Drag legend Lady Bunny endorses Jill Stein

[BUtterfield 8 39,278]

 

I can’t link the tweet bc the the video she quoted is graphic 

[River 97,090]

So they are voting Trump via proxy basically

[NATAH 35,015]

i thought this was gunna say she died!!

[Gohan 15,376]

is this Bad Bunny's alter ego

[Monstermilo 2,968]

unfortunately the result would have been the same with any president. trump has said he would "let israel finish the job" and no im not saying bidens immune to criticism, but with biden we get decent domestic policy and shitty handeling of israel/palestine. with trump say goodbye to abortion rights, gay rights are at risk, goodbye environmental regulations, even harsher immigration policies PLUS we get him supporting israel in their genocide efforts......... it would be nice to vote for jill stein, but a vote for her would help trump since republicans are less selective and will vote for their nominee even if hes not the ideal candidate for some reps. 

our govt sucks, but unfortunately we gotta pick the lesser of two evils - thats the sad reality

i wish we could get a progressive candidate who would do the right thing for the palestinians and also enforced policies that benefit us here but thats not happening for a while. truly wish we had better options. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Monstermilo

[lodylody 1,659]

9 minutes ago, River said:

So they are voting Trump via proxy basically

I think it's really unfair to blame individuals for voting for the candidate that most closely aligns with their values. It is a failure of the state that a system exists in which voting for candidate A increases the chance of a candidate B, with completely opposite views, winning. It is also a failure of the 'lesser of two evils' party for not putting forward a policy agenda that attracts voters.

Coming from the UK, we saw this recently with many centre-right Labour supporters trying to guilt-trip left-wing individuals into voting for Labour, rather than smaller parties like the Greens. It's not an individual's fault that the political party they'd normally support has changed their policy agenda to a place that no longer aligns with said individual, and it's not said individual's responsibility to abandon their beliefs to submit to a largely undemocratic system of election.

[River 97,090]

1 hour ago, lodylody said:

I think it's really unfair to blame individuals for voting for the candidate that most closely aligns with their values. It is a failure of the state that a system exists in which voting for candidate A increases the chance of a candidate B, with completely opposite views, winning. It is also a failure of the 'lesser of two evils' party for not putting forward a policy agenda that attracts voters.

Coming from the UK, we saw this recently with many centre-right Labour supporters trying to guilt-trip left-wing individuals into voting for Labour, rather than smaller parties like the Greens. It's not an individual's fault that the political party they'd normally support has changed their policy agenda to a place that no longer aligns with said individual, and it's not said individual's responsibility to abandon their beliefs to submit to a largely undemocratic system of election.

It’s nice words and all but their vote will be in favor of trump, it’s sucks but this is the system and right now it’s an emergency and the goal should be to prevent trump to win, yes even in cost of our beliefs and opinions.

the situation in gaza will be worst with trump amd they should realize that voting Stein, will cause it, so it’s on their hands too

if someone even dare to think that that the genocide in gaza will not get worst with trump + netayahu, then they are delusional pricks

[StarstruckIllusion 43,540]

Everyone quick! Check on you local BlueAnon supporters online, all 38 of them 

[lodylody 1,659]

1 minute ago, River said:

It’s nice words and all but their vote will be in favor of trump, it’s sucks but this is the system and right now it’s an emergency and the goal should be to prevent trump to win, yes even in cost of our beliefs and opinions.

the situation in gaza will be worst with trump amd they should realize that voting Stein, will cause it, so it’s on their hands too

That's what the Democratic party wants you to think, say, and act upon. Their vote is not in favour of Trump, it is in favour of Jill Stein. It is Biden and the current incarnation of the Democratic party that has lost that person's vote; their fault, and theirs alone.

If the Democratic party were to see that they lost the election due to the increased popularity of a third candidate splitting the centrist-and-left-wing vote share, they might consider putting forward a candidate with a left-wing policy agenda actually worth voting for. It is in their interests for every four years to be an emergency, which calls for the sacrifice of one's beliefs for the tactical 'lesser of two evils' vote. Only when the population rejects that premise, will anything begin to change for the better in America. Just look at aaaaall of Biden's commitments for policies he could've enacted during his first two years in office, but hasn't.

Regarding Gaza, we're already at genocide. Nobody is stopping Israel from doing anything. We have Biden as president, and he's doing nothing. He is supporting and enabling this genocide.

Think about it for a minute. Surely anyone that votes for Biden has a genocide on their hands too? If one were to vote for Trump (god forbid), then they would also have a genocide on their hands? And according to you, if somebody votes for Jill Stein, they are complicit in genocide because they didn't stop Trump from getting into power... despite Biden already supporting and enabling the genocide. It doesn't make sense, unless you want to label literally every single person voting in America complicit in genocide.

I'm all for a conversation about why people shouldn't vote for Trump, and there are myriad reasons, but on the topic of the genocide in Gaza, it seems as though the main two candidates are quite united in supporting it. Protest, campaigning, and direct action seem to be the best ways of supporting Gaza at the moment; neither candidate with a realistic prospect of becoming President is going to do a thing to stop it.

[River 97,090]

9 minutes ago, lodylody said:

That's what the Democratic party wants you to think, say, and act upon. Their vote is not in favour of Trump, it is in favour of Jill Stein. It is Biden and the current incarnation of the Democratic party that has lost that person's vote; their fault, and theirs alone.

If the Democratic party were to see that they lost the election due to the increased popularity of a third candidate splitting the centrist-and-left-wing vote share, they might consider putting forward a candidate with a left-wing policy agenda actually worth voting for. It is in their interests for every four years to be an emergency, which calls for the sacrifice of one's beliefs for the tactical 'lesser of two evils' vote. Only when the population rejects that premise, will anything begin to change for the better in America. Just look at aaaaall of Biden's commitments for policies he could've enacted during his first two years in office, but hasn't.

Regarding Gaza, we're already at genocide. Nobody is stopping Israel from doing anything. We have Biden as president, and he's doing nothing. He is supporting and enabling this genocide.

Think about it for a minute. Surely anyone that votes for Biden has a genocide on their hands too? If one were to vote for Trump (god forbid), then they would also have a genocide on their hands? And according to you, if somebody votes for Jill Stein, they are complicit in genocide because they didn't stop Trump from getting into power... despite Biden already supporting and enabling the genocide. It doesn't make sense, unless you want to label literally every single person voting in America complicit in genocide.

I'm all for a conversation about why people shouldn't vote for Trump, and there are myriad reasons, but on the topic of the genocide in Gaza, it seems as though the main two candidates are quite united in supporting it. Protest, campaigning, and direct action seem to be the best ways of supporting Gaza at the moment; neither candidate with a realistic prospect of becoming President is going to do a thing to stop it.

Americans has blood and genocide on their hands regardless gaza, that can’t be changed or cleaned.

The way to change the dem party should be inside the dems party and not by voting for a party that will barely do any impact.

Strategic voting should overcome the emotional voting and this what many left voters doesn’t like to hear.

Real life and real politics are different than voting a twitter poll, the consequences of voting wrong can be devastating to everything we know right now.

 

[lodylody 1,659]

7 minutes ago, River said:

Americans has blood and genocide on their hands regardless gaza, that can’t be changed or cleaned.

The way to change the dem party should be inside the dems party and not by voting for a party that will barely do any impact.

Strategic voting should overcome the emotional voting and this what many left voters doesn’t like to hear.

Real life and real politics are different than voting a twitter poll, the consequences of voting wrong can be devastating to everything we know right now.

 

I feel like my points have been largely ignored or misrepresented here.

You're trying to create a distinction between strategic voting and emotional voting, as well as insinuating that voting for a third-party candidate is not grounded in real life, and I disagree with this. Both votes are strategic, simply in different ways.

The short-term strategic vote you support is to avoid another Trump term. This is valid, and I do understand and reluctantly accept the reasoning.

I would argue that the alternative is simply a more long-term strategic vote. Vote for the third, left-wing candidate and send a message to the Democratic party that it is not simply entitled to votes by being 'less bad than the other guy'. Push the Overton window back to the left and make the Democratic party support left-wing policies. This is the impact of voting for alternative candidates. You mention the consequences of voting wrong, but where is your consideration for the consequences of upholding the status quo in perpetuity?

In terms of climate change, in terms of Gaza, we need immediate action on a level that neither mainstream candidate will enact. So why vote for either of them? Instead, 'strategically' vote for the candidate that does actually support this immediate action. Show the mainstream parties (here, basically just referring to the Democrats  ) that these policies are popular, and should be part of their policy platform. Then, hopefully, in four years (moreso talking about climate change on this point; Gaza will be rubble in 4 years and we need direct action to try and prevent that), the Democratic party will put forward a candidate with an actual vision for radical, necessary change.

Without profound political change, and with the an unmoved centre-right Democratic party, we will sleepwalk into climate breakdown and a capitalist hellscape. Sadly, it's only at that point that some people will be able to look back and finally understand the dangers of the 'lesser of two evils'.