AOC is right: Jill Stein’s campaign is not serious

MicroWave@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 783 points –
salon.com

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/

342

You are viewing a single comment

Because it's bullshit

"It's bullshit because it proves I'm full of shit and I don't actually have an argument against it."

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.

Explain how it's bullshit.

They won't. They already ignored multiple requests for an explanation or evidence. anticolonialist doesn't discuss in good faith and this isn't anything new.

Because the people that are not serious are people like AOC, the ones that ran on populist platforms to get elected. And then once they got into office, they completely abandoned everything they ran on.

they completely abandoned everything they ran on

First and foremost, no she didn't. She's still one of the most progressive members of Congress, and she continues to fight for realistic progressive policies including universal healthcare, free college, and housing as a human right.

You're welcome to disagree though. Move to her district so you can campaign and vote against her if it really matters to you. Her district keeps reelecting her (82.2% of the vote this year) so I guess she presently represents them quite well.

Or, if relocating so that you get a say in AOC's representative abilities isn't a part of your game plan, consider campaigning for the kind of representation you want to see for your current congressional district. Take a stand where you actually get a voice.

But your constant opposition to Democrats, two months away from an election where Fascism is knocking at the door, isn't helpful. If your goal is a progressive future, you need to be paying attention to what's on the line right now. If your priority is to purity test Liberals instead of campaigning against Fascist Republicans like lives depend on it (they do), then you've completely lost the plot.

One side (R) is starting Pograms and threatening genocide against millions of immigrants. The other (D) doesn't promise your ideal leftist utopia. Think hard about which of these concessions you're willing to accept as you continue constantly attacking Democrats with nobody lined up to replace them but Republicans.

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.

it doesn't prove anything. am i supposed to enumerate all the things it doesn't prove?

You're the one making the claim that it doesn't prove anything. You have done nothing to explain how it doesn't. Just saying it proves nothing isn't enough.

if I told you that leaving that comment proves fort Knox is empty, what kind of refutation is appropriate? it doesn't, it makes no sense to claim it does, and no further refutation is necessary.

2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...

Really now? Please explain exactly how it's "bullshit." Just claiming it's bullshit is not sufficient.

1 more...

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.

ou make efforts to convince blue voters to go third party. Y

did that happen?

Their whole account is filled with shitting on blue candidates to convince people to abandon them.

You’re disagreeing with math. Congratulations, you’ve unlocked the dunce award.

3 more...