Any third party that's telling you to vote for them under FPTP, but isn't heavily promoting RCV to fix the system, isn't trying to win. They're trying to spoil the FPTP election.
RCV is already law in a surprisingly large number of places. It may change the majority in the house in this upcoming election, because the difference in vote-counting within the two states that use it for US congressional elections might be enough to change the razor-thin outcome.
RCV is on the ballot, in one form or another, in 7 states and DC this year. Go vote. You might be able to fix the system, and move toward the future that all the people in this thread who are being vocal about Jill Stein say that they want. Remember back when marijuana was illegal? That changed. This can change too, and it would be glorious, for a lot of important goals that a lot of people claiming to support Jill Stein claim they're supportive of. It would be practical and realistic. It would work.
Anyone in this thread who is saying Jill Stein is extremely important, but haven't been saying anything about ranked choice voting or changing the voting system to make third parties realistic: Why? What's your goal, why did you make that decision about your priorities?
The answer is obvious, of course. But it's fun to ask.
This video was clearly created by leopard supporters who just wanna be mad at tiger for leopard's failure to beat gorilla. Leopards are basically just light gorillas. Vote tiger.
I love CGP Grey, but he doesn't really understand politics. Proportional representation is a terrible system and leads to party control and extremists gaining too much power. Something a spreadsheet won't tell you.
RCV is just slightly better than FTP. Let’s go with the bests and support STAR now. If we do all RCV now, we can rage the system in the next 40 years due to people saying “but we just changed it!”
Star is flawed too, it incentivises people who are voting for the underdog to not rank any other candidate or your own ballot could spoil your preferred candidate. If all thrid party voters voted to mathmatically optimize their candidates chance, Star voting wouldn't change anything for them. RCV is better if you're trying to actually engage thrid parties.
Star doesn't fix the 'spoiler effect' unless you decide not to give your preferred candidate the largest mathematical advantage your ballot can provide, and if you do want to ballot optimize, you should only rank one person, and then were right back to where we started.
RCV in single member electorates is pretty meh, and yeah RCV in general has its issues. But saying it's "slightly better" than FPTP is a MASSIVE understatement.
Change begets change, don't be against changing to something much better, just because it isn't perfect.
we could do what maine is doing, i think it's either RCV or IRV. Whatever the difference is, if there is one.
Yeah we need a party that supports RCV, not this fake 3rd party bullshit. Lemme see, which party supports RCV?
Oh the Green Party. That’s… kind of awkward for your point, isn’t it?
The green party likes it for presidential elections where RCV doesn't really come into play at all because there aren't three viable parties. They are just making up grievance politics because rcv would never affect them since they never run for anything but president. Democrats are educated enough to know the green party is a scam and Republicans are too ignorant to vote for anything named green.
Certainly not like the DNC which sued to keep RCV off the DC ballot, or Alexandria county VA which opted not to implement it in 2024 because it might confuse the black community?
There are a lot of people in politics who are opposing RCV, because it erodes their power. Some of them are Democrats. Sure. That wasn't my question. My question was, why is the Green Party spending so much energy pursuing a doomed effort which can only elect Donald Trump, and such an infinitesimal amount of energy on advocating for fixing the system in a way that would let them actually get elected in the future?
It's a strange allocation of priorities.
I did look around for things the Green Party has done to support Ranked Choice Voting. You've sent me the RV tag search, which has a press release from January 2024 and the one before that, from February 2023, dealing with RCV. Hooray.
That's good. Why hasn't she done anything since then? Why is always the focus on attacking the Democrats, and the focus if at all beyond that is a tepid hand-wave in the direction of RCV, when that is the solution that would lead to them being able to get elected? I didn't look very hard, but I did look, and this was the most recent thing I was able to find since January:
Harris wouldn't get my vote anymore than Trump would get yours. Fascism or fascism light is still fascism.
Paraphrase from Historian Kevin Kruse:
"No, l'm not voting [for the better one of the two major parties in a first past the post system] this election. But rest assured that when the Trump administration starts arresting my nonwhite neighbors and forcing them onto the trains, I'm going to have a pretty big frown on my face. That way, everyone will know it's not my fault."
Boy if you hate non-white people getting arrested you’re gonna have a bad time finding the person who wrote the crime bill that most often leads to that.
The point of 3rd party is that they cannot support a DNC that is just fucking cool with simply being slightly less bad than hitler as long as the other guy is literally hitler. Because since 2012 they’ve refused to adopt anything progressive. Because they’ve continually sued to stop progressives. Because they’ve used their own money against progressive democratic candidates in primaries to stop them from getting in, instead of using that money to promote the DNC. They are actively against progressives, so I don’t see the point in blaming the 0.31% of the vote for something the DNC is actively working against. We’ve gone from “we need change” in the DNC to “nothing will fundamentally change”. So I mean… yeah… what do you expect from progressives when neither of the two parties represents them.
Ok.
I didn't ask whether David Doonan had published a press release on a janky web site which was mostly complaining about Democrats trying to remove Green Party members from the ballot, in this FPTP election. This also somehow finds a way to blame the lack of RCV on the Democrats, when a lot of them support it. Here's a list:
I don't see any Green Party people there. I have never heard Jill Stein talk about it, and I've heard her say a bunch of things. That's strange to me. But regardless of that, that's not what I asked. I also didn't ask whether you plan to vote for Kamala Harris. My question was:
Anyone in this thread who is saying Jill Stein is extremely important, but haven’t been saying anything about ranked choice voting or changing the voting system to make third parties realistic: Why? What’s your goal, why did you make that decision about your priorities?
Do you want to answer that question? You don't have to. You can change the subject again, if you'd like to.
Green Party and Jill Stein has been talking about RCV way before for Democrats ever started talking about it. And I'm kind of doubting that you listen to anything that anybody, says except for the dnc
And yet they aren't running anyone in Alaska, a state that implemented it this election. Are they campaigning against the ballot initiative to remove it at least?
Edit: and yet no one has ever replied to me on this. Can they seriously not find a candidate for a party seen as the most environmentalists party in a state filled with conservationists, that the democrats only take some elections in because of their SLIGHTLY better environmental policies?
Your comment is fascist and while I was reading it my fascist shoes became untied. I would tie them but the strings are fascist. I apologize for using so many fascist letters in my words. At least periods aren't fascist... yet.
I love this response so much. I want it to become a copypasta
I can’t post more than one image because Lemmy/Memmy makes the images fall apart into a 2 mile long scroll.
Can't believe Johnson handed the election to Trump like that.
Even without him, Stein had it handled by herself. Why do you think she’s back? Jr, who was funded by a Repub PAC, dropped out. Then Stein re-appeared.
How is Stein having 1.1% of votes worse than Johnson having 3.6%? Stein sucks, I'll make it clear. But how is Stein's votes being in last place helping Trump when Johnson won more votes than her?
If every Johnson voter voted Democrat (Libertarians agree with a lot of Democratic opinions, they just don't see it) then Clinton would have won.
No.
With what logic are you using that all those votes could just be added to Hillary? It's not how that works. You can just say if it had been completely different it would have been completely different.
It's like reaching into a bag and pulling 5 limes and saying if only they had been oranges you could have made orange juice.
She wants money, sure, and loves to grift off the people that think themselves superior but this is bad math and pure conspiracy at this point.
Edit: No answer just downvotes cause there isn't a logical answer just irrational dogpiling to find a scapegoat to appease some strong anxiety. Take a breath. Regroup. Don't start throwing shit now.
No answer just downvotes cause there isn’t a logical answer just irrational dogpiling
It's inconceivable that a voter wouldn't support either major candidate. All green voters become Hilary voters because Democrats and Greens are next to each other on my Ideology For Eighth Graders rubric.
All you have to do is arrest Jill Stein and put her in "friendly with Russia" jail, and Hilary wins in a 0.1% landslide
Somehow Johnson winning more voters with more money than the Green is checks notes proof the Greens are unbashedly evil. Libertarians get more money, are on every state's ballot, but somehow are never blamed for when Democrats run bad candidates who prop up fascists and ignore swing states.
Why do you think she’s back?
Because she's candidate who won the primary for her party. Same reason Trump is back for third time.
I can. The dude is fucking nuts.
Wouldn't the libertarians take more votes from the Republicans than the Dems?
Oh shit. Maybe. But then this would imply Hillary was working with a sizable advantage.
Hillary was a terrible candidate. She lost because of that.
Jill Stein is polling at litterally less than measurable numbers.
"Undecided" represents at least twice the voters Stein appears to be garnering.
What kills me about this is if the neolib dems had taken just a moment at the primary to cast their vote for undecided to show the Dem leadership that genocide was a non negotiable issue they should do the right thing on, it might have worked.
It would have cost absolutely nothing, and we might be coasting to an easy victory right now. Instead we're here.
What kills me about this is if the neolib dems had taken just a moment at the primary to cast their vote for undecided to show the Dem leadership that genocide was a non negotiable issue they should do the right thing on, it might have worked.
wait, what's stopping them? Not voting because it's not important to them? Sounds like democracy working as intended to me.
100%
But look around this place. Its still the same Blue MAGA here trying to bash peoples head in (now for Harris, then for Biden) as before.
The same people that would demand we drive off a cliff with Biden at the wheel are the ones insisting that we need to support Harris in-spite of her genocide policy, instead of trying to move her on the issue. Like we literally need her to fix her policy or she literally can't get elected. And its self-evident in the data we have. She's now losing, not even accounting for the structural biases we should very much expect from RW fuckery and the EC.
Like just come out against genocide. Its fucking easy. It can be a fucking lie. Just fucking lie to us so we can convince enough people to get you elected Harris.
Man. I wonder if we are going to lose. Its definitely possible at this point, but hard to imagine. How awful are our dem candidates to lose to an insane peice of human trash like Trump
Pro fracking. Anti gun control. Pro Electoral College. Pro "entrepreneur" economics. Can sip a beer and barely look disgusted. Pro war. Pro taxation and tariffs. Anti environmental protections for big businesses. And pro death penalty.
I mean we already had early 2000 Republican presidents and the Republicans want someone worse and the Democrats that want change don't want it either.
So pretty bad.
TBF, Blue MAGA on lemmy didn't really come out of the wood work in full force until Biden stepped down.
Now they're blame shifting before Harris has even lost.
Oh no they were definable here before. I've got the receipts, the saved threads , etc. I mean hell some are mods. But you know what happened? They dumped those accounts, if they weren't super well known. if you want names I've got names.
Hahaha yeah man people forget how vitriolic and cruel the Blues were when told their candidate might lose.
Refuse to be told they might need to change tactics and double down on slamming face first into a brick wall for the sake of not having to question their beliefs and having someone else to blame.
But they are coming back now again that the "hope" has worn off and nothing feels different. Got to punch down to keep their self cope up.
Punch down to keep the cope up.
That is a great way to out it. They wouldn't be as emboldened if not for the also toxic moderation in this place .
They were here before.
But once Biden dropped the down votes for criticism of the Democrats got fierce.
That's all I'm saying.
And you are 💯 correct. I've done my best to document it, because to me, its an incredibly important and interesting phenomena. It's almost exactly what happens to MAGA in their toxic dismissal of a shared reality. I'm going to save this and when I'm a bit more ready with something, I may reach out.
People just want someone to be mad at in case Harris loses
Because Harris losing simply could not be her own fault, if it happened
There is a world in which it's not her fault or anyone else's fault. You can run a flawless campaign and lose for reasons beyond your control, or any other single stakeholder's control.
Do you think Harris is running a flawless campaign?
Goodness no.
Yeah, Picard Principle at play here. You can commit no mistakes and still lose. I can argue that there are a few things that Harris could do better. Americans are stupid and cruel as a whole...you tact too hard to the Left, you piss off the moderate voters and they stay home, vote Third Party, or worse, vote Trump, and if you tact too hard to the Right, you piss off liberal voters, and while they are less likely to vote Trump, you still lose their votes.
Man, we shouldn't even be having this conversation at all. Trump is a convicted felon. He should be in jail right now, getting ready for the next trials.
I'm amazed that anyone is still buying the "moderate voters" bullshit. Just try to picture an actual human being who's politics have left them scratching their heads between Harris and Trump. "If only Harris would do a little more for corporations. Oh well, I guess I'll stick with the racist orange insurrectionist."
It's not about moderate voters. If anything it's about the median voter, but that's a very different animal. The median voter in this country is wacky as fuck with political opinions that are all over the place. The one thing they almost all have in common is that they hate establishment politicians from both parties. Harris is trying to get their votes by being even more establishment, and it's going to be a disaster.
The one hope we have is the end of RvW. If that's woken up enough women voters, then we still can win. Republicans may have screwed themselves so badly that even establishment Democrats can beat them. Let's hope.
It's not voters she's courting with her center right politics.
It's corporate campaign donors who are afraid of Trump's instability.
Yep
Oh for sure. The people most concerned with Trumps policies are the wealthy who think it might hurt their business.
Porn, import, healthcare industries. Lots of rich people who see they won't get fair treatment either for their wealth alone like they expect from the duopoly they have been benefitting from for decades.
Its why MAGA think its somehow great cause everyone will burn but somehow they will escape the fire because... God?
Its corruption and insanity everywhere you look.
Just try to picture an actual human being who’s politics have left them scratching their heads between Harris and Trump. “If only Harris would do a little more for corporations. Oh well, I guess I’ll stick with the racist orange insurrectionist.”
The more I think about it, the more I realize that economics is a pseudoscience specifically designed to couch terrible actions of governments and corporations behind inevitability arguments.
After all, we cannot have prices rise.
So, we must continue with the sweatshops. We must continue with the factory farms. We must continue to drill baby drill. We must continue to build shoddy houses on flood plains...and on and on and on.
When people say they trust Trump more "with the economy", it's perhaps because they know he'll continue all of the above with a sloppy, sweaty grin and a shitty, little dance.
bro what the fuck is this thread, am i on fucking benzos what is happening
I’m amazed that anyone is still buying the “moderate voters” bullshit. Just try to picture an actual human being who’s politics have left them scratching their heads between Harris and Trump. “If only Harris would do a little more for corporations. Oh well, I guess I’ll stick with the racist orange insurrectionist.”
that's not how moderate voters work, you're ascribing 100s of years of politics onto the one weird 8 year period, the only moderate voting for trump is a republican. And that's only because they're stupid and don't do research.
Like to be clear, moderates are not swing voters, and swing voters are not moderates, there is no "scratching your head" here. This isn't a real scenario.
Just to expand upon this a bit, moderate dem voters are voting for kamala, moderate republicans could probably go either way, depends on how much they care about the parties or how much research they've done.
Independents will do as they have always done, voting weirdly for no particular reason.
Republicans may have screwed themselves so badly that even establishment Democrats can beat them. Let’s hope.
this is completely true, republicans have basically fractured themselves in half, if not thirds, if trump gets out of the running, the party collapses, simple as that. Dems are in a massive position right now since the harris campaign is pushing for more moderate voters (the majority of the party, and independents as well as straggler moderates on the other side) and in some significant capacity, farther lefties who would literally rather vote for anyone other than trump.
How are we defining 'flawless', exactly?
All else aside - yea, I actually kinda agree with this, though I get the distinct impression not in the way you mean it.
edit -
what happens if it's the undecided vote that causes harris to lose, not Stein?
Then she should have messaged better on Israel. On that particular item I also feel like Netanyahu is on a timeline. I'm not sure he cares about the election though. More like he's trying to get us pulled into a conflict with Iran before January because Biden can't stand up to him. If he thinks Biden is just locked by the election then he'll try to do it this month. Harris' messaging doesn't really take that into account in my opinion.
Then she should have messaged better on Israel
I'd much rather her do more than message better, but i'd take clear messaging over whatever the fuck we've been getting.
She's trying to stay neutral. It's not working.
There's no such thing as neutral - either we're supporting Israel through their genocide or we're not.
Putting on my objective hat for a minute, pro Israel voters think the same way. There's not really a neutral block of voters on this issue.
There is no candidate who can win this race that won't keep writing blank checks for Israel. If anything, Netanyahu wants Trump to win. He is enraged by even the minimal pushback he gets from the Biden administration.
There's a chance Harris is more like Obama and reigns in everything but iron dome reloads, while actually holding them responsible for settler violence. If your standard is completely disengage from Israel then yeah we aren't there yet politically. Although shooting at the UN might just fucking do it.
That's sure not what she's running on.
She's trying to stay neutral, Israel has a right to exist, there must be an immediate cease-fire, etc. This in contrast to Biden parroting the IDF's PR. She is clearly not as pro Israel as Biden.
Countries have no right to exist. They exist because they can. An apartheid ethnostate certainly has no right to exist or right to our support. If Israel has a right to exist, what about Palestine?
I agree with you. I'm just laying out why Harris might be better for Palestinians than Biden.
She...still loses? I don't understand your question
I'm asking who you'll decide to blame, since that seems to be the focus.
If you're unconcerned with blame then maybe there's no disagreement here.
Undecided voters are imo always a contemptible lot, but no more this election than any other.
Undecided voters are imo always a contemptible lot
Maybe read this a few times yourself and see if you can spot the problem on your own.
If someone is stupid enough that they need to be flattered into no longer doing stupid things, that makes them all the more contemptible in my eyes.
Jesus christ, is that what politics are to you? Flattery or contempt?
Anyone who's still undecided at this point likely needs one or both.
Lmao good luck then
I’m going to blame [Undecided] if that happens, but we all know [Undecided] is going to become vapor just after the election and then reroll and alt character masquerading as a victim of their own ignorance come November…
So yeah… we all know they won’t be around to take their bow and own it.
This rhetoric is sure to convince all those Muslims in Michigan whose family members are being blown up by US bombs. Keep up the good work, neolib crusader!
listen bro, it's the will of the voters, if they decide to do that, and they end up with trump being elected, that's not my problem.
Idk why the harris campaign has to specifically cater towards the muslim population of MI here, seems rather odd to me.
Maybe because that population could win Michigan for Harris.
yeah maybe. It might not do anything either.
Could do anything, Michigan may not even matter at all. It's probably more impactful to mobilize moderate voters nationally (there are more of them) than to mobilize a single subset of a Michigan voters.
Whatever you say, MAGA.
No, they don't just disappear - libs just stop caring about them for another 3 years until they're needed again.
This must be your first election. No, bud. They disappear. Trust me.
Lmao, I don't even know how to respond to that without sounding like a fossil
Then you should know better.
Know better than the guy saying 'trust me bro'?
idk, that's a pretty high bar to clear
We’re too late in the game to bother explaining anything to you. You know what is going on. You won’t get to claim ignorance when this is over.
Ill mark my calendar for one year from now and let you know
So yeah… we all know they won’t be around to take their bow and own it.
I've noticed that it's not only undecideds that disappear after the election. It's also everyone that voted for the last Republican after the inevitable (because they're terrible at governance) crisis occurs. I remember when George W. Bush's presidency ended in complete disaster, and suddenly there was nobody that voted for GWB to be found.
Ultimately, if Trump wins, there will be plenty of blame games afterwards, but, in my opinion, they won't matter. That talk may occupy a lot of paper space in the quaint period between him winning the election and January 20th, 2025, but a second Trump presidency will be such an utter disaster that the talk of "how we got here" will be rendered irrelevant by the urgent need to survive the many self-created crises that it'll cause.
And I suspect that you're right, it will suddenly be impossible afterwards to find people who were on the fence about supporting Harris.
If you're going around asking people who they voted for, after any election, expect to be ignored by many.
It's not that. They're all active on online forums and in media and then suddenly none of them can be found.
Yeah why don't we all just send Harris a harshly worded letter while ignoring people who throw away their vote. Yep absolutely makes sense!
Ignoring people instead of, what?... Railing against voters who are rightfully upset at Harris's ambivalence about Israel's genocide?
You think constantly yelling at undecided protestors and blaming them for "Jim Crow V2 - Electric Boogaloo" is going to change their mind?
Get over yourself. The only good that comes from whining about third party candidates spoiling democratic victory is situating the blame if/when Harris loses. It does nothing to convince undecideds, and I'd argue it turns a lot of casual voters off from going to the booth at all.
Might even be radicalizing progressives into tankies, wouldn't that be exciting.
Jill Stein is a bad actor in this election, she understands how the electoral college works and she understands she's weakening the democratic party position. But let's not blame shift - the Democrats could be much better on climate change then they are today and if they were better Stein's BS wouldn't have such an easy time attracting voters. I dislike the title posing it as "Stein may hand Trump the whitehouse again."
Even if the argument about getting X% of votes was true, the states to campaign heavy in would be the deep blue/red states. Especially since they tend to get ignored by candidates.
Instead she sticks to the states where <30k votes could decide the election and the market is saturated with the most expensive ad costs
It's blantantly obvious what's she's doing.
the states to campaign heavy in would be the deep blue/red states.
Agreed. If a third party pulls off a major change in one of these states, it's still likely to go for it's color regardless so the presidential outcome is not affected, but it'd force the relevant parties to examine why the third party was able to make such huge inroads and what of their own policies that they should change.
It’s blantantly obvious what’s she’s doing.
But for posterity I'll state it; she's spoiling for a GOP win.
Yeah, that's the nature of the Electoral College. It sucks. Do you think the Electoral College is something Kamala Harris invented or even wants?
Hate the game, not the playa.
I think you may have replied to the wrong person?
No I think the point is that of course she campaigns in swing states cause she wants to get to 5% of the vote so she can get access to more money. But it's the same stayes everyone is paying attention too.
Its false logic to say she's only dangerous in those states cause they are already close and we just have to pay extra attention to them because they are the swing states.
Is coincidental pattern seeking.
Its false logic to say she’s only dangerous in those states cause they are already close and we just have to pay extra attention to them because they are the swing states.
The 5% can come from Cali alone and not effect the race tho.
And it would be cheaper because of less competition for ads, the voters there are often ignored and would more receptive, and there are way more voters who are left of the Dem.party there
If she is honestly trying to do what she says, then she is doing it in the least efficient way possible and has been for a very long time.
If what she's really doing is trying to hand Republicans the election, then she seems to have put a lot of thought into the best possible way to do it and is focusing on that.
So take your pick:
She's honest but a terrible leader and absolutely dog shit at planning.
She's a liar but either her or her handlers have put a lot of thought into how to get trump elected.
She would have to get over 5% in California for it to count at a federal level and there is of course the fact that it's a wealthy Democratic party stronghold so they actually might spend hard to punish her for trying to take votes. I mean look at all the lawsuits filed to keep Green Party off ballot elsewhere.
I don't see a situation where she is let to just campaign cause we can already see the response when she just gets her normal voters.
I don't think she's smart. She's been searching for something that makes her feel important ever since she realized she hated working and saying out loud the obvious broken stuff even though she doesn't have plans to fix it gets her attention and more money.
She got giddy that she was talked about in Russia because she thinks it's awesome people know her...
Don't assume malice where stupidity is an option first.
Yeah she's a sucky leader that stole the green party for herself and uses it as a piggy bank and self morality boost but she gets the people by being not the Democrats or Republicans. Do other people try to take advantage of that? Hell yeah. I bet one of her advisors probably embezzles funds to pay themselves more. Lots of people are shitty in different ways. This is hoping for an easy answer to the world being a mess. Same way people hope their is aliens secretly running things.
What?
When they talk about the 5% line, it's the national vote, not in each state...
Just 5 percent of the national vote for the Green Party Stein/Baraka ticket can be a true game-changer for American politics. It will qualify the Green Party for recognition as an official national party, and for federal funding in the 2020 presidential race proportional to the amount of votes received — at least $8 million to $10 million
Which is why it makes no sense to focus on battleground states.
I didn't read anything last your first sentence tho since it was built off a misunderstanding.
Do you still have other questions?
Yes you have to get 5% national so 5% of california is not 5% of the total populace and campaigning in places with low population is pointless since that would give a fraction of a percent for national level.
You pointed out your own flaw with her focusing on just California. Asking her to get 20 million votes in one state would absolutely make the DNC do everything to stop her.
And then you ignored conversation. So why even comment here at all? You don't want a conversation you just want to already be right. It's insanity.
Battleground states are that because it's where the big cities are, thus, you know the people she needs to vote for her. You have like non-concept of cause and effect and are operating entirely on random bad logic.
You pointed out your own flaw with her focusing on just California. Asking her to get 20 million votes in one state
Wow, yes. California has just under 40 million, so that would turn California Green!
would absolutely make the DNC do everything to stop her.
Which would include understanding her policies and why they were so effective in pulling voters away, and if any policies should be considered for DNC adoption.
So, a good thing.
Battleground states are that because it’s where the big cities are, thus, you know the people she needs to vote for her. You have like non-concept of cause and effect and are operating entirely on random bad logic.
To me this was sound logic. Getting all votes from California to hit the nationwide 5% doesn't make sense and would be very tough to achieve and could throw the race (in a new way - by denying the electoral votes of California to Harris).
However, it'd still be cheaper to campaign in such solid states like California, Texas, and New York. Assume Stein wins 5 million in NY and TX and 10 million in CA for a total of 20. It's a tough feat, but doesn't affect the election, but it's big enough that the two big parties have to pay attention and adopt her policies. Also, since these are not battleground states, it's cheaper to win over.
If anything, because battleground states tend to be smaller, it's even harder to make up the raw numbers by winning them over.
Just an aside, this person thinks that the green party should just get 5% of the national population to vote for them from a single state and that it wouldn't change anything or cause any ripples.
5% of the US population is about 18 million people.
17 million voted in the state of California in total in 2020.
Remember everyone. Basic math isn't just a thing your teacher thought would be important for no reason. It does have use in the real world.
The Green Party is not going to win. The only message that voting for Jill Stein will send to the Democratic party is they need to move more to the center to get more reliable voters. It's already heppening. Harris doesn't like fracking but she's not going to ban it and she has to talk about increase US oil production to get votes from people she knows will turn up and won't flake out and vote green or be uncommitted or whatever.
If she wins she will be more inclined to fulfill promises made to the people who actually voted for her. Sure she'll need to represent everyone, but there'll be far more people that voted GOP she'll need to represent (and entice to maybe vote for her in the next election) than green party voters.
I think that Hillary Clinton showed us the opposite. If the Democratic candidate goes too close to the center, they risk losing the left, and they deserve to lose the left at that point. If the Democrats had tried to put a halfway decent strategy together about Israel, there would be zero worry about a third party. And I don't like single issue voters, but if I had to pick a single issue, genocide would be at the top of the list.
"Genocide is a single issue" is basically "I've tuned out the screaming so how can you hear it?"
Back in 2004 when we bombed countries it was considered murder and bad. Bush then normalized it with "You just love 9/11, commie!", Obama continued it, Trump expanded it, and now Biden helped to normalize it.
If the Democrats conform to Iranian disinformation campaigns about Israel, how would they be any different from Republicans that conform to Russian disinformation campaigns about Ukraine?
Voting isn't public so how the hell does everyone keep assuming we know who voted for her at the election?
The people that didn't vote for her didn't vote for her.
You can't claim she didn't get the trump republican voters so it's an indicator she needs to move to the left, right? Or Libertarian party?
Its weird false logic based on feelings about justifying a truly tiny group of people voting green as villians. the main base of Kamalas voters should also be Democrats who shouldn't pander and frack just cause she needed an extra 2% at the polls. We are gonna shift further right for that and more Republicans instead of going for any undecided first?
I don't get it. Make the logic make sense.
I'm not saying people that vote green are villains. They're just ignorant of how things work and act irrationally because of their ignorance.
Without 3rd party options we still wouldn't vote for people that don't represent us.
The only person who would represent me is myself, and I wouldn't vote for myself because I don't want that shitty job
So you're saying that Jill Stein, the Russian asset who is actively working to get Donald Trump elected president, represents you and your group?
They need to earn votes.
The Senate investigated that dinner and found nothing. Everything you don't like isnt always Russian
Online trolls from the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency used social media to promote Stein’s candidacy during the 2016 campaign, according to an indictment brought by special counsel Robert Mueller against the Russian organization and 13 of its employees. The Russians’ pro-Stein efforts included paid advertisements on Facebook that explicitly encouraged Americans to vote for Stein, according to the indictment.
A summation of the report’s findings on “comprehensive anti-Hillary Clinton operations” said while the group’s assumed Twitter personas had some pro-Clinton content, “the developed Left-wing Twitter personas were still largely anti-Clinton and expressed pro-Bernie Sanders and pro-Jill Stein sentiments.”
Likewise, the report said “pro-Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein content” were among the group’s go-to themes across other platforms.
The tactics and strategies that the Kremlin directed included every major social media platform you can think of — Facebook, Instagram, Twitter — and a few you’d never suspect, including Pinterest, LinkedIn and 4Chan. The hashtags alone tell the story— #MAGA #TrumpTrain #Hillary4Prison #ZombieHillary #SickHillary. Along with anti-Clinton stories, they also pushed out messages against Trump’s primary rivals like Sen. Ted Cruz and former Gov. Jeb Bush. Once in the general election, they pumped up third-party candidates to siphon support away from Clinton with posts including, “A vote for Jill Stein is not a wasted vote.”
Not everything I don't like is Russian. But some Russian things, I don't like.
lol, what a stupid way to say "yes, Jill Stein and her active campaign to get Donald Trump elected does support my values"
Third parties wouldn't be a threat to their power if they weren't shit parties.
Why don't liberals vote for Trump and push him left after the election, since that worked out so well with Biden.
Do you actually read comments, or do you just pull your bull shit out of a hat?
lol k
Are you high?
Can you pass that shit my way? I'd like to lose contact with reality to the extent you have, looks fun.
The Senate investigation found nothing illegal. That doesn't mean Stein isn't trying to help russian interests.
And Trump is in Russias pocket, and Biden and Harris are in Israels.
And trump is in Israel's too. He's in every pocket with a pocket book. You know he'll give israel everything they want and then some. I wouldn't be surprised at another Kent state over this if he gets elected.
Why aren't you so noisy during primaries?
Oh that's right, your true intentions are masked by bullshit.
Note: Jill is literally paid to run as a spoiler, and if you look at her actual policies, lot of transphobia, ablism, and support for pseudoscience
This shouldn’t surprise anyone considering her source.
Pennsylvania 2016
I can’t post more than one image because Lemmy/Memmy makes the images fall apart into a 2 mile long scroll.
guys it's not that hard, all we have to do is to not vote for still jein.
... there were people voting for stein?
i would hope not, but idk why else you would be running lmao
Apparently enough people are voting for her to inspire the Democrats to spend mone on ads against her.
Jill Stein has my vote! Seriously, she took it. Can someone help me get it back?
Wisconsin 2016.
I can’t post more than one image because Lemmy/Memmy makes the images fall apart into a 2 mile long scroll.
Thank you for posting
Very important that ppl pay attention
I don't understand why it is taken for granted that if Stein wasn't a candidate the people who vote for her would be voting for the Democrats instead. Just as likely they would not vote at all or vote for some other protest candidate.
Because people who are disillusioned that the green party would address their concerns are generally not complete shitheads like republicans; they're decent but misled people.
Because a vote abstention is a vote for the person in the lead. If Harris is in the lead, then every single American who abstains from voting is essentially helping her win, but the same is true if Trump is in the lead. Convincing Green voters that it makes more sense in a FPTP system to vote Democrat as its the closest party to their preferred ideology is a statistically productive activity.
Voting for genocide will never be something you can convince humans is in their best interest as close to their preferred ideology.
Genocide is bad. Multiple genocides, and faster, is worse. One genocide is closer to my preferred ideology of zero genocides than that same genocide but worse, plus additional genocides. The only people who are unconvinced by that arithmetic are idealists who care more about maintaining their ideological purity than actually helping people.
I'm not voting for any genocide, sorry.
It sucks you have no red line, no limit to your loyalty, no bottom depth to your depravity you willingly vote for, but I have a simple one:
No genocide.
Until the US stops contributing soft power, arms, cash, and troops on the ground to a genocide, the people in exclusive control of that don't get my vote.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how voting works, mechanically, in a FPTP system. You don't vote for things. You vote against them.
Once RCV takes hold (thank your local and state representatives) I'll be right there beside you voting my conscience. Until then, that's not a productive strategy. It does not achieve the intended goal.
Lesser evil buys time. Vote for progressives on your state ballots. If there aren't any, vote for progressives on your local ballots. If there aren't any, run for local office as a progressive.
You've been voting the lesser evil for 80 years, does it feel like it's bought you time?
I'm not voting for genocide, in voting against it, hence why I'm not voting for Dems or Reps.
Sounds like you're voting hard in favor of worse genocide. Either that or basic logic isn't your strong suit and you're doing it unknowingly
"worse genocide" do you people actually read what you type?
Say that out loud to yourself. That you are voting for less genocide instead of no genocide, and then tell me you're still the good guy.
I can use logic to defend my view much unlike yourself. Accelerationists are the fucking worst 🤮
Let me know when you start doing that, then. I'm sure the Palestinians appreciate that they're the only ones to be genocide by your direct choices, I'm sure they're happy you voted for "less genocide" instead of no genocide.
I no longer waste my time arguing with walls
You've been voting the lesser evil for 80 years, does it feel like it's bought you time?
Unequivocally yes. Imagine if the right wing clinched power in 1944 and never lost traction. You think civil rights would be better?
I'm not voting for genocide, in voting against it, hence why I'm not voting for Dems or Reps.
What's that accomplished in the last 80 years?
The right wing did clinch power in 1944, hence the dramatic stop to progressive legislation.
Also the civil rights movement was not supported by government, and especially not the Dems.
If we're being pedantic, we can go bank to the Magna Carta, or Hammurabi as the beginning of civil rights. But you're the one who set the 80 year mark, which coincides with the 20th century civil rights movement which was a distinct movement from the abolitionism of the 1830s.
But you're wrong either way. The 20th century civil rights movement was absolutely supported by Democrats, or was Lyndon Johnson not a Democrat when he signed the voting rights act?
And the 19th century civil rights movement was championed by the pre-switch liberal Republican party. So yes, the liberal party has been supportive, if not integral, to civil rights. You'd have to be pretty poorly educated in US history to be ignorant of that fact.
It was nice to see the World News community finally realize that the DNC has been doing nothing but shooting themselves in the foot for a year.
Maybe this community will finally catch on and connect the dots between a random ass 3rd party getting blamed for stealing votes away from the Democrats, and Democrats not actually meeting the core demands of their constituency.
Or maybe not....
Maybe someday we'll have people blame the DNC for choosing to back unpopular opinions/policies losing the popularity contest against "Literal Evil Fascist with the Playbook of How To Do Evil 101, but Fox News said it's cool".
But instead we need a new scapegoat for when Greens come in 4th place to the Libertarian's "I just wanna date this 14 year old with my rifle and say the N-word out loud without backlash."
Maybe someday we’ll have people blame the DNC for choosing to back unpopular opinions/policies losing the popularity contest against
the DNC is choosing unpopular policy? Brother this is a representative democracy. If harris wins, it's because it was the popular policy/stances. There is literally no alternative here unless you thing there is a deep state rigging the elections or that the majority of the american populous isn't real or something lmao.
the DNC is choosing unpopular policy? Brother this is a representative democracy. If harris wins, it's because it was the popular policy/stances.
Uhh.... No. Fracking isn't even popular as a majority position in PA where she's pushing it. But she's gonna anyways cause for some reason the minority is the "better" place to scrape votes from?
And in a 2 party system if one side is "literally evil" the other basically knows they have a blank check to run on as long as it's not the same policy as the evil side or else why would voters swap sides when evil wasn't a disqualifier?
We have polls that literally tell us what the popular positions are. Harris is not listening to those so whatever the reason is its not popularity.
Uhh… No. Fracking isn’t even popular as a majority position in PA where she’s pushing it. But she’s gonna anyways cause for some reason the minority is the “better” place to scrape votes from?
oh im sorry i didn't realize kamala was running for the federal presidential role of PA specifically.
And in a 2 party system if one side is “literally evil” the other basically knows they have a blank check to run on as long as it’s not the same policy as the evil side or else why would voters swap sides when evil wasn’t a disqualifier?
this is sort of true, but a substantial chunk of US voters believe that kamala harris is the "evil" not donald trump. so this isn't exactly a bull in a china shop situation here. This is more like a bull vaguely around a china shop.
We have polls that literally tell us what the popular positions are. Harris is not listening to those so whatever the reason is its not popularity.
i mean that's a fair statement, but she wouldn't be running on fracking if she thought it was detrimental, so it's either not a huge concern for most voters, or there is something more than being let on in the rhetoric here.
At the very least we know kamala will more than likely support a real EPA, so maybe the idea is to push environmental concerns from fracking into the territory of the EPA and local areas, rather than doing a federal ban on fracking. Which i would be fully in support of. The EPA should absolutely have more power.
i mean that's a fair statement, but she wouldn't be running on fracking if she thought it was detrimental, so it's either not a huge concern for most voters, or there is something more than being let on in the rhetoric here.
You're begging the question here. If Democrats paid attention to their voters we wouldn't be having this conversation. Generally, critics of Dem strategy believe that they are too beholden to wealthy donors.
Democrats blame Jill Stein for Clinton's loss. But Dems can't force her not to run again, or people not to vote for her. If Kamala doesn't win, it will be because she didn't convince enough people to vote for her, not because Jill Stein is running.
If Kamala doesn't win, it will be because she didn't convince enough people to vote for her, not because Jill Stein is running.
dems absolutely can't handle this
You’re begging the question here. If Democrats paid attention to their voters we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Generally, critics of Dem strategy believe that they are too beholden to wealthy donors.
are you proposing that a candidate should work to appeal to 100% of their voter base, rather than the most broad constituent beliefs of it? The wealthy donor thing is a problem, over party lines, that's an interesting one to solve so i'm not really surprised there.
But to be fair, if we did stop fracking, it might be detrimental to the oil market right now, considering the position that the global oil industry is in, is, less than ideal. So there is also a reason to push for fracking given the current global market at the moment.
Democrats blame Jill Stein for Clinton’s loss. But Dems can’t force her not to run again, or people not to vote for her. If Kamala doesn’t win, it will be because she didn’t convince enough people to vote for her, not because Jill Stein is running.
i consider this a voter skill issue, rather than a candidate issue, just vote for the better person lmao. Voting for stein is like voting for a brick wall, except one that wastes money.
a candidate should work to appeal to 100% of their voter base
Less a proposal and more of a fact: People won't vote for a candidate who does not support the issues that they support. You can't expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.
If Kamala supports fracking and the majority of voters do not, it is up to her to change, not the voters.
i consider this a voter skill issue
Yeah... Democrats want to blame the voters so they can continue to court wealthy donors. If everyone in Michigan promises to "Vote Blue No Matter Who" then they can continue arming Israel without losing any Muslim votes. Unfortunately that's not how things work.
Less a proposal and more of a fact: People won’t vote for a candidate who does not support the issues that they support. You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.
it's not a fact, it's a statement, arguably a fallacy. The whole point of running as a candidate is to appeal to the most voters, you're going to lose some here and there, but the general idea is to appeal most broadly to as many as you can. This is why we have a two party system, if this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have one. We wouldn't have a multi party system either, we would have a single party system based purely on only pushing legislation that everyone agrees with.
Idk where the misunderstanding is happening here, but if you don't want to vote for kamala that's fine, you're legally allowed to do so, and morally encouraged to vote for whoever you want. However that doesn't make you decision sound or logical, nor does it make you entitled to any particular representation.
You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.
i don't believe i have ever said this, i just said that MI might not vote for kamala, who cares, it's an arguably stupid choice to do, but that's a choice they can make. Like i said it's most effective to focus on the moderates in literally every other state.
If Kamala supports fracking and the majority of voters do not, it is up to her to change, not the voters.
ok so, no, technically not, it's only to the extent that support is required, and that people require direct representation on that issue. Things like kamala not being 80 years old, and being a woman, are gong to be more impactful than things like "actually i think we should continue with current energy policy"
Also to be clear, you're arguing for an absolutist democracy here, a state where the people opt to elect a fascist, thus a fascist gets in power, and the end of democracy happens. I think most people would agree that this shouldn't be possible. Sometimes popular sentiment is just wrong this is why the founding fathers constructed the government the way it is, with the electoral college, and the three branches. It's intended to operate in a mostly isolated fashion from the public. Even the directly representative people within it, are not directly representative. They're not meant to be. That's why we still have a government.
And just so we're on the same page here, if this does dock her enough public support that she is going to lose, she should dock this point, and move forward. However i don't see that happening because i don't think people care at all. And even if they did, it's secondary, either locally, state level, or not at any government level.
Yeah… Democrats want to blame the voters so they can continue to court wealthy donors. If everyone in Michigan promises to “Vote Blue No Matter Who” then they can continue arming Israel without losing any Muslim votes. Unfortunately that’s not how things work.
it's just basic game theory. We have the option between losing 100000 dollars, or losing 1000 dollars, you're going to choose 1000 dollars every time. You could choose 100000 dollars in protest, but that would be stupid. Granted this isn't a direct analogy here. You still see the same forces operating here, trump if elected, at the loss of MI in this weird hypothetical. Would lead to a scenario in which muslim MI voters literally caused more death and destruction to palestine, lebanon or whatever.
This is kind of like if every farmer held a national strike. It would fuck everything up. Generally essential industries are immune from organized strikes for this particular reason.
It can go both ways here, democratic voters can vote for things against their ideals, and also be responsible for voting for things against their ideals. If you're a muslim living in MI and you don't vote or vote someone other than kamala, there is a non insignificant chance that you will directly influence the potential for a trump victory. While to be clear you are allowed to do this, it would be very silly. This just doesn't make sense. It might make sense if like, primaries were running, and kamala didn't have the popular support she currently does, but that's not what's happening.
idk maybe you just consider going against basic game theory and self preservation to be "courting the wealthy donors" but you've provided no evidence of the sort other than "kamala harris like oil as evidenced by the fracking" which is maybe evident. Regardless, this would still be a separate issue, something to do with campaign finance laws and legality of donating money to super pacs and what not, this is irrelevant in any of these cases, and arguably another fallacy.
jesus christ this thread is a fucking nightmare bro
i feel like i've done three pounds of ketamine just scrolling through these comments.
Its the genocide thats the problem-- Steins numbres are small.. And Jill Stein owes the dems nothing, she can run if she wants. Thats what democracy is about. So the new republic can suck it.
Everything you said is true. But it has nothing to do with the article. It's about how her campaign seems to be more a grift than pushing green policies, and aimed at taking votes from Harris in swing states than actually trying to win any election.
She can obviously do what she wants, but it doesn't appear she is being genuine.
Okay, the dems no longer support Israel, now they will get smeared as hateful Antisemites.
Thats fine. Theres only 2% of the electorate who are jewish, and a good portion of that 2% also dont support the zionist faction. We give some of them and the youth voters a voice to fight on our behalf. We need to keep the youth vote on side or the party is long term doomed anyway. Any leader who says they are swayed by the voice of youth has a long career ahead of them.
We also say that, "we arent steering the US away from support of Israel, we're steering it away from the far right government sponsored violence of Netenyahu." And we claim we're happy to be friends again when moderates or lefties are in charge in Israel. The zionists cant pretend to have clean hands, and Netenyahu needs to go.
Media coverage can make or break a campaign. They absolutely destroyed Jeremy Corbyn for being pro-Palestine.
We could declare we're now neutral because we have to follow the Leahy laws. Pull our military back, no more UN coverage, no more weapons. The "war" will calm down real quick.
I'm not sure who she's gonna actually end up hurting this time. I gotta imagine anyone who falls for the Jill Stein shtick is likely to fall for Trump's too.
This gives big "RFK Jr. will steal votes from Kamala"
Kamala Harris can win over all of those Jill Stein voters with a single sentence.
Stupid Jill Stein's entire campaign is based on the premise that Democrats would keep a genocide going for an entire year into election season.
Let’s completely forget everything but the election for this hypothetical. Do you think Harris coming out and saying “I will immediately stop supporting Israel” she will automatically win? Or do you think it’s more likely the Jewish community would condemn her words and move over to the rubber stamp in chief who would give Israel even more support with fewer conditions? (Ignoring the personal favors he asks for of course.)
Yall act like this is a simple black and white issue, when it’s obviously not. Even when you boil it down to “just” the election.
Oooh, so Kamala is playing 5D chess and will do an about-face on Biden's genocide policy when she enters office? Because her past record is so stellar on this issue? Like that time she had wine from an illegal settlement served at the White House? She and her boss wipe their ass with the rule of all and all pretensions of even basic human morality on an international level, but she's not Trump!
Strawman much? Or are you arguing with voices I can’t hear?
Edit: Y’know what? I’m curious. How do you envision her coming out against Israel going? Let’s hear your version of how things would go, because I can’t hear these arguments as anything other than “I support Trump.”
So please, enlighten me as to how this would go down without Trump being elected and making the situation worse.
Do you think you're on The West Wing or something? You'll have your curiosity sated when you learn to step out of the Blue MAGA bubble and engage with reality.
I can’t hear these arguments as anything other than “I support Trump.”
Strawman much?
🤦♂️ That isn’t a strawman.
No, of course not, it's just saying their argument is something that it isn't. I swear there is a term for that.
To be fair, I get it. Because I can't hear your arguments as anything other than "I support genocide".
Stating what I take the arguments as, is absolutely not a strawman. At no point did I say “you are stating that you want Trump to win, why would you say that?”
If you need me to define strawman arguments, I can. But it might be better if you just googled it instead.
Of course you could always shove your head deeper in that hole if you like. Perhaps going “lalalalala” while doing so.
Of course you could always shove your head deeper in that hole if you like. Perhaps going “lalalalala” while doing so.
Pot calling the kettle black a bit aren't ya?
And no, you didn't commit a classical literal strawman, but then again neither was the argument you threw the same accusations at. More accurately, they were begging the question, with the assumed conclusion being we all agree genocide is bad and therefore should be stopped. And that if Kamala does not commit to stopping (or at least mitigating) the genocide before the election, she is very unlikely to do it after. A point you are constantly avoiding to maintain your false dichotomy that the only two options are full support for the genocide, or Trump in the Whitehouse.
And since you were misusing the strawman fallacy, I didn't think you would be a stickler for its definition.
Regardless, it was just so unbelievably hypocritical of you to (incorrectly) accuse them of strawmanning your argument and in the same comment attempt to reduced the value of their argument to "supporting Trump" just to strengthen your unsupported conclusion. I just couldn't resist pointing it out. Next time I'll be sure to assume you can't read between the lines and spell everything out for you.
Now, you are free to go back to shoving your head up your hole and going "lalalala" when ever anyone mentions the United State's role in the ongoing genocide. Just remember to have a big frown on your face when it's brought up so everyone knows it wasn't your fault.
Yes an arms embargo net her an easy win.
The Jewish community does not care about sending infinite weapons to Netanyahu.
Ah yes, in a world where simply protesting the murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians is branded “antisemitism,” directly preventing military aid to Israel will somehow be perfectly fine.
Please, tell me more about this magical fairytale land you live in, it certainly seems a hell of a lot more likable than reality.
Netanyahu is campaigning for Trump. Coming out against a foreign pm because that pm is helping your election competitor shouldn't be that difficult to pull off.
Dumbest shit I've ever read
Genocide is not a core tenant in the Jewish faith. To say all Jews are Zionists is incredibly antisemitic.
Republicans hate this one simple trick!
They really do, oddly enough, for multiple reasons.
Yeah remember when they were all clamoring for Biden to drop out? And he did? They just fucking moved the goalposts.
They do not give a fuck about Gaza. It's just a tool to hurt Democrats.
If you took half that energy and redirected it towards getting your candidate to stop funding genocide, you might convince actual humans to vote for your genocidal cop.
If Trump wins it's not Jill Stein's fault you psycho.
Technically you’re right. But it absolutely will be the non-voters fault, and considering that a vote for Shill Stein is the same thing as throwing away a vote for no good reason…
It’s say it’ll be her supports fault.
Or its an easy group to blam a cause they are visible and with same fancy logic and math you can pretend their votes belonged to the Democratic Party. You can't just assume they would have voted that way. They can even write in. Non voters are an issue but blaming another group is liking blaming Jews because they work at the bank you think took your house.
Its crazy conspiracy and emotional logic at best.
Just not helping
Democracy, where you have freedom of speech except if you speak about Israel, or your own country war crimes, or your own country foreign policy, or trying to run for office if you are not Democrat or Republicans.
It seems no one is keeping Shill Stein from exercising her freedom of speech.
I'm ashamed I fell for her scam in 2016, was in CA though so wasn't worried my vote would directly help the orange waste of baryonic matter.
I'm sorry but, Is that weird neck thing shes wearing...chain link fence patterned
It is a fishnet pattern keffiyeh (Palestinian headdress), as she seems to be wearing it around a lot to appear as the most pro-Palestinian candidate.
Some say patterns on the keffiyeh symbolize different aspects of Palestinian life: the bold black stripes on the edges symbolize the historical trade routes that used to go through Palestine; the fishnet-like design represents the Palestinians' ties to the Mediterranean Sea; and the curvy lines resemble olive trees, a major point of pride for Palestinians.
Though none of these claims can be backed up by historical evidence, over the past 10 years they've become embraced by Palestinians in the diaspora to be the meaning behind their keffiyeh's patterns.
keffiyeh
just googled around a little and im not the only one that sees a chainlink fence...I suppose it fits the current state of gaza too.
If you want to vote third party but don’t like the greens, the party for socialism and liberation is running de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood!
Aint nobody voting for Jill Stein lmao
"Both siders" do
A lot of them don’t even live in America, and a portion of those that do, aren’t old enough to vote. Those that remain are probably such a small percentage of the total so as to not really be relevant.
And we know for certain that there are quite a few “both-sides’ers” here on lemmy that have no legal vote because they’re foreign. As far as the age, that’s just a theory of mine.
Sorry buddy, I've lived through enough presidential elections to know that you're absolutely wrong.
hate to "BURST" your bubble, but Trump is destroying america and destroying the Republican do nothing party! and Democrats are winning hands down!
Preemptively rolling out that “Democrats losing is the fault of everyone except the Democrats” narrative, again.
Must have seen the MN polling numbers…
OK so we are picking the new scape goat this election cycle?
She picked herself. Let’s not victimize Shill Stein here. Her lack of policy, and unwillingness to lift a finger three out of every four years really helped her solidify her role as the source of her own problems.
Thankfully, and with additional hope- she’s done and we won’t have to hear from her after November.
we won’t have to hear from her
Hopefully not even her shitty folk rock albums.
I’m not even going to look that up.
If Trump wins, it might not literally be your fault, but we'll remember that you were okay taking the risk of another Trump term just to cast a protest vote. We'll remember you aren't an ally to anti-fascism.
You have the right to vote however you want to, but when you tell us that you plan to try to throw the election in Trump's favor, we'll be listening and we'll believe you. And if you get what you want, we won't forgive you.
You can write your forgiveness down on a peice of paper and fold it till its all sharp corners and jam it, for all any of us care
The dems need progressive votes to win much of anything, whether they will admit it or not, the numbers dont lie. Pushing to the right so you can get "independent" voters has never worked, but the dems try it in every election. So you should be asking if progressives will forgive you. If Harrs didnt take AIPAC bribes she'd already have the numbers to win. But she took the dirty foreign fascist bribes so here we are. Try the carrot for a change. Your stick is laughable.
Hey I didn't say I was voting for her. I'm just pointing out the emotional animosity of finding an easy scapegoat. This is literally proving my point that it's just an emotional answer.
You just want someone to blame.
Wow its not the youth and progressives this time, I'm stoked. Yeah um, fuck those Stein voters they are the worst. Dont they know how democracy works?
/s
They don't. I've been trying to explain basic political concepts to my older cousin for 20 years and he's been voting for Jill Stein at every turn, and then pretended to be disappointed that a republican won as a nepobaby landlord that hates paying taxes.
People who will vote for a Russian sponsored Republican spoiler are too stupid to be trusted with anything. Or they are morally bankrupt and smart enough to hide it.
Jesus fucking Christ. You win by getting more people to vote for you! If Harris loses, it will be her own fault.
It's not about Harris losing, it's about Trump winning. You're either pragmatic and know that Harris is the only chance we have to prevent that, or you're privileged as shit and know that you'll survive the rise of Fascism if he wins. You definitely know you won't be one of the millions of people he oppresses if your priority is anything but keeping Trump out of the White House.
If Kamala loses it will be her fault. The fact that we'll all suffer for it is beside the point. You might think it's irrelevant, but establishment Dems lose over and over again by ignoring what the left tells them, then they turn around and blame the left. Continuing to indulge their delusions just leads to more losses.
This really isn't about Trump anymore. The Republican party has been transformed, and every single Republican candidate for the foreseeable future is going to be just as much a threat to democracy as Trump, if not more so.
The Greens hurt Democrats far less than the libertarians hurt Republicans, and neither is going anywhere. Democrats need to focus on being better candidates, not finding someone else to blame.
So Harris should pander better. Otherwise she's clearly not taking the seriousness of a Trump win seriously enough. Pander better.
Yea because of Biden and uhhhh the country on the other side of the globe killing its neighbors.
That'll show her
🤡
Maybe they should stop sending unlimited bombs to the psychos air striking refugee tents?
::: spoiler New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New Republic:
If Kamala loses of course it will be everyone else’s fault. Fucking race/class traitor neolib cop.
Yawn….
Typical.
Exactly. That’s why I yawned.
I blame your parents. You never had a chance little one…
Ahhh. The pure-as-a-dove civility of a far leftist when they have no argument.
Gotta love it.
Jill Stein isn't going to hand Trump anything. Only people who vote for Trump can do that.
Or people that vote for Stein instead of Harris.
Sure. But they won't anyways. It doesn't matter if you think Kamal a Harris is owed the votes if the person can't vote for Jill Stein but there is no reason to think they would vote that way at all.
You can't control other people or expect them to suddenly pick another option if they have one in mind.
I don't get where this idea that all those votes belong to the Democratic party. They could write in or not vote or vote red or other non party... Why is it that everyone focuses in on these votes? Is it a comfort blanket? Because it seems delusional if you step back from it.
Pretty sure that they don't count Stein votes for Trump. Only Trump votes can make Trump win.
How are we this late in the game and people STILL believe that nonsense? What the fuck are schools teaching people nowadays?
Not sure which nonsense you're referring to.
So folks, this is an example as to why the EPA banned lead based paint in domiciles and public buildings in the 80's.
History sure is neat, huh?!
How old do you think I am?
Hillary handed trump the WH last time
Okay, maybe it's not so black and white.... But she definitely contributed.
Blue Maga setting up a punching bag as an excuse.
Green's not even polling in measurable numbers yet here we are. Blue Maga doesn't want to be held accountable for their pro-genocide candidate.
Stein doesn't even get 1% in any state and yet the media props her up, but chooses to ignore Libertarian shit-for-brains, despite more money and states they have on the ballot.
Pied Piper, ignoring the rust belt, a shit candidate with shitty politics. She overwhelmingly contributed.
Everything she touches she screws up with hubris - Colin Powell
All the weird Jill Stein hate on here is what made me decide to vote for her lol. Just sent in my ballot last week. Don't worry I'm not in a swing state. 🤣
Given your reason, you seem like her ideal demographic. Hope it was worth it.
Thanks friend 🙂. What exactly did it cost me?
Its not what it cost ya, its what it says about you. You are little more than a contrarian a reactionary in all but name, an ideological dead end.
I guess all of us were 14 at one point....
Yeah but they claim to be able to vote which means they are at minimum 18.
Its not what it cost ya, its what it says about you
Ooh, there it is. Love it when y'all tell the truth.
In reality, at least for people living outside of swing states, the reason you care how we vote has nothing to do with affecting the outcome, it's because of what it expresses. It's an expression of disloyalty to your little sports team. Ofc, if we're regarding it from the perspective of it as expression, than we ought to express support for good things and opposition to bad things, which can be done more effectively by supporting a party that actually represents our interests - which is why libs generally stand by the pretense that votes in safe states are relevant to the outcome, because otherwise you don't really have a leg to stand on.
Dignity
Lol so dramatic
That’s a weird way to say “Harris ticket fails to motivate voters to their side”
To clarify, Stein is a literal compromised grifter.
So is most of the RNC. I remember that 4th of July emergency flight to Moscow to hand deliver a letter to Putin.
It’s not hard to beat these people. Unless you’re liberal I guess.
People doing completely conspiracy level of math with thinking you can just add those votes to Harris and she would win as a cope.
!rcv@ponder.cat
Any third party that's telling you to vote for them under FPTP, but isn't heavily promoting RCV to fix the system, isn't trying to win. They're trying to spoil the FPTP election.
RCV is already law in a surprisingly large number of places. It may change the majority in the house in this upcoming election, because the difference in vote-counting within the two states that use it for US congressional elections might be enough to change the razor-thin outcome.
RCV is on the ballot, in one form or another, in 7 states and DC this year. Go vote. You might be able to fix the system, and move toward the future that all the people in this thread who are being vocal about Jill Stein say that they want. Remember back when marijuana was illegal? That changed. This can change too, and it would be glorious, for a lot of important goals that a lot of people claiming to support Jill Stein claim they're supportive of. It would be practical and realistic. It would work.
Anyone in this thread who is saying Jill Stein is extremely important, but haven't been saying anything about ranked choice voting or changing the voting system to make third parties realistic: Why? What's your goal, why did you make that decision about your priorities?
The answer is obvious, of course. But it's fun to ask.
@anticolonialist@lemmy.world, why?
I'll add more @s as more people pipe up. They always do.
Register and vote, for RCV as well as for Harris. We have 25 more days.
https://www.vote.org/
The most important youtube video in politics:
Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
This video was clearly created by leopard supporters who just wanna be mad at tiger for leopard's failure to beat gorilla. Leopards are basically just light gorillas. Vote tiger.
I love CGP Grey, but he doesn't really understand politics. Proportional representation is a terrible system and leads to party control and extremists gaining too much power. Something a spreadsheet won't tell you.
RCV is just slightly better than FTP. Let’s go with the bests and support STAR now. If we do all RCV now, we can rage the system in the next 40 years due to people saying “but we just changed it!”
Star is flawed too, it incentivises people who are voting for the underdog to not rank any other candidate or your own ballot could spoil your preferred candidate. If all thrid party voters voted to mathmatically optimize their candidates chance, Star voting wouldn't change anything for them. RCV is better if you're trying to actually engage thrid parties.
Star doesn't fix the 'spoiler effect' unless you decide not to give your preferred candidate the largest mathematical advantage your ballot can provide, and if you do want to ballot optimize, you should only rank one person, and then were right back to where we started.
RCV in single member electorates is pretty meh, and yeah RCV in general has its issues. But saying it's "slightly better" than FPTP is a MASSIVE understatement.
Change begets change, don't be against changing to something much better, just because it isn't perfect.
we could do what maine is doing, i think it's either RCV or IRV. Whatever the difference is, if there is one.
Yeah we need a party that supports RCV, not this fake 3rd party bullshit. Lemme see, which party supports RCV?
https://www.gp.org/tags/rcv
Oh the Green Party. That’s… kind of awkward for your point, isn’t it?
The green party likes it for presidential elections where RCV doesn't really come into play at all because there aren't three viable parties. They are just making up grievance politics because rcv would never affect them since they never run for anything but president. Democrats are educated enough to know the green party is a scam and Republicans are too ignorant to vote for anything named green.
Certainly not like the DNC which sued to keep RCV off the DC ballot, or Alexandria county VA which opted not to implement it in 2024 because it might confuse the black community?
There are a lot of people in politics who are opposing RCV, because it erodes their power. Some of them are Democrats. Sure. That wasn't my question. My question was, why is the Green Party spending so much energy pursuing a doomed effort which can only elect Donald Trump, and such an infinitesimal amount of energy on advocating for fixing the system in a way that would let them actually get elected in the future?
It's a strange allocation of priorities.
I did look around for things the Green Party has done to support Ranked Choice Voting. You've sent me the RV tag search, which has a press release from January 2024 and the one before that, from February 2023, dealing with RCV. Hooray.
I did find a substantive thing that Jill Stein herself did to support it in 2017, which actually had something to do with Maine putting it into action: https://mainegreens.org/news/in-the-news/107-jill-stein-joins-push-to-save-ranked-choice-voting-in-maine
That's good. Why hasn't she done anything since then? Why is always the focus on attacking the Democrats, and the focus if at all beyond that is a tepid hand-wave in the direction of RCV, when that is the solution that would lead to them being able to get elected? I didn't look very hard, but I did look, and this was the most recent thing I was able to find since January:
https://mainemorningstar.com/2024/10/07/green-party-candidate-jill-stein-praises-maine-voting-system-as-means-to-oppose-genocide/
Isn't sealioning against the rules?
Lmao
I'll just leave this here
Harris wouldn't get my vote anymore than Trump would get yours. Fascism or fascism light is still fascism.
Paraphrase from Historian Kevin Kruse:
"No, l'm not voting [for the better one of the two major parties in a first past the post system] this election. But rest assured that when the Trump administration starts arresting my nonwhite neighbors and forcing them onto the trains, I'm going to have a pretty big frown on my face. That way, everyone will know it's not my fault."
Boy if you hate non-white people getting arrested you’re gonna have a bad time finding the person who wrote the crime bill that most often leads to that.
The point of 3rd party is that they cannot support a DNC that is just fucking cool with simply being slightly less bad than hitler as long as the other guy is literally hitler. Because since 2012 they’ve refused to adopt anything progressive. Because they’ve continually sued to stop progressives. Because they’ve used their own money against progressive democratic candidates in primaries to stop them from getting in, instead of using that money to promote the DNC. They are actively against progressives, so I don’t see the point in blaming the 0.31% of the vote for something the DNC is actively working against. We’ve gone from “we need change” in the DNC to “nothing will fundamentally change”. So I mean… yeah… what do you expect from progressives when neither of the two parties represents them.
Ok.
I didn't ask whether David Doonan had published a press release on a janky web site which was mostly complaining about Democrats trying to remove Green Party members from the ballot, in this FPTP election. This also somehow finds a way to blame the lack of RCV on the Democrats, when a lot of them support it. Here's a list:
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/endorsers/
I don't see any Green Party people there. I have never heard Jill Stein talk about it, and I've heard her say a bunch of things. That's strange to me. But regardless of that, that's not what I asked. I also didn't ask whether you plan to vote for Kamala Harris. My question was:
Anyone in this thread who is saying Jill Stein is extremely important, but haven’t been saying anything about ranked choice voting or changing the voting system to make third parties realistic: Why? What’s your goal, why did you make that decision about your priorities?
Do you want to answer that question? You don't have to. You can change the subject again, if you'd like to.
Green Party and Jill Stein has been talking about RCV way before for Democrats ever started talking about it. And I'm kind of doubting that you listen to anything that anybody, says except for the dnc
And yet they aren't running anyone in Alaska, a state that implemented it this election. Are they campaigning against the ballot initiative to remove it at least?
Edit: and yet no one has ever replied to me on this. Can they seriously not find a candidate for a party seen as the most environmentalists party in a state filled with conservationists, that the democrats only take some elections in because of their SLIGHTLY better environmental policies?
Your comment is fascist and while I was reading it my fascist shoes became untied. I would tie them but the strings are fascist. I apologize for using so many fascist letters in my words. At least periods aren't fascist... yet.
I love this response so much. I want it to become a copypasta
God, you again.
Michigan 2016
I can’t post more than one image because Lemmy/Memmy makes the images fall apart into a 2 mile long scroll.
Can't believe Johnson handed the election to Trump like that.
Even without him, Stein had it handled by herself. Why do you think she’s back? Jr, who was funded by a Repub PAC, dropped out. Then Stein re-appeared.
How is Stein having 1.1% of votes worse than Johnson having 3.6%? Stein sucks, I'll make it clear. But how is Stein's votes being in last place helping Trump when Johnson won more votes than her?
If every Johnson voter voted Democrat (Libertarians agree with a lot of Democratic opinions, they just don't see it) then Clinton would have won.
No.
With what logic are you using that all those votes could just be added to Hillary? It's not how that works. You can just say if it had been completely different it would have been completely different.
It's like reaching into a bag and pulling 5 limes and saying if only they had been oranges you could have made orange juice.
She wants money, sure, and loves to grift off the people that think themselves superior but this is bad math and pure conspiracy at this point.
Edit: No answer just downvotes cause there isn't a logical answer just irrational dogpiling to find a scapegoat to appease some strong anxiety. Take a breath. Regroup. Don't start throwing shit now.
It's inconceivable that a voter wouldn't support either major candidate. All green voters become Hilary voters because Democrats and Greens are next to each other on my Ideology For Eighth Graders rubric.
All you have to do is arrest Jill Stein and put her in "friendly with Russia" jail, and Hilary wins in a 0.1% landslide
Somehow Johnson winning more voters with more money than the Green is checks notes proof the Greens are unbashedly evil. Libertarians get more money, are on every state's ballot, but somehow are never blamed for when Democrats run bad candidates who prop up fascists and ignore swing states.
Because she's candidate who won the primary for her party. Same reason Trump is back for third time.
I can. The dude is fucking nuts.
Wouldn't the libertarians take more votes from the Republicans than the Dems?
Oh shit. Maybe. But then this would imply Hillary was working with a sizable advantage.
Hillary was a terrible candidate. She lost because of that.
Jill Stein is polling at litterally less than measurable numbers.
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3913&stream=top
"Undecided" represents at least twice the voters Stein appears to be garnering.
What kills me about this is if the neolib dems had taken just a moment at the primary to cast their vote for undecided to show the Dem leadership that genocide was a non negotiable issue they should do the right thing on, it might have worked.
It would have cost absolutely nothing, and we might be coasting to an easy victory right now. Instead we're here.
wait, what's stopping them? Not voting because it's not important to them? Sounds like democracy working as intended to me.
100%
But look around this place. Its still the same Blue MAGA here trying to bash peoples head in (now for Harris, then for Biden) as before.
The same people that would demand we drive off a cliff with Biden at the wheel are the ones insisting that we need to support Harris in-spite of her genocide policy, instead of trying to move her on the issue. Like we literally need her to fix her policy or she literally can't get elected. And its self-evident in the data we have. She's now losing, not even accounting for the structural biases we should very much expect from RW fuckery and the EC.
Like just come out against genocide. Its fucking easy. It can be a fucking lie. Just fucking lie to us so we can convince enough people to get you elected Harris.
Man. I wonder if we are going to lose. Its definitely possible at this point, but hard to imagine. How awful are our dem candidates to lose to an insane peice of human trash like Trump
Pro fracking. Anti gun control. Pro Electoral College. Pro "entrepreneur" economics. Can sip a beer and barely look disgusted. Pro war. Pro taxation and tariffs. Anti environmental protections for big businesses. And pro death penalty.
I mean we already had early 2000 Republican presidents and the Republicans want someone worse and the Democrats that want change don't want it either.
So pretty bad.
TBF, Blue MAGA on lemmy didn't really come out of the wood work in full force until Biden stepped down.
Now they're blame shifting before Harris has even lost.
Oh no they were definable here before. I've got the receipts, the saved threads , etc. I mean hell some are mods. But you know what happened? They dumped those accounts, if they weren't super well known. if you want names I've got names.
Hahaha yeah man people forget how vitriolic and cruel the Blues were when told their candidate might lose.
Refuse to be told they might need to change tactics and double down on slamming face first into a brick wall for the sake of not having to question their beliefs and having someone else to blame.
But they are coming back now again that the "hope" has worn off and nothing feels different. Got to punch down to keep their self cope up.
That is a great way to out it. They wouldn't be as emboldened if not for the also toxic moderation in this place .
They were here before.
But once Biden dropped the down votes for criticism of the Democrats got fierce.
That's all I'm saying.
And you are 💯 correct. I've done my best to document it, because to me, its an incredibly important and interesting phenomena. It's almost exactly what happens to MAGA in their toxic dismissal of a shared reality. I'm going to save this and when I'm a bit more ready with something, I may reach out.
People just want someone to be mad at in case Harris loses
Because Harris losing simply could not be her own fault, if it happened
There is a world in which it's not her fault or anyone else's fault. You can run a flawless campaign and lose for reasons beyond your control, or any other single stakeholder's control.
Do you think Harris is running a flawless campaign?
Goodness no.
Yeah, Picard Principle at play here. You can commit no mistakes and still lose. I can argue that there are a few things that Harris could do better. Americans are stupid and cruel as a whole...you tact too hard to the Left, you piss off the moderate voters and they stay home, vote Third Party, or worse, vote Trump, and if you tact too hard to the Right, you piss off liberal voters, and while they are less likely to vote Trump, you still lose their votes.
Man, we shouldn't even be having this conversation at all. Trump is a convicted felon. He should be in jail right now, getting ready for the next trials.
I'm amazed that anyone is still buying the "moderate voters" bullshit. Just try to picture an actual human being who's politics have left them scratching their heads between Harris and Trump. "If only Harris would do a little more for corporations. Oh well, I guess I'll stick with the racist orange insurrectionist."
It's not about moderate voters. If anything it's about the median voter, but that's a very different animal. The median voter in this country is wacky as fuck with political opinions that are all over the place. The one thing they almost all have in common is that they hate establishment politicians from both parties. Harris is trying to get their votes by being even more establishment, and it's going to be a disaster.
The one hope we have is the end of RvW. If that's woken up enough women voters, then we still can win. Republicans may have screwed themselves so badly that even establishment Democrats can beat them. Let's hope.
It's not voters she's courting with her center right politics.
It's corporate campaign donors who are afraid of Trump's instability.
Yep
Oh for sure. The people most concerned with Trumps policies are the wealthy who think it might hurt their business.
Porn, import, healthcare industries. Lots of rich people who see they won't get fair treatment either for their wealth alone like they expect from the duopoly they have been benefitting from for decades.
Its why MAGA think its somehow great cause everyone will burn but somehow they will escape the fire because... God?
Its corruption and insanity everywhere you look.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that economics is a pseudoscience specifically designed to couch terrible actions of governments and corporations behind inevitability arguments.
After all, we cannot have prices rise.
So, we must continue with the sweatshops. We must continue with the factory farms. We must continue to drill baby drill. We must continue to build shoddy houses on flood plains...and on and on and on.
When people say they trust Trump more "with the economy", it's perhaps because they know he'll continue all of the above with a sloppy, sweaty grin and a shitty, little dance.
bro what the fuck is this thread, am i on fucking benzos what is happening
that's not how moderate voters work, you're ascribing 100s of years of politics onto the one weird 8 year period, the only moderate voting for trump is a republican. And that's only because they're stupid and don't do research.
Like to be clear, moderates are not swing voters, and swing voters are not moderates, there is no "scratching your head" here. This isn't a real scenario.
Just to expand upon this a bit, moderate dem voters are voting for kamala, moderate republicans could probably go either way, depends on how much they care about the parties or how much research they've done.
Independents will do as they have always done, voting weirdly for no particular reason.
this is completely true, republicans have basically fractured themselves in half, if not thirds, if trump gets out of the running, the party collapses, simple as that. Dems are in a massive position right now since the harris campaign is pushing for more moderate voters (the majority of the party, and independents as well as straggler moderates on the other side) and in some significant capacity, farther lefties who would literally rather vote for anyone other than trump.
How are we defining 'flawless', exactly?
All else aside - yea, I actually kinda agree with this, though I get the distinct impression not in the way you mean it.
edit - what happens if it's the undecided vote that causes harris to lose, not Stein?
Then she should have messaged better on Israel. On that particular item I also feel like Netanyahu is on a timeline. I'm not sure he cares about the election though. More like he's trying to get us pulled into a conflict with Iran before January because Biden can't stand up to him. If he thinks Biden is just locked by the election then he'll try to do it this month. Harris' messaging doesn't really take that into account in my opinion.
I'd much rather her do more than message better, but i'd take clear messaging over whatever the fuck we've been getting.
She's trying to stay neutral. It's not working.
There's no such thing as neutral - either we're supporting Israel through their genocide or we're not.
Putting on my objective hat for a minute, pro Israel voters think the same way. There's not really a neutral block of voters on this issue.
There is no candidate who can win this race that won't keep writing blank checks for Israel. If anything, Netanyahu wants Trump to win. He is enraged by even the minimal pushback he gets from the Biden administration.
There's a chance Harris is more like Obama and reigns in everything but iron dome reloads, while actually holding them responsible for settler violence. If your standard is completely disengage from Israel then yeah we aren't there yet politically. Although shooting at the UN might just fucking do it.
That's sure not what she's running on.
She's trying to stay neutral, Israel has a right to exist, there must be an immediate cease-fire, etc. This in contrast to Biden parroting the IDF's PR. She is clearly not as pro Israel as Biden.
Countries have no right to exist. They exist because they can. An apartheid ethnostate certainly has no right to exist or right to our support. If Israel has a right to exist, what about Palestine?
I agree with you. I'm just laying out why Harris might be better for Palestinians than Biden.
She...still loses? I don't understand your question
I'm asking who you'll decide to blame, since that seems to be the focus.
If you're unconcerned with blame then maybe there's no disagreement here.
Undecided voters are imo always a contemptible lot, but no more this election than any other.
Maybe read this a few times yourself and see if you can spot the problem on your own.
If someone is stupid enough that they need to be flattered into no longer doing stupid things, that makes them all the more contemptible in my eyes.
Jesus christ, is that what politics are to you? Flattery or contempt?
Anyone who's still undecided at this point likely needs one or both.
Lmao good luck then
I’m going to blame [Undecided] if that happens, but we all know [Undecided] is going to become vapor just after the election and then reroll and alt character masquerading as a victim of their own ignorance come November…
So yeah… we all know they won’t be around to take their bow and own it.
This rhetoric is sure to convince all those Muslims in Michigan whose family members are being blown up by US bombs. Keep up the good work, neolib crusader!
listen bro, it's the will of the voters, if they decide to do that, and they end up with trump being elected, that's not my problem.
Idk why the harris campaign has to specifically cater towards the muslim population of MI here, seems rather odd to me.
Maybe because that population could win Michigan for Harris.
yeah maybe. It might not do anything either.
Could do anything, Michigan may not even matter at all. It's probably more impactful to mobilize moderate voters nationally (there are more of them) than to mobilize a single subset of a Michigan voters.
Whatever you say, MAGA.
No, they don't just disappear - libs just stop caring about them for another 3 years until they're needed again.
This must be your first election. No, bud. They disappear. Trust me.
Lmao, I don't even know how to respond to that without sounding like a fossil
Then you should know better.
Know better than the guy saying 'trust me bro'?
idk, that's a pretty high bar to clear
We’re too late in the game to bother explaining anything to you. You know what is going on. You won’t get to claim ignorance when this is over.
Ill mark my calendar for one year from now and let you know
I've noticed that it's not only undecideds that disappear after the election. It's also everyone that voted for the last Republican after the inevitable (because they're terrible at governance) crisis occurs. I remember when George W. Bush's presidency ended in complete disaster, and suddenly there was nobody that voted for GWB to be found.
Ultimately, if Trump wins, there will be plenty of blame games afterwards, but, in my opinion, they won't matter. That talk may occupy a lot of paper space in the quaint period between him winning the election and January 20th, 2025, but a second Trump presidency will be such an utter disaster that the talk of "how we got here" will be rendered irrelevant by the urgent need to survive the many self-created crises that it'll cause.
And I suspect that you're right, it will suddenly be impossible afterwards to find people who were on the fence about supporting Harris.
If you're going around asking people who they voted for, after any election, expect to be ignored by many.
It's not that. They're all active on online forums and in media and then suddenly none of them can be found.
Yeah why don't we all just send Harris a harshly worded letter while ignoring people who throw away their vote. Yep absolutely makes sense!
Ignoring people instead of, what?... Railing against voters who are rightfully upset at Harris's ambivalence about Israel's genocide?
You think constantly yelling at undecided protestors and blaming them for "Jim Crow V2 - Electric Boogaloo" is going to change their mind?
Get over yourself. The only good that comes from whining about third party candidates spoiling democratic victory is situating the blame if/when Harris loses. It does nothing to convince undecideds, and I'd argue it turns a lot of casual voters off from going to the booth at all.
Might even be radicalizing progressives into tankies, wouldn't that be exciting.
No.
Heh.
"Once noble party" - ffs.
Jill Stein is a bad actor in this election, she understands how the electoral college works and she understands she's weakening the democratic party position. But let's not blame shift - the Democrats could be much better on climate change then they are today and if they were better Stein's BS wouldn't have such an easy time attracting voters. I dislike the title posing it as "Stein may hand Trump the whitehouse again."
Even if the argument about getting X% of votes was true, the states to campaign heavy in would be the deep blue/red states. Especially since they tend to get ignored by candidates.
Instead she sticks to the states where <30k votes could decide the election and the market is saturated with the most expensive ad costs
It's blantantly obvious what's she's doing.
Agreed. If a third party pulls off a major change in one of these states, it's still likely to go for it's color regardless so the presidential outcome is not affected, but it'd force the relevant parties to examine why the third party was able to make such huge inroads and what of their own policies that they should change.
But for posterity I'll state it; she's spoiling for a GOP win.
Yeah, that's the nature of the Electoral College. It sucks. Do you think the Electoral College is something Kamala Harris invented or even wants?
Hate the game, not the playa.
I think you may have replied to the wrong person?
No I think the point is that of course she campaigns in swing states cause she wants to get to 5% of the vote so she can get access to more money. But it's the same stayes everyone is paying attention too.
Its false logic to say she's only dangerous in those states cause they are already close and we just have to pay extra attention to them because they are the swing states.
Is coincidental pattern seeking.
The 5% can come from Cali alone and not effect the race tho.
And it would be cheaper because of less competition for ads, the voters there are often ignored and would more receptive, and there are way more voters who are left of the Dem.party there
If she is honestly trying to do what she says, then she is doing it in the least efficient way possible and has been for a very long time.
If what she's really doing is trying to hand Republicans the election, then she seems to have put a lot of thought into the best possible way to do it and is focusing on that.
So take your pick:
She's honest but a terrible leader and absolutely dog shit at planning.
She's a liar but either her or her handlers have put a lot of thought into how to get trump elected.
She would have to get over 5% in California for it to count at a federal level and there is of course the fact that it's a wealthy Democratic party stronghold so they actually might spend hard to punish her for trying to take votes. I mean look at all the lawsuits filed to keep Green Party off ballot elsewhere.
I don't see a situation where she is let to just campaign cause we can already see the response when she just gets her normal voters.
I don't think she's smart. She's been searching for something that makes her feel important ever since she realized she hated working and saying out loud the obvious broken stuff even though she doesn't have plans to fix it gets her attention and more money.
She got giddy that she was talked about in Russia because she thinks it's awesome people know her...
Don't assume malice where stupidity is an option first.
Yeah she's a sucky leader that stole the green party for herself and uses it as a piggy bank and self morality boost but she gets the people by being not the Democrats or Republicans. Do other people try to take advantage of that? Hell yeah. I bet one of her advisors probably embezzles funds to pay themselves more. Lots of people are shitty in different ways. This is hoping for an easy answer to the world being a mess. Same way people hope their is aliens secretly running things.
What?
When they talk about the 5% line, it's the national vote, not in each state...
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/27/why-5-for-the-green-party-is-a-win-for-america-jill-stein-commentary.html
Which is why it makes no sense to focus on battleground states.
I didn't read anything last your first sentence tho since it was built off a misunderstanding.
Do you still have other questions?
Yes you have to get 5% national so 5% of california is not 5% of the total populace and campaigning in places with low population is pointless since that would give a fraction of a percent for national level.
You pointed out your own flaw with her focusing on just California. Asking her to get 20 million votes in one state would absolutely make the DNC do everything to stop her.
And then you ignored conversation. So why even comment here at all? You don't want a conversation you just want to already be right. It's insanity.
Battleground states are that because it's where the big cities are, thus, you know the people she needs to vote for her. You have like non-concept of cause and effect and are operating entirely on random bad logic.
Wow, yes. California has just under 40 million, so that would turn California Green!
Which would include understanding her policies and why they were so effective in pulling voters away, and if any policies should be considered for DNC adoption.
So, a good thing.
To me this was sound logic. Getting all votes from California to hit the nationwide 5% doesn't make sense and would be very tough to achieve and could throw the race (in a new way - by denying the electoral votes of California to Harris).
However, it'd still be cheaper to campaign in such solid states like California, Texas, and New York. Assume Stein wins 5 million in NY and TX and 10 million in CA for a total of 20. It's a tough feat, but doesn't affect the election, but it's big enough that the two big parties have to pay attention and adopt her policies. Also, since these are not battleground states, it's cheaper to win over.
If anything, because battleground states tend to be smaller, it's even harder to make up the raw numbers by winning them over.
Just an aside, this person thinks that the green party should just get 5% of the national population to vote for them from a single state and that it wouldn't change anything or cause any ripples.
5% of the US population is about 18 million people.
17 million voted in the state of California in total in 2020.
Remember everyone. Basic math isn't just a thing your teacher thought would be important for no reason. It does have use in the real world.
The GOP is the "drill baby drill" party though.
The Green Party is not going to win. The only message that voting for Jill Stein will send to the Democratic party is they need to move more to the center to get more reliable voters. It's already heppening. Harris doesn't like fracking but she's not going to ban it and she has to talk about increase US oil production to get votes from people she knows will turn up and won't flake out and vote green or be uncommitted or whatever.
If she wins she will be more inclined to fulfill promises made to the people who actually voted for her. Sure she'll need to represent everyone, but there'll be far more people that voted GOP she'll need to represent (and entice to maybe vote for her in the next election) than green party voters.
I think that Hillary Clinton showed us the opposite. If the Democratic candidate goes too close to the center, they risk losing the left, and they deserve to lose the left at that point. If the Democrats had tried to put a halfway decent strategy together about Israel, there would be zero worry about a third party. And I don't like single issue voters, but if I had to pick a single issue, genocide would be at the top of the list.
"Genocide is a single issue" is basically "I've tuned out the screaming so how can you hear it?"
Back in 2004 when we bombed countries it was considered murder and bad. Bush then normalized it with "You just love 9/11, commie!", Obama continued it, Trump expanded it, and now Biden helped to normalize it.
If the Democrats conform to Iranian disinformation campaigns about Israel, how would they be any different from Republicans that conform to Russian disinformation campaigns about Ukraine?
Voting isn't public so how the hell does everyone keep assuming we know who voted for her at the election?
The people that didn't vote for her didn't vote for her.
You can't claim she didn't get the trump republican voters so it's an indicator she needs to move to the left, right? Or Libertarian party?
Its weird false logic based on feelings about justifying a truly tiny group of people voting green as villians. the main base of Kamalas voters should also be Democrats who shouldn't pander and frack just cause she needed an extra 2% at the polls. We are gonna shift further right for that and more Republicans instead of going for any undecided first?
I don't get it. Make the logic make sense.
I'm not saying people that vote green are villains. They're just ignorant of how things work and act irrationally because of their ignorance.
Without 3rd party options we still wouldn't vote for people that don't represent us.
The only person who would represent me is myself, and I wouldn't vote for myself because I don't want that shitty job
So you're saying that Jill Stein, the Russian asset who is actively working to get Donald Trump elected president, represents you and your group?
They need to earn votes.
The Senate investigated that dinner and found nothing. Everything you don't like isnt always Russian
Not everything I don't like is Russian. But some Russian things, I don't like.
lol, what a stupid way to say "yes, Jill Stein and her active campaign to get Donald Trump elected does support my values"
Third parties wouldn't be a threat to their power if they weren't shit parties.
Why don't liberals vote for Trump and push him left after the election, since that worked out so well with Biden.
Do you actually read comments, or do you just pull your bull shit out of a hat?
lol k
Are you high?
Can you pass that shit my way? I'd like to lose contact with reality to the extent you have, looks fun.
The Senate investigation found nothing illegal. That doesn't mean Stein isn't trying to help russian interests.
And Trump is in Russias pocket, and Biden and Harris are in Israels.
And trump is in Israel's too. He's in every pocket with a pocket book. You know he'll give israel everything they want and then some. I wouldn't be surprised at another Kent state over this if he gets elected.
Why aren't you so noisy during primaries?
Oh that's right, your true intentions are masked by bullshit.
You must be new around here
Note: Jill is literally paid to run as a spoiler, and if you look at her actual policies, lot of transphobia, ablism, and support for pseudoscience
This shouldn’t surprise anyone considering her source.
Pennsylvania 2016
I can’t post more than one image because Lemmy/Memmy makes the images fall apart into a 2 mile long scroll.
guys it's not that hard, all we have to do is to not vote for still jein.
... there were people voting for stein?
i would hope not, but idk why else you would be running lmao
Apparently enough people are voting for her to inspire the Democrats to spend mone on ads against her.
Jill Stein has my vote! Seriously, she took it. Can someone help me get it back?
Wisconsin 2016.
I can’t post more than one image because Lemmy/Memmy makes the images fall apart into a 2 mile long scroll.
Thank you for posting
Very important that ppl pay attention
I don't understand why it is taken for granted that if Stein wasn't a candidate the people who vote for her would be voting for the Democrats instead. Just as likely they would not vote at all or vote for some other protest candidate.
Because people who are disillusioned that the green party would address their concerns are generally not complete shitheads like republicans; they're decent but misled people.
Because a vote abstention is a vote for the person in the lead. If Harris is in the lead, then every single American who abstains from voting is essentially helping her win, but the same is true if Trump is in the lead. Convincing Green voters that it makes more sense in a FPTP system to vote Democrat as its the closest party to their preferred ideology is a statistically productive activity.
Voting for genocide will never be something you can convince humans is in their best interest as close to their preferred ideology.
Genocide is bad. Multiple genocides, and faster, is worse. One genocide is closer to my preferred ideology of zero genocides than that same genocide but worse, plus additional genocides. The only people who are unconvinced by that arithmetic are idealists who care more about maintaining their ideological purity than actually helping people.
I'm not voting for any genocide, sorry. It sucks you have no red line, no limit to your loyalty, no bottom depth to your depravity you willingly vote for, but I have a simple one:
No genocide.
Until the US stops contributing soft power, arms, cash, and troops on the ground to a genocide, the people in exclusive control of that don't get my vote.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how voting works, mechanically, in a FPTP system. You don't vote for things. You vote against them.
Once RCV takes hold (thank your local and state representatives) I'll be right there beside you voting my conscience. Until then, that's not a productive strategy. It does not achieve the intended goal.
Lesser evil buys time. Vote for progressives on your state ballots. If there aren't any, vote for progressives on your local ballots. If there aren't any, run for local office as a progressive.
You've been voting the lesser evil for 80 years, does it feel like it's bought you time?
I'm not voting for genocide, in voting against it, hence why I'm not voting for Dems or Reps.
Sounds like you're voting hard in favor of worse genocide. Either that or basic logic isn't your strong suit and you're doing it unknowingly
"worse genocide" do you people actually read what you type?
Say that out loud to yourself. That you are voting for less genocide instead of no genocide, and then tell me you're still the good guy.
I can use logic to defend my view much unlike yourself. Accelerationists are the fucking worst 🤮
Let me know when you start doing that, then. I'm sure the Palestinians appreciate that they're the only ones to be genocide by your direct choices, I'm sure they're happy you voted for "less genocide" instead of no genocide.
I no longer waste my time arguing with walls
Unequivocally yes. Imagine if the right wing clinched power in 1944 and never lost traction. You think civil rights would be better?
What's that accomplished in the last 80 years?
The right wing did clinch power in 1944, hence the dramatic stop to progressive legislation.
Strange, that's right about when the entire civil rights movement started. What are you smoking?
The 1940s is the mid 1830s?
Also the civil rights movement was not supported by government, and especially not the Dems.
If we're being pedantic, we can go bank to the Magna Carta, or Hammurabi as the beginning of civil rights. But you're the one who set the 80 year mark, which coincides with the 20th century civil rights movement which was a distinct movement from the abolitionism of the 1830s.
But you're wrong either way. The 20th century civil rights movement was absolutely supported by Democrats, or was Lyndon Johnson not a Democrat when he signed the voting rights act?
And the 19th century civil rights movement was championed by the pre-switch liberal Republican party. So yes, the liberal party has been supportive, if not integral, to civil rights. You'd have to be pretty poorly educated in US history to be ignorant of that fact.
It was nice to see the World News community finally realize that the DNC has been doing nothing but shooting themselves in the foot for a year.
Maybe this community will finally catch on and connect the dots between a random ass 3rd party getting blamed for stealing votes away from the Democrats, and Democrats not actually meeting the core demands of their constituency.
Or maybe not....
Maybe someday we'll have people blame the DNC for choosing to back unpopular opinions/policies losing the popularity contest against "Literal Evil Fascist with the Playbook of How To Do Evil 101, but Fox News said it's cool".
But instead we need a new scapegoat for when Greens come in 4th place to the Libertarian's "I just wanna date this 14 year old with my rifle and say the N-word out loud without backlash."
the DNC is choosing unpopular policy? Brother this is a representative democracy. If harris wins, it's because it was the popular policy/stances. There is literally no alternative here unless you thing there is a deep state rigging the elections or that the majority of the american populous isn't real or something lmao.
Uhh.... No. Fracking isn't even popular as a majority position in PA where she's pushing it. But she's gonna anyways cause for some reason the minority is the "better" place to scrape votes from?
And in a 2 party system if one side is "literally evil" the other basically knows they have a blank check to run on as long as it's not the same policy as the evil side or else why would voters swap sides when evil wasn't a disqualifier?
We have polls that literally tell us what the popular positions are. Harris is not listening to those so whatever the reason is its not popularity.
oh im sorry i didn't realize kamala was running for the federal presidential role of PA specifically.
this is sort of true, but a substantial chunk of US voters believe that kamala harris is the "evil" not donald trump. so this isn't exactly a bull in a china shop situation here. This is more like a bull vaguely around a china shop.
i mean that's a fair statement, but she wouldn't be running on fracking if she thought it was detrimental, so it's either not a huge concern for most voters, or there is something more than being let on in the rhetoric here.
At the very least we know kamala will more than likely support a real EPA, so maybe the idea is to push environmental concerns from fracking into the territory of the EPA and local areas, rather than doing a federal ban on fracking. Which i would be fully in support of. The EPA should absolutely have more power.
You're begging the question here. If Democrats paid attention to their voters we wouldn't be having this conversation. Generally, critics of Dem strategy believe that they are too beholden to wealthy donors.
Democrats blame Jill Stein for Clinton's loss. But Dems can't force her not to run again, or people not to vote for her. If Kamala doesn't win, it will be because she didn't convince enough people to vote for her, not because Jill Stein is running.
dems absolutely can't handle this
are you proposing that a candidate should work to appeal to 100% of their voter base, rather than the most broad constituent beliefs of it? The wealthy donor thing is a problem, over party lines, that's an interesting one to solve so i'm not really surprised there.
But to be fair, if we did stop fracking, it might be detrimental to the oil market right now, considering the position that the global oil industry is in, is, less than ideal. So there is also a reason to push for fracking given the current global market at the moment.
i consider this a voter skill issue, rather than a candidate issue, just vote for the better person lmao. Voting for stein is like voting for a brick wall, except one that wastes money.
Less a proposal and more of a fact: People won't vote for a candidate who does not support the issues that they support. You can't expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.
If Kamala supports fracking and the majority of voters do not, it is up to her to change, not the voters.
Yeah... Democrats want to blame the voters so they can continue to court wealthy donors. If everyone in Michigan promises to "Vote Blue No Matter Who" then they can continue arming Israel without losing any Muslim votes. Unfortunately that's not how things work.
it's not a fact, it's a statement, arguably a fallacy. The whole point of running as a candidate is to appeal to the most voters, you're going to lose some here and there, but the general idea is to appeal most broadly to as many as you can. This is why we have a two party system, if this wasn't the case, we wouldn't have one. We wouldn't have a multi party system either, we would have a single party system based purely on only pushing legislation that everyone agrees with.
Idk where the misunderstanding is happening here, but if you don't want to vote for kamala that's fine, you're legally allowed to do so, and morally encouraged to vote for whoever you want. However that doesn't make you decision sound or logical, nor does it make you entitled to any particular representation.
i don't believe i have ever said this, i just said that MI might not vote for kamala, who cares, it's an arguably stupid choice to do, but that's a choice they can make. Like i said it's most effective to focus on the moderates in literally every other state.
ok so, no, technically not, it's only to the extent that support is required, and that people require direct representation on that issue. Things like kamala not being 80 years old, and being a woman, are gong to be more impactful than things like "actually i think we should continue with current energy policy"
Also to be clear, you're arguing for an absolutist democracy here, a state where the people opt to elect a fascist, thus a fascist gets in power, and the end of democracy happens. I think most people would agree that this shouldn't be possible. Sometimes popular sentiment is just wrong this is why the founding fathers constructed the government the way it is, with the electoral college, and the three branches. It's intended to operate in a mostly isolated fashion from the public. Even the directly representative people within it, are not directly representative. They're not meant to be. That's why we still have a government.
And just so we're on the same page here, if this does dock her enough public support that she is going to lose, she should dock this point, and move forward. However i don't see that happening because i don't think people care at all. And even if they did, it's secondary, either locally, state level, or not at any government level.
it's just basic game theory. We have the option between losing 100000 dollars, or losing 1000 dollars, you're going to choose 1000 dollars every time. You could choose 100000 dollars in protest, but that would be stupid. Granted this isn't a direct analogy here. You still see the same forces operating here, trump if elected, at the loss of MI in this weird hypothetical. Would lead to a scenario in which muslim MI voters literally caused more death and destruction to palestine, lebanon or whatever.
This is kind of like if every farmer held a national strike. It would fuck everything up. Generally essential industries are immune from organized strikes for this particular reason.
It can go both ways here, democratic voters can vote for things against their ideals, and also be responsible for voting for things against their ideals. If you're a muslim living in MI and you don't vote or vote someone other than kamala, there is a non insignificant chance that you will directly influence the potential for a trump victory. While to be clear you are allowed to do this, it would be very silly. This just doesn't make sense. It might make sense if like, primaries were running, and kamala didn't have the popular support she currently does, but that's not what's happening.
idk maybe you just consider going against basic game theory and self preservation to be "courting the wealthy donors" but you've provided no evidence of the sort other than "kamala harris like oil as evidenced by the fracking" which is maybe evident. Regardless, this would still be a separate issue, something to do with campaign finance laws and legality of donating money to super pacs and what not, this is irrelevant in any of these cases, and arguably another fallacy.
jesus christ this thread is a fucking nightmare bro
i feel like i've done three pounds of ketamine just scrolling through these comments.
Its the genocide thats the problem-- Steins numbres are small.. And Jill Stein owes the dems nothing, she can run if she wants. Thats what democracy is about. So the new republic can suck it.
Everything you said is true. But it has nothing to do with the article. It's about how her campaign seems to be more a grift than pushing green policies, and aimed at taking votes from Harris in swing states than actually trying to win any election.
She can obviously do what she wants, but it doesn't appear she is being genuine.
Okay, the dems no longer support Israel, now they will get smeared as hateful Antisemites.
Thats fine. Theres only 2% of the electorate who are jewish, and a good portion of that 2% also dont support the zionist faction. We give some of them and the youth voters a voice to fight on our behalf. We need to keep the youth vote on side or the party is long term doomed anyway. Any leader who says they are swayed by the voice of youth has a long career ahead of them.
We also say that, "we arent steering the US away from support of Israel, we're steering it away from the far right government sponsored violence of Netenyahu." And we claim we're happy to be friends again when moderates or lefties are in charge in Israel. The zionists cant pretend to have clean hands, and Netenyahu needs to go.
Media coverage can make or break a campaign. They absolutely destroyed Jeremy Corbyn for being pro-Palestine.
We could declare we're now neutral because we have to follow the Leahy laws. Pull our military back, no more UN coverage, no more weapons. The "war" will calm down real quick.
I'm not sure who she's gonna actually end up hurting this time. I gotta imagine anyone who falls for the Jill Stein shtick is likely to fall for Trump's too.
This gives big "RFK Jr. will steal votes from Kamala"
Kamala Harris can win over all of those Jill Stein voters with a single sentence.
Stupid Jill Stein's entire campaign is based on the premise that Democrats would keep a genocide going for an entire year into election season.
Let’s completely forget everything but the election for this hypothetical. Do you think Harris coming out and saying “I will immediately stop supporting Israel” she will automatically win? Or do you think it’s more likely the Jewish community would condemn her words and move over to the rubber stamp in chief who would give Israel even more support with fewer conditions? (Ignoring the personal favors he asks for of course.)
Yall act like this is a simple black and white issue, when it’s obviously not. Even when you boil it down to “just” the election.
Oooh, so Kamala is playing 5D chess and will do an about-face on Biden's genocide policy when she enters office? Because her past record is so stellar on this issue? Like that time she had wine from an illegal settlement served at the White House? She and her boss wipe their ass with the rule of all and all pretensions of even basic human morality on an international level, but she's not Trump!
Strawman much? Or are you arguing with voices I can’t hear?
Edit: Y’know what? I’m curious. How do you envision her coming out against Israel going? Let’s hear your version of how things would go, because I can’t hear these arguments as anything other than “I support Trump.”
So please, enlighten me as to how this would go down without Trump being elected and making the situation worse.
Do you think you're on The West Wing or something? You'll have your curiosity sated when you learn to step out of the Blue MAGA bubble and engage with reality.
🤦♂️ That isn’t a strawman.
No, of course not, it's just saying their argument is something that it isn't. I swear there is a term for that.
To be fair, I get it. Because I can't hear your arguments as anything other than "I support genocide".
Stating what I take the arguments as, is absolutely not a strawman. At no point did I say “you are stating that you want Trump to win, why would you say that?”
If you need me to define strawman arguments, I can. But it might be better if you just googled it instead.
Of course you could always shove your head deeper in that hole if you like. Perhaps going “lalalalala” while doing so.
Pot calling the kettle black a bit aren't ya?
And no, you didn't commit a classical literal strawman, but then again neither was the argument you threw the same accusations at. More accurately, they were begging the question, with the assumed conclusion being we all agree genocide is bad and therefore should be stopped. And that if Kamala does not commit to stopping (or at least mitigating) the genocide before the election, she is very unlikely to do it after. A point you are constantly avoiding to maintain your false dichotomy that the only two options are full support for the genocide, or Trump in the Whitehouse.
And since you were misusing the strawman fallacy, I didn't think you would be a stickler for its definition.
Regardless, it was just so unbelievably hypocritical of you to (incorrectly) accuse them of strawmanning your argument and in the same comment attempt to reduced the value of their argument to "supporting Trump" just to strengthen your unsupported conclusion. I just couldn't resist pointing it out. Next time I'll be sure to assume you can't read between the lines and spell everything out for you.
Now, you are free to go back to shoving your head up your hole and going "lalalala" when ever anyone mentions the United State's role in the ongoing genocide. Just remember to have a big frown on your face when it's brought up so everyone knows it wasn't your fault.
Yes an arms embargo net her an easy win.
The Jewish community does not care about sending infinite weapons to Netanyahu.
Ah yes, in a world where simply protesting the murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians is branded “antisemitism,” directly preventing military aid to Israel will somehow be perfectly fine.
Please, tell me more about this magical fairytale land you live in, it certainly seems a hell of a lot more likable than reality.
Netanyahu is campaigning for Trump. Coming out against a foreign pm because that pm is helping your election competitor shouldn't be that difficult to pull off.
Dumbest shit I've ever read
Genocide is not a core tenant in the Jewish faith. To say all Jews are Zionists is incredibly antisemitic.
Republicans hate this one simple trick!
They really do, oddly enough, for multiple reasons.
Yeah remember when they were all clamoring for Biden to drop out? And he did? They just fucking moved the goalposts.
They do not give a fuck about Gaza. It's just a tool to hurt Democrats.
If you took half that energy and redirected it towards getting your candidate to stop funding genocide, you might convince actual humans to vote for your genocidal cop.
If Trump wins it's not Jill Stein's fault you psycho.
Technically you’re right. But it absolutely will be the non-voters fault, and considering that a vote for Shill Stein is the same thing as throwing away a vote for no good reason…
It’s say it’ll be her supports fault.
Or its an easy group to blam a cause they are visible and with same fancy logic and math you can pretend their votes belonged to the Democratic Party. You can't just assume they would have voted that way. They can even write in. Non voters are an issue but blaming another group is liking blaming Jews because they work at the bank you think took your house.
Its crazy conspiracy and emotional logic at best.
Just not helping
Democracy, where you have freedom of speech except if you speak about Israel, or your own country war crimes, or your own country foreign policy, or trying to run for office if you are not Democrat or Republicans.
It seems no one is keeping Shill Stein from exercising her freedom of speech.
I'm ashamed I fell for her scam in 2016, was in CA though so wasn't worried my vote would directly help the orange waste of baryonic matter.
I'm sorry but, Is that weird neck thing shes wearing...chain link fence patterned
It is a fishnet pattern keffiyeh (Palestinian headdress), as she seems to be wearing it around a lot to appear as the most pro-Palestinian candidate.
From NPR
just googled around a little and im not the only one that sees a chainlink fence...I suppose it fits the current state of gaza too.
If you want to vote third party but don’t like the greens, the party for socialism and liberation is running de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood!
Aint nobody voting for Jill Stein lmao
"Both siders" do
A lot of them don’t even live in America, and a portion of those that do, aren’t old enough to vote. Those that remain are probably such a small percentage of the total so as to not really be relevant.
And we know for certain that there are quite a few “both-sides’ers” here on lemmy that have no legal vote because they’re foreign. As far as the age, that’s just a theory of mine.
Sorry buddy, I've lived through enough presidential elections to know that you're absolutely wrong.
hate to "BURST" your bubble, but Trump is destroying america and destroying the Republican do nothing party! and Democrats are winning hands down!
Preemptively rolling out that “Democrats losing is the fault of everyone except the Democrats” narrative, again.
Must have seen the MN polling numbers…
OK so we are picking the new scape goat this election cycle?
She picked herself. Let’s not victimize Shill Stein here. Her lack of policy, and unwillingness to lift a finger three out of every four years really helped her solidify her role as the source of her own problems.
Thankfully, and with additional hope- she’s done and we won’t have to hear from her after November.
Hopefully not even her shitty folk rock albums.
I’m not even going to look that up.
If Trump wins, it might not literally be your fault, but we'll remember that you were okay taking the risk of another Trump term just to cast a protest vote. We'll remember you aren't an ally to anti-fascism.
You have the right to vote however you want to, but when you tell us that you plan to try to throw the election in Trump's favor, we'll be listening and we'll believe you. And if you get what you want, we won't forgive you.
You can write your forgiveness down on a peice of paper and fold it till its all sharp corners and jam it, for all any of us care
The dems need progressive votes to win much of anything, whether they will admit it or not, the numbers dont lie. Pushing to the right so you can get "independent" voters has never worked, but the dems try it in every election. So you should be asking if progressives will forgive you. If Harrs didnt take AIPAC bribes she'd already have the numbers to win. But she took the dirty foreign fascist bribes so here we are. Try the carrot for a change. Your stick is laughable.
Hey I didn't say I was voting for her. I'm just pointing out the emotional animosity of finding an easy scapegoat. This is literally proving my point that it's just an emotional answer.
You just want someone to blame.
Wow its not the youth and progressives this time, I'm stoked. Yeah um, fuck those Stein voters they are the worst. Dont they know how democracy works?
/s
They don't. I've been trying to explain basic political concepts to my older cousin for 20 years and he's been voting for Jill Stein at every turn, and then pretended to be disappointed that a republican won as a nepobaby landlord that hates paying taxes.
People who will vote for a Russian sponsored Republican spoiler are too stupid to be trusted with anything. Or they are morally bankrupt and smart enough to hide it.
Jesus fucking Christ. You win by getting more people to vote for you! If Harris loses, it will be her own fault.
It's not about Harris losing, it's about Trump winning. You're either pragmatic and know that Harris is the only chance we have to prevent that, or you're privileged as shit and know that you'll survive the rise of Fascism if he wins. You definitely know you won't be one of the millions of people he oppresses if your priority is anything but keeping Trump out of the White House.
If Kamala loses it will be her fault. The fact that we'll all suffer for it is beside the point. You might think it's irrelevant, but establishment Dems lose over and over again by ignoring what the left tells them, then they turn around and blame the left. Continuing to indulge their delusions just leads to more losses.
This really isn't about Trump anymore. The Republican party has been transformed, and every single Republican candidate for the foreseeable future is going to be just as much a threat to democracy as Trump, if not more so.
The Greens hurt Democrats far less than the libertarians hurt Republicans, and neither is going anywhere. Democrats need to focus on being better candidates, not finding someone else to blame.
So Harris should pander better. Otherwise she's clearly not taking the seriousness of a Trump win seriously enough. Pander better.
Yea because of Biden and uhhhh the country on the other side of the globe killing its neighbors.
That'll show her
🤡
Maybe they should stop sending unlimited bombs to the psychos air striking refugee tents?
::: spoiler New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for New Republic:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://newrepublic.com/article/187038/jill-stein-green-party-grifter-hand-trump-white-house ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
If Kamala loses of course it will be everyone else’s fault. Fucking race/class traitor neolib cop.
Yawn….
Typical.
Exactly. That’s why I yawned.
I blame your parents. You never had a chance little one…
Ahhh. The pure-as-a-dove civility of a far leftist when they have no argument.
Gotta love it.
Jill Stein isn't going to hand Trump anything. Only people who vote for Trump can do that.
Or people that vote for Stein instead of Harris.
Sure. But they won't anyways. It doesn't matter if you think Kamal a Harris is owed the votes if the person can't vote for Jill Stein but there is no reason to think they would vote that way at all.
You can't control other people or expect them to suddenly pick another option if they have one in mind.
I don't get where this idea that all those votes belong to the Democratic party. They could write in or not vote or vote red or other non party... Why is it that everyone focuses in on these votes? Is it a comfort blanket? Because it seems delusional if you step back from it.
Pretty sure that they don't count Stein votes for Trump. Only Trump votes can make Trump win.
How are we this late in the game and people STILL believe that nonsense? What the fuck are schools teaching people nowadays?
Not sure which nonsense you're referring to.
So folks, this is an example as to why the EPA banned lead based paint in domiciles and public buildings in the 80's.
History sure is neat, huh?!
How old do you think I am?
Hillary handed trump the WH last time
Okay, maybe it's not so black and white.... But she definitely contributed.
Blue Maga setting up a punching bag as an excuse.
Green's not even polling in measurable numbers yet here we are. Blue Maga doesn't want to be held accountable for their pro-genocide candidate.
Stein doesn't even get 1% in any state and yet the media props her up, but chooses to ignore Libertarian shit-for-brains, despite more money and states they have on the ballot.
Pied Piper, ignoring the rust belt, a shit candidate with shitty politics. She overwhelmingly contributed.
Finally, something on which we can agree.
How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately "elevated" Donald Trump with its "pied piper" strategy
Everything she touches she screws up with hubris - Colin Powell
All the weird Jill Stein hate on here is what made me decide to vote for her lol. Just sent in my ballot last week. Don't worry I'm not in a swing state. 🤣
Given your reason, you seem like her ideal demographic. Hope it was worth it.
Thanks friend 🙂. What exactly did it cost me?
Its not what it cost ya, its what it says about you. You are little more than a contrarian a reactionary in all but name, an ideological dead end.
I guess all of us were 14 at one point....
Yeah but they claim to be able to vote which means they are at minimum 18.
Ooh, there it is. Love it when y'all tell the truth.
In reality, at least for people living outside of swing states, the reason you care how we vote has nothing to do with affecting the outcome, it's because of what it expresses. It's an expression of disloyalty to your little sports team. Ofc, if we're regarding it from the perspective of it as expression, than we ought to express support for good things and opposition to bad things, which can be done more effectively by supporting a party that actually represents our interests - which is why libs generally stand by the pretense that votes in safe states are relevant to the outcome, because otherwise you don't really have a leg to stand on.
Dignity
Lol so dramatic
That’s a weird way to say “Harris ticket fails to motivate voters to their side”
To clarify, Stein is a literal compromised grifter.
So is most of the RNC. I remember that 4th of July emergency flight to Moscow to hand deliver a letter to Putin.
It’s not hard to beat these people. Unless you’re liberal I guess.
People doing completely conspiracy level of math with thinking you can just add those votes to Harris and she would win as a cope.