situation is a you problem. I suspect this often leads you to incorrect conclusions in life as it has here.

[-] philthi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I think you've confused our conversation with the other conversations you are having here. I started talking to you when you responded to the hypothetical question "if there were only X and y candidates as options, which would you vote for", to which you responded with something along the lines of: "neither, you can say 'none of the above', you know?"

I'm refuting that with you, voting neither in that hypothetical situation is not saying "none of the above' it's saying 'either of the above '.

I see you're involved in lots of conversations in this thread, where many people disagree with you on points more directly related to the actual situation in hand, so I can understand if you've mixed me up with some other context you have elsewhere, but I really don't care about your country's election or your candidates or who wins (I care a little, but I am not directly involved or affected), I'm just disagreeing with the evidently false statement you've made above. Hopefully this has cleared up the conversation.

[-] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

no, im not confused.

Harris/trump are not the only options this is a basic premise we're disagreeing on. Depending on your state/environment you have many choices across a range depending what you want to accomplish. if your in a swing state, then while you still have options they'll likely result in a bad outcome for you personally. 25+ pt states like CA/NY/MA, etc you can very effectively pressure your local reps by voting 3rd party. both you counter harris' policy positions within the party and with their personal positions.

Your 'only those two' model is the childish model. What voting 3rd party candidate can do is leverage the fact a particular race is not competitive to push your other congressional reps towards particular positions. such as, climate change, abortion, israel/palestine/etc.

it does not mean the individual is okay with either; its a acceptance of the fact harris will win in particular states and we're focusing on other issues for a variety of reasons.

this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
863 points (96.7% liked)

News

23658 readers
2637 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS