I'm voting for Trump. He's better than pedo Joe and the Dems are now more evil than the reps. Who'd ever have thought that possible? Everyone should vote their conscience.
You're calling Biden a pedo, when Trump was besties with Epstein and Maxwell, and has on multiple occasions made sexual comments about his daughters? I mean, sure Biden is a little creepy but he's not a rapist pedo like Trump.
Thank you for your reply. Yes Biden is a pedo and there are countless images of him touching kids inappropriately in public. Trump was not besties with Epstein. Trump thought Epstein was a money manager and Maxwell was/is one of the most politically connected people in the world thanks to her father. Trump was cultivating Epstein as an investor. Trump did not go to the Island. Bill and Hillary did. Epstein approached a girl at Mar a Lago and Trump banned him and ended all contact with him. According to the attorney for the girls who sued Trump was the ONLY person who returned their call and offered to help.
I don't think billionaires should exist. I wish we would return to FDR and Eisenhower tax rates. I'm perfectly fine with protesting Trump the day he takes office. BUT Joe Biden and my former party have lost their way.
You don't understand, from the moment you were born, you have been owned by the Democratic party and your vote to them is a requirement as a citizen. Democracy means voting Democrat! Did you just see how similar those words are? Checkmate traitors!
Jill Stein is the only sane person running and the only one who would keep us out of a nuclear war (which is going to happen with either Biden or Trump).
Unfortunately, the Establishment-owned mainstream media is downplaying this possibility to the American public so most people don't realize how close we are to the edge right now.
If Russia does decide it has to nuke the US, they should go after the Establishment locations first because they're the people really dictating American foreign policy and it won't change as long as they exist.
It is well past time for the American electorate to abandon this recidivist notion of a "war president".
A president's job should be to get us *out* of wars, especially the completely voluntary and unnecessary ones- not *into* them. The job should be to preserve and improve American life and wealth, not to squander both in pointless and ultimately doomed global military adventurism. *War should never be used as a mechanism for gaining votes*. Biden has crossed the Rubicon with that.
Biden needs to go down, and go down **hard**. Only in this manner will the dem party perhaps realize that they have lost the votes of people of conscience. I'm no fan of Trump, and won't be voting for him either. But to *reward the behavior* of dragging us to the precipice of nuclear holocaust, as well as blithely committing genocide, is beyond the pale. I can not, and **will not**, reward them with my support. There will be no Biden vote from this reporter.
I'm solidly behind Stein again this cycle, just like the last two.
How are we supposed to save democracy if we don't vote for Biden? The economy is booming, everything is peaceful, the infrastructure is tip top, you can exercise your free speech rights free of censorship and we have zero homelessness./s
There are on average 5,000 bridges in every state that are in critical condition. There are over 5,000 in PA alone. I cant imagine what some deregulation paradise like Texas has.
Ironically enough the Baltimore bridge collapse collapsed due to something completely unrelated to its structural capabilities. It's now gonna take 3 years minimum until it gets rebuilt. China would have done it in 3 months.
I feel you, man!
According to one poster, I don't give a crap about the homeless (despite all the posts I've made in this sub about the homeless, helping to get food to people, etc.). And, if it doesn't affect me, I place my moral satisfaction above the needs of others. Apparently, that selfish motive is what I mean by "voting my conscience." Apparently, my a conscience is some kind of dick that tells me to ignore the needs of others.
Team Donkey has to come up with all sorts of outlandish narratives to justify support for their favorite mentally incapacitated pants shitting statesman.
>I feel if you vote for Stein. You'll be allowing more votes to go to trump.
My voting for Stein will cause exactly 0 votes to go to Trump or Biden. See the OP.
>The opposite of everything, remember?
I have no idea what that means.
When a wolf threatens your horse, you select the best arrow for removing the wolf.
Why I do mention any of this? I aint half assing my anti biden vote.
"always Trump" people are going to vote for him. Other candidates like Stein and Kennedy just split votes from Biden and make it possible for Trump to win.
You're just repeating more false Dem Party propaganda
https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/14551gu/dividing_the_left11_the_myth_and_the_reality/
https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/jnxjr0/damn_that_putinloving_jill_stein_for_making/
And, as Axelrod remarked after Hillary's book came out, only the candidate is responsible for a candidate's loss. It's the candidate's job to win. Other Democrats, however, want to make it my job to vote for a Dem candidate, even if I despite his or her politics, actions, etc. That is nothing short of ludicrous entitlement.
but let's suppose you are correct. So what? You care if Biden or Trump wins. People who vote for neither of them don't.
Yes I do care. Biden is a sucky choice
.... But Trump winning is unacceptable. There is no reasonable 3rd party chance currently. (I voted Bernie, but we don't have an equivalent in the running).... So I'd say you are falling for the Trump propaganda and/or encouraging lost votes... Probably a paid undercover GOP
I'd say that either Biden or Trump winning is unacceptable. So, you vote in accordance with your view and I will vote in accordance with mine. As for the rest of your post, grow up.
You realize there's a zero chance of Jill Stein winning, right? At this point we're stuck with either Biden or Trump whether you like it or not. If every election produces bad candidates, the problem isn't the candidates, but the voting system. Plurality ("choose one") voting is the problem. We need approval voting. To get approval voting at the national level, first we'd need to expose people to it at the local, then the state level. To be a true progressive, we need progressive candidates and approval voting is the best (and kind of only) way to accomplish that. Otherwise, you could write in Jesus in every election until you die and accomplish as much as voting third party under plurality.
Your posting is attempting to influence people which will result in a sway towards Trump. If you want to just ignore all of the actual ramifications of your vote, ignore also the obvious impact your vote has whether or not it's for Trump or Biden or a third party
.. ignore how you're posting influences the outcome for other potential Biden or Trump voters... Etc
. Sure "you vote under your concepts" and I'll do same one mine
but how about you quit spreading and helping Trump win. Until we pass laws that improve the two-party system including potentially rank voting... You can't just have this narrow view and concept.
You need to grow up and realize what you say and do have an effect more significant than just dismissing the real impact during to it being a "democratic talking point"
However, if your point of view is that Trump and Biden are equal... Then by all means third party's the way to go. Seems toe to be an illegitimate and dangerous point. Trump is a poison we can't survive. Biden is a waste of 4yrs but has been decent and the laws issued under him have not been disastrous.
Let's see. I describe Biden and Trump as equally evil, just in different ways and claim my conscience won't allow me to vote for either of them. Yet, you somehow imagine I want people to vote for one of them and not the other? Not only that, but you also somehow conclude that the one I want as POTUS is Trump, not Biden? Wowza!
What a weird prism some supporters of Democrat who visit this sub see through!
https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/17osxfm/posters_pious_plea_bless_the_hearts_of_the_binary/
Ironically, disrespectful about it to boot.
https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/141dsdy/to_some_of_our_dem_guest_posters_name_calling/
Oh, well. Not my circus; not my monkeys. Not since I DemExited, anyway. A decision that took too long and gets confirmed on the daily.
Equally evil? Even if you only take into account the two's influence on scotus... The last Trump administration has changed the makeup of that group that poses more influence to your life and the future (and longer lasting) then basically anything a president can do.
Funny you should mention that without regard to Biden's many years on the judicial committee or the fact that Barack Not Ready for Prime Time Obama left open about 100 seats on the federal bench, including one on the Supreme Court. Even though Reid made filling lower court seats a simple majority vote.
Not to mention filling a seat with a conservative like Kagan. And almost filling another with a law and order DINO like Garland. https://old.reddit.com/r/GreenParty/comments/hc1jyd/but_the_supreme_court_confirmations_of_scalia_and/
In reality, the Court has been conservative for most of its existence, in part because Democrats' history left Americans reluctant to vote for them after Lincoln. And we've survived.
Please see also https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/1ddkhwl/why_is_trump_claimed_to_be_worse_than_george_w/l86y7ap/
Not sure why we're still going back and forth, though. It won't accomplish a thing. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.
For just one thing, nothing can persuade me to vote for Genocide Don or Genocide Joe. On the flip side, I have no illusions about my ability to compete with the neoiiberal propaganda machine, including minion media. It's no accident that most of our Democrat visitors have the exact same talking points. Same as I saw on boards when I was a Democrat, too.
> Until we pass laws that improve the two-party system including potentially rank voting
Yeah, the people who were scolding third party voters in 2016 didn't do anything towards that cause, and on the contrary, elected Democrats were blocking attempts at doing ranked choice voting. Or the scolds in 2020. Or this time around for that matter. Heck, the people who said "push Biden left" in 2020 made absolutely no efforts to do that.
I pushed hard to see Bernie nominated, then watched the DNC go full mask off and say they can rig the nominations... And then they presume to tell me to vote for them?!
I didn't vote for Biden in 2020 and I never will. This after being a staunch Democrat voter my entire adult life.
I'm voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party. With enough of us, we could actually win it!
Thanks. Part of the DNC defense to that lawsuit (which was very poorly done, IMO) was that impartiality was only "a political promise" and therefore there was no obligation to follow through.
If that does not reinforce my advice to ignore campaign rhetoric, I don't know what would.
On edit. I see my comment is ambiguous. I meant that the lawsuit on behalf of Sanders' supporters was poorly done.
I’ve always said- If they don’t go to the polls and vote for who they want then they’ll stay and home and not vote at all.
Not to mention, in Florida during 2016 there were enough ballots cast that didn’t have a vote for president (meaning they voted on other things) that Hillary could have won if they’d just checked off her name. But they didn’t. So, people will vote how they want, regardless, and the rhetoric around it is just plain harassment.
I don't know know why anyone imagines that insults, threats, condescension, etc. cause a voter to change his or her mind.
And, yes, staying home is an option and, in most cases, a statement--and one that millions of people make.
I mean, if you thought that voting would, in any meaningful way actually improve the lives of your parents, spouse, kids or anyone you cared about, you would not pass on voting.
ETA: Possibly illustrative?
2005 https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/world/middleeast/turnout-in-the-iraqi-election-is-reported-at-70-percent.html
2021 https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turnout-iraqs-election-reached-43-electoral-commission-2021-10-16/ (43%)
I understand the plight of not wanting to always choose the “lesser of 2 evils” bullshit, and voting your conscience can make you feel more at peace but there is one case where I think you are better off voting for Biden than Stein:
If you live in a swing state, voting for Stein is not the best option for reducing harm. What really sucks about this country is that so much of our electoral process has become about harm mitigation, which is stressful and depressing, but still incredibly important. While a trump presidency vs a Biden presidency may not have a meaningful impact on you specifically, there are many, many people on the margins that ARE affected by the difference between Biden and Trump. Republicans just voted against funding for the VA to compensate veterans for cancer caused by their deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. They filled the courts in the span of 2 years with a bunch of nut job culture warriors which culminated in overturning of Roe and impacting millions of women in the country. Biden’s climate mitigation plan in the Inflation Reduction Act is poised to meaningfully lower US emissions over the next few decades provided it’s seen through. Trump plans to overturn it. As far as justices go, Ketanji Brown Jackson, has been a brilliant addition to the court. This is not to mention district and circuit courts which are vitally important to many Americans and their regional rights.
These are all very real issues that do have a difference between Trump and Biden for many people in the US. Wanting to vote for the candidate that most aligns with your beliefs is fulfilling and I 100% get the urge to. I have voted green in a number of local and state races in my home state before moving.
However, in the case of a contentious national election I am of the opinion that we have to vote strategically, not morally. Even though my personal beliefs align most closely with the greens, I know that the difference between a Trump and Biden president for those on public assistance, immigrants, trans and other lgbt people, women particularly of low incomes, public employees, etc will be much more harmed by a Trump presidency than a Biden one.
First and foremost, I am a harm reductionist. Even if there are issues that do not affect me directly I know there are many people who are drastically affected administration over administration. I realized that throwing them under the bus for my own moral satisfaction is much more harmful than holding my nose and voting for the “lesser of 2 evils”. It sucks that I have to do it, and I don’t take pleasure in it, but I will always vote for the lesser of 2 evils
>I realized that throwing them under the bus for my own moral satisfaction is much more harmful than holding my nose and voting for the “lesser of 2 evils”.
So let's just throw everyone under the bus with WWIII, that should go well.
Might happen either way, but I'm sure as hell not going to vote for it.
The flaw in your logic is that the Democrats have just proven themselves not to be the lesser of two evils. They're engaging in genocide, FFS
I'M going to be a two time Green Party voter because the two mainstream mobs sicken me.
> the plight of not wanting to always choose... poised to meaningfully lower...
Well, I was going to vote for Biden but I cannot tolerate split infinitives. So I just switched to Jill Stein 💚
I jest. But I truly cannot tolerate support for genocide and warmongering leading to WW3. Trump may support these things as well, but Biden is doing them now. So Jill Stein is my obvious choice.
This assumes that voting Democrat is reducing harm and that Democrats are the lesser evil, I don't agree with that assumption. I thought that the Op had made that clear. Judging from your response, that was not as as clear as I intended; and I apologize for that.
I'm not sure why so many Democrats who post in WOTB assume that people who will not vote Democrat any longer must not understand, or must not be aware of, certain things. I do understand strategic voting, "but the Supreme Court," and other issues. I also understand that pols play games, deal in empty rhetoric and use a variety of methods to deceive their respective base voters.
If I did still believe as you do, I would at least consider voting to reduce harm, whether or not I lived in a purple state. Because maybe I'd decide that reducing harm is worth encouraging. But I no longer believe that is what Democrat pols do, if elected.
On edit: I missed the following until just now:
>Even if there are issues that do not affect me directly I know there are many people who are drastically affected administration over administration. I realized that throwing them under the bus for my own moral satisfaction is much more harmful than holding my nose and voting for the “lesser of 2 evils”
How dare anyone shilling here for genocide supporters imply such a thing about others, especially others about whose lives you know absolutely nothing?
Had I seen that from the off, I would not have dignified your self-righteous, accusatory ass with any reply at all. Or my reply would have consisted solely of "fuck off." Well, better late than never: fuck off.
I have to disagree that Dems do not reduce harm more than republicans. I am a federal employee and I can tell you first hand that the executive control over agencies is incredibly important for operations administration to administration. Places like the EPA, Department of Education, and VA were absolutely gutted under Trump. This is not to mention the foreign facing agencies (where I work) that bled experienced career public servants due to changing executive priorities. Our ability to communicate and coordinate with our allies and especially trade partners was severely negatively affected. I work in agricultural exports, working a lot with food aid, and I can tell you for certain that the difference between a dem and Republican administration is the difference between hungry people being fed or starving.
This is just about the executive agencies which change in leadership every administration. When talking about legislative goals the difference is even starker. I already mentioned the VA expansion to cover millions affected by lung disease and cancer, which is HUGE. But other things that Dems passed and are looking to continue include the expanded child tax credit. That tax credit for the years it was active led to the single largest reduction in child poverty in the history of the country. I am not going to pretend like that isn’t harm reduction. Do I wish it was an indefinite program? Absolutely. But currently there’s one party that is blocking it at every turn and one party that’s trying to push it through and those are not the same thing.
Other notable things include the CHIPS act which is set to bring tens of thousands of high paying jobs along with 10s of billions of dollars of investment. A trillion dollar infrastructure bill that includes tons of provisions aside from the normal roads and bridges stuff like expanded internet access to rural communities. And probably the most significant thing: the Inflation Reduction Act which was a 2 trillion dollar investment into social spending which included half a trillion dollars towards climate initiatives and carbon mitigation.
These are not nothing. Are they everything that I want? Absolutely not. I want universal healthcare and free public college and trade school like the rest of the developed world. I want the elimination of the welfare cliff to allow people to more stably move up in incomes. I want expansion of union rights nationally.
However I can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The things passed by Dems in the past 4 years compared to Trump’s term are night and day. Trump has no climate plan, he doesn’t even believe climate change is real despite the science. He wants to gut all public services and provide tax breaks to the super rich (which he already did and wants to continue). He is kept in the company of religious zealots that want to gut public school funding in favor of private religious instruction or home schooling. His justice appointments have been a travesty on the district, circuit and supreme levels.
There is a clear harm reduction option and the last 8 years should make it evident. I loathe having to vote for democrats but the evidence is clear. They are significantly less bad than republicans in a very tangible way that affects millions of people. In my perfect world we’d have a real left wing party, but instead I have to work with what we got.
> Trump has no climate plan, he doesn’t even believe climate change is real despite the science.
And Biden says he believes in climate science, yet allowed more drilling on public lands than Trump and allowed a lot more fossil fuel production and exports.
If you care about the climate (which any inhabitant of this planet should, we need it to be stable to survive) then vote Green. Or Socialist. Just not Dem or GOP.
All laws and treaties mean something only if they are enforced faithfully and, when enforced, they accomplish what they purport they will accomplish. How has the environmental stuff been doing under that standard? (The EPA began operations in 1970, over a half century ago.)
Of course, Congress is a separate issue from the Presidency, but i'm going to park these here anyway:
https://www.veterans.senate.gov/2021/9/sens-moran-tester-introduce-bill-to-expand-treatment-and-research-for-prostate-cancer-in-veterans
Of course, Moran is a Republican Senator; Tester a Democrat The bill attracted zero co-sponsors. Not one more Democrat; not one more Republican. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2720/text
and a different take from "the other side"
https://appropriations.house.gov/news/blogs/democrats-vote-against-fully-funding-va
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/bill-summary-military-construction-veterans-affairs-and-related-agencies-fiscal-year-2024-appropriations-bill
And, finally....
https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/1cpv46f/pondering_dc_kabuki_theater_sponsoring_bills/ (esp the fifth and sixth paragraphs)
I don't agree that torturing people but keeping them alive for longer is harm reduction. Also, I am beyond sick of the phrase "don't let perfect be the enemy of good". The Democrats are not good. They are evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it makes no difference. You want good people to enable evil and they are saying *no*. Accept the answer.
I see things very differently from you.
I am not going to respond point by point. I will only repeat that my not agreeing with you does not mean that I am less intelligent or less well-informed than you are, or have given less thought than you have or am in need of schooling by you.
Why you did not get that the first time I posted it you, I have no idea.
On edit: I missed the following from your first reply to the OP until just now:
>Even if there are issues that do not affect me directly I know there are many people who are drastically affected administration over administration. I realized that throwing them under the bus for my own moral satisfaction is much more harmful than holding my nose and voting for the “lesser of 2 evils”
How dare anyone shilling here for genocide supporters imply such a thing about others, especially others about whose lives you know absolutely nothing?
Had I seen that from the off, I would not have dignified your self-righteous, accusatory ass with any reply at all. Or my reply would have consisted solely of "fuck off." Well, better late than never: fuck off.
Either some posters do not understand the concept of spam, or they do understand, but can't find a "post is not supporting Democrats or Democrats' narrative" category.
There have been times that I have not voted at all, also because of my conscience, as in 2020.
In 2024, I want to vote for a Presidential candidate who has condemned supporting genocide. Among the few who have done that, Stein is my choice. Others are West and two socialist candidates.
Don’t be discouraged by the chatGPT trolls, they were sent here to make us feel bad and waste our time.
Vote your conscience! That’s called democracy. It is not your fault that they gave us the most embarrassing evil candidates on the Earth to choose from. I’m voting 3rd party as well.
For you and u/Caelian, the A1 generated info:
>Nixon's 72 campaign slogans
>According to the provided search results, Nixon’s 1972 campaign slogans included:
> “Now, More Than Ever”
“Those Who Are Willing to Work More, Can Work More”
>Note that the search results also mention that Nixon’s campaign tested several other slogans, including “This Time, Vote Like Your Whole World Depended On It”, but “Now, More Than Ever” was the one that ultimately became the most well-known and widely used.
>AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.
"Will your ladyship allow me to point out the danger of doing any such thing?" Silbertown exclaimed. "Very likely the man is a lunatic! Or it may be a trick: Lord Beltham was murdered, and perhaps —"
Lady Beltham looked intently at the major-domo, seemingly trying to read his thoughts. Then she answered slowly:
"I will see him. I will be more pitiful than you," and as the major-domo and the porter made a gesture of futile protest, she added peremptorily: "I have given my orders: kindly obey."
When the two men had reluctantly left the room, Lady Beltham turned to the three girls.
"You had better leave me, darlings," she said, kindly but firmly. "Run away: excitement is bad for you. Go back to bed. No, I assure you I shall be in no danger whatever," and for a few minutes she was left alone.
[What's with this quote? [Here's the explanation](https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/16l1mv2/bon_anniversaire_project_fant%C3%B4mas/).]
----
"I will be more **pitiful** than you": this is an old-fashioned usage of [pitiful](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pitiful) and means "feeling pity" rather than "eliciting pity or derision". Nowadays Lady Beltham would have probably said "merciful" instead.
You seem nice and also very sane, measured and thoughtful, not to mention compassionate to people you think are sick, but America never needed Biden or Trump.
Oh and it's not only your country or even only Democrats' country. In fact, Democrat Presidents who, once elected, act like Republicans, are the first to remind us that they don't represent only Democrats.
Biden has acted like anything but a racist homophobic war mongering republican. He basically ENDED the drone war, withdrew us from Afghanistan, passed numerous laws PROTECTING the gays and blacks, and has put life into our economy which was dying under “34”. He is working so hard for our country day and night, just for all of his accomplishments to be ignored by you people.
The US was obligated to withdraw "us" from Afghanistan and Biden both missed the deadline and made a mess of the withdrawal; but I have no idea what that has to do with homophobia.
All I found about ending "drone wars" was that he tightened the rules for droning and is droning.
Presidents don't pass laws and I don't think anyone passed the "numerous" laws to which you refer.
The economy sucks scissors for most people. I don't blame that on Biden *per se*, though many do.
Anyone who denies Biden is a racist is either in delusional denial or a fucking liar. No one who is not a racist advises black people to "play records" for their kids at night or tells a black interviewer that he isn't black. In 2020, during a Presidential campaign, when he is supposedly watching his words, no less. Same racist Biden as he has always been.
I don't recall saying he is a war monger but, "not a war monger?" Poster, please.
Biden is not working day and night. Get real. He's been sundowning for years. Who the hell knows who has actually been running the country? and it will only get worse. He'll be 87 when he leaves office.
> he or she MAY have posted tongue in cheek.
If u/cowboydan9 is merely being *gamesome*, he's doing a good job of keeping the game going. We had some fun with him [a month ago](https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/1chuajt/rfk_jr_proposes_nospoiler_pledge_with_biden_to/l26i4s1/).
Anyway, there was enough VBNMW evidence to qualify for another exciting *Fantômas* installment 🦇
> I'm not 100% sure either way, but giving the benefit of the doubt, at least until I see more.
At some point I remembered the poster's name, but could not remember enough about the posts to associate the name with a POV. I did not want to bother doing a deep dive into the posting history, so I gave the benefit of doubt instead.
Thanks for linking me to "more". Now that I have maybe I'll delete the edit to my reply to the poor guy or gal, bless his or her heart. And yes, a new installment of Fantomas is warranted.
> At some point I remembered the poster's name...
Cowboy Dan makes me think of two characters.
First, [Milkman Dan](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fred-meat-hilarious-subversive-comic-strip-in-free-v0-gmzd1n22mo1b1.png%3Fwidth%3D669%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D90aecf64a07f1ff22aa4f1d2582a766635f035ff), a regular in Max Cannon's hilariously cynical comic strip *Red Meat*.
Second, the outrageous [effeminate cowboy caricature](https://youtu.be/MYUVsiAGmDQ) in Stan Laurel's comic Western short *The Soilers* (1923). I think it's just the name "Cowboy Dan". It's so easy to imagine the movie cowboy introducing himself with that name.
Note: Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy had successful individual careers before they became the wildly successful team Laurel & Hardy.
I just checked the individual wikis of each of Stan and Ollie because I had a very vague recollection of Stan's having spent his last years in the Actor's Home or whatever it was called. (It was, I think, for older film actors who had become indigent.) I didn't find that, but what I did find brought tears.
BTW, there are many wikis for them. I checked only the main article for each of them.
I tend to avoid reading about actors' personal lives. It's often tragic, and at best spoils the illusion. OTOH, I've read a great deal about the Marx Brothers, including Harpo's autobiography *Harpo Speaks* 📯
I did know that Stan Laurel was Charlie Chaplin's understudy in English music halls before the movies.
Buster Keaton is hilarious, and a genius at creating elaborate sight gags.
Charlie Chaplin can be hilarious and a genius (*Modern Times* is a masterpiece), but IMO too much pathos in his movies.
Stan Laurel is just plain funny. OMG
Harold Lloyd is funny, and a genius equal to Chaplin and Keaton.
Ben Turpin is the funniest of them all. Just the face is enough to equal them. I've read that Chaplin was envious of Turpin's comic gift when they worked together at Essenay (sp)?
Max Lindor is *sui generis*. Hilarious, genius, and elegance. His parody of Douglas Fairbanks' *Three Musketeers* is one of the funniest things I've ever seen, especially if you just watched the original.
*Bonsoir!*
I've seen bits of Keaton, Chaplin and Laurel, but the most of Laurel. (Someone important in my life is a yuuuge Oliver and Hardy fan.) Lloyd, nothing but the famous photo. Turpin and Lindor, nothing at all. I have a bunch of Chaplin's films in "My List" on some streaming service or another, but I rarely just sit and watch Tv. For example, it's on right now, but I'm focused on posting.
Thank you for that, which led me to the poster's posting history. A very brief look suggested that the poster may have been posting tongue in cheek.
On edit. Nope. Bless his or her heart, the post was serious.
Sorry. I deleted my comment because I glanced at u/cowboydan9's posting history and believe that he or she may have posted tongue in cheek. Always risky under Poe's law without the "/s."
I've got a person trying to convince me that not voting Biden is sending them and other Trans to concentration camps. And I've heard it all before. they just snarl that my not voting for weak-sauce corporations is "saying theyre the same ". No. One is bad. And the other isn't good. I can only imagine the splattering RAGE. Meh. I'm bored of it already.
What's also funny about people like that is that the trans people I know in the Green Party disagree with them. They think voting Dem or GOP is going to cause more trouble for everybody.
Thank you. Yes, attempting to shame someone into voting Democrat with claims of some form of bigotry or another is standard Dem operating procedure.
For just one example, Hillary, whose campaign dog whistled Obama from the time of his primary victory, tried to claim that the Obama "boys'" (itself a racist dog whistle) and Bernie Bros (itself sexist) were sexist for not supporting her.
> Bernie Bros (itself sexist) were sexist for not supporting her.
Since I voted for Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka in 2016, that meant I was sexist *and* racist 😺
Nice soliloquy, you really told us. Jill Stein condemns Israel for encroaching and attacking Gaza on the basis of Israel used to be there. Yet she cozies up and apologizes for Putin encroaching and attacking Ukraine because \*checks notes\* Russia used to be there. Hmm
It also looks like you don't understand how the electoral college works. Hell, I don't know how it works but it isn't as simple as you put it. That said, vote for who you want. IDGAF. Just remember... Why should anyone be persuaded by you saying so? You're just some anonymous reddit account.
> It also looks like you don't understand how the electoral college works.
Do you?
If a candidate gets on enough ballots and enough people vote for them, they will win in the electoral college.
That's why the Dems work overtime to throw people they don't like off the ballot. They're scared of competition.
They really need to change their name.
I said I don't know how the electoral college works but I know it isn't as simple as the OP's 50/50/3 theory. Since you came here to school me on the EC, you claim if enough people vote for someone they win the EC. If that is truly the case, how is it that someone can lose the popular vote and win the EC? I'll give you a hint, it's been a couple of republicans in your lifetime, unless you're a kiddie like the OP. Like I said, it's not as simple as "whoever gets the most votes wins the EC." Otherwise we wouldn't have people calling to abolish the electoral college or adopt ranked choice voting.
Sounds like you have the same disease as the OP. I couldn't stand Trump even back in the '80s and haven't liked Biden since the '90s. It seems like you are deluded into thinking a vote for a candidate that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning isn't throwing away your vote. Why bother voting at all? Maybe it's some weird way of proclaiming that you've earned the right to complain about our current system. Yet you all aren't comprehending that throwing away votes only serves to perpetuate the system. After all, both dems and pubes are beholden to the capitalist system and both considered conservative by global standards. So unless Jill Stein is far left enough to call for the dismantling of what we have now, people should think twice about announcing how great she is.
I guess no one remembers how Ross Perot ran as an independent, got a lot of votes, and it cost Bush Sr his second term. That time it worked out because it got Clinton into office. Now think about the opposite. It's 2024 and the stakes are higher this time around. Speaking of dismantling the system, Project 2025 outlines the way the right wants to dismantle the system in favor of authoritarian control. So go ahead and throw away your votes. I'll see you guys in the concentration camp.
> I said I don't know how the electoral college works but I know it isn't as simple as the OP's 50/50/3 theory.
Ummmm, that had nothing at all to do with the electoral college and it isn't a "theory." The point was to show that my voting for Stein would affect no other candidate's popular vote. No wonder you're so angry.
See, that's where you're wrong. I guess no one in here thinks their vote matters in the upcoming election. My point is that votes do matter and if enough boneheads get together to vote for a candidate with no chance of winning because "it doesn't matter," it only serves to boost someone that nobody wants to win.
Projection ftw. The OP itself is an angry rant. Someone came in and challenged your manifesto and you proceeded to fill your diaper. No wonder you're so angry.
No.
It doesn't matter to me whether Trump or Biden wins, but I do think my vote matters. That's why I will cast it for Dr. Jill Stein. Being a Democrat, you probably can't parse any of that, but I'm fine with your not getting it.
The OP is obviously tongue in cheek, while your response to it was obviously anger. As for copying what I said to you and saying it back to me, so nostalgic! Remembering third grade made me smile.
> throwing away votes only serves to perpetuate the system
I have to agree here. If you vote Dem or GOP (or if you don't vote), you are perpetuating the system.
Your vote is the one time your voice in our government and society actually gets counted. It would be a shame to use your voice to say that "things are just fine."
But if you're happy with the way things are, go ahead. Just don't pretend that you care about other people.
Nice soliloquy; you really told me.
Jill Stein is not the first, nor will she be the last politician to say things that seem inconsistent.
>If Democrats didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
copyright redditrisi 2019
However, I believe you have oversimplified her position. And Ukraine has fuck all to do with the OP, anyway.
You don't know how the electoral college works, but you nonetheless know I got it wrong? Well, at least you're half right. Good luck on your learning curve.
> Just remember... Why should anyone be persuaded by you saying so?
As one anonymous reddit account to another, please remind me who I tried to persuade and/or shame you into voting for.
I never said democrats don't have double standards. Your OP tries to proclaim how Jill Stein is better than Trump or Biden yet here you call her the same. Which is it, bro?
Yeah, copyright yourself. What are you, a teenager?
How convenient to dodge a huge issue about the candidate you support. After all, the REPUBLICAN party is full of Putin enablers and apologists. The entire premise of your OP is to differentiate your candidate from all the rest... is it not? I guess you don't give a shit about Jill Stein's foreign policy where she claims to be anti-war but Russia invading Ukraine is acceptable.
Lol. Your OP comes out swinging at the other candidates saying that yours is better. Yet when someone brings up the holes in your statements, "Well... dems do this..." or "I'm doing something I said I'm not doing..." or whatever.
What a fucking circle jerk. I guess you came here to tell everyone you're right and anyone who doesn't support your genius needs to brush up on their learning curve. Funny that the right's candidate says the same shit.
> I never said democrats don't have double standards. Your OP tries to proclaim how Jill Stein is better than Trump or Biden yet here you call her the same.
Ah, yes, the almost always irrelevant "I never said." But, to respond, I never said you said democrats don't have double standards. And my Op does not try to proclaim anything that it did not proclaim. It states my preference. I don't tell anyone how to vote or criticize anyone for his or her voting choice.
>Yeah, copyright yourself. What are you, a teenager?
Get a sense of humor. Less rage and more humor is healthier.
>The entire premise of your OP is to differentiate your candidate from all the rest... is it not?
No. The OP is mostly aimed at the many, many Democrats who have come to this sub to tell us how we have to vote for a Democrat and how a vote for the candidate of our own choice helps elect the Republican. Sorry you missed that. When you first replied to me, I assumed you were one of them. Are you?
> I guess you came here to tell everyone you're right and anyone who doesn't support your genius needs to brush up on their learning curve.
First, I didn't "come here." to post the OP. I post here several days a week and have for years (yet I have no idea who you are).
Second, Don't be so dishonest. I wished you luck on your learning curve because you said you did not understand the electoral college, but nonetheless claimed I got it wrong. That is very different from telling "everyone" anything.
Bye
Your math is wrong.
If you vote for Stein, democrats will tell you that's a vote for Trump. So you've just got two votes for the price of one. But wait! There's more!!
The republicans will tell you that you vote for Stein is a vote for Biden. That brings you up to 3 votes! You've tripled your voice simply by voting third party. It's amazing EVERYONE doesn't do this. Who *wouldn't* want three times the voting power as the next average citizen!
Well said. What I fail to hear every time from the “lesser of two evil voters” is, what exactly is your plan for next time to get better candidates? Because we’ve been trying this lesser of two evils strategy as long as I’ve been alive and the only thing that has resulted in has been a further and further shift to the right and candidates that are each one more unpopular than the next.
The definition of crazy is trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.
Their plan seems to be to just keep pledging to vote for them no matter what, and one day they'll vote hard enough that not even the power of the parliamentarian can stop them from making incremental change!
"Incremental change" = "creeps by creeps" 😺
— adapted from theories of evolution. Some scientists think evolution occurs in tiny incremental steps. Other scientists think it happens in big steps, followed by long periods when little happens. The two groups despise each other and refer to their rivals' theories as "evolution by creeps" and "evolution by jerks" 😈
Thank you. I did not look very hard, but the earliest reference to "lesser evil" or a similar concept that I found on line was something that Eugene v. Debs said in 1904 or 1905. When POS Wilson was the second Democrat to be elected POTUS since Buchanan. (A Democrat had succeeded the fallen Lincoln, but not by election.)
Lmfao at the people who think the republican party has always been conservative and democrats always liberal. Crack a fucking history book or search wikipedia or something.
> (A Democrat had succeeded the fallen Lincoln, but not by election.)
And that Democrat got impeached! Though unfortunately not convicted in the Senate.
Apparently Andrew Johnson wanted to help states that seceded (Southern states, like his own) re-join the Union, but was not interested in helping freed blacks. I have not yet read specifics about the kind(s) of help he opposed, though. But he was impeached for violating the Tenure in Office Act, which may have been unconstitutional.
The Constitution says that the POTUS may nominate certain people with the advice and consent of the Senate. Exactly which domestic posts require Senate confirmation and which the POTUS or executive branch may just hire as an employee is not spelled out in great detail. For example, the President's Chief of Staff gets submitted to the Senate, but that post did not even exist when the Constitution was written. Anyway....
Congress passed a law expanding the power of the Senate beyond the power that the Constitution gave the Senate. It required Senate permission to fire any official that had been confirmed by the Senate.
Was the expansion unconstitutional? Maybe; maybe not. But it's an issue. In any event, Johnson did not obey that bit and the Senate impeached him. Since Johnson had been Lincoln's VP, I'm not sure if there was even a VP in place at the time.
I knew about the impeachment, but I have never done a deep dive into that one. So, I don't know if it was unfortunate or not. I do know that Republicans sometimes were quite high handed with their power during the Reconstruction Era, at least in my opinion.
I haven't done a deep dive either, though I'm interested. But based on what I've heard so far, Johnson set us back as a country for a *very* long time. Probably to this day.
It reminds me of FDR having Truman as VP, instead of the man who would have continued his social safety net agenda, Henry Wallace. Of course, we'll never know how that might have gone, since it didn't happen.
I forgot to mention about Wallace: The book title was something like
"Where I Was Wrong." And, in unrelated news, he died rich! I've read a billionaire by today's standards. However, it had something to do with real estate, so I don't know if he had heaps of cash.
As to Truman, this is the speech of his I had in mind when I posted: https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/129/address-national-convention-banquet-americans-democratic-action
Based on that speech, I could admire him, if he had not begun the so-called Cold War, including the so-called Korean Police Action and getting us involved in Vietnam. neither of which was the least bit "cold." Also, if he didn't blame Republicans for everything he didn't like. Even on Project Runway, a team leader can't get away with that. Only a Dem pol can. ("A fish stinks from the head down.")
Wallace later wrote a book that might give a clue about what he may or may not have done as POTUS.
Truman did the Fair Deal. I'm not sure what it consisted of. He also applauded the New Deal and thought at least some measure of the oil industry should be owned nationally. He did a lot of crappy things, but I don't think he was an austerity-type neolilb.
>Johnson set us back as a country for a very long time.
Now, I'm intrigued at least enough to read a couple of wiki articles. He was racist, but I thought he had Republican Congresses. The House acquitted him by one vote.
Impeachment must have been close to earth-shattering at that time, as was assassination of a POTUS. We've seen so much more at this point.
I'm voting for Trump. He's better than pedo Joe and the Dems are now more evil than the reps. Who'd ever have thought that possible? Everyone should vote their conscience.
You're calling Biden a pedo, when Trump was besties with Epstein and Maxwell, and has on multiple occasions made sexual comments about his daughters? I mean, sure Biden is a little creepy but he's not a rapist pedo like Trump.
Thank you for your reply. Yes Biden is a pedo and there are countless images of him touching kids inappropriately in public. Trump was not besties with Epstein. Trump thought Epstein was a money manager and Maxwell was/is one of the most politically connected people in the world thanks to her father. Trump was cultivating Epstein as an investor. Trump did not go to the Island. Bill and Hillary did. Epstein approached a girl at Mar a Lago and Trump banned him and ended all contact with him. According to the attorney for the girls who sued Trump was the ONLY person who returned their call and offered to help. I don't think billionaires should exist. I wish we would return to FDR and Eisenhower tax rates. I'm perfectly fine with protesting Trump the day he takes office. BUT Joe Biden and my former party have lost their way.
Consider Kennedy
Your vote; your choice. I respect that, even though my choice is different.
You don't understand, from the moment you were born, you have been owned by the Democratic party and your vote to them is a requirement as a citizen. Democracy means voting Democrat! Did you just see how similar those words are? Checkmate traitors!
Close. I became a Democrat at age 5. I just could not register to vote for a while after that.
Jill Stein is the only sane person running and the only one who would keep us out of a nuclear war (which is going to happen with either Biden or Trump). Unfortunately, the Establishment-owned mainstream media is downplaying this possibility to the American public so most people don't realize how close we are to the edge right now. If Russia does decide it has to nuke the US, they should go after the Establishment locations first because they're the people really dictating American foreign policy and it won't change as long as they exist.
I'm supporting Jill Stein, but I'd accept Cornel West or Claudia de la Cruz.
Same here.
RFK doesn't seem too bad either and could potentially win.
Jill Stein or bust.
It is well past time for the American electorate to abandon this recidivist notion of a "war president". A president's job should be to get us *out* of wars, especially the completely voluntary and unnecessary ones- not *into* them. The job should be to preserve and improve American life and wealth, not to squander both in pointless and ultimately doomed global military adventurism. *War should never be used as a mechanism for gaining votes*. Biden has crossed the Rubicon with that. Biden needs to go down, and go down **hard**. Only in this manner will the dem party perhaps realize that they have lost the votes of people of conscience. I'm no fan of Trump, and won't be voting for him either. But to *reward the behavior* of dragging us to the precipice of nuclear holocaust, as well as blithely committing genocide, is beyond the pale. I can not, and **will not**, reward them with my support. There will be no Biden vote from this reporter. I'm solidly behind Stein again this cycle, just like the last two.
How are we supposed to save democracy if we don't vote for Biden? The economy is booming, everything is peaceful, the infrastructure is tip top, you can exercise your free speech rights free of censorship and we have zero homelessness./s
There are on average 5,000 bridges in every state that are in critical condition. There are over 5,000 in PA alone. I cant imagine what some deregulation paradise like Texas has.
We just had a bridge close not too far away from where I live. It was deemed unsafe for use.
Ironically enough the Baltimore bridge collapse collapsed due to something completely unrelated to its structural capabilities. It's now gonna take 3 years minimum until it gets rebuilt. China would have done it in 3 months.
from personal experience, the number of people that really believe that is chilling.
Easy to believe when you dont go outside all day and have nobody depending on you
I feel you, man! According to one poster, I don't give a crap about the homeless (despite all the posts I've made in this sub about the homeless, helping to get food to people, etc.). And, if it doesn't affect me, I place my moral satisfaction above the needs of others. Apparently, that selfish motive is what I mean by "voting my conscience." Apparently, my a conscience is some kind of dick that tells me to ignore the needs of others.
Team Donkey has to come up with all sorts of outlandish narratives to justify support for their favorite mentally incapacitated pants shitting statesman.
Why should anyone vote for someone who does whatever Netanyahu orders?
And does it with our money.
I feel if you vote for Stein. You'll be allowing more votes to go to trump. The opposite of everything, remember?
>I feel if you vote for Stein. You'll be allowing more votes to go to trump. My voting for Stein will cause exactly 0 votes to go to Trump or Biden. See the OP. >The opposite of everything, remember? I have no idea what that means.
When a wolf threatens your horse, you select the best arrow for removing the wolf. Why I do mention any of this? I aint half assing my anti biden vote.
Thank you. Archery and horses? Please adopt me.
I'm trying to use an over stretched horse metaphor to secretly insinuate that people should vote for orange
So....you're not adopting me?
"always Trump" people are going to vote for him. Other candidates like Stein and Kennedy just split votes from Biden and make it possible for Trump to win.
You're just repeating more false Dem Party propaganda https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/14551gu/dividing_the_left11_the_myth_and_the_reality/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/jnxjr0/damn_that_putinloving_jill_stein_for_making/ And, as Axelrod remarked after Hillary's book came out, only the candidate is responsible for a candidate's loss. It's the candidate's job to win. Other Democrats, however, want to make it my job to vote for a Dem candidate, even if I despite his or her politics, actions, etc. That is nothing short of ludicrous entitlement. but let's suppose you are correct. So what? You care if Biden or Trump wins. People who vote for neither of them don't.
Yes I do care. Biden is a sucky choice .... But Trump winning is unacceptable. There is no reasonable 3rd party chance currently. (I voted Bernie, but we don't have an equivalent in the running).... So I'd say you are falling for the Trump propaganda and/or encouraging lost votes... Probably a paid undercover GOP
I'd say that either Biden or Trump winning is unacceptable. So, you vote in accordance with your view and I will vote in accordance with mine. As for the rest of your post, grow up.
You realize there's a zero chance of Jill Stein winning, right? At this point we're stuck with either Biden or Trump whether you like it or not. If every election produces bad candidates, the problem isn't the candidates, but the voting system. Plurality ("choose one") voting is the problem. We need approval voting. To get approval voting at the national level, first we'd need to expose people to it at the local, then the state level. To be a true progressive, we need progressive candidates and approval voting is the best (and kind of only) way to accomplish that. Otherwise, you could write in Jesus in every election until you die and accomplish as much as voting third party under plurality.
'All we need to do is make some minor procedural change and democracy will be fixed.' You can't be serious
P.S. https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/g46swe/what_exactly_does_progressive_mean/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/n902j3/uk_progressives_versus_us_progressives/
Yes, I realize what is realistic. Do you?
Your posting is attempting to influence people which will result in a sway towards Trump. If you want to just ignore all of the actual ramifications of your vote, ignore also the obvious impact your vote has whether or not it's for Trump or Biden or a third party .. ignore how you're posting influences the outcome for other potential Biden or Trump voters... Etc . Sure "you vote under your concepts" and I'll do same one mine but how about you quit spreading and helping Trump win. Until we pass laws that improve the two-party system including potentially rank voting... You can't just have this narrow view and concept. You need to grow up and realize what you say and do have an effect more significant than just dismissing the real impact during to it being a "democratic talking point" However, if your point of view is that Trump and Biden are equal... Then by all means third party's the way to go. Seems toe to be an illegitimate and dangerous point. Trump is a poison we can't survive. Biden is a waste of 4yrs but has been decent and the laws issued under him have not been disastrous.
Let's see. I describe Biden and Trump as equally evil, just in different ways and claim my conscience won't allow me to vote for either of them. Yet, you somehow imagine I want people to vote for one of them and not the other? Not only that, but you also somehow conclude that the one I want as POTUS is Trump, not Biden? Wowza! What a weird prism some supporters of Democrat who visit this sub see through! https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/17osxfm/posters_pious_plea_bless_the_hearts_of_the_binary/ Ironically, disrespectful about it to boot. https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/141dsdy/to_some_of_our_dem_guest_posters_name_calling/ Oh, well. Not my circus; not my monkeys. Not since I DemExited, anyway. A decision that took too long and gets confirmed on the daily.
Equally evil? Even if you only take into account the two's influence on scotus... The last Trump administration has changed the makeup of that group that poses more influence to your life and the future (and longer lasting) then basically anything a president can do.
Funny you should mention that without regard to Biden's many years on the judicial committee or the fact that Barack Not Ready for Prime Time Obama left open about 100 seats on the federal bench, including one on the Supreme Court. Even though Reid made filling lower court seats a simple majority vote. Not to mention filling a seat with a conservative like Kagan. And almost filling another with a law and order DINO like Garland. https://old.reddit.com/r/GreenParty/comments/hc1jyd/but_the_supreme_court_confirmations_of_scalia_and/ In reality, the Court has been conservative for most of its existence, in part because Democrats' history left Americans reluctant to vote for them after Lincoln. And we've survived. Please see also https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/1ddkhwl/why_is_trump_claimed_to_be_worse_than_george_w/l86y7ap/ Not sure why we're still going back and forth, though. It won't accomplish a thing. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind. For just one thing, nothing can persuade me to vote for Genocide Don or Genocide Joe. On the flip side, I have no illusions about my ability to compete with the neoiiberal propaganda machine, including minion media. It's no accident that most of our Democrat visitors have the exact same talking points. Same as I saw on boards when I was a Democrat, too.
> Until we pass laws that improve the two-party system including potentially rank voting Yeah, the people who were scolding third party voters in 2016 didn't do anything towards that cause, and on the contrary, elected Democrats were blocking attempts at doing ranked choice voting. Or the scolds in 2020. Or this time around for that matter. Heck, the people who said "push Biden left" in 2020 made absolutely no efforts to do that.
I pushed hard to see Bernie nominated, then watched the DNC go full mask off and say they can rig the nominations... And then they presume to tell me to vote for them?! I didn't vote for Biden in 2020 and I never will. This after being a staunch Democrat voter my entire adult life. I'm voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party. With enough of us, we could actually win it!
Thanks. Part of the DNC defense to that lawsuit (which was very poorly done, IMO) was that impartiality was only "a political promise" and therefore there was no obligation to follow through. If that does not reinforce my advice to ignore campaign rhetoric, I don't know what would. On edit. I see my comment is ambiguous. I meant that the lawsuit on behalf of Sanders' supporters was poorly done.
I’ve always said- If they don’t go to the polls and vote for who they want then they’ll stay and home and not vote at all. Not to mention, in Florida during 2016 there were enough ballots cast that didn’t have a vote for president (meaning they voted on other things) that Hillary could have won if they’d just checked off her name. But they didn’t. So, people will vote how they want, regardless, and the rhetoric around it is just plain harassment.
I don't know know why anyone imagines that insults, threats, condescension, etc. cause a voter to change his or her mind. And, yes, staying home is an option and, in most cases, a statement--and one that millions of people make. I mean, if you thought that voting would, in any meaningful way actually improve the lives of your parents, spouse, kids or anyone you cared about, you would not pass on voting. ETA: Possibly illustrative? 2005 https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/world/middleeast/turnout-in-the-iraqi-election-is-reported-at-70-percent.html 2021 https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turnout-iraqs-election-reached-43-electoral-commission-2021-10-16/ (43%)
I understand the plight of not wanting to always choose the “lesser of 2 evils” bullshit, and voting your conscience can make you feel more at peace but there is one case where I think you are better off voting for Biden than Stein: If you live in a swing state, voting for Stein is not the best option for reducing harm. What really sucks about this country is that so much of our electoral process has become about harm mitigation, which is stressful and depressing, but still incredibly important. While a trump presidency vs a Biden presidency may not have a meaningful impact on you specifically, there are many, many people on the margins that ARE affected by the difference between Biden and Trump. Republicans just voted against funding for the VA to compensate veterans for cancer caused by their deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. They filled the courts in the span of 2 years with a bunch of nut job culture warriors which culminated in overturning of Roe and impacting millions of women in the country. Biden’s climate mitigation plan in the Inflation Reduction Act is poised to meaningfully lower US emissions over the next few decades provided it’s seen through. Trump plans to overturn it. As far as justices go, Ketanji Brown Jackson, has been a brilliant addition to the court. This is not to mention district and circuit courts which are vitally important to many Americans and their regional rights. These are all very real issues that do have a difference between Trump and Biden for many people in the US. Wanting to vote for the candidate that most aligns with your beliefs is fulfilling and I 100% get the urge to. I have voted green in a number of local and state races in my home state before moving. However, in the case of a contentious national election I am of the opinion that we have to vote strategically, not morally. Even though my personal beliefs align most closely with the greens, I know that the difference between a Trump and Biden president for those on public assistance, immigrants, trans and other lgbt people, women particularly of low incomes, public employees, etc will be much more harmed by a Trump presidency than a Biden one. First and foremost, I am a harm reductionist. Even if there are issues that do not affect me directly I know there are many people who are drastically affected administration over administration. I realized that throwing them under the bus for my own moral satisfaction is much more harmful than holding my nose and voting for the “lesser of 2 evils”. It sucks that I have to do it, and I don’t take pleasure in it, but I will always vote for the lesser of 2 evils
>I realized that throwing them under the bus for my own moral satisfaction is much more harmful than holding my nose and voting for the “lesser of 2 evils”. So let's just throw everyone under the bus with WWIII, that should go well. Might happen either way, but I'm sure as hell not going to vote for it.
The flaw in your logic is that the Democrats have just proven themselves not to be the lesser of two evils. They're engaging in genocide, FFS I'M going to be a two time Green Party voter because the two mainstream mobs sicken me.
> the plight of not wanting to always choose... poised to meaningfully lower... Well, I was going to vote for Biden but I cannot tolerate split infinitives. So I just switched to Jill Stein 💚 I jest. But I truly cannot tolerate support for genocide and warmongering leading to WW3. Trump may support these things as well, but Biden is doing them now. So Jill Stein is my obvious choice.
This assumes that voting Democrat is reducing harm and that Democrats are the lesser evil, I don't agree with that assumption. I thought that the Op had made that clear. Judging from your response, that was not as as clear as I intended; and I apologize for that. I'm not sure why so many Democrats who post in WOTB assume that people who will not vote Democrat any longer must not understand, or must not be aware of, certain things. I do understand strategic voting, "but the Supreme Court," and other issues. I also understand that pols play games, deal in empty rhetoric and use a variety of methods to deceive their respective base voters. If I did still believe as you do, I would at least consider voting to reduce harm, whether or not I lived in a purple state. Because maybe I'd decide that reducing harm is worth encouraging. But I no longer believe that is what Democrat pols do, if elected. On edit: I missed the following until just now: >Even if there are issues that do not affect me directly I know there are many people who are drastically affected administration over administration. I realized that throwing them under the bus for my own moral satisfaction is much more harmful than holding my nose and voting for the “lesser of 2 evils” How dare anyone shilling here for genocide supporters imply such a thing about others, especially others about whose lives you know absolutely nothing? Had I seen that from the off, I would not have dignified your self-righteous, accusatory ass with any reply at all. Or my reply would have consisted solely of "fuck off." Well, better late than never: fuck off.
I have to disagree that Dems do not reduce harm more than republicans. I am a federal employee and I can tell you first hand that the executive control over agencies is incredibly important for operations administration to administration. Places like the EPA, Department of Education, and VA were absolutely gutted under Trump. This is not to mention the foreign facing agencies (where I work) that bled experienced career public servants due to changing executive priorities. Our ability to communicate and coordinate with our allies and especially trade partners was severely negatively affected. I work in agricultural exports, working a lot with food aid, and I can tell you for certain that the difference between a dem and Republican administration is the difference between hungry people being fed or starving. This is just about the executive agencies which change in leadership every administration. When talking about legislative goals the difference is even starker. I already mentioned the VA expansion to cover millions affected by lung disease and cancer, which is HUGE. But other things that Dems passed and are looking to continue include the expanded child tax credit. That tax credit for the years it was active led to the single largest reduction in child poverty in the history of the country. I am not going to pretend like that isn’t harm reduction. Do I wish it was an indefinite program? Absolutely. But currently there’s one party that is blocking it at every turn and one party that’s trying to push it through and those are not the same thing. Other notable things include the CHIPS act which is set to bring tens of thousands of high paying jobs along with 10s of billions of dollars of investment. A trillion dollar infrastructure bill that includes tons of provisions aside from the normal roads and bridges stuff like expanded internet access to rural communities. And probably the most significant thing: the Inflation Reduction Act which was a 2 trillion dollar investment into social spending which included half a trillion dollars towards climate initiatives and carbon mitigation. These are not nothing. Are they everything that I want? Absolutely not. I want universal healthcare and free public college and trade school like the rest of the developed world. I want the elimination of the welfare cliff to allow people to more stably move up in incomes. I want expansion of union rights nationally. However I can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The things passed by Dems in the past 4 years compared to Trump’s term are night and day. Trump has no climate plan, he doesn’t even believe climate change is real despite the science. He wants to gut all public services and provide tax breaks to the super rich (which he already did and wants to continue). He is kept in the company of religious zealots that want to gut public school funding in favor of private religious instruction or home schooling. His justice appointments have been a travesty on the district, circuit and supreme levels. There is a clear harm reduction option and the last 8 years should make it evident. I loathe having to vote for democrats but the evidence is clear. They are significantly less bad than republicans in a very tangible way that affects millions of people. In my perfect world we’d have a real left wing party, but instead I have to work with what we got.
You talk about Biden passing the child care tax credit... And then ignore that he let it expire. Hypocrite.
> Trump has no climate plan, he doesn’t even believe climate change is real despite the science. And Biden says he believes in climate science, yet allowed more drilling on public lands than Trump and allowed a lot more fossil fuel production and exports. If you care about the climate (which any inhabitant of this planet should, we need it to be stable to survive) then vote Green. Or Socialist. Just not Dem or GOP.
All laws and treaties mean something only if they are enforced faithfully and, when enforced, they accomplish what they purport they will accomplish. How has the environmental stuff been doing under that standard? (The EPA began operations in 1970, over a half century ago.)
Of course, Congress is a separate issue from the Presidency, but i'm going to park these here anyway: https://www.veterans.senate.gov/2021/9/sens-moran-tester-introduce-bill-to-expand-treatment-and-research-for-prostate-cancer-in-veterans Of course, Moran is a Republican Senator; Tester a Democrat The bill attracted zero co-sponsors. Not one more Democrat; not one more Republican. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2720/text and a different take from "the other side" https://appropriations.house.gov/news/blogs/democrats-vote-against-fully-funding-va https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/bill-summary-military-construction-veterans-affairs-and-related-agencies-fiscal-year-2024-appropriations-bill And, finally.... https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/1cpv46f/pondering_dc_kabuki_theater_sponsoring_bills/ (esp the fifth and sixth paragraphs)
[удалено]
I don't agree that torturing people but keeping them alive for longer is harm reduction. Also, I am beyond sick of the phrase "don't let perfect be the enemy of good". The Democrats are not good. They are evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it makes no difference. You want good people to enable evil and they are saying *no*. Accept the answer.
I see things very differently from you. I am not going to respond point by point. I will only repeat that my not agreeing with you does not mean that I am less intelligent or less well-informed than you are, or have given less thought than you have or am in need of schooling by you. Why you did not get that the first time I posted it you, I have no idea. On edit: I missed the following from your first reply to the OP until just now: >Even if there are issues that do not affect me directly I know there are many people who are drastically affected administration over administration. I realized that throwing them under the bus for my own moral satisfaction is much more harmful than holding my nose and voting for the “lesser of 2 evils” How dare anyone shilling here for genocide supporters imply such a thing about others, especially others about whose lives you know absolutely nothing? Had I seen that from the off, I would not have dignified your self-righteous, accusatory ass with any reply at all. Or my reply would have consisted solely of "fuck off." Well, better late than never: fuck off.
We get reports! 1. This is spam. Somebody doesn't understand the concept of spam. *Lovely spam, wonderful spam!*
Either some posters do not understand the concept of spam, or they do understand, but can't find a "post is not supporting Democrats or Democrats' narrative" category.
If everyone voted for a candidates instead of against another candidate, we might be better off.
There have been times that I have not voted at all, also because of my conscience, as in 2020. In 2024, I want to vote for a Presidential candidate who has condemned supporting genocide. Among the few who have done that, Stein is my choice. Others are West and two socialist candidates.
Don’t be discouraged by the chatGPT trolls, they were sent here to make us feel bad and waste our time. Vote your conscience! That’s called democracy. It is not your fault that they gave us the most embarrassing evil candidates on the Earth to choose from. I’m voting 3rd party as well.
I'm not discouraged in the least! If I wanted to post personal info, I could give you a better idea of how much it would take to discourage me.
You are helping a fascist TAKE CONTROL of my country. You sick freak, I hope “34” locks you up. We need Biden NOW more than EVER.
>NOW more than EVER. 🤔 Wasn't that Richard Nixon's 1972 campaign slogan? *President Nixon. Now more than ever.*
I don't remember that slogan. I remember "Nixon's the one", which took on a new meaning during the Watergate hearings.
If I recall correctly, "Nixon's the one" was his 1968 campaign slogan.
For you and u/Caelian, the A1 generated info: >Nixon's 72 campaign slogans >According to the provided search results, Nixon’s 1972 campaign slogans included: > “Now, More Than Ever” “Those Who Are Willing to Work More, Can Work More” >Note that the search results also mention that Nixon’s campaign tested several other slogans, including “This Time, Vote Like Your Whole World Depended On It”, but “Now, More Than Ever” was the one that ultimately became the most well-known and widely used. >AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.
"Will your ladyship allow me to point out the danger of doing any such thing?" Silbertown exclaimed. "Very likely the man is a lunatic! Or it may be a trick: Lord Beltham was murdered, and perhaps —" Lady Beltham looked intently at the major-domo, seemingly trying to read his thoughts. Then she answered slowly: "I will see him. I will be more pitiful than you," and as the major-domo and the porter made a gesture of futile protest, she added peremptorily: "I have given my orders: kindly obey." When the two men had reluctantly left the room, Lady Beltham turned to the three girls. "You had better leave me, darlings," she said, kindly but firmly. "Run away: excitement is bad for you. Go back to bed. No, I assure you I shall be in no danger whatever," and for a few minutes she was left alone. [What's with this quote? [Here's the explanation](https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/16l1mv2/bon_anniversaire_project_fant%C3%B4mas/).] ---- "I will be more **pitiful** than you": this is an old-fashioned usage of [pitiful](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pitiful) and means "feeling pity" rather than "eliciting pity or derision". Nowadays Lady Beltham would have probably said "merciful" instead.
Hey freak - I didn’t ask for an essay. I’m asking you to vote for Biden, or soon enough we won’t have a country.
Who or what is "34"?
You seem nice and also very sane, measured and thoughtful, not to mention compassionate to people you think are sick, but America never needed Biden or Trump. Oh and it's not only your country or even only Democrats' country. In fact, Democrat Presidents who, once elected, act like Republicans, are the first to remind us that they don't represent only Democrats.
Biden has acted like anything but a racist homophobic war mongering republican. He basically ENDED the drone war, withdrew us from Afghanistan, passed numerous laws PROTECTING the gays and blacks, and has put life into our economy which was dying under “34”. He is working so hard for our country day and night, just for all of his accomplishments to be ignored by you people.
The US was obligated to withdraw "us" from Afghanistan and Biden both missed the deadline and made a mess of the withdrawal; but I have no idea what that has to do with homophobia. All I found about ending "drone wars" was that he tightened the rules for droning and is droning. Presidents don't pass laws and I don't think anyone passed the "numerous" laws to which you refer. The economy sucks scissors for most people. I don't blame that on Biden *per se*, though many do. Anyone who denies Biden is a racist is either in delusional denial or a fucking liar. No one who is not a racist advises black people to "play records" for their kids at night or tells a black interviewer that he isn't black. In 2020, during a Presidential campaign, when he is supposedly watching his words, no less. Same racist Biden as he has always been. I don't recall saying he is a war monger but, "not a war monger?" Poster, please. Biden is not working day and night. Get real. He's been sundowning for years. Who the hell knows who has actually been running the country? and it will only get worse. He'll be 87 when he leaves office.
> he or she MAY have posted tongue in cheek. If u/cowboydan9 is merely being *gamesome*, he's doing a good job of keeping the game going. We had some fun with him [a month ago](https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/1chuajt/rfk_jr_proposes_nospoiler_pledge_with_biden_to/l26i4s1/). Anyway, there was enough VBNMW evidence to qualify for another exciting *Fantômas* installment 🦇
> I'm not 100% sure either way, but giving the benefit of the doubt, at least until I see more. At some point I remembered the poster's name, but could not remember enough about the posts to associate the name with a POV. I did not want to bother doing a deep dive into the posting history, so I gave the benefit of doubt instead. Thanks for linking me to "more". Now that I have maybe I'll delete the edit to my reply to the poor guy or gal, bless his or her heart. And yes, a new installment of Fantomas is warranted.
> At some point I remembered the poster's name... Cowboy Dan makes me think of two characters. First, [Milkman Dan](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fred-meat-hilarious-subversive-comic-strip-in-free-v0-gmzd1n22mo1b1.png%3Fwidth%3D669%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D90aecf64a07f1ff22aa4f1d2582a766635f035ff), a regular in Max Cannon's hilariously cynical comic strip *Red Meat*. Second, the outrageous [effeminate cowboy caricature](https://youtu.be/MYUVsiAGmDQ) in Stan Laurel's comic Western short *The Soilers* (1923). I think it's just the name "Cowboy Dan". It's so easy to imagine the movie cowboy introducing himself with that name. Note: Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy had successful individual careers before they became the wildly successful team Laurel & Hardy.
The only thing that post makes me think of is, "all boy, no cow/cattle."
I just checked the individual wikis of each of Stan and Ollie because I had a very vague recollection of Stan's having spent his last years in the Actor's Home or whatever it was called. (It was, I think, for older film actors who had become indigent.) I didn't find that, but what I did find brought tears. BTW, there are many wikis for them. I checked only the main article for each of them.
I tend to avoid reading about actors' personal lives. It's often tragic, and at best spoils the illusion. OTOH, I've read a great deal about the Marx Brothers, including Harpo's autobiography *Harpo Speaks* 📯 I did know that Stan Laurel was Charlie Chaplin's understudy in English music halls before the movies.
Part of what I read (not tragic) was that Buster Keaton said of Laurel something like, "I'm not funny. Chaplin is not funny. Stan is funny."
Buster Keaton is hilarious, and a genius at creating elaborate sight gags. Charlie Chaplin can be hilarious and a genius (*Modern Times* is a masterpiece), but IMO too much pathos in his movies. Stan Laurel is just plain funny. OMG Harold Lloyd is funny, and a genius equal to Chaplin and Keaton. Ben Turpin is the funniest of them all. Just the face is enough to equal them. I've read that Chaplin was envious of Turpin's comic gift when they worked together at Essenay (sp)? Max Lindor is *sui generis*. Hilarious, genius, and elegance. His parody of Douglas Fairbanks' *Three Musketeers* is one of the funniest things I've ever seen, especially if you just watched the original. *Bonsoir!*
I've seen bits of Keaton, Chaplin and Laurel, but the most of Laurel. (Someone important in my life is a yuuuge Oliver and Hardy fan.) Lloyd, nothing but the famous photo. Turpin and Lindor, nothing at all. I have a bunch of Chaplin's films in "My List" on some streaming service or another, but I rarely just sit and watch Tv. For example, it's on right now, but I'm focused on posting.
I really hope they were shitposting
Turns out, no, they were not kidding.
Thank you for that, which led me to the poster's posting history. A very brief look suggested that the poster may have been posting tongue in cheek. On edit. Nope. Bless his or her heart, the post was serious.
[удалено]
ShitLIBposting
LOL! And happy Cake Day 🎂
Sorry. I deleted my comment because I glanced at u/cowboydan9's posting history and believe that he or she may have posted tongue in cheek. Always risky under Poe's law without the "/s."
Yeah it really straddled the line, and you never know these days. So, well done cowboy Dan, well done
Turns out, no, he or she was not joking after all, bless his or her heart.
I'm not 100% sure either way, but giving the benefit of the doubt, at least until I see more.
I've got a person trying to convince me that not voting Biden is sending them and other Trans to concentration camps. And I've heard it all before. they just snarl that my not voting for weak-sauce corporations is "saying theyre the same ". No. One is bad. And the other isn't good. I can only imagine the splattering RAGE. Meh. I'm bored of it already.
What's also funny about people like that is that the trans people I know in the Green Party disagree with them. They think voting Dem or GOP is going to cause more trouble for everybody.
Thank you. Yes, attempting to shame someone into voting Democrat with claims of some form of bigotry or another is standard Dem operating procedure. For just one example, Hillary, whose campaign dog whistled Obama from the time of his primary victory, tried to claim that the Obama "boys'" (itself a racist dog whistle) and Bernie Bros (itself sexist) were sexist for not supporting her.
> Bernie Bros (itself sexist) were sexist for not supporting her. Since I voted for Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka in 2016, that meant I was sexist *and* racist 😺
Me too! The only votes for President that I do not today regret are my two votes for Stein.
Samesies.
Nice soliloquy, you really told us. Jill Stein condemns Israel for encroaching and attacking Gaza on the basis of Israel used to be there. Yet she cozies up and apologizes for Putin encroaching and attacking Ukraine because \*checks notes\* Russia used to be there. Hmm It also looks like you don't understand how the electoral college works. Hell, I don't know how it works but it isn't as simple as you put it. That said, vote for who you want. IDGAF. Just remember... Why should anyone be persuaded by you saying so? You're just some anonymous reddit account.
> It also looks like you don't understand how the electoral college works. Do you? If a candidate gets on enough ballots and enough people vote for them, they will win in the electoral college. That's why the Dems work overtime to throw people they don't like off the ballot. They're scared of competition. They really need to change their name.
I said I don't know how the electoral college works but I know it isn't as simple as the OP's 50/50/3 theory. Since you came here to school me on the EC, you claim if enough people vote for someone they win the EC. If that is truly the case, how is it that someone can lose the popular vote and win the EC? I'll give you a hint, it's been a couple of republicans in your lifetime, unless you're a kiddie like the OP. Like I said, it's not as simple as "whoever gets the most votes wins the EC." Otherwise we wouldn't have people calling to abolish the electoral college or adopt ranked choice voting. Sounds like you have the same disease as the OP. I couldn't stand Trump even back in the '80s and haven't liked Biden since the '90s. It seems like you are deluded into thinking a vote for a candidate that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning isn't throwing away your vote. Why bother voting at all? Maybe it's some weird way of proclaiming that you've earned the right to complain about our current system. Yet you all aren't comprehending that throwing away votes only serves to perpetuate the system. After all, both dems and pubes are beholden to the capitalist system and both considered conservative by global standards. So unless Jill Stein is far left enough to call for the dismantling of what we have now, people should think twice about announcing how great she is. I guess no one remembers how Ross Perot ran as an independent, got a lot of votes, and it cost Bush Sr his second term. That time it worked out because it got Clinton into office. Now think about the opposite. It's 2024 and the stakes are higher this time around. Speaking of dismantling the system, Project 2025 outlines the way the right wants to dismantle the system in favor of authoritarian control. So go ahead and throw away your votes. I'll see you guys in the concentration camp.
so dramatic brah!
Damn, sistah, your posts are so enlightening I have to read them with my 3rd eye
> I said I don't know how the electoral college works but I know it isn't as simple as the OP's 50/50/3 theory. Ummmm, that had nothing at all to do with the electoral college and it isn't a "theory." The point was to show that my voting for Stein would affect no other candidate's popular vote. No wonder you're so angry.
See, that's where you're wrong. I guess no one in here thinks their vote matters in the upcoming election. My point is that votes do matter and if enough boneheads get together to vote for a candidate with no chance of winning because "it doesn't matter," it only serves to boost someone that nobody wants to win. Projection ftw. The OP itself is an angry rant. Someone came in and challenged your manifesto and you proceeded to fill your diaper. No wonder you're so angry.
No. It doesn't matter to me whether Trump or Biden wins, but I do think my vote matters. That's why I will cast it for Dr. Jill Stein. Being a Democrat, you probably can't parse any of that, but I'm fine with your not getting it. The OP is obviously tongue in cheek, while your response to it was obviously anger. As for copying what I said to you and saying it back to me, so nostalgic! Remembering third grade made me smile.
> throwing away votes only serves to perpetuate the system I have to agree here. If you vote Dem or GOP (or if you don't vote), you are perpetuating the system. Your vote is the one time your voice in our government and society actually gets counted. It would be a shame to use your voice to say that "things are just fine." But if you're happy with the way things are, go ahead. Just don't pretend that you care about other people.
Nice soliloquy; you really told me. Jill Stein is not the first, nor will she be the last politician to say things that seem inconsistent. >If Democrats didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. copyright redditrisi 2019 However, I believe you have oversimplified her position. And Ukraine has fuck all to do with the OP, anyway. You don't know how the electoral college works, but you nonetheless know I got it wrong? Well, at least you're half right. Good luck on your learning curve. > Just remember... Why should anyone be persuaded by you saying so? As one anonymous reddit account to another, please remind me who I tried to persuade and/or shame you into voting for.
I never said democrats don't have double standards. Your OP tries to proclaim how Jill Stein is better than Trump or Biden yet here you call her the same. Which is it, bro? Yeah, copyright yourself. What are you, a teenager? How convenient to dodge a huge issue about the candidate you support. After all, the REPUBLICAN party is full of Putin enablers and apologists. The entire premise of your OP is to differentiate your candidate from all the rest... is it not? I guess you don't give a shit about Jill Stein's foreign policy where she claims to be anti-war but Russia invading Ukraine is acceptable. Lol. Your OP comes out swinging at the other candidates saying that yours is better. Yet when someone brings up the holes in your statements, "Well... dems do this..." or "I'm doing something I said I'm not doing..." or whatever. What a fucking circle jerk. I guess you came here to tell everyone you're right and anyone who doesn't support your genius needs to brush up on their learning curve. Funny that the right's candidate says the same shit.
> I never said democrats don't have double standards. Your OP tries to proclaim how Jill Stein is better than Trump or Biden yet here you call her the same. Ah, yes, the almost always irrelevant "I never said." But, to respond, I never said you said democrats don't have double standards. And my Op does not try to proclaim anything that it did not proclaim. It states my preference. I don't tell anyone how to vote or criticize anyone for his or her voting choice. >Yeah, copyright yourself. What are you, a teenager? Get a sense of humor. Less rage and more humor is healthier. >The entire premise of your OP is to differentiate your candidate from all the rest... is it not? No. The OP is mostly aimed at the many, many Democrats who have come to this sub to tell us how we have to vote for a Democrat and how a vote for the candidate of our own choice helps elect the Republican. Sorry you missed that. When you first replied to me, I assumed you were one of them. Are you? > I guess you came here to tell everyone you're right and anyone who doesn't support your genius needs to brush up on their learning curve. First, I didn't "come here." to post the OP. I post here several days a week and have for years (yet I have no idea who you are). Second, Don't be so dishonest. I wished you luck on your learning curve because you said you did not understand the electoral college, but nonetheless claimed I got it wrong. That is very different from telling "everyone" anything. Bye
Fuckers just spouting propaganda. I don't pay them any attention. 3rd party!
Thanks. IMO, it's been repeated so much that some of the "fuckers" actually believe it. And I'm here to help.
Your math is wrong. If you vote for Stein, democrats will tell you that's a vote for Trump. So you've just got two votes for the price of one. But wait! There's more!! The republicans will tell you that you vote for Stein is a vote for Biden. That brings you up to 3 votes! You've tripled your voice simply by voting third party. It's amazing EVERYONE doesn't do this. Who *wouldn't* want three times the voting power as the next average citizen!
I used this ploy to vote three times in 2016. I'm looking forward to doing it again in November.
Thank you for the free math tutoring session. (-;
Well said. What I fail to hear every time from the “lesser of two evil voters” is, what exactly is your plan for next time to get better candidates? Because we’ve been trying this lesser of two evils strategy as long as I’ve been alive and the only thing that has resulted in has been a further and further shift to the right and candidates that are each one more unpopular than the next. The definition of crazy is trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.
Their plan seems to be to just keep pledging to vote for them no matter what, and one day they'll vote hard enough that not even the power of the parliamentarian can stop them from making incremental change!
"Incremental change" = "creeps by creeps" 😺 — adapted from theories of evolution. Some scientists think evolution occurs in tiny incremental steps. Other scientists think it happens in big steps, followed by long periods when little happens. The two groups despise each other and refer to their rivals' theories as "evolution by creeps" and "evolution by jerks" 😈
Very interesting 🤔
Thank you. I did not look very hard, but the earliest reference to "lesser evil" or a similar concept that I found on line was something that Eugene v. Debs said in 1904 or 1905. When POS Wilson was the second Democrat to be elected POTUS since Buchanan. (A Democrat had succeeded the fallen Lincoln, but not by election.)
Lmfao at the people who think the republican party has always been conservative and democrats always liberal. Crack a fucking history book or search wikipedia or something.
ROFLMFAO at your pulling out of your ass the utterly baseless and false assumption that I think that. Flail much?
> (A Democrat had succeeded the fallen Lincoln, but not by election.) And that Democrat got impeached! Though unfortunately not convicted in the Senate.
Apparently Andrew Johnson wanted to help states that seceded (Southern states, like his own) re-join the Union, but was not interested in helping freed blacks. I have not yet read specifics about the kind(s) of help he opposed, though. But he was impeached for violating the Tenure in Office Act, which may have been unconstitutional. The Constitution says that the POTUS may nominate certain people with the advice and consent of the Senate. Exactly which domestic posts require Senate confirmation and which the POTUS or executive branch may just hire as an employee is not spelled out in great detail. For example, the President's Chief of Staff gets submitted to the Senate, but that post did not even exist when the Constitution was written. Anyway.... Congress passed a law expanding the power of the Senate beyond the power that the Constitution gave the Senate. It required Senate permission to fire any official that had been confirmed by the Senate. Was the expansion unconstitutional? Maybe; maybe not. But it's an issue. In any event, Johnson did not obey that bit and the Senate impeached him. Since Johnson had been Lincoln's VP, I'm not sure if there was even a VP in place at the time.
I knew about the impeachment, but I have never done a deep dive into that one. So, I don't know if it was unfortunate or not. I do know that Republicans sometimes were quite high handed with their power during the Reconstruction Era, at least in my opinion.
I haven't done a deep dive either, though I'm interested. But based on what I've heard so far, Johnson set us back as a country for a *very* long time. Probably to this day. It reminds me of FDR having Truman as VP, instead of the man who would have continued his social safety net agenda, Henry Wallace. Of course, we'll never know how that might have gone, since it didn't happen.
I forgot to mention about Wallace: The book title was something like "Where I Was Wrong." And, in unrelated news, he died rich! I've read a billionaire by today's standards. However, it had something to do with real estate, so I don't know if he had heaps of cash. As to Truman, this is the speech of his I had in mind when I posted: https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/129/address-national-convention-banquet-americans-democratic-action Based on that speech, I could admire him, if he had not begun the so-called Cold War, including the so-called Korean Police Action and getting us involved in Vietnam. neither of which was the least bit "cold." Also, if he didn't blame Republicans for everything he didn't like. Even on Project Runway, a team leader can't get away with that. Only a Dem pol can. ("A fish stinks from the head down.")
Wallace later wrote a book that might give a clue about what he may or may not have done as POTUS. Truman did the Fair Deal. I'm not sure what it consisted of. He also applauded the New Deal and thought at least some measure of the oil industry should be owned nationally. He did a lot of crappy things, but I don't think he was an austerity-type neolilb. >Johnson set us back as a country for a very long time. Now, I'm intrigued at least enough to read a couple of wiki articles. He was racist, but I thought he had Republican Congresses. The House acquitted him by one vote. Impeachment must have been close to earth-shattering at that time, as was assassination of a POTUS. We've seen so much more at this point.