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

politics

18651 readers
3985 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 62 points 9 months ago

Go fuck yourself Jill.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I always thought she'd make a better VP, particularly on the same ticket as Barney Frank.

Then I could vote for Frank And Stein.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Or maybe Al Franken? Even the spelling is right!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

Frank and Stein: We’re not the monster

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

No, he'll end up being the Attorney General

[–] [email protected] 37 points 9 months ago

Wish she just fuck entirely off instead.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It’s a transparently self-serving, irrational, and counterproductive decision to run again as a third party candidate. It just exposes her arrogance and lack of actual consideration for the health of the country. If she thought she could realistically win, then she should try to primary Biden on the Democratic ticket. Anything else is actively destructive. So disappointing.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Did you miss the part where every other time she's run, she was funded by Republicans for the sole purpose of being a spoiler?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Russian pawn jill stein?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (5 children)

The mentality of people who just hate and drag anyone who identifies dem, in this day and age, drives me crazy. Because "democrat" is just not a political identity. The only core philosophy behind being a democrat is belief in evidence-based policy, fairness and justice at least some of the time, and that government should fundamentally be allowed to do the work of governance. Any political view that fits in that framework can make it under the tent.

To be distinguished from the modern conservative wing, who think government should be butchered and sold off to the highest bidder, that fairness and justice are part of the woke mind virus, and evidence is conspiracy.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I want to see someone hold her feet to the fire on her more pseudoscience remarks now that conspiracy theories like that have drifted firmly into the conservative camp. Namely:

  • Does she still believe there are reasons to be hesitant about vaccines? Is her response to "Do vaccines cause autism?" more than a two letter word?

  • Can she provide the scientific papers which show that "wifi causes cancer"?

  • Could she explain why she's against nuclear energy despite all of the information showing it to be safe? And if she would support new reactor designs that are inherently safer?

  • If she recants all of it, what's her explanation for previously saying those things? Was she just pandering? And if so, what does that say about her "support" for a Green New Deal?

As someone in STEM who works for a green energy company, she needs to adequately answer all of these questions if she wants to earn my vote. Until then, she can go fuck herself.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

She's a nut job.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

Anyone have that picture of her with Putin and Michael Flynn?

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago (12 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Context note: that picture was taken at an RT (Russian state-backed propaganda outlet) dinner in a room full of powerful Russian oligarchs. Gorbachev was there but at a different table, and yet Jill Stein was one of the guests of honor at Putin's table. Also worth keeping in mind that this dinner took place in 2015--more than a year after Putin had first invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Never forget the company Jill Stein keeps.

jillstein.jpg

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Must have been taken before the Ukraine full scale invasion. The table isn't nearly long enough then for Putin.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (5 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 9 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 9 months ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Dunno, but she only ever manages 1% of the vote. ;)

This site says she has a net worth of $37 million.

https://www.caclubindia.com/wealth/jill-stein-net-worth/

https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/are-you-in-the-top-1-percent

"In order to be in the top 1% of household wealth in the U.S., you’d need to be worth at least $10,374,030.10, according to Forbes. To be in the top 1% globally, you’d need a minimum of around $936,430, according to the 2019 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Let her fight to the death with RFK Jr.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (92 children)

She knows what she's doing. Obvious spoiler campaign.

load more comments (92 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

And the crowd goes mild.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›