Harris: If someone breaks into my house they’re getting shot

[Jill 31,812]

On 9/20/2024 at 8:53 PM, Forlorn said:

Far left politicians aren't electable nationally. A candidate like Bernie Sanders can't even survive a Democratic primary. A presidential candidate has to be centrist and in American terms that means being politically center-left but socially center-right.

Also, it's never been the position of the Democratic party to ban guns. Regulations, safety laws and waiting times have always been the goal.

The ban Bill Clinton was able to get passed is the farthest we'd ever go again.

Most Americans support gun safety laws but most Americans are also gun owners. Including me! I have a peace keeper locked in a safe in my closet!

It is sad how Americans rationalize never having the possibility to access the most basic imaginable rights, such as public healthcare or quality education for all. These rights are not unimaginable. They already exist in the vast majority of countries. However, for some reason, the self-proclaimed richest country in the history of humanity cannot even offer the basics to its citizens.

A poll shows that around 60% of Americans would support a third party because "the Republican and Democratic parties do 'such a poor job' of representing the American people that 'a third major party is needed'", but the Republicans and Democrats are determined to prevent any other party or ideology from gaining power, partly by saying they're "unelectable". Meanwhile, people remain on the streets, poverty is increasing, and the war budget rises each day, funding countries and causes that only benefit the elites, not the poorest citizens.

In the meantime, many citizens believe that the U.S. political system is unique and democratic, and that there is no other option but to "vote for the lesser evil" and hope that good things will be granted by politicians as if they were gods on earth.

No. It’s not like that. History shows us otherwise. No change happens without great demands and struggles. Voting for Harris is neither a demand nor a struggle for anything.

[Jill 31,812]

14 minutes ago, faysalaaa said:

Me saying shes moving towards the left doesnt mean I think shes a leftist. She is a corporate establishment Democrat. But shes more left leaning compared to all Democratic presidents, and Walz being a leftist as VP is a bug deal.

There is no indication that Harris is moving to the "left". What I see in Harris is a campaign platform designed, at best, to attract a broad audience without saying anything specific (could we consider it democratic to vote for someone knowing very little about what they truly believe?). At worst, it is a platform designed to attract Republicans, which would challenge the idea that Harris is moving to the "left".

If this is a strategy, there’s no reason to think that a future government wouldn’t follow the same political lines. So far, we can't consider this a strategy, but rather signs of an electoral platform that has shifted even further to the right. This was already seen in Biden and is even more apparent in Harris, given the growing contradictions within the U.S. political system.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for the Democrats to compete against the raw fascism of Trump, so they are looking to either join him or co-opt his rhetoric in some way. That never ends well, especially considering that one of the electoral ideas floating around is to vote for the "normal candidate", aka Harris. This implicitly assumes that the foundations of both candidates are the same, and that the only thing that varies is the form.

[Bronco 24,851]

4 minutes ago, Jill said:

A poll shows that around 60% of Americans would support a third party because "the Republican and Democratic parties do 'such a poor job' of representing the American people that 'a third major party is needed'", but the Republicans and Democrats are determined to prevent any other party from gaining power. Meanwhile, people remain on the streets, poverty is increasing, and the war budget rises each day, funding countries and causes that only benefit the elites, not the poorest citizens.

 

A poll may show that but the only polls that matter are election day ones - there's not been a third party candidate achieve a legitimate electoral college vote earning win in a Presidential election since George Wallace carried the bible belt in 1968. 

In 2020, the Greens got 400,000 votes nationally. The Libertarians got 1.8mil equating to 1.2% of the national vote. The Greens didn't even get enough signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states. 
In 2016 Jill Stein got 1% of the vote, the Libertarians got 3.3% of the vote. 
The highwater mark for a 3rd party ticket was Ross Perot with 18% in 1992 (ignoring the 1912 Bull Moose ticket of Teddy Roosevelt). The last independent to win the White House was George Washington. 

Nationally the Libertarians have 1 seat at Federal or State level legislative bodies in the US. The Greens have 0. 
A few independents like Sanders get in by pretending to not be Democrats while running as Democrats. 
Jesse Ventura managed to get in on personal fame rather than a broad 3rd party appetite in MN. 

The last successful Third party was the Socialist Party in 1912 who achieved wins at local elections in 33 states. 

There is no denying there are barriers like high signature threshholds, high donation threshholds and litigative parties - but given the strength we've seen in multiple cycles now since Obama of small donor donations you have to ask if 60% truly want a third party why aren't they donating to a third party. 

No third party ticket has achieved over 20% of the vote since 1912. No third party ticket has achieved over 5% since Ross Perot in 1996.
In 2004, 2008, 2012 no third party got over 1% on their own and the combined third party share in those 3 elections was less than 2% each time. 
2016 saw a 5.7% combined vote 3rd party. 
2020 crashed it back down to sub 2% again. 

The state election machinery was against Perot & Bull-Moose, both achieved great results in spite of this because of public support. Both achieved this in an age where connecting to voters was considerably harder. 

All these polls about theoretical support are nonsense polls. All it tells us is 60% of voters are dissatisfied with politics in the US. It tells us nothing about their motivation to support an alternative. And the evidence about how moviated people are for an alternative is clear its less than 10% of voters. 
 

[Jill 31,812]

12 minutes ago, Bronco said:

A poll may show that but the only polls that matter are election day ones - there's not been a third party candidate achieve a legitimate electoral college vote earning win in a Presidential election since George Wallace carried the bible belt in 1968. 

Of course. The only polls that matter are those that serve the Republicans and Democrats. The prevailing subjectivity in the U.S. is that of the two-party system, supported by all the media and major corporations in the country. The narrative "trickles down" and settles in the population, which builds its subjective view of politics based on the notion, both consciously and unconsciously, that only two parties can win.

The narrative, of course, does not spread uniformly, and there are many exceptions. But broadly speaking, it is a subjective notion installed as something objective and pragmatic: that the U.S. can only function with two parties. That’s why I find it ironic when Americans criticize China, calling it authoritarian simply because it has a one-party system (and, as always, it's more complex than what is generally understood) while Americans alternate between just two parties with more or less similar policies that continue the status quo indefinitely.

This is well summarized in a famous quote by Julius Nyerere, former president of Tanzania: "The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them". Defending the existence of true democracy in a system like the American one seems to me to reflect a poor understanding of democracy and its potential to create good, egalitarian, and sustainable alternatives for the development of the people.

All of this without even mentioning that third parties in the U.S. are often the target of legal campaigns and smear efforts aimed precisely at reducing their votes and influence. This is no coincidence, and the fact these developments are not widely covered is also no coincidence. This is not only seen in the well-known media narrative of "you're helping the Republicans if you vote for a third party", but also in documented cases of electoral interference. In other words, the problem is much more complex than election day polls.

[RudraCNG 15,506]

But when Palestine does, they are the bad guys.

[Petie Estie 5,704]

17 minutes ago, Jill said:

Of course. The only polls that matter are those that serve the Republicans and Democrats. The prevailing subjectivity in the U.S. is that of the two-party system, supported by all the media and major corporations in the country. The narrative "trickles down" and settles in the population, which builds its subjective view of politics based on the notion, both consciously and unconsciously, that only two parties can win.

The narrative, of course, does not spread uniformly, and there are many exceptions. But broadly speaking, it is a subjective notion installed as something objective and pragmatic: that the U.S. can only function with two parties. That’s why I find it ironic when Americans criticize China, calling it authoritarian simply because it has a one-party system (and, as always, it's more complex than what is generally understood) while Americans alternate between just two parties with more or less similar policies that continue the status quo indefinitely.

This is well summarized in a famous quote by Julius Nyerere, former president of Tanzania: "The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them". Defending the existence of true democracy in a system like the American one seems to me to reflect a poor understanding of democracy and its potential to create good, egalitarian, and sustainable alternatives for the development of the people.

All of this without even mentioning that third parties in the U.S. are often the target of legal campaigns and smear efforts aimed precisely at reducing their votes and influence. This is no coincidence, and the fact these developments are not widely covered is also no coincidence. This is not only seen in the well-known media narrative of "you're helping the Republicans if you vote for a third party", but also in documented cases of electoral interference. In other words, the problem is much more complex than election day polls.

it's just how democracy ends up naturally when you have first-past-the-post elections. It's not that deep. We won't have more parties until we have ranked choice voting. 

[Jill 31,812]

2 minutes ago, SEANGT said:

it's just how democracy ends up naturally when you have first-past-the-post elections. It's not that deep. We won't have more parties until we have ranked choice voting. 

If it was natural, then none of what I mentioned would be necessary. It wouldn't be necessary to maintain the two-party narrative, nor would there be a need for questionable legal maneuvers to remove third parties from various state-level elections.

[Bronco 24,851]

4 minutes ago, Jill said:

In other words, the problem is much more complex than election day polls.

But it's not. 

Because election day polls show us one thing - the attitude of the engaged. 
Small donors like you or I have pumped millions into this race for Trump & Kamala. If 60% of the US population is opposed to both parties, the donation numbers would not exist. If 60% opposed both parties, then the voter turnout in 2020 would not have 6 states with over 75% turnout. 19 states wouldn't have had 70%+ turnout.

Only 5 states had below 60% turnout and no state had below 55% turnout. 4 of those states with the lowest turnout are Republican stronghold states, the other was Hawaii. 

If voter opposition was so great towards the 2 party state, they wouldn't mobilize in the millions that they do for both parties. They wouldn't donate the millions that they do for both parties. 

Having worked on election campaigns for both a major and a third party in a country with consistently lower turnouts than the US, I can tell you that when voters oppose the major 2 parties they don't turn out to vote. 

You are absolutely right that third parties do struggle to grow without getting onto the debates, downticket ballots etc. But the only way to achieve that is to mobilise and organise. And every third party outside of the US says the same thing about US third parties - they don't know their arse from their elbow lol 
I know so many Americans who preach the gospel of the Green party ticket every 4 years and then say nothing and do nothing in between. Then complain when the third party does terribly. 

The turnout tells us exactly what we need to know about how strong voter apathy or antagonism is towards the Dems & the GOP. Nowhere near the levels it needs to be for a third party success. 
And the organisational ability of third parties in the US is hamstrung by the fact that their membership is dominated by political hobbyists with single issue puritanistic mindsets which is why they totally fail at organising at state level, regional level & local level. 

Look at the Greens & Lib Dems in the UK, they spent decades pounding the pavement in local elections to build footholds that first got them singular or small groups of councillors followed by complete majorities in local government and then they started to see those areas return MPs. 

Meanwhile third parties in the US turn up once every 4 years and go "hi do you remember me?"

[Petie Estie 5,704]

Just now, Jill said:

If it was natural, then none of what I mentioned would be necessary. It wouldn't be necessary to maintain the two-party narrative, nor would there be a need for questionable legal maneuvers to remove third parties from various state-level elections.

All of those things naturally follow because of the way we vote. That's what I'm saying. You're simply never going to convince a large group of people to vote third party until the system is changed to one that actually supports it. 

(title is clickbait kinda just watch it it's good)

 

[phantasmas 12,365]

funny how she understands the concept of 'stand ur ground' here but when other countries try to defend themselves from genocide...

[faysalaaa 5,336]

1 hour ago, Jill said:

There is no indication that Harris is moving to the "left". What I see in Harris is a campaign platform designed, at best, to attract a broad audience without saying anything specific (could we consider it democratic to vote for someone knowing very little about what they truly believe?). At worst, it is a platform designed to attract Republicans, which would challenge the idea that Harris is moving to the "left".

If this is a strategy, there’s no reason to think that a future government wouldn’t follow the same political lines. So far, we can't consider this a strategy, but rather signs of an electoral platform that has shifted even further to the right. This was already seen in Biden and is even more apparent in Harris, given the growing contradictions within the U.S. political system.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for the Democrats to compete against the raw fascism of Trump, so they are looking to either join him or co-opt his rhetoric in some way. That never ends well, especially considering that one of the electoral ideas floating around is to vote for the "normal candidate", aka Harris. This implicitly assumes that the foundations of both candidates are the same, and that the only thing that varies is the form.

Biden, Harris, and Walz are all to the left of all past Democratic presidents and VP's, so obviously they are not moving to the right. The only thing they are changing is the old failed messaging of the Democrats that turned off alot of voters. They are not doing it by leaning more right wing, they are still fighting for the same old Democratic values, but with new different messaging. Why? To make Democratic ideas more accepted to right wing and centrist voters.

Also, being a Leftist doesnt exempt you from supporting genocides. Alot of leftists are racist and support and make excuses for genocides in other countries. Im a Muslim Arab thats Anti Israel, but alot of Leftists are anti semitic and make excuses for terrorism. Ive even been called a Zionist by members here lol

[Foxyy 345]

4 hours ago, Jill said:

It is sad how Americans rationalize never having the possibility to access the most basic imaginable rights, such as public healthcare or quality education for all. These rights are not unimaginable. They already exist in the vast majority of countries. However, for some reason, the self-proclaimed richest country in the history of humanity cannot even offer the basics to its citizens.

A poll shows that around 60% of Americans would support a third party because "the Republican and Democratic parties do 'such a poor job' of representing the American people that 'a third major party is needed'", but the Republicans and Democrats are determined to prevent any other party or ideology from gaining power, partly by saying they're "unelectable". Meanwhile, people remain on the streets, poverty is increasing, and the war budget rises each day, funding countries and causes that only benefit the elites, not the poorest citizens.

In the meantime, many citizens believe that the U.S. political system is unique and democratic, and that there is no other option but to "vote for the lesser evil" and hope that good things will be granted by politicians as if they were gods on earth.

No. It’s not like that. History shows us otherwise. No change happens without great demands and struggles. Voting for Harris is neither a demand nor a struggle for anything.

That's what the polls say but it's funny how it never happens.

Polls also say Joe Biden is horribly unfavorable despite how good of a job he's done. To borrow a phrase from the right wing loonies "facts don't care about your feelings". Americans FEEL like both parties are "two sides of the same coin" but they're objectively wrong.

The Democrats have only gotten better and better at representing the working class. It's not the party's fault that Americans' perception has been warped by alt-right misinformation and online echo chambers.

Kamala Harris is not "the lesser of two evils" because she's not evil. You may disagree with her, and that's your right, but to call her "evil" is just laughable. Only an idiot would lump her and Trump together as being the villains.

She's the best representation of America we've seen in years. Born in the middle class, worked her way up as a public servant, and now she's vying for the opportunity to represent and lead her nation. That's inspirational.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

6 hours ago, Bronco said:

 you have to ask if 60% truly want a third party why aren't they donating to a third party. 

No third party ticket has achieved over 20% of the vote since 1912.

 All it tells us is 60% of voters are dissatisfied with politics in the US. It tells us nothing about their motivation to support an alternative.
 

of course, as long as there is the winner-takes-all-principle they are not gonna vote en masse for a third party because they feel their vote will be useless, so it remains a two-party-monopoly

If it would be a proportionate system, there wouldn't be just a third party, there would be a fourth party, too, and perhaps even a fifth and sixth party, considering how fragmented America is and that 4-6 parties are normal in mainland Europe

as long as the winner-takes-all-principle is not abolished, there will be forever only two parties

The fact that 3rd parties do not score well, do not mean at all that 60% of americans do not support a third party.... the system is arranged in a way that makes 3rd parties unvotable.

 

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

3 hours ago, Forlorn said:

Kamala Harris was born in the middle class, worked her way up as a public servant, and now she's vying for the opportunity to represent and lead her nation. That's inspirational.

That is a lie that Kamala Harris wants you all to believe. Kamala Harris is upper class and was raised upper class.

Kamala Harris was raised in Westmount, Montréal in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Westmount was the richest community in all of Canada in the 1970s and 1980s. In, Westmount the most prvileged of the privileged lived. It still is a luxury residential area. I know Montréal well, in her street, Grosvenor Avenue, houses sell for two to four million Canadian dollar on average.

She is the daughter of Stanford (American élite unversity) and McGill scientists (McGill was the Harvard of Canada in the 1970/80s, so a Canadian élite university), they got a lot of money from their unis and lived in rich neighborhoods, how on Earth is that supposed to be middle class? She is upper class.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

Forlon, it is pathetic of you how you abuse the LMAO button. You clearly have no idea if you think Kamala is from the Midde Class, you're even dangerous for spreading the fake news of her being Middle Class.