An FPGA seems like a lot of effort, but an SNES emulator running on a Raspberry Pi seems like it may have been a better option IMO.

That’s hard to say. With the current makeup of the supreme court, it’s likely they’d simply declare any law protecting abortion rights as unconstitutional because mumble mumble and get away with it. But what’s preventing them from doing even that is that Republicans (thanks in large part to politicised redrawing of district boundaries) have a majority in one of the two legislative bodies, so the Democrats couldn’t pass that protection regardless.

So likely the minimum that’s needed to codify abortion rights would be a Democratic majority in both legislative houses and a Democratic president.

On the topic of coalitions: The US doesn’t have coalitions in the ways many other countries have, partially because of the way the president is elected. Voters have a separate item on their ballot to elect (electors who will then vote in the electoral college for) the president. The way this occurs is through first past the post, where the largest portion of the votes (even if a minority) gets all the electors in that state (except in Nebraska and New Hampshire, where the state breaks it into districts). I’m in Michigan, for example. In 2016, Donald Trump got 47.5% of the vote in Michigan to Hillary Clinton’s 47.3% and thus got all 16 of Michigan’s electoral votes (out of 538). Had 11,000 more people voted for Clinton (let’s say, by not voting for the Green party), she would have won Michigan’s electoral votes, which is a 3% swing in the electoral college, but given that most states are pretty much guaranteed to go one way or the other (e.g. Indiana is a safe Republican state while neighbouring Illinois is a safe Democratic state), those 11,000 votes would be massively influential. This is why “swing states” are so stupidly pivotal in US elections.

So because of all of that, there’s not an option for the Greens to join a coalition, even if they wanted to (which I don’t think they would, as the US Green party is currently under the control of a Russian asset and it’s well known that Putin wants a Trump victory).

The American electoral system is ridiculously, stupidly backwards and basically designed to empower certain people over others. If there were a parliamentary democracy here the US, and probably the world (given the US’s love for foreign intervention), would be much better off.

FPTP is only one problem with the system. But it’s still a problem pretty much everywhere that has it. There are many other things that make it particularly worse in the US, but that doesn’t make it not a problem with it.

The overturning of Roe vs. Wade was a direct consequence of Trump’s election, as it was the three justices he was able to appoint (including Mitch McConnell’s fuckery about Merrick Garland) who changed the Supreme Court’s makeup to include so many right-wing partisans.

Voting third party is telling the system that you don’t have a preference between the two candidates who have even the slightest chance of winning. It sucks that there’s such constrained communication one can do (and we need a better voting system), but in the short term, the three options I’ve listed are what you have the options to communicate.

Which of my points have you “debunked?” Lol

I haven’t had to, as all you’ve done so far is repeat already-debunked, faux-leftist points that enable fascists.

You’ve been whitewashing genocide and fascism, without meaningfully backing yourself up.

Ahh, more accusations. Genocide is bad. Fascism is bad. Thus my question: why are you advocating for actions that will lead to more genocide and fascism?

You started directly insulting because you had no points other than claiming that genocide isn’t that bad if the Dems do it.

Lying about what I’ve said in a written forum isn’t effective. Once again, and in larger font:

Genocide is always bad, and more genocide is worse.

So why are you advocating for actions that fall in the “more genocide” camp?

What have I avoided?

Well immediately above I asked:

Why are you encouraging people to do things that will make it more likely for fascists to win and destroy what little leftist organizing there is in America?

You have asserted that the actions you advocate won’t do that, but when I explain how they do exactly that, you simply make the assertion again. When that fails, you attempt to equivocate. But when I point out that more genocide is more harmful than less genocide, you simply ignore my statements and make your assertions again.

That’s not helpful. It might convince some people, but only in the same way that repeating a lie enough makes some people believe it.

Once again avoiding the question and making personal attacks instead.

Your words imply that you think I believe having Harris as president will fix things. I don’t. What I do believe is it will slow the decline, hopefully enough for us to create ways to escape capitalism without having fascists commit more genocides than they already are. This is known as “harm reduction.” It’s a complex theory by which one takes actions to reduce the harm done with immediate actions when there’s no immediate action that one can take to improve things. The ballot box in 2024 is not the time for a revolution, for said revolution would fail miserably, leaving us worse off. The ballot box in 2024 is the time for harm reduction.

In the above comment, we see the following:

• Repetition of the same debunked talking points
• Equivocation of the two major parties (which, as I’ve already mentioned, only helps the more evil of the two)
• “no u”

It really insults the intelligence of those reading to think that they won’t see through this.

What I’m going to have to explain to them is why I voted “don’t care” in 2016. That’s a mistake I will forever have to live with. But if I can convince a few people not to make that same mistake, I will at least be able to reduce the harm I did.

Words have definitions. Harris, for everything I don’t like about her, is a liberal. Not a fascist. Trump, on the other hand, is a fascist.

The choices here are simple: fascism (Trump), not-fascism (Harris), or “I really don’t care, do u?”

Why are you encouraging people to do things that will make it more likely for fascists to win and destroy what little leftist organizing there is in America? The only rational conclusion is that you want fascism. But you keep avoiding that question. Is it because you’re taking a page out of the alt-right playbook?

You can vote for fascism if that’s what you want, I reject it.

You’re literally making the choice to put fascism in power. I’m trying to stop you from making the same mistake I made in 2016.

You’re talking in circles and fundamentally missing the point that neither voting third-party nor not voting isn’t going to make things better. It’s only going to make things worse.

The ballot box is for harm reduction, and equivocating the level of evil of two candidates only ever helps the more evil option.

If you want to make your first actual point, feel free to do so. If you want to keep repeating the very talking points that got us the situation that allowed for this genocide in the first place, don’t bother.

That’s a lot of text to say “Yes, I want the fascist to win.”

Making things worse isn’t going to accelerate the revolution. It’s going to make things worse and kill the most vulnerable in our society - the ones who would most benefit from a revolution. If you truly want a socialist revolution, you need to have enough people on your side. And having those people be dead is counterproductive.

you can vote Green or PSL

You sure can if you believe that making an insignificant point in a ballot box is worth more than the actual lives of people who would die because of a Trump administration but not under a Harris one. But if you want to make an actual difference. the ballot box is one of the very few times you need to hold your nose and do the uncomfortable thing of choosing liberalism over fascism.

But if you’re okay with fascism, sure. Go and make your vote a spoiler that helps the fascists win. I’m sure the people who die because doctors who were scared to provide medically necessary abortions will be grateful that you did the morally superior, but entirely ineffective, thing.

“Building an alternative” doesn’t happen in the ballot box. It happens everywhere else.

It happens by getting a better voting system rather than FPTP, for which I’m doing actual, active advocacy. (Are you?)

It happens by working at a grassroots level to get people with better opinions elected, all the way down to local judges, city council members and library boards, where I, once again, am active. (Are you?)

It happens by getting involved in politics at a local level and building a movement. I’m doing that. (Are you?) It doesn’t happen by throwing a tantrum in the voting booth.

The fascists know this. The fascists use this to their advantage. And the fascists would absolutely love for there to be 10 competing leftist parties acting as a spoiler effect for liberals. Because as bad as liberals are, fascists are worse.

Throwing out a “no u” when I point out how the things you are doing are paving the way for fascists is not a good argument unless your goal is to actually get fascists into power. And I will choose liberalism over fascism, because that’s the harm reduction path to leftism, whereas letting the fascists win is the harm maximisation path.

Yes yes, we all see the rhetorical trap you’re trying to deploy. It’s not exactly subtle.

Meanwhile in the real world, in most of the US there is no realistic alternative to the red/blue dichotomy, and so while we’re actually building that alternative we have to choose between those two. At the national level and in most (possibly all) senate/house races, that’s the reality of the situation. You either work with the coalition you think is less evil and try to convince them to be even less evil, or you admit that you’re okay with the more evil option if it gives you a feeling of moral superiority.

That’s a non-sequitur, because that’s not what’s happening by any means. But thanks for ceding the point that you’re okay feeling morally superior by doing something that’ll get more people killed.

Look, if you don’t care about LGBT folks, women who need abortions, asylum seekers, etc. you can pull that “don’t care” lever. But “I care about making a symbolic, but ultimately toothless, gesture about Palestine more than I care about the lives of thousands, possibly millions of others” is what voting third-party is telling the system right now. If that makes you feel morally superior, we’re at an impasse because I don’t know how to explain to someone that an action to save lives is more powerful than an unrealistic gesture about saving even more lives, but which will realistically increase the amount of death and suffering.

Then vote Greens or PSL.

Sorry, I’m not going to vote “don’t care” on genocide no matter how many faux leftists pretend it’s the morally superior option.