Look, whatever you think of Jill Stein, she can only be a threat to democrats because they are vulnerable to arguments from the left. If you don’t want to be vulnerable from the left, adopt some of their popular ideas. Putin isn’t tricking Americans into being anti genocide, or into wanting universal health care.
The spoiler effect is a geometric problem, a problem of the relative positions of candidates. It has nothing to do with how strong or good of a candidate someone is.
If the democrats weren’t insisting on holding water for Israel’s genocide, the green party wouldn’t even be a nuisance to them.
Say whatever you want about how crazy they are, but the one issue the democrats are actually hurting from is their genocide support. If for no other reason than to push the dems to change that policy I think the greens are a huge benefit.
Absolutely right. All the people in my mentions are mad at this fact. I keep trying to tell them that it doesn’t matter what Stein’s whole platform is, as long as she has a saner opinion than the dems on genocide, she will be an alternative for a lot of people. Her voters know she won’t win, but they will not vote in support of a genocide! It’s not “single issue voting”, it’s having a moral baseline.
It’s not “single issue voting”, it’s having a moral baseline.
Sounds like both could be true at the same time.
If someone is going to vote for Stein because of genocide they’re definitely not going to vote for Harris even if Stein wasn’t running.
Some would, some wouldn’t.
Edit: This is especially true right now, since there is a huge group of (otherwise dem) voters for whom the genocide is a dealbreaker. See the ‘Undecided’ movement for a clear example.
She isn’t so much making arguments from the left, but arguments from fantasy land. She thinks wifi is bad for kids brains and that we can stop using fossil fuels AND nuclear by 2030. Most of what she says simply had no basis in reality.
Are those the arguments you think that are siphoning off democratic voters?
Lots of people live in fantasy lands, not just the diehard Trumpers
Sure. Even plenty of dem voters! But just to be clear, do you think that the WiFi issue or the genocide issue is costing democrats more potential votes?
The genocide that Israel is doing, or China?
Which one are US elected representatives actively supporting with US taxpayer dollars?
Are you talking about the ten year weapons contract that started in 2016?
Israel, since Oct 7th, has murdered 40.000k people through direct, violent means, how many people died in the Uyghur “genocide”?
According to article 2 of the genocide convention, actual killing is not necessary for a genocide.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/genocide-conv-1948/article-2
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
✅ (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
✅ © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
✅ (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
✅ (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Source:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037
"The declarations follow reports that, as well as interning Uyghurs in camps, China has been forcibly mass sterilising Uyghur women to suppress the population, separating children from their families, and attempting to break the cultural traditions of the group.
The US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, has said China is committing “genocide and crimes against humanity”.
The UK parliament declared in April 2021 that China was committing a genocide in Xinjiang.
A UN human rights committee in 2018 said it had credible reports that China was holding up to a million people in “counter-extremism centres” in Xinjiang.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute found evidence in 2020 of more than 380 of these “re-education camps” in Xinjiang, an increase of 40% on previous estimates.
Analysis of data contained in the latest police documents, called the Xinjiang Police Files, showed that almost 23,000 residents - or more than 12% of the adult population of one county - were in a camp or prison in the years 2017 and 2018. If applied to Xinjiang as a whole, the figures would mean the detention of more than 1.2 million Uyghur and other Turkic minority adults."
15k of them were Hamas terrorists. More civilians die in every war and that’s really fucked up. And do you really not believe the Uyghur genocide is a thing?
The no fossil fuels by 2030 one definitely is. Mostly she is drawing both-siders who think (incorrectly) that both sides are just as bad as each other.
No, but why would you trust the word of someone who makes those arguments?
If she thinks wifi may cause cancer, that we can totally phase out fossil fuels with no loss in quality of life by 2030, that we should phase out nuclear energy, and that we should entertain vaccine skepticism… Why should I even bother to listen to an anti science quack like her?
I want the genocide to end. I want someone in power who wants it to end and has a plan to make it end. Everything Jill Stein has said suggests to me she has no idea how reality actually works, nor that she has any ideas on how to achieve her stated goals. She’s just virtue signaling.
Now, a good leader can’t do or plan everything. They aren’t going to come up with every solution. That’s what they have advisors and like-minded allies in Congress for. If Stein was elected, she would have no fellow Greens in Congress, and we have no guarantee that she’d actually pick experts as her advisors – I’d actually expect the contrary from someone who thinks Wi-Fi causes cancer. But we don’t really know because the Green Party is utterly ineffectual and just cosplays every 4 years.
You’re missing the point. Nobody has to trust her word. She doesn’t have to be right about everything, she just has to be correct on this particularly important issue. Nobody thinks Jill Stein is going to win. Nobody. So they don’t have to imagine how she would implement her platform. It is irrelevant.
The problem for the democrats is that they are so WRONG on this one thing (genocide), that a certain subset of their potential voters can’t bring themselves to vote dem. Some of those voters may be bluffing and some may not be. Dems will roll the dice and hope for the best, rather than come out against genocide (my prediction).
So how do you know that she’s actually against genocide and not just saying it to get some support? If nobody has to trust her word, then why believe her there?
What has she done? Is she organizing demonstrations to protest against Israel and in favor of a cease fire? Is she using her party apparatus to fundraise and donate 100% of proceeds to Gaza aid? Is she trying to speak with Biden, Blinken, or even Democrat congressional members who agree with her?
Or is she just lazing on Twitter and saying how awful it is while also excusing Russia’s casus belli into Ukraine?
This whole thing is symbolic of her failure, lack of seriousness, and grifting. She isn’t actually doing anything for the causes she claims are super important and her top priority. She’s just being a Twitter activist and saying she’s very concerned. Stein doesn’t do things. She says things. Her actions don’t reflect any convictions.
I do think RCV would be a better system than what we have now, but I have very little confidence that it could ever be implemented without some loopholes that would essentially undermine it.
Do you think Australia/Ireland have those loopholes too, or is there something else we need to fix first before it’ll work here?
Look up STAR voting. Similar but better system.
And Schulze is even better than that, but we’re never going to get anything better than FPTP if we can’t coordinate on a first step.
Heck, I feel a little dirty inside calling IRV by “RCV” to appeal to the general public.
I do have that concern but based on how RCV has worked in some real elections my concerns with it a major enough that it might be worth it to advocate for a different system. I don’t want electoral reforms as a whole to go down because of imperfections with RCV.
I mean gotta coalesce around something cause right now debating before the door is even opened is seriously killing momentum.
Edit: Think back to occupy. People defeating each other before the real battle even starts is a guaranteed way to lose.
I’m not familiar with how elections work in those countries, but from what I do hear, Aussie politics is pretty rightwing.
I know there are plenty of arguments to hit the dems on from the left. However, most of the attacks I’m privy to seem to be more about establishing leftist cred than actually doing something productive, and Jill Stein is one of the best examples of this.
It’s not clear to me what you mean here. Are you saying that AOC is attacking Jill Stein in order to bolster her own “leftist cred”, or that Jill Stein is chasing “leftist cred” by attacking democrats?
If it’s the second one, then I would just refer you back to my previous comment. Any attacks from Jill Stein could be easily defused by adopting a few popular planks. If you actually meant it the first way, then yeah I kind of agree!
Jill Stein attacking others on the left to establish leftist cred, just like so many other leftists we see on the net.
We have so much more in common than we have differences, and we could get a lot done if we were to band together - but instead we do the right’s job for them by dividing ourselves.
I don’t think that’s a very charitable interpretation of what is easily explained by honest political differences. People can and do work together when possible, but there are also issues too important to compromise on.
honest
Hah!
She wants to play them off as honest political differences anyway.
When her actions match her supposed intentions then I’d be more willing to give her charity.
You’re painting “so many leftists we see on the net” with that same brush though. Is it so hard to believe that there are people genuinely to the left of you politically? What “actions” do you need to see from Jill Stein? She’s been running for office, giving interviews and speeches that platform issues that the dems are weak on. If nothing else she’s forcing democrats like AOC (and you, presumably) to engage with these ideas or risk political consequences. If we didn’t have 3rd party candidates to the left, there would be even less pressure on the dems to adopt leftist policies.
She could start by dropping out of the race, endorsing Kamala, and then putting every dollar she has into organizing for national ranked choice voting so that hopefully once in my life I can vote my conscience at the same time I vote pragmatically.
I sincerely doubt there is much room between where Stein is at on the issues and where AOC is at on the issues - the main difference is that AOC is not running for president and making it easier for dispicable people who don’t care about anything to win.
Calling for an arms embargo is productive.
Yes, but then being unwilling to take any concession is not. The green party could, for example, pull itself off of ballots in key states or elections when the Democrats agree to their policies.
Running a doomed to fail candidate that only weakens the likelihood of the most left candidates and pulling progressives out of the Democrat party is a bad move.
Say what your will about RFK, he’s getting political power from Trump by dropping (if Trump wins). What will the green party get? Nothing.
Dropping and endorsing after concessions is the real way for a minority party to weld power. Running no matter what is just delusion that works counter to any goal you might have.
I just want you to understand how this sounds when it’s flipped:
Yes, but then being unwilling to take any concession is not. The democrat party could, for example, pull itself off of ballots in key states or elections when the Greens agree to their policies.
It may be easier to identify this way that this is not a reasonable position, no matter which party it is about.
If the Democrats were the minority party to the green party then yes, this is still sound. This is how politics works in FPTP election systems. You may not like it, but it’s not unreasonable. If the purpose of the green party is to get its policies enacted then the best way for that is pushing and endorsing when concessions are made.
Heck, for a lot of its positions the best thing the green party could do is run for local and state level positions. But they don’t do that, they only run for presidential positions. They waste a ton of time and money getting nothing done. You only hear about the green party once every 4 years which is why they are unserious.
And I’m not even saying they can’t keep doing their dumb campaigns. However, they work directly against their goals by running in contested states. The green party pulls votes from Democrats which are the most in line party with the green party goals. By running in contested states they help Republicans get elected. Of the green party was more than just a joke or a rat fuck, they’d mainly be running in states like Idaho or California.
She can only be a threat to democrats in a first past the post voting system.
The Green party doesn’t run on its policies. They’ve opposed nuclear for decades, and we’d be having a very different conversation about global warming if they hadn’t basically won there. They have opposed WiFi and cell phone radiation as “cancer causing”, and have supported homeopathy. If they ran on their policies, they would find a dwindling number of people on the left who actually support them, because they’re vestigial loons concocted in a 1960s hippie lab.
The Green party runs on being the only party on the left that’s bigger than almost nothing. That’s it, that’s all they do.
So she’s only a threat in the system we actually have?
Yes. And also, a loon who does not want to run on the policies her party supports, because she would lose even in a better voting system.
And what do you call a “serious” party that manages to lose to people like Donald Trump?
A party blind to the problems with American society.
Now that we have that out of the way, is the Green Party able to defend their policies on their merits?
I can imagine that they at least attempt to. I don’t really understand what you’re getting at though. Given their place in the American political landscape, they don’t really have to. Democrats on the other hand, given their position, have to be able to defend all of their policies on the merits. That’s what this whole conversation is about-- democrats mad at the left for making them defend the indefensible.
So, this old, tired shit again.
Democrats do not support Genocide, and the war in Gaza is not clear cut. First, who started it? Hamas started it. They and Netanyahu want this war. They want to grind each other down so the loser is dust and the winner is weakened so whoever else is out there (Iran for Israel, the USA for Hamas and their supporters) can come in and mop up and finish the job.
Suppose Harris announces tomorrow that she’s going to leave Israel out to dry. What happens? Russia promptly moves in and offers Israel guns, missiles, bombs, and fuel, and promptly accuses the USA of supporting Genocide. They and their Green Party USA useful idiots (complete with Stein sharing a table with Putin) are already claiming that the USA is supporting Genocide, but they’d just shift it over to the Israelis, which would be a correct statement in that situation. We’d come out looking bad.
And if you think the Green’s ratfucking America is bad, imagine how people of Jewish decent, especially moderates and nationalists, might respond to it. Considering they represent up to 5% of the voting populations, and have lots of friends, leaving Israel to hang out to dry would likely lose far more voters than cowtowing to the anti-“Genocide” faction would gain the Dems.
But calling Democrats mass-murderers is easy to do because people are dumb. All we can do is remind everyone that if you vote Green instead of Blue on Election Day, you’re going to get Red on Inauguration Day, and Project 2025 up the Back Entrance.
Maybe if you read my comments, you wouldn’t be confused.
They’ve opposed nuclear for decades, and we’d be having a very different conversation about global warming if they hadn’t basically won there. They have opposed WiFi and cell phone radiation as “cancer causing”, and have supported homeopathy. If they ran on their policies, they would find a dwindling number of people on the left who actually support them, because they’re vestigial loons concocted in a 1960s hippie lab.
I can imagine that they at least attempt to.
If I ever start my argumentation like this, can someone remind me that I obviously lost the argument?
We? Nah man, you’re not part of we.
I don’t even understand what you are trying to say. Is this a subtle insinuation that I’m not a US citizen or something?
Did you know this isn’t .ml?
Hurrdurr
Brilliant, thanks for outlining this. So tired of the Russian / Putins Puppet line from idiot Democrats
Kamala and Walz are more left-leaning than any dem ticket in ages. If the purpose of the Green party is to move the democrats left, then they should drop out to reward them for moving left.
Pro-fracking, pro having a fascist in their Cabinet, pro-war profiteering even during a genocide, and you call it the most left-leaning ticket in ages? I hate that I have to agree, but I don’t think it’s as strong of a point as you’d like it to be.
Why not?
Why would they stop now in that case? “More left-leaning than any dem ticket in ages” is not a very high bar. Shit, it’s so low, you can’t even slip “opposes genocide” under it!
It’s so left leaning, Reagan would vote for lots of it!
Why would they stop now in that case?
Dems: “Wow, we moved drastically to the left and it’s still not enough to satisfy these Very Important Leftists. I guess they’re a lost cause as a voting bloc, considering that we’re already running a platform trying to get the widest possible spread between left and right voters that will only win on a handful of percentage points. Time to see if we can peel off any right-wing voters again.”
I will never be satisfied with our government even if Democrats control the whole thing. But I recognize that there’s nothing I can do to change that because this country is full of people almost entirely unlike me and I should vote for the Democrats because they’re the least worst party that can win.
In France, Left-leaning parties got together and decided which ones had the best chance in each ‘district’ of winning, and the other parties would drop out. They did this to ensure that the Le Pen led Fascist party didn’t have a chance of winning. Sure, the aftermath hasn’t been pretty, but no neo-Nazis running the country.
Here in the USA, we should be doing the same thing, except the Green Party isn’t in this to win it. They’re in it to throw bombs. They’re in it to disrupt the ‘evil Democrats’. And they have help. Jill Stein was photographed sitting down with Putin, who really benefits if we’re ruled by Fascist Republicans. Republicans have been caught propping up the campaigns of alternative Leftist parties. And even Netanyahu is hoping Jill Stein pulls enough votes from Kamala Harris so that Donald Trump wins.
As always. This is a School SGA election, we’re the 51 Nerds arguing amongst ourselves, and the 49 Jocks, including the Book Girl who is pretending to be one of us, are watching as we argue our way into handing the SGA to the Jocks, so they can cancel Book Club, Chess Club, D&D Night, and everything else we support, because we’re too busy arguing with each other to realise that the only way we beat them is by delivering at least 49 votes to Nerd Boy on Election Day.
==================== Reposted as this shit keeps being relevant ====================================
This poster would have you believe that your vote cannot result in you getting the worst possible outcome. Allow me to make it clear that yes, you can screw yourself and those you care about if you make the wrong choice on your vote.
Let’s take a class of High School students. The class is pretty evenly divided between Jocks (49) and Nerds (51), and there’s an election for the SGA coming up. Looking at the numbers, it looks like the Nerds have a good chance of winning, by two votes, but let’s say that this isn’t as clear as the numbers show.
The candidates are pretty distasteful for a lot of students at the school. On the Nerds’ side is a geeky boy, with square glasses, buck teeth, and a taste for pocket protectors. This kid is stereotypical Nerd, with the personality to match. He’s vaguely unpalatable, being too much into D&D and video games, but he’s also really damn smart, and his platform are things the Nerds would really like – pushing the school to fund after-school activities like Book Swap, the D&D Club, Debate Team, Chess Club, and so on.
On the Jock’s side is a pretty blonde cheerleader, the Homecoming Queen and heart-throb for many a boy in that school. But she’s a massive jerk, with an entitlement streak a mile wide, known for throwing temper tantrum(p)s when she doesn’t get her way, and a platform that includes taking all the money that would have gone to the nerdy after-school activities and putting it into prom and sports.
Of course, this stereotypical school of the 1980s will use the voting system used by the USA back in the 1980s, the classic voting system of First Past the Post, where all the votes are counted, and at the end, the one with the most votes wins.
In a 49 to 51 election, it’s clear that the Nerds win by a squeaker, but that’s not how elections work in the USA, and Cheerleader has a secret weapon. Most of her friends are of course fellow cheerleaders, dance team members, and athletes. But counted among her number is a bookish girl who is good with her studies, someone that were you to glance at her, you’d assume she’s with the Nerds. But she and Cheerleader have known each other since they were toddlers, and while Bookish Girl is smart, she’s also desperate for attention and acceptance. Bookish Girl is Cheerleader’s key to victory.
Cheerleader and Bookish Girl sit down after school and go over strategy. It’s clear that the numbers don’t support Cheerleader. All 51 Nerds are pretty sweet on that whole “Nerd After School Activities” thing. But they aren’t all as firmly dedicated to voting. For one thing, Nerd Boy is not well liked, with no social skills what-so-ever. He’s the kind of guy that doesn’t get a girl easily, and is awkward around girls and does things that can easily be styled as being demeaning and degrading to girls. Nerds are also notoriously flakey when it comes to making appointments when those appointments collide with what they would rather be doing.
Bookish Girl suggests three strategies to Cheerleader. They are:
- Have one of Cheerleader’s groupies make an accusation against Nerd Boy that he inappropriately touched her. This should peel off two girls, who are known feminists.
- Set up a nerdy game on the day of the vote, drawing out a handful of gamers.
- Run Bookish Girl as a third party spoiler, who will say she stands for even more nerdy things so that she can peel off people who think Nerdy Boy can’t or won’t do the job.
Let’s say Election Day, 3 gamers skip out on the vote, one of the feminists stay home on the accusations, and the other, plus two more Nerds, vote for Bookish Girl. The tally of votes comes out to:
- 49 people vote for Cheerleader.
- 44 people vote for the Nerd Boy.
- 4 people do not vote.
- 3 people vote for the Bookish Girl.
Remember what the rules were? The one with the most votes wins. Those 7 kids ended up denying themselves and the 44 other kids the Nerd Boy’s platform. Hopefully they’ll enjoy the prom they’ll be excluded from and the constant bullying and teasing by the Jocks, because there will be no book club to go to, or D&D night to play in, or so on.
Really, all Cheerleader needed was for Bookish Girl to run, with a side dose of that other cheerleader’s accusation (let’s just call her Tara Reade…), and it’s 49 to 48 to 3, which is STILL a win for Team Jock. And that’s how narrow our elections are today.
You may think that Harris is a lockin to win, and you’re convinced by someone like this poster that you can vote third party. The problem is you can’t know how many Jocks and Nerds are in this school. Are there 55 Nerds and only 45 Jocks? Can you vote for the Bookish Girl over the Nerd Boy because Nerd Boy did something you don’t agree with in Junior High, or because he dissed your favourite pop culture icon, or he’s a GURPS player rather than a D&D player, or so on, and Bookish Girl is idealic? How will you feel when you wake up the next morning and come to school and see that Jocks won 45 to 44 to 11, and you and 10 other people are absolute dufuses who let the nerd activities go by the wayside?
And to make this REAL…how will you feel come the next morning if you wake up, see your State went to Trump, and thus gave Trump the 270 EVs he needed to win. Remember, Trump’s Jock-favoured activities can be read about in Project 2025…
In conclusion, you shouldn’t listen to dufuses like this poster. We saw what happened last time we let them poison our minds. Your vote CAN get you the absolute worst outcome, and the only people who want that to happen are accelerationists and Trump Plants. I’ll leave it to you to determine what THIS poster is.
Politics works very differently in France. There, in a multiparty parliamentary system parties often make temporary alliances together in order to form a functioning legislature. This is great for the smaller parties because they get a chance at real political leverage for their constituents. “You want to block the Nazis’ legislative agenda? Fine, but you must agree to stop selling weapons to Israel.”
The closest thing we have to such leverage in the US, is the ‘threat’ of 3rd (or “spoiler” if you prefer) parties. Imagine the whole US electorate as a kind of “parliament”. You are the democrat party, and you’re worried you won’t have enough votes to win a majority outright over the republicans. Why not build support among smaller electoral groups by making some concessions to them?
In regards to your long copypasta: I do not give a shit who you or anyone else does or doesn’t vote for. That is, as ever, for the individual to decide. Read every comment I’ve ever made, and I promise you won’t find me telling anyone who to vote for or even who not to vote for.
What I cannot stand is when people pretend like there isn’t a choice, telling people how they “have to” vote, telling people that a vote for x is really a vote for y, or pretending that the only people who disagree must be shills/bots/Russians/tankys/etc. I’m just out here trying to explain how some of us genuinely see things.
If you actually read my ‘long copypasta’, you’d actually understand why you shouldn’t vote for x, and why a vote for x is really a vote for y. It’s really clearly laid out and easy to digest, and makes it clear how your withholding your vote because we didn’t give you the concession of
running D&D instead of GURPSabandoning Israel to the tender mercies of Iran and HAMAS with Russia waiting in the wings to show how America is anti-Semitic and filled with ‘fascist Leftists’ just ends up getting theCheerleaderRepublican elected and gettingD&D night completely cancelledRepublicans into office and Israel given more guns to spark the End Times fight the Christofascists want to see happen.This shit is important to a whole bunch of us. In particular, I’m worried about it because Christofascists particularly hate my Black Bisexual Goth Pagan wife. That’s why I am calling this nonsense out. Maybe that’ll help get you to see it from our side, now that you explained it from your side?
None of what you are writing is particularly “clearly laid out and easy to digest… etc etc”. Doesn’t mean I don’t understand it, but hey, the author and the audience don’t always agree. For example, we would both likely say similarly about my writing and your reading.
Don’t think I’m not sympathetic to your fears and concerns. I am. I do worry about the future quite a bit. I worry for my own family, friends, community, country, planet… I also have a Palestinian friend. She has lost many friends and relatives to the bombs that we send to Israel. Every day she worries for the ones who yet remain alive. Knowing her, and hearing her stories helps me to empathize with Palestinian suffering, but even if I didn’t know her, I still would.
So yes, I do empathize with you and your fears, but I cannot trade what might happen to your family (or mine) for what is happening right now in Palestine.
So yes, I do empathize with you and your fears, but I cannot trade what might happen to your family (or mine) for what is happening right now in Palestine.
Hey, guess what, you’re not! Nothing here is being traded! Rather, you’re voting for genocide in the US and genocide in Palestine! How brave of you!
I mean I have to agree that it’s disgusting and pathetic that almost every western mainstream political party is complicit and the rest are silent at best.
But, if you can stand me saying it, I think we actually have a chance to change the party. A Dem ticket like this is a once in lifetime event. If they lose I would be surprised if I ever see one this good again in my lifetime. If they get in, and if they get in with a strong majority, I can see it fundamentally changing the party. Every dem who blames the left for losing elections will turn to dust instantaneously ( don’t fact check me on this ).
I don’t really know what effect it’ll have because I’m just some guy. But I think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I think it could fundamentally change the DNC. It could disempower the right of the party and bring leftist ideas into the political mainstream. It won’t be perfect, but it could be something. It could be huge.
I lost that kind of optimism years ago.
democracy enjoyers when people vote for parties that best represent their interests: 😡😡😡😡😡😡
Lol @ ‘predatory’. mfs really think they own all the votes, huh
Agreed. The Green Party sits on their ass until presidential election. They haven’t moved the needle. Best case scenario, they’ve convinced a few non-voters to participate. Worst case, they’re dishonest opportunists.
The Green Party sits on their ass until presidential election.
They hold over 140 offices across 20 states. Seems a little disingenuous to claim that.
That’s a drop of LSD in a lake.
Wow, 143 elected offices is massive. Such prestigious positions as “Neighborhood Council”, “Conservation District”, “Town Commission”, “Planning Group”, “Park Commission” (Pawnee reference??), “Select Board”, “Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate”, “Water District Board of Commissioners”, “School Committee”, “Advisory Neighborhood Commission”, and gasp what’s this? The mayor of a California town of 22,000 people? Why if all of them banded together and moved to Connecticut (and somehow became popular with the residents there), they could collectively make almost 77% of an entire Connecticut General Assembly and literally no other offices including mayorships, governorships, all of the other state legislatures and the federal legislature, and all the god-knows-how-many positions in local governments.
So now the goalposts are moved from they don’t do anything but presidential candidates to they don’t do enough? Maybe if they had better funding they could run more candidates. Saying they do nothing but presidential candidates is still disingenuous no matter how much you want to belittle their othet work.
Across an entire nation, they have 140 whole offices. They have more people on their party organizing committee than people in office. None of those 140 are even at the level of state legislature, despite there being many races with unopposed Democrats that only have a few thousand total votes cast in them.
The last election for my state rep had 4,000 votes cast. He had a single opponent from a party I’ve never heard of who got 1,000 of them. There were more candidates running under that low name ID and sparesly funded local party than there were Green candidates. If they were a real party trying to advance progressive causes, this would be an ideal place to build local representation. Single-party state, tons of DINOs to challenge from the left, and low turnout that could make successful challenges possible.
That’s uhhh. A very interesting data point. Really kind of hangs the light on the problem…
This angle also needs to be considered). She’s not running in good faith. She’s essentially functioning as a 5th column to pull away voters who would otherwise vote for Harris.
I’m not saying Harris shouldn’t be pushed on environmental issues. I am saying that trying to do that by voting for Stein is actively harmful to the goal of not letting the fascists win this election.
More importantly, if you are voting for her because of the environment, voting for stein is actually harmful to that goal because it helps trump win, which means instead of making baby steps in the right direction, we’ll run full steam in the wrong direction.
The Dems aren’t making baby steps in the right direction, though, look up the progression of natural gas exports under Joe Biden. They’re actively making big steps in the wrong direction.
One metric is the only thing you go by? Do you really think that climate change is driven solely by how much natural gas we export?
Ok, can you please give me other metrics? How many nuclear plants have been built? How much has been invested into new rail infrastructure, whether for freight or for passengers? Have there been any new tariffs on the import of electric vehicles? Any regulation against single family housing, against car dependency, or against meat consumption?
Please, what metrics have improved, other than renewables being installed (at a much lower rate than in many countries)?
How many nuclear plants have been built?
You do realize that Stein is against nuclear power and the Green Party constantly fear mongers against it?
There… are no metrics in the link you sent me… There’s “plans to reduce emissions by X year”, but no mention to progress so far. There’s “investment into carbon capture and sequestration” (famously known to not work) but no metric. There’s “a pause in the approvals for new natural gas projects” (but the ones approved keep opening up)…
Have you even read what you sent me?
Fascists and Putin are sure to support her however they can. Cue the trolls.
Wrong. http://gpus.nationbuilder.com/officeholders
You’re the one sitting on your ass.
The DSA has far more electeds in every level of the government, and they’ve managed to do it without spoiling presidential elections. It’s easy, all you have to do is run through the Democratic Party primaries, they figured it out decades ago, curious that Jill Stein and the Greens somehow didn’t.
managed to do it
without spoiling presidential electionswith the support of Democrats and their donors. AOC backs them, they are a complete fake left organization to draw you in and accomplish nothing.Democrats have you fooled.
Lmfao. You mean AOC who the DNC hates and has struggled for years to freeze out of the party? Seems like some small third party has you fooled.
DNC loves having AOC fool you and influence young people with her social media to vote Dem. You’re a complete idiot.
Says the person who thinks third parties are viable, would you like me to name the dozen socialist parties that have failed?
If you actually supported any of the policies that you claim, you would be working to make them viable instead of working against your own interests.
Most of the greens here on Lemmy convinced me to never consider a green canidate.
I would absolutely vote Green but to do so would be unthinkable until we have ranked choice voting. We should band all the leftists together for one big push to get that enacted everywhere. Once we do that we can go back to our divisive bickering.
Libertarians == conservatives who smoke weed
The trouble with supporting a third party – and I say this as someone inclined to support a third party – is that anybody who actually does it is either (a) an idiot who doesn’t understand the game theory of first-past-the-post voting, or (b) an incredibly fringe nutjob. The result is that all third parties absolutely destroy all their credibility and ruin any chance of getting more mainstream.
If you’re a third-party-inclined person who isn’t an idiot or a nutjob, your only real option is to vote for Democrats in general, and ones who support ranked choice voting in particular (because you sure as Hell aren’t gonna get it from the Republicans), and then switch to your third party of choice only after ranked-choice voting is passed.
If you’re a third-party-inclined person who isn’t an idiot or a nutjob, your only real option is to vote for Democrats in general, and ones who support ranked choice voting in particular (because you sure as Hell aren’t gonna get it from the Republicans), and then switch to your third party of choice only after ranked-choice voting is passed.
The Democrats are going to give you ranked-choice voting so they can potentially lose your vote… Thank god you are not an idiot.
The Democrats give us nothing. We voters take.
Maine and Alaska use RCV now, and while Alaskan politicians are trying to ratfuck the votes (because Sarah Palin lost to a Democrat under FPTP), both states have seen people not get a Republican thanks to their vote for Third Parties on the Left, as long as they at least grudgingly mark the Dem ahead of the Rep on the RCV ballot.
Colorado’s going to vote on this this November, too, which means I can actually vote Third Party without being ratfucked by that choice. Then I’ll happily say 'Vote Green to hold Blue accountable, but make sure Blue shows up before Red so Red doesn’t ratfuck all of us on the Left."
If you wonder about the constant use of ratfucking in my post, have a read and see what it means…
San Francisco has ranked choice voting because there’s no way in hell a Republican could win here. That’s what we should be aiming for.
My state is nowhere near anywhere close to being a swing-state. My vote for president carries very little weight. For this reason, I vote for whichever party actually aligns with my ideology.
An acquaintance once tried to scapegoat me and my vote for Jill Stein as the reason that Donald Trump won in 2016.
That’s not how the electoral college works.
Virtue signalling into the void. Don’t get me wrong, I did it too in 2012 because I was disillusioned with Obama and I live in a deeply blue state. But that’s all it is. You’re better off writing an encouraging letter to your candidate of choice, or talking to your neighbors about the city council, or any number of other things that might actually make a material impact on someone’s life.
It doesn’t do anything, but neither does voting for a Democratic president in a non-swing state. They could just leave the box blank too. They’re not choosing “should I check the president box or talk to my neighbors”, they’re at the voting booth, presumably because other races matter, and filling in the box because it’s there. None of the options in that race matter and the comment you’re replying to is explicitly about how it doesn’t matter, so why are you even complaining?
Your point is that doing something is more effective than doing nothing? You sure got me there. I have to say that I agree.
If you live in a deep Red or deep Blue state, you definitely aren’t responsible for Donald Trump’s win in 2016, BUT we need to defeat Trump, and we need every vote we can get, everywhere we can get it, so Trump finds it hard to steal the election, because we know he will.
At least, if you live in California or Oklahoma, your nonsense vote won’t give us Trump, but unless you are CERTAIN you can throw your vote away, I’d ask you to look at your wife, sister, and/or mother and ask yourself if you want them subjected to Project 2025. If you don’t, and I hope you don’t, save the protest votes for your city/county/state governments where they might actually accomplish something.
I don’t think it bodes well she sat with Putin at a conference, whether there was “language barriers” or not.
Flynn pisses me off so much, it amazes me you can spend your entire career serving your country in mostly a leadership role and still end up a traitor.
Wasn’t there a cushy job at a military contractor he could have filled? Or was he so bad that nobody would offer him one?
Putin obviously could give two shits about the planet. He just knew that she’d pull more votes from Clinton than Trump.
I honestly can’t recall if it was some sort of geopolitical analysis in the comments or actual news anymore, but years ago I read that climate change and the collapse of the North Atlantic Current would eventually open up vast areas of Siberia to mining/drilling, improve farming conditions in Russia, harm farming, solar, and wind in Western Europe, while dropping the temps in Western Europe. It would also raise temps in the eastern/southern U.S. and make hurricanes more dangerous and economically damaging along the entire Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
What I read concluded that climate change would be a major boon to Russia and any sensible leader there would want to facilitate it.True. Unfortunately, there will be no way to hit the brakes on climate change once it has progressed to the point of a green Siberia.
Oh come on, she had another American there to make sure nothing fishy was going on. The always beyond reproach Michael Flynn.
So what if they we were at the same dinner? I’ve had dinner with my enemies too. It seems like a lot of you are imagining much greater nefarious activity than you have any real evidence for, or I am missing something?
The fact that the only responses to this picture have always been whataboutisms is very telling. When ranked-choice voting comes, and I think it will, my first choice vote is gonna go to a leftist party with real principles.
>Third-party fringe candidate who gets less than 1% of the vote having dinner with Putin, Trump’s national security advisor who was later arrested for lying to the FBI about his ties to Russia, and several major Russian political figures before an election in which Russian interference provably helped Trump win.
>The US president acting in an official capacity and meeting with the leader of a major world power.
“They’re the same picture.”
Boy,
Russian botsJill Stein stans are really tripping over each other to see who’s the biggest, dumbest idiot, aren’t they?-
Third-party fringe candidate who gets less than 1% of the vote
-
President of the United States, who got over 51% of the vote
God damn, who is going to have more influence over national policy I wonder?
Jill Stein stans are really tripping over each other
The SCOTUS recently decided a president can’t be held liable for acts committed in official capacity as a means of shielding the Cheeto-in-Chief from any and all criminal liabilities. It appears some folks on Lemmy are piling on board with this reasoning, so long as they can use it to shield Genocide Joe. A democrat could shoot a man on fifth avenue in broad daylight, and you’d see people on here defend it.
Really proving Technician’s point with that hot-take.
Reactionaries gonna reactionary.
Wow. You really don’t see the irony in that sentence, do you?
irony
Woof. Really need to crack a dictionary, brother.
Idiots gonna sound REALLY idiotic.
Got caught spewing incomparable pictures and childish responses?
Are Jill Stein and Tankies the same? Just asking questions…
Got caught spewing
Fascist speak strikes again. Lemmy’s really taken a downturn since the last Reddit exodus.
Funny that you took that 5th avenue example right from your dear leader talking about his followers, you.
you took that 5th avenue example right from your dear leader
Why do you people assume history started in 2016? That saying is over a century old.
I would need a source on that, my search shows blank.
It doesn’t matter though, since it’s still ironic that you say it now as an argument when your dear leader has said it about you, and your comments just prove that he was right and that you don’t care about facts, but are deep into the cult and would do everything for him.
Classic projection, but quite the dumb approach.
It doesn’t matter though, since it’s still ironic
Going with the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” defense.
-
Willie Wimmer is spouting some pro invasionist nationalistic bs on all the fringe media since he left Bundestag.
So we have a fine assortment of people here.
Yeah, interesting that the supposedly left-leaning Stein sits next to an openly right-wing nationalist conspiracy nutjob whose last book title was:
Der Putsch des Establishments gegen Donald Trump
The establishment coup against Donald Trump
this website made my firefox on mobile crash. twice.
This is 100% about them feeling entitled to the Muslim vote and Jill being tied with Harris in polling. The fraud AOC is lashing out because someone is legitimately a threat to them staying in power.
This is the bed Harris decided to make for herself, and if she loses it will be her fault.
She’s also tied with Hugh Janus in polls. It was a real official poll. My source is Trust Me. I am not a troll.
Adding /s
LOL yes I think that went well over the heads of some.
I’d like to see your source on that polling data, champ. Also, it’s so funny you fucks turned against AOC.
Yeah, right? AOC is a bad ass until her party is suddenly unfavorable because some of them but not her aren’t supporting Gaza hard enough. But unsurprisingly, none of these people ever complain about Uyghur genocide—the other Muslims.
It’s easy for Jill to be hard on this topic because she knows the presidency is out of her reach. But AOC is still in play, and sadly—in the actual world we live in—she has to play the game to win.
It’s ironic to me that you people can acknowledge that Jill Stein is just virtue signaling from the side lines because it costs her nothing. She’s not actually spending political capital on something that has any chance of happening. She’s just paying it lip service.
You understand this. That’s good.
But then in the same breath, you applaud AOC for saber rattling to pack the supreme court and other ideas that are impossible without a super majority. Which only served to make Biden look weak and disenfranchise progressive voters.
And look how that turned out. Biden left. Now there is actually a shot at beating Trump.
I consider that a success.
But unsurprisingly, none of these people ever complain about Uyghur genocide—the other Muslims.
You know who else doesn’t complain about it? Other Muslims, because they know it’s bullshit.
https://twitter.com/un_hrc/status/1578003299827171330
#HRC51 | Draft resolution A/HRC/51/L.6 on holding a debate on the situation of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of #China, was REJECTED.
That’s not what that means. That’s not what any of that means. And you know it. Why such bad faith arguments? If your argument were rational and logical then the genocide in Gaza isn’t happening either. Because there’s large groups of people that don’t really care about it. Probably even large groups of Muslims who have other larger going concerns than it.
It was the United States that blocked that UN visit: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-rights/u-s-germany-slam-china-at-u-n-security-council-over-xinjiang-diplomats-idUSKCN1TX2YZ/
Last month the United States, Britain and other western countries objected to a visit by the United Nations counterterrorism chief to Xinjiang, concerned the visit would validate China’s argument that it was tackling terrorism.
Delegates from Muslim countries did visit. From the US’ own propaganda outlet: Arab League Visits China’s Xinjiang Region, Rejects Uyghur Genocide
If your argument were rational and logical then the genocide in Gaza isn’t happening either.
Speaking of rationality & logic, that sentence is sheer nonsense.
Reason: Genocide denial
Best of luck with your censorship efforts.
Me, talking about real genocide.
You, denying genocide.
You, suggesting I’m censoring the right to deny genocide.
Me, still talking about real genocide.
Because Uyghur is 100% sinophobia made up by US propaganda
What about the Rohingya in Myanmar, or Sudan? Are those propaganda too? Or do they not qualify because it doesn’t fit your narrative?
I mean, I could make the exact same garbage argument about you denying the Canadian genocide of the Flemish, which I just made up. Myanmar & Sudan aren’t even germane to the issue, so what’s the point of this diversion?
So you acknowledge that you’re disregarding them as genocides?
No. The only person who brought them up was you, and for some reason you’re still doing it.
Is this some attempt at, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Are we just picking random genocides out of our ass now? I was responding to the fake Uyghur claims
“Fake Uyghyr claims”? Removed for genocide denial.
According to article 2 of the genocide convention, actual killing is not necessary for a genocide.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/genocide-conv-1948/article-2
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
✅ (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
✅ © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
✅ (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
✅ (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Source:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037
"The declarations follow reports that, as well as interning Uyghurs in camps, China has been forcibly mass sterilising Uyghur women to suppress the population, separating children from their families, and attempting to break the cultural traditions of the group.
The US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, has said China is committing “genocide and crimes against humanity”.
The UK parliament declared in April 2021 that China was committing a genocide in Xinjiang.
A UN human rights committee in 2018 said it had credible reports that China was holding up to a million people in “counter-extremism centres” in Xinjiang.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute found evidence in 2020 of more than 380 of these “re-education camps” in Xinjiang, an increase of 40% on previous estimates.
Analysis of data contained in the latest police documents, called the Xinjiang Police Files, showed that almost 23,000 residents - or more than 12% of the adult population of one county - were in a camp or prison in the years 2017 and 2018. If applied to Xinjiang as a whole, the figures would mean the detention of more than 1.2 million Uyghur and other Turkic minority adults."
You are using the people claiming there is a genocide as the source for the claim.
#The Uyghurs in Xinjiang
Anti-Communists and Sinophobes claim that there is an ongoing genocide-- a modern-day holocaust, even-- happening right now in China. They say that Uyghur Muslims are being mass incarcerated; they are indoctrinated with propaganda in concentration camps; their organs are being harvested; they are being force-sterilized. These comically villainous allegations have little basis in reality and omit key context.
Background
Xinjiang, officially the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, is a province located in the northwest of China. It is the largest province in China, covering an area of over 1.6 million square kilometers, and shares borders with eight other countries including Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia, India, and Pakistan.
Xinjiang is a diverse region with a population of over 25 million people, made up of various ethnic groups including the Uyghur, Han Chinese, Kazakhs, Tajiks, and many others. The largest ethnic group in Xinjiang is the Uyghur who are predominantly Muslim and speak a Turkic language. It is also home to the ancient Silk Road cities of Kashgar and Turpan.
Since the early 2000s, there have been a number of violent incidents attributed to extremist Uyghur groups in Xinjiang including bombings, shootings, and knife attacks. In 2014-2016, the Chinese government launched a “Strike Hard” campaign to crack down on terrorism in Xinjiang, implementing strict security measures and detaining thousands of Uyghurs. In 2017, reports of human rights abuses in Xinjiang including mass detentions and forced labour, began to emerge.
Counterpoints
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the second largest organization after the United Nations with a membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The OIC released Resolutions on Muslim Communities and Muslim Minorities in the non-OIC Member States in 2019 which:
- Welcomes the outcomes of the visit conducted by the General Secretariat’s delegation upon invitation from the People’s Republic of China; commends the efforts of the People’s Republic of China in providing care to its Muslim citizens; and looks forward to further cooperation between the OIC and the People’s Republic of China.
In this same document, the OIC expressed much greater concern about the Rohingya Muslim Community in Myanmar, which the West was relatively silent on.
Over 50+ UN member states (mostly Muslim-majority nations) signed a letter (A/HRC/41/G/17) to the UN Human Rights Commission approving of the de-radicalization efforts in Xinjiang:
The World Bank sent a team to investigate in 2019 and found that, “The review did not substantiate the allegations.” (See: World Bank Statement on Review of Project in Xinjiang, China)
Even if you believe the deradicalization efforts are wholly unjustified, and that the mass detention of Uyghur’s amounts to a crime against humanity, it’s still not genocide. Even the U.S. State Department’s legal experts admit as much:
The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide, placing the United States’ top diplomatic lawyers at odds with both the Trump and Biden administrations, according to three former and current U.S. officials.
State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China | Colum Lynch, Foreign Policy. (2021)
A Comparative Analysis: The War on Terror
The United States, in the wake of “9/11”, saw the threat of terrorism and violent extremism due to religious fundamentalism as a matter of national security. They invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks, with the goal of ousting the Taliban government that was harbouring Al-Qaeda. The US also launched the Iraq War in 2003 based on Iraq’s alleged possession of WMDs and links to terrorism. However, these claims turned out to be unfounded.
According to a report by Brown University’s Costs of War project, at least 897,000 people, including civilians, militants, and security forces, have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and other countries. Other estimates place the total number of deaths at over one million. The report estimated that many more may have died from indirect effects of war such as water loss and disease. The war has also resulted in the displacement of tens of millions of people, with estimates ranging from 37 million to over 59 million. The War on Terror also popularized such novel concepts as the “Military-Aged Male” which allowed the US military to exclude civilians killed by drone strikes from collateral damage statistics. (See: ‘Military Age Males’ in US Drone Strikes)
In summary:
- The U.S. responded by invading or bombing half a dozen countries, directly killing nearly a million and displacing tens of millions from their homes.
- China responded with a program of deradicalization and vocational training.
Which one of those responses sounds genocidal?
Side note: It is practically impossible to actually charge the U.S. with war crimes, because of the Hague Invasion Act.
Who is driving the Uyghur genocide narrative?
One of the main proponents of these narratives is Adrian Zenz, a German far-right fundamentalist Christian and Senior Fellow and Director in China Studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, who believes he is “led by God” on a “mission” against China has driven much of the narrative. He relies heavily on limited and questionable data sources, particularly from anonymous and unverified Uyghur sources, coming up with estimates based on assumptions which are not supported by concrete evidence.
The World Uyghur Congress, headquartered in Germany, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is a tool of U.S. foreign policy, using funding to support organizations that promote American interests rather than the interests of the local communities they claim to represent.
Radio Free Asia (RFA) is part of a larger project of U.S. imperialism in Asia, one that seeks to control the flow of information, undermine independent media, and advance American geopolitical interests in the region. Rather than providing an objective and impartial news source, RFA is a tool of U.S. foreign policy, one that seeks to shape the narrative in Asia in ways that serve the interests of the U.S. government and its allies.
The first country to call the treatment of Uyghurs a genocide was the United States of America. In 2021, the Secretary of State declared that China’s treatment of Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang constitutes “genocide” and “crimes against humanity.” Both the Trump and Biden administrations upheld this line.
Why is this narrative being promoted?
As materialists, we should always look first to the economic base for insight into issues occurring in the superstructure. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a massive Chinese infrastructure development project that aims to build economic corridors, ports, highways, railways, and other infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Xinjiang is a key region for this project.
Promoting the Uyghur genocide narrative harms China and benefits the US in several ways. It portrays China as a human rights violator which could damage China’s reputation in the international community and which could lead to economic sanctions against China; this would harm China’s economy and give American an economic advantage in competing with China. It could also lead to more protests and violence in Xinjiang, which could further destabilize the region and threaten the longterm success of the BRI.
So you can’t say you’re for the Palestinians when you’re actively willfully ignoring all other genocides.
I’m not ignoring them, Im not the one trying to create a strawman.
Obviously they meant “tied for the Muslim vote”
https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CAIRMuslimVoterSurvey.pdf
Not obvious
This is 100% about them feeling entitled to the Muslim vote and Jill being tied with Harris in polling.
I’m not saying this is the best structured sentence ever, but you need to work on your reading comprehension (though I have a feeling you are being intentionally obtuse).
You’re simping for Stein and thus Trump all over the thread
Yeah that’s just plain fucking false equivalence. But I suppose libs aren’t one logical fallacy short of enlightenment, so that tracks.
My favorite type of person is one who thinks anyone who disagrees with their wrong opinions is a lIbErAl, whatever the fuck that even means.
That doesn’t fit the narrative in this echo chamber even a little bit. <strawman> <gaslight> <ad hominem> <logical fallacy of your choice> <accusation of bad faith>
You picked a very fitting username
Obviously they meant “tied for the Muslim vote”
It wasn’t obvious, it was a line constructed in fantasy and intended confusion. IAnd the way they argue and respond gives me hardcore troll vibes. These people are here to sow distrust, confusion and despair. In line with a country known for doing this kind of thing, russia.
Tankies = Green Party
It really is as simple as that.
Tankies = Green Party
It really is as simple as that
You people are delusional.
No, ‘we’ are not. If you take a step back and think about it, it makes perfect sense.
Lots of noise and confusion, distrust, ‘both siding’, etc. And all of that happens magically around…presidential election time.I will maintain my position, tankies/greenparty are propped up to sow distrust and it is a well known mechanism from russia. Do I think all these poor lost souls are on a payroll? Of course not, if only they were. You can fix income, mentalissues are much tougher to solve. You can indoctrinate swarms of people to do your bidding if you take the time and effort. Again, exactly what russia decades ago started doing to the west. They are ‘activated’ (throw the right amount of messaging on several social media channels to do so) always, and I mean always, around presidential election time.
A good question to ask would be why it is that Stein person is only in the picture around presidential election times. I never hear about the groundwork of a true party to gain ground on the more ‘boring’ levels that gain no notoriety or attention, like local boards, mayors, etc. Always they spring to life around presidential election times where they stand absolutely no chance. Why is that?
And for greenparty/tankies to start calling other people delusional is just sad. Lost souls is what they are and I fear we will have to say goodbye to them as I see no real way to mend their minds, they are that lost.
A good question to ask would be why it is that Stein person is only in the picture around presidential election times. I never hear about the groundwork of a true party to gain ground on the more ‘boring’ levels that gain no notoriety or attention, like local boards, mayors, etc. Always they spring to life around presidential election times where they stand absolutely no chance. Why is that?
Or maybe it’s because you don’t pay attention (and the media wilgully ignores more radical opinions). I know crazy.
So tell me, which of Stein’s or the Green Party’s policies makes them “tankies” exactly?
Not the policies, I talked about the people advocating for that party
AOC has always been garbage. As requested
Jill being tied with Harris in polling
LMAO
See also:
legitimately a threat
LMAO
The same way Nader was a threat to Gore.
And that seemed to work out well for everyone.
What the fuck is “cair”?
It would be easier to admit you don’t have enough info on the subject to be commenting
The only person here pretending to know anything is you. This was your response to a question. I’ll take that response to mean “a very unreliable bullshit source”
I’m not the one asking questions on info that’s widely available
The Council on American–Islamic Relations. They’ve been in the news for years now, due to all the Islamophobia stoked by the right. If you don’t know who they are, that’s kind of on you.
Way to earn yourself a tag
I have no idea what you’re referencing or care anything about your opinion of me. In a post that is otherwise filled with comments where they look like nutcases, you’ve somehow managed to generate one thread where the Stein boosters look like the more informed and politically mature side.
Yep earned it well
That website is cancer on mobile, but I assume it’s a polster.
Apparently polling is going crazy atm, and poll aggregators are having to restrict the polls they are looking at to only the polsters they have heard of before because so many random ones are showing up.
Cancer because it doesn’t contribute to your echo chamber
Do you not know what “on mobile” means?
The more you read, the funnier it gets 🤣 what a mook
Putin owns this lady. You’re a dumb, bad, selfish person, Jill.
The epitome of useful idiot on the left.
She just responded to AOC…
Jill seems to think the Dems are running Biden.
Care to drop some key policy differences between Harris and Biden?
Stance on Israel
Maybe if Harris would actually post a policy plan I’d have more enthusiasm about her. Real frustrating to see another Dem candidate trying to appear progressive while actively saying nothing and towing party line.
Walz is a boss tho.
You’re getting downvoted for asking for policy plans from a politician. What bunch of idiots would elect a POLITICIAN that has NO POLICY PLATFORM OUTLINED
Lol figures. I’m like I wanna go out an canvas: what are my talking points, for real. It’s feeling like I’m with her all over again.
Progressive politics are popular! Run on them ffs. I don’t want this we’re not going back crap. All the party is earning at this point is my begrudging vote because duh the other option is worse.
This election could be a landslide instead it’s still polling within margin of error.
Downvoted by 14 people, no single answer
i got an answer for ya. shut your stupid fucking mouth kid
Removed, civility.
Go on with the ad-hominem, still can’t answer. Blue MAGA indeed
That’s not what an ad hominem is. Unsurprising that you don’t understand that, since you also think “Blue MAGA” is a real thing.
Harris was talking big on housing recently. That was stuff I never heard from Biden. Did she mean it? I think no, but I could be wrong.
Ah yes the tried and true Democrat response to any criticism from the folks on the left
Step 1. Blame Russia Step 2. ??? Step 3. Profit
She wrote in a second post, “Democrats sue to kick us off ballots, hire operatives to infiltrate and sabotage us, lock us out of debates, fight ranked-choice voting, then act concerned that Greens have only won 1400 elections. So which party is authentic, and which is predatory?”
Not wrong. But I still think you’re dishonest for continuing to court peoples’ votes when you aren’t on the ballot in enough states to win.
In her 2017 book, What Happened, Clinton wrote: “So in each state, there were more than enough Stein voters to swing the result.”
No. You’re just unlikable.
And how many millions of “centrist” suburbanites that voted for Obama but not Clinton get balmed for her loss? Why are those to the left of the Democratic Party line always blamed while those to the right are coveted? Republicans are always turning extreme rightwing positions into mainstream issues, so why cant the left do the same? Either Leftists are an insignificant voting block, or their support for leftist candidates is as sabotaging the Democrats. You have to pick one.
But they are on enough ballots to get 507 electoral votes (out of 538). They don’t have a chance of actually winning those, but that’s a stupid argument.
Besides, even if they didn’t, and by some miracle actually got a few delegates to hold the balance of power, they could instruct their delegates for the party that will enact some of their policies, you don’t need to win the whole thing to be effective.
AOC states that Jill Stein somehow leads the most decentralized political party in the US, does so from a position that holds nearly zero organizational authority, and that their primary electoral goals are anything other than Secretary of State to ensure fair treatment in ballot access. Stein wasn’t even the nominee last cycle.
AOC is not ignorant. She’s sold her soul to neoliberals.
Wonder where Stein’s money comes from right before elections.
Some people are asking.
Definitely not from the treasury department despite qualifying for public financing.
Yeah, we shouldn’t have more than one or two candidates in a real democracy. 😵
You didn’t actually read the article did you? I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
We should, but they need to be American candidates not Russian assets.
Thanks for telling everyone you’re a troll so we know to block you!
That’s a cool Ocasio-Cortez pose. It sort of reminds me of some Jesus poses from all the biblical drawings (which all come from not the Bible since it didn’t come with pictures in it, so they are made up, but I digress)
The green party aka the gop distraction party.
I can’t believe people STILL can’t see them for who they are.
Lots of people still think Greenpeace is about renewable energy and not funded by oil companies
What, what? Greenpeace is funded by oil companies?
I’m also interested to learn more. Quick search yielded nothing, so I dunno what they’re referencing.
I couldn’t find anything either.
Exactly.
That’s not how it works. Hillary wanted someone to blame. Can’t blame herself for having weak stances, god no, never that. Better to blame people who represented what she lacked.
If you want the left to vote for you, start acting like you’ll push their interests. Or don’t, and blame them when you lose.
The spoiler effect is a geometric problem within FPTP voting systems, it has nothing to do with weak stances/lack of common interests of a given candidate.
Just look at Jill Steins Twitter. She is basically Gaza and attacks on the Democrats. She exclusivly attacks the Democrats. No attacks at all on Trump or the Republicans in general. She also has no problem with climate change or enviromental problems. That is very intressting for a supposed Green Party.
Other countries with similar electoral systems have Green parties with seats in national parliaments. Compare that with the UK Green Party. They are perfectly able to not just talk about Gaza, but also about UBI, more renewables, public transit, 4 day workweek and so many more left issues.
Democrats deserve to get attacked from the left. Nobody in their right mind is going to vote GOP if they’re voting green, get a fucking clue
Are you seriously suggesting that Gaza is the only problem the Democrats have?
This is what you do, when you want to take votes from the Democrats. If you wanted to built up real power, to challenge the Democrats from the left, you have to win local smaller elections first. That means city council, house of representatives, state level politicians, school boards and so forth. You focus on the most left leaning regions, so you can actually go first past the post. The Greens do not do that. They run in FOUR elections in California this year. That is the largest blue state, with some very left leaning areas.
Also once you sit in congress, councils or whatever, you need allies, unless they win a majority. So in most cases that would mean winning the furthest left seats and having to work with a more centrist party, to change things. In the US that would be the Democrats. In some countries there are deals made to not run candidates in certain districts, to make sure left parties win. That just happened in France for example. No reason those deals could not be made between the Democrats and the Greens.
Also Gaza can only be solved by becoming president. Jill Stein is not going to win the election and everybody with half a brain should no that. So the goal of running, should be to show what the Green Party stands for in local elections. Nobody can solve Gaza when sitting on a city council in the US, however they can built bikelanes, promote renewables, improve public transit, cheap dense green housing and so forth. Jill Stein does not mention those at all. She should, to help out the local candidates, which they are not running. It also means less issues the Democrats might copy. After all who cares, if the Greens or the Democrats pass good laws, as long as they are passed.
Attacking the Democrats from the left is just going to hurt the Democrats, which helps the Republicans. Instead the Green Party should either try to built an alternative or push them towards the left. Right now it is obvious that they just want to help the Republicans.
its gonna blow your mind but H. Clinton is not running in the current US presidential election and hasnt been a political operative for 8 years. Tough to digest, I know.
Jill Stein is the quintessential politician who will say anything to get elected. She will traffic in 9/11 truthing if asked or antivax nonsense in spite of being a pediatrician.
And here comes the parade of Very Interested People to defend their favorite fascist’s catspaw and cheerlead for genocide under the guise of “BOTH SIDES ARE BAD”
Wayback machine to the rescue… AOC’s 2018 platform:
It is pretty much cut and paste from the Stein '16 platform.
She’s accomplished none of it, while having earned nearly $1M in congressional salary. She doesn’t even talk about most of it anymore
https://web.archive.org/web/20180703193143/https://ocasio2018.com/issues
She should work harder and maybe she’ll accomplish as much as Jill Stein has in congress.
