Some people are spouting these right wing talking points about voting because they're left wing and have been duped.
Some people are spouting these right wing talking points about voting because they're right wing and doing the duping.
Some people who are spouting these right wing talking points about voting are Americans.
Some people who are spouting these right wing talking points about voting are not Americans.
Some people who are spouting these right wing talking points about voting are not very clever.
Some people who are spouting these right wing talking points about voting are clever.
You claim that half of these couldn't possibly exist, because for some reason you think that only Americans approve of Trump, you believe that only Americans want to influence the American election and you characterise all Trump supporters as dumb rednecks or something more offensive, then I point out the even ones exist and you claim I'm a conspiracy theorist. Wow.
Oh, silly me! You're right of course! Of course you're passionate that third party voters can approve of Trump and want him elected, because you're one of them! It was staring me in the face! Why else would you be on lemmy advocating for left leaning folk to vote third party instead of democratic! Here was me believing that there were third party voters who disapprove of Trump, but you've proved it mathematically for me! They don't exist!
I understand your math now that you explained it more clearly, too! 8.5% of voters are republicans who think Trump is a disaster, but only 3.5% of non Democrats dislike Trump but 3.5% < 8.5%, all of those non Democrats who dislike Trump have to be republicans,
In fact your math shows that every single one of them has to be three republican voters! Otherwise the numbers don't add up! Truly your math is better than mine and your logic is flawless.
You’re using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don’t like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.
You: condescending waffle and deflection. Also you:
If you are right then show the data.
When I point out your asymmetric proof demands you just repeat them.
Yet here you are, I'm this thread, trolling serious voters with your right wing troll antidemocratic talking points. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, hanging a sign saying "swan" round it's neck isn't convincing.
You're living in more-than-childish naive fake
-reality cloud-cuckoo land if you really believe there are more than two choices for who will become president!
It's more what you were high and mighty about - you claimed that the article was missing the fact that there's an electoral college, whilst yourself missing the entire point of the whole article which is wholly based on the fact of the electoral college.
So if you hadn't missed the entire point of the article, or if the entire point of the article wasn't based on the failings of the electoral college system, your criticism of it might have had merit.
So just as you missed the point of the article, you missed the point of my post, which wasn't about your impoliteness, but rather your hypocrisy.
Except you don't need to read a lot of theory to endlessly repeat Conservative talking points whilst advocating voter behaviour likely to lead the world's most powerful military to be controlled by fascists. You must have come across "communists" who just spout putin's talking points?
Like I said, and you seem to have missed it, not everyone supporting Trump is American, and not everyone supporting Trump is stupid.
Trump himself is really very stupid but he's worked with some less stupid people who know what lines will track well with different voter bases, and lemmy.ml has swallowed the third party guilt-free-complicity line really enthusiastically, but not as wholesale as it swallowed the push America right to push it left line.
So no, sorry, just as it's really hard to tell sarcasm about Trump from support, and just as it's really hard to tell satire about Trump from actual things trump said, it's almost impossible to tell sincere leftists who were duped into parrotting rightwing talking points about the election from trump supporters busy doing the duping.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I find it hard to believe that it's a swan. After all, if you're pissing in the petrol tank, don't ask me to spend a long time listening to why it's good for the engine.
You're using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don't like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.
It's not so far away from trumps habit of calling anything that he doesn't like fake news.
You're painting yourself as a neutral who is just asking for information, when in fact you're heavily partisan. It's misleading.
So you took the people who disapprove of trump, subtracted the republicans who disapprove of Trump, and the Democrats who disapprove of Trump, and then you went ahead and said that the remaining ones are all Republican? And you're the one who claims to be factual? You're math isn't mathing.
But earlier in this very chain you made a simple claim, with the word "no", that it's untrue that third party voters don't want Trump to win. Where's your evidence? Where's your data? How does your data account for trumps high disapproval rating nationally (much higher than Harris's) despite pretty good approval amongst registered republicans? How is that possible without the disapproval of non-democrats? Your talking point makes no sense.
You love to tell other people to prove their statements but you're happy to make your own evidence-free claims that don't fit with real world data.
If Trump wins and doesn't succeed in abolishing voting, the democratic party would be pushed further right, having fielded one of the more leftwing democrats in my lifetime and lost against one of the most clearly bad choices for president of my lifetime. Your precious theoretical better political situation isn't going to come remotely close to reality in that scenario.
It’s just embarrassing to write an article like this and forget about the electoral college.
You say that as if you don't realise that the electoral college is exactly why it can't possibly achieve anything to vote third party other than risk your least favourite candidate winning.
You act all high and mighty and snide and then completely miss the point. I'm not impressed.
I've had many conversations with "third party voters" here on lemmy. Haven't found any, at all, not one, who can talk about the faults of the republicans in anything like the length and passion that they can talk about the faults of the democrats, and the national polling says that real third party voters are very rare, so a little bit of Bayes' theorem says that the "third party voters" talking so loudly and long about why I shouldn't vote for Harris are far, far, far more likely to be republicans pretending to be left wing or neutral, hoping desperately that they can convince enough potential democratic voters to stay home to swing the election for their favourite - stupid evil country-betraying Trump.
Because you instead want the worse genocidal racist lying hating minority-bashing blasphemous insurrectionist country-betraying grifter "best king of israel" infantile senile nasty idiot to win. Got it. Two choices: the sane one and the constitution wrecker. You've made your choice. Stop pretending it's because of Harris. It's because you like his racist shit filled diapers.
Trump has stronger negative polling in the general population than Harris so it's not as absurd as you're making out. Trump is also much more strongly polarising and always has been.
You think someone else than trump or Kamala might become president and you're claiming I lack reality? That's bold.