this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
-1 points (48.9% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4589 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Imagine if she decided to run for mayor or state senator or even congress. She might actually have a chance. Instead, it's always president or nothing.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

Yep. That's one of the many things that highlights how fraudulent the Green Party is.

They aren't interested in winning elections where they might be able to, or generally making real shifts in policy. They're only interested in splintering the most naive leftists away from the Democratic presidential candidate every 4 years. I only imagine the power players in that party collect a nice fat bag of cash and then sit back with their feet up until the start of the next presidential election cycle.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's not like the Green party has a shot at the presidency at all. If they wanted to make a difference they could caucus with Democrats and try to push them to the left.

But no it's just about brand awareness for goofy pseudoscience bullshit. And of course making it more likely that Trump will win.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Better yet, democrats could caucus with 3rd parties. That whole 'push them left' is bullshit that never happens. We heard that in 2020 and we ended up with another neolib that's condoning and funding ethnic cleansing.

We've done it the liberal way for decades and that doesn't work.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The party has moved demonstrably left in even the last decade.

And it does caucus with non Democrats. You've got Bernie and Angus King. There's a socialist in Virginia too. I think Sinema actually started out that way too, as a Green. Clearly, if a third party candidate can win in the primaries, Democrats are fine supporting them, or at least not running a spoiler.

The key part is winning a primary. If they can't get the majority of Democrat voters, they aren't going to come close to winning a general.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

she has run in other elections and won, but it's inconvenient to this line of attack to acknowledge it

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

In 2005, Stein set her sights locally, running for the Lexington Town Meeting, a representative town meeting, the local legislative body in Lexington, Massachusetts (pop 34k). Stein was elected to one of seven seats in Precinct 2. She finished first of 16 candidates, receiving 539 votes (20.6%). Stein was reelected in 2008, finishing second of 13 vying for eight seats.

I don't find anything "inconvenient" about acknowledging both local elections she won. If anything, it bolsters their position. She should run for Mayor or perhaps state senate. The two elections she actually won demonstrate just how comically unqualified Jill Stein is for the presidency.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

She's won local elections, and you don't go from local to president. Until the Greens realize this and start building from the ground up in every state, they're nothing more than a joke.