523
Jill Stein Is Killing the Green Party
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
523 points (93.8% liked)
politics
18894 readers
3325 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And Stein's answer every single time this comes up?
"What about Gaza?"
She is literally an operative for Russia and the Republicans. This isn't even a meme or conspiracy theory, it's simply a plain truth.
I don't understand how a genocide can be taken so lightly. Some people have trouble casting a vote for any political party that sponsors one.
I've given more details elsewhere, but the short version:
We can classify US presidential votes into three categories:
The most effective vote to make on an anti-genocide platform is #1.
Voting for a Republican is voting for a party that appears to be profoundly okay with the genocide in Gaza AND wants to start some genocides of their own (e.g. against trans folks, immigrants and racial minorities). This is the most pro-genocide vote.
Voting for a Democrat is voting for a party that has a fairly significant group that opposes the genocide, and which appears to be movable on the topic.
Any other vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. On the presidental front, there is no chance in this election that anyone other than a candidate from one of the main two parties is elected, and that's also true for most senate or house races. (Possibly all, but I don't want to make that strong claim since I haven't actually researched all the races.) Voting for a candidate who you know won't win is explicitly choosing not to have a say between the tho feasible candidates.
I do have one caveat though...
If you live in West Virginia for example, it's a bit more complex. There your choice is essentially "the Republican or not the Republican," so third-party/independent moves into category 1. However, then I'd argue that voting for the Democrat for president may still be the preferable response because if the Republican wins the electoral college but, (as has happened in every presidential election since 1990 except 2004) the Democrat still wins the popular vote, it further delegitimises the Republican's presidency and the electoral college.
You put it much much better than I ever could. Best comment 10/10
The other thing I don't understand is all the anger and vitriol from you guys. Everyone who lives in the US and contributes tax dollars to the federal government supports genocide. The US has been supporting Israel unconditionally for decades. Do you really think Kamala Harris is sincere about stopping this, given how Biden's administration has handled the situation? Or any other Democrat or Republican since Carter?
They do more then what Trump does. Regardless by letting Tump win you are saying you are okay with the genocides going on in Ukraine. At least more might survive under Harris. Under Trump they will die too. And you will be every bit as guilty as anyone who voted for trump because you could not get over your ego and do the littlest fucking thing for your beliefs.
Does anyone in the green party even have experience on the federal level?
Again, not understanding where the anger is coming from. I'm not even supporting a specific candidate. I'm pointing out that 3d parties that take a stand against US imperialism will always have support, because neither major party can be trusted in this regard. And again, for some people, this is a line they won't cross. I'll stop now because clearly this is unproductive.
Amen, brother! I'm socialist and voting third party, and Lemmy practically hates me and insults me every day.
Good so see someone else who is questioning the Duopoly. Stay strong, brother!
You're actively getting in the way of stopping a genocide. Of course people are angry at you.
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
Yes because support for Israel is a complicated issue. All of the middle east is a complicated issue. We were spurned on by guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen and then groups like AIPAC have spent millions(probably billions at this point) to make lack of support for Israel be considered antisemitism. And both democrats and republicans are supported by not only large numbers of Jewish Americans who believe that whole heartedly but a huge number of non-Jewish people who've been convinced of it as well. So no candidate who opposes Israel directly can get elected, literally ever. Because literally millions of Americans will vote against them just for uttering even the slightest waiver of support for Israel. Meanwhile Arabs in the middle east have made themselves well hated by most Americans through acts of terror against us for the last 60 years. So a large plurality of otherwise liberal Americans don't really care that Israel is wiping out Palestinians. Especially after Hamas gave Israel such a great excuse by attacking a bunch of innocent people at a rock concert and taking all those hostages.
So yes. The Democrats are using kid gloves to try to put a stop to what Israel is doing in Gaza. Because if they didn't, they would lose millions of votes of support. And since republicans don't give a shit about genocide, they are more than happy to pay lip service to AIPAC and Israeli interests. Meanwhile Trump and his allies are drawing up their plans to literally end our own democracy should he get elected.
But hey, you're voting you conscience and choosing to toss your vote in the garbage by voting for the one candidate that opposes Israel. Cause she's come out of hiding once again to stamp her name on a ballot and give you that peace of mind.
I support the college protestors even when people say they're hurting the cause, but I would say Jill Stein definitely hurts the cause.
I think you're suggesting Trump would be worse than Harris for the cause. But my point is that a lot of people feel that voting for either is sanctioning genocide, and Stein fills that niche by condemning it. It's pretty low-hanging fruit for a politician.
I'm legitimately curious as to how college protestors could be hurting the cause.
Jill Stein can't even call Putin a war criminal: https://youtu.be/h1JUMeWaBVg
A messenger who is inconsistent on genocide is not a good messenger of genocide.
I know, it's like when Jews bring up the Holocaust all the time. So annoying!
Imagine being such a scumbag that you make fun of the Holocaust because you don't like a country that didn't exist in 1944. Or is it maybe the race of people you don't like
Right, making a joke about a past Holocaust is so much worse then implicitly endorsing one your own country is perpetrating right now.
So this is about Jews not Israelis. Got it. Glad the mask is off
No this is about how your righteous indignation about the Jewish Holocaust is complete BS because you refuse to speak out against one your letting happen now. You would have been a coward then as you are now.
Says the American, who has genocided half the world without an apology. Your people genocided mine and called us all sorts of names. Now you've moved on and want to take the moral high ground while there's a line of bodies and blood behind you
I was against those genocides too. The Zionist brain is so diseased that they really believe they can justify genocide by saying "Not fair, you did it too!" Ahahahah
Your brain is so diseased you call people Zionists without any meaning. I guess you may as well throw every person of color you don't like today into the batch right? Throw the baby out with the bath water.
lol you guys give in to propaganda so fucking easily
😂 🤡
The ronald dump supporter thinks other people are the ones vulnerable and susceptible to propaganda.
Pure fucking comedy.
It's almost like the 3rd parties have 0% chance of winning even a single electoral vote.