|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 06 2024 01:20 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 01:14 TentativePanda wrote:On November 06 2024 01:11 Sermokala wrote: People who believe in a flat earth have a different theory about how physics works than me but that doesn't make it legitimate. If your theory of change is to punish the democrats by helping trump get elected, then the outcome of your theory of change is that trump getting elected is a better outcome than Harris getting elected. You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your actions by declaring the moral superiority of your actions. Trump winning may not be the end of the world for you but that doesn't mean there are no consequences for a trump victory. You're conflating a lot here, and seriously oversimplifying. Flat earth is scientifically, and physically disprovable. Theory of change is a political/philosophical theory that is not. I think both are reasonable, and you don't, that's fine. And no, this isn't just about taking the moral highground (though voting due to moral convictions is well... certainly valid in a very obvious way) And you're responding to a comment that wasn't aimed at you or your comment, but the one above it.
Then use the quote function because it makes perfect sense for you to reply with this to me, who also supports not voting for Kamala Harris and in the same page lol
|
On November 05 2024 23:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 22:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 05 2024 16:04 Jockmcplop wrote: I have a question for GH about the lesser evil voting. I'm not trying to catch you out GH, i'm genuinely interested: Do you think left wingers would be better spending their time getting behind left wing democratic candidates in local politics instead of railing against the democratic party as a whole, in an attempt to make the Dems more left wing regardless of what happens at the top?
It seems to me having a philosophy based almost entirely on rejecting both parties could end up counter productive instead of promoting left wing voices within one of those parties... I mean this was basically the debate coming out of the 60's. Should the revolutionary left continue their organized mass civil disobedience/direct actions or work within the Democrat party and try to reform them and the country from "the inside" through compromise and lesser evilism. Joining Democrats "won" (read: Democrats and Republicans joined forces to harass, imprison, outcast, coerce, assassinate, etc the revolutionaries). That got us Democrats pied pipering Trump/fascism into the presidency and rationalizing their own support of genocide. To the degree that the existing system can be used to serve people's interests, that's where non-reformist reforms come in and may include things like voting for what libs would describe as the "lesser evil" locally. But even those aren't significantly achievable without the accompanying organized mass civil disobedience/direct actions Democrats oppose (and empower Republicans to crackdown even harsher on). + Show Spoiler +I’d be interested to see counter-examples where this tactic worked.
I can imagine they exist, but only in more pluralist democracies where the genuine left have some political party they can call home.
We both have the misfortune to dwell in borderline 2 party states, and in such confines it seems to just not work.
It actually somewhat preceded him but hey he won so let’s take Blair winning in 97, and dropping things like a codified link between unions and the party. Taking the labour out of Labour if you will. We’re not far off 30 years of Labour not really being a left wing party. The one time they did have a left wing leader in this time the centre did their utmost to defang him. Of course, when we’ve got a nice wee centrist back in leadership it’s back to ‘you have to vote for us because the Tories are Satan and if you don’t you’re a bad person’ It’s remarkable how the Tories cease being Satan and you should vote for Labour to keep them out if there’s a lefty in charge eh? Colloquially referred to as the "ratchet effect"+ Show Spoiler +
It goes back to the issue that libs/Dems don't have a line.
For all their rhetoric about Trump, they'd vote for him in a heartbeat to defend lesser evil absolutism.
|
On November 06 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 00:52 TentativePanda wrote:On November 06 2024 00:49 Velr wrote:On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Openly voting for the Russian asset because you can/want to for sure is a thing to do. Russia hoax 2.0 I assume your aware that multiple intelligence agencies, both in the US and abroad as well as the (at the time) Republican senate intelligence oversight committee all agree that 'Russian hoax 1.0' actually really did happen and that your just being purposefully dense.
I actually want to come back to this twice because of how insane it is. Robert Mueller (former head of a intelligence agency btw), after 22 months of intense investigation, found no such collusion. He had a huge team of aggressive prosecutors, intelligence analysts etc. Even large news networks are distancing themselves from the story they peddled. Just the other week Jake Tapper had to lie and say he never gave credence to the russia collusion story. Why are so many former believers of it trying to cover their trail on it now? This is not even meant to be supportive of Trump, just a necessary check in on reality that having some percent of intelligence agencies (generally known for spying on civilians and blocking government transparency and covering up war crimes) saying they believe it to be true does not make it true - that's absurd
|
On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3
Yikes. But thanks for bragging about throwing away your swing vote in an election that truly does have consequences.
On November 06 2024 00:52 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 00:49 Velr wrote:On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Openly voting for the Russian asset because you can/want to for sure is a thing to do. Russia hoax 2.0
Low information voter 2.0
On November 06 2024 01:35 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 06 2024 00:52 TentativePanda wrote:On November 06 2024 00:49 Velr wrote:On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Openly voting for the Russian asset because you can/want to for sure is a thing to do. Russia hoax 2.0 I assume your aware that multiple intelligence agencies, both in the US and abroad as well as the (at the time) Republican senate intelligence oversight committee all agree that 'Russian hoax 1.0' actually really did happen and that your just being purposefully dense. I actually want to come back to this twice because of how insane it is. Robert Mueller (former head of a intelligence agency btw), after 22 months of intense investigation, found no such collusion. He had a huge team of aggressive prosecutors, intelligence analysts etc. Even large news networks are distancing themselves from the story they peddled. Just the other week Jake Tapper had to lie and say he never gave credence to the russia collusion story. Why are so many former believers of it trying to cover their trail on it now? This is not even meant to be supportive of Trump, just a necessary check in on reality that having some percent of intelligence agencies (generally known for spying on civilians and blocking government transparency and covering up war crimes) saying they believe it to be true does not make it true - that's absurd
Mueller literally found 10 counts of obstruction of justice... and Russian interference was, indeed, confirmed >.>
|
Northern Ireland23313 Posts
On November 06 2024 01:35 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 06 2024 00:52 TentativePanda wrote:On November 06 2024 00:49 Velr wrote:On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Openly voting for the Russian asset because you can/want to for sure is a thing to do. Russia hoax 2.0 I assume your aware that multiple intelligence agencies, both in the US and abroad as well as the (at the time) Republican senate intelligence oversight committee all agree that 'Russian hoax 1.0' actually really did happen and that your just being purposefully dense. I actually want to come back to this twice because of how insane it is. Robert Mueller (former head of an intelligence agency btw), after 22 months of intense investigation, found no such collusion. He had a huge team of aggressive prosecutors, intelligence analysts etc. Even large news networks are distancing themselves from the story they peddled. Just the other week Jake Tapper had to lie and say he never gave credence to the russia collusion story. Why are so many former believers of it trying to cover their trail on it now? This is not even meant to be supportive of Trump, just a necessary check in on reality that having some percent of intelligence agencies (generally known for spying on civilians and blocking government transparency and covering up war crimes) saying they believe it to be true does not make it true - that's absurd Was the conclusion of the Muelller report not that agents acted on his behalf, but not on his behest? The burden of proof being rather larger on the latter
Nonetheless, I have concerns in this domain but I’ve always found it a bit silly.
1) If a third rate power like Russia can sabotage your elections, what the fuck are you doing to be less palatable? 2) If you’re saying Russia did do this, what platforms did they do it on? Oh US based and hosted ones? Are you going to propose meaningful regulatory frameworks at a legislative level? No? Well stop fucking whinging then
It’s a put up or shut up scenario for me. Something can’t simultaneously be a threat to the very fabric of US democracy and be something you’re unwilling to do anything about unless you’re either grossly incompetent, or in some way benefit from making the claim
|
On November 06 2024 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Yikes. But thanks for bragging about throwing away your swing vote in an election that truly does have consequences. Not just bragging about throwing their vote away, but doing so knowing that the most recent "change" Stein voters enacted was helping Trump get elected.
Not worth the breath for me.
|
On November 06 2024 01:21 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 01:11 Sermokala wrote: People who believe in a flat earth have a different theory about how physics works than me but that doesn't make it legitimate. If your theory of change is to punish the democrats by helping trump get elected, then the outcome of your theory of change is that trump getting elected is a better outcome than Harris getting elected. You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your actions by declaring the moral superiority of your actions. Trump winning may not be the end of the world for you but that doesn't mean there are no consequences for a trump victory. If your theory is I have certain red lines and I won’t vote for you if you cross them, that’s a different kettle of fish. GH has expressed no desire to get Trump elected or punish Democrats You could throw the most desperate singleton going, perhaps approaching incel land two particularly unappealing partnership prospects and they’re not obligated to go for either. They can just say nah I’m ok being single for now Ultimately the 20-40% of non politically engaged folks who couldn’t be arsed voting are a considerably bigger concern than a GH type Just because you don't have a desire for an outcome doesn't change the responsibility for the outcome your actions cause. Gh has constantly shamed democrats and people who support harris for voting for her. In a binary choice persuading people not to vote for one is material support for the opposite.
The outcome of the election is going to come if you chose an option or not. Not voting doesn't change someone winning the vote. You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your decision by declaring yourself morally better than the two choices before you.
|
Someone going out of their way to make sure people know they voted for stein tells you all you need to know. We have plenty of other interesting things to discuss. No reason to respond to them.
|
On November 06 2024 00:41 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2024 23:10 farvacola wrote: Friends in NE and Central Ohio reported crazy lines first thing this morning. Already voted early here in Virginia. It is crazy how it is allowed to make it more difficult to vote (like less stations) in certain parts than others, even in the same state. And how the person who picks where it all goes is partisan. It should be the same for all people in the US, you guys need some impartial federal group that runs these elections.
Voting is done by the states and if there were a motion for a federal oversight comittee to monitor elections half of the states (I'll let you guess which ones) would vote against it.
|
On November 06 2024 01:14 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 01:11 Sermokala wrote: People who believe in a flat earth have a different theory about how physics works than me but that doesn't make it legitimate. If your theory of change is to punish the democrats by helping trump get elected, then the outcome of your theory of change is that trump getting elected is a better outcome than Harris getting elected. You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your actions by declaring the moral superiority of your actions. Trump winning may not be the end of the world for you but that doesn't mean there are no consequences for a trump victory. You're conflating a lot here, and seriously oversimplifying. Flat earth is scientifically, and physically disprovable. Theory of change is a political/philosophical theory that is not. I think both are reasonable, and you don't, that's fine. And no, this isn't just about taking the moral highground (though voting due to moral convictions is well... certainly valid in a very obvious way) I don't think the theory of flat earth is reasonable, and yet there are people who believe it, you need to be aware of these people and how to persuade them otherwise.
Voteing due to moral convictions is not what you are doing by voting for Jill stein. There is nothing that will happen voting for Jill stein for any of your moral convictions logically or morally.
|
Harris will win this easy. Trump was a one hit wonder. Fivethirtyeight went in favor of Harris today as well after being pro-trump for a long time.
Wish you all the best America! Good luck!
|
On November 06 2024 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: Someone going out of their way to make sure people know they voted for stein tells you all you need to know. We have plenty of other interesting things to discuss. No reason to respond to them. If anything we should all be thankful they didn't vote for Trump (assuming they are either a PA voter or they voted for Stein).
For context (emphasis mine):
On July 15 2024 07:37 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2024 07:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 15 2024 06:53 DeepElemBlues wrote: But I also see good qualities in him, the best among those that he truly loves his country Would you mind elaborating on what you're referring to when you say that you believe Trump loves his country? How does he demonstrate that he loves the United States? Having to ask this question just proves you've never let an ounce of you question if Trump isn't Super Evil incarnate like they say he is. He isn't allowed a shred of grace or mercy in the resistance cult. Honest people know he genuinely loves the US, and maybe just has different opinions on how to Make It Great Again. Is that not allowed?
|
On November 06 2024 01:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 00:49 Sermokala wrote:On November 05 2024 23:31 Magic Powers wrote:On November 05 2024 23:13 KT_Elwood wrote: It's absurd to me that people believing that a genocide against arabs and muslims, aided by US weapons is happening, and still would rather have a president that calls muslims "criminal vermin" and wants to take their citizenship, deport them.. while being open to peace through ethnic cleansing in the Westbank..and a good friend of netanyahu. All that while the US is responsible for countless deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan... in the campaign "against Terror" started by GW Bush (R)
But TikTok Propaganda is just too powerfu and it says "Vote the putin puppet that destabilzes the west"
GH is not voting for Trump. If he wanted him in power, he'd vote for him. So it's wrong to say "he'd rather have Trump". It's just completely wrong to frame it that way. He's abstaining, and so are many other people who oppose the genocide in Gaza. Say what you will about that strategy, you can't say people aren't acting according to their values. GH is not a hypocrite in any meaningful capacity. The recent developments in Gaza prove this point. Israel has now ended UN aid to Gaza. They've also not met the US demands of supplies into Gaza. The US doesn't appear to care and just keeps supporting Israel. This is happening under Biden, and it'll continue to go like that under Harris. GH is being rational in his own right. You just don't like his strategic choice. In terms of values, he's spot on. His "strategic choice" isn't coherent with his values. You don't get to opt out of the consequences of your actions just because you declare yourself to be a morally superior person to other people. The reality he exists in is of a binary choice for who becomes president. He chooses to spend his energy and emotion to fight against the binary choice his morals would dictate he support. I don't believe, or want to believe, he's a simple person that only has formed his personal belief structure around the last year or so. I believe or chose to believe, that he cares about causes and people for the majority of his life, to entail the time he has had to be around to be eligible to vote. I find his ability to ignore every person around him, every person in the country, every person in the world that would be effected by his actions reprehensible. Every person is a complex being with thoughts and experiences lasting their whole life. GH wants to compartmentalize all of that and shove it away so he can shit on the people who have to live in the world the morning after the election. He understands very well that there is a binary outcome to the election and he doesn't give a shit. He feels he has the privilege to not be affected by a trump presidency nor does he feel anyone around him will be affected by it. I really really wish I could live in a world where I could afford to have red lines and I didn't have a mother or sister or trans friends or immigrant friends who have children that would be harmed by my privilege to make a moral stand on a single issue I care about. I did not chose to be born in the United states in a red district at a time to be able to vote in 2024. I didn't chose to have a mother or a sister, I could chose not to have trans friends or immigrant friends or friends in a union. You live in that world every day. Firing your tick on a ballot box every 4/5 years doesn’t necessarily move the needle. Indeed I think it’s a big part of the problem. For borderline half my life I’ve been dutifully doing that, it hasn’t yet actualised in many directions I find desirable. Hey most of my material conditions are actively worse than when I first hit the ballot box. But I think for many, ticking that box is like a bare minimum, and once that’s done hey, I’ve done my part! So as a general critique of electoralism I think GH is pretty on the money. However, one also has to consider harm reduction, especially with various politically persecuted groups so, personally I would go more with the lesser evil option. For me the main problem with electoralism is that that’s that. It’s both the minimum and the limits of my civic responsibility. And if it’s widely believed, that’s the box many remain within. Well I voted, all I can realistically do is vote so hey ‘The person is the political’ as they say. Go argue on internet forums, you might change 1 person’s mind, hell they might change another person’s mind, and the cycle may continue. Get involved in a union or some community group. Add in a if in a few places. If electoralism is it for you then it is a bad system to live by. If you believe the only effect you have on the world is your vote that's a bad way to live. The people you elect, and the people down ballot moreso, have an effect on how you can engage civically at your local level. If harris passes the pro act and appoints labor friendly people that makes forming a union easier. If trump appoints more anti choice and anti LGBTQ judges to the Supreme Court that makes it harder to find legal support for the disadvantaged.
You can't disentangle elections from your daily life. Voteing has real effects and real outcomes for the country.
|
On November 06 2024 00:52 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 00:49 Velr wrote:On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Openly voting for the Russian asset because you can/want to for sure is a thing to do. Russia hoax 2.0
Wasn't a hoax at all.
Nevermind, saw your other replies. Isn't worth it.
|
On November 06 2024 01:35 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 06 2024 00:52 TentativePanda wrote:On November 06 2024 00:49 Velr wrote:On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Openly voting for the Russian asset because you can/want to for sure is a thing to do. Russia hoax 2.0 I assume your aware that multiple intelligence agencies, both in the US and abroad as well as the (at the time) Republican senate intelligence oversight committee all agree that 'Russian hoax 1.0' actually really did happen and that your just being purposefully dense. I actually want to come back to this twice because of how insane it is. Robert Mueller (former head of a intelligence agency btw), after 22 months of intense investigation, found no such collusion. He had a huge team of aggressive prosecutors, intelligence analysts etc. Even large news networks are distancing themselves from the story they peddled. Just the other week Jake Tapper had to lie and say he never gave credence to the russia collusion story. Why are so many former believers of it trying to cover their trail on it now? This is not even meant to be supportive of Trump, just a necessary check in on reality that having some percent of intelligence agencies (generally known for spying on civilians and blocking government transparency and covering up war crimes) saying they believe it to be true does not make it true - that's absurd I still have the report in my document folder from 2019.
Page 1, paragraph 2The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion
|
Northern Ireland23313 Posts
On November 06 2024 02:02 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 01:21 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 01:11 Sermokala wrote: People who believe in a flat earth have a different theory about how physics works than me but that doesn't make it legitimate. If your theory of change is to punish the democrats by helping trump get elected, then the outcome of your theory of change is that trump getting elected is a better outcome than Harris getting elected. You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your actions by declaring the moral superiority of your actions. Trump winning may not be the end of the world for you but that doesn't mean there are no consequences for a trump victory. If your theory is I have certain red lines and I won’t vote for you if you cross them, that’s a different kettle of fish. GH has expressed no desire to get Trump elected or punish Democrats You could throw the most desperate singleton going, perhaps approaching incel land two particularly unappealing partnership prospects and they’re not obligated to go for either. They can just say nah I’m ok being single for now Ultimately the 20-40% of non politically engaged folks who couldn’t be arsed voting are a considerably bigger concern than a GH type Just because you don't have a desire for an outcome doesn't change the responsibility for the outcome your actions cause. Gh has constantly shamed democrats and people who support harris for voting for her. In a binary choice persuading people not to vote for one is material support for the opposite. The outcome of the election is going to come if you chose an option or not. Not voting doesn't change someone winning the vote. You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your decision by declaring yourself morally better than the two choices before you. I don’t think it’s all that big of a deal.
Perhaps the left could learn something from Republicans. The Tea Party didn’t just appear from electoralism, it came from groundwork. And whatever the fuck we have now is just an evolution of that.
Roe vs Wade being actually repealed was pretty unfathomable 15 years back.
Did your preferred candidate actually have a chance in a general? Elect them anyway in the primary.
Sure it took a while but they got there in the end.
The Dems continually compromise for ‘electability’ and when it doesn’t work out they blame GH for it.
Hey I find them an absolute bunch of bollocking ball bags but look at what the right’s actually achieved in the last 10-15 years. It’s fucking night and day.
|
On November 06 2024 02:17 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 02:02 Sermokala wrote:On November 06 2024 01:21 WombaT wrote:On November 06 2024 01:11 Sermokala wrote: People who believe in a flat earth have a different theory about how physics works than me but that doesn't make it legitimate. If your theory of change is to punish the democrats by helping trump get elected, then the outcome of your theory of change is that trump getting elected is a better outcome than Harris getting elected. You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your actions by declaring the moral superiority of your actions. Trump winning may not be the end of the world for you but that doesn't mean there are no consequences for a trump victory. If your theory is I have certain red lines and I won’t vote for you if you cross them, that’s a different kettle of fish. GH has expressed no desire to get Trump elected or punish Democrats You could throw the most desperate singleton going, perhaps approaching incel land two particularly unappealing partnership prospects and they’re not obligated to go for either. They can just say nah I’m ok being single for now Ultimately the 20-40% of non politically engaged folks who couldn’t be arsed voting are a considerably bigger concern than a GH type Just because you don't have a desire for an outcome doesn't change the responsibility for the outcome your actions cause. Gh has constantly shamed democrats and people who support harris for voting for her. In a binary choice persuading people not to vote for one is material support for the opposite. The outcome of the election is going to come if you chose an option or not. Not voting doesn't change someone winning the vote. You don't get to absolve yourself of the consequences of your decision by declaring yourself morally better than the two choices before you. I don’t think it’s all that big of a deal. Perhaps the left could learn something from Republicans. The Tea Party didn’t just appear from electoralism, it came from groundwork. And whatever the fuck we have now is just an evolution of that. Roe vs Wade being actually repealed was pretty unfathomable 15 years back. Did your preferred candidate actually have a chance in a general? Elect them anyway in the primary. Sure it took a while but they got there in the end. The Dems continually compromise for ‘electability’ and when it doesn’t work out they blame GH for it. Hey I find them an absolute bunch of bollocking ball bags but look at what the right’s actually achieved in the last 10-15 years. It’s fucking night and day. The difference probably is that the far right actually had enough people to force the Republican party to follow them. There are not enough progressives to do the same to the Democrats. to take over the party like the Tea Party did actually requires you to win primaries. If Progressives can't do that then they either need to work harder to turning more people into progressives or accept that they are a small minority not worth catering to.
|
The Tea Party also came from extensive funding via the Koch Brothers and such actors.... It actually wasn't a true grassroots movement, it was just the full embrace of the crazy by rich republican donors. It somewhat backfired for them because the crazy actually was crazier than they tought so it lead to Trump but here we are.
|
On November 06 2024 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Yikes. But thanks for bragging about throwing away your swing vote in an election that truly does have consequences. Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 00:52 TentativePanda wrote:On November 06 2024 00:49 Velr wrote:On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Openly voting for the Russian asset because you can/want to for sure is a thing to do. Russia hoax 2.0 Low information voter 2.0 Show nested quote +On November 06 2024 01:35 TentativePanda wrote:On November 06 2024 00:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 06 2024 00:52 TentativePanda wrote:On November 06 2024 00:49 Velr wrote:On November 06 2024 00:39 TentativePanda wrote: Voted for Stein in PA this morning. Very simple message for y'all. People can vote for who they want, and have their own theory of change that's different from yours. To both sides, it's not the end of the world regardless of the outcome. Turning off all news for the day and doing some work now <3 Openly voting for the Russian asset because you can/want to for sure is a thing to do. Russia hoax 2.0 I assume your aware that multiple intelligence agencies, both in the US and abroad as well as the (at the time) Republican senate intelligence oversight committee all agree that 'Russian hoax 1.0' actually really did happen and that your just being purposefully dense. I actually want to come back to this twice because of how insane it is. Robert Mueller (former head of a intelligence agency btw), after 22 months of intense investigation, found no such collusion. He had a huge team of aggressive prosecutors, intelligence analysts etc. Even large news networks are distancing themselves from the story they peddled. Just the other week Jake Tapper had to lie and say he never gave credence to the russia collusion story. Why are so many former believers of it trying to cover their trail on it now? This is not even meant to be supportive of Trump, just a necessary check in on reality that having some percent of intelligence agencies (generally known for spying on civilians and blocking government transparency and covering up war crimes) saying they believe it to be true does not make it true - that's absurd Mueller literally found 10 counts of obstruction of justice... and Russian interference was, indeed, confirmed >.>
I'm not bragging about it, lots of people say how they voted. And Stein voters generally feel alienated by mobs of antagonistic jerks on the internet like you. So a little ray of sun for those people. Sorry my very reasonable take scared you - yikes.
Russian interference wasn't the hoax. The hoax is that Trump colluded with them - which they did not find. If Russia intervened, we need more security. But honestly, I think their strategy was simply to intervene without worrying about who it helped. The act of doing it is what causes discord in the US and causes people like you to berate others on the internet and in doing so contribute to the Russia asset witch hunt
|
When will we start getting results from the election?
|
|
|
|