540
They're been quiet for seventy days now.
(lemmy.world)
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 13 Jan 2025
540 points (85.8% liked)
Political Memes
9038 readers
522 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The only way to create a viable third party is to vote for them. America needs a third choice.
Wrong, you create a viable third choice through effective, bold, and charismatic leadership and an incredibly strong marketing campaign. Our third parties seem happy to pull the outliers and disillusioned voting population, but you won't win an election with that.
The only way we're getting an actual third choice is by making something that's equal to or bigger in presence to our primary parties in terms of media representation and spectacle. None of the ones that exist today are pulling that off any time soon.
This talking point again. What are you accusing them of doing or not doing - specifically? What should political parties do in between elections? What are they doing that you have researched? What are you claiming that they haven't done? What does "asking why nobody takes them seriously" mean? Who asked this, and when? What does it mean to "whine through the election" - pointing out how the two main parties are a genocidal machine? Is that "whining"? Is that accurate, insightful political critique? I would frame it as the latter. Why are are you framing it as the former? What is your axe to grind here? Why are you speaking with such bias?
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_politicians_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States
Have you ever visited this page?
Any insight into how lobbies actually fight to exclude politicians that upset corrupt political norms? Look what happened to Cori Bush this past election. That's a Democrat and they still abandoned her. How does the Green Party fight against that kind of influence. Clearly that needs actual grassroots, popular support. Have you offered any? How much time in your life have you actually dedicated to exposing these kinds of machinations and doing things like canvassing for politicians? Zero? You just sit on social media and talk trash about the only people trying to accomplish something?
Why, because of some smear about her you read? Let me guess - the dinner at the RT event?
Right, so "report commissioned by the Senate", "some account supposedly from Russian troll farm mentioned supporting her", "she's invested in a mutual fund that has bad stocks", etc.
This "thirdway.org" source, on the surface, appears to be most damning, but that's until you start picking apart their claims. Why is this article so biased? Look at this:
But if you follow the link, they clipped out this:
Why'd they leave out the "disarmament" part? And in the PDF, that's in square brackets, meaning there's a whole context here - about nuclear disarmament maybe? - that's just completely omitted. What was the conversation with the Committee about? We can't even see the full context of this quote, because it's only available from this PDF - if you search for it, you get the smear article that you linked, and then that PDF itself.
Look at this heading too:
"and basically everything else"? Is this journalism or a smear? She is a hypocrite on EVERYTHING?
The actual content of the article is focused on the tactic of accusing her of some affiliation with Russia - which they REALLY strain to establish - and then just criticizing her for investing in a random Vanguard mutual fund. Buddy, if I log into my 401(k), Vanguard funds are like half of what they offer. They're not even individual stocks she's invested in, if she has an accountant or financial manager they probably just threw her money into a default set of investments. I'd like to see her not invested in those, sure, but this criticism applies to everyone in Congress a hundred times over, this is such a strain of a criticism.