Dr. Jill Stein announces Butch Ware as VP running mate
kutv.com
WASHINGTON (TND) — Dr.Jill Stein, who is a Green Party presidential candidate, has selected Professor Butch Ware as her vice-presidential running mate.
WASHINGTON (TND) — Dr.Jill Stein, who is a Green Party presidential candidate, has selected Professor Butch Ware as her vice-presidential running mate.
I get that this is a strong ticket on paper, but it’s really not the time for this.
Voting for Stein when somebody would’ve otherwise voted Harris basically just hands support to the voter’s least liked candidate.
It’s a well-known phenomenon, see the Spoiler Effect.
Don't worry about it, very few people will vote for this Russian stooge and those who do were never going to vote for Harris anyway.
So then, you have nothing to worry about. :)
Correct, she's the last thing I'm worried about.
Good for you then. I’m glad my post didn’t make you angry, as it seems to have done with a lot of others recently.
Nah just makes you look foolish.
Because I'm voting for someone that you are not voting for, right? Ok!
Agreed.
And I'd say that the notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.
It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.
In the end, I personally refuse to be intimidated into voting against my conscience. Democracy thrives on diversity of thought.
If that’s how you feel, then why vote for a particular party at all?
Why not just write in whoever you most desire to be the president? There’s nothing against that, after all…
Voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in. The idea that supporting a third party is somehow working for Trump or any other major candidate is both historically inaccurate and logically flawed.
Throughout American history, third parties have played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and pushing important issues into the spotlight. The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all advanced by third parties before being adopted by the major parties.
By voting for Jill Stein and the Green Party, I'm supporting a platform that aligns with my values, particularly on issues like environmental sustainability, social justice, and democratic reform.
Okay, so to anyone who reads this exchange: I’m pretty sure this is a bot.
On top of it being a very botty response to my question, that didn’t even answer my question, they typed out three whole paragraphs with a thesis statement and conclusion, with some bold-face typing…in less than a minute. That’s fucking sketch.
But I’ll respond back at least once more:
Again, if you believe that the “electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate” and you don’t like voting “against your conscience”, then it seems like you value honest voting very highly.
But honest voting goes beyond parties. If you value voting honestly, then you should vote for the person you think is best suited for the presidency. It doesn’t have to be Jill Stein, it can be any of the other hundreds of millions of Americans, as a write-in.
What is your take on that?
Careful, accusing someone of being a bot is against community rules and this user has and will report any perceived rules infringement.
The response in question is a copy-pasted spiel they have employed before to several users - me included. Often repeated verbatim, and sometimes multiple times to the same person such as to me here and here (within minutes of each other).
I'm not sure of any rules being broken, but it doesn't feel like good-faith organic discussion. Might just be able to skirt around the rules though.
Fair enough, thanks for the background. And I didn’t know that was a rule, so thanks.
I did also respond to the user organically in the second part of my post, so hopefully my post stays within the rules.
Oh I have no reason to report anything in this thread. It's just that some users can be very uncivil, which is against the rules.
You thought I was a bot and gave your reasons. And I replied to you telling why that assumption would be incorrect. That's fine.
But I have had some very nasty, very personal, very uncivil responses. And I did have to report them.
And the mods removed them for the toxicity. And those users got REALLY mad about it. One even sent me DM's that he would "follow me around, just to keep an eye on" me. So yeah, creepy stuff.
All because I posted political news story about the Green Party to this political news sub. lol
This is true!
Except I get asked and accused of the EXACT same things over and over. So of course my responses will match for the sake of brevity.
Especially the whole, "Jill Stein is a russian asset" one. I always have to post a link to the newsweek article rebutting that.
How am I bot? Feel free to look at my past posts and conversations. lol
I 100 percent agree. And I think that Jill Stein is best suited for the presidency right now. Also, voting for someone who is officially on the ballot gives the party more recognition, influence, and potential access to resources and ballot access in future elections, which wouldn't happen with a write-in vote that doesn't carry the same weight or visibility.
Now having said that, if a good socialist candidate is allowed on my state ballot, I may switch over, depending on who it was.
But I really, really like Stein's pick for VP. So far. I mean, if something comes out or it's uncovered that he's done something wrong, I could change my mind.
Also, just because someone goes against the mainstream grain about who they vote for, doesn't make them a bot. Just saying...
My bad, I didn’t know you just had a copy-pasted snippet. That snippet didn’t feel like it answered my question at all, hence my suspicion.
Again, that suspicion had nothing to do with your apparent views, it was entirely because it didn’t feel like you were responding to my question at all - it was a long, well-written, yet generic, almost immediate response.
But I am sorry for sounding accusatory.
I do generally agree with this sentiment, so don’t get me wrong on that. However, I see this is a strategic/practical consideration in who to vote for. I don’t see it as a valid consideration in an honest vote.
My point is this: it sounds like you are a principled voter, but one who’s not blind to strategic or practical considerations. That’s how I feel as well, but I value the spoiler effect very highly in my strategic/practical consideration. Fighting the political science inches us both closer to our least preferred candidate getting elected.
I wish that your energy of “Consider voting for Jill Stein” was instead put towards “fight for electoral reform, so we can all honestly vote for candidates like Jill Stein without fear”.
No need to be sorry at all. I took your comment within the spirit it was given. I wasn't offend or upset at all. You had your suspicion, voiced it, and I gave my response. All good, friend!
Well, for me, it's the person I believe in the most and who aligns with my views. Jill Stein fills in those blanks. I don't care about "spoiler" voting. I vote for who I want.
If the American people choose someone else as president, regardless of who that is, I'm fine with the decision. We're a democracy.
Almost half of the American people aren't gonna vote for Harris. That's what part of democracy is. Our personal favorite side doesn't always win. Regardless of the political spectrum.
I put it towards both. I 100 percent agree with and fight for electoral form. The thing is that the 2 main parties never want that at the time that they are the winning candidates and in office.
How many years have Democrats had a chance to change it? How many years have Republican had a chance to change it?
Neither party has, nor wants to.
They aren't getting my vote.
Also, I don't have "fear" of any political party.
Normally I’d feel the same way, but it sounds like you’re not concerned about a 2nd Trump term. I am VERY concerned.
If Trump wins, he’ll have 4 years with a SCOTUS supermajority, a platform that was written for him that will deal massive damage if even a fraction of it is implemented, and an already promised decision to implement Schedule F which’ll increase the appointive power of the presidency by a factor of 12-100. That’s literally not even the half of it.
We have to send a message that any of that is NOT OKAY. That message cannot be sent if he wins.
Perhaps you’re telling the truth, but it just doesn’t feel like that, simply because most of your posts appear to have been about defending third party candidates rather than speaking in favor of reform (I say “appear” because I have not combed through your entire post history or anything, nor will I).
I will say in your defense that recent news in the US doesn’t say anything about electoral reform, so there’d be no recent developments to post. I’m just talking about the impression it leaves that it appears to go unmentioned by you.
This is not true in general. See this. Ranked choice is slowly being adopted at the local level, and made it to the state level in Alaska and Maine. Yes, it’s banned statewide in several states, but that’s a hell of a long way from being banned everywhere. It’s slow but steady progress, from the ground up.
Although ranked choice isn’t my preferred system, it’s something, and that something sets the precedent that reform is possible.
Correct, I am not. I don't think the world ends if Trump wins again. (But he won't win anyway, so I'm double unconcerned.)
Well, you feel that YOU have to send that message. And I support your right to do that.
I, however, don't feel the need to do that.
I am telling the truth. And I love the idea of reform. But no, you don't have time to go thru all my posts. (tho you are welcome to!) People argue with me a lot, and are very mad that I am not voting for their candidate, so it would take you forever. But I have advocated for reform plenty of times.
But I’m not going to sit around waiting for that; I’m going to vote for the candidate I believe in now.
So you aren’t concerned about any of the issues I brought up - the 4yrs of conservative SCOTUS supermajority, Project 2025, Schedule F, etc?
Are you not concerned about Trump potentially invoking the insurrection act, especially noting that has said he would consider sending troops into liberal cities “to curb crime waves”?
Even forgetting things he “plausibly might not want to do”, his official policy plans are very concerning to me.
I don’t think the world ends if Trump wins either, but I think it’ll be very bad. Furthermore, I think 4 years of the president having zero climate protection policy will be detrimental to the environment. It feels ironic that you support the Green Party but aren’t concerned about a Trump presidency in that regard.
Nope. Pure fearmongering created by Democrats.
If Trump somehow won (which he won't), then in 4 years, we'd have another election. And in that election, Democrats would be saying variations of "Republicans are trying to destroy the world. This is the most important election ever!" like they have always said.
And the Republicans would be saying variations of "Libs are trying to destroy the world. This is the most important election ever!" like they have always said.
I won't be voting for either one of them.
You like to say that people are mad about you not voting for their candidate, but that's just your spin. Personally I was mad about you constantly giving shifting strawman arguments about how it was impossible for Stein to be working with Russia. Like most conservatives-at-heart though, you seem to struggle with owning up to any wrongdoing, everything must always be someone else's fault and you're always some innocent victim.
With a majority sufficient to overcome opposition? Zero. The GOP hasn't been without significant influence through the filibuster in decades.
By supporting puppets you throw your voice away. Voting as a right isn’t being debated here and your desperate plea for “rights” shows how little you know of them.
When your only argument is “I have the right” you are confessing that you don’t really have a reason. You don’t know why… instead you are telling everyone that you don’t think you just act. Apparently because you just can… or because someone spoke a line and you felt so compelled.
First, I don't belive she's a puppet. Second, I am not throwing my voice away. I'm voting for who I want to be president. And right now, for me anyway, that's Jill Stein.
I have stated my reasons many many times in this community. Right now she is the candidate that best aligns with my values.
I support you voting for who you want, and I would expect that you would support me voting for who I want. As is our right.
Maybe the issue is what you want to accomplish not who you’re told “represents” that…
You can tell yourself that you don’t “believe” she’s a puppet… all while she sits with Putin, his puppets and soils the vote. At that point what will your “beliefs” accomplish? Without accomplishing shit what value does believing in an asshole accomplish?
Which is true. I don't believe she's a puppet. Listen, I get it. You don't like her and you think she's a russian puppet.
I don't believe what you believe. It's really, really that simple.
It's not some vast conspiracy. It's not some russian state troll farm trying to sway you.
I don't believe what you believe.
I like her, I'm voting for her.
That's it. It ain't that deep, friend.
We get to vote for who we want. If I liked Vermin Supreme, who IS running for president again, by the way, then I'd vote for him.
And you could say, "Well I don't believe he's worthy cuz he wears a boot on his head," but then if I actually thought he was worthy BECAUSE he wears a boot on his head, then that would be ok.
It's ok that not everyone believes exactly the same way that you do or in the exact same stuff. That's ok. I promise.
Ha no likely there’s no issue understanding THAT you in fact, believe “things”.
Bet you do!
It’s the fucking weird ass reasons WHY you believe that stuff of all things…
And that's the beauty of "diversity of thought," friend.
Free country, man. I get to think whatever I want to, for whatever reason I want to. :)
This comment is pure trolling. Condescending deflection without acknowledging the question, and then bait. Even the smug emoticon is perfect.
I'm going to keep calling this guy out, especially now that he's apparently blocked me so I don't actually have to fence with him about every little thing now.
But any actual result of you voting 3rd party is to end up with a fascist president who has plainly stated his intent is to make sure you will never vote again.
Then maybe your party should have a stronger candidate if you are that afraid of 3rd parties having an impact. People get to vote for who they want to, even if it's not who YOU want. Welcome to democracy.
You’re ridiculously naive. We go to war, or the polls, with what we have. And if you don’t make the best use of the best candidate to get closer to what you’re actually in favor of, you’re a fool.
Awww, thanks. And yes, we have what we have. And I like the Green Party candidates we have, so I'm voting for them.
I am!
Also it’s spelled “D E M O C R A C Y”.
Idiot.
Well, I can be an idiot sometimes. But this is more of "my fat fingers moving too fast as I reply" sorta thing. Thanks tho!
You have to vote strategically. That is: with an eye to what your vote will actually DO.
Not voting, or voting third party in this election will directly contribute to the installation of a fascist dictator and the destruction of democracy.
Voting is not dating. You're not trying to hook up with The ONE who is "perfect" for you.
Voting is public transport. You grab the one that's going to get you closer to where you want to go.
I don't "have" to do anything of the sort. I am 100 percent free to vote for whoever I want, for whatever reasons I want. Welcome to freedom, friend.
I respect and support your right to vote for whoever you want. And it's not who I am voting for. We have a difference in opinion. And that's ok. I promise.
Its neither. Trump or Harris will win. They both have flaws, but one of them has significantly more including wanting to be a dictator and removing the right to vote going forward. The notion that a 3rd party vote dilutes is based in strategic voting. We have a system that benefits only 2 teams, refusal to work within that 2 team system without first erecting groundwork to actually have a chance at winning is either: 1) removing votes from the main candidate of those 2 teams you'd rather see prevail over the other or 2) not voting against the candidate you'd most like to see fail. It didn't matter which of those is the case, they are both diluting.
They are. The system is erected such that only a member of one of the 2 major parties will actually win the presidency. Therefore only votes for them actually matter.
It's not. First past the post only helps the dominate parties. They are the only ones that stand a chance at winning and they are the only ones who actually win. This results in a majority of the electorate compromising somewhere to settle on a less ideal candidate. Ranked choice voting and proportional representation with a parliamentary system of government is significantly better at representing the diverse views of the electorate.
That's fine. Your preferred candidate won't win and you will not be contributing to choosing a candidate that more closely aligns with your views than the other.
No it doesn't. Democracy thrives on having access to the polls. Outcomes of democracy thrive on them being educated, voting critically, and for their best interests, and having proportional representation.
Some people believing women shouldn't have control of their bodies, that they belong naked, standing in the kitchen without the right to vote, some people believing women should have autonomy and suffrage, some people believing women should have autonomy, but not the right to vote, and some people believing that a man should have 1 vote for him and all his dependents are a diverse selection of thoughts. But those thoughts and the people that hold them are not causing democracy to thrive.
All told there are tons of problems with our electoral system from the EC to paid ballot access for minor parties, first past the post, unlimited money, 2 year campaign cycle, the people that actually get nominated, strategic drawing of maps, culling voters from registrations, states leaving ERIC, and more, but those problems benefit a 2 party system and refusing to participate in that does not benefit your cause. What voting a 3rd party does do is get them closer to the 5% cutoff for access to federal Presidential Election Campaign Funds in their next election and signal a vehement opposition to some policy. However, that signal is easily ignored with such a low turnout.
So how do you get a third party presidential candidate to win? By actually building a 3rd party first. Run candidates in local elections, get them on school boards and mayorships. Start locally, build a following and work up to state. Start winning an appreciable percent of state legislature seats and move on to congressional seats. Once the American people are familiar with you as a "party" who actually is involved politically and demands a significant amount of real-estate on the hill and in their states and not simply as a "fringe party" taking a crap shot at power they will start to view your party as actually having a chance to win the presidency, they might actually vote for you in no small part, and you eventually can work your way to an actual victory.
Vote for who you want. If it's not one of the main candidates that may be ideological and even admirable, but right now it's ineffective. I'll be voting to reduce the chances of Trump winning office, because I actually want my vote to matter in future elections.
Exactly this. These cicada-like independents and 3rd parties that pop up every four years to run for POTUS accomplish absolutely nothing, other than acting as a spoiler to one or both the two main parties. Some, like JFK, are acting in an ego-driven fantasy world with their best possible outcome being bribed with a job or money to drop out of the race, while others such as Stein, are intended specifically to achieve a spoiler effect targeted to pull votes away from one of the two dominant parties by playing on wish-fulfillment fantasies of susceptible people.
The only way to achieve real political power in our US system is to either (a) do as you suggest and put in the hard work over years to build up a viable party from the ground up to get large and strong enough to replace one of the Big Two at the top, or (b) take over one of the Big Two from within, as MAGA has done with the Republican party, which is certainly faster. I've gone into how the left can do something similar with the Democratic party in other posts.
I have no doubt.
Which I don't practice nor believe in.
And, in my opinion, access to more than 2 political parties.
According to YOU. I mean, just accept that some people don't believe the same way you do. And if there are more of them that vote for their candidate, than yours, then that's how the American voting system goes.
I personally disagree with their line of thought, but again, if there are more of them than me, and their candidate wins, then I just continue voting for who I think best alignes with my values.
You have to understand, that they think the EXACT same way as you do. They think that YOU are wrong. Just because YOU believe in all of this, doesn't invalidate the fact that they do not believe you.
If democrats are that scared of Trump winning, then they should pic a candidate strong enough to over come his and any third party votes. Also maybe they shouldn't have waited till last minute to make Biden step down.
Having said that, Harris is going to win anyway, so I personally think you should relax. But it's your right to feel however you want. Also, it's other voters' right to feel however they want.
I will, thank you. And I respect and support your right to vote for who you want.
There's a lot more to my post that you neglected to address, so I'll just stick to your reply. I am writing this followup not in an attempt to convince you, but to seek clarity and understanding; unfortunately my rhetoric is often not perceived that way, though I do mean it earnestly.
Do you have a preference of the two? Are you okay with either of them winning?
What do you mean by that? I practice voting strategically, it's certainly a thing that exists. Are you saying you believe people in general shouldn't or do you really mean you believe there is no such thing? Are you also positing that you still believe it is based in fear?
What are you talking about? I listed a diverse selection of thoughts then stated truthfully that they were diverse. Is your fault found in my understanding that those thoughts are not causing democracy to thrive? People living under dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and week democracies do not necessarily think in unison. People the world over have different thoughts and opinions even within their own communities and ruling structures. That doesn't cause democracy to spontaneously arise or even thrive. The distinction between democracy and other ruling structures is the ability of the people to vote. If you want democracy to thrive then the people need to actually be able to vote, not just think differently.
I fully understand that not everyone believes the same things I do, that has nothing to do with the ability for a 3rd party candidate to win.
I fully 100% agree. I just also expect that people will vote in their best interests, but recognize they don't necessarily, and I don't understand why that is. Voting for a 3rd party candidate does nothing for you, while voting for a major party candidate possibly can do something for you. I am a gay leftist atheist. One of the major candidates doesn't want me to be able to vote (or potentially live) the other one isn't immediately dismissive of who I am and can be reasoned with. If I vote for the former I am contributing to active oppression against me. If I vote for the latter I am not. If I vote for someone (or no one) else I am complicit in whatever happens to me. I don't know you. I'm sure there is some category that means a lot to you and that you see Dr. Stein recognizing, but she will not be able to act on that, whereas a major candidate will.
Well said
When I say I don't believe in it, I mean I don't believe in DOING it. Kind of like amish don't belive in grounded electricity. Meaning, obviously the know it exists, but the choose not to use it.
So no, I don't believe in voting strategically. Maybe it's something you want to do. I don't. So I won't.
I'm talking about the fact that people don't necessarily believe in the same things you do. You do realize that half of the country votes for Trump because they actually LIKE him and his policies, right? They aren't doing it, to just "show the libs."
As strange as it may seem to this Lemmy community, there are people who like Trump and what he stands for. I don't. But that doesn't make it any less valid that they do. I respect their rights to think that.
And YOU believe that is what Trump will create. Many people DON'T think that. You do realize lots of people don't think that Trump is (or wants) a dictatorship, right.
YOU think that. Many in your social circle think that. But not everyone does.
I personally don't like Trump. I won't be voting for him. But I do not think that a Trump win means we have "dictatorship." I don't. And you can spare your opinions and your examples. I respect your right to have your opinion, but I don't agree. That's it.
In YOUR opinion. But it does do something for me in MY opinion. I am proudly voting 3rd party. Accept it. Disagree with it, but accept it.
I like Jill Stein, and I'm voting for her. We can move on.
The world won't end if Harris wins. The world won't end if Trump wins. Nor will America. I promise.
Not interested in the truth or any sort of discussion. Only in spreading his narrative.
How does she get to 270?
Can't?
Oh then she's a spoiler for trump to win then.
Simple as
How many votes do you think she’s likely to get in swing states, which are the only states that matter? Enough to spoil Harris? She’s not even on the ballot in Georgia. The point of Stein’s campaign is not to win or to be a spoiler. The point is messaging and putting pressure the Democratic party to move further left.
The Liberal myth of spoiler implies that if there were no 3rd party candidates, we would vote for your neoliberal POS candidates, surprise, we would not.
Spoilers are mathematical fact stemming from first past the post voting. I also want to be able to vote for a third party candidate but it goes against my interests to do so until the voting system changes.
The only way a spoiler is a myth if you weren't going to vote at all.
I will vote, but it won't be for MAGA or Blue Maga.
There is no blue maga. Lol.
You may not be aware of it. But it certainly does exist.
Maybe in dreams, but there is no "blue maga" in reality.
Only in dreams is there no BlueMAGA. Cult like obsession and devotion to political candidates and politicians.
Then maybe get a stronger Democrat candidate so you don't have to worry about that person losing votes a third party.
Simple as
Could be the best Democratic candidate of all time and that would still happen. It's silly.
If you want to do something productive and not shoot yourself in the foot, spend your time advocating for the abolition of FPTP and an alternative ranked voting system.
Well, I think we should end the 2-party system, so not an issue for me.
The spoiler effect is position based, not strength based.
I don't care about a spoiler effect. At all.
I don't vote "against" who I'm afraid of winning. I vote "for" who I'd like to win. Not based on odds. Or fear.
If a party is concerned, then they should get a more popular candidate.
I don't care if you don't care.
The spoiler effect is position based, not popularity based.
The "spoiler" effect argument assumes votes belong to the two major parties, but in reality, votes are earned by candidates who align with voters' values.
Supporting a third party challenges the status quo, pushing major parties to address issues they might otherwise ignore, and reflects the true diversity of voter priorities.
So no, I don't care. And for someone who doesn't care that I don't care, you seem to be pushing it really hard. I'm not voting for your candidate. And I won't stop posting articles to this community. Accept it.
No, it doesn't. The spoiler effect is about how the introduction of new candidates can change the outcome of an election, such that a previous winner loses because of the proximity of another candidate. Here is an example of it:
But that never happens. The two main parties always ignore everybody except for what their establishment wants for the most part. The DNC didn't learn from it's lesson in 2016, it's not going to learn from it's lesson in 2024. And the RNC is obviously even worse at learning lessons.
You're not the one I am trying to convince here.
I do not care. I'm only here to disprove you wrong about your claims about the spoiler effect. You are wrong both on a mathematical level and a practical level.
Thanks for this, this was super helpful to see in graph form. Quality post. Saving for later.
I actually wrote a python program just to make this graph. I found myself arguing with spoiler effect deniers way too often. It is incredibly easy to show this effect happening now. And I can run it as many times as I like with random colors, candidate names, etc.
It is super neat.
Indeed the only thing the Democrat party learned on 2016 was that "Trump won so that is a winning strategy and I would do better if I were more like that".
Because NEWS FLASH, PEOPLE: Political Parties are not rational actors! They are FERAL. They CONSUME people, but the parties themselves are fundamentally not human. They do not have empathy, they do not have a conscience, and they BARELY even have object permanence!
People need to realize that as long as we're stuck in a First Past The Post model, what voting constitutes is NOT "supporting the lesser of two evils" but RATHER "punishing the greater of two evils".
The party that LOSES defines "what not to do".
Honestly for FUCKS sake the Republican party should have fucking DIED decades ago. The only reason Richard fucking Nixon won and got to deploy his cancerous Southern Strategy was because Wallace distracted the voters who SHOULD have been focused on KILLING THE GOP.
We were almost free of the fascist anti-civil-rights pro-slavery SCUM.
And you know what wouldn've happened? The Democrat party would have SPLIT. Because in First Past the Post there are always TWO viable parties. The split, as it always is, would have been along the pro-tradition/anti-authority line, and we would've had a centrist party and a progressive party instead of the centrist party and fucking dictator cult we have today. God fucking DAMMIT.
If it is at all helpful, you're not alone in your anger towards the system. You're 100% correct. This is shit we should have move on from 50 years ago.
... honestly it is astonishing to me how much of a relief it is to hear someone actually agree ._. i feel like i'm in hostile territory all the damn time lately surrounded by people who are wildly hallucinating what they wish were true instead of facing the historically proven realities of the world we're stuck in. thank you.
It is truly maddening, and OP isn't helping. So I'm quite happy to hear somebody who share the sentiments you've given. Take care, it's gonna be a long election.
And you and I have already talked about this. We're done talking about it. I don't believe in it, and that's my opinion. You are free to feel the way you want. So you have proven nothing to me.
And if you continue this conversation with me, I will block you. Again.
It's also some people's opinion that the moon landing was faked. Not all opinions are of equal merit. And yours in particular when it comes to the spoiler effect flies in the face of the evidence. That evidence being the evidence I literally just showed you.
The math shows it's true. You can bury your head in the sand if you like, but you can't make the rest of us join you. Accept it.
Go for it. If you can't handle honest critical thought, that's on you.
Thank you. Just did! :)
Your opinion is dumb! And that's my opinion.
And I am ok with that.
Has the green party considered someone that doesn't have the Russia stigma associated...
I don't know. Ask them.
Russian stigma doesn't bother me at all though.
That's obvious
So I guess we're done with this discussion then.
I still think Cornel West is going to cut into her voters.
Maybe. But I don't mind him being on the ballot, even tho I am not voting for him.
She should have stayed on as his campaign manager, they might have gotten a percent and a half of the vote that way.
New record!
I got that on my computer in 1997 and kept getting pop ups for gay dating websites
Butch Ware sounds like something I need an antivirus app to clean off my computer.
Unusual name, but probably not something we should be making fun of. Kinda lower than we should go, don't ya think?
Wasn’t really making a political joke. Just anything-ware reminds me of bad computer stuff - malware,spyware, adware, ransomware…. I’m a geek with ADHD, it’s what I do 🤣
Fair enough! And like I said, it IS an unusual name for sure
::: spoiler KUTV Salt Lake City - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for KUTV Salt Lake City:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://kutv.com/news/beyond-the-podium/dr-jill-stein-announces-butch-ware-as-vp-running-mate-2024-presidential-election-politics-jewish-woman-black-muslim-man-joe-biden-kamala-harris-tim-walz-donald-trump-jd-vance-systemic-injustice-genocide-war-inflation-economy ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
"This is truly a historic ticket bringing together a Jewish woman and Black Muslim man against genocide, endless war, climate collapse, and rampant injustice, and for an economy that works for working people, a livable future for our children, and an America and a world that works for all of us.”
She forgot to mention how it was all brought together in the first place by a white male dictator in Russia.
No russians made Jill Stein run for president. lmao
In regular times, maybe. The DNC abandoned the idea of incorporating third party policies ages ago.
I wish voting for this ticket could keep my conscious clean but that's just not how reality works.
I support and totally respect your opinion on that.
But for me, variations of people/parties saying, "Oh, we need change, but not THIS election" or "NOW isn't the time, it's too important to try now..." etc, has been said for the last 50 years.
50 years!
So no, I'm done with the whole, "Not this time, next time tho!" line of thinking. I'm voting for who I want to vote for. Right now. And it feels awesome.
I’m with you but this late into the cycle for a general election really isn’t the time for it. The real work starts local then pushes up. Getting a mayor, state reps, etc paves the way for more desirable senators and eventually, a president.
I stopped voting third party for big ticket elections in 2016. My state has had margins within 10k and we've ended up with my worst nightmares as reps.
Thanks. But I'm still voting for her. And I am especially happy with her VP pick.
But yeah, if you feel like you can't vote for her in good conscience, then for sure vote for who works best for you. I totally support and respect that decision.
Appeal to oppression olympians. An interesting strategy. Let's see how this plays out.
I like what I know of him so far. But I don't know a bunch about him just yet, since he was just announced. But on paper so far, I like him.
Having said that, I doubt very much it will sway anyone who wasn't already going to vote Green anyway.