In general I agree that voting can be used to hold candidates accountable for their policies. In this case, I still don’t see how holding the less terrible of the two accountable isn’t tantamount to helping the worse. No one knows why you voted 3rd party, just that you did. If the outcome is that Repubs win, the simplest answer is that most people prefer hard right policies, which is opposite the goals of most 3rd parties (except perhaps libertarianism).

Less terrible of the two is something I think most people would follow unless indoctrinated to think the more viable option is worse. Having constant conversations about holding democrats accountable with nary a peep about how Repubs are worse leans into this viewpoint. At best it’s bad optics. At worst it’s intentional to secure a far right win.

The one valid reason not to vote Dem/Repub this cycle has been to not support genocide, which ultimately supports genocide except the voter can dissociate their vote from the outcome. Other than that, I haven’t seen any other valid arguments to vote 3rd party, particularly when looking at what those candidates would do if they won. Holding the presidency with all of Congress against you means you can’t get anything done, so it’s a waste of 4 years.

The argument of bad faith you’ve made sounds awfully like the beginning of a slippery slope argument.

“Mary hat hey lid tell lam, ids fleas woes white has know”

Oh that’s way down by Terre Haute. Makes slightly more sense but still baffles me that someone can simultaneously be proud of being in a union while supporting the guy that wants to dismantle them.

That’s Indiana for you. NWI is littered with that and some of the people I work with are in a union and parrot Fox News. Wildest shit I’ve ever seen.

If only you could put that same effort into looking at the GOP. This post is disingenuous as fuck.

Whoa you think that reply was someone being mad? Oh boy you’re in for some disappointment as I chuckled, wrote my response and went on with my day.

“And maybe they should do it RIGHT NOW, and maybe I’ll vote then but it’ll still be for not Dems, and maybe they should also stop genocide, and maybe maybe maybe. …”

Did I capture your full wishlist there? Anything else you’d like now without regard for how long it takes?

This Green Party is shilling for Republicans. Sure sounds like serving elite interests to me.

Nope, you’re right. I did it in my head and forgot to multiply by 100. Good catch!

If so then wouldn’t Green Party leaders be included?

Ah yeah I remember that! I remember everyone talking about the 3% threshold where (if I remember correctly) the green party would be included in debates and receive federal campaign funds. Hell, if they couldn’t do it at the height of Nader always I don’t see that happening now, particularly under Stein.

Wait, the Green Party only had 300k members at it’s peak? That’s 0.001% of the American population. Why are all the tankies in here talking about how voting for Stein will make a difference? That’s not even enough to consider her a contender in most states, much less for the whole country.

Edit: should be 0.1%. My bad and thanks for the correction!

Sure, feel free. It’s your vote. Hope you have the same energy to wag your finger at genocide when Republicans kick it into overdrive. Hope your disapproval is strong enough to get you off your couch to do something about it.

So your options are: vote for ultra-genocide, vote for disapproving genocide, or vote for ultra-genocide but you feel good about it. Great options.

World leaders throughout history do that with dictators. Your solution would be to start wars over public insults? Dictators aren’t going to take public insults lightly, particularly those with nuclear capability.

I’d imagine that having no allies in the Middle East isn’t a strategically sound plan. If Israel is going to do their thing anyway and can arm themselves we gain nothing by rebuke. The only way we could enact real change would be to threaten or attack our only ally in the region which is self-defeating and doesn’t solve the problem.

I think the easiest way to prove he didn’t is to prove someone else did. I don’t think he will be able to do that easily, particularly because I think he made those posts.

I think it’s a matter of decorum. In general we shouldn’t attack people’s kids (when they’re minors) for normal occurrences, even if their a public figure.

I was against bashing Barron when he was a minor, and I’m against bashing Gus until he’s of legal age. In general, however, I refrain from bashing people and would encourage the same decorum from others.

Being able to criticize is not open license to do so in my opinion.