Removed by mod

Skirted the rest of the argument pretty well there. Should the rest of the issues be tabled because of your oversimplified view of the regional conflict?

I guess both sides are equal then huh

Why just have genocide when you can have a facial theocracy and genocide? If this is your single issue then you are truly privileged. Peace in the Middle East or all these LGBTQ folks, immigrants, and woman can get fucked. Not to mention anyone living in a blue state who may experience a natural disaster or anyone against regulatory capture by the private sector.

They better solve a decades long conflict with a foreign leader who is closely aligned with the Republican Party or else! Give me a break

By most definitions (some require national malitia backing) it’s fascism. Why mince words or pretend the current rhetoric isn’t following the exact same route as previous iterations?

Fascism is fascism, not sure what you are on about. A vote for Trump or Jill is just a vote for genocide here with the rhetoric the right is currently spouting. But I guess fuck trans rights, immigrants, the climate, and the economy because your hill to die on is peace in the Middle East. JFC

Somehow “not facism” isn’t enough for some people

Only one party has implemented ranked choice while the other has fought against it. That would be a great first start.

You seem pretty ill informed or willfully ignorant if you are saying both sides are the same. Politicians listen to the people who vote or donate to them not to the lunatic fringe. The right wing, and especially the Supreme Court have actively worked to destroy women’s rights, increase the influence of dark money, remove restrictions on executive authority, and funnel public money to religious organizations. Don’t let your anger with the pace of progress blind you to the stakes here.

Then this is for them, it’s a vote against your own interests. Statistically it can only hurt.

Tanked choice was passed in Maine and elsewhere. Many blue states are tying electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote to remove that stupid distribution. Primaries are open. Only one party is trying to make voting more accessible.

As for Palestine, if you don’t subscribe to the lesser of two evils then I guess there isn’t much to talk about but don’t let the Nirvana fallacy blind you too much.

In case others need to hear this, please don’t vote third party. Even to start a revolution or whatever. It’s an incredibly privileged position to be able to endanger LGBTQ, immigrants, and women’s rights because you want to send a message. Vote Dem and back ranked choice or you may get the revolution the other way.

Happy to hear more info here

In reality there would be a consultant being paid two or three cookies to convince them. The rich guy would be on a beach in the Seychelles.

Unfortunately current polling hasn’t shown someone like that yet. Harris would probably be first up but it’s not an advantage starting again this late unfortunately.

To deliver value to our shareholders

In what way? I’m not sure how someone could make the “both sides” argument this broadly with the current state of both parties but I’ll bite.

Sometimes it feels better to rage than to compromise but I’m guessing there is nothing I can say to change your mind. For those on the fence who may read this though: a third party will not win and not voting Democrat will cause real harm to any community that does not strictly adhere to Christian nationalism ideals.

Stein and Johnson had between 2 (FL) and 20 (MI) times the number of votes making up the margin between Trump and Clinton in FL, WI, MI, and PA. That would have made a difference.

Either way, no third party is viable under the current system and pretending otherwise is the luxury of people who won’t be targeted if the Trump administration is allowed back into power.

There were absolutely changes in the separation policies across administrations. While it’s not perfect, we are compliant with international law and it was Trump driving from the sidelines that killed an immigration reform bill earlier this year.

He could have only possibly have voted for 2 of the five in the majority in Dobbs. Any Democratic nominee to the court would be better for human rights and policy reform. Congressional majority beyond Sinema and Manchin could bring real court reform.

The point still is that the philosophical argument for third party ignores the reality of the current system and the real cost for not presenting a unified front with the current voting system. Republicans are working to lock in any systematic advantage they can so the odds are already skewed. Democratic governments, currently at the state and local levels, are the only ones addressing gerrymandering (CA) and ranked choice (MA) which could make third parties viable but right now they are a vanity vote that distracts from the real harm being caused by one party.