They arrested her because she was trespassing and causing a disturbance, not because she was a political opponent. It's not like she posed any threat to their power. She had 0% chance of becoming president. It's completely absurd to think they needed to arrest her to beat her. She didn't get enough votes to participate and she threw a Karen fit.
the voters were disenfranchised by being denied a legitimate voice. she was systematically excluded from every media platform. the debate was just one example in a long series of disenfranchisement. her arrest there was clearly to prevent her from challenging them.
Candidates must have a requisite amount of supporters to participate in a debate. This prevents candidates who have zero mathematical chance of winning from wasting everyone's time. Stein did not meet the requirements. Her supporters were not disenfranchised. Their candidate just lost. She had already lost when she was arrested, so it had no impact on enfranchisement.
debates are gatekept on arbitrary criteria to prevent candidates who the gatekeepers don't like from participating in democracy. stein was disfavored by the gatekeepers, and when she challenged the legitimacy of that gatekeeping, they arrested her.
Having supporters is not an arbitrary criteria. She had bad ideas and was a bad candidate. That is why she had insufficient support to be considered a legitimate candidate. You can blame others all you want, but she is a failure all on their own without any interference from Democrats.
all social criteria are arbitrary
make all the excuses you like for her arrest: Democrats arrest their political opponents.
Only when they break laws. Not to win elections.
this, again, is a matter of interpretation. after all, who made the laws?
jill stein, 2012.
They arrested her because she was trespassing and causing a disturbance, not because she was a political opponent. It's not like she posed any threat to their power. She had 0% chance of becoming president. It's completely absurd to think they needed to arrest her to beat her. She didn't get enough votes to participate and she threw a Karen fit.
the voters were disenfranchised by being denied a legitimate voice. she was systematically excluded from every media platform. the debate was just one example in a long series of disenfranchisement. her arrest there was clearly to prevent her from challenging them.
Candidates must have a requisite amount of supporters to participate in a debate. This prevents candidates who have zero mathematical chance of winning from wasting everyone's time. Stein did not meet the requirements. Her supporters were not disenfranchised. Their candidate just lost. She had already lost when she was arrested, so it had no impact on enfranchisement.
debates are gatekept on arbitrary criteria to prevent candidates who the gatekeepers don't like from participating in democracy. stein was disfavored by the gatekeepers, and when she challenged the legitimacy of that gatekeeping, they arrested her.
Having supporters is not an arbitrary criteria. She had bad ideas and was a bad candidate. That is why she had insufficient support to be considered a legitimate candidate. You can blame others all you want, but she is a failure all on their own without any interference from Democrats.
all social criteria are arbitrary
make all the excuses you like for her arrest: Democrats arrest their political opponents.
Only when they break laws. Not to win elections.
this, again, is a matter of interpretation. after all, who made the laws?