AOC is right: Jill Stein’s campaign is not serious
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/
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.
2015 Stein breaking bread with Putin, his senior staff, and Mike Flynn (later Trump's national security advisor
More context:
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.
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.
Yeah you're right. Their brainless response normally is to just shift focus away from trump as if he is irrelevant to the conversation
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Your vote for Harris is stealing a vote from a 3rd party and giving it to Trump.
When a 3rd party becomes larger than the Democratic or Republican party, you would be correct. That is not the case, so you're still incorrect.
So in your opinion what makes the GOP more deserving of your support compared to the Democrats?
Neither one of them is deserving of support.
And yet when you look at this from the perspective of voting in the general election, everyone is going to support one of them regardless. Unless you can explain how a 3rd party will realistically win the election or how the GOP winning is beneficial. Why can't you explain that?
So again, why do you want to support the GOP over the Democrats?
Which third party candidate deserves support? Stein is Russian trash
Only if that third party stood any chance of winning. Which they don't.
If you have to go back 160 years, maybe that should tell you something about how realistic it is.
the only vote that can benefit any party is a vote for that party. don't spread misinformation.
You are incorrect. While a vote for the GOP candidate certainly carries more weight, it doesn't mean they don't benefit from non/3rd party votes. That is how FPTP voting works.
they literally cannot benefit from it at all. it's a vote against them and for another candidate.
Non/3rd party votes make it easier for the SMALLER party to win, and that happens to be the GOP here. This is just how FPTP voting works.
There are two possible outcomes, how could your actions not benefit one of the two possible winners?
I get that it feels icky, especially when someone views voting as a way to send a message or present their own moral views, but that's not what voting is. Not in the general election at least.
Third parties are not bothering to earn your votes either. They put in zero work except for presidential elections.
Thats the only time YOU start paying attention to 3rd parties, by parroting what youve heard from the media, who has a vested interest in keeping the oligarchy in power
Ok, show me all the Green party candidates running for local and state elected positions.
Wanting someone else to do the work for you? It's your job to pay attention not mine or anyone elses
Oh I'm pretty confident of what the answer is. I just want you to look for yourself.
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.
We've descended into fascism so slowly people can't see it when it's standing right there in front of them. That's why the DNC is always talking about baby steps, incrementalism, small little minute steps to the right. 30 years of small steps to the right has the Democrats embracing war criminals like Dick Cheney.
Supposing that were true, what should we do about it?
Stop supporting the slow descent into fascism would be a good start.
What next?
Math literally has everything to do with it. There are entire branches of mathematics dedicated to figuring out ideal voting systems.
Dude, I already showed it to you.
The 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
"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.
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.
Really now? Please explain exactly how it's "bullshit." Just claiming it's bullshit is not sufficient.
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.
did that happen?
Their whole account is filled with shitting on blue candidates to convince people to abandon them.
why can't they just be shitting on blue candidates? why are you assigning a motive?
The wasted vote is the vote cast For the same people that have caused most of our problems for the last several decades, thinking that somehow, for some reason they’re going to do it different this time.
I plan on voting, but it won’t be for the red fascist or blue fascist.
If they can’t manage to get control it’s perhaps because they suck at governing and are not worth the vote
yes
You’re disagreeing with math. Congratulations, you’ve unlocked the dunce award.
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.
Lmao. I bet you always got your tests back face down.
Who is this "we" you keep referencing?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just because you don't hear her name doesn't mean she isn't putting in the work
the only news I can find for Jill Stein from 2021-2023 is
She was running Cornel West's presidential campaign at some point, not sure what happened with that [link]
she got in trouble with the FEC for campaign finance issues [link]
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.
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?
crickets
< sound of wind blowing over desert sands >
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Then why the fuck is Jill Stein running?
Because Papa Putin won't pay her if she doesn't.
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 +1
Flip 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 +1
In 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.
In a first past the post system, you either vote Democratic or you get the Republican. 3rd party is not an option.
Your confusing that with the fact that an overlap of two circles is a venn diagram.
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.
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.
You are describing the Democrats not Jill Stein.
Jill Stein got gay marriage and the affordable Care act passed?
"NO U!"
What are you, a five year old?
What did Jill Stein ever do?
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.
I don't expect the Democratic establishment to implement it, that's why the Greens should actually get some state reps elected. Or even just compete in the places where they do have ranked choice voting. There's plenty of state level races that don't need a lot of money to be competitive. My rep was reelected with 3,000 votes.
But voting for Jill Stein for president isn't going to do anything. She has literally zero chance of winning, doesn't seem to even put in the effort to understand the position she's theoretically trying to obtain, and just pops up every four years to perpetually lose elections while grifting money away from rubes.
Sometimes you have to “Let the wookie win.”
And now we're in full mask-off accelerationist theory "it's okay to let Trump win as long as Democrats are punished" bullshit. You're unhappy with Democrats, so you're okay with letting throwing literally everyone on the left in the US under the bus, along with the entire country of Ukraine, and throwing even more bombs at Gaza.
What an entitled, smug, self-righteous, holier-than-thou position, utterly divorced from real life consequences. Thanks for admitting that you're a thoroughly unserious poster, though!
Sorry a genocide has inconvenienced you.
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.
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.
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
Audre Lorde
Can't the master's tools renovate the master's house?
pol sci 101: fragile fptp systems (like the electoral college) tend to result in two parties.
It’s because there’s never any serious third party candidates.
Because no one is brave enough to vote for them.
First it needs to be viable:
Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
AOC is correct indeed.
Well if she’s soooo unserious why would the Unicode consortium designate an emoji just for her?
🤡
I can't tell if this is satire because people unironically talk about AOC like this.
AOC called Stein unserious, so the clown comment is about Stein.
Ohh ok yeah that makes more sense
I honestly had to think about it for a hot second first because people talk mad shit about AOC as you said
If Left-Wing Third Parties are serious, they will start by running their candidates as spoilers in the Democratic Primary and appealing to voters to listen and add their platforms to the list of priorities to push the Dems on. They'd simultaneously work hard to get Ranked Choice passed nation-wide as that system is the most compatible with our country's political system. Once they get that passed, they would join efforts to reform the Electoral College so it doesn't require 270 votes, an then implement a more effective voting system for President that ensures that left-wing voters don't get a Right-Wing president elected voting for Third Party options. They would also push hard to win at the City, County, and State levels, as well as in the Congress, so the Jill Steins of the world have friendly legislators to rely on.
Ocasio-Cortez is right to call this out.
Did you just turn Success Kid into an angry/upset reaction? Rude!
I’m saving lives:
Honestly, yes. You can't vote third party, and you can't not vote, if you don't want Trump in office. If you vote Third Party or stay home, you're good with Trump being in office, which means you're good with leaving minorities, non-Christians, transgendered people, and gay people up Project 2025 Shit Creek without a paddle. Given my wife is a Black bisexual Goth pagan, that means you want my wife to be hurt, and that pisses me the fuck off. And judging from the 15 other downvotes you have, I'm not the only one who feels that way.
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.
Go watch her breakfast club interview. So transparent that they are pandering with hollow buzz word mention. The hosts call her out pretty well. If they are real about an issue like ranked choice voting, then I want to see you become the face of that issue publicly for the next 4 years, until it's passed into law through consensus and politicking, in a way that the green party clearly earns a place in a tangible victory.
You won't, that's not what you're being funded for, but that's what you'd do if you actually cared.
Stein is a clown.
A vote for stein is a vote for trump.
no, it's not. this is election misinformation
It absolutely is when you look at the reality of the situation. Stop spreading the 3rd party vote as a viable option misinformation. Where are these so-called 3rd party candidates in the local elections? With no local support, state assembly level, or Congress, these candidates would be useless as President.
it is absolutely illegal to count a vote for stein as a vote for trump.
A vote for the green party is a vote for the green party. Stop trying to bend logic
Normally I'd agree with you. But the Green party is rather transparently not actually trying to get elected. They have the same level of seriousness as RFK who publicly stated he'll only keep his name on the ballot in states where it helps Trump.
If a third party did the leg work, spent a decade getting people elected to congress in every state, and then showed up in the presidential elections I'd be all for it. and before you whine about convenience, I've been saying the same thing to Libertarians and Greens for 2 decades now. They either aren't serious, or they're incompetent.
Being incompetent is still better than being evil
Is that what it is though? Is there evidence that it's incompetence and not enemy action? Because getting paid by the Russians and being at dinner with Michael Flynn and Putin is a pretty big leap in the direction of enemy action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war
My shoe lace broke the other day and it's been a real pain to tie them up since. I was thinking about going to the store today but I have so many other errands to do.
So you have nothing more than whataboutism. Can you stick to the topic at hand or are we going to discuss the effect of slavery next?
Change FPTP or stfu.
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)
It never was.
It's pretty much completely impossible for a third party candidate to ever win. You have to get 270 (just over half) of all the electoral votes. If any third party made a huge amount of headway it'd still be almost impossible to take enough votes from the repubs or democrats to hit 270, and anything less than 270 means the House gets to decide who becomes president. Obviously, the house filled with democrats and Republicans, would never select the third party candidate.
They dont have to win, just steal enough votes from one of the other parties to affect the election
Correct. I'm pointing out the complete futility of anything other than that.
Yeah, I feel like a serious candidate for president would know how many Representatives are in the House.
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.
At her peak, Jill Stein broke just above 1%.
First past the post duopolies are not serious democracies.
Yeah i bet she wont even try to get elected next year
She will, if she gets money from Daddy P specifically earmarked for it.
You know what they say: fourth time's the charm
Its hilarious the upvotes im getting missing the point. There is no presidential election next year.
Well shit, I missed that as well
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.
Why would anyone vote 3rd party? They can just stay home and continue their nap.
Because to some their eternal purity is way more important than anything that could actually happen as a result of their actions. To throw your vote away in a protest that no party has ever cared about keeps your hands clean of any individual aspect of that party you don't like and you can claim the moral high ground by "trying" to enact change, but at what cost to everything around you?
It's like the cartoon of the people living in a cave after climate change ruins everything saying "at least for a short time we made a lot of money for shareholders." except it would be "at least I didn't vote for Genocide Joe."
Because y'all claim to live in a democracy, so let people voice their opinions as votes.
I'd rather be able to vote for more then just the two parties. But I am also realistic and letting trump win so you can vote for someone who will never win is foolish.
"I refuse to make any compromises" is the OPPOSITE of democracy.
Look, if people feel very strongly about something, let them voice their opinion on it through a vote, as intended. That's what democracy is for. If your democracy doesn't work and always makes you vote strategically, making you disregard your own positions as a voter, then maybe your democracy isn't really a democracy and you should start working on that. A strategically cast vote won't magically repair your broken system. Anyway, compromises are for political parties and politicians, not for the average voter that just wants to voice their opinion.
What the fuck are you talking about, compromise and strategic voting are fundamental cornerstones of Democracy. Not some kind of failure.
Exclusively getting everything you want all the time is called autocracy.
Exactly this. That woman is always vapor until an election year.
John Oliver convinced me that Jill Stein is a dumbfuck back in 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU
This is a lot of reading for so early in the morning. I’ll wait for the Jon Oliver expose on her. His RFK episode didn’t disappoint.
One thing i have come to realize about most politically active people is that facts dont matter enough to affect a vote.
Is this just 3rd party ad-lib hate? General voters hate? or Jill stein enthusiasts hate? Just seems like the most generic bot comment for upvotes without actually saying anything.
It's not third party hate, it's more like love for their first party. They see competition as a potential loss for their favorite party.
No hate, really. Just an observation of years of reddit exposure
Ahh, reddit exposure is showing lol, guess that's why it sounded so familiar. Anyone I know outside of internet caves seems to be reasonable and receptive, idk if I consider being active on a forum as "politically active". Idk, maybe a different term like political gooning when you're just online spreading the same message everyone else heard 100 times.
Neither is trumps but he gets all the airtime
Our of curiosity, and because I couldn't immediately find anything. Is MoveOn actively trying to change the voting system itself?
Even if Jill was elected, all she has is ablism and transphobia
So she's running hard mode Republican?
Yes
Also AOC('s party): "wE'rE wOrkInG tiRElessLy on a CeaSefiRe dEAL..." sends $20B in arms to Israel
She should change to democrat so people start taking her seriously and unceremoniously dump her vulture ass along a lonely highway
Jill Stein is there so that people who want to vote, but are mad as fuck at the dems, have someone to vote for. Basically, she's there to scare the dems (working, obviously). Will they be scared enough to adopt some better policies, and get those votes?
The spoiler effect is based on geometric proximity, not the quality of policy. They're a waste of a vote, because they have no chance of winning.
If the greens want to do something they should work at the local level where they actually have a chance.
Absolutely nobody considering a vote for Jill Stein thinks she is going to win. This is a slice of the electorate that the dems haven't won over yet, but could.
If we're just repeating things, then I guess that's what we're doing.
The spoiler effect is based on geometric proximity, not the quality of policy.
Does policy not largely define the "geometric distance" between candidates?
Yes, which is why I included the qualifier "quality" to my statement.
You seem to be saying that the voters are irrational. That may or not be the case, but it's largely irrelevant to converting them.
Some are, some aren't. Either way, saying "just have better policy" is ignorant at best.
"Don't bother asking for better policies!" is a great slogan for the party lol.
That's not what I am saying though.
If we want to actually change the DNC for the better, that means voting in their primaries and especially at the local level with a heavy preference (not seeking perfection) for truly leftist candidates.
The DNC needs to be taken over. Nagging will never do anything.
We've been trying that for decades, buddy. Dissatisfaction with the dems is not "seeking perfection", "nagging", or any other patronizing mischaracterization you wish to paint it as.
If you've been trying to take over the DNC for decades, how you're doing that could use some work.
And your strategy of voting for them no matter what their policy is works very well, I suppose?
So glad that AOC is really dealing with the issues that matter...
Stein syphons off votes from the dems, AOC calling her out on her bullshit does kind of matter in context.
::: spoiler Salon - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Salon:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.salon.com/2024/09/16/aoc-is-right-jill-steins-campaign-is-not-serious/ ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Bernie Sanders was not able to change the system from the inside after spending his entire life compromising with Democrats. It is hard to take these "progressive" Democrats seriously.
Let me quote just one line from the Wikipedia entry
You can also look at his legislative history to see that he’s been pretty successful pulling progressive Democrats along, regardless of not changing the electoral system or getting nominated
Can I get some examples or what he "shifted left"? I honestly don't even understand what that means anymore in the US political environment. Rights? Healthcare? Basic competent legislation that isn't banning or removing something?
I don't consider right-wing "conservative" anymore with the whole immigration/border and increased law-enforcement funding that would be needed for all their draconian ideals. "Progressive" is just trying to catch up to the rest of the world at this point that's leaving us in the dust while we argue about the same shit for 100 more years. (sorry rant over)
I followed your advice and looked at his legislation since 2016 (link 1,2), what am I looking for? I see a new "national heritage area" (another national park designation for some reason), dropping methane regulations deemed necessary from the EPA (uk is doing fine with it). Maybe I should be looking at only introduced legislation for a better picture, not what's past?
I’m quoting Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia entry has such a list
No, you quoted wikipedia then said "You can also look at his legislative history to see.." denoting a separate action. You just linked an entire like 50 page wiki article, what am I looking for?
I was a Bernie voter in 2016, this comes from someone who has campaigned for him and researched him extensively. His performance the past decade has been subpar and I keep seeing him become worse while magically he's making the Dem party "Better"^TM^.
Look, I’m just quoting Wikipedia. It seems like you have an argument with them.
Your quote is followed with
Bernie Sanders would have been president in 2016 if it was possible to change the party from the inside. There is a shift to the right in the Democratic party. Not to the left.
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.
The post-Nader Green Party is a joke, but the DNC is the party of Reagan and Cheney, so... Those in glass political parties that serve only to undermine the left electorate's political power shouldn't throw stones
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.
AOC called out Jill Stein for tanking in 2020. But Stein did not even run in 2020. Who is the embarrassment here?
2016, not 2020
AOC stated Stein ran in 2020 and dropped in the polls which is why people should not take Jill Stein seriously. But Howie Hawkins ran in 2020.
If your campaign depends on people who vote for Jill Stein, there's something wrong with it and you should fix it
Sounds like the Stein campaign is in deep shit then.
Yeah, I don't think she's gonna take the crown fellas
Unfortunately the Democrat, and Republican parties, are both Traitors to the Republic. As much as I've liked her positions on issues I care about. AOC needs to sit down and shut up. She's in a party of Traitors.
This person is member of a party supporting a genocide
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!
Every republican who voted to send weapons to Israel is complicit as well.
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.
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.
Isn't that when one does use the logic they're criticizing, but in a silly way?
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
Yes
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.
I guess these who are in for the seat in power and not to back their ideals do just that.
I disagree. While that's probably the case nine times out of ten, just because somebody is in a higher power seat doesn't mean they got there because they're greedy.
There needs to be change and protections at higher levels of government too.
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?
Bingo. The red and blue party act as one.
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?
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.
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.
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
They are supporting a genocide and arming israel government. These are their policies. Why don't you try to change trump policies?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Nothing will ever change if things stay exactly as they are. You seem in good faith but you seem to not have realize yet how much rigged the system around you is. Evil has no allies among good
I do agree with you. Change is needed. However, the timing is wrong. This is why I don't denounce your perspective, only your timing.
It's election time and there's a genocide going on as we speak. Suit yourself and wait
And the rest of the world could take it upon themselves to do something. Yet, as with every major election, people just like you are tricked into ignoring the problems we must face here, to fix other issues elsewhere. There is always a conflict. Always.
But hey, be a proxy to the problem, world cop. I won't stop you, can't stop you. I can tell you you're wrong. Shitty as it is we're making a disgusting choice to not jeopardize an election against a fascist state. I'm sorry if you feel so strongly that the minorities, LGBTQ+ community, women, and the children of this country aren't worth your time. Them and others are the ones we are trying to protect, along with the rest of the world which will suffer if the U.S. falls into fascism.
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.
AOC is not serious. She went to the border to see the conditions under trump and cry on camera but never went back to see if conditions were still bad under biden. She doesn't care about border conditions it was just a partisan stunt.
She's clearly running defense for kamala by ridiculously claiming that kamala is "working tirelessly" for a ceasefire in gaza.
Jill Stein and the green party do not "just show up" every 4 years, they are always putting in the work but they only get media attention once every 4 years because there's a presidential election.
Well yeah. The border problem isn’t really her first issue. She you know represents New York..
Did you miss the shitting and screaming New York did over not wanting migrants earlier this year?
Source?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_United_States
It was a big issue for her when trump was in office but once biden got in there she dropped it immediately
https://lemmy.world/comment/12392585
(all of these are dated post April 2021)
https://people.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-says-border-conditions-barbaric-and-wrong/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-biden-border-wall-construction-b2425586.html
https://www.newsweek.com/alexandra-ocasio-cortez-warning-joe-biden-border-1872427
https://www.thecut.com/2021/04/aoc-decries-horrifying-conditions-at-the-border.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-takes-on-the-migrant-crisis-aid-to-israel-and-more-on-the-point-with-marcia-kramer/
https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-slams-joe-biden-cruel-decision-border-wall-1832543
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ocasio-cortez-urges-biden-administration-reverse-decision-border-wall
edit: if you downvote please explain why