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
Yes, no, yes.
Doesn't matter. That's how it is. Until RCV or some other voting mechanism is instituted where third party candidates are viable all they do now is spoil, and the only way to change this is to convince one of the 2 parties to institute it. Spoiling their candidate is a bad way to do that though.
I'm a, "yes, no, no," to that. I have decided FPTP is just not democracy. The mathematical fact is that only one of the two top parties will win. In a real democracy I could choose a different party and not be throwing my vote away.
Obviously I will not waste my vote to pass some idealistic purity test, though.
And I don't agree that it's how it should be. So I won't be supporting the duopoly.
I vote for who matches my values. And that's third party.
I support and respect your right to vote for who you want to vote for. As you support and respect my right to vote for who I want to vote for, right?
That's a red herring. Calling out the foolishness of wasting your vote against your professed goals has nothing to do with respecting your right to vote.
When you actually have a chance to win the electoral college, then you have a point. Until then these 3rd party presidential candidates are a fool's errand.
I've been down this exact track with them. They just post the same lines again and again.
Yeah, I've noticed an above average tendency to copy/paste responses too. If I were a mod I would have banned them days ago, but I'm not so I'll keep arguing until I can maybe break the logic cycle. I'm hoping they are just a youthful naively innocent new voter caught up in the propaganda and that reason will break through but it really really really doesn't feel that way.
This individual's account was created 18 days ago and since then has posted 546 times and commented 969 times for a total of 1,515. That's over 84 posts per day every day on average. Assuming that they sleep 8 hours per day, that's 5 posts per hour or about once per 12 minutes or so.
Sort of makes you wonder what they do for a living that lets them spend all their waking hours posting on Lemmy, doesn't it?
I'm not seeing those numbers. i see 69 posts and 831 comments. That's still 50 interactions / day.
Respecting my right to vote means respecting my choice to support a candidate who aligns with my values, even if they aren't favored in the electoral college.
Dismissing third-party candidates as a "fool's errand" ignores the role they play in challenging the status quo and pushing for real change.
Voting isn’t just about winning this election—it’s about shaping the future direction of our politics.
No, it literally is just about winning the election. You're confusing it with polls.
Agreed. But as I've already started it is in the opposite direction you intend, unless... If I'm hearing you correctly your goal is to knowingly spoil the legit candidate so when they lose they'll lick their wounds, look at the voting data and learn the lesson to be more sympathetic to your demands in 4 years?
I'm voting for who closest matches my values. It's not JUST about making a point.
Despite now knowing it works against your goals. Got it.
It doesn't work against my goals at all. I am voting for who best aligns with my values.
It may work against YOUR goals, but not mine. You are allowed to vote for who you want. As I am allowed to vote for who I want.
This is a youthful understanding of action vs its consequences. You intend to vote for x due to an apparently myopic sense of ethics, but the logical result is that -x^2 gets elected. As such rational observers must conclude -x^2 is your political goal.
My vote is grounded in my personal values, and I’m choosing a candidate who best represents them, regardless of the outcome.
If another result occurs as a consequence of that vote, then so be it, but that’s not my primary goal.
Voting for what I believe in isn’t a "youthful" or "myopic" act—it's a deliberate choice to support a vision for the future that aligns with my principles. I’m focused on the long-term impact of pushing for real change, rather than just maintaining the status quo.
Also, I wish I were "youthful" enough to actually fit your criticism. But I have been voting for longer than you have been alive.
You claiming you're old enough to know better isn't helping your case. Actions have consequences that can be both predictable and against your original intentions. In this case they are and continuing to choose to do so despite knowing this is... unhealthy and counterproductive which brings us full circle.
At this point all you have done is failed to refute the argument with anything other than obstinance so have a good day.
Understanding that actions have consequences is precisely why I’m voting based on my values rather than out of fear of unintended outcomes. My comment about was my age was in response to the comment implying that I was making a "youthful" mistake.
The predictable consequence of continually voting for the lesser evil is perpetuating a system that doesn’t truly represent the people’s needs or desires.
Voting third party is not counterproductive—it’s a conscious choice to push for real change, even if the immediate outcome isn’t a win.
My decision is based on principles, not obstinance, and I feel comfortable that standing by those principles is the right approach for me and my lifestyle.
You haven't changed my mind at all. As I haven't changed yours. And that's ok. You have a good day too!
No it fucking doesn't, just like respecting your right to free speech doesn't mean respecting what you say.
You are making a choice to have your ballot not count whatsoever in the final decision. You have a right to make that choice, but it is IMO stupid as fuck.
Well I respect and support your right to vote for who you want. And yep, you can def have your own opinions. I don't mind that at all.
But are you saying you don't respect and support my right to vote for who I want? That doesn't sound very democratic.
You are trying to conflate two senses of "respect." You have the right to cast your ballot how you wish. But it is a fact that casting your ballot into the trash is foolish. Especially when the country is on the precipice as it is.
Casting a vote based on my values is not the same as throwing it away—it's a conscious decision to advocate for the future I believe in.
Also I don't feel that the country is on a "precipice." I'm not scared of Trump.
It is throwing it away, it will not count towards the final result in the slightest.
You are beyond privileged if you aren't concerned about another Donald admin.
This all tracks with my existing opinion of you.
I'm voting for who I want to, that's not throwing it away at all.
That makes no sense. You do realize that half of the country isn't voting for Harris, right. So is everyone not voting Harris "beyond privileged"?
Oh, I'm not surprised. You have made your bias very well known. I'm not voting the way you want me to, so now you think I am a "beyond privileged" person that couldn't possibly just have a different opinion than you!
I definitely see the narrative you are trying to portray. It is, however, incorrect.
I support your right to vote for who you wish. And you support my right to vote for who I wish, right?
It'd be cooler if you were honest about your position but you're also posting on conservative communities about DEI and immigrants and so on. So we can see why you actually support spoiler candidates.
I don't write the news articles, bub, I just read 'me and post 'em if I find they are interesting.
And what "position" do you think I have? I've also posted 110 articles to the Socialist community.
I also post to science communities, education communities, religious communities, anti-religious communities and tech communities.
I've also posted LIbertarian articles, and libertarians actually "spoil" votes for Trump.
So why be vague? Why don't you tell me what you think my "position" is? Come on, mate, let us in on what you think my "mission" is.
Pretty much sums this cat up, and something someone who genuinely cares about the environment would have a great deal of difficulty typing out.
Nothing about democracy says we should not have debates among ourselves about which candidate is best.