this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19102 readers
2547 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

First past the post voting mathematically ensures a two party system. Voting third party is useless unless we have election reform. Vote with your mind, not your heart, and vote thinking beyond just the next 4 years.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Complete drivel. Why do liberals think repeatedly telling us the same condescending nonsense without engaging with any of our actual arguments is convincing? There isn't a third party voter alive who hasn't heard these arguments.

So while each individual unhappy voter wants to keep their hands clean and not vote, they would each like the other 9,999 unhappy voters to step up and swing the outcome in favor of their preferred candidate.

What third party voter is asking other people to vote for a major party? This is such a blatant strawman that I find it hard to believe that this author has ever had a single conversation with a third party voter.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've had many conversations with "third party voters" here on lemmy. Haven't found any, at all, not one, who can talk about the faults of the republicans in anything like the length and passion that they can talk about the faults of the democrats, and the national polling says that real third party voters are very rare, so a little bit of Bayes' theorem says that the "third party voters" talking so loudly and long about why I shouldn't vote for Harris are far, far, far more likely to be republicans pretending to be left wing or neutral, hoping desperately that they can convince enough potential democratic voters to stay home to swing the election for their favourite - stupid evil country-betraying Trump.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There's more discourse about the Democrats because there's less disagreement about Republicans being bad. I wrote up a post about Trump's foreign policy doublespeak a while back where I called out anyone who might support Trump from an isolationist standpoint. It didn't get much engagement, but that's not my fault. Most of my comments are responding to things other people say and there are more Harris supporters than Trump supporters.

I might remind you that Lemmy was developed by communists, so an alternative explanation is that communists are more likely to both vote third party and use Lemmy.

The idea that we're secret conservatives is so absurd that I doubt you actually believe it, and are just using the accusation as a talking point to discredit the other side. Conservatives are awful at impersonating communists, they don't read or understand leftist theory and typically can only make it a few hours at most before breaking character and shouting slurs. You're vastly overestimating their intelligence and creativity. To say that Bayes' theorem supports your accusation is patently absurd.

At some point, claiming that communists are just conservatives in disguise means claiming that conservatives read more leftist political theory than liberals do. As entertaining as it may be to imagine a bunch of good ol' boys getting together and starting a book club where they discuss, like, the finer points of Simone de Beauvoir, I think if you're doing Bayesian analysis you should probably assign that a pretty low probability. They don't even read their own theory, much less ours.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Except you don't need to read a lot of theory to endlessly repeat Conservative talking points whilst advocating voter behaviour likely to lead the world's most powerful military to be controlled by fascists. You must have come across "communists" who just spout putin's talking points?

Like I said, and you seem to have missed it, not everyone supporting Trump is American, and not everyone supporting Trump is stupid.

Trump himself is really very stupid but he's worked with some less stupid people who know what lines will track well with different voter bases, and lemmy.ml has swallowed the third party guilt-free-complicity line really enthusiastically, but not as wholesale as it swallowed the push America right to push it left line.

So no, sorry, just as it's really hard to tell sarcasm about Trump from support, and just as it's really hard to tell satire about Trump from actual things trump said, it's almost impossible to tell sincere leftists who were duped into parrotting rightwing talking points about the election from trump supporters busy doing the duping.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I find it hard to believe that it's a swan. After all, if you're pissing in the petrol tank, don't ask me to spend a long time listening to why it's good for the engine.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh, so now it's that you're surrounded by secret agents from foreign countries, and that's the only reason people disagree with you. I'm assuming that there's no possible evidence that would falsify this conspiracy theory, right?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Superb straw man there.

  1. Some people are spouting these right wing talking points about voting because they're left wing and have been duped.

  2. Some people are spouting these right wing talking points about voting because they're right wing and doing the duping.

  3. Some people who are spouting these right wing talking points about voting are Americans.

  4. Some people who are spouting these right wing talking points about voting are not Americans.

  5. Some people who are spouting these right wing talking points about voting are not very clever.

  6. Some people who are spouting these right wing talking points about voting are clever.

You claim that half of these couldn't possibly exist, because for some reason you think that only Americans approve of Trump, you believe that only Americans want to influence the American election and you characterise all Trump supporters as dumb rednecks or something more offensive, then I point out the even ones exist and you claim I'm a conspiracy theorist. Wow.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You claim that half of these couldn’t possibly exist

Nowhere did I claim this. Kind of funny that you strawman me right after accusing me of strawmanning you.

A conspiracy theory is not something that is impossible to be true, it's just implausible. It could be that the checkout clerk at my local grocery is an undercover FBI agent, why couldn't it? It's just that there's no evidence for it and it would be pretty unreasonable to assert that, especially if there was no possible way to falsify it.

I could just as easily claim that you're working for US intelligence, I'd have just as much basis. But I'm not a paranoid conspiracy theorist, so I don't. By Occam's razor and the principle of charity, I assume that you simply believe other things than me. That concept of people having different beliefs and values seems to be something that liberals simply cannot grasp - as if there's one obviously correct position and everyone else is either stupid or being deceived by bad actors. It's quite silly.

I don't espouse any "right wing" positions, and I don't generally see other people on here doing the same. My criticism of liberals is from a leftist perspective, grounded in leftist values and theory, and drawing from leftist intellectual traditions. It's just that liberals want to lump anyone who disagrees with them on anything for any reason as right wing in order to discredit and dismiss them.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Kind of funny that you strawman me right after accusing me of strawmanning you.

Er...

Like I said, and you seem to have missed it, not everyone supporting Trump is American, and not everyone supporting Trump is stupid.

Oh, so now it’s that you’re surrounded by secret agents from foreign countries, and that’s the only reason people disagree with you. I’m assuming that there’s no possible evidence that would falsify this conspiracy theory, right?

This you?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (15 children)

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. Are you accusing me of being a foreign secret agent or are you not?

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›