Really you don’t need to read more than one chart:

If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you’re voting for Trump:

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      A similar article will be posted every time Monk posts one supporting a 3rd party spoiler from now on.

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        so you’re gonna have to find like 20 articles a day… also don’t forget to copy paste a 6 paragraph defense of “I swear I’m not Russian I just post the articles” in the comments of every post

      • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        Genuine question: why has he not been banned? To me he seems to repeatedly violate the rule about arguing in good faith, and - to be honest - his passive aggressive civility feels at times more hostile than straight up attacks.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          We’ve talked about it amongst ourselves with the mods and admins and have concluded that having a shitty opinion is not infringing.

          They do post legitimate sources with legitimate opinions. They’re BAD opinions, but you aren’t going to get banned for having a bad opinion.

          • Coelacanth@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 days ago

            I don’t much have an issue with the material they chose to post - the nature of a link aggregator will sort them to the bottom regardless due how how voting works and as you say, they’re legitimate sources.

            My issue is more regarding their conduct in the comment sections.

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                7 days ago

                It looks that way but is not. It’s purposefully shaped to be divisive.

              • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                7 days ago

                Have ya ever heard of Southern politeness? Cause ya can technically be cordial while being a complete shitbag, a good example being “bless your heart” more or less meaning go die in a hole.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 days ago

            It’s not the opinion, it’s the JAQ energy and baiting.

            If they just posted articles, that’s one thing.

            They legitimately try to bait people into being heated about things. Afterwhich, they cry victim

            • Breezy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              Yeah but is it against the rules to be an asshole or a crybaby ? I tend to say stupid shit when drinking and have gotten a ban and a few comments and posts deleted, but it would be a shame for something minor to get me a bigger ban or what not.

              • GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                I’m not going to directly link the user because that’s bad behavior but they have a very clear routine they follow on every post. Having an opinion is fine, acting like you are following a script is eventually really lame. Especially when the end of the script usually is calling people out for victimizing them

                This user often posts about Jill Stein, and is exclusively critical of democrats.

      • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        7 days ago

        Spoiler implies we would vote for a Democrat if there were no 3rd party options. We would not. There’s a larger chance you would vote for a republican than us voting Democrat

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          For you, personally, that may be true. Statistically speaking, in general, it’s very much the opposite:

          https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-data-how-third-parties-could-be-spoilers-that-elect-trump

          “Similarly, Third Way’s polling has found that Biden’s voters are 13 percentage points more likely to consider voting for a third party than Trump’s voters. While Biden has a higher ceiling, with his possible vote totals well north of 50%, Trump has a stronger floor: his voters are more loyal, so third parties are less likely to draw them away.”

          If you lean left, and you fail to vote for the Democratic candidate, you only help the Republican candidate.

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            I don’t think it’s all that weird to recognize that neither party is what you want or will advance your political goals.

            • Convict45@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              It’s pretty weird to insist on a course of action that won’t result in something you want. If you think both parties are the same, you’re wildly misinformed.

                • Convict45@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  If they aren’t the same in their view, they they would be sensible to care about which wins. They have a stake in a less harmful result.

                  But literally throwing away their vote on a third party, they are inflicting harm on themselves, the electorate, and the world.

                  • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    6 days ago

                    Who are you talking about?

                    Third party votes get counted and have an effect. The whole idea of throwing one’s vote away is so nonsensical that it was lampooned in a simpsons bit.

                    If third party voters are inflicting harm on all the groups you mentioned, does that mean they’re responsible for the harm caused by one or the other party? Would you extend that to people who actively voted for those two parties? To the people enacting those parties policies? Deciding them?

                    Just how responsible for Bidens genocide in Gaza would you say a person who voted third party or trump in 2020 can be held?

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        7 days ago

        Oh God I didn’t even realize how badly proportioned the pie charts were. They didn’t even generate new ones they just copy pasted an image and changed the percentage number. Aghhhhhhhh I hate this I hate this I hate this

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          And now you will see it everywhere and it will annoy you ever more.

          Also I at first though that your profile pick was that of Darth Vitiate since it fits your user name. But its actually soldier with twin tails and I hate it.

    • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      I’m frothing at the mouth because it’s distorted, making an easy comparison by visuals impossible. The numbers don’t match the size of the pies

      • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Someone fucked these up badly and there’s no way to tell from this how.

        Are the numbers swapped between candidates but the sizes correct? Are the sizes swapped between candidates and the numbers correct?

        As an aside, this is why serious data people don’t use pie charts. They’re terrible for lots of reasons, one being it’s very hard to compare areas instead of lengths, like a bar chart, as demonstrated by how many people didn’t notice these were so bad at first.

        If you see data presented in a pie chart you should immediately be suspicious that it’s dishonest or incompetent.

        None of that is to take away that voting for third parties this election is a terrible move - just saying this chart is useless.

    • Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      Not really. The point has always been that the dems need pressure to change their genocidal policies. If you vote blue unconditionally then it won’t take long until the next blue candidate will be on the same level as trump. Show these graphs to the democratic party and tell them to listen to 3rd party voters.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      42
      ·
      7 days ago

      The argument is always that “A vote for Not X is a vote for Y”, forgetting how many third party voters would simply skip the ballot line or refuse to vote at all if these options weren’t available.

      Calling Jill Stein and Chase Oliver “fascist enablers” for appearing on the ballot misses the entire reason they have a vote base at all.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          7 days ago

          She’s definitely past her expiration date.

          I guess you can always write in Claudia de la Cruz with the PSL party.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        The entire reason they have a vote base at all is not dissimilar to Trump: civic illiteracy. Unfortunately she appeals greatly to these newcomers to politics or those who care not about watching the other side literally take a sledgehammer to the country but rather point to the other side for not fixing the damage quickly enough. There was a brief moment in time when I was a new voter and at a very shallow level liked the Green Party platform and Stein…

        … But it didn’t take long for me to realize that was utterly self-defeatist. And if Stein actually cared about the issues she pretends to care about, then she would simply run for Congress as AOC or Sanders have done and influence change in the Democratic party. Changing the party from the inside is far easier than going against the mathematically-impossible 3rd-party vote that ultimately results in a proven Spoiler Vote. So you’re right… Some naive folks do support Stein; and those naive folks absolutely have more in common with the Democratic coalition than the Republican ones. So why would they ever want to support Republicans via Spoiler vote?

        Anyways, we should all be advocating for Campaign Finance & Election Reform so we can truly vote for who we most ideally want without risk to supporting the person or party furthest from our views.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          7 days ago

          Anyways, we should all be advocating for Campaign Finance & Election Reform

          You’re not going to get that with an incumbent party. How do you abolish FPTP inside an organization that won’t give DC it’s statehood?

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-democrats-demand-statehood-for-dc-defend-district-s-right-to-home-rule

            An Incumbent party already supports DC statehood and it would benefit their party greatly no less. It is completely possible to transform a party (e.g., how Democrats used to be what Republicans are now) and also push another party out (e.g., the Whigs) from within. We do that one Representative at a time, such as how Bernie Sanders and AOC have transformed the Democrat party.

            I’ve written extensively elsewhere on the topic of abolishing & replacing FPTP and more, and ultimately, I believe it’s going to require a groundswell bipartisan effort state-by-state on a scale as big as the civil rights movement to pressure for a new Constitutional Amendment, along with an accompanying state-level Constitutional amendment in each state. To me it’s the only way to truly fix all the core problems while also making it immune to the corrupt Supreme Court.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              7 days ago

              An Incumbent party already supports DC statehood

              They failed to pass a statehood bill in 2009 and again in 2017. That would suggest the party does not, in fact, support the change.

              • lennybird@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 days ago

                In both cases the outcome was overwhelmingly a result of Republican obstructionism with the vast majority who voted to support DC Statehood being Democrat. There is no reason Democrats wouldn’t want another state that would be the bluest in the country to statehood lol. Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority for like, two months, and if you recall that kind of had other things going on at the time in 2009—including but not limited to health care reform and recession recovery.

                In 2017… You know who was President and who controlled the Senate, right…?

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  In both cases the outcome was overwhelmingly a result of Republican obstructionism

                  Democrats claiming they need 60 votes to do anything are as big a pack of liars as Republicans claiming Unitary Executive is a thing.

                  These are institutions that are hostile to a majority black state.

                  • lennybird@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 days ago

                    They did and they do. Especially for partisan policies.

                    Show me the Republican Senators in 2017 willing to support DC statehood that would get it across the finish line.

                    These are institutions that are hostile to a majority black state.

                    Major Citation need for an extraordinary claim. Where is your proof Democrats of today whose presidential nominee is black is trying to stop this? Lmao?

                    How is DC statehood bad for Dems? Lol.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        If you were sincerely never going to vote for either I honestly don’t care. Throw your ballot in the garbage physically or technically, I do not give a shit.

        But MAGA propagandists are also on here campaigning for Donald every day by trying to turn voters against the only reasonable viable candidate.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          7 days ago

          If your primary strategy for winning elections is diverting people into third parties, your election prospects are bleak.

          A big part of Trump’s problem is that he’s glued to his base. He can’t say anything appealing to a general audience without pissing off the anti-government haters at his flank.

          I don’t see anyone on this site trying to argue for Trump. They’re all closeted in other communities, where any criticism of the GOP is forbidden.

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            Their primary strategy is using propaganda on fear-addicted racists to bring their voters to the polls, along with gerrymandering to maximize the effects of vote suppression strategies.

            Vote suppression strategies includes not only closing polls and other bullshit, but also MAGA propagandists cosplaying as third party voters and attempting to deter votes that would otherwise go Dem.

      • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        When your strategy clearly cannot lead to your stated goal given the circumstances, you are either not smart enough to recognize that, or you are lying about your goal.

        That doesn’t change even if someone agrees with your stated goal. Ignoring the circumstances doesn’t make them go away.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          7 days ago

          If people can tolerate Trump being on the Epstein flight logs and Harris taking enormous sums from the Crypto-Bros, I don’t think Stein’s dinner with the Russians is going to phase them.

          But I guess you can always default to the Libertarians. Can’t think of anything problematic about a bunch of Americans that idolize Milei.

          • EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            7 days ago

            And the enormous sums she taken from AIPAC, and refusing to prosecute one of the architects of the 2008 housing crisis, opposing body cams on cops, locking up parents of truant children, etc. etc.

              • EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                7 days ago

                Facts are not propaganda, you may believe that everything you disagree with is propaganda. She has a well-documented history of an being authoritarian right-wing cop

                • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 days ago

                  also I believe that was sarcasm and they were agreeing with you.

                  edit: unless they weren’t. I honestly don’t know anymore lmao. cause they’re right about propaganda but that doesn’t mean it’s cool to just disregard facts that make you feel less good about doing something. One should take in the whole picture.

                  • EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 days ago

                    I don’t bother trying to decipher sarcasm anymore when a majority of the bullshit isn’t sarcasm.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  Facts are not propaganda

                  Ben Shapiro ass response.

                  Selective release of and focus on information is a classic propaganda technique.

                  • EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    6 days ago

                    It is selective because those are pretty significant issues to be selective about. When she is in a position of authority like she was in California, she is very right-wing. She’s very Draconian she’s very authoritarian.