Terrible idea. A better plan is vote progressives into congress. The presidency literally doesn’t matter. Congress gets to dictate almost everything the President can do.
You do that. And if/when Trump wins and gives Netanyahu the ok to turn Palestine into glass then turn it into luxury apartments for violent Americans, and he does, then those people’s blood will be on your hands. Remember that.
Will it be because I’m responsible for the choices my government makes? Wouldn’t the blood also be on the hands of the “progressive” voters? The Harris voters?
Because every vote counts, and there are only two possible outcomes.
Buddy, you know why. You can pretend online that you don’t understand it, but I know you’re smart enough to get it, and deep down, you know that what I’m saying is true.
Either you feel emboldened to say it because it looks like Kamala might win, so therefore you think you can just throw your vote away, or you know exactly what you’re doing.
I’m old enough to have been able to vote in the 2000 election. Is the blood from 600 thousand Iraqis on my hands too?
If I were choosing the vote that makes me least responsible for the genocide in Gaza wouldn’t I choose a candidate who opposes it in both word and deed?
If what you said were true and I really was responsible for the actions of my government through my vote, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on getting voting records from diebold or whatever so you could use that information to target your vitriol at the people most responsible for this nations cruel actions?
I don’t think you’ve seriously thought what you’re saying through.
No, because the only thing elections track is approval. If genocide is too much for a person to approve of then they need to vote for a different candidate.
perhaps by changing the party into something entirely different from within. of course that would require a lot of work to overcome 25 years of institutional inertia, let alone a big job of completely changing the party’s strategy and operation.
i would even make the argument that the greens aren’t left, since they aren’t calling for worker control of the means of production and historically that’s been the bare minimum to be considered left but using the french seating chart hundreds of years later has its own issues.
Well I don’t see nearly as much ballot access from the PSL or any other minor party. Maybe we should make a new party that’ll lose popularity to the next one in 5 years. No party will ever be leftist enough for leftists in this country and that pretentious mindset will keep us weak forever.
How does that saying go? “If ballot access were candy and nuts we’d all be eating steak!”
There are absolutely ultras in America but it’s not a position necessary to recognize that the Green Party isn’t leftist. I’d say at the very least the greens can’t be called leftist for the same reason the dubious moniker “progressive” isn’t any marker of the same: their platform is explicitly not left.
propaganda from both parties keep people at the bottom of the juice pitcher unable to breath fresh air and there are too few not drinking the punch to do anything
huge crab effect going on here
like when you go crabbing and put all the crabs in the bucket and the crabs that almost get out get stopped by their peers
It’s not cool that Americans are as dumb as crabs in this analogy. If every leftist just got behind the green party we might stand a chance. But everyone wants their own unique ideology represented.
I didn’t say that I did think that. What I do think is that leftists should leverage the biggest third party that’s the closest to representing their core values into the party that they want. It has nothing to do with Jill Stein and more to do with uniting under one generalized leftist party instead of constantly fracturing into weaker more specific parties.
If this bothers you then vote for some candidate and party other than Harris and the dems.
I like PSL.
Terrible idea. A better plan is vote progressives into congress. The presidency literally doesn’t matter. Congress gets to dictate almost everything the President can do.
I guess if you don’t care who gets in then yeah.
I’m personally past just voting for the “least bad” candidate no matter how that’s determined. It’s candidates I actually want from here on out.
You do that. And if/when Trump wins and gives Netanyahu the ok to turn Palestine into glass then turn it into luxury apartments for violent Americans, and he does, then those people’s blood will be on your hands. Remember that.
It’ll be my fault… why?
Will it be because I’m responsible for the choices my government makes? Wouldn’t the blood also be on the hands of the “progressive” voters? The Harris voters?
Because every vote counts, and there are only two possible outcomes.
Buddy, you know why. You can pretend online that you don’t understand it, but I know you’re smart enough to get it, and deep down, you know that what I’m saying is true.
Either you feel emboldened to say it because it looks like Kamala might win, so therefore you think you can just throw your vote away, or you know exactly what you’re doing.
I’m old enough to have been able to vote in the 2000 election. Is the blood from 600 thousand Iraqis on my hands too?
If I were choosing the vote that makes me least responsible for the genocide in Gaza wouldn’t I choose a candidate who opposes it in both word and deed?
If what you said were true and I really was responsible for the actions of my government through my vote, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on getting voting records from diebold or whatever so you could use that information to target your vitriol at the people most responsible for this nations cruel actions?
I don’t think you’ve seriously thought what you’re saying through.
Did you vote for Ralph Nader in Florida? Then yeah, it kind of is.
Gore would have won in Florida if there had been a full recount instead of a partial.
If you really believe that people are responsible for the actions of their governments does that extend to the gore voters in Florida?
If people are responsible for the actions of their governments then what justice should be enacted to right the wrongs they bear responsibility for?
Why? So that Trump ends up in office and does worse?
No, because the only thing elections track is approval. If genocide is too much for a person to approve of then they need to vote for a different candidate.
Why can’t we just vote for the biggest leftist party with the most ballot access? Ya know, the green party
I will generally not recommend people vote for or support the greens because they represent a directionless triangulation with no vision.
I’ve had the opportunity to vote green in every national election they’ve been in and even chosen them a few times and they’ve always let me down.
It’s that kind of attitude that weakens the left. If every leftist were involved with the greens, we could create a truly revolutionary party.
perhaps by changing the party into something entirely different from within. of course that would require a lot of work to overcome 25 years of institutional inertia, let alone a big job of completely changing the party’s strategy and operation.
i would even make the argument that the greens aren’t left, since they aren’t calling for worker control of the means of production and historically that’s been the bare minimum to be considered left but using the french seating chart hundreds of years later has its own issues.
Well I don’t see nearly as much ballot access from the PSL or any other minor party. Maybe we should make a new party that’ll lose popularity to the next one in 5 years. No party will ever be leftist enough for leftists in this country and that pretentious mindset will keep us weak forever.
How does that saying go? “If ballot access were candy and nuts we’d all be eating steak!”
There are absolutely ultras in America but it’s not a position necessary to recognize that the Green Party isn’t leftist. I’d say at the very least the greens can’t be called leftist for the same reason the dubious moniker “progressive” isn’t any marker of the same: their platform is explicitly not left.
They are the leftist party available.
There are other parties that are both more left, more explicitly align with my politics and do not have a dubious history of triangulation.
The greens are not the best available option any more than the democrats are.
propaganda from both parties keep people at the bottom of the juice pitcher unable to breath fresh air and there are too few not drinking the punch to do anything
huge crab effect going on here
like when you go crabbing and put all the crabs in the bucket and the crabs that almost get out get stopped by their peers
It’s not cool that Americans are as dumb as crabs in this analogy. If every leftist just got behind the green party we might stand a chance. But everyone wants their own unique ideology represented.
If you think Jill Stein represents any sort of real leftist ideology, I have a number of bridges to offer you.
I didn’t say that I did think that. What I do think is that leftists should leverage the biggest third party that’s the closest to representing their core values into the party that they want. It has nothing to do with Jill Stein and more to do with uniting under one generalized leftist party instead of constantly fracturing into weaker more specific parties.