Something something Russian check is in the mail Jill.
Totally not running as a spoiler, nahhh. Not good ol Jill Spoiler Stein! She just wants you to Send A Message™ (at an incredibly important time that has lasting repercussions if you actually follow through.)
Here's an idea, if you actually gave a shit Jill, why not lead the charge for ranked choice voting!!! Put your damn face all over the media when it's not an election year so you can actually push for positive change. At least then you'd stand a chance and people could actually vote for you! But no, that's not the intent. The intent is to syphon votes from Democrats again.
Her last campaign went heavy on ranked choice (as all green party candidates have been) but the green party has to run candidates to retain ballot access and therefore retain members. Campaigns are also a great way to promote issues ignored by major candidates (such as rcv) but the press has not been kind to third parties since ross perot so its not a surprise most people are unfamiliar with green party platforms.
in 2023 post covid her tepid vaccine skepticism seems like some major baggage (along with 2016s brutal coverage) and I wouldn't be surprised if she was more picking up jimmy dore style dumbass voters this time around and less acting as a spoiler. Her reputation is so toxic at this point that it does seem like the green party is throwing democrats a bone here.
i think she'd be just as happy to "syphon votes from" republicans. i think she wants all the votes she can get and doesn't much care who your second choice would be.
Show me a republican who would vote for the green party, and I'll show you a very confused and lonely magic crystal and energy healing enthusiast.
technically, at the moment, i am registered republican, but i vote green.
I feel the word "technically", here, is likely pulling so much weight that it invalidates your comment entirely.
i mean the whole idea of identifying with a party is pretty invalid IMHO.
democrats don't own the votes, the voters do. they need to earn them like everyone else.
Of course they don't own the votes, but you vote to get an outcome. If you're voting for someone third party who has literally 0 chance of winning, but actually agree with some of what the Democrats want and not much at all of what Republicans want then the only outcome you get is the party you agree with least winning because you wanted to send a message to the party you partially agreed with.
the only outcome you get is the party you agree with least winning because you wanted to send a message to the party you partially agreed with.
it's not about sending a message to democrats or republicans. it's about who i want to win. also, it's really hard to tell which party i agree with least.
That's what I thought the first time as well. It turns out that who you want to win means fuck all in real life. It's a bit like saying "I don't want my arm to be broken" when you fall on it. I'm sure you don't, but if you care about how it heals you'll go to the hospital and get a cast put on it, even if it's uncomfortable.
And to me, it's easy to figure out who I agree with least. One of them actively wants LGBT folks dead, and the other one doesn't actively want that. Everything else could be exactly the same and it would still be braindead easy to figure out.
if it means so much to you, I live in a swing state. the state penalty for selling my vote is $5k. that's the federal fine, too. put another 10k on top for my troubles and I'll vote any way you like.
I wouldn't count on the Democrats to keep genocidal maniacs from your doorstep. better to get a gun and join a local resistance movement.
I'd rather the people that don't presently want genocidal maniacs killing me and my friends be in office than the genocidal maniacs themselves, and you must recognize that it is, in fact, one of those two choices that are going to win.
Democrats fund genocide. you need to save yourself.
And republicans don't do that even more?
there aren't acceptable degrees
So given the choice between someone actively demanding genocide and someone who's passively supporting a genocide, you'd sooner see more people murdered than vote for the lesser evil?
id sooner not support either one. neither is acceptable
So you would sooner choose to let more people suffer than involve yourself in seeing fewer people suffer. What an awful person you are.
they're not the same with one exception tho. they're both deeply bad In similar and unique ways. neither is acceptable.
In what way are Democrats bad, that Republicans aren't?
they want to restrict guns to government thugs. they lie about supporting unions, stabbing the working class in the back.
Better than republicans who were the first ones doing gun control because black people had guns, and who are openly hostile to unions and the working class, and treat them even worse.
I don't think getting stabbed in the back is better than getting stabbed in the front.
Something something Russian check is in the mail Jill.
Totally not running as a spoiler, nahhh. Not good ol Jill Spoiler Stein! She just wants you to Send A Message™ (at an incredibly important time that has lasting repercussions if you actually follow through.)
Here's an idea, if you actually gave a shit Jill, why not lead the charge for ranked choice voting!!! Put your damn face all over the media when it's not an election year so you can actually push for positive change. At least then you'd stand a chance and people could actually vote for you! But no, that's not the intent. The intent is to syphon votes from Democrats again.
Her last campaign went heavy on ranked choice (as all green party candidates have been) but the green party has to run candidates to retain ballot access and therefore retain members. Campaigns are also a great way to promote issues ignored by major candidates (such as rcv) but the press has not been kind to third parties since ross perot so its not a surprise most people are unfamiliar with green party platforms.
in 2023 post covid her tepid vaccine skepticism seems like some major baggage (along with 2016s brutal coverage) and I wouldn't be surprised if she was more picking up jimmy dore style dumbass voters this time around and less acting as a spoiler. Her reputation is so toxic at this point that it does seem like the green party is throwing democrats a bone here.
i think she'd be just as happy to "syphon votes from" republicans. i think she wants all the votes she can get and doesn't much care who your second choice would be.
Show me a republican who would vote for the green party, and I'll show you a very confused and lonely magic crystal and energy healing enthusiast.
technically, at the moment, i am registered republican, but i vote green.
I feel the word "technically", here, is likely pulling so much weight that it invalidates your comment entirely.
i mean the whole idea of identifying with a party is pretty invalid IMHO.
democrats don't own the votes, the voters do. they need to earn them like everyone else.
Of course they don't own the votes, but you vote to get an outcome. If you're voting for someone third party who has literally 0 chance of winning, but actually agree with some of what the Democrats want and not much at all of what Republicans want then the only outcome you get is the party you agree with least winning because you wanted to send a message to the party you partially agreed with.
it's not about sending a message to democrats or republicans. it's about who i want to win. also, it's really hard to tell which party i agree with least.
That's what I thought the first time as well. It turns out that who you want to win means fuck all in real life. It's a bit like saying "I don't want my arm to be broken" when you fall on it. I'm sure you don't, but if you care about how it heals you'll go to the hospital and get a cast put on it, even if it's uncomfortable.
And to me, it's easy to figure out who I agree with least. One of them actively wants LGBT folks dead, and the other one doesn't actively want that. Everything else could be exactly the same and it would still be braindead easy to figure out.
if it means so much to you, I live in a swing state. the state penalty for selling my vote is $5k. that's the federal fine, too. put another 10k on top for my troubles and I'll vote any way you like.
I wouldn't count on the Democrats to keep genocidal maniacs from your doorstep. better to get a gun and join a local resistance movement.
I'd rather the people that don't presently want genocidal maniacs killing me and my friends be in office than the genocidal maniacs themselves, and you must recognize that it is, in fact, one of those two choices that are going to win.
Democrats fund genocide. you need to save yourself.
And republicans don't do that even more?
there aren't acceptable degrees
So given the choice between someone actively demanding genocide and someone who's passively supporting a genocide, you'd sooner see more people murdered than vote for the lesser evil?
id sooner not support either one. neither is acceptable
So you would sooner choose to let more people suffer than involve yourself in seeing fewer people suffer. What an awful person you are.
they're not the same with one exception tho. they're both deeply bad In similar and unique ways. neither is acceptable.
In what way are Democrats bad, that Republicans aren't?
they want to restrict guns to government thugs. they lie about supporting unions, stabbing the working class in the back.
Better than republicans who were the first ones doing gun control because black people had guns, and who are openly hostile to unions and the working class, and treat them even worse.
I don't think getting stabbed in the back is better than getting stabbed in the front.
Good news is there's like 300 of you in the country so it doesn't matter
if it didn't matter why is my inbox full?
Are you serious right now?
I said what I said
Well I guess so long as the election takes place in your inbox, you're all set.