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

    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

          That is not clear at all, it is either not literally meant, despite the wording – that’s normal now – or it’s an opinion I understand. It is not fascist to require education. We do that all the time in our society. So yeah, still patently ridiculous.

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 months ago

            https://civilrights.org/blog/to-honor-brown-v-board-of-education-give-everyone-the-ballot/

            The Civil Rights Act of 1957 established the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and authorized officials to seek injunctions against voting discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 allowed federal inspection of local registration polls and created penalties for obstructing the vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned unequal requirements for voter registration and prohibited denying the right to vote based on non-material errors.

            But it was not until Bloody Sunday in Selma — where former Rep. John Lewis and hundreds of voting rights marchers were assaulted and beaten on the world stage — that President Johnson and Congress would deliver the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The VRA outlawed voting discrimination and required jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to seek preclearance of voting changes from the Department of Justice or a federal court. Its impact was immediate; by the end of the year, a quarter of a million new Black voters had registered.

            And, the Supreme Court has substantially weakened what remains of the VRA. One federal appellate court also recently ruled that voters of color can no longer even pursue claims under this law.

            Instead, as Dr. King urged in the wake of the Brown decision, we must demand the president and Congress protect the right of everyone to vote, regardless of their race or background. We need legislative remedies that will immediately and permanently restore the ability of every citizen to fully participate in democracy. Congress can and should pass at the very first opportunity a trifecta of voting rights bills that would reinstate and strengthen the provisions of the VRA and expand access to the ballot in a host of meaningful ways for communities of color. And President Biden should continue urging Congress to do so until it happens.

            In his “Give Us the Ballot” speech, Dr. King recognized that the right to vote is foundational and protects all other rights and freedoms: “Give us the ballot, and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights.” Today, we face an intersectional moment where every freedom and right we enjoy is in jeopardy. From reproductive rights to climate justice to labor rights to protecting against LGBTQ discrimination, the pathway for change that our communities seek is through the ballot — at the federal, state, and local level.

            I can link this literature allllll day

            • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
              0·
              2 months ago

              The reason for amendments is that conditions change. I can quote basic logic all day but I grow tired of this bullshit.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                2 months ago

                What conditions have changed in present day that would make denying someone their right to vote not fascist?

                You mean you’re quitting because you’ve obviously lost.

                Making a fascist idea into an official amendment does not make it less fascist but instead more so.

                The point of me referencing the constitution was to show that indeed, many many many people think like I do, so much so it’s in our literal constitution. Keep up with your own arguments.