If the democrats lose because of people voting for the party that best represents them, then the democrats should maybe consider representing all groups of people in good faith.
Blaming the third party voters is a good way to shame them into agreeing with you in some cases, but in others it has the opposite effect.
I’m not trying to shame anyone for their vote and I cant blame anyone for not feeling represented by the Democrats. If the Greens are actually the party that represents you, go wild. But I doubt it. But voting for Democrats is unlikely to be voting for your interests either.
Everyone has different priorities, that’s the nature of political difference. But if we are going to be strictly rational, then its important not to vote against our interests either. This isn’t an appeal for lesser evilism, this is an appeal to do what we need to do in November to protect our communities and neighbors from becoming victims of even more state violence than they are under Democrats. But leading up to that day, and on every other day after we build for power. Democratic, organized, working class, educational party work that empowers instead of alienates. Some people have already begun this work but more people need to get involved, and not out of moral imperative, but out of hope and proof that a new way is possible and inevitable if we can actually create such a party.
But the fact is it hasn’t been built, we have become comfortable in our exploitation and alienation, and frankly political confusion. A Trump presidency is too dangerous, to deny that he and his creepy cadre fully intend to deliver mass suffering on millions is misguided; and to accept it but do nothing to prevent it is egotistical. If you want to live by your principles we have to create the orgs that will make it possible, we have to shake the system to its foundations, and not just when there is a genocide or a murder of an unarmed black man by cops; but every day. so that when it’s time to take to the streets we can show out in greater numbers and organization than ever before, and really scare the ruling class, not to gain concessions but to make it clear that their days are numbered as a class.
This can’t be achieved with voting by any possible measure. There is no way to vote that will begin to achieve this. All we can do is slow the bleeding a little longer to create the conditions where we can actually do this work together. So vote against the petty tyrant, vote for the party that we would prefer to resist; that still gives at least lip service to democracy rather than abolishing it in every way they can. And understand that the work hasn’t even begun to ensure our future.
What is wrong with campaigning or supporting the party that represents you best, and then voting differently when you are in the booth? The point is the pressure. To some, their third party vote only matters as a point of dissent, it won’t affect anything. In my state I don’t feel comfortable placing a protest vote for the presidential race, but also Democrats tend to represent me relatively well as I was born on the privileged side of things, most of the bad things that have happened to me were actually my fault. If any of that calculus changes though, who knows, I might not even be comfortable voting democrat knowing it could lose my state to republicans.
Their is logic behind a protest vote for president though, for some perspectives. To some, the winning party never adapts or changes, its the losing party. If you want democrats to reform, then for some the only way to do that is to take your vote from them. If the democrats really think the republicans are the end of democracy, then show us by committing to what the people want and need. In this perspective, the democrats villianize the republicans so that there is a bigger bad casting a shadow they can hide in. For a group of people that find it almost as hard to trust democrats as republicans, it can complicate things.
Its hard, like I said I come from privilege, and have no experience with the democrats personally screwing me over, but plenty of others do, and I can’t discount that perspective. I chose to vote democrat nationally, and third party locally, although I did not choose either the green or libertarian parties.
I appreciate the logic behind a protest vote, and I can sympathize with the circumstances that furnish such a vote. But I believe my logic is pretty sound, acknowledges the very real problems obvious to people who may be choosing to make such a vote, and hopefully makes an alternative case based on similar experiences and human needs to perhaps vote differently. I won’t make a moral judgement against people for this, I have a fairly complicated system of ethics. I know people with high levels of political education who I often agree with, but who are advocating for protest vote, safe state strategy, and the like. All I can do is make a case that maybe people haven’t heard before. The votes will be what they are, for a maintenance of a sad ineffectual status quo that doesn’t relate to people, or for much much worse. That’s how I see it, bit I don’t believe it is right to browbeat others into seeing my views, perpetuating a situation that only benefits the Democrats. But there is a real world with real people and real consequences. If people vote different than I’d like but doing so helps them to reckon with reality as it exists and not as it presents itself to us, then that is itself a bit of a victory as well.
I don’t understand why the logic doesn’t apply both ways though. If you shouldnt vote third party in contested states, then you should in ones that aren’t. I think that would say a lot if most democrats voted third party in those situations. I could get behind it if it were applied both ways, and it would be a great way to have a third party actually get enough popular vote to make a difference.
I’m very aware of the argument behind a safe state strategy, like I said I know a lot of people capable of sophisticated political analysis who are making that decision.
What I said was that if you are planning on making a “safe state” type calculation, and advocate for such a strategy then you had better know for sure your state is safe, and the states of the people where you might advocate for that strategy are also safe. I don’t think a protest vote is much of a protest, but I also know that the uncommitted movement which had made no small impact on the electorate in bringing awareness to this unconscionable genocide inflicted on innocent people, underwritten by both political parties, uncommitted has been advocating for voting third party. I think this is a miscalculation and false equivocation, but that movement has done good work and brought people into grassroots political engagement who were not engaged before. For them, voting is a tactic, but their strategy is to raise awareness of the Palestinian genocide, in which they have been successful. There are people who are very engaged with political action who weren’t before, and they are voting with their principles.
But uncommitted is not a political party that can defend those principles. I want a workers party. And I want Trump to lose. I also don’t think the Greens are a way to get that party, regardless of their electoral strategy. Those are my priorities. If they differ from others I can understand that. But I don’t have to agree with it and I certainly aren’t required to advocate for it. All I can do is present the situation as I see it and speak truth to uncertainty. I have a fair amount of certainty even with all of the hedging I’m doing for subjective opinion and difference of priorities. We won’t know until the votes are cast and counted, and apparently once the incoming presidency has successfully transferred power against the (likely more sophisticated than 2000) attempts to subvert the results of that election.
All I can do is speak to the different factors as I understand them and present a coherent argument for action based on coherent logic. I don’t think I contradicted myself, I think I addressed your concern in my very first post. Buy if I have contradicted myself then I’m willing to explore that, as contradiction is the beginning of dialectical inquiry.
You didn’t contradict yourself, I was asking for clarification because I didn’t understand you fully.
I don’t really think we are all that far about on the substance of this, and we could probably debate the nuance for ages for no gain, so I won’t.
The main thing I think is important is that people don’t fall into the trap of thinking there is only one broad perspective that should be valid for everyone, which I don’t think you are doing.
As an aside, do you have any sources I could read about the 2000 transfer of power? I was so young then, and growing up people never posited it as a coordinated attempt to subvert the election. I have heard a bit about it in the past years but had trouble finding information on what had happened.
One connection that deeply concerned me was the involvement of a number of Oathkeepers, paramilitaries who were present for and knowingly attempted to thwart the process. Orders came directly from the leader of the concerningly large paramilitary group, and the group has many direct links to Roger Stone; a top Trump official and architect of his entire rise to political power from landlord/gameshow host.
I had meant the Bush/Gore election, but I will take these too since I’ve read conflicting reports on how Stone reacted to the riot as it was happening.
And you are crazy if you think the democrats or republicans would allow the green party to exist any longer if there was proof they were actually a Russian party, right?
The US famously only ever made one political party illegal, and it’s not enforced now because it’s unconstitutional to do so. The best they can do is what they are doing. Highlighting the evidence.
Not trying to sound argumentative, but I have only seen anyone post the picture with Putin at the table with the Green party nominee. Would you be able to reply with any other evidence you have seen?
She’s always run on an anti-war platform. She’s saying both sides are wrong for it. Theres a pretty clear statement she put out calling Putin a war criminal. The point she’s trying to make is that America is hypocritical at best to even point the finger, which in a lot of cases is true.
Americans don’t want to talk about the bad things their country might do internationally though, so everyone calls her a Russian shill. Much more likely that, then there is any truth in what she is saying.
At least she wants to talk about our shortcomings honestly and try to solve them. The democrats won’t even be honest with the public to begin with in most cases.
If the democrats lose because of people voting for the party that best represents them, then the democrats should maybe consider representing all groups of people in good faith.
Blaming the third party voters is a good way to shame them into agreeing with you in some cases, but in others it has the opposite effect.
I’m not trying to shame anyone for their vote and I cant blame anyone for not feeling represented by the Democrats. If the Greens are actually the party that represents you, go wild. But I doubt it. But voting for Democrats is unlikely to be voting for your interests either.
Everyone has different priorities, that’s the nature of political difference. But if we are going to be strictly rational, then its important not to vote against our interests either. This isn’t an appeal for lesser evilism, this is an appeal to do what we need to do in November to protect our communities and neighbors from becoming victims of even more state violence than they are under Democrats. But leading up to that day, and on every other day after we build for power. Democratic, organized, working class, educational party work that empowers instead of alienates. Some people have already begun this work but more people need to get involved, and not out of moral imperative, but out of hope and proof that a new way is possible and inevitable if we can actually create such a party.
But the fact is it hasn’t been built, we have become comfortable in our exploitation and alienation, and frankly political confusion. A Trump presidency is too dangerous, to deny that he and his creepy cadre fully intend to deliver mass suffering on millions is misguided; and to accept it but do nothing to prevent it is egotistical. If you want to live by your principles we have to create the orgs that will make it possible, we have to shake the system to its foundations, and not just when there is a genocide or a murder of an unarmed black man by cops; but every day. so that when it’s time to take to the streets we can show out in greater numbers and organization than ever before, and really scare the ruling class, not to gain concessions but to make it clear that their days are numbered as a class.
This can’t be achieved with voting by any possible measure. There is no way to vote that will begin to achieve this. All we can do is slow the bleeding a little longer to create the conditions where we can actually do this work together. So vote against the petty tyrant, vote for the party that we would prefer to resist; that still gives at least lip service to democracy rather than abolishing it in every way they can. And understand that the work hasn’t even begun to ensure our future.
What is wrong with campaigning or supporting the party that represents you best, and then voting differently when you are in the booth? The point is the pressure. To some, their third party vote only matters as a point of dissent, it won’t affect anything. In my state I don’t feel comfortable placing a protest vote for the presidential race, but also Democrats tend to represent me relatively well as I was born on the privileged side of things, most of the bad things that have happened to me were actually my fault. If any of that calculus changes though, who knows, I might not even be comfortable voting democrat knowing it could lose my state to republicans.
Their is logic behind a protest vote for president though, for some perspectives. To some, the winning party never adapts or changes, its the losing party. If you want democrats to reform, then for some the only way to do that is to take your vote from them. If the democrats really think the republicans are the end of democracy, then show us by committing to what the people want and need. In this perspective, the democrats villianize the republicans so that there is a bigger bad casting a shadow they can hide in. For a group of people that find it almost as hard to trust democrats as republicans, it can complicate things.
Its hard, like I said I come from privilege, and have no experience with the democrats personally screwing me over, but plenty of others do, and I can’t discount that perspective. I chose to vote democrat nationally, and third party locally, although I did not choose either the green or libertarian parties.
I appreciate the logic behind a protest vote, and I can sympathize with the circumstances that furnish such a vote. But I believe my logic is pretty sound, acknowledges the very real problems obvious to people who may be choosing to make such a vote, and hopefully makes an alternative case based on similar experiences and human needs to perhaps vote differently. I won’t make a moral judgement against people for this, I have a fairly complicated system of ethics. I know people with high levels of political education who I often agree with, but who are advocating for protest vote, safe state strategy, and the like. All I can do is make a case that maybe people haven’t heard before. The votes will be what they are, for a maintenance of a sad ineffectual status quo that doesn’t relate to people, or for much much worse. That’s how I see it, bit I don’t believe it is right to browbeat others into seeing my views, perpetuating a situation that only benefits the Democrats. But there is a real world with real people and real consequences. If people vote different than I’d like but doing so helps them to reckon with reality as it exists and not as it presents itself to us, then that is itself a bit of a victory as well.
I don’t understand why the logic doesn’t apply both ways though. If you shouldnt vote third party in contested states, then you should in ones that aren’t. I think that would say a lot if most democrats voted third party in those situations. I could get behind it if it were applied both ways, and it would be a great way to have a third party actually get enough popular vote to make a difference.
I’m very aware of the argument behind a safe state strategy, like I said I know a lot of people capable of sophisticated political analysis who are making that decision.
What I said was that if you are planning on making a “safe state” type calculation, and advocate for such a strategy then you had better know for sure your state is safe, and the states of the people where you might advocate for that strategy are also safe. I don’t think a protest vote is much of a protest, but I also know that the uncommitted movement which had made no small impact on the electorate in bringing awareness to this unconscionable genocide inflicted on innocent people, underwritten by both political parties, uncommitted has been advocating for voting third party. I think this is a miscalculation and false equivocation, but that movement has done good work and brought people into grassroots political engagement who were not engaged before. For them, voting is a tactic, but their strategy is to raise awareness of the Palestinian genocide, in which they have been successful. There are people who are very engaged with political action who weren’t before, and they are voting with their principles.
But uncommitted is not a political party that can defend those principles. I want a workers party. And I want Trump to lose. I also don’t think the Greens are a way to get that party, regardless of their electoral strategy. Those are my priorities. If they differ from others I can understand that. But I don’t have to agree with it and I certainly aren’t required to advocate for it. All I can do is present the situation as I see it and speak truth to uncertainty. I have a fair amount of certainty even with all of the hedging I’m doing for subjective opinion and difference of priorities. We won’t know until the votes are cast and counted, and apparently once the incoming presidency has successfully transferred power against the (likely more sophisticated than 2000) attempts to subvert the results of that election.
All I can do is speak to the different factors as I understand them and present a coherent argument for action based on coherent logic. I don’t think I contradicted myself, I think I addressed your concern in my very first post. Buy if I have contradicted myself then I’m willing to explore that, as contradiction is the beginning of dialectical inquiry.
You didn’t contradict yourself, I was asking for clarification because I didn’t understand you fully.
I don’t really think we are all that far about on the substance of this, and we could probably debate the nuance for ages for no gain, so I won’t.
The main thing I think is important is that people don’t fall into the trap of thinking there is only one broad perspective that should be valid for everyone, which I don’t think you are doing.
As an aside, do you have any sources I could read about the 2000 transfer of power? I was so young then, and growing up people never posited it as a coordinated attempt to subvert the election. I have heard a bit about it in the past years but had trouble finding information on what had happened.
One connection that deeply concerned me was the involvement of a number of Oathkeepers, paramilitaries who were present for and knowingly attempted to thwart the process. Orders came directly from the leader of the concerningly large paramilitary group, and the group has many direct links to Roger Stone; a top Trump official and architect of his entire rise to political power from landlord/gameshow host.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/four-members-oath-keepers-sentenced-roles-jan-6-capitol-breach
Archive link to paywalled nyt article https://archive.is/LeGLk
I had meant the Bush/Gore election, but I will take these too since I’ve read conflicting reports on how Stone reacted to the riot as it was happening.
The pro Russia party doesn’t represent any American.
And you are crazy if you think the democrats or republicans would allow the green party to exist any longer if there was proof they were actually a Russian party, right?
The US famously only ever made one political party illegal, and it’s not enforced now because it’s unconstitutional to do so. The best they can do is what they are doing. Highlighting the evidence.
Not trying to sound argumentative, but I have only seen anyone post the picture with Putin at the table with the Green party nominee. Would you be able to reply with any other evidence you have seen?
Russia Advocating for them
Repeating Russian propaganda on Ukraine, repeatedly, and again
The evidence is out there.
She’s always run on an anti-war platform. She’s saying both sides are wrong for it. Theres a pretty clear statement she put out calling Putin a war criminal. The point she’s trying to make is that America is hypocritical at best to even point the finger, which in a lot of cases is true.
Americans don’t want to talk about the bad things their country might do internationally though, so everyone calls her a Russian shill. Much more likely that, then there is any truth in what she is saying.
At least she wants to talk about our shortcomings honestly and try to solve them. The democrats won’t even be honest with the public to begin with in most cases.
That’s not what honesty looks like. She’s literally lying in all 3 twitter links.
Okay I’m not gonna prove that for you, go on?
Do you think being critical of the US makes you Russian by default?
I think its brave of her to take unpopular opinions like this, as an american.