876
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
876 points (100.0% liked)
News
38879 readers
1831 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Who would have recieved your vote, if only Trump and Harris were on the ballot?
Oh! Oh I've seen this one in another thread!
"I wouldn't vote for either of them."
That's not an option in this exercise, you have to pick one or the other.
"I don't see why I'd have to choose. I pick neither."
Again, that wasn't the question. Harris or Trump are the only acceptable answers. If you have to choose one, which would it be?
That's how the exchange generally went. It shone a really nice spotlight on the ridiculous mindset at play.
I'm waiting for jatone to chime in. Humans aren't good at logic problems, especially real world ones where they don't have to follow instructions. Ever try giving a logic puzzle to a 6 year old and they answer "well I wouldn't do either of those things I'd buy an airplane and use a laser gun and then....."
That's what this stuff is. While I understand the desperate need to reform the system, you don't do that by throwing the game. I know how unlikely it is to change their minds (and they already voted) but others reading this who aren't as bull-headed might take half a second to re-evaluate the actual outcomes available from the actions to be taken. That's the hope anyways.
Good on you for remaining hopeful! In cases like this, though, the ignorance is willful. They know how absurd they're acting. Once the conversation goes past the point of their ability to just be obstinate, they abruptly cease responding.
And that lack of response will be another data point for anyone reading this in the future.
We all know who they'd vote for
Hey look! you were right! I would choose neither. false dichotomy are not interesting questions. You'll learn nothing from them since you know, they don't represent reality. but in such a situation where only harris and trump were on the table. harris of course. but since that isn't the case, and my vote in no way endangers the country to trump, but does allow me to point my reps and say 'that could be my vote for you next cycle' which I absolutely have done. my 3rd party vote is providing more value for my reps to push back on harris when they need to. particularly in defense of ms khan and gaza.
What do you mean when you say "my vote in no way endangers the country to Trump"?
Exactly what i said. Trumpet isnt even a blip of a possibility in my state. We're talking 0.000001%. its pretty nice here we do good work.
Harris is the greater evil in my voting scenario. Its going to be very unfortunate if she loses this week to trump because the rank and file couldn't be bothered to pressure her over something as little as not genociding but ug here we are.
I mean she has larger issues as a candidate but explaining those is 1000x harder than 'genocide bad mmmmkay?' and even that message is struggling to get through because trumpet has managed to make everyone absolutely insane.
I agree with a lot of what you just said there.
Just not your conclusion.
Does your vote not count in the national "popular vote" for some reason? With a race this ... Whatever this is, don't you think you'd want to give every possible advantage to the person that CAN defeat Trump? Especially somewhere that she is likely to win, aren't you concerned many like-minded people will make the same mistake you are/did?
That's kinda the playbook here. Each of you individually thinks "Harris will win this in my riding, so I'm allowed to be special and vote for a third party so I can feel good about myself!"
It's literally why everyone is asking Jill to fuck off. She won't leach any Trump supporters from him. But she will leach people like you from Harris.
It's just selfish.
funny thing is you don't have to agree with my conclusion since its a fact. national results dont matter in a state by state result, and harris is on lock here.
👍
I realized i didnt respond to your 'if everyone thinks as you do' proposition.
Firstly most wont. We know this. Repeatedly elections show this. You have a few percentage points of people willing to make the call. Secondly, im in 25+ spread state. You'd need a candidate so unconscionably bad that 30% of the population would be willing to switch and even then it'd just be a 3 way horse race between the candidates.
And trust me if that was the case the chatter would be far more dramatic.
So no this is not a feel good vote. This is a vote to pump the numbers in my state away from harris so i can pressure my local reps on things like gaza.
Good for you.
You’re either a Russian agent, or a useful idiot. EITHER WAY, your opinion is worthless when it comes to American politics, so kindly skitter back under the rocks from which you came.
And you struggle with understanding how to apply contextual information to a situation and clearly come to the wrong conclusions. Either way Ill gladly be her with my bullhorn making you uncomfortable with the sad truth you're enabling a genocide.
in my state? it would have been left empty. you know thats an option right. you can say 'none of these'.
In that case, your voice is meaningless so you should just shut your mouth and let the adults continue to vote.
smile let me know when the actual adults show up. Because right now all i see are murderous children.
You're not saying "none of these", as it will ultimately still be one of them, more accurately you're saying: "I'll take either equally"
Incorrect. Did you ever learn about the monty hall problem? You seem to struggle with applying priors to a situation.
In my state the prior is: trump isnt even a blip of a possibility. We're talking 0.00001% not a blip. Not gonna happen. Harris is literally the greater evil in my state. Go through my history.
Its going to suck in a few days if harris loses because you nits thought that throwing labor, arabs and other minorities under the proverbial bus was a winning strategy.
I don't know about all that, I just enjoy logic. I'm replying to you saying "I'd choose not to vote", that is not the same as saying "none of the above", it's the same as saying "any of the above"
and you'd be wrong. shrug you're essentially saying anyone who doesn't vote doesn't have an preference. which is trivially incorrect. ask felons if they have a preference. ask teenagers.
if the prior is 'harris will win' me not voting for her isn't a statement of 'either' its a statement of 'I don't need to support her shittiness' you don't get to assert what my preferences are certainly.
I'm not talking about the narrative you've got in your head about what statements you're making with your actions, I'm also not including what you suppose or predict the result of the vote to be, that's not logical or helpful..
I'm talking about simple actions and consequences, let me lay this out more simply:
No vote: no change for either candidates chances of success == no preference
A vote for either: a change for both candidates chances of success (slightly improved and slightly decreased) == a preference
And like all children your simple mental model doesnt apply to reality.
My preference between harris and trump is harris.
Me pulling the lever for harris will not change her result in my state. (Shes won)
Harris is still an absolutely atrocious candidate who never would have won a democratic primary.
Me pulling the lever for her only prevents me from pressuring my critters on certain issues.
Your failure to apply priors to a situation is a you problem. I suspect this often leads you to incorrect conclusions in life as it has here.
I think you've confused our conversation with the other conversations you are having here. I started talking to you when you responded to the hypothetical question "if there were only X and y candidates as options, which would you vote for", to which you responded with something along the lines of: "neither, you can say 'none of the above', you know?"
I'm refuting that with you, voting neither in that hypothetical situation is not saying "none of the above' it's saying 'either of the above '.
I see you're involved in lots of conversations in this thread, where many people disagree with you on points more directly related to the actual situation in hand, so I can understand if you've mixed me up with some other context you have elsewhere, but I really don't care about your country's election or your candidates or who wins (I care a little, but I am not directly involved or affected), I'm just disagreeing with the evidently false statement you've made above. Hopefully this has cleared up the conversation.
no, im not confused.
Harris/trump are not the only options this is a basic premise we're disagreeing on. Depending on your state/environment you have many choices across a range depending what you want to accomplish. if your in a swing state, then while you still have options they'll likely result in a bad outcome for you personally. 25+ pt states like CA/NY/MA, etc you can very effectively pressure your local reps by voting 3rd party. both you counter harris' policy positions within the party and with their personal positions.
Your 'only those two' model is the childish model. What voting 3rd party candidate can do is leverage the fact a particular race is not competitive to push your other congressional reps towards particular positions. such as, climate change, abortion, israel/palestine/etc.
it does not mean the individual is okay with either; its a acceptance of the fact harris will win in particular states and we're focusing on other issues for a variety of reasons, and point out the many flaws harris has is important is bumping those numbers.
So you would not vote?
Do you understand how ballots work? They have more than one position on them. Yes id pass this election if there were not a single candidate with the moral grounding to not support a genocide.
But there are two even! Makes it pretty easy. Esp since there is 0 risk of my state going trump. If only the rest of the country was as correctly grounded that harris would be the greater evil.
Get it now? Been fucking telling you dunces in every post: in my state harris is literally the greater evil choice because trump isnt even on the map when it comes to viability. Its pretty nice, and you could have it to just by withholding support for candidates who support genocide. Not supporting a genocide is kind of a prior to having empathy which, i hope i dont need to explain why, is a really good quality for a politician to have. And harris doesnt. Withholding support its key to be explicit, does not necessarily mean withholding your vote as i did. It means speaking out, as i am, engaging others. And if its safe for you to do so with holding your vote.
I'm responding to your other, much more coherent response.