There’s a “Vote No on Ranked Choice Voting” sign on my way to work.
Someone just needs to paint over the word ‘no’
I’m not sure if it’s legal to deface political signs like that.
Edit: it’s very much not
Oh no
So anyway
We are not them.
Moralism, or: how to let “civility” get in the way of stopping fascism.
War would be a lot easier if we chose to do away with pesky restrictions like the Geneva convention, but would you be proud to be on the side that dropped white phosphorus on an elementary school to win? Would you prefer that we start making up lies and false rumors about Trump and Co? Restraint is difficult; I understand that, put the resulting clean victory is the most lasting kind.
You’re comparing defacing fascist propaganda to using white phosphorous on an Elementary School. I want you to read that sentence very carefully.
You’re comparing defacing fascist propaganda to using white phosphorous on an Elementary School.
Now that we have stressed the absurdity of such a comparison, you have to understand that if the enemy is genuinely dangerous, then you need to respond in kind.
New York City established Ranked Choice voting in 2020 under a Dem Mayor and majority Dem City Council.
Alaska has a Republican Governor along with a Republican Majority in the house and Senate, they have no restrictions on abortion.
Does this mean the Republican party is pro-choice or that by voting Republican we can secure abortion rights? The answer is no.
Does this mean that by voting Republican we can secure abortion rights? The answer is no.
Actually, by your own post, in Alaska it does.
No, and it’s stupid to suggest they would.
I bet dems would be more open to ranked choice if more people voted for third parties, because as long as the population believes they must vote Democrat or Republican and no one else, neither of those parties have any incentive to change. If lesser evilism stops getting people to vote for the two ruling parties, then there would be incentive for them to change. Short of that you’re relying on politicians to do the right thing instead of the profitable thing, which is a fools game.
The problem is really that republicans keep putting up the worst possible candidates and policies. If the choice was “A sort of bad candidate or another sort of bad candidate”, we’d all happily vote third party and if the slightly-worse-but-not-appreciably-so candidate won as a result, it wouldn’t be a huge hurdle and over a few election cycles we could maybe effect change.
Instead, in that scenario, it leads to Trump and Project 2025 and I’d love to hear your explanation of how that helps us get progressive candidates into office, because I just don’t see it.
I’m a “single issue voter” and that “single issue” is that I don’t want another Trump presidency, so I’ll vote strategically to prevent that from happening, even if I’d much rather have someone else.
You do realize that that’s why the DNC is currently getting away scot-free with genocide, right? Is there a line in the sand somewhere for you?
I’m so sick of this horrible take. You do realize that, of the two candidates who have a chance to win this election, neither are good for Palestine, but one is worse, right? It’s not like Donald Fucking Trump is out there campaigning on cutting off arms to Israel and supporting Palestine.
You give me an actual viable candidate who has a chance of actually winning an election in the US and I’ll give them my vote, but right now, what’re you proposing? Voting third party? Why, exactly? Do you only value “taking a stand”, or are you actually trying to do what’s in everyone’s best interest?
Does Trump have fascist magic that makes the bipartisan bombs stronger? Does Kamala have neoliberal magic that makes the bipartisan bombs weaker? Neither will be worse than the other for Palestine.
Even if it were the case that both were exactly identical, then you’d have to admit that your vote won’t matter for Palestine, and you should base it on other factors, so why don’t you tell me which of Trump’s policies you’re okay with having in exchange for the opportunity to take the idealistic stance in this election?
We can sit here and quote conflicting sources at each other all night, and it’s clear that neither of us is going to sway the other, so we probably should just shake hands and agree to disagree, but fuck it, I’m not doing anything else, so I’ll start. Here’s one. Okay, your turn.
My point is that if the only thing you care about is not electing a Republican, the ratchet effect will mean the DNC will eventually become so right wing they commit genocide. Oh, shit…
Where along the DNC’s journey to the right do you hop off? Is it never? When do you hop off the electoral trend and join the Revolutionary trend?
If you (you being a member of voters at large) will go along with genocide so easily, completely turning a blind eye, what incentive is there for either party to present an alternative?
How do you expect to walk your party over to your side if your vote for them is guaranteed, and you ask absolutely nothing of them, as long as the other party is worse, which is all but guaranteed for the foreseeable future?
It’s already the worst case scenario. You either support genocide or you don’t. Your constant shouting “but it’ll get worse though!1!!” isn’t really pertinent to the conversation when we are already looking at complete annihilation of Gaza and the Palestinians that live there.
What democracy is there to be saved if we are already at the point of “vote for us or else” with Trump and project 2025 being held like a gun to our heads? All of the progress being made towards that eventuality; losses in bodily autonomy and voting access being only a couple examples; not showing any signs of slowing down even under a democratic administration?
A vote should be won, not coerced. Simple as. Not even asking for an alternative makes you complicit in the fact that there is none.
It’s not like I’m sitting here actively supporting the genocide. I’ve been speaking out against Israel since this conflict started. Look, here I am being critical of Israel 10 months ago.
But I’m going to level with you - if I was going to choose a single issue to base my vote on, it wouldn’t be this. It would be climate change. I’d throw in my cap with whomever had the most decisive, immediate plan to cut fossil fuels and major pollutants, enact climate-friendly policies, and put 100% of our budget and focus into reversing as much of the damage we’ve caused as possible, because I think that’s a much bigger issue than Gaza, or Ukraine, or anything else.
Compared to that, which is a global problem, I think any individual nation’s conflicts are pretty trivial. It trumps genocide, it trumps fascism, it trumps everything.
Do you not see that this dynamic just as much allows complete inaction on climate change as it allows the democratic candidates to arm Israel as they commit genocide? You’re using that word, “more”, as if you have any choice than continuing the status quo (complete environmental destruction) or worse in some miniscule way complete environmental destruction.
Again. How do you expect your elected representative to care about passing real, thoughtful, progressive policy on climate change if the only thing they have to do to earn your vote is make sure their opponent doesn’t lose the shovel being used to dig your grave?
Palestine is just the most present and distinct issue which should be an easy slam dunk to show that Democrats care at all about winning voters over or slowing down our recent regression; the undecided movement being a clearly defined group of voters that can be convinced to vote Democrat this election without a clear group of votes that would be lost as a consequence of meeting their asks.
Even pretending the genocide is a non-issue, Trump should be the easiest man in history to beat in an election. Everybody hates the guy, everyone just wants rid of him, and issue-by-issue he manages to take the most unpopular, easily debunked stances that for some reason the Democrats keep conceding narratives to without putting up a fight. But he motivates his voters.
Whether or not you agree with the undecideds, you should be rooting for them. The first rule of negotiation is to be willing to walk away, but the one before that is to bring something to the table worth negotiating for. By not engaging, Kamala is clearly demonstrating to us that; even with everything that group has brought to the table; there is not anything that, to her, is worth negotiating for. What can you bring then? That is not democracy. That’s a lose-lose situation and you can’t fault the voters for being disillusioned by it.
Alaska, a red state, is reportedly trying to remove their rank choice voting. This isn’t a “Dems” problem, it’s a two party problem.
Even if state and local elections are ranked choice, the presidential election will still be a first past the post election and the electoral college is still designed for a two party system.
Alaska, a red state, is reportedly trying to remove their rank choice voting. This isn’t a “Dems” problem, it’s a two party problem.
This is a counter to the Democratic party supporters you see everywhere who always get irrationally upset at third party voters, not about Republicans.
The point is, if the Democratic party never plan to address it, then how will it ever get done through voting Dem? The same goes for all the other issues people claim we should ignore in the name of “vote blue no matter who”, including their genocide.
So don’t participate in the system, got it. Just stay home and give up on Democracy.
So just accept your place in a broken system, got it. Just go support more increasingly right wing fascist policies and give up on any hope for Democracy.*
Pure strawman.
Pretty sure voting for a write in candidate/third party is, by definition, participating in the system.
You just accept the system is broken and undemocratic and believe others should accept this as well and give up.
You are more devoted to “order” than to justice; you prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; you constantly say “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; you paternalistically believe you can set the timetable on progress and constantly advise the progressive to to wait for a “more convenient season”.
You are the “white moderate” MLK warned of, as is the vast majority of the party, though not for long, as the party increasingly seeks the support of the right to avoid allowing any policy victory for the left.
You are increasingly the Republican party of Cheney, as demonstrated by, not only his support for the party, but by the party and Kamala herself touting the endorsement, rather than ignoring it/distancing themselves.
Do you think voting is the entirety of political expression for the working class?
Do you think it’s a zero sum game where voting somehow disables your ability to do other activism and organizing?
Somewhat. Voting makes very little difference at the federal level in the first place, and the huge importance placed on it does placate liberals somewhat.
It also takes very little effort.
Yep, and that’s why it’s the extent 99.9% of libs are willing to go, and no further.
This is a counter to the Democratic party supporters you see everywhere who always get irrationally upset at third party voters, not about Republicans.
Plenty of us Democrats are very much in support of a ranked choice voting schemes, or similar structural rules like non-partisan blanket primaries (aka jungle primaries). The most solidly Democratic state, California, has implemented top-2 primaries that give independents and third parties a solid shot for anyone who can get close to a plurality of votes as the top choice.
Alaska’s top four primary, with RCV deciding between those four on election day, is probably the best system we can realistically achieve in a relatively short amount of time.
Plenty of states have ballot initiatives that bypass elected officials, so people should be putting energy into those campaigns.
But by the time it comes down to a plurality-take-all election between a Republican who won the primary, a Democrat who won the primary, and various third party or independents who have no chance of winning, the responsible thing to make your views represented is to vote for the person who represents the best option among people who can win.
Partisan affiliation is open. If a person really wants to run on their own platform, they can go and try to win a primary for a major party, and change it from within.
TL;DR: I’ll fight for structural changes to make it easier for third parties and independents to win. But under the current rules, voting for a spoiler is throwing the election and owning the results.
Doing something that demonstrably doesn’t work isn’t how you get what you want. If you want an option besides Democrats and Republicans, voting for someone else where those two options have a lock on winning does nothing besides vent some spleen.
I’m not saying doing nothing is the solution, or even voting for the two main parties is the solution, but doing something that has been shown to be completely ineffective is not the solution.
It is a two party problem but dems and their cult-like followers act like the politicians they worship can do no wrong. Both parties are businesses and that’s it.
Obviously the Republicans are completely hostile to rcv, but the nominal progressives here aren’t hoping the Republicans will implement rcv, they think Dems will. I have someone arguing exactly that to me in another thread because three congresspeople are currently setting a proposal up to be shot down.
So you primary in Dems who will support ranked choice. This is .ml, surely you’ve all heard of entryism?
-
That’s not what entryism is. Entryism isn’t “voting democrat candidates who support xyz in primaries.” Entryism is infiltrating an organization’s membership with communists(or what have you), with the intent to change the basic proportional makeup of its membership ranks, and so change its interior political composition, and so its exterior action.
-
Entryism is explicitly and categorically denounced by every serious ML as having proven historically and politically ineffective at best, and actively counterproductive and opportunist at worst and most common by far; and has been in explicit terms criticized as such for a century. Saying “Surely you’ve heard of entryism?” to Marxists is like saying “Surely you’ve heard of filling masks with lavender to keep away the miasma?” to an epidemiologist.
-
The point mentioned in #2 is by a factor of 100 extra true for an organization like the democratic party, which is (just like the Republican party) a monstrous behemoth of leagues of multi-generational dynastic establishment careerist ghouls, thieves, racketeers, and murderers from multi-billionaire elite university family empires; whose entire operations are financed, advised, organized, and run by and for the richest imperialists in the world, with uncountable streams of both open channel money and dark money from private billionaires, banks, industrial monopolies (fossil fuels, pharma, agribusiness, etc.), arms dealers, conglomerate Super PACS, shady Think-tanks and “NGOs,” and the Israel lobby. Obama’s cabinet was hand-picked by Citigroup. Biden has appointed all the most heinous neocons and war criminals he could find, even bringing back convicted massacrists like Elliot Abrams; and hiring the most corrupt people he could find, such as a Chevron lawyer who defended the destruction of the Amazon and poisoning of Indigenous people to head his Environmental executive. All while outflanking the Republicans on the right of many issues including immigration.
**
The Democrats actively benefit just like the Republicans from hyper-restricted 2-corporate-party system, proven by them, currently as we speak, sending out leagues of dark-money Super-PAC-financed lawyers to every state they can to try to purge 3rd parties off the ballots; actively killing democracy. This is their goal and interest, because it is the goal and interest of their donors. They have no interest in a different or better world and never will. Even someone as milquetoast as Bernie ran into endless smears and obstruction and undermining and got nowhere and has capitulated more and more to the right wing by hitching his boat to this circus. The liberal darlings “the squad” have each capitulated or even become active careerists and attack-dogs for the establishment imperialists against alternatives and progressives, barring Ilhan Omar who has faced endless shit and isolation even from the rest of that coward group of “progressive” dems, to say nothing of the establishment that actually runs the show with their army of equally-careerist factory-stamped liberal interns at their beck and call, pipelined from upscale colleges with PoliSci degrees to do whatever bidding they want.
The Democrats are not going to change for anyone but their donors and have proven it for decades; and they are structurally incapable of being budged internally toward anything remotely resembling democracy or socialism. Entryism to the democratic party is beyond a dead end. It would It would be more effective and principled to vote third party and continually elevate a working class party (Like the PSL) and visibly starve the democrats of votes for their failures and betrayals and making it known that is the reason; which would force a political reorientation of the democrats if they ever want power again. This necessary reorientation is impossible within the Democratic party structures, so the ruling class would have to figure out to desperately float a reformist “labor party” or “progressive party” to capture people being funneled to the PSL socialists, and this reformist party would receive an influx of the less-far-right careerist liberals from the Democrats fleeing to the new party “like rats from a sinking ship;” while the Republicans and remaining establishment Democrats proper inevitably join together in a coalition like David Lloyd George’s Conservative-Liberal coalition, or like Macron’s doing with the fascists in France. It’s not even much of a leap for them compared to the existent state of things — they’ve already been converging for decades and most of us have already come to feel the effects of it.
And this way by elevating the PSL, a real working class party who have a broader picture for revolutionary change than limiting to parliamentary dog-and-pony shows against the richest most evil people on the planet, you’re actually helping the ground-up elevation of meaningful on-the-ground working class politics which speak to the 35-50% who are so disillusioned and disenfranchised by the lies and corruption and bloodthirst of the corporate-imperialist duopoly-of-exploiters that they don’t even vote — and activating them into actual meaningful political movement-building and action with a revolutionary long-term perspective, while forcing the establishment’s hand to intercede how it can, highlighting the contradictions and failures of the system. Instead of finding new ways to capitulate to it (which are actually the same ways people have been capitulating to it for a century).
-
Entryism doesn’t work, putting yourself under the discipline of a party apparatus that runs contrary to your goals means you either get extricated or you conform.
The dems don’t give a shit about primary results. Bernie’s relative strength in the primary meant nothing to Biden and understandably so, because why should he give a shit when Bernie endorses him and the bulk of the progressives are so whipped they vote for him anyway?
Progressive Democrats will and do. Neoliberal ones do not as they only care about the donor class
Someone’s unwillingness to implement an effective solution doesn’t make an ineffective solution the answer.
The way forward on this is hounding them until they implement it, not fighting the math:
If a solution doesn’t have a realistic path to implementation, it doesn’t matter. The system itself is designed against change, RCV is something neither party actually wants.
Some few Democrats or states are allowed to support it as far as it gives RCV supporters some semblence of power, without actually pressuring the system.
Even if RCV was implemented, and a Third Party candidate won, the 2 establishment parties would work against any radical change.
It pressures the system in those cities or states, which is actual pressure to the system, just not direct pressure on the federal government. History shows you can mount pressure through local and state changes until it gets overwhelming support on a federal level.
You can make the argument there might be more effective or quicker solutions, but this is unquestionably one path toward it.
My point is that tiny, inconsequential pressure is allowed so that you think it applies pressure. Whenever it gets close to making a difference, it won’t.
You say that with a lot of certainty, but without any evidence to back it up. If history is any indication, lasting change is won from the bottom-up. You have to get the masses at large on your side first and the best way to do it is to show them, in small steps, that it can be done and that it’s effective.
if they wont give us what we want or need they dont deserve our votes, maybe next time they will offer more than “im not the other guy”, if the democrats will not be pushed left then they should be destroyed.
You are correct, but everyone is too afraid to work together to find a better candidate/ new party. We no longer can organize ourselves. We can only be organized by institutions apparently. I’d love to be proven wrong on this but watch how much resistance you get. Just trying to suggest that maybe we could do better. ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ
In order for politics to align towards your values you have to vote for the candidate closest to them, which forces the losing parties to get closer or die, which pushes the winning party to move towards you.
If you throw away or don’t vote none of that happens because you have no impact.
Right on. Once the republicans have enough of a majority they will deal with all these voting problems.
Both parties say third party votes helps the other side. I have a feeling, it actually just helps 3rd party. Especially if both sides don’t want it.
Really not that complicated. If a person who would otherwise vote Democrat instead votes 3rd party, it helps the Republicans. So the Democrat politician says it to that person. Likewise, the Republican says it to those that would otherwise vote Republican. Both parties now claim that it helps the other, but whom it really helps depends on who would otherwise be voted for.
From my outside, proportional representative having-position, 3rd party voting only becomes viable if it is discussed outside of the 6 months before an election. And not in the general “3rd party” term, but with an actual party name attached.
this should be required reading before anyone is allowed to leave a comment on Lemmy about voting
First objection. Why would the people in power change the voting system that got them in power? Well, the spoiler effect has cost both Dems & Reps a major election before. Getting rid of that glitch would be a win-win for major and minor parties!
This inference is completely defective. Of course a system has a cost, but the cost to a major party of changing to rcv is in many cases to completely hold decades-long strangleholds they previously had. It’s like saying, uh, “Right now Hugh cooks his food, but that sometimes results in him burning himself, so of course he’d be glad to sign on to eating food raw!”
The runoff voting downside is incorrect, the “drag the voters up to yellow and watch how it makes red win” example. This is not “see how making yellow more popular makes yellow lose”. It’s actually “see how making red more popular than yellow makes red win”. The movement of the voters is not for yellow, but for red and yellow in a way that gives more voters to red.
There is no way for yellow to be the only candidate to get a boost of voters in the demo. If there were, it would only demonstrate further that yellow would still continue to win.
Runoff voting is the way.
I guess the reason they won’t is to avoid the “there’s 5 different left parties” meme moment.
Some will at small, minor levels, but never enough to cause a serious threat. It’s like how it’s socially permissible and legal to make worker co-operatives and the like, the fact that it’s non-threatening to the status quo keeps it a useful carrot that will never arrive at a scale that causes drastic change.
Linkerbean: usual concern trolling and anti-democrat talking points
Me: You’re just a republican troll trying to get left leaning folk to not vote for democrats
Linkerbean (and I quote exactly): Cope.
Me: …
Linkerbean: <deletes comment>It’s amazing how close they get to making good points before veering off into “Dems bad, do <thing that gets Republicans more power>.”
I don’t even know what you said before but it’s pretty amazing you’re proudly boasting about a comment with zero content calling users republican trolls.
The Dems will preserve a political model that’s at least malleable. 3rds will need to work together to push ranked choice more and more into voters’ field of view.
Republicans will swan-dive into fascism, in which case 3rds (and everyone else) are fucked.
Dems aren’t going to help 3rds directly, but any one who wants the possibility of a 3rd party victory later is committing political suicide by failing to vote blue as a means of buying time. Voting 3rd when that 3rd has no potential for victory is self-destructive.
Also just following the green party a bit and educating your self about them… you learn that the green party is as focused on selfish personal horse race politics that deals with power plays, as the dem party (though on a smaller scale) instead of actual change.
This political cycle, Green party had a chance to radically push the Dems on palestine, by putting up a candidate that would drop out if Dems changed their position on support for Israel.
Jill Stein rejected it.
Just the fact they rejected it shows to me that they’re not serious about actual political change. They just want to be a spoiler. They continue to only run in general elections instead ofnpushing in states.
So I guess i have no home party, but Ill vote for the lesser of two evils still.
This is incredibly dishonest. The Greens actually did the compromise thing in 2020 and didn’t go as hard so Dems could beat Trump.
In return they got Democrats doing Genocide and AOC Pelosi now yapping about how Greens are “predatory” honest because they dropped in the 2020 polls.
Democrats can not do Genocide they don’t need to Greens to bow down for them.
In return? Dems have always been for genocide. Joe Biden has been terrible for Israel Paleatine.
Dems are better on this issue than they ever have been (Biden excluded) due to activist pressure, no thanks to Greens.
Pelosi actuall said in March that we should limit sales to Israel. I don’t think people realize how incredible that is.
Dems are better on this issue than they ever have been
Which is why Harris is saying she’s going to keep sending bombs to israel to burn Palestinian babies with and she’s signaling that she wants to start a war with Iran right?
Pelosi actuall said in March that we should limit sales to Israel. I don’t think people realize how incredible that is.
Ok… Did they do it?
The Dems will preserve a political model that’s at least malleable.
Much like during covid when they gave preferential treatment to themselves while simultaneously working to remove the Green party from ballots.
-More to the point your comment runs contrary to reality and the very nature of the joke pointed out in the meme.
…and a swan-dive into fascism is preferable to that because…?
Our political model is janky as fuck. I don’t need to explain the pitfalls of a two-party system to you - I already know you fucking hate it or you wouldn’t be eyeing a 3rd in the first place. I hate it too. But a two party system is what we have, which means you have three options:
-
Red (fascism)
-
Blue (not fascism)
-
Let the other voters choose Red or Blue for you (abstain or vote 3rd).
Which of those options will do the best job of accomplishing YOUR goals?
What even are your goals? 3rd party as POTUS? You gotta lay the groundwork first. 2016 was the perfect stage for a 3rd party victory within our current model: we had an absolutely hated candidate running on both of the big two; a voterbase just as sick of the status quo as they are now; a Libertarian with a genuinely likable personality, some solid policy stances, and who managed to shift the “crazy” that Libertarians were reputed for to an honestly charming variety of “quirky”, and a surprisingly steady stream of coverage by the media. We will never see better conditions for a 3rd victory in our current model.
So how did the Libertarians do with that perfect storm? 3%. They got fucking 3% of the vote. How do those conditions compare to today’s? Red is running that same hated sack of shit Trump; but Blue couldn’t find a candidate hated as much as Hillary if they tried to - to the contrary, Harris is churning up optimism like I’ve never seen before. The die-hard Reds and Blues aren’t going to change their votes over that, but the folks in the middle are going to be far less inclined to vote 3rd than they were in 2016. 3rds have gotten pretty much zero media attention this time around. They literally do not stand a chance to beat even 2016’s 3%, let alone enough to actually win.
Your only way to the top is to change the political model into one that’s more favorable to you; and the easiest way to do that is to keep not-fascism in power long enough to get the general population pissed off enough about not having ranked choice that it starts making its way into bigger and bigger elections. Your next-easiest path to victory is insurrection… that most likely both fail and get yourself killed, so please don’t do that. Your least-easy path to victory is to allow fascism to take root, as that will push the model even further away from your reach: if that happens it’s game over for everyone except the fascists.
If you see a different option that’ll lead to a 3rd victory in our current model, I’m all ears; but if not, you still need to set the stage with favorable conditions, to include preventing the stage from being burned to the ground.
Your only way to the top is to change the political model into one that’s more favorable to you; and the easiest way to do that is to keep not-fascism in power long enough to get the general population pissed off enough about not having ranked choice that it starts making its way into bigger and bigger elections. Your next-easiest path to victory is insurrection… that most likely both fail and get yourself killed, so please don’t do that. Your least-easy path to victory is to allow fascism to take root, as that will push the model even further away from your reach: if that happens it’s game over for everyone except the fascists.
Why do you think fascism exists, and why is it present in America?
-
The green party only exists because the GOP keeps giving them money. The only time anyone ever hears a damn word out of them, is when they’re showing up to split the Dem vote for the GOP.
You might want lay off the Blue MAGA conspiracies for a bit.
Commission certifies Jill Stein eligible to receive federal matching funds (2024)
Based on documents received on June 3, 2024, Jill Stein and Jill Stein for President 2024 (JSFP) fulfilled the agreement and certification requirements and contributions
To become eligible for matching funds, candidates must submit Candidate and Committee Agreements and Certifications as well as raise a threshold amount of $100,000 by collecting $5,000 in 20 different states in amounts no greater than $250 from any individual.
Also the entire Democratic party runs on AIPAC which is actually funded by Republicans. Dems reaching unprecedented levels of projection.
Blue MAGA
Lol. Lmao, even
When everything Democrats don’t like is a Russian GOP state agent because someone drew some text on an image and they did zero fact checking, you know they’ve reached MAGA levels.
If any of these insane conspiracies were actually true the Green party would not even be allowed to run. The Democrats have done everything to try to concern troll the Greens off ballots in most “democratic” fashion.
They might label some people incorrectly as russian agents, but the reality is that there is a concerted effort by russia to undermine the US democracy, mostly directed at the Democratic Party, and making some mistakes doesn’t make them delusional.
It’s pretty hard to prosecute propaganda in the US due to the First Amendment, so it’s not accurate to say that just because the Greens can run, they must not be russian agents.
The concern about the Greens is eminently logical: they are never going to win, so the best they can do is take votes from the Democrats, allowing the fascists to win. This is in fact what happened in the election of Polk, leading to the Mexican-American war and the theft of Texas from Mexico, which was then admitted as an additional slave state. Further, the Greens do little to nothing other than run in big national races, so it’s not a leap to think they’re deliberately running a spoiler campaign.
Finally, none of that has anything to do with the silly attempt to label Democrats as “Blue MAGA”, since MAGA is a quasi-religious fascist personality cult, none of which can be credibly attributed to Democrats.
Top Democrats like Biden and Harris are bought and paid for by AIPAC. Which is funded by you guessed it: Republicans. And israel.
The reason it’s called Blue MAGA is because Democrats are also Zionists.
Zionismis a religious fascist Death Cult. And the Democrat Zionist cult is currently complicit in Genocide and the denial of Genocide.
Ah today’s bothsidesism
Gotta give people their Two Minutes Hate or they might remember that voting for Democrats is, for most Americans, the actual least evil option on November 5.
Isn’t what they established in Alaska thanks in large part to democrats???
Edit: lol, seeing a lot of downvotes but I’m not seeing anybody refuting it either. Feel free to prove me wrong of course!
To the surprise of nobody Republicans also don’t support a voting system that would end the Democrat-Republican duopoly.
Kinda ironic I saw this post right after this other one lol: Three Democrats Re-Introduce Bill That Would Bring Ranked Choice Voting to Congressional Elections Across America
Those three Democrat are focusing on the thing all of the Democrats and Republicans should.
oh yes the standard reply.
Rs actively tearing it down like in Alaska
Ds putting forth a bill to do it but only started by three of them this time around
“both sides are the same!”
yawn
Did you even read what I wrote?
Those few Dems are clearly the ones pushing this. But that it should be bipartisan and should have more support in general has nothing to do with false equivocation.
The irony here, though, is that because of your partisan BS, you clearly interpreted that as an insult to the Democrats.
