News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
If they do it against a progressive after making a huge deal about not doing it against a centrist? You may like that level of rank hypocrisy.
I mean, I'm not even arguing one way or the other. When people argue against voting for a third party in a presidential election, it's on the basis that the candidate has absolutely no shot at winning and, at best, will split the vote.
It has nothing to do with liking or not liking hypocrisy; the basis of their argument is entirely about whether a strategy is viable, not whether they felt good about the decision.
I assumed that the OP was actually trying to poke holes in the argument but arguing that the Democratic party has backed a third-party candidate in a local election doesn't negate any of the actual points regarding dissuading voting for a third-party candidate who is without the same resources and does not have the same kind of outreach (such as appearing in debates, etc.) in a presidential election. That's why, notably, OP had to specify a presidential election: people don't, generally, argue against voting for third parties at the local level because the visibility of those candidates winning is entirely different.
Do you get what I mean? It wholly doesn't engage with the actual reasoning or evidence for the argument so it…wouldn't mean anything, if you did try to use it as a rebuttal.
I get that you’re talking out of your ass making excuses and trying to justify random decisions you’ve made to kiss copirate dems asses, why you repeat the corporate media talking points I can’t explain but you clearly are just a parrot and not thinking it through
Damn; that's…really impressive to've gleaned all of this insight about my past decisions on a comment that has mentioned none of my past decisions. You've got nothing on Miss Cleo.
Would you care to explain what corporate media talking points I'm reiterating?
Also, I've not been remotely as aggressive or attacking to anyone here; you're acting like I'm encouraging people to vote for Cuomo or Adams. I have not given this level of hostility or assumption of poor character out the gate like this, remotely.
You’re going to need a backhoe upgrade if you’re going to keep moving your goalposts like that.
I genuinely don't believe I've moved the goalposts, especially as I didn't argue anyone new in my last post.
Would you be able to explain to me how I moved them so I can better understand what you're seeing?
I can see that you’re attempting to be “neutral” but you’re using the same talking points in this thread as the corpo dems and media…
I’m not mad or upset with you or anything I promise
O. K. That's fair enough; "talking out of your ass" and "kiss copirate dems asses" felt more angry than anything but maybe that's just because "ass" was being used.
I feel like the points I've mentioned I've gotten the reasoning for more from political scientists (as I don't really care about the positions of the media or the corporate Dem.s) but it was never my intent to convince anyone of them; I was trying to explain why, if the Dem.s did back Cuomo, it wouldn't address the reasoning of someone who believes not voting third party in a presidential election (an attempt to understand the building blocks of that person's PoV, even if one thinks that PoV is garbage). It may just be how my brain works but understanding the mechanics of someone's reasoning, even if one would never agree with the conclusion, I find beneficial. Potentially because it helps to break apart their argument in a way they'd understand (though, of course, it can be hard to convince some people to change their minds).
But it's definitely not the most important thing here, in the end. The progressive (and exceedingly) better candidate won the nomination; (since I think that's something we both agree on wanting to have happened) I'm entirely much more enthusiastic about that outcome than anything else discussed in the thread.
Totally, I get a little animated and excited…
Yes I’m happy he won, I just hear the way they are treating him on the news and it’s a huge reminder that AIPAC is a detriment to our society, and we need to overturn citizens united very badly.
Yeah…; I absolutely get that (and share the sentiment). I don't want to speak too quickly (though, from everything I've seen, his odds look good‽) but I will definitely relish their reactions when he wins. It's about time NYC gets a decent mayor.
Sigh….. the part that pisses me off the most is that we lose so often… even though we have supermajorities of support on basically all of the major policy issues among both democrats AND republicans…..
Instead the media is always talking about bathrooms and sports and other really weird wedge issues… don’t read this the wrong way, lgbtq rights are super important, they are human rights 100%, but these issues affect only a small percent of the population,
whereas the economic policy issues that would solve so much of the underlying fear and hatred are just completely glossed over, even though every year multiple times a year another economic study indicates that neoliberal policy and general economic theory is just fundamentally wrong…..
I just hope the that this recent Gaza fucking genocide is waking folks up to the fact that our media, our politicians, our leaders, all of them are corrupt trash that need to be thrown out and cast aside, mocked even…
Yeah. It's conveniently different in this case because the nominee is a progressive.
It seems I'm not able to break down the core basics of the underlying mechanics well enough so we'll probably have to end the conversation but, just in case I'm still being avoidably unclear, I'll try to summarize as barebones as possible:
it's about resources.
More resources behind a candidate materially changes that candidates viability; unless you can explain how a progressive candidate in this scenario invalidates the resources and reach that's actually of concern when weighing whether a candidate can succeed, you – likewise – are opting to ignore the details of the reasoning and not actually address them.
P. S.
I'm not someone who prefers centrist or even left-of-center candidates; if I lived in NY, I'd definitely be voting for Mamdani and most certainly not Cuomo.It's weird to be like, "His progressivism makes the difference," as though I'm hoping the party backs Cuomo or Adams and would rapidly vote third party in this case.
It's honest. Voting 3rd party is literally voting for the worst candidate, in all cases unless there's a progressive as the party's nominee, in which case it doesn't matter.
I'm sick of the double standards and I don't buy the excuses for them.
See, this is why it feels like your responses are wholly detached from anything I'm actually saying.
I explicitly said that people who make these arguments don't advocate against third party votes in local elections (because the viability/feasibility dynamics of a smaller population are different) and I thought it was clear to extrapolate from the underlying reasoning (but perhaps I was mistaken) that voting for a third party presidential nominee who's been backed by, say, the Democratic party because they opted to not back the winner of their primary during a presidential election (which I didn't mention as it feels highly unlikely, ever, but it's the same premise) would make sense because that candidate would then have the name recognition, reach, and resources necessary to reach a populace as large as the entire nation.
Objectively, you're directly contradicting what I've said the reasoning of the argument is, even when I've pointed out it argues the opposite.
See, it's ok to vote 3rd party here. It's not because the nominee is a progressive, it's because of this paragraph of excuses.
…you mean the material differences between two different scenarios?
I've already said that the backing of a powerful organization in different election series would render the same advantages and chance of winning – regardless of the candidates political positions (and that I wanted Mamdani to win! I'm not even arguing to not vote for him; I think every New Yorker should) – so this is literally you just insisting that, no, really the reasoning would be different if Mamdani ran as a third party and the Democratic party endorsed him. Then I'd say the reasoning was different and you should vote for the guy who won the primary.
Which, like, if you're going to assume I'm secretly lying, why even bother to have responded in the first place?
The only one that actually matters is that Mamdani is a progressive and the sex pest you want is a centrist.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying. Your entire "it's ok to vote for a third party" thing is only because Mamdani is a progressive. "No matter who" crumbles instantly when the centrist candidate loses the primary.
Ohhhhh; O. K. Yeah; you are just totally ignoring what I'm saying.
Thanks for, at least, confirming.
I've said multiple times I wanted Mamdani to win; I've also said multiple times that I'm, very much, not advocating for anyone to vote third party (again, the candidate I would want won). You're just ignoring what I'm saying and substituting your own reality.
O. K. then; carry on. I wasted way too much time actually thinking this was a real conversation.
Except the part where you keep saying that this is different because it's small and local.
Speaking about the likelihood of whether a candidate can win is not the same thing as desiring for that candidate to win.
I explicitly said in my very first reply to you that I wasn't making a recommendation about which candidate to vote for because my point was about the reasoning of the argument and whether OP's argument actually addressed the viability of a candidate, the central piece of contention when it comes to whether a third-party candidate is capable of winning.
That doesn't mean I want Cuomo to win, regardless of how his chances look or his actual viability. I'm not a centrist; I don't want centrists for office; I'm thrilled the socialist won the primary; this is entirely besides the point of my original comment.
It sure looks like you've been arguing this whole time that voting third party is a-ok in this instance but not any of the previous ones.
The properties of a local election where one of the major parties backs the third party candidate does change the viability of that third party candidate in the election. But…
That doesn't suddenly mean that's the candidate I want to win or that I think that's the candidate everyone should vote for. I feel like we should be able to say Cuomo would have better odds without that inherently meaning we should vote for Cuomo.
I was trying to help explain what material properties affect this to help explain why this election would not be convincing evidence to a person who argues against voting for a third party in a presidential election (where neither of the major parties are backing said third party).
I didn't think that talking about the reasoning of such a person to understand their logic would suddenly mean that I thought voting for the third party was the thing to do or especially that I was advocating for voting for the serial sexual harasser.
I…don't know how else to explain that these are separate things. I feel like I've addressed you in good faith repeatedly while you've just insisted I've been secretly lying.
I understand what you're saying. I'm just not buying that you're not saying that it's a different situation for any reason other than a progressive won.
O. K. I'm genuinely not (I tend to vote for the Greens in my local elections and I feel like one wouldn't've wanted Mamdani to win if coming up with this was solely because the candidate is progressive) but, like, I'm just a stranger to you so I can understand the hesitation to take at face value.
Regardless (as I believe this is the point we are both of the same opinion), the great news is still that he won. I think it was sometime last year I remember discussing with my partner how so many people have this idea of NYC as a liberal city yet their mayors have all been neoliberal centrists, at best; I know he hasn't won the main election, yet, but I'm definitely feeling hopeful about the odds.