@CoachMark @freemo @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews The same Stein that's in Putin's pocket?
🇳🇱
Thats why I said Chase Oliver is my first choice.. Stein would be a compromise at best... basically anything is better then Harris vs Trump.
@freemo @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
The "compromise" would choose the middle ground between democracy or fascism.
Erm, what would that be? Who would that be? How would they even get there???
Right, which is what I am doing. Harris and Trump represent fascism, and while Chase Oliver isnt perfect he is a good compromise between freedom and fascism.
@Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
Please explain to me two things.
First, how is voting for a fringe candidate who cannot win anything or accomplish anything any kind of compromise, let alone a good one?
Second, explain to me exactly how Kamala Harris represents fascism.
@Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
> First, how is voting for a fringe candidate who cannot win anything or accomplish anything any kind of compromise, let alone a good one?
Cause who wins or looses will in no way be effected by your vote. So your vote has no more value if you happened to pick the guy who won or the guy who lost, that outcome is the same regardless.
So since voting for the guy who happens to win accomplished absolutely nothing as well the question is how is voting for a third party candidate, presuming he looses, accomplishing something. Simple, your nudging the percentage points for third parties higher, and the percentage for primary parties lower. This in turn effects botht he calculated (projected) chance of a third party being a challenger int he future, and drives greater support to third parties (as they are harder to write off the higher their percentage points go).
So in short, while voting for a majority candidate absolutely does no good, even if it wins, voting third party **always** does good regardless of if they win.
> Second, explain to me exactly how Kamala Harris represents fascism.
In much the same way the republicans do. With violent exclusionary opposition to even mild criticism of their party. and the fantacism that goes along with that. Combine that with her general support of police and an unwillingness to fix (or even recognize in any meaningful way) the deep rooted issue with police in this country, and combine that with the genocide she supports in palestine the fascism meter is cranked all the way to 11.
@gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
> This is a flat out lie. Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states effectively decided the election.
You told me it was a lie, and then provided evidence of why I was correct. You're doing it wrong :)
So assuming you were part of that 107,000 that means if you voted one way the same person would have won with a 107,000 margin, if you voted the other way they would have won with a 106,999 margin. The outcome would have been exactly the same no matter how you voted if you were part of that 107K group. No matter how small the group is, as long as it is greater than 1 you changing your vote will not effect the vote of anyone else int he group, therefore the outcome is unchanged by your vote.
> It was less than 1/2 that in 2020.
You would have to find a case where it was 1/107000 that number to show even a single counter-example to my claim, so again, still proving me right.
> The same is true for dozens of Congressional races, hundreds of state office races and many thousands of local races across the country.
We are talking presidential election here. But sure, ill bite, even if we included congressional races you'd still have to show such a race coming down to a single vote, which you cant. Even if you could the odds of being that one person who decides a vote the one time in all of history it is likely to happen on a major election is still so astronomically high it is effectively 0 even if it did happen once somewhere.
@gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
Last I checked we add up all the votes for each race.
If you bothered to read the article you would know the 107k was across not one but three states, and they were not distributed evenly.
You also ignore state and local races. I can find you several PA House races that were decided by under 60 votes in 2022.
The margin of Democratic control is two seats.
Every vote really does matter.
@Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
> Last I checked we add up all the votes for each race.
>
> If you bothered to read the article you would know the 107k was across not one but three states, and they were not distributed evenly.
Thanks for the rude condescension.
So remind me In which of those states/countries would a single flip of a vote have changed the outcome? Oh right, none. Thus out of those 107K people not if you were any one of those people changing your vote would have not changed the outcome, full stop.
> You also ignore state and local races. I can find you several PA House races that were decided by under 60 votes in 2022.
Again as I said, it doesnt matter if it was decided by 2 votes, that still isnt even a **single** counter example. Because even if it comes down to 2 votes that are the deciding vote, even then my vote wont change the outcome, but voting third party **will** have a positive income.
> The margin of Democratic control is two seats.
All well and good but until there is a statistically significant chance of my vote being the determining vote, then my choice in a vote has absolutely no impact on the outcome. So your argument has failed every attempt to argue to the contrary,.
@gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
@joeinwynnewood Don't engage with the trolls. It fuels them. Spend your energy sharing your perspective with people who have a chance of changing their mind.
They are making an intentional decision to share their anti-establishment opinion on the Harris group. They want people to see the posts. Continuing to engage keeps the thread active and continues to give the person a platform.
Not responding robs them of fuel.
"In much the same way the republicans do. With violent exclusionary opposition to even mild criticism of their party."
Also a flat out lie.
There is a cacophony of voices within the Democratic Party who argue incessantly over all manner of policy and governance, from Cori Bush to Joe Manchin.
If your goal is to harm the party, you're not going to get much of a welcome, nor should you expect otherwise.
@Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
Thats the kind of bias I expect. I didnt really expect you to get past this point, its soo subjective to have a chance.
If thats really how you feel im not even going to touch that one. It comes across as just too far gone to be able to reason with in terms of bias.
@gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
What a load of crap.
I said nothing of how I "feel".
Is Cori Bush not part of the Democratic caucus in the US House and Joe Manchin in the US Senate?
Facts certainly can be hard to argue against.
Past my bed time. I'll see if you come up with anything worth responding to in the morning.
@Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
As I said, I have no interest in debating this assertion of yours. Take a hint.
You did a great job at proving one thing though, the toxicity of the democratic party to criticism is very much alive and well I see.
@gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
@freemo @gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies
My assertion? My statement of facts that you don't want to debate because there's no debating facts.
There's nothing toxic about calling out lies and bullshit. What's toxic is letting lies and bullshit stand unchallenged.
Whatever the reason, for the third time, not interested in debating it.
@gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
Must be tough to not be able to defend your bluster.
@Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
@joeinwynnewood @freemo @gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
I want Kamala Harris to be the Republican candidate, so I can vote for the Democratic Socialist on the left with broad support and a realistic plan to decarbonize the economy in their first 100 days. I also want ranked-choice voting, a cure for baldness and pet pony. But I don't live in that world. So I'll vote for Harris and the Democratic coalition, because it's my best nudge that direction.
I applaud your realism.
May I ask what you've done/are doing to move things in a direction where a Democratic Socialist could be someone with broad support?
PS How close do you think Tim Walz is to that "ideal"?
@freemo @gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
> May I ask what you've done/are doing to move things in a direction where a Democratic Socialist could be someone with broad support?
You can ask. But after quite a few messages of you violating very clear boundaries I set it has soured me on wanting to have any conversation with you as it gives a clear indication it will be quite toxic and unrewarding for everyone involved.
If you'd like to apologize for your behavior, such as insults and personal attacks, and I feel that apology is sincere I'd be more than happy to make another attempt at engaging with you. But right now, you've convinced me there is no value in interacting with you.
@HalfHeartedFanatic @gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
Um, uh, I didn't ask you I asked @marcelias
Interesting that you felt it necessary to respond and that you think you're the one due an apology.
Why don't you just block me?
Seems like you need to continue to engage despite "not being interested in debating".
@HalfHeartedFanatic @gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
> Interesting that you felt it necessary to respond and that you think you're the one due an apology.
My mistake, I thought you were addressing me. Carry on then.
> Why don't you just block me?
Why would I do that?
> Seems like you need to continue to engage despite "not being interested in debating".
I never said you cant talk to me or engage in any capacity. I expressed a disinterest in talking about certain topics, no more, no less.
@marcelias @HalfHeartedFanatic @gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
In fact, you've done more to QED my original point of how the left is extremely toxic to criticism that blocking you would be counter productive. You're continued responses arer doing more to prove the very thing your arguing against than any response from me could have ever hoped to do.... why int he world would I block that, its gold!
@marcelias @HalfHeartedFanatic @gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
Joe, may I ask you, if you want to continue engaging this person, that you please edit your list of addresses so that the kamalaharrisforpresident group is not included? Thank you very much!
Yeah, I saw it was still in there and deleted from more recent entries as well as prior ones via edit, though I guess too late.
Thanks for the heads up.
Not as tough as you having a tantrum over someone not being willing to discuss something with you. Grow up.
@gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
I've been wondering why you've got so many followers. It must be for the performance, mediocre as it is, because it certainly isn't for the substance.
@gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
@joeinwynnewood LOL well it helps when you respect peoples boundaries and if someone says they dont want to engage, you dont.
Just having basic level of respect for peoples boundaries goes a long way when it comes to popularity. As you said, its certainly not my "performance" because I dont do much of that.
@gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
Because it's respectful to completely mischaracterize what I've written and then refuse to explain or defend?
@joeinwynnewood yes, to express an opinion that you think is wrong and a mischaracterization, and refusing to debate it further is absolutely respectful. Even if i happen to be wrong about my opinion there is nothing disrespectful about refusing to engage with someone who has behaved toxicly and given every indication it would be a waste of my time.
"an unwillingness to fix (or even recognize in any meaningful way) the deep rooted issue with police in this country"
Lie number 3.
“Part of what we have to do here is also look at the militarization of police departments and, and the kind of money that is going to that. And we need to demilitarize police departments”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html
PS You can't do anything at all if you can't get elected.
@Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
Right, as I said I didnt really expect a fair or objective (unbiased) opinion on this half of the question. Like I said your opinion on this half isnt particular interest for me to debate as I dont expect it to get anywhere productive if you are that far gone (biased).
@gfjacobs @Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
@joeinwynnewood
I'm begging you, stop giving fuel to the trolls. I understand that someone is wrong and has a bad opinion on the internet, and it feels like the end of the world if you don't show them how wrong they are.
Engaging doesn't prove them wrong, it gives them an audience and a platform for their bad ideas.
I really hoped more people would learn this from 2016
@kamalaharrisforpresidentnews
@freemo this kind of "my vote doesn't matter" logic is a fallacy. It's not the diff votes that made a candidate win, it's also all the other votes that brought them high enough to be those diff votes. Your vote can be considered the first vote, the exact first tie-break vote, the last no longer important vote, it doesn't matter, they aren't in order, what matters is that it was one of the votes that made a candidate win or the ones that made a candidate lose less.
"My vote doesn't matter" defeatism is how elections are lost.
@freemo @gfjacobs
"Cause who wins or looses will in no way be effected by your vote."
This is a flat out lie. Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states effectively decided the election.
It was less than 1/2 that in 2020.
The same is true for dozens of Congressional races, hundreds of state office races and many thousands of local races across the country.
@Burnt_Veggies @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews