-71
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 11 Sep 2024
-71 points (7.2% liked)
politics
19104 readers
1966 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's a fine take and I mean, I'd love to have the option to vote for that alternative, but realistically right now, none of us do. No matter which side of the aisle you're on, if you abandon the side you'd normally vote for to vote third party, you're only helping your own personal worst case scenario.
Really, all of these third party... parties should be focusing more on pushing for an alternate voting system. I know they say we should get away from two-party politics, but I rarely see any actual action taken to try and accomplish that. Ranked-choice was on the ballot 4 years ago in MA, but didn't pass, and if these third parties had poured their campaign budget into getting it passed, they'd be getting my vote in November. As it stands, they won't be. Their policies, frankly, don't matter, because we can't vote for them, as much as we'd like to, without voting against our own self-interests and really, those of the entire country.
Any third party that only focuses on the presidency isn't a real party. Jill Stein isn't actually running for president. She is simply a foreign agent of Putin trying to act as a spoiler against the Democratic ticket. That is literally the only reason she is running.
Real political parties try to build power from the ground up. You want your party to be a serious candidate for president? Try winning several hundred state house seats and least a few dozen US house seats, maybe a Senator or two. I disagree vehemently with the Libertarian Party, but I'll give them credit for being a real political party. Clowns like Stein, Kennedy, and West are just Republican agents running as spoiler candidates. They have zero intention of winning. Their only goal is to appeal to their own vanity and to syphon off a few percentage points from the Democratic candidate. That is the only reason they are running. They take Republican and Russian money and are doing the bidding of their masters. Anyone who even considered voting for them is a fool.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_politicians_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States (thanks to @SyntaxTerror@feddit.org for the info)
State-Level Green Party Officials (Former)
Current Green Party Mayors
Former Green Party Mayors
Current Green Party City & County Council Members
Former Green Party City & County Council Members
Other Green Party Local Officials (Current)
Other Green Party Local Officials (Former)
This list proves my point. They hold less than 1% of 1% of LOCAL positions. According to your list, they don't even hold a single seat in any statehouse in this country. It is an absolute disgusting joke that this party would seriously attempt to run a presidential candidate. This like an elementary school little league player trying out for an MLB team. It's a complete embarrassment, a clown show.
What kind of hubris do you have to have to think your party has any business putting up a candidate for president when you don't currently even a single God-damn state house seat?
And my point is that they don't just run in presidential elections.
Well, they've made enough of an impact that the democrats are really really mad at them and want them off the ballet. So for a clown show, they are causing quite a stir.
I'm not voting for her, but I have no issues with Jill Stein. I like her.
But what other elected office has Stein held?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein
"Stein began her political career by running as the Green-Rainbow Party candidate for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Her running mate was Tony Lorenzen, a high school theology teacher. She finished third in a field of five candidates, with 76,530 votes (3.5%), far behind the winner, Republican Mitt Romney.[14]
In 2004, Stein ran for state representative for the 9th Middlesex District, which included portions of Waltham and Lexington. She received 3,911 votes (21.3%) in a three-way race, ahead of the Republican candidate but far behind Democratic incumbent Thomas M. Stanley.[15]
In 2005, Stein set her sights locally, running for the Lexington Town Meeting, a representative town meeting, the local legislative body in Lexington, Massachusetts. Stein was elected to one of seven seats in Precinct 2.[16] She finished first of 16 candidates, receiving 539 votes (20.6%). Stein was reelected in 2008, finishing second of 13 vying for eight seats.[17] Stein resigned during her second term to again run for governor.[18]
At the Green-Rainbow Party state convention on March 4, 2006, Stein was nominated for Secretary of the Commonwealth. In a two-way race with the three-term incumbent, Democrat Bill Galvin, she received 353,551 votes (17.7%).[19]
On February 8, 2010, Stein announced her second candidacy for governor.[20] Her running mate was Richard P. Purcell, a surgery clerk and ergonomics assessor.[21] In the November 2 general election, Stein finished fourth, receiving 32,895 votes (1.4%), again far behind the incumbent, Democrat Deval Patrick.[22]"
She's a perennial candidate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_candidate
"A perennial candidate is a political candidate who frequently runs for elected office and rarely, if ever, wins.[1]"
I would agree with that about Jill Stein. But sometimes people are under the impression the entire green party is like that, which isn't true.
That's part of the liberal delusion we would not vote for a democrat or Republican, because we are not Democrats or Republicans. They do not represent the needs of the marginalized, the working class, They only represent the needs and the wants of the donor class. They only listen to the donor class While our needs get ignored.
Yep! Well said!
I do and I AM voting for an alternative.
That’s not bright of you. You going to clutch your pearls as Trump is inaugurated?
How about when he carries you off to a camp?
No, because I am not afraid of him. You can be, but I'm not. I'll vote for who I want. Thanks!
Don't be afraid of Trump for yourself, be afraid of Trump for women, minorities, the rule of government, and posterity if he forces Thomas and Alito off the court like he did Kennedy and gets 2 more Supreme Court picks.
You mean those same women and minorities that are currently under threat by the duopoly? The marginalized are still kept marginalized by Democrat as much as they would be a Republican. 50 years of Democrat inaction on women's rights led them to lose their reproductive rights.
Which Democrats are taking away reproductive rights? Or want to repeal womens rights to vote? It's not the duopoly doing that.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/21/politics/john-gibbs-womens-suffrage-19th-amendment-kfile/index.html
Democrats fundraising off Rpe for 50 years while promising to codify is what got women's reproductive rights taken away. Endless lip service is all they've ever been.
Peak white guy energy here.
“Fuck everyone else. I’m all that matters.”
And if Trump wins, we'll all remember that you didn't do your part, but I doubt you'll still be here if he wins, having accomplished your mission.