aalvare2

I am not. I am merely posting articles that I am interested in to a political news community. There is not deep-hidden agenda here. You act as if I have some obligation to explain my reasoning to you. I do not.

But then again, why do you engage in discussions with people who disagree with you if to your admission all you care about is sharing articles?

I'm voting for Jill Stein. I don't care if you want to know more. I've answered what I've answered. Move on.

Again, why tell me to move on when you could simply stop replying?

I won't be baited into blowing up

Idk man, this is a pretty long reply from someone who’s not been baited into blowing up

And as for your next variation of a question of why I won't answer you: I don't want to and I don't have to. And that's ok.

So you have no answers to my questions then?

Do you ask these questions in every article that is posted about Harris? Or are you letting your bias show because you are so desperate for Trump not to win?

No I don’t ask these questions on Harris posts because Harris isn’t a third-party candidate.

And yes, I would very much like it if Trump doesn’t win. Do you not care if Trump wins, given his environmental policy, and given that the candidate you do support is the pick of the Green Party, aka the pro-environmental policy pick?

Because some comments I reply to. Some I don't. I get to pick which ones.

Yes, and you’ve chosen to reply to many comments from people who clearly disagree with you. why do that at all, if not that you want to move a needle on something?

Because you were implying that I was trying to "sway" people to vote for Stein. And that's not the case. I have posted about other candidates as well.

I asked if you were trying to sway people on “anything” here. And I see posting about Stein as you have as wanting to move the needle on public perception of Stein, like posting about any other 3rd party candidate would be an effort to move the needle on the concept of voting third-party. You asserted that you posted about other third party candidates too, so I’ll ask directly: are you not trying to sway people to vote third-party, given that you post about third party candidates and then defend third party candidates in comment threads?

Dude, I'm not voting for Harris. But I support you voting for her if that's what you want. Move on.

Why tell me to move on when you could simply stop replying?

This isn’t just a place for political news, though. It’s a place to talk about political news, and about the politics surrounding that political news. That’s what I’m trying to do now.

Why go into the comment thread at all if all you care about is sharing political news? The engagement around that news matters, does it not? Otherwise Lemmy wouldn’t even have a comment section to begin with.

Did you even realize that I don't only post Jill Stein articles to this community?

And do you realize I created and mod a sub about MANY different third parties? One is even called "Third Party News." In addition one about the Green Party and one about Socialist parties?

How does any of that matter right now? You said in this thread that Jill Stein is your absolute most preferred candidate. That’s all I really care to address right now.

My standing question about whether you just don’t care that much about who becomes president is important. It’d mostly settle your overall feelings on the subject. But if you don’t wanna answer me anymore, then that’s fine.

What I don’t want is for you to leave this thread off on a non-answer.

I support and respect who you are voting for. But I am voting for someone different. Actually lots of people are voting for someone different. Please accept that. Thank you!

You have a right to vote for whoever you want, just like I have a right to ask you “why?”. And you have a right to stop engaging if you don’t want to talk to me anymore. But if you continue engaging, without answering, then I have a right to ask again: “why?”.

I'm not voting for Harris, no matter how many questions you ask me or how you try to sway me. It's not happening.

This is not a good faith statement to make in a political discussion. If you believe there is absolutely zero way you can be swayed into a different point of view, then you shouldn’t try to sway people yourself.

Perhaps you’re not trying to sway people on anything here, but then…why post to c/politics about Stein to begin with? What’s the point of that if you’re not trying to at least “move the needle” on public perception of Stein?

It's simple. I'm not voting "against" anyone; I'm voting "for" someone. I'm not worried about who might win. I'm voting for the person who best aligns with my values, and that's Jill Stein.

Which values, exactly? She is the Green Party candidate, aka the candidate for the pro-environment party, correct? Is it safe to say that the environment is an important issue for you?

I get it—you’re scared of Trump. You hate him. Fine. But half the country doesn’t hate him, and that’s just the way things are.

I don’t care what half the country thinks about Trump. I’m interested to know what you think of Trump. Post-Agenda 47 research.

I’m not changing my mind. I’m not suddenly going to stand up and say, "OMG, @aalavre2 was right. I’ve read up on Trump this weekend, and now I’m scared! He totally talked me into voting for Harris!"

And I already told you that I don’t expect you to do that. That’s what it means to say “I don’t really care if you don’t decide within the next 24hrs to vote Harris or anything like that”.

That’s not going to happen. 

Like I said above…agreed!

You act like I’m someone who just moved here from another country and has never heard of Trump.

No, I am not. I’m sure there are tens of millions of people who haven’t combed through Trump’s official policies. It’s not exactly easy to do so, after all, when it’s mostly videos. Even harder to do so when some of the most important policies are hidden behind boring names like “Schedule F”. 

I’m simply pointing at research you could be doing to inform you of a candidate who I see as the on-paper opposite of Jill Stein.

Dude, I don’t care. I’m not scared of Trump or his administration. If he wins, I won’t jump into a pile of pillows and cry, "Why? Why didn’t I vote for Harris?! Why didn’t I listen to the people on Lemmy?!"

I get that you’re not going to say and do such an oddly specific thing. I get that you’re saying you don’t care, and I am telling you, respectfully, “well, maybe you should care”.

I’m voting for Jill Stein because I like her and I want to vote for her. It’s not that deep. It’s not some deep philosophical reflection on my feelings about the nature of society.

And I never said it was! But when you put as simply as “because I like her”, it sounds like you’re voting against your interests, when I’d expect you to see Trump as the polar opposite.

Do you simply think that politics, and who ends up president, don’t matter that much? If that’s how you feel, that’d clear up a lot of things…

You need to accept it. I have the right to vote for who I want.

Yup

You’re trying to bully and guilt me into doing something that you want me to do.

No, I am not. You’ve accused me of both belittling and bullying in a single comment, and I’m just sitting here asking if you read any if my links or chewed on my point about supporting the Green Party. 

Now I’m asking you, directly, if you just don’t really care that much about who becomes president to begin with. If you don’t wanna answer that, you don’t have to reply back.

I support you voting for whoever you want. I don’t expect you to explain or apologize for your choice. Please offer me the same courtesy.

And I’m not asking you to apologize for your political views…but this is a political sub. It’s where we’re free to explain our feelings about politics.

I don’t want to leave the conversation with a “cap” on it that has animosity behind it.

I’m still interested in how you respond to Agenda 47, and how you’d reconcile the Green Party candidate being your #1 pick, with not caring about a Trump victory when Trump is worst candidate for the environment.

If you don’t want to continue the conversation, you could simply stop responding. I can’t stop you from doing that, nor do I have any desire to.

This is not a good-faith response to my comment and you ought to know that.

I’m not bullying you. You’re the one who put forward the idea that democrats think a trump presidency would destroy the world and/or cause an apocalypse, and I am asserting, as a democrat, that neither of those are true.

I was genuinely interested in how you’d respond to Trump’s Agenda 47, if you had not already researched it. And I was genuinely interested in how you’d rebut the irony I pointed out twice, but you have not done so.

I don’t really care if you don’t decide within the next 24hrs to vote Harris or anything like that, but I was interested in, at least on paper, having a good faith discussion where I put forth new information and a perceived cognitive dissonance in your stated values, and you’d read at least some of that information, and/or address the perceived dissonance.

Again. This isn’t about stopping apocalypse, or the end of the world, or anything like that. It’s about stopping a guy who has literally threatened to send the national guard into cities…just cuz.

And again. The irony of supposedly supporting the Green Party, while not caring about the threat of Trump on the environment. When caring about the environment is literally the namesake of the party……

Please, at least read my link to his Agenda 47 if you have not already done so. Or watch his official Agenda 47 videos, which are videos and not easily navigable text for a reason.

I, however, don't feel the need to do that.

So you aren’t concerned about any of the issues I brought up - the 4yrs of conservative SCOTUS supermajority, Project 2025, Schedule F, etc?

Are you not concerned about Trump potentially invoking the insurrection act, especially noting that has said he would consider sending troops into liberal cities “to curb crime waves”?

Even forgetting things he “plausibly might not want to do”, his official policy plans are very concerning to me.

I don’t think the world ends if Trump wins either, but I think it’ll be very bad. Furthermore, I think 4 years of the president having zero climate protection policy will be detrimental to the environment. It feels ironic that you support the Green Party but aren’t concerned about a Trump presidency in that regard.

If the American people choose someone else as president, regardless of who that is, I'm fine with the decision. We're a democracy.

Normally I’d feel the same way, but it sounds like you’re not concerned about a 2nd Trump term. I am VERY concerned.

If Trump wins, he’ll have 4 years with a SCOTUS supermajority, a platform that was written for him that will deal massive damage if even a fraction of it is implemented, and an already promised decision to implement Schedule F which’ll increase the appointive power of the presidency by a factor of 12-100. That’s literally not even the half of it.

We have to send a message that any of that is NOT OKAY. That message cannot be sent if he wins.

I put it towards both. I 100 percent agree with and fight for electoral form.

Perhaps you’re telling the truth, but it just doesn’t feel like that, simply because most of your posts appear to have been about defending third party candidates rather than speaking in favor of reform (I say “appear” because I have not combed through your entire post history or anything, nor will I).

I will say in your defense that recent news in the US doesn’t say anything about electoral reform, so there’d be no recent developments to post. I’m just talking about the impression it leaves that it appears to go unmentioned by you.

Neither party has, nor wants to.

This is not true in general. See this. Ranked choice is slowly being adopted at the local level, and made it to the state level in Alaska and Maine. Yes, it’s banned statewide in several states, but that’s a hell of a long way from being banned everywhere. It’s slow but steady progress, from the ground up.

Although ranked choice isn’t my preferred system, it’s something, and that something sets the precedent that reform is possible.

How am I bot? Feel free to look at my past posts and conversations. lol

My bad, I didn’t know you just had a copy-pasted snippet. That snippet didn’t feel like it answered my question at all, hence my suspicion.

Also, just because someone goes against the mainstream grain about who the vote for, doesn't make them a bot. Just saying...

Again, that suspicion had nothing to do with your apparent views, it was entirely because it didn’t feel like you were responding to my question at all - it was a long, well-written, yet generic, almost immediate response.

But I am sorry for sounding accusatory.

Also, voting for someone who is officially on the ballot gives the party more recognition, influence, and potential access to resources and ballot access in future elections, which wouldn't happen with a write-in vote that doesn't carry the same weight or visibility.

I do generally agree with this sentiment, so don’t get me wrong on that. However, I see this is a strategic/practical consideration in who to vote for. I don’t see it as a valid consideration in an honest vote.

My point is this: it sounds like you are a principled voter, but one who’s not blind to strategic or practical considerations. That’s how I feel as well, but I value the spoiler effect very highly in my strategic/practical consideration. Fighting the political science inches us both closer to our least preferred candidate getting elected.

I wish that your energy of “Consider voting for Jill Stein” was instead put towards “fight for electoral reform, so we can all honestly vote for candidates like Jill Stein without fear”.

Fair enough, thanks for the background. And I didn’t know that was a rule, so thanks.

I did also respond to the user organically in the second part of my post, so hopefully my post stays within the rules.