view the rest of the comments
No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
No. Vote Biden.
UPDATE: Vote Harris!*
If you can spare the time or money, volunteer and donate to the campaign in places they can actually win.
EDIT: Also, vote Democrat if there are any other elections going on at the same time. If Trump does win, the only chance of holding him to any kind of account is to have as many Democrats in positions of power as possible.
Sincerely, someone who can't vote in your elections but still lives with the knock-on effects!
*EDIT 2: Absolute necro-editing to change this to say Vote Harris.
It's a red state. No chance of anything but a Trump win.
Please explain why their "not TRUMP" vote should be given to Biden?
Being a red state doesn't guarantee a Trump win though. In the last election he assumed Georgia would put him over the top because they are historically a red state but they actually ended up swinging over to blue by a small majority.
There was a huge controversy around it because Trump called up people there and told them to tamper with the numbers to let him win anyway
The Republican party is counting on the idea that people forget these things quickly lol
OK, but OP mentioned a Red state specifically. They want a more nuanced answer than "vote blue just in case".
Assume a state so red, Trump loving and Biden hating that there is no possibility of a blue win. Is voting Biden in that particular state still the best strategy for the future of the USA?
There is never no possibility. Florida is considered a red state up there with texas and gore lost to it from a florida court decision on hanging chads.
Florida wasn't a red state, more democrats have won than Republicans in Florida. It's the past few years thing that the racism is taking hold quickly.
that just shows a state can change and it can change at any time. enough folks could get fed up that with your vote the outcome is different. Politics is like the stock market. You can use historical trends to guess at the future but historical trends do not always indicate future behaviour.
To demonstrate the lack of a “clear mandate”.
Yes, Trump will win if he gets one more vote than Biden, but the more he loses the popular vote by, the more justification people have for protesting.
So if he wins on electoral college votes but loses the popular vote by a landslide, at least it shows what The People are actually thinking.
We can just as easily define the popular vote as being the sum of all non Trump votes.
No Trump doesn't need to be Yes Biden.
It doesn’t matter how you define it. It matters how the people that report on it define it. And almost universally, that’s horse race numbers.
Third parties are pretty much invisible for 95% of people until they start breaking into the horse race.
Nobody have a fuck about Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan till they mattered for the result of the actual election in 2000. But only after the fact.
No, it matter how the strategy analysts view the raw data. Not the media.
Only if you focus on winning. Bernie didn't run in the primaries to win. He ran to influence.
oh just stfu
Help help. I'm being repressed.
Because trumpets will always vote Trump. People voting for third party may not be actively supporting Trump, but the 3rd party has zero chance of winning so the only way to keep Trump from winning is to vote for who actually can win against him currently. Which is biden.
Please explain why it should be given to anyone else.
Because there are lots of other people who are not Trump.
Voting for candidates with more extreme policies shifts the political needle, even if they don't win.
OP has given us no info about the candidates they're considering other than RFK, who is a lunatic. There's no merit to encouraging RFK's views, so Biden should be OP's choice.
RFK has significantly less lunacy than Trump, and is much more coherent than both Biden and Trump.
He still supports Israel though, so there is no anti genocide candidate.
RFK is less coherent than Biden politically and intellectually, which is what matters.
The way RFK makes (coherent) arguments in public is streets ahead of Biden and Trump, but so is almost any politician.
In terms of honesty, RFK is between Biden and Trump. Half truths and populism, rather than the full lies of Trump.
No, it isn't. He's a conspiracy theorist. Voting for him is endorsing conspiracy theorists.
The Tuskegee experiment is not the same as Flat Earth. Conspiracy theories are not a homogeneous and neither are conspiracy theorists.
The Tuskegee Experiment was not a conspiracy theory. So, in that sense you're right.
Conspiracy theories and theorists are homogenous: the flawed thinking is inherent to the concept. Conspiracy theories are untrue by definition, and nothing to do with real conspiracies.
Fuck off. The Tuskegee Experiment was a conspiracy. A group of people secretly performed illegal medical experiments on the African American population.
Only within each conspiracy. Oliver Stone believes the JFK conspiracy theory but I doubt he believes the elite are literally lizard people.
Incorrect. An illegal agreement between two or more parties has no connection to how logical the process is of whoever is suspicious.
Incorrect. They are unproven by definition. They may be true or false.
Real (I assume you mean proven) conspiracies start off as theories.
No, they don't. Conspiracy theories are not 'theories about conspiracies'. You are both misusing the term 'conspiracy theory' and wrongly describing the Tuskegee experiment as a conspiracy, which it never was. One of the people who originally called it out did so after reading about it in a published scientific paper! The pereptrators of that 'experiment' lied to the participants, but they were not otherwise secretive, otherwise they wouldn't have been writing and publishing papers about it.
I'm not going to discuss this further with someone who cannot do so civilly.
I am not. The words conspiracy and theory are very well defined. Do the words scientific and theory change definition to "untrue physical properties" when used together. No.
Lets put it another way. How would you like to describe a situation where you suspect a group of people to be secretly deceiving the general public?
Conspiracies can be documented. The only reason MKUltra was confirmed was because the CIA forgot to destroy some files.
"Study clinicians could have chosen to treat all syphilitic subjects and close the study, or split off a control group for testing with penicillin. Instead, they continued the study without treating any participants; they withheld treatment and information about penicillin from the subjects. In addition, scientists prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to other residents in the area".
That's a conspiracy.
Check my history. I am civil, except to people trying to deny secret government sponsored human suffering.
didn't he literally have a worm burrowing through his brain
Yes. 14 years ago.
Kennedy said he had recovered from the memory loss and fogginess and had no aftereffects from the parasite.
Voting for other candidates only shifts the needle if they win. If they can't possibly win, nothing is accomplished by voting for them.
Incorrect. Bernie shifted the needle and didn't win.
On Thursday he rolled out two new policy proposals:
"Senator Sanders and his supporters can take pride in their work in laying the groundwork for these ideas,
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/830853819/joe-biden-won-the-primary-now-hes-trying-to-win-over-progressive-groups
Didn't win? Dude's a congressman. He's in.
Bernie didn't win the presidency but still got some of his policies adopted by the president.
You don't need to win to have influence.
I think we're talking past each other but agreeing on the fundamentals. I'm approaching it from the angle of all government positions - absolutely if a progressive candidate has a chance to win any office from dog catcher to president, get them in so they can influence policy. But if they have no chance of winning, it's just damage control.
Short term, yes. Long term losers can have more impact than you are crediting.
That's fair.