@CoachMark @freemo @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews The same Stein that's in Putin's pocket?

@Burnt_Veggies

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.

@CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews

@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???

@gfjacobs

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

@freemo @gfjacobs

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

@joeinwynnewood

> 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

@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

@joeinwynnewood

> 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