You should ask this guy why he’s pushing the Green Party nominee, aka the pro-environmental policy nominee, despite indicating in other threads that he doesn’t care if Trump wins, aka the anti-environmental policy nominee.
I asked him that, then he started accusing me of bullying him and blocked me.
Dude, I suggested the earth was shaped like a velociraptor.
No, I didn’t miss the joke
Edit: Did YOU miss MY incredibly obvious joke? xD
Oh fucking christ, a flat-earther. You people are even worse than the fucking round-earther scum on this platform.
I swear you people will never accept a velociraptor-shaped earth, prolly cuz your brains just aren’t big enough to process the geometry.
Squirrel with a Gun is a game where you play as a squirrel with a gun.
There, now ya know! :)
If I understand margin of error correctly, then what this means is that the “true” lead that harris had over trump at the time of this poll has a 95% chance of being somewhere between +(5+4.5) and +(5-4.5).
So according to just this poll, there’s a 95% that Harris’ lead in Minnesota is between 9.5% and 0.5%, so somewhere between “what the polling was nearly already saying” and “almost neck and neck”.
And that’s not even taking any of the other polling into consideration…
TL;DR yeah, this poll isn’t very useful.
I get it but come now, the color red did nothing wrong.
It’s also ironically the color of liberalism in most other countries, worth pointing out given Lemmy is an international community. So that could sound confusingly aggressive to international readers.
Thanks, yeah I guess the trick is to politely ask normal, reasonable questions that a good-faith party would answer honestly. Who’d have thunk it xD
Tbh if the guy/troll/whatever had answered the first two questions earlier on, depending on the answers I prolly would’ve just backed off, “oh well, agree to disagree” style.
Him being weirdly “I don’t have to answer that…but I have to tell you that I won’t answer” was funny so I went with it.
Okay, but if/when you see this, I still have 3 questions:
Have you researched Agenda 47, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?
Why do you support the Green Party candidate as your far-and-away favorite pick while not seeming to care about a Trump presidency, given his environmental policy?
Why do you reply to people who disagree with you if you’re allegedly not trying to sway them and are allegedly only here to share articles?
…
I’m [not] Kamala Harris and I approve this message
We’re cool.
I do have 3 lingering questions though:
Have you researched Agenda 47, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?
Why do you support the Green Party Candidate as your far-and-away favorite pick while not seeming to care about Trump’s environmental policy?
Why do you reply to people who disagree with you if you’re allegedly not trying to sway them and are allegedly only here to share articles?
Okay but, like, why those questions and not the others?
Yeah, I think that’s a very reasonable assessment.
I like to come to conversations in a good-faith manner anyway, cuz I mean, you never know for sure.
But of course, there’s a limit to that, especially when they stop answering your questions, and later straight up say “you will never change my mind about XYZ” like that’s a good-faith thing to say.
Yeah but, you’re under no obligation to reply saying you’re not gonna answer my questions either.
Just seems like a lotta work for a person to reply to a buncha comments disagreeing with them, just to say “yeah well you’re not gonna change my mind”.
Your response?
You could simply stop asking.
But you could simply stop replying though
Wow, sounds like maybe you are implying that you were baiting me. Were you?
I was always planning on having a good faith conversation with you until you said “I cannot be swayed” while replying to people who disagree with you with defenses. And then not answering my question of “Then why do you do that?”.
That’s a bad-faith thing to do.
I am under no obligation to answer anything. Because when you first replied, you seemed friendly and reasonable. Now you seem biased and seem like you are trying to bait me. Which won’t happen. Because I’m still not gonna vote for your candidate.
So you replied to me because I seemed friendly and reasonable, but I was still on the side of “I think what you’re doing is not good for either of us”, so you were trying to engage with me and move my needle a little towards your side of the argument?
In other words, you try to…sway me? B/c fyi, there’s nothing wrong with that. You make swaying out to be this bad thing that bullies do, but it’s not. Moving needles doesn’t mean bullying people into feeling a certain way, it means coming closer to understanding one another, and I take joy in doing that.
I don’t take quite as much joy in a person who doesn’t come to a table on a good-faith basis.
And since most of the readers here are already overwhelmingly pro-Harris, you haven’t changed anyone’s mind. There is no “gotcha” moment. And I’m not gonna vote for Harris. Understand?
That’s my secret, dude, I’m not looking for a “gotcha”. I was just looking to understand you a little better. Maybe you’d poke some holes in my preconceptions, maybe I’d poke some holes in yours.
With that said, I’ll ask again:
Have you researched Agenda 47, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?
Why do you support the Green Party Candidate as your far-and-away favorite pick while not seeming to care about Trump’s environmental policy?
Why do you reply to people who disagree with you if you’re allegedly not trying to sway them and are allegedly only here to share articles?
Why do you keep avoiding the above 3 questions?
I am not. I am merely posting articles that I am interested in to a political news community. There is not deep-hidden agenda here. You act as if I have some obligation to explain my reasoning to you. I do not.
But then again, why do you engage in discussions with people who disagree with you if to your admission all you care about is sharing articles?
I’m voting for Jill Stein. I don’t care if you want to know more. I’ve answered what I’ve answered. Move on.
Again, why tell me to move on when you could simply stop replying?
I won’t be baited into blowing up
Idk man, this is a pretty long reply from someone who’s not been baited into blowing up
And as for your next variation of a question of why I won’t answer you: I don’t want to and I don’t have to. And that’s ok.
So you have no answers to my questions then?
Do you ask these questions in every article that is posted about Harris? Or are you letting your bias show because you are so desperate for Trump not to win?
No I don’t ask these questions on Harris posts because Harris isn’t a third-party candidate.
And yes, I would very much like it if Trump doesn’t win. Do you not care if Trump wins, given his environmental policy, and given that the candidate you do support is the pick of the Green Party, aka the pro-environmental policy pick?
Because some comments I reply to. Some I don’t. I get to pick which ones.
Yes, and you’ve chosen to reply to many comments from people who clearly disagree with you. why do that at all, if not that you want to move a needle on something?
Because you were implying that I was trying to “sway” people to vote for Stein. And that’s not the case. I have posted about other candidates as well.
I asked if you were trying to sway people on “anything” here. And I see posting about Stein as you have as wanting to move the needle on public perception of Stein, like posting about any other 3rd party candidate would be an effort to move the needle on the concept of voting third-party. You asserted that you posted about other third party candidates too, so I’ll ask directly: are you not trying to sway people to vote third-party, given that you post about third party candidates and then defend third party candidates in comment threads?
Dude, I’m not voting for Harris. But I support you voting for her if that’s what you want. Move on.
Why tell me to move on when you could simply stop replying?
This isn’t just a place for political news, though. It’s a place to talk about political news, and about the politics surrounding that political news. That’s what I’m trying to do now.
Why go into the comment thread at all if all you care about is sharing political news? The engagement around that news matters, does it not? Otherwise Lemmy wouldn’t even have a comment section to begin with.
Did you even realize that I don’t only post Jill Stein articles to this community?
And do you realize I created and mod a sub about MANY different third parties? One is even called “Third Party News.” In addition one about the Green Party and one about Socialist parties?
How does any of that matter right now? You said in this thread that Jill Stein is your absolute most preferred candidate. That’s all I really care to address right now.
My standing question about whether you just don’t care that much about who becomes president is important. It’d mostly settle your overall feelings on the subject. But if you don’t wanna answer me anymore, then that’s fine.
What I don’t want is for you to leave this thread off on a non-answer.
I support and respect who you are voting for. But I am voting for someone different. Actually lots of people are voting for someone different. Please accept that. Thank you!
You have a right to vote for whoever you want, just like I have a right to ask you “why?”. And you have a right to stop engaging if you don’t want to talk to me anymore. But if you continue engaging, without answering, then I have a right to ask again: “why?”.
I’m not voting for Harris, no matter how many questions you ask me or how you try to sway me. It’s not happening.
This is not a good faith statement to make in a political discussion. If you believe there is absolutely zero way you can be swayed into a different point of view, then you shouldn’t try to sway people yourself.
Perhaps you’re not trying to sway people on anything here, but then…why post to c/politics about Stein to begin with? What’s the point of that if you’re not trying to at least “move the needle” on public perception of Stein?
It’s simple. I’m not voting “against” anyone; I’m voting “for” someone. I’m not worried about who might win. I’m voting for the person who best aligns with my values, and that’s Jill Stein.
Which values, exactly? She is the Green Party candidate, aka the candidate for the pro-environment party, correct? Is it safe to say that the environment is an important issue for you?
I get it—you’re scared of Trump. You hate him. Fine. But half the country doesn’t hate him, and that’s just the way things are.
I don’t care what half the country thinks about Trump. I’m interested to know what you think of Trump. Post-Agenda 47 research.
I’m not changing my mind. I’m not suddenly going to stand up and say, “OMG, @aalavre2 was right. I’ve read up on Trump this weekend, and now I’m scared! He totally talked me into voting for Harris!”
And I already told you that I don’t expect you to do that. That’s what it means to say “I don’t really care if you don’t decide within the next 24hrs to vote Harris or anything like that”.
That’s not going to happen.
Like I said above…agreed!
You act like I’m someone who just moved here from another country and has never heard of Trump.
No, I am not. I’m sure there are tens of millions of people who haven’t combed through Trump’s official policies. It’s not exactly easy to do so, after all, when it’s mostly videos. Even harder to do so when some of the most important policies are hidden behind boring names like “Schedule F”.
I’m simply pointing at research you could be doing to inform you of a candidate who I see as the on-paper opposite of Jill Stein.
Dude, I don’t care. I’m not scared of Trump or his administration. If he wins, I won’t jump into a pile of pillows and cry, “Why? Why didn’t I vote for Harris?! Why didn’t I listen to the people on Lemmy?!”
I get that you’re not going to say and do such an oddly specific thing. I get that you’re saying you don’t care, and I am telling you, respectfully, “well, maybe you should care”.
I’m voting for Jill Stein because I like her and I want to vote for her. It’s not that deep. It’s not some deep philosophical reflection on my feelings about the nature of society.
And I never said it was! But when you put as simply as “because I like her”, it sounds like you’re voting against your interests, when I’d expect you to see Trump as the polar opposite.
Do you simply think that politics, and who ends up president, don’t matter that much? If that’s how you feel, that’d clear up a lot of things…
You need to accept it. I have the right to vote for who I want.
Yup
You’re trying to bully and guilt me into doing something that you want me to do.
No, I am not. You’ve accused me of both belittling and bullying in a single comment, and I’m just sitting here asking if you read any if my links or chewed on my point about supporting the Green Party.
Now I’m asking you, directly, if you just don’t really care that much about who becomes president to begin with. If you don’t wanna answer that, you don’t have to reply back.
I support you voting for whoever you want. I don’t expect you to explain or apologize for your choice. Please offer me the same courtesy.
And I’m not asking you to apologize for your political views…but this is a political sub. It’s where we’re free to explain our feelings about politics.
I don’t want to leave the conversation with a “cap” on it that has animosity behind it.
I’m still interested in how you respond to Agenda 47, and how you’d reconcile the Green Party candidate being your #1 pick, with not caring about a Trump victory when Trump is worst candidate for the environment.
If you don’t want to continue the conversation, you could simply stop responding. I can’t stop you from doing that, nor do I have any desire to.
This seems misleading. 28% is less than Biden’s 39.6% tax proposal for 2025, but still greater than the 20% tax we have now. More importantly, this proposal would just be a request - Congress can make whatever amendments they want.
I could be wrong and would accept evidence to the contrary, but I don’t think Congress was going to pass Biden’s 40% proposal for FY25, anyway, in which case 28% would be a compromise in the right direction.