Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently made headlines for calling perennial Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein “predatory” and “not serious.” AOC is right.
Giving voters more choices is a good thing for democracy. But third-party politics isn’t performance art. It’s hard work — which Stein is not doing. As AOC observed: “[When] all you do is show up once every four years to speak to people who are justifiably pissed off, but you’re just showing up once every four years to do that, you’re not serious.”
To be clear: AOC was not critiquing third parties as a whole, or the idea that we need more choices in our democracy. In fact, AOC specifically cited the Working Families Party as an example of an effective third party. The organization I lead, MoveOn, supports their 365-day-a-year efforts to build power for a pro-voter, multi-party system. And I understand third parties’ power to activate voters hungry for alternatives: I myself volunteered for Ralph Nader in 2000, and that experience helped shape my lifelong commitment to people-first politics.
Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
Salon - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Salon:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.salon.com/2024/09/16/aoc-is-right-jill-steins-campaign-is-not-serious/
I’m commenting this a few times, but Alaska has implemented ranked choice, has a number of environmentalists and does outsized damage to the environment. If they were serious they’d run in state elections there, and four congress there. They are not.
First past the post duopolies are not serious democracies.
Neither are dictatorships though, that’s the problem. Now is not the time to be fighting the “but it would be better if there were more parties” fight.
This person is member of a party supporting a genocide
Ding ding! Wow had to scroll further than I expected to reach the compulsory genocide comment.
It’s lost all meaning at this point, really. It’s just something to call someone they disagree with.
You don’t want a ceasefire?
They’re skeptical that Harris is actually better.
I know. Unfortunately geopolitics is boring and nuanced and not fun. When people resort to sound bytes I’ve stopped taking the bait so I counter with other sound bytes. When they show a basic understanding of civics and world affairs we can engage but until then it’s sound bytes and buzz words.
Wait so does Harris support a ceasefire?
Yep!
And most everyone here is a member of a country supporting a genocide.
Any other instances of broad stroke guilt by association people would like to crime in with?
This person decided out of his own will to become member of a party supporting a genocide
And you have most likely decided out of your own will to remain a member of a country supporting genocide. You likely continue to pay taxes, that then go on to support genocide.
And many of us would leave if we had the means and ability to be accepted elsewhere.
And I am sure many would leave the DNC if they had the means and ability to be accepted elsewhere. Unfortunately our electoral systems are set up so that if you’re not in one of the two parties, your chances of winning are nil in many cases.
Are you really compare the two things? People do not decide to be born in america and the average person doesn’t have the luxury to go in another country. This person decided to be a member of a party supporting a genocide just like someone decides to become a trump supporter
Are you really compare the two things?
Yes
This person decided to be a member of a party supporting a genocide just like someone decides to become a trump supporter
Here’s the thing though, Americans don’t have the luxury of going to another party, because only two of them are viable. So if you want to make political change your choices are incredibly restricted.
There’s plenty of parties and you can make your own too. Perhaps they don’t pay or make you popular as much as red and blue but that’s another story.
Unless it is a local election, you have no chance of winning unless you’re in one of the two main parties. So candidates almost always choose to join one of the parties.
Are we really doing the “yet you participate in society” meme?
I was doing a reductio ad absurdum. I’m not doing a meme.
It’s the same bad logic as the meme, but isn’t the same logic you’re criticizing.
Yeah that’s kinda how a reductio ad absurdum works.
Every republican who voted to send weapons to Israel is complicit as well.
Mmhmm. So is every member of the Republican Party. Even worse, they have promised to increase hostility and support. Now, I ask you, and all the other parrots: What do you feel we should do about it that does not involve potentially giving the Republican Party control of the very thing you’re verbalizing so hard to stand up for?
Mmhmm. So is every member of the Republican Party.
Bingo. The red and blue party act as one.
What do you feel we should do about it
If you want a genocide to stop one of the first thing you want to do is to stop supporting these who are making it possible
What do you believe will happen if those of us who do care, which are predominantly those on the Left, decide to step up and say we won’t support a candidate?
Here’s what I would do if I wanted to be a malicious and controlling dictator type:
First, let’s assume both sides are the same. This is your stance so I’ll take it too. That means that Blue wants what Red wants: To continue the genocide. The solution then is very easy: I convince the Blue side to step aside and allow Red to take control. I do this because I have wealth, I have power, I have status, I have the ability to suck up to Trump to save my own ass. If both sides are the same, Blue will do exactly as I’ve said. The end result is even better genocide, with golden stars on each day of the week another atrocity is committed.
Congratulations, both sides are the same. Which means the worst case scenario based on your logic.
Do you know why this is such a silly scenario?
Because whatever the Democratic Blue may be, they largely are not idiots. They know the game. They’ve likely held little debate sessions behind their definitely gilded doors and 100% golden toilets in argument for and against exactly what you just claimed. Why? Because **they’re playing the same fucking game at every level. Moreover, they’ve proven they aren’t the same, time and time again, which is a huge reason why no one ever agrees with you.
I am not saying your stance doesn’t have merit. I AM saying that what merit it has must wait until we remove the current threat. Doing so means being in agreement, and it sucks. I personally want Bernie or AOC, yet you don’t see the millions of people who agree with me championing them. We understand Gaza is a terrible situation and abhorrent. We also understand how it can get worse. Not just for Gaza, for Ukraine, and for the American people.
Though since you all like to strawman so much let me get in on it: If Trump is Putin’s puppet, and Russia is at war with Ukraine, why are you saying that we should help Gaza at the expense of the Ukrainian people?
What do you believe will happen if those of us who do care, which are predominantly those on the Left, decide to step up and say we won’t support a candidate?
left and right are two buzzword used by the propaganda to manipulate people. If the red and blue party lose votes they will eventually lose power.
The end result is even better genocide
There’s a genocide going on right now where dozen of kids are getting murdered daily. It’s already as bad as it can be. The goal of mankind should be to stop that entirely not to have less or more of it.
The first goal should always be to have less of a bad thing when people are involved. Right and wrong may often be black and white, our choices are rarely so simple.
Let me preface this by saying I expect you’ve often been responded to here with anger and frustration. In return, you’re frustrated. Why don’t more people understand that a genocide is happening? Why don’t we push the Democrats, who currently hold the Office of the POTUS, to stop sending weapons? To you I feel it probably makes no sense.
From my perspective, and the perspective of others like me, we know you’re wrong. Not because you’re taking a different stance than us. Because as bad as the situation in Gaza is now, it can be worse, and it can spread. Under a Trump regime, and make no mistake this is exactly what they will push to turn it into, we’ll begin taking a more active role in Gaza. It’ll go for selling a few old weapons to outright arming beyond what we’re already doing. Trump and his cronies will seek to multiply the destruction and spread it beyond Gaza to any major State who defies them. Will they always act on this? No. The threat will be there.
Trump also has ties to Putin. Strong ones. It took a lot of evidence to convince me, I am not one of the first on that wagon. This effectively means that we will pull all aid from Ukraine. Russia may suck, though Putin is still dangerous, and Ukraine has done so well because of international support. I don’t believe the MAGA morons would actively and openly support Russia against Ukraine but fuck me, millions died during covid because of Trump and the GOP, so what do I know.
North of us Canada will be in danger down the road. Here at home the homeless will be in severe danger. Students and children given less rights, and woman made back into the playthings the Republicans think they’ve always been. Food and gas prices will rise, the USPS will be slowly chipped away at, and there will be a civil war eventually. Likely an attempted Coup against Trump down the road by segments of our military, who have always been loyal to the Nation, and whom many commanders and promonent personnel have come out against Trump.
Gaza is terrible. We agree with you. We want it to stop. Many of us see what the pathf forward is likely to be. Not because we’re guessing, because this is what the Right and Trump has promised, both verbally and in extensive written documents. If it makes us bad people, so be it. Just know that after we keep the Seat of the President most of us will support you in stopping Gaza. We’re just trying to make sure the situation doesn’t get even worse first.
The first goal should always be to have less of a bad thing when people are involved. Right and wrong may often be black and white, our choices are rarely so simple.
We are not in a black and white situation. You can vote for a third party or use your time to do something more useful than endorsing online the red and blue party
Why don’t we push the Democrats, who currently hold the Office of the POTUS, to stop sending weapons?
They are supporting a genocide and arming israel government. These are their policies. Why don’t you try to change trump policies?
It’ll go for selling a few old weapons to outright arming beyond what we’re already doing.
Israel already has same of the best weapons available. It could be worst and they could receive nukes but you seem to not realize how bad the situation already is.
Trump also has ties to Putin. Strong ones.
If this is your argument to keep voting for the red and blue party i would like to remind you that the US government under any administration cycling in power has ties with dictators around the world who are worst than putin like saudi royals.
Here at home the homeless will be in severe danger. Students and children given less rights
Endorsing the political parties that for years have enriched corporations and shit on people misery and rights doesn’t seem the best way to address these problems.
Just know that after we keep the Seat of the President most of us will support you in stopping Gaza.
Who is “we”? are you a member of the democrat party? What’s your plan to support the end of the genocide once elections are over?
We are not in a black and white situation. You can vote for a third party or use your time to do something more useful than endorsing online the red and blue party
Read what I said again. Situations themselves may be black or white, the choices we are presented with in those situations aren’t always so clear cut. In this case I, and many just like me, feel the best thing we can do for the World is stop Trump and the larger GOP party. They are currently that dangerous.
As for weapon deals:
These are historical acts done by every President since, fuck, I’m actually not sure. It’s been a hella long time though. Note though that wars and conflict have historically been supported most heavily by the Right.
If this is your argument to keep voting for the red and blue party i would like to remind you that the US government under any administration cycling in power has ties with dictators around the world who are worst than putin like saudi royals.
I’d like to point out I’m only interested in voting for the better potential future for all of us. If I thought Republicans were the choice I’d vote them. However, Democrats have made it quite obvious that while they have their faults, they aren’t literally promising to do worse.
Endorsing the political parties that for years have enriched corporations and shit on people misery and rights doesn’t seem the best way to address these problems.
I’m beginning to notice you’re cherry picking responses and not being fair. Go on, compare how the GOP has acted in regards to the livelihood and lives of others. Can you say: Abortion ban? Contraceptive restrictions? Lynching? The motherfucking coup attempt?
Just know that after we keep the Seat of the President most of us will support you in stopping Gaza.
Who is “we”? are you a member of the democrat party? What’s your plan to support the end of the genocide once elections are over?
What’s your plan if Trump and the GOP head the nation in a few months and things get worse? Personally, I expect your kind to suddenly go quiet in embarrassment and shame, or fear if you’re smart.
You’re wrong. Not about Gaza, that shit is absolutely evil. About your priorities. Just like those on the Right, you stand so firm on your tiny little pedestal that you’re convinced your perspective is the only right one. We have a choice between possibly making things better and a guarantee they’ll get worse. You’re just so damned stuck that even if you saw merit in my argument you wouldn’t admit it for fear of seeming like you’re in support of the genocide. In reality, by obfuscating the narrative and causing division, you may find yourself an ally of, if not far greater evil acts, then much more of the same dotted through hundreds of communities and threatened the world over.
John Oliver convinced me that Jill Stein is a dumbfuck back in 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU
I agree. The only time I hear her name is around election time. It’s too late then, the work needs to be done in between.
Especially using the name and clout to help the local races which are run more often. Get third parties well known regionally with serious candidates, you’ll see demand for them grow nationally.
And some of these local places could use some good faith environmentalism. Co-opting the environmental cause to act purely as a spoiler is going to have consequences for hundreds of years in the US. Could you imagine if Ohio had had good faith green party elected officials raising a ruckus after the train de-railed? or the difference in Flint if there had been anyone there to say, hey wait a minute, that’s not how water works!
Instead we’re building more highway lanes, farming the deserts, and looking the other way as corporations make people homeless. (Humans are horrible at living with the land, it’s not just homeless people. Check out any tourist camping area by the end of September.) That’s what really pisses me off.
The Cheetos bag in the Carlsbad Caverns story says so much about our species in one breath.
Yup. This country could use some good old fashioned environmentalism.
As an Ohioan want to know what party doesn’t bother running in Columbus? The greens. It’s proof to me that they don’t actually care about trying to govern.
Just because you don’t hear her name doesn’t mean she isn’t putting in the work
Just because you don’t hear her name doesn’t mean she isn’t putting in the work
This is about a politician supposedly running for a presidential office, that’s exactly what it means. If people aren’t hearing your name this close to an election you aren’t really trying.
I was responding to a comment that said they never hear her name outside of the presidential election cycle
Yes, we know. Now show us all of her political work that she’s done outside of presidential election cycles.
< Abandoned bus station scene >
I mean… maybe. So was she? What did she accomplish between her presidential bids?
< sound of wind blowing over desert sands >
crickets
It just implies it.
The records of what she does, and the performative activism, which takes place entirely and exclusively during presidential election years - that’s what shows she isn’t putting in the work.
After repeatedly losing in Mass, the only time she runs for anything is for presidential elections. This also demonstrates she isn’t putting in the work, or she would have more involvement in more local elections.
The way she, her party, and her campaign conduct themselves make it hard to avoid the conclusion that she’s running purely as a Democratic spoiler candidate (that is, with the intent of siphoning support away from the Democratic candidate).
Edit: to be clear, I am a staunch supporter of environmentalist causes in general. I just don’t believe the Green Party actually is an environmentalist cause at the end of the day. I judge these things by actions, not by policy documents.
Yeah environmental causes have a lot that can and must be done at the local level. I’m a staunch environmentalist, it’s my primary issue, and it’s why I’m angry at my local government. I wish we had a good third party because the election is decided in the democratic primaries. Get someone running on improving public transit, forcing all apartments to offer recycling (mostly concerned about glass and metal), improving bicycle infrastructure… But funnily enough the greens don’t seem to give two shits about that easy picking.
These third party types always claim that they want to reform the system. That’s bullshit. If you want to reform this system then you need to start at the bottom. You need to recruit candidates and invest in winning at local and state level first. Those are the most winnable offices for an outsider/independent. Hell, win a few critical states and you can get enough states in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which, while not an ideal solution, would be a good first step in reforming the system.
Once you have some power and recognition at the state level, you need to aim for Congress. Start winning seats in the House and Senate and you can really start making change. That is where the real power of change resides. How many times have we seen a president with a divided House and/or Senate have their policy goals effectively neutered by legislative antagonism? Without support from the House and Senate, a 3rd party president would be powerless.
Stein cannot possibly enact positive change even if there were a literal miracle and she became president. The only thing, literally the only thing she can do by running for President is get Trump elected.
pol sci 101: fragile fptp systems (like the electoral college) tend to result in two parties.
First it needs to be viable:
It’s because there’s never any serious third party candidates.
Because no one is brave enough to vote for them.
Riiiiight…… It’s a lack of bravery that people aren’t voting for the useless 3rd party candidates that only surface every four years to split votes.
Maybe it’s that everyone else is smart enough to see it for what it is- and you’re just…… not.
Be brave, take your pick.
Might I suggest the Working Families Party
Read this and stop embarrassing yourself here.
You should encourage people to embarrass themselves so you can correct the record. The Green Party has been around since the 1990’s, and was founded in 2001. Jill Stein is not the Green Party, it will exist after her, provided people are brave enough to separate their identities from the two-party system in America. If you don’t like Jill Stein, have a look at the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
keyword “system”. It’s the system that formed the two party dynamic. In order to change that we must change the system that led to the problem
“the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”
Audre Lorde
Can’t the master’s tools renovate the master’s house?
“Why the fuck not?”
- every carpenter
Because it’s literally not a solution. The absolute best case scenario is causing the closest ideological party to fail for many elections in a row before it disintegrates and reforms in the third party, which is now the second party in a two party system and filled with many of the same politicians and beholden to most of the same voters.
Voting reform is the solution for everyone complaining about the two party system. Get ranked choice and leftier challengers who actually care about the results of elections will run against establishment politicians more often.
It doesn’t count because a 3rd party candidate will never win.
It can decide an election because it’s removing a vote from the candidate closest to you who is actually electable.
Let’s say you think taxation is theft, but you can’t vote for Trump because “reasons”. You vote Libertarian.
You’ve taken your vote from Trump and given it to a candidate with no chance.
Harris +50
Trump +49
Libertarian +1Flip it around, you support Roe vs. Wade but you can’t vote for Harris because “reasons”. You vote Green.
You’ve taken your vote away from Harris and given it to a candidate with no chance.
Trump +50
Harris +49
Green +1In neither case will it ACTUALLY be that close, but you get the idea.
Why do liberals assume they are entitled to leftist votes? The entire DNC prevented anti genocide speakers, yet platformed former Republicans, the Israeli family of a hostage, etc. it’s clear the party is more invested in appealing to conservatives, so good luck 👍
Project 2025 thanks you for your support.
Don’t worry. Dick Cheney, the architect of the invasion of Iraq, stepped up and took my vote for Kamala instead. Birds of a feather.
Why do liberals assume they are entitled to leftist votes?
Your confusing that with the fact that an overlap of two circles is a venn diagram.
In a first past the post system, you either vote Democratic or you get the Republican. 3rd party is not an option.
Oh ok, well here’s what it does: nothing at best, but when a third party does very well the major party they oppose most wins. That’s fptp, it’s not hard to figure out if you have more than a handful of brain cells.
You pulled out your Facebook memes to say you wanted to break the two party system by voting third party. Nothing about my response is trying to address whether you should be voting, but your chosen action is stupid and has no potential to accomplish what you say you want to do.
Your username may be ironic, but outsourcing expressing feelings to a vague and not quite appropriate meme response rather than actually trying to say what you think and defend your personal opinions is one of the big reasons people shit on Boomers. Granted it’s a step up from my old conservative acquaintances on account of not also being in service of the most vile opinions humans espouse, but it’s just as tired and unwelcome.
Jill Stein supports ranked choice voting, Kamala Harris doesn’t even mention it in her platform.
A Jill Stein administration will:
- Replace the exclusionary two-corporate-party system with an inclusive multi-party democracy through ranked-choice voting and proportional representation
- Implement Ranked-Choice Voting for all elections nationwide
Jill Stein says things and then does nothing to actually make them happen, like a lot of grifters. Weird how anti-establishment people can be so rightfully skeptical of Democratic politicians and hangers on, but then believe hook line and sinker that non-establishment voices are all in it for the ideology.
And because Kamala Harris doesn’t mention ranked choice voting, somehow that’s magically supposed to happen?
It doesn’t take a meme to find the flaw in that reasoning.
Jill Stein says things and then does nothing to actually make them happen,
You are describing the Democrats not Jill Stein.
It affects the election, but not in the way you want. It is literally the equivalent of not voting at all. That does effect the outcome if you would have voted for one of the two main parties otherwise.
Yeah, if the greens succeeded at things I might consider voting for them. As it stands I don’t like the democrats but when they do well I get some of what I want. The more votes the greens get the less I get of what I want. I’d love to see a state with a green-dem coalition doing big things to demonstrate that they can actually govern as opposed to just run for office, and not even do that well.
AOC has not managed to enact the change she promised from within.
She’s actually been fairly effective for a new congressman. But in order to get meaningful change she needs both position and allies in congress. She has a number of allies (AKA The Squad) but because Congress is so full of old fucks, getting a position in a committee with any power at all is difficult at best.
Meanwhile Jill Stein goes on TV, snipes at the democratic party and collects paychecks, all while eroding the party’s position all for literally no benefit whatsoever. The Green Party has been the single most ineffective third party in the history of the country. The only thing they’ve accomplished is siphoning off votes from Democrat presidential candidates and getting Republicans elected.
The Green Party has been the single most ineffective third party in the history of the country.
oh, so the democrats have no interest in the green new deal? or expanding renewables? i know they don’t give a fuck about stopping war, but i think you are mistaken about the effectiveness of the green party.
i think you are mistaken about the effectiveness of the green party.
Which green party senators or house members have pushed for that? How many of them are there? What national office holders are making the changes you’re looking for?
which Prohibition Party senators passed prohibition? what do you think an effective so-called third party looks like in the us?
what do you think an effective so-called third party looks like in the us?
Well for one, they’re elected to a national office where they can try to implement change.
And that’s never going to happen when they only come around once every 4 years to make a lame stab at president. They need to be building support at the state and local level year-round if they want to be taken seriously on the national stage.
the prohibition party got an amendment. you don’t need to win elections.
Fully agree.
My take as of late is that any 3rd party candidate who runs in our two party system can’t possibly be serious. They make a huge show, maybe get a message out, but almost always torpedo the party closest to them.
With the Stein’s and RFKs in the news, it’s all sexy flashy publicity without any serious effort to have a 3rd party win.
That said, there is another 3rd party personality that you might not have heard of in a while: Andrew Yang.
I actually believe he is serious about electoral reform, in fact that’s the one issue his Forward Party is about. He and his team have worked quietly to help get ranked choice vote in local elections. He is not running for president as a spoiler candidate. He is not running for senate as an independent. He is putting in the work along with fairvote.org to make the structural changes needed to have viable 3rd party campaigns. We saw what happened in Alaska when ranked choice vote was present- they kept Sarah Palin from holding a Senate seat and elected a Democrat instead.
If we had the NPVIC and ranked choice vote, our democracy would be much more representative, collaborative, and stable.
Without support from the House and Senate, a 3rd party president would be powerless.
Or consider it from the other direction. In a party line vote on new policy, imagine if the difference was a couple green or progressive congressmen instead of the Manchins of the world
If only they would run for Congress rather than screwing around every four years and knocking over the table.
At her peak, Jill Stein broke just above 1%.
I’m planning on voting for the party for socialism and liberation in November and you can too!
They’re running Claudia de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to Israel.
Yeah, miss me with that
Classic bloodfart. Ending genocide one poot at a time.
I don’t understand what you mean here.
Autocorrect effed me. I corrected it. It was meant to be a compliment
lol, lmao.
AOC is correct indeed.
What I want to know how they can they perform when you don’t let them at debates? As I said before, they didn’t allow people within their own party to debate such as Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich for not having enough money, I don’t see what the purpose of the party is.
If they had representatives in the house they could push their right to speak at debates. Senators even more so. Give them 5 senators and 21 representatives, that’s 5% of the legislature rounding generously, and then when they can’t speak at debates it’s something the two major parties should be ashamed of. As it stands now, people care about the parties that can win elections and I’m sorry but the Green Party doesn’t win elections, neither does the libertarian party, the constitution party, or the communist party. The greens and libertarians have both had moments of glory in which case they won the election for the major party they most disagreed with. And that’s coming from a fan of Nader, I think he did amazing work with the department of transportation.
The debates define rules ensuring only serious candidates join the debate - third parties need enough votes to be in the race. I’m aware that I’m letting them off the hook, but I don’t know a better solution. While it would be better to include third party candidates, we also don’t want many non-serious ones
Kucinich and Gravel? Dude, what year do you think it is?
There’s not much to go on since there’s been 2 Democratic Party debates since 2008. Gravel was a 2020 Presidential candidate.
Jill Stein is a russian asset
Supporting evidence for the 3 downvotes ATM:
Putin’s Shill Stein wants Nato disbanded, the US to give up their SC veto, and revoke weapons to help Ukraine defend itself while simultaneously forcing ‘peace’ (subjugation) negotiations with russia.
More context:
- Emir Kusturica is a propagandist filmmaker quoted as saying “if I was Russian I would vote for him”. He also supports Russian annexation of Crimea.
- Willy Wimmer was a Right-wing German politician who in his retirement has effectively become a far-right conspiracy theorist that regularly posts to the Epoch Times.
For those that don’t understand how the Electoral College + FPTP voting works, voting for her means helping donald become president due to the spoiler effect.
A spoiler is something that only exists in the mind of Liberals, even if there were no 3rd party candidates running, we would not vote for your right wing pieces of shit. There’s a better chance you would vote for a Republican than any of us would vote for either right wing party.
A spoiler is something that only exists in the mind of Liberals
Math. You’re disagreeing with math. Or are completely unaware of how FPTP voting works (I know this isn’t the case).
Math has nothing to do with the fact that we are not Democrats, so we would not vote for a Democrat. That’s like trying to say math is the reason you won’t vote Republican
You don’t have to have be a democrat to vote against fascists.
I’m not a democrat, but I plan to use my vote strategically, since fascists have a propensity toward murdering their ideological opponents. You can call the DNC fascist all you want, many do, but I’m less inclined to believe that they’ll try to murder leftists vs the US right wing.
Your ideological purity will not save you from a fascist’s bullet.
You’re talking as if the Democrat Ratchet effect is not able to fascism. In case there’s any question, yes, it does
Be that as it may, I’ll still use my vote strategically to ensure that the slide toward fascism is as slow as possible, personally. I am not an accelerationist. I feel that I can more effectively perform direct actions, agitate, and educate others in service of leftist ideology during that time. Ideals without sound strategy are little more than masturbatory.
I’m not making any distinction between non votes and 3rd party votes. From a purely electoral perspective a Stein voter is the same as someone who doesn’t show up. This is why people are rightfully frustrated with them. It’s a pretty simple concept and the only response is usually “not uh!”.
People are upset with 3rd party voters because they won’t fall in line and do what the DNC wants them to do. The DNC feels entitled to every vote not cast for a Republican. If they want our vote they need to earn it, and they never have.
I don’t care about the reasoning you make for your actions. We’re talking about the results of those actions.
You will affect the race in one of two ways regardless of what you do. You will either benefit Party A or Party B, those parties being the two largest parties, aka Democrats and Republicans. Non votes and 3rd party votes benefit the smaller party, which is the GOP. This is an absolute fact within a FPTP system, even if you can’t accept it because of the obvious implications.
If you feel the GOP has done more to earn your support, that’s your call. I just think that’s some next level dumbassery.
Third parties are not bothering to earn your votes either. They put in zero work except for presidential elections.
Math literally has everything to do with it. There are entire branches of mathematics dedicated to figuring out ideal voting systems.
A spoiler is something that only exists in the mind of Liberals
Dude, I already showed it to you.
Election report for election "Plurality 2 Candidates" Total people: 1047 11% of people supported the winner. Kruger - 112 votes - WINNER Sahl - 111 votes
Election report for election "Plurality 3 Candidates" Total people: 1047 10% of people supported the winner. Sahl - 109 votes - WINNER Kruger - 93 votes Maikol - 91 votesThe overlap of two circles means there will be an area shared in between. That’s the math, you can’t get around that.
Because it’s bullshit
Yet you didn’t provide explanation for why it’s bullshit. Because you know it isn’t. It’s right in front of you.
We are not Democrats, so we will not vote for Democrats. They could show all the fucking graphs in the world, And wouldn’t change the fact that we are not Democrats, so we do not vote for Democrats.
You’re basically saying that there is zero overlap in the venn diagram of third party voters and blue voters, yet you make efforts to convince blue voters to go third party. You know damn well that there is overlap between third party voters and blue voters, otherwise you’d never talk to them.
Even if you personally would never vote blue, third party voters are not a monolith, there are third party voters that are closer to the DNC than you are.
You’re disagreeing with math. Congratulations, you’ve unlocked the dunce award.
“It’s bullshit because it proves I’m full of shit and I don’t actually have an argument against it.”
it’s bullshit because it doesn’t prove anything.
And yet none of you have been able to explain how or why it doesn’t prove anything. Only making assertions that it doesn’t.
This is the modus operandi of conservatives, libertarians, and anyone trying to put forward a disingenuous argument
That’s cute, That your binary thinking assumes a ballot critique of one thing is automatically support of the other.
Really now? Please explain exactly how it’s “bullshit.” Just claiming it’s bullshit is not sufficient.
Removed by mod
Lmao. I bet you always got your tests back face down.
Who is this “we” you keep referencing?
Given the hypothetical that Kamala and Donald are the only 2 available to vote for, who would you prefer win?
That is not hypothetical. While you can literally vote for anyone, you can effectively only vote for one or the other. This is not due to a lack of idealists, it’s by design of the system
Ssssshhhh… You’re interrupting my socratic argument to shut this f’ing guy up.
They are rigged and corrupted for sure just like every popular politician but let’s not forget that NATO is a terroristic organization and that producing or sending cluster munition to an authoritarian government is not a good thing.
We should take everyone into account for chilling with russian leaders and mafiosi not just jill stein
Notice the group you call a terrorist organization grows when the nation they say they are organized to protect against invades other countries. If Russia wants NATO to go away all they have to do is stop invading counties and it will slowly dissolve and disappear. They invaded Georgia in 2008 and the world didn’t do enough, they invaded Crimea (Ukraine) in 2014 and the world didn’t do enough. 2022 they set out to invade Ukraine again, and finally the world started to do more. 3 strikes. Now NATO grows because counties in the region don’t feel safe from Russia. If they stop being a threat, counties in the region will slowly leave NATO.
History started before 2008.
deleted by creator
Downvotes are probably the people still livid that Tulsi failed, and who want a third party to break into this hopelessly entrenched duopoly of an election system.
Fair enough, but thinking you can fix it by yourself isn’t going to fix it, just help Trump win.
Or people smacking their foreheads that anyone took her seriously after she was revealed to be a Russian plant way back in 2017.
I didn’t downvote, but I can’t upvote either, because seriously?
I’m still hearing about Tulsi from two people. Insert eyeroll here.
Yeah you’re right. Their brainless response normally is to just shift focus away from trump as if he is irrelevant to the conversation
I downvoted because disbanding nato is a good thing and arming an authoritarian government is bad.
Just missing Lavrov and you’d have all four horsemen in the same pictureNvm i mistook Ivanov for Medvedev, only two horsemen at this table with Jill Stein
This thread is sitting on the front page of Lemmy for a while now so I’ll share my thoughts.
I will only ever vote for a 3rd party. I made that promise to myself after 2016, so I don’t really care if people think that means it’s effectively a vote for Trump. Because I wasn’t going to vote for the Democrats anyways.
A slow slip into facism doesn’t appeal to me.
This behaviour of yours is more likely to cause a fast slip to fascism.
Removed by mod
Removed, civility.
deleted by creator
How long has stein been campaigning and didn’t know basic information about Congress.
She’s either not serious, an imbecile, or porque no los dos?
That means why not both, Jill.
I made the mistake of voting for her in the primaries exactly once years ago as a naive teenager, and vowed never again once her “campaigning” expounded on what she actually stood for and how.
Green party… Plastic green, indeed.
Howie Hawkins was nice though (doesn’t mean I would have voted for him)
