Green politicians from across Europe on Friday called on U.S. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to withdraw from the race for the White House and endorse Democrat Kamala Harris instead.
“We are clear that Kamala Harris is the only candidate who can block Donald Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian policies from the White House,” Green parties from countries including Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ukraine said in a statement, which was shared with POLITICO ahead of publication
and you’d be wrong. shrug you’re essentially saying anyone who doesn’t vote doesn’t have an preference. which is trivially incorrect. ask felons if they have a preference. ask teenagers.
if the prior is ‘harris will win’ me not voting for her isn’t a statement of ‘either’ its a statement of ‘I don’t need to support her shittiness’ you don’t get to assert what my preferences are certainly.
I’m not talking about the narrative you’ve got in your head about what statements you’re making with your actions, I’m also not including what you suppose or predict the result of the vote to be, that’s not logical or helpful…
I’m talking about simple actions and consequences, let me lay this out more simply:
No vote: no change for either candidates chances of success == no preference
A vote for either: a change for both candidates chances of success (slightly improved and slightly decreased) == a preference
And like all children your simple mental model doesnt apply to reality.
My preference between harris and trump is harris.
Me pulling the lever for harris will not change her result in my state. (Shes won)
Harris is still an absolutely atrocious candidate who never would have won a democratic primary.
Me pulling the lever for her only prevents me from pressuring my critters on certain issues.
Your failure to apply priors to a situation is a you problem. I suspect this often leads you to incorrect conclusions in life as it has here.
I think you’ve confused our conversation with the other conversations you are having here. I started talking to you when you responded to the hypothetical question “if there were only X and y candidates as options, which would you vote for”, to which you responded with something along the lines of: “neither, you can say ‘none of the above’, you know?”
I’m refuting that with you, voting neither in that hypothetical situation is not saying "none of the above’ it’s saying 'either of the above '.
I see you’re involved in lots of conversations in this thread, where many people disagree with you on points more directly related to the actual situation in hand, so I can understand if you’ve mixed me up with some other context you have elsewhere, but I really don’t care about your country’s election or your candidates or who wins (I care a little, but I am not directly involved or affected), I’m just disagreeing with the evidently false statement you’ve made above. Hopefully this has cleared up the conversation.
no, im not confused.
Harris/trump are not the only options this is a basic premise we’re disagreeing on. Depending on your state/environment you have many choices across a range depending what you want to accomplish. if your in a swing state, then while you still have options they’ll likely result in a bad outcome for you personally. 25+ pt states like CA/NY/MA, etc you can very effectively pressure your local reps by voting 3rd party. both you counter harris’ policy positions within the party and with their personal positions.
Your ‘only those two’ model is the childish model. What voting 3rd party candidate can do is leverage the fact a particular race is not competitive to push your other congressional reps towards particular positions. such as, climate change, abortion, israel/palestine/etc.
it does not mean the individual is okay with either; its a acceptance of the fact harris will win in particular states and we’re focusing on other issues for a variety of reasons, and point out the many flaws harris has is important is bumping those numbers.