“It is amazing to hear you talk about women of color as parroting talking points instead of us looking at basic math,” Rye said. “The one thing AOC has done that you haven’t is win some elections.”
Solid point. Also, the fact that a candidate for the Presidency doesn't even know how many members there are in the House of Representatives shows just how little attention she pays to the basic mechanics of our government.
As much as I’d love to have a legitimate third party to disappoint me, they’re not going to get anywhere if they can’t win outside of random local elections.
Show me a Green House rep, Senator, or Governor and then we’ll talk about how you’ll inevitably let me down after I vote for you. Until then I’m going to vote for the disappointments who can actually win office.
they’re not going to get anywhere if they can’t win outside of random local elections.
This point seems to be beyond the comprehension of some people (those who aren't bad faith trolls, anyway). I've had so many conversations with people, both online and in person, where they don't understand that a third party with no offices or political infrastructure cannot win and is just a spoiler party (and in the case of the green party, an obvious joke spoiler party).
Exactly. I get that they can't win everywhere, and that there's actually quite a few of them in office all over, but if they can't put up credible opposition to the Democrats at a multi-state level how the hell are they going to get elected to a national position?
I'm gonna make a deal with the Green Party: If you can get a Senator elected, I'll vote for you for president.
A speed bump normally doesn't concern itself with the rules of the road; just has to disrupt the flow of traffic in the intended way.
I already didn't think much of her but this has me convinced that she is unserious.
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.
Piers Morgan asked her about this and she just sounds like an idiot. She apparently came to talk to Putin and got snubbed entirely.
Maybe she was schooled, but I bet she learned nothing.
Oh, she’s not an idiot. She didn’t need to learn anything. She knows what she’s doing. It’s intentional.
I find Stein a bit grating, but I always finds greens hard to pin down politically. I'd much rather this air time have gone to someone like Claudia de la Cruz with something interesting to say and some principles to back it up
::: spoiler Salon - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Salon:
Stein sucks. She's there because she pays Executive Committee bills. No one votes Green for candidate as that candidate can't win. They hope 5% vote Green, which would put their platform on every ballot in 2028, which would attract a quality candidate to represent it. There was an influx of new persons during COVID. Now, the masses must be inoculated with propaganda such that it cannot happen again when the DNC compromises everything they've promised us to suit corporate donors, once again.
At least the Dems are not in favor of disbanding NATO.
Of course not. The Democrats rely on the military industrial complex to pay the bills, just as the Republicans do. Neither is so stupid as to shit where they eat. Only Trump is that dumb.
The revenues of all the military companies in the US are a small fraction of Apple's, much less the rest of the tech sector.
Gotta keep up with the times there gramps, or next you'll be forgetting things like we're a net energy exporter now.
What do you count as military companies? Just things like Raytheon and Blackwater? Or do you include companies like Amazon and Kraft? If you're excluding companies like Google and MS from the MIC, you're greatly underestimating it...
Fair question. Yes I was considering arms suppliers specifically. I'm not sure we can simply include every company that works with the military in any way though, it makes more sense to consider companies that get the majority of their profits from the military-affiliated work.
I would not count Kraft as part of the MIC for instance.
Revenue is quite an oversimplification of geopolitics in a heavily interdependent economic paradigm, kiddo.
Regardless, thinking the MIC is what pays the bills is just, frankly, wrong. Very outdated.
You've invalidated my reasoning. Luckily, I can keep repeating my ageism.
Good luck with that, kiddo.
No, you have not invalidated my reasoning I'm afraid, all you did was point out that revenues are not the whole picture. While true, this does not equate to the MIC being what suddenly pays the bills. To do so, it would have to either directly or indirectly contribute to the coffers the majority of the money spent. It does not, not even close.
You can blather about geopolitics all you want, but at the end of the day a budget is a budget, and most of the money comes from a very wide variety of domestic sources that the military has no relation to. The health care industry, for instance, does extensive lobbying to the parties. No military relation, and that's just one example.
Your ideas are out of date. By a couple decades. Which is extremely common on here, I wouldn't be surprised at all if you started discussing petro-dollars and an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East next, like so many of the other people on here.
You shouldn't expect me to waste time reading paragraphs after you've demonstrated your shallow understanding, kiddo.
Very cute. I don't expect you to admit when you're wrong, but I just want it to be clear to any other readers that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Solid point. Also, the fact that a candidate for the Presidency doesn't even know how many members there are in the House of Representatives shows just how little attention she pays to the basic mechanics of our government.
As much as I’d love to have a legitimate third party to disappoint me, they’re not going to get anywhere if they can’t win outside of random local elections.
Show me a Green House rep, Senator, or Governor and then we’ll talk about how you’ll inevitably let me down after I vote for you. Until then I’m going to vote for the disappointments who can actually win office.
This point seems to be beyond the comprehension of some people (those who aren't bad faith trolls, anyway). I've had so many conversations with people, both online and in person, where they don't understand that a third party with no offices or political infrastructure cannot win and is just a spoiler party (and in the case of the green party, an obvious joke spoiler party).
Exactly. I get that they can't win everywhere, and that there's actually quite a few of them in office all over, but if they can't put up credible opposition to the Democrats at a multi-state level how the hell are they going to get elected to a national position?
I'm gonna make a deal with the Green Party: If you can get a Senator elected, I'll vote for you for president.
A speed bump normally doesn't concern itself with the rules of the road; just has to disrupt the flow of traffic in the intended way.
I already didn't think much of her but this has me convinced that she is unserious.
Putin’s Jizz 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.
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.
2015 Stein breaking bread with Putin, his senior staff, and Mike Flynn (later Trump's national security advisor
The only possible reason that someone would want NATO disbanded is because they are Russian shills. Russian aggression is the reason NATO exists.
Hey, the money is really, really good.
I don't think troll farms get paid well, but I'm open to being personally proven wrong with a better offer.
It's not that long ago that NATO was near it's end in fact, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/3/macron-stands-by-nato-brain-death-comment-in-clash-with-trump
Had Russia waited another decade or two, and it's conceivable that NATO would have been retired.
But no, they had to go and bring it back from it's deathbed: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/7/11/offensive-defence-how-putin-saved-nato https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/ukraine-revived-nato/
Talk about unintended consequences.
Piers Morgan asked her about this and she just sounds like an idiot. She apparently came to talk to Putin and got snubbed entirely.
Maybe she was schooled, but I bet she learned nothing.
Oh, she’s not an idiot. She didn’t need to learn anything. She knows what she’s doing. It’s intentional.
I find Stein a bit grating, but I always finds greens hard to pin down politically. I'd much rather this air time have gone to someone like Claudia de la Cruz with something interesting to say and some principles to back it up
::: spoiler Salon - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Salon:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.salon.com/2024/09/12/jill-stein-schooled-on-in-brutal-breakfast-club-interview/ ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Stein sucks. She's there because she pays Executive Committee bills. No one votes Green for candidate as that candidate can't win. They hope 5% vote Green, which would put their platform on every ballot in 2028, which would attract a quality candidate to represent it. There was an influx of new persons during COVID. Now, the masses must be inoculated with propaganda such that it cannot happen again when the DNC compromises everything they've promised us to suit corporate donors, once again.
At least the Dems are not in favor of disbanding NATO.
Of course not. The Democrats rely on the military industrial complex to pay the bills, just as the Republicans do. Neither is so stupid as to shit where they eat. Only Trump is that dumb.
The revenues of all the military companies in the US are a small fraction of Apple's, much less the rest of the tech sector.
Gotta keep up with the times there gramps, or next you'll be forgetting things like we're a net energy exporter now.
What do you count as military companies? Just things like Raytheon and Blackwater? Or do you include companies like Amazon and Kraft? If you're excluding companies like Google and MS from the MIC, you're greatly underestimating it...
Fair question. Yes I was considering arms suppliers specifically. I'm not sure we can simply include every company that works with the military in any way though, it makes more sense to consider companies that get the majority of their profits from the military-affiliated work.
I would not count Kraft as part of the MIC for instance.
Revenue is quite an oversimplification of geopolitics in a heavily interdependent economic paradigm, kiddo.
Regardless, thinking the MIC is what pays the bills is just, frankly, wrong. Very outdated.
Good luck with that, kiddo.
No, you have not invalidated my reasoning I'm afraid, all you did was point out that revenues are not the whole picture. While true, this does not equate to the MIC being what suddenly pays the bills. To do so, it would have to either directly or indirectly contribute to the coffers the majority of the money spent. It does not, not even close.
You can blather about geopolitics all you want, but at the end of the day a budget is a budget, and most of the money comes from a very wide variety of domestic sources that the military has no relation to. The health care industry, for instance, does extensive lobbying to the parties. No military relation, and that's just one example.
Your ideas are out of date. By a couple decades. Which is extremely common on here, I wouldn't be surprised at all if you started discussing petro-dollars and an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East next, like so many of the other people on here.
You shouldn't expect me to waste time reading paragraphs after you've demonstrated your shallow understanding, kiddo.
Very cute. I don't expect you to admit when you're wrong, but I just want it to be clear to any other readers that you have no idea what you're talking about.