A longtime GOP operative helped the Green Party’s Jill Stein get on the N.H. ballot. Democrats smell mischief.
A longtime GOP operative helped the Green Party’s Jill Stein get on the N.H. ballot. Democrats smell mischief.
The operative, Jefferson Thomas, might seem like an unlikely ally for Green Party stalwart Jill Stein.
"According to FEC filings, the Synapse Group has worked for Republican Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota, who ran for the GOP presidential nomination this cycle, as well as GOP candidates for Congress. Synapse has also been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for field and canvassing work by America PAC, the outside spending group started by allies of Musk that has spent millions of dollars this election cycle to boost Trump and oppose Democrats."
You're viewing part of a thread.
Then the public should demand their representatives talk about it more
Really? You think the Democrats should be spending valuable time in an election year talking about a niche electoral reform that most people would need explained?
There's a reason 99% of political rhetoric revolves around bread and butter issues or something that can be used to scare people. RCV is neither of those, and most people who are actually dedicated to getting RCV already know about FairVote and the Democratic party's willingness to pass RCV.
Niche? I thought it was an idea the entire Dem group was putting forth legislation on, now it's an obscure idea we have to take time to explain? Your last paragraph contradicts your first one - is approval voting so niche that Dems don't know about it and can't talk about it and have to explain, or is it so well known that every Dem already has openly stated their support of it?
Yes, Dems should take time during campaigns to talk about actual policy. That's what campaigns are for.
99% of status quo talking points are boring because our representatives are bad at their jobs.
You're pretty consistently putting words in people's mouths, moving goalposts, and just generally acting with intellectual dishonesty.
Thanks for your contribution. You sound obsessed hunty 💅
Can you just argue like a normal person and not act delusional like some sort of gotcha?
edit: Like I'm pretty sure I don't even disagree with you for the most part but you're acting like a stupid person and using fallacious rhetoric lol
I don't see where I am doing that.
Literally, look at the thread. My entire take is that everyone should be bringing this up and pressuring Dems to talk about approval choice voting any time they complain about third party or spoiling. What fallacy is used for this? Where is it used? Quote me, if it's so pervasive you hate me even though "we agree" according to you.
We agree yet you insist at raging at me and hurling abuse. My guess is that you're a misogynist and you dislike intelligent, assertive, sexual women. You're angry I don't give up control to men (lol). Let's see
I'm literally a nonbinary person who is nearly misandrist. Hate most cis men and love being dominated by women.
You're literally just fucking stupid.
Removed, civility.
Nah, you clearly hate women. Bye
"I'll ignore reality and assert my own delusions"
Okay. You know what.
I'm sorry for getting into this. This has been bad for me mentally. I don't think you actually blocked me, but you are in fact getting blocked. Holy. Fuck.
You’re literally just fucking stupid.
This is why you're doing this - to be abusive to women. Got it. Or explain why your verbal abuse/ad hominem is acceptable? Reported either way.
Eta: it was abusive enough a mod removed your comment. My comments didn't get removed because I'm not abusive.
HOLY FUCK YOU ARE RIDICULOUS
IT'S ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE I WOULD AD HOMINEM ANYONE WHO IS FUCKING STUPID FOR BEING FUCKING STUPID
Holy fuck one second
You were wrong.
if you hate me
Didn't say that. Putting words in my mouth. That's a classic strawman. Fallacious.
No.
The delusional gotcha is calling me obsessed because I made one comment calling you out.
Can't wait for you to call me obsessed again after you literally asked me to quote all the stupid shit you said (actually skipped some of it because holy fuck I only have so much free time)
K
You are obsessed with ME though. Otherwise, you'd go through everyone's comments for fallacies itt. You only do that for mine, and you aren't even identifying them correctly (hint: a summary isnt a strawman). You're just doing it because you clearly enjoy being abusive to women.
You're also very narcissistic, like Trump, (except you're an intellectual narcissist, which means you're also ableist - I wonder how you treat people with intellectual disabilities?) and you've started projecting a bit. That you were the one to first bring up being obsessed with me is a bit of an admission on your part. Just like you being worried about intellect. No one brought that up except you, creepy. Don't you think you're revealing your hands too soon?
Maybe cool it on the intellectual superiority rhetoric. That's super ableist and very Nazi of you. Try to use 'stupid' less to make your points. It's pretty inaccurate/nonsensical/meaningless as a phrase and reveals your ableism. It's like being a racial narcissist (white supremacist for eg) and using racist rhetoric to abuse people with - we can all see and hear what you're doing, creep.
Wow you responded to me so many times. Obsessed!!!
YOU LITERALLY BROUGHT UP BOTH THINGS FIRST, ARE YOU JUST A FUCKING TROLL?
7 comments is obsessed yeah. Not accurate either. Bye, creep
You are not real. Holy fuck.
You're an abuser.
I thought it was an idea the entire Dem group was putting forth legislation on
They literally did not say that. Strawman. Fallacious.
No.
Niche? I thought it was an idea the entire Dem group was putting forth legislation on
There's a difference between the Democratic base and the Democratic Party politicians who make decisions. RCV is somewhat popular among the Democratic Party politicians, it's basically unknown of/uncared about by the base. That's how it's both niche, and desired by the Party. I'm sure you knew this though.
Yes, Dems should take time during campaigns to talk about actual policy. That's what campaigns are for.
That's what they do. Literally every single election.
99% of status quo talking points are boring because our representatives are bad at their jobs.
No they're boring to you, because they're not meant to appeal to you, you do not represent the majority of the Democratic base, the Democratic base is mostly middle aged college educated liberals, not hyper-online leftists.
Gee, wonder why Democrats have a likability issue. You don't need to alienate people for them. Unless you hate them? It's always so hard to tell with you all
Most people I speak with, most average Americans, have a HUGE problem with the two party system and are open to things like approval or ranked choice voting. Go to any bar and talk to anyone. In terms of democracy, that's majority voters. Since I'm not authoritarian or fascist, I think it's important for representatives to hear issues like these and represent their people's wishes.
Both parties benefit from preventing progress. That's why we are hashing out abortion issues from the fucking 70s. We're arguing about child care, something Republicans wanted originally in...again, the 70s.
Democrat politicians are NOT making this a central talking point because they benefit from ignoring their base. You're right that they enjoy bypassing their civic duty as representatives of everyone. If they wanted to, they'd all be talking about it at every campaign to make it a theme/rally cry. They choose not to and to use old talking points that you can hear more eloquently said from the original trials and speeches of the 70s. It's a niche issue in the media. It's intentionally ignored by Democrat leadership. It's desired and known by most people.
Unfortunately for you, I'm aware of the power I have as an individual. I will keep talking and keep advocating.
More goalpost moving. Let's go back to the original argument about whether or not legislation is being pushed for, maybe?
Again, I agree with you for the most part lmao but you are doing such a bad job of coming off as intellectual. You straight up sound like someone who would get posted on r/iamverysmart.
Jesus christ.
I'm not interested in talking with you
Lmfao that's NOT the original argument. Look again. The original argument is mine, the parent comment. Saying Dems should always be bringing up approval choice voting.
Democrats should combat this by advocating for ranked choice or approval choice voting which is a fairer voting system and won't allow for "spoilers"
The other commenter then unraveled in their efforts to lick Democrat boots by saying it was simultaneously wanted by "most Dems" in legislation, while being too complicated for the average Dem voter base. Go read again. Notice how I never specified Dem voters or Dem politicians? That was on purpose. I meant the whole party, both voters and candidates. That's why the 1 bill isn't refuting my point and it's why the other person gave up.
Then they posted 1 Dem's bill, saying it was by 'some of the most senior Dems,' and saying 'most Dems would support it,' then also got upset I suggested we talk about it more. Btw paraphrasing/summarizing isn't a strawman lol.
1bill being introduced a few times was never the debate. It was never the original issue. Read again, kiddo
For the record, if you agree then you are only doing this to be abusive. You're delivering this abusively. You could choose to 'yes, and.' You seem to enjoy abusing the only openly woman commenter here. Creepy of you.
You straight up sound like someone who would get posted on r/iamverysmart.
Projection on your part. I have never cared about my ego and "appearing smart." But you've brought it up a bit. For no reason except your own embarrassing hubris
HOW DO I SEEM TO BE ENJOYING THIS I AM SIMPLY INFURIATED BY YOUR DELUSIONAL BEHAVIOR
Moving the goalpost
No.