I have no clue what's going to happen in this presidential election, but if Trump wins, it won't be because of the people who voted for him; it will be because of the people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Harris because she didn't pass one purity test or another. And that will be thanks to the sweeping disinformation campaign being waged to dissuade gullible, impressionable people from casting their vote for Harris. If they didn't have the Israeli apartheid regime's ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank to hang their hat on, they'd find something else.

We are facing the most important moral and ethical test that any of us has faced as American citizens, and this is a pass/fail test. The only way for us to pass this test is to vote for Kamala Harris, however much we may have to hold our nose to do so. For any other choice we make, including making no choice, we fail.

Hey, Trump normalizers and Sawant supporters out there, go right ahead and tell me what an elitist I am to have the temerity to be expressing my own opinion like this.

@1, Well said.

Yeah, go to the Stranger's party at the Crocodile tonight. Buy some drinks so owner Marcus Charles can take your money and contribute to his Right Wing cause du jour.

Music? Whatever, fine, but It's so fucking lame of you guys to have an ELECTION PARTY at a Marcus Charles venue.

Why do we want to restore felons right to vote? They are Trumpsters.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/survey-finds-strong-support-for-trump-among-wa-prison-population/

Ferrets! 🐾🐾🐾

@3, They are being consistent with their stated values of inclusion.

@4 Because more people voting is a good thing, even if they are people who don't agree with me. If you start premising who can vote by how they vote, you're on a very long and slippery slope.

By the way, a few months back you said that you were going to try to convince Trump voters to vote for Harris by listening honestly to them and their concerns. How did that work out? How many people did you talk to? Did you convince anyone?

@1 isn't also because of jerrymandered districts and the electoral college, which is the only reason a republican president has won at all in the last couple decades? Systemic barriers to truly democratic represtation aside, I respect your right to blame a few progressives for how close to outright authoritarian nationalism we are.

@1: Brava! All I can add is:

It used to be, “lesser of two evils.” This is our third consecutive round of “obviously totally unqualified vs. extremely well qualified.”

At least if the issue was Ukraine, the sides would be clear, and relevant to U.S. voters. Ancient tribal conflicts out in some faraway desert don’t really concern us at all.

3: Seems like a rather extreme purity test! Let thee who has no R votes in their past cast the first stone.

https://everout.com/seattle/events/the-stranger-and-kexps-election-night-party/e190136/

Dale Horseman @8, quick questions. How are you casting YOUR vote in this presidential election? How would you encourage others to cast their votes?

Asking on behalf of those who would like to save our nation from "outright authoritarian nationalism."

@8: “…blame a few progressives for how close to outright authoritarian nationalism we are.”

Persons whose only participation in our democratic process consists of making demands, and then not voting when those demands are not met, deserve all of the blame and derision the rest of us can possibly pile onto them.

@11 I wrote in "Ad Hominem"

You have to feel a little sorry for Colin Allred; being within spitting distance of Cruz for so long, but somehow Colin is suddenly the bad guy if he takes that opportunity.

@7, There are lots of folks voting for Trump that are horrified by his character.

Some of them, are like the six folks in Dixville Notch (4 R, 2 I) that voted for Haley in the open NH primary.

Flash forward to today. 3 went for Trump and 3 for Harris.

I haven't talked to the three, but any number that are probably like them. As uncomfortable as they are with Trump, the policy positions of Progressives are a bridge too far for them. So the way to vanquish Trumpism is for Progressives to realize that they must restrain their aspirations. Some of them are poison pills to the other side. Do you want Trump, or be willing to give up the poison pills?

There are correlaries going the other way. There are Republican, otherwise conservative, suburban women voters, voting for Harris over abortion restrictions. That issue is a bridge to far, causing them to vote against Republicans.

There are other issues like that, such as a balanced budgets, where Fiscal Conservatives have restrained themselves. Its not possible to have that without cutting entitlements. That is a bridge too far and they know it. W. tried to raise it and use his popular political capital after Saddam fell to pursue it. The more he tried the worse it got. A bridge too far. So to keep his other priorities he abandoned it.

So both sides insisting that if they win they will cram their maximalist policy aspirations down the losing side's throat, with no restraint or nod to some of the losing sides biggest concerns, leaves us here, with the Progressives bringing the largest numbers of bridge too far issues.

So keep making the perfect the enemy of the good, and we will keep facing Trumpism, even if Trump keels over tomorrow from some natural cause (I can only hope). Are Progressives prepared ti accept 70% of what they want to keep durable, stable, tolerant governing majorities by not trying to enact the 30% that is a poison pill to the other side?

A durable Republic can't be one where the majority enacts everything they want because they won the last election.

My more sarcasic point was that The Stranger, and Progressive's, aren't as principled as you on voting. When they talk about more people voting, its usually more people who they think will vote the way they want, not more people voting.

Also what if the Majority, in a pure Majoritarian system is tyrannical? Is the purpose of government to allow the majority to act without restraint to impose what they decide, or is it to collectively secure as much individual freedom and autonomy as possible? If its the latter, then you want enough speedbumps for the majority imposing their will so tyranny by majority is thwarted. You want some anti-democratic mechanisms to offset majoritarian ones. The balance is tough.

15 the amount of time you waste making up stupid bullshit stories about other people so you can tell them they’re wrong is wild. News flash, everyone would prefer it if more voters voted their way because that would mean their preferences are more likely to win, but you can still have a principled belief about voting rights for everyone regardless of their preferences.

If you don’t have a direct quote of someone saying “I only want more people who I think will vote the way I want, not more people voting” then what the fuck do you think you’re achieving by pretending that’s what they think? Tearing down straw men is loser behavior.

Also re your last paragraph, pretty fucking dim for a self-declared constitutional scholar to not understand how the fucking thing works and why it exists. We don’t rein in the tyranny of the majority through “anti-democratic mechanisms” because that makes no fucking sense. We do it through the judiciary, dumbass.

bibi fired one of his chief
Warlords someone not very
Pro-Genocide who also doesn't
gotta prolong, Expand his get-outta
Prison Middle Eastern Debacle fired him
in a signal to the donold that the Skids'll be
Properly Greased for djt's little Dynasty. so sorry, Victims.

there was
Nothing
could be
Done

@16, Then why are supposedly non-partisan groups that encourage voter registration confining their efforts to demographic areas that tend to register more of one party or ideology than another? Why do funders of such groups pick groups in geographic/demographic areas that tend to favor a particular world view?

I have yet to see one of those so called non-partisan groups target geographic/demographic areas in a non-partisan way. I.e. The group does the same amount of new voter registration effort in Rainier Beach as they do in say Omak.

They often target so called under-represented groups as well, as long as they know that the group has a disposition to voter more for certain candidates rather than others.

When I see The Stranger arguing as vociferously for increasing voter participation rates in say East King County as in Seattle, or among old voters as young ones, I'll take claims that its principled, not partisan, or ideological, seriously.

@15 Remind me again what Progressive poison pills I've made my hill to die on? What I've said is a bridge too far and I'd prefer Trump to a Democrat who can't do _? Oh, yeah, you can't. Because you're making shit up again. Nice try, but a little transparent. 3/10.

Oh, and you didn't mention whether you actually changed any minds in your massive voter outreach effort.

@18 You're the one who said that felons shouldn't get the right to vote because they're Trumpsters. You might have forgotten, it was only back at #4. So why are you saying that The Stranger or any Progressive group would oppose felons getting the right to vote? That's your own straw man. Congratulations on knocking it down. You look very smug on the overturned bales.

Oh hey, it's a very short wait for your last question! The Stranger advocated for all-mail voting and removing postage requirements for mail-in ballots, which increases turnout for everyone, including the good people of Omak or East King County.

18, These are two different concepts that you are treating interchangeably:

-Someone working on behalf of a group whose goal is to register voters who are most likely to vote for the party/policies preferred by the group (I wouldn’t consider this work non-partisan, though technically it may be so because you cannot guarantee how anyone will vote once registered and can’t turn someone away if they declare intentions that don’t align with your interests)

-An individual person with basic principles about voting rights and the belief that everyone should be able to vote

Bibi fired one of his chief warlords, someone not very pro-genocide, who also doesn't got to prolong, expand his get out of prison Middle Eastern debacle. Fired him in a signal to the Donald that the skids will be properly greased for DJT’s little dynasty. So sorry, victims, there was nothing that could be done.

@19, Sarcasm on felons voting. The Stranger and some Progressive legislators have called for that. Now that they understand it will hurt their causes, I think they will abandon the line I sarcastically took.

@20, "An individual person with basic principles about voting rights and the belief that everyone should be able to vote." The test of that is whether they, and groups they participate in or support, do it across the geographic and demographic board.

There are a ton of 501(c)(3) organizations out there that are required to be non-partisan, but they only do door-belling and other register to vote efforts in areas that lean way more progressive in their voting and target demographic groups that vote more progressive.

In Washington State, if rural voters turned out at the same rate as urban and suburban voters, the state would be much more competitive for statewide offices. That is the definition of an under-represented group. Find a serious 501(c)(3) trying to register more of those voters and getting them to turn out with Mark Zukkerberg's money? You can't.

I don't give a rats ass whether rural voters register and vote at the same rate as urban voters. Not voting also influences the outcome and not voting can be a message that these voters don't see the outcome they might get from voting to be worth the effort they would have to make.

I am just pointing out the dishonesty of these groups that say, "We just want to get more people to vote." Nope, they want certain under-represented groups that will break more one way than the other, to vote, and they target areas where those groups are, and willfully aren't active in others. E.g. A non-profit is formed to educate and help people register to vote, and participate in elections in NYC and nowhere else. Since the City went 76% for Biden, is that really non-partisan and founded on the principle of expanding voter participation solely for the sake of increasing voter participation?

nyt
TRUMP STORMS BACK

Stunning Return to Power After Dark and Defiant Campaign

His Win Opens a New Era of Uncertainty for the Nation

Donald Trump played on fears of immigrants and economic anxieties to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris.

He triumphed despite a criminal conviction, indictments, an assassin’s bullet, accusations of authoritarianism and an unprecedented switch of his opponent.

Nov. 6, 2024, 5:39 a.m.

more, depressingly
more depressingly:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/11/06/us/trump-election-harris-news

Gaza is no longer a mere genocide, but a new Holocaust.

yeah
CD, but
just Think
of the Investment
Opportunities! cum profits

so:
will
tS leap
upon this
Wonderful new
Neolibertarian/Neoconning
of America or will she remain Solidy

communist?

Here’s How Badly Kamala Harris
Has Lost Arab American Voters

Voters in Dearborn, Michigan,
the largest majority Arab American city,
have delivered a stunningly bad verdict on Democrats.

In a rebuke of the Biden administration’s handling of Israel’s brutal bombing campaign of Gaza and Lebanon, the city of Dearborn, Michigan, has broken in favor of Donald Trump, with 39.6 percent of votes cast.

Dearborn is the largest majority Arab American city in the country, and as of 11:35 p.m. EST Trump had 46.8 percent of the vote compared to 27.8 percent of the vote for Harris and 22 percent for Green Party Candidate Jill Stein. In 2020, Joe Biden won the city with a 74.2 percent of the vote, compared to 24.2 percent for Trump.

https://newrepublic.com/post/188048/michigan-dearborn-arab-americans-election-harris-trump-stein

who's "Uncommitted" now?

but not
to worry: the
“D”NC’ll figure out
a whole New Way to
snatch defeat outta the
jaws of Genocide oh & the
Bankrupting of Both Medicare
& Social Security* in 2028 & beyond!

And yeah
Trumpf’ll be
Horrific on Palestine:
that’ll show them Arabs
to support the ‘d’nc Next Time

*pardon Me:
the Privatization
of our social safety nets.

@27: So, Sawant succeeded in her goal of defeating Harris in Michigan, to “punish” Harris for her stance on Gaza?

Sawant certainly seems to have earned her place in history. Helping to elect Trump will forever be her greatest legacy.

You must be so proud of the support you’ve long given Sawant. You and the Stranger both.

Please enjoy the second Trump presidency. Sawant, you, and the Stranger have well earned every last bit of it.