763
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] index@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

There aren't two parties, if celebrities would endorse third parties perhaps you would hear about it

[-] FatCrab@lemmy.one 20 points 1 week ago

At the presidential level, there are in practical reality only two parties right now. Aside from the electoral realities, presidents also need to work with groups in congress, and only two parties are effectively present in congress. It sucks but it's the reality we're in. Now, this can change, but it needs to come from the bottom up via RCV and creating and enabling effective third+ parties at lower levels of government. Are you participating in your local and state level elections to enable creation of this necessary base of power and proof, or do you just run around online trying to find excuses to justify not voting? As for the choice we are faced with when it comes to Palestine, if you've been aware of this issue for more than the time it's become a performative meme, then you're well aware that there is a very real difference in the way the two parties enable Israeli crimes and merely by basic principles of harm reduction (because, at the end of the day, you should care about stopping as many people from being murdered as possible, not about signaling how wonderfully moral you are), it is very clear who is the more dangerous candidate.

[-] index@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

it is very clear who is the more dangerous candidate.

Indeed it is very clear that both red and blue are supporting this genocide and that third parties would be a better choice. A celebrity with millions of followers supporting a third party would be a good news.

[-] Hoomod@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

Jill Stein is crawling out of her cave after her ritual 4 year rest between presidential elections

If there was a 3rd party that actually did ground work to be viable, they might get a realistic amount of votes.

[-] index@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

A celebrity with million of followers endorsing a third party would sure help that and it would be actually good news

[-] TunaLobster@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Oh shit there are! Wow! /s

If one of them could get to the 5% popular vote...yada yada. Yeah I know. 2016 was the closest they got in a long time. I voted 3rd party then because I'm in a deeply red state so it wasn't a throw away vote or preventing the Dems from winning. They didn't get there. I'm am very convinced at this point you must fix the voting system before 3rd parties have any viability. FPTP is outdated at this point and the added layer of the EC is doing more harm than good now. It was a good idea for a different time, but today is different and the system should evolve. RCV/IRV has shown very clear benefits to enable more than 2 options to be viable on a ballot.

[-] index@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Red and blue parties have both blood on their hands, there's a genocide going on in israel right now where thousand of innocent kids are being murdered. The best time to vote them out is now. If pop stars and celebrities would start endorsing third parties politics would flip. Taylor swift is not going to do that because her views well align with the current rigged establishment that favors corporations and rich peope.

this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
763 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18898 readers
2723 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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