• TheHiddenCatboy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I see the brigade is out, but not able to overcome the fact that not counting the poster’s own upvote, he’s downvoted two to one.

    No. There is no such thing as a ‘Blue Fascist’. This is the kind of BS that I was calling out with the false accusations bit in my example. No. Democrats are not Fascist. They aren’t perfect but here’s the facts: Nobody is! But Team Trump sure the fuck is. And anyone trying to get you to vote third party in a bitterly divided country like the USA is merely trying to get you to throw away your votes so that their favourite side of the duopoly wins, or they’re too damn stupid to recognise that that’s all you can do voting third party.

    I also notice that this poster didn’t address the meat of the illustration above. Can’t really, I guess!

    Let’s also point out that as long as there is FPTP, even if Ms. Bookish Girl were to win more than 3 votes, she’d STILL suffer the same effects. Let’s say she’s a D&D nerd through and through. A GURPS GM and his two players could sink her as surely as her voters would sink Nerd Boy. Quite literally, your only path in the current system is to take over one of the two major parties and slowly, meticulously, difficultly, and methodically bend that party to being what you want, and you might fail at that because hey, guess what, you don’t always get what you want.

    But if you let Trump and Project 2025 win, I promise you you’ll get what you DON’T want. Don’t let this jerk or idiot (because it must be one of the two) get you to vote for Project 2025 by voting third party.

    • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Look at you assuming that project 2025 is not bipartisan. Its ideas have been around for decades and has always been bipartisan. Project 2025 is just its most current name.

      • TheHiddenCatboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        In order to avoid violating Rule 3 because we handicap ourselves with these rules and prevent calling a spade a space in service of ‘civility’, I’ll just say this.

        No. This poster is selling you a bill of goods. The vast majority, if not the sole entirety, of Project 2025 is authored by Republicans. It has supported Republicans and opposed Democrats pretty much its entire existance. A quick read of [its Wikipedia Article] should dissuade you from believing this poster’s BS. Why is this poster so vehement that the Dems are as bad as the Reps? Why is it so determined to peel your vote off from the Blue side of the aisle? Why is it willing to lie to you about Heritage Foundation and Project 2025?

        I can’t actually answer this because Rule 3 prevents us from accusing another poster of being a bot, paid actor, or, I assume, a shill, and it’s also not OK to come out and say another poster is a useful idiot. But I leave it to you, dear reader, to make the inference. Read the links. Trust your own feelings about Project 2025 and Trump. And ask: Who benefits when we split our votes multiple different ways while Team Trump keeps his core constituency under his banner? Here’s a big hit – the headline of this article is “GOP network props up liberal third-party candidates” – it’s Team Trump that benefits when we fall for those shiny objects.

        • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          ‘split the vote’ doesn’t exist. we are not democrats and would never vote for a Democrat even if there were no other options. Democrats have fully embraced numerous other Heritage foundation policies, most directly to ACA. And if you’ll notice, the DNC has spoken nothing of trying to defeat project 2025. In fact KOSA that recently passed the Senate 97 to 3 is an item that would be directly out of p2025.

          And trying to circumvent the bot rule by directly quoting it is indirectly violating the rule.