328

ABCnews

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Couple of points: I like Cornel West. I used to listen to him regularly on the Tavis Smiley Show, and while I disagree with his religion, I generally approve of his politics.

The amount he owes is concerning, because it makes him vulnerable to undue influence, in the same way that Trump was. I don't really care that he owes back taxes, the child support is a problem IMO. People should take care of their kids, period. He's got the money to do it.

That said, I don't want him running as a Green; I want him running as a Democrat. Greens are largely fringe candidates, and the votes they win are votes that would likely otherwise go to Democratic candidates. Unfortunately, in our current system, that makes it probable that, unless there's a similarly popular Libertarian candidate taking votes from the Republican candidate, that the Republican is more likely to win. I am not a fan of Democrats; I find that they are unwilling to go nearly far enough on most things, and I strongly oppose their stance on 2A rights. But I oppose Republican far, far more. Given that I have a practical choice between Dems and Republicans at a national level, I'll vote Dem 95% of the time (I think I've voted Republican once or twice, but I honestly don't remember who, or under what circumstances). If Greens can demonstrate, through local and state level wins, that they have the power to win national elections, then I'll be happy to vote Green. And I do vote Green at a local level. But so far, they just aren't winning locally or at state levels in sufficient numbers to indicate that they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a national election, much less a presidential election. West shoudl step aside once he's made a strong showing and convinced Biden to adopt some of his platform.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

the votes they win are votes that would likely otherwise go to Democratic candidates

citation needed.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Here's a source for you. Note that People's World is a socialist new organization.

From the article, "The GOP has a long history of using the Green Party as a tool to siphon votes that might go to Democrats and of playing a spoiler role in our two-party, winner-take-all electoral system. And the Green Party leadership has opportunistically embraced the support, playing the role of what some describe as 'useful idiots.' [...] In 2016, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein garnered 30,000 votes in Wisconsin; Trump won the state by 23,000 votes."

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There's an entirely other way of reading that data, which is to say that Hillary could have picked up 30,000 more votes in Wisconsin if she had been a better candidate and run a better campaign.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I was asked for a source, I provided one.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

this does not prove that i would have voted for hilary clinton in 2016. because i wouldn't have.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't either--I voted Green--but the state I lived in at the time went solidly for Clinton. I didn't like her then, I don't like her now, but if I'd lived in a state where it would have been even remotely close, I would have voted for her rather than Trump.

I disagree with Clinton's politics. I disagree with Trump's existence.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I didn’t either–I voted Green–but the state I lived in at the time went solidly for Clinton.

i voted for jill stein, too, and my state went to trump. i didn't want him to win. i also didn't want clinton to win. that's why i didn't vote for either of them.

jill stein wasn't a spoiler: she was the candidate i wanted to win.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

i disagree with both their politics.

this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
328 points (90.2% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2598 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS