These days Vote Blue No Matter Who means voting for a war criminal who supports genocide, mass incarceration, mass surveillance, has destroyed pandemic precautions and has undermined democracy. Instead Vote Green.
@rchusid
So you're saying; vote for trvmp?
Because that's exactly what you'll be doing.
@axeshun No, I"m voting Green. That means I'm voting against Trump.
Claims such as yours assume Democrats are entitled to the votes for others. This is an attack on democracy and one of the reasons I am reluctant to vote for Democrats.
@rchusid
If you don't understand, I won't bother explaining the logic.
If you're not voting for Biden, you'll be voting for trump.
@axeshun The logic, and the math is wrong. If your goal is to get people to consider voting for Biden I"d advise dropping this line. To independents, such a line is both an attack on democracy and makes you sound even worse than the Trumpers. Attacking democracy like this is just not a good idea politically.
@rchusid it's not even the equivalent of abstaining from voting. It's literally a reversal of the sensible compromise we're obligated to make to ensure the possibility of future progress we'd all like to see. No candidate is perfect..I disagree with many of Biden's decisions, but good luck with ANY future progressive legislation if you aid and abet another trvmp presidency.
@axeshun The chances of progressive change is less with someone like Biden. Biden has pulled so many Democrats far to the right as they defend Biden.
@TonyStark @axeshun @rchusid
I agree with your view that Ron is not worth listening to, as anyone who witnessed the Bush v Gore or Trump V Clinton debacle can attest. If Biden hasn’t performed well enough to earn your vote, you’re not a progressive, you’re a troll looking to damage Democrats. Biden has done an amazing job but limited by the coalition with which he has to work. If unsatisfied with R’s or D’s, work to enable third party viability with ranked choice voting. That’s the only way to effect change without shooting yourself in the foot
@CivilityFan @TonyStark @axeshun @rchusid@med-mastodon.com "I'm voting green"
*Block*
@CivilityFan @axeshun @philip_cardella Dude makes fun of blue by substituting green and thinks that’s a persuasive stance. If they ever pick a candidate with some qualifications or embody even one principle they say they stand for. Nope.
I’m interested in more parties at some point but not that one. Dems represent me just fine anyway, especially locally.
@TonyStark @axeshun @philip_cardella
Third parties aren’t going to be viable imo until ranked choice voting makes it possible without it resulting in just throwing away the vote.
@CivilityFan @axeshun @philip_cardella Wait, let me change that.
Exactly.
@TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun oh. For some reason it just occurred to me.
If Ralph Nader doesn't run Green in 2000 Al Gore wins Florida by a wide margin.
@philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
Actually, that isn't true (technically *maybe*, assuming Nader voters showed up to vote for Gore.)
Let's focus on the TRUE cause: The brother of the #GOP nominee was the governor of Florida. The two of them exchanged "convict lists" to kick anyone with a "similar" name convicted of a crime off the voter roles (despite no evidence Texas convicts had voted in Florida.
Some 60,000 black & Hispanic voters were kicked off the voter roles.
@MugsysRapSheet
Ralph Nader received 97,488 "liberal" votes in Florida. Bush won* by 537 votes.
Technically, it's true. The other factors are also true. But Ralph Nader absolutely was ONE crucial factor in Bush winning. Period.
*Most analysis now says if the Brooks Brother Riot led by January 6 organizer and Nixon spawn Roger Stone hadn't happened the recount would have given Gore Miami Dade County and the State of Florida.
@philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
In a statewide recount, #Gore would have beaten #Dubya, but the #SCotUS put a stop to it on the (insane) grounds that continuing to question the result "would hurt Bush's legitimacy."
Funny that SCotUS never said the same about T****'s endless call for recounts hurting #Biden (how many #RWNJ's to this day think Biden "stole" the election?)
@MugsysRapSheet that's because Trump's recounts never made it to SCOTUS in a way that warranted its action.
In Bush v Gore the Court was involved because a lower court had demanded a recount. When it comes to Trump it was the opposite: lower courts rebuked him already, so there wasn't anything for the SCOTUS to do.
@philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
@volkris @philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
The only reason the SCotUS injected themselves in Bush v Gore is b/c the Bush campaign asked them to.
Biden never did (or had to.) If just ONE state had refused to take up one of #TheOrangeMenace's whiny-ass calls for a recount, he would have sued and it would have gone to the SCotUS.
@MugsysRapSheet but Trump DID ask the SCOTUS to intervene and they rejected his invitation.
SCOTUS took up Bush v Gore because Bush made the case that a lower court screwed up, which needed correcting.
SCOTUS didn't take up Trump's cases because that campaign didn't make a solid case.
It had nothing to do with Biden, but about Trump's request being unpersuasive.
This shows that the Court is happy to ignore Trump's wants when they think he's blabbering nonsense.
@philip_cardella @TonyStark @CivilityFan @axeshun
@volkris wrote
This shows that the Court is happy to ignore Trump’s wants when they think he’s blabbering nonsense.
In Bush v Gore, they specifically qualified the ruling as not setting precedence for the future, displaying a knowledge of how political it was. I don’t think that this court can be trusted to rule impartially. If its legitimacy is questioned, it will lose the faith of the American people and that’s not a future anyone can predict.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
Where did they specifically qualify the ruling as not setting precedent?
I really don't see how a person can read the ruling and find it so political.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/case.pdf
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
@volkris @CivilityFan @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
#SCotUS publicly stated that the Bush v Gore ruling was not to be used as a precedent as it was "specific to this one case."
@MugsysRapSheet when I search the opinion, the phrase "specific to this one case" turns up no hits.
It's not in there.
@volkris
Apparently it was in the announcement:
announced that “[o]ur consideration is limited to the present circumstances,”
How can that be read any other way? Smh
You left off the rest of the sentence, " for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."
So their consideration here is not to speak generally and tackle all possible circumstances, but only the situation as they describe it.
That doesn't mean it's not precedent setting. Other similar situations would be expected to follow the same disposition.
By cutting the sentence in half and only looking at the first half, much less the following paragraph that lends further clarification, people are able to twist the meaning.
@MugsysRapSheet @philip_cardella @TonyStark @axeshun
