With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.

"How has Stein fared as a leader? By AOC’s perfectly reasonable standard, she’s done abysmally. As of July 2024, a mere 143 officeholders in the United States are affiliated with the Green Party. None of them are in statewide or federal offices. In fact, no Green Party candidate has ever won federal office. And Stein’s reign has been a period of indisputable decline, during which time the party’s membership—which peaked in 2004 at 319,000 registered members—has fallen to 234,000 today.

This meager coalition can’t possibly kick-start a legitimate political movement, capable of organizing voters and advancing ideas outside of perennial electoral events. It’s just large enough, however, to spoil the work of those who put in this kind of work."

  • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 months ago

    I am a leftist and I celebrate everyone’s right to vote how they please. If people would like to hear my reasons for voting for Kamala, or my concerns about third party spoiling, I can tell them. But a person’s right to vote is more important to me than how they vote. That’s what democracy and being for the people is about. Use your rights, I support that. We all deserve to use our rights.

    • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      I’m not sure you could be more milquetoast if you tried. Sure, it’s important that everyone has the right to vote. It is equally as important that everyone understand that unless they vote one of two ways, their vote is essentially going to waste at best, and going against their best interests at worse. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote cast against your closest aligned Democrat or Republican candidate. A vote not cast for them is cast against them. That’s just the way the system works. It sucks. I hate it. I want to change it, but wishful thinking isn’t fixing the problem, and until its fixed, voting third party is a net loss for the voter. That’s the shitty reality of it. People that tell you to vote third party are either idiots, or malicious, and no one should be listening to either of those groups when it comes to voting for the future of the country. Work on changing the system first, then cast the vote you want to cast.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        It’s not “equally important.” No, the right to vote is more important. Period.

        Sure, your perspective and how you and many others view this election, is that it’s important to vote for either Kamala or Trump. But that’s your perspective. Totally fine to discuss but it doesn’t supercede the literal civil right to vote. Or to run for office.

        Today and yesterday, I’ve seen people advocate for removing the right to vote and run for office here on Lemmy. I’ve seen people use the word “disenfranchised” wrong. Our civil rights are actively in jeopardy - see: abortion access. People being confused on how important voting rights are and what that means is BAD. I have seen a LOT of fascist rhetoric lately. It is NOT leftwing or radical or progressive to be fascist and deny people their vote just because you dislike it. It is NOT leftwing or radical or progressive to deny people the right to run for office because it makes another party’s job harder. That is actually literally fascism. What the fuck.

        And again, I’m voting for Kamala. I generally agree with your reasoning. I do not agree with the messaging or the idea that people should be forced into thinking and voting like me.

        • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 months ago

          Totally fine to discuss but it doesn’t supersedes the literal civil right to vote. Or to run for office.

          By that logic, the right to own a gun supersedes the need to be educated on how they work. “Here’s a loaded 9mm, Timmy. I’m sure you can figure the rest out.”

          I do not agree with the messaging or the idea that people should be forced into thinking and voting like me.

          And I’m not saying that anyone should be forced to vote any one way. Vote however you want, but being educated on how it works is just as important as the act itself. If every voter were educated on the system and understood how it worked, then we wouldn’t have third party candidates. Actually, strike that, we would have them. We wouldn’t have this first past the post bullshit we do now, and third party candidates would have a chance at being elected if they represent the will of the majority.

          Untl we have that, though, people should understand that voting doesn’t work how they want it to, it works how it works. If you want to feed your family by fishing with cheetos, go for it, but don’t tell everyone else that if we all fish with cheetos suddenly fish will take the bait. The nature of the beast is that we vote in a two party system, and we will until we change it at a fundamental level. The fact that we have people saying that third party voting is a viable option tells me that there is a lot of misinformation and a strong lack of education in our voting populace.

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            A gun is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the right to vote. It is fundamentally unique and vitally important.

            People who are voting third party are at least voting. The majority of Americans don’t or can’t vote - that is a bigger concern than HOW someone votes, and is much more manageable with education and neutral conversations. Stacy Abrams did particularly well in Georgia a few years ago because she just got people to vote at all. Any political interest should be encouraged because we all have to start somewhere. As people vote and learn more, they will develop their own opinions about third party spoilers. They will have conversations about it with people like you and they might end up changing their mind. That’s the beauty of being an individual and choice - we can pick to do different things.

            As far as misinformation- that’s a huge topic and would require we regulate advertising and media. Collectively though, people do really well and tend to get most answers right. We do better as a group. So the more votes we can get (including allowing felons to vote), the better and more just society will be.

            • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 months ago

              A gun is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the right to vote.

              We are talking about rights. I was using gun rights as an example, because like guns, if you don’t know how to vote, you’ll end up hurting yourself or others. Education is key. Everyone has the right to vote, but the ability to cast that vote should come with a caveat. You should know how to vote, and how your vote works. Ignoring the system and willfully playing dumb means that I don’t want your vote to count alongside mine. I’m not saying that people should be educated to vote like me, but that there is a baseline level of education that should be a requirement to vote. And before you get your undies twisted, I’m not saying that we should take away the right to vote from the uneducated. I’m saying we should put more focus into education.

              The majority of Americans don’t or can’t vote

              As you told me I was off topic with guns, I’ll say you are off topic here. We aren’t talking about non-voters. We are talking about voting 3rd party.

              As far as misinformation- that’s a huge topic and would require we regulate advertising and media.

              No, it doesn’t. That’s the lazy answer. That’s the defeatist answer. It requires, say it with me, education. We have such a shit education system in this country that if we had to teach children how to breathe, the infant mortality rate would be at pre-industrial levels. We keep funelling money into special interests, corporate control, and foriegn wars that we have left several generations behind when it comes to education. If we focused on ensuring the education of our children, a lot of our issues would be solved within 50 years. It is the single greatest failing of this once-great country. “Why educate, when we can tell them how to act and outsource critical thinking?”

              That is what I’m saying. I’m not trying to take away anyone’s rights. I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do. I’m saying that if we invested in our youth the way we invest in war, we’d be waving to cancer in the rear view mirror of our generational ship bound for Alpha Centauri. Instead I have a bunch of rich cunts with more money than god spending my life measuring their dicks.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                2 months ago

                A gun is not the same as a vote. Your analogy is not a good one and doesn’t work because voting is a unique right.

                I don’t want your vote to count alongside mine

                This is fascism. This is where we disagree. I am not the thought police for others. I am simply my own advocate and that’s it. Others can agree or not.

                there is a baseline level of education that should be a requirement to vote. This is illegal and unconstitutional. You called it a requirement so you are indeed stopping the uneducated from voting if they don’t meet that requirement.

                I’m saying we should put more focus into education. We are substantially more educated now than 100 years ago, and people were allowed to vote then. I’m much smarter than the average white male farmer back then.

                We are talking about voting 3rd party. And how 3rd party “spoils” elections. You yourself literally said 3rd party would be a valid choice in an ideal voting situation. So if Dems want more votes, they shouldn’t come out with 3rd party hit pieces. 3rd parties are only an issue because of the way we structure voting - we agree here.

                No, it doesn’t. That’s the lazy answer. That’s the defeatist answer. ‘Lazy’ is an ableist term. I have a thumb injury that makes it hard to type. I also already typed an extremely long reply to you and that topic was tangential imo. I have a very good policy proposal for education that I could dig up in my old comments- basically a national online school that anyone can enroll in for credit. So if adults want to take 5th grade science, they can. No time limits. Greater language and disability access. Can be supplemental to brick and mortar education. Will prevent gaps in education due to school shooters, sickness, travel, or poverty.

                I agree that education needs reform and that we have a misinformation issue.

                That is what I’m saying. I’m not trying to take away anyone’s rights. I’m not trying to tell anyone what to do

                I’m with you there - say THOSE things then. Advocate foe policy that increases education. Do not say stuff like “basic education should be a requirement for voting,” because that’s indeed saying you want to take away rights and tell people what to do.

                • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
                  0·
                  2 months ago

                  This is fascism.

                  Anything can be fascism when taken completely out of meaning. Maybe if you completed the quote you’d have a little bit of context for the argument. I’m done with this discussion, it seems you are more than willing to twist my words to give artistic license to what you want me to say than to actually read what I wrote. Take it easy, stranger. Hope you are able to make thoughts and prayers work out for a better world, because that seems to be all you are capable of.

                  • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    0·
                    2 months ago

                    Okay, I hope this discussion has left you with at least some thoughts of your own regarding how you speak about voting. In today’s climate where our civil rights are being eroded, it matters what people say and how they say it. No one wants to parrot old disenfranchisement dog whistles from ya know, the times when they denied black people the right to vote because they lacked an education. And saying “basic education should be a requirement to vote,” is LITERALLY a dog whistle from then. That’s like saying gay people should wear a pink triangle and then acting confused when I take issue with that specific verbiage and idea. Please consider how propaganda affects all of us and we all may pick up problematic speech from time to time because we live in a dystopia. People who engage in problematic rhetoric also deserve a basic education in things like civil rights and hate speech right? Otherwise it’s dangerous.

                    seems to be all you are capable of.

                    Lol, such a random stray out of no where. Also ableism agaiiiiin why

                    I really miss ~2016 Late Stage Capitalism on Reddit and I was hoping Lemmy would have some of those same people. I miss them.

                  • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    0·
                    2 months ago

                    Here’s my other comment about what I think should be done for education. I have spoken with educators around the country about this idea and they tend to really like it, so long as they are paid for the work they do and they don’t have more students to oversee directly.

                    https://lemmy.world/comment/12277181

                    I would like to not be hostile with you, although I can appreciate that I upset you. I would really be grateful if you would read about my educational idea above, because it’s something we are both very passionate about and if you like it too, it’s something you may enjoy talking to others about.

    • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
      0·
      2 months ago

      What an insufferable position and way of arguing for it. To anyone reading this thread, she only gets worse with each reply. She’s arguing for… Literally Everything necessarily taking a backseat to protecting people from even the mere concept of them feeling like their voting rights are taken away. Despite the fact that no one in this thread is trying to do that, and only Republicans are ever interested in such a thing, she’s really oddly interested in making sure people vote for third parties, which helps Republicans, without ever hearing the truth about third parties because it might hurt their feelings. Which as we all know, is definitely taking their voting rights away.

      She undoubtedly will point out some out of context quote about how the rational person in this discussion is a fAsCisT but each time she did that previously in the thread below, she wasn’t doing it in good faith so you be the judge.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        You realize your strawman here is a bad faith argument? In fact, I actually can’t find a single good faith argument in anything you’ve written. You start out with an appeal to emotion. Then strawman. Then no true scotsman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Also we all know you’re the “”“rational”“” other person on an alt account. You type the same and it’s been days since anyone responded to this thread. Lol.

        I am voting for Kamala and I’m perfectly happy to tell people why. Maybe people will agree with me and that’s great. Otherwise, I still support someone’s right to vote no matter how they vote. Because that’s what a right is, and that’s what the right to vote grants. I disagree with any speech that advocates for limiting the right to vote, particularly because I’m a woman and women’s rights are being taken away actively.

        I also think that while yes, obviously Jill Stein is a Russian asset, that doesn’t mean every independent or third party candidate is. I am on the side of the every day person and am fine with hearing criticisms of Dems and of the way we currently vote.

        I will point out any speech that is a dog whistle to eroding our rights, though. I’ve quoted the specific issues with what you said. I don’t really need to say more. I accept you think it’s fine to control others. I accept that you refuse to learn about civil rights and the right to vote. I accept that you refuse to analyze propaganda and dog whistles in your speech. Whatever, it’s your opinion. I also think your little comment serves as an advertisement anyway for any people reading this thread besides you, lol.

        • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
          0·
          2 months ago

          Quite conspiratorial to think I’m that other person… do you do that? Why would you even think that people would go through the trouble? Weird.

          I will point out any speech that is a dog whistle to eroding our rights, though.

          More conspiratorial thinking. in any case it’s pretty ridiculous to try and tell someone they shouldn’t inform people about third parties because they might get their feelings hurt and then… Feel unable to vote or something?

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            https://youtu.be/VbFmicUTb_k?si=KWic5pGj9STRmw4j

            https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-rightsadd.html

            For, with a country as with a person, “What is man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

            “All men are created equal.” “Government by consent of the governed.” “Give me liberty or give me death.”

            And those are not just clever words, and those are not just empty theories.

            In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty risking their lives.

            Those words are promised to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man’s possessions. It cannot be found in his power or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others.

            It says that he shall share in freedom. He shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.

            To apply any other test, to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race or his religion or the place of his birth is not only to do injustice. It is to deny America and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom.

            Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders.

            The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of that right to all of our people. Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument:

            every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            I already explained that you speak and type the same. No, that’s not something I do, but that’s something you seem to do. Based on you doing it.

            I quoted the speech you engaged in exactly as it relates to anti-democracy speech and dog whistles.

            I’m not engaging in conspiratorial thinking, that’s not what that is. Conspiratorial thinkers are known for:

            displaying a deep skepticism that who one votes for really matters.

            Gee, I think that voting really counts. Conspiratorial thinkers believe that voting is pointless. I also think people should run for office and use their rights and communicate with their government. I am not antigovernment. Wild, it’s like you’re wrong and you think that conspiratorial thinking just means suspecting anyone of being hostile. Lol.

            I’m so tired of fascists.

            • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
              0·
              2 months ago

              Yikes, yeah you’re just as wrong about this as you were about the things you’re being criticized for in the first place.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                2 months ago

                OK. Agree to disagree.

                https://youtu.be/VbFmicUTb_k?si=KWic5pGj9STRmw4j

                https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-rightsadd.html

                Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders.

                The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of that right to all of our people. Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument:

                #every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.

                • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
                  0·
                  2 months ago

                  No one here is trying to take anyone’s rights away. The other person commenting that they prefer more informed votes to uninformed votes doesn’t even begin to border on removing anyone’s rights, nor is it a “dog whistle” for anything. It’s patently ridiculous. As is the assertion that I am an their alt. Seriously, I write like them? They wrote long detailed responses to your bluster, I’m simply dismissing you on the grounds that your idea is so ridiculous it’s not worth actually engaging in, clearly since no matter what the dude wrote you took away something weird and persecution-y from it. Us both using spellcheck and capital letters doesn’t make us the same person. What reason would anyone have to care so deeply about what you wrote to switch accounts and pretend to be someone else? Even if it looked like we wrote exactly the same (we definitely don’t), that still shouldn’t be your first assumption. Yet it was, and that’s delusional.

                  • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    0·
                    2 months ago

                    The other person commenting that they prefer more informed votes to uninformed votes doesn’t even begin to border on removing anyone’s rights,

                    I have no issue with this statement. I quoted exactly what I took issue with, which is that they said “it should be a REQUIREMENT to have an education in order to vote.” That’s literally unconstitutional and illegal and fascist. Just like any other fascist speech, I am against that. That is indeed advocating to take away people’s right to vote. Quite clearly.

            • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
              0·
              2 months ago

              I’m so tired of fascists.

              Absurd thing to think from what I’ve written. I’m so tired of people defending garbage ideas. And no I don’t mean right to vote. The only people attacking that are republicans. The garbage idea in question is defending third party voters who refuse to be educated in a basic way.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                2 months ago

                The only people attacking that are republicans

                No, itt alone there are Dems advocating for these ideas.

                Taking away people’s right to vote, or advocating for speech that does so, is fascist in nature, yes.

                • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
                  0·
                  2 months ago

                  Practically no one would agree with you that what was said was fascist or taking rights away or any of these other scary words you’re throwing out. Unless they are trying hard to justify third party voting.

                  • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    0·
                    2 months ago

                    https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-8-6-2/ALDE_00013450/

                    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                    The Supreme Court has determined that, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, states may require a duration of residency as a qualification to vote, but such requirements will be held unconstitutional unless the state can show that the requirement is necessary to serve a compelling interest.1 According to the Court in Dunn v. Blumstein, [t]his exacting test applies because the right to vote is a fundamental political right . . . preservative of all rights, and because a durational residence requirement directly impinges on the exercise of a second fundamental personal right, the right to travel.2 While acknowledging that states have a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing fraud by voters, in Dunn, the Court determined that a one-year residency requirement in a state and a three-month residency requirement in a county was not necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.3 In contrast, the Court in Marston v. Lewis upheld a fifty-day durational residency and voter registration requirement, determining that the law was necessary to serve the State’s important interest in accurate voter lists.4

                    Kinda seems like majority opinion agrees with me that making education a requirement to vote would be blatantly unconstitutional. Because it denies people their right to vote. Which is literally fascism - an authoritarian dictatorship - when people don’t have democracy or the ability to vote.