No, they don’t care who wins because they are privileged and think it won’t affect them. No third party has ever come close to winning in the history of the country. It will not happen. So they are expressing that they’re okay if it gets worse.
Your (and their) arguments may not be in bad faith, but they are in conflict with objective reality.
They either believe Jill Stein will actually win, which is false based on all of US history, including the elections she already participated in.
Or they believe there is literally no difference for, say, women, when 1/3 of SCOTUS are religious extremists appointed by an insurrectionist. Or on climate. Or Ukraine. Or voting rights. Etc. The question “is a president allowed to break the law and do whatever” is somehow still open. Is that not completely insane?
I understand what they claim they are doing with the protest vote. But in actuality, they have looked at the difference and decided that it isn’t much. That can only come from a position of privilege or extreme ignorance.
No, she won’t. And hopefully I voted for viable candidates down the sheet because I’ll have lost that vote.
She’ll be president if enough voters to overwhelm the EC’s red shift vote for her. Which will not happen with FPTP. There are 46 examples of this not happening over a couple hundred of years. Including her, specifically, in 2012 and 2016.
Removed by mod
Jill Stein wants no war. your accusation is pure bad faith.
Jill Stein is not going to be president. Your assertion is in bad faith or ignorance.
you literally accused people who said they want Jill Stein to win of lying and actually wanting another candidate to win. that’s bad faith.
Removed by mod
no, they are saying they don’t want any of that and voting against Republicans and Democrats at the same time.
No, they don’t care who wins because they are privileged and think it won’t affect them. No third party has ever come close to winning in the history of the country. It will not happen. So they are expressing that they’re okay if it gets worse.
another bad faith statement. you need to ask them what they want, and believe their answer, or dialogue cannot progress.
Your (and their) arguments may not be in bad faith, but they are in conflict with objective reality.
They either believe Jill Stein will actually win, which is false based on all of US history, including the elections she already participated in.
Or they believe there is literally no difference for, say, women, when 1/3 of SCOTUS are religious extremists appointed by an insurrectionist. Or on climate. Or Ukraine. Or voting rights. Etc. The question “is a president allowed to break the law and do whatever” is somehow still open. Is that not completely insane?
I understand what they claim they are doing with the protest vote. But in actuality, they have looked at the difference and decided that it isn’t much. That can only come from a position of privilege or extreme ignorance.
She’ll be President if you vote for her
No, she won’t. And hopefully I voted for viable candidates down the sheet because I’ll have lost that vote.
She’ll be president if enough voters to overwhelm the EC’s red shift vote for her. Which will not happen with FPTP. There are 46 examples of this not happening over a couple hundred of years. Including her, specifically, in 2012 and 2016.