While Ms. Stein condemns both “zombie political parties” as tools of Wall Street and war profiteers, her campaign has focused largely on hammering Ms. Harris, blaming the White House she serves for relentless violence in Gaza and Lebanon.
And Democrats, as never before, are focused on Ms. Stein.
The party has prepared a negative ad blitz for the election’s final weeks, its first-such effort ever directed at a third-party candidate. Fearful that Ms. Stein might divert critical votes in places like Michigan, Democrats are also pressing their case on billboards plastered recently across swing states:
“Jill Stein Helped Trump Once. Don’t Let Her Do It Again.”
She dismisses the “spoiler mythology” that has come to define her mainstream identity, noting — accurately enough — that some of her supporters would never back Ms. Harris anyway.
She says that Democrats would do well to look inward, disputing that she bears any responsibility for Mr. Trump’s fortunes, then or now.
“Those conversations never go anywhere,” Ms. Stein, 74, said in a wide-ranging interview.
We are maybe talking past each other? You responded to a comment asking where Jill Stein was the last 4 years, which is a question attached to the argument that her lack of efforts in the off years is evidence that she is not running a serious candidacy. You responded by asking what about the two big party candidates offseason's actions, implying that you believe their actions are deficient under a similar line of critique. I pointed out that they did campaign to increase the standing of their platform and their party through lower level elections in the off years, which seems like a pretty strong rebuttal to the implication that they are not actively working to promote their positions throughout government. Perhaps you can explain why you view that as irrelevant
Two levels of comment replies (both yours) and five hours since I said this and you're acting like we're talking past each other when you're just ignoring what I say.
But as a side note: "they positioned themselves within their major party" as your response boils down to reads as bullshit to me. That doesn't count. The correct answer is they've done nothing. Harris has been sitting in a dark room doing laudanum and showing up to give policy speeches that would make Biden look bad if he gave them himself ("Don't come"). Trump has been doing cocaine and being a media removed. (sex worker)
You're just playing Calvinball filling in reasonable details to answer the question "what makes a serious candidate" so you don't have to just come out and say "one of the two parties nominates them"
You asked a question (where have Kamala and Trump been?). I answered in what I believe was a relevant manner to the topic at hand and is a salient rebuttal of your "observation". I don't see how your claim to not care is relevant, you're going to have to explain that one to me. For the record, I'm not the person you were replying to, nor have I watched a single episode of Maddow
Okay now you're just being belligerent. Your "response" has nothing to do with the subject that was presented at you and you're just trying to "win" with "attitude" rather than "having a point".
Once again showing off your reading ability by pointing out something I said explicitly already. You're such a smart person who has valuable things to say! Sufferable! Not insufferable!
Holy God that lives in the sky I can't wait for you to reply again.