politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Nothing says saving democracy like keeping people off the ballots.
Exactly.
Funny how many Lemmy's forget about what democracy is. And a lot here seem to be against diversity of thought and viewpoints as well.
You are still free to vote for him, or anyone else. That's democracy.
But there are over 300 million Americans. They can't all be on the ballot.
Agreed. But seriously, the Democratic Party is not open to having other parties on the ballot.
I wouldn’t have voted for Cornel West anyway, but there’s an entire group within the Democratic Party whose main job is to keep third parties off the ballot.
Having said that, if a third party hasn't followed the rules to be on the ballot, then I am fine with them being dropped from it.
The Democratic Party is not responsibile for helping other parties get elected.
Quite the opposite. The other parties are opponents, and Democrats are partly responsible for making sure their opponents obey all applicable election rules.
Election rules written by the duopoly giving them the advantage
Of course not. But they sure do seem to work extra hard to keep other parties off of the ballot.
You just entirely disregarded what the commentor said only for you to double down on your shitty opinion.
I didn't disregard anything they said. And indeed, I agreed to part of it. Are you are sure you are reading the right thread?
Also, please stay civil. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean my opinion is "shitty."
How about we not get so personal in our discussions?
I respect and support your right to your opinion. Please offer me the same courtesy. Thank you!
I am being respectful, and this is the internet. If you can't take a random stranger calling your opinion shitty then you should grow some thicker skin and maybe not have such a shitty opinion.
Thank you!
Um, it's not about my hurt feelings, friend.
I was referring to the civility rule of this sub. Rule number 3. (Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!)
Plenty of comments like yours get removed, because the awesome mods here want this place to remain civil and grown up in discussions.
Also, you don't have to insult someone to argue your opinion. I promise.
Yet I haven't insulted you, and it does seem more about how it's making you feel since we are already a few comments in this thread, and you're still crying about your shitty opinion.
So you don't think calling my opinion "shitty" is an insult? And you think that sentence you just wrote is civil?
Nope.
Yup.
Well we definitely have different opinions on that and on how to talk to other people without insulting them.
Never insulted you. Grow some skin, champ. And because of this you completely derailed the conversation. So congrats on that too.
I didn't derail anything. You resorted to personal insults, and I called you out on them.
Maybe that's a good reason not to personally insult people; it helps keep conversations focused on the topic.
And for the record, telling someone they have a shitty opinion is an insult. And that's exactly why you said it. You are the one that needs to grow some skin, because you get so mad you have to insult someone because you don't feel you can make a point.
Again, what personal insult? You keep saying it over and over, and yet there has been no ad hominid continuing on derailing the conversation.
I've already pointed out the personal insult, and you know exactly what it was because you said it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.
For the record, your insult didn’t anger or bait me—it just made me lose interest in your points because I can’t take you seriously anymore.
Removed, civility.
I'm not whining about anything. He resorted to personal insults, I told him that, and also let him know as a result of that, I can't take any of his remarks seriously. And I let him know that his comments were in danger of being removed because of the rules of this community.
That's not whining or being an idiot. That's standing up for myself, and letting him know that this Lemmy community has rules. I'm not a mod here, and I didn't create the rules here.
If you disagree with the community rules regarding civility, then message the mods and make your opinion known.
Here is a record of comments removed and why: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252
Yes, just like lawyers work extra hard to get their opponent's case dismissed.
It's an adversarial system. It depends on each side being hypervigilant about what their opponents are doing.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but instead of worrying about "spoiler" votes, they could focus on having strong enough candidates that don’t need to fear third-party competition.
They can focus on both at the same time.
In an election, every little advantage counts for the same reason that every vote counts.
Maybe the margins wouldn't be so thin if they had strong enough candidates though. Many people, myself included, vote based on who best matches our values.
And for me, and many others, that's a third party.
You're assuming that only one side knows how to find strong candidates.
If both sides have strong candidates, then you would expect thin margins. And "strong" doesn't mean "maximally appeals to you". It means "appeals, at least a little, to the maximum number of voters".
You can of course vote for whoever you want. But 30+ years ago third party candidates could get 5% or even 15% of the vote. Since 2000, a third party candidate has only gotten over 2% once (2016). That suggests major party candidates have gotten stronger over the years.
But none of that means we all have to vote for the major candidates or vote out of fear of who MIGHT win.
I am not concerned about "spoiling" any election. I vote for who I want, based on my values. And right now, that's third party.
Again, you are free to vote for whoever you want.
But if you announce that you're not concerned about a Trump victory, then the rest of us are free to judge you for it.
Friend, I've been judged for voting third party ever since I joined Lemmy.
Honestly, many of the hateful remarks I’ve received have only strengthened my resolve that I’m doing the right thing by not voting for the Democratic Party.
I harbor no hate. I just question your judgment
And that's fine. Not everyone agrees with you and your views either.
In fact, almost half of the country won't be voting for your candidate. That's what democracy is.
Yes, of course. I question their judgment for the same reason as yours.
Ultimately a third party voter has more in common with a MAGA hat wearer than they likely want to admit.
Claiming that a third-party voter has more in common with a MAGA hat wearer is a false equivalence; the motivations and values of third-party voters are often rooted in a desire for greater representation and change.
Unlike MAGA supporters, third-party voters are typically pushing against a system they see as broken, rather than endorsing extremist or regressive policies.
If I wanted to vote for Trump, I'd vote for Trump.
I said more in common than you care to admit.
For example, neither MAGA hat wearers nor third-party voters are willing to do the bare minimum to protect women, protect immigrants, or preserve democracy.
That comparison is flawed.
Third-party voters often push for more comprehensive protections for women, immigrants, and democracy than the major parties offer, which is why they refuse to settle for the "bare minimum."
Voting third-party is about advocating for the policies that truly address these issues, not just accepting the status quo.
Dude, I get it. You're mad that I'm not voting for your candidate. That's ok. Not everyone has the same opinions as you. And that's ok.
You get to vote for who you want. And I get to vote for who I want. Welcome to democracy.
Criticizing the status quo or otherwise giving your opinion is not the bare minimum. The bare minimum is action towards change. A third party vote cannot change anything, so it is not the bare minimum.
I'm not mad at all. I said you have the right to vote as you please and I meant it.
This is a democracy, as you pointed out. But in a democracy, I also have the right to critique your choices and explain why mine are superior.
Absolutely. And vice versa.
That's right. You're not mad either, right?
Anyway, I don't find your case for third party voting to be persuasive. Maybe that's why the vast majority Americans think voting third party is an inferior choice.
I'm not mad at all.
I’m not trying to persuade you or anyone else; I’m simply stating why I’m voting third party.
The opinions of the majority don’t influence my reasoning—I'm voting based on my personal values.
About half of the country won’t be voting for Democrats either, and that’s just a side effect of democracy.
People have the right to choose the candidate who best represents their views, regardless of popular opinion.
It's true. Half the country isn't going to protect women's rights. The half you're in.
Anyway I'm not worried. My half will win without you.
Not true at all. I have been fighting to protect women's rights longer than you have been alive, friend.
Good, then no reason to be upset then. So we can totally be friends now! :)
Doubtful. I'm pretty old.
But regardless of what you've done in the past, you now find yourself in the half that will not protect women's rights.
Of course.
Betcha I'm still older. But at least it's nice to meet another grandfather on here!
Not true.
No, it's not just one side. The Republicans also work to keep third parties off the ballot.
Very true.
I post stories about all third parties, and I get hate DM's from both parties daily. lmao