165

Jill Stein schooled on politics in brutal interview (www.salon.com)

submitted 5 days ago by skeezix@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 114 points 5 days ago

“It is amazing to hear you talk about women of color as parroting talking points instead of us looking at basic math,” Rye said. “The one thing AOC has done that you haven’t is win some elections.”

Solid point. Also, the fact that a candidate for the Presidency doesn't even know how many members there are in the House of Representatives shows just how little attention she pays to the basic mechanics of our government.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 49 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

As much as I’d love to have a legitimate third party to disappoint me, they’re not going to get anywhere if they can’t win outside of random local elections.

Show me a Green House rep, Senator, or Governor and then we’ll talk about how you’ll inevitably let me down after I vote for you. Until then I’m going to vote for the disappointments who can actually win office.

[-] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago

they’re not going to get anywhere if they can’t win outside of random local elections.

This point seems to be beyond the comprehension of some people (those who aren't bad faith trolls, anyway). I've had so many conversations with people, both online and in person, where they don't understand that a third party with no offices or political infrastructure cannot win and is just a spoiler party (and in the case of the green party, an obvious joke spoiler party).

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

Exactly. I get that they can't win everywhere, and that there's actually quite a few of them in office all over, but if they can't put up credible opposition to the Democrats at a multi-state level how the hell are they going to get elected to a national position?

I'm gonna make a deal with the Green Party: If you can get a Senator elected, I'll vote for you for president.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 48 points 5 days ago

A speed bump normally doesn't concern itself with the rules of the road; just has to disrupt the flow of traffic in the intended way.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 5 days ago

I already didn't think much of her but this has me convinced that she is unserious.

[-] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 102 points 5 days ago

Putin’s Jizz Stein wants Nato disbanded, the US to give up their SC veto, and revoke weapons to help Ukraine defend itself while simultaneously forcing ‘peace’ (subjugation) negotiations with russia.

For those that don’t understand how the Electoral College + FPTP voting works, voting for her means helping donald become president due to the spoiler effect.

2015 Stein breaking bread with Putin, his senior staff, and Mike Flynn (later Trump's national security advisor

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 58 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Putin’s Jizz Stein wants Nato disbanded

The only possible reason that someone would want NATO disbanded is because they are Russian shills. Russian aggression is the reason NATO exists.

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

they are Russian shills

Hey, the money is really, really good.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 5 days ago

I don't think troll farms get paid well, but I'm open to being personally proven wrong with a better offer.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 0 points 2 days ago

It's not that long ago that NATO was near it's end in fact, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/3/macron-stands-by-nato-brain-death-comment-in-clash-with-trump

Had Russia waited another decade or two, and it's conceivable that NATO would have been retired.

But no, they had to go and bring it back from it's deathbed: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/7/11/offensive-defence-how-putin-saved-nato https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/ukraine-revived-nato/

Talk about unintended consequences.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago

Piers Morgan asked her about this and she just sounds like an idiot. She apparently came to talk to Putin and got snubbed entirely.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 34 points 5 days ago

Maybe she was schooled, but I bet she learned nothing.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 days ago

Oh, she’s not an idiot. She didn’t need to learn anything. She knows what she’s doing. It’s intentional.

[-] scarabine@lemmynsfw.com 19 points 5 days ago

I am beginning to wonder if the person who keeps spamming this board with vapid third party posts and then refusing to ever engage in genuine non-adversarial discussion about them is deliberately trying to sour everyone here on third parties.

Like, a few months ago no one cared. Now though, EVERYONE is well armed with facts and opinionated as hell.

It’s probably the Streisand effect though! And it’s great to see.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago

I'm more inclined to think it's just a dedicated conservative troll that didn't really think things through. Everything about it is just too reactionary and knee-jerk.

I think the kids call it sea lioning? Where you use a facade of civility to break down a community with subtly divisive trolling.

[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 8 points 5 days ago

I would call it a mix of sealioning and concern trolling. Also be mindful of direct accusations as this person also enjoys reporting people for the slightest perceived rules infractions.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days ago

I couldn't possibly make myself complicit in the acts of the bothsides duopoly. That's why I will instead vote how the furthest right party wants people to. Additionally, I am on here all day every day campaigning for others to do the same, and that doesn't make me complicit in any acts because reasons.

[-] Diva@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago

I find Stein a bit grating, but I always finds greens hard to pin down politically. I'd much rather this air time have gone to someone like Claudia de la Cruz with something interesting to say and some principles to back it up

[+] SirDerpy@lemmy.world -14 points 5 days ago

Stein sucks. She's there because she pays Executive Committee bills. No one votes Green for candidate as that candidate can't win. They hope 5% vote Green, which would put their platform on every ballot in 2028, which would attract a quality candidate to represent it. There was an influx of new persons during COVID. Now, the masses must be inoculated with propaganda such that it cannot happen again when the DNC compromises everything they've promised us to suit corporate donors, once again.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 31 points 5 days ago

At least the Dems are not in favor of disbanding NATO.

[+] SirDerpy@lemmy.world -21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Of course not. The Democrats rely on the military industrial complex to pay the bills, just as the Republicans do. Neither is so stupid as to shit where they eat. Only Trump is that dumb.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

The revenues of all the military companies in the US are a small fraction of Apple's, much less the rest of the tech sector.

Gotta keep up with the times there gramps, or next you'll be forgetting things like we're a net energy exporter now.

[-] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

What do you count as military companies? Just things like Raytheon and Blackwater? Or do you include companies like Amazon and Kraft? If you're excluding companies like Google and MS from the MIC, you're greatly underestimating it...

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Fair question. Yes I was considering arms suppliers specifically. I'm not sure we can simply include every company that works with the military in any way though, it makes more sense to consider companies that get the majority of their profits from the military-affiliated work.

I would not count Kraft as part of the MIC for instance.

[+] SirDerpy@lemmy.world -7 points 5 days ago

Revenue is quite an oversimplification of geopolitics in a heavily interdependent economic paradigm, kiddo.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

Regardless, thinking the MIC is what pays the bills is just, frankly, wrong. Very outdated.

[+] SirDerpy@lemmy.world -7 points 5 days ago

You've invalidated my reasoning. Luckily, I can keep repeating my ageism.

Good luck with that, kiddo.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

No, you have not invalidated my reasoning I'm afraid, all you did was point out that revenues are not the whole picture. While true, this does not equate to the MIC being what suddenly pays the bills. To do so, it would have to either directly or indirectly contribute to the coffers the majority of the money spent. It does not, not even close.

You can blather about geopolitics all you want, but at the end of the day a budget is a budget, and most of the money comes from a very wide variety of domestic sources that the military has no relation to. The health care industry, for instance, does extensive lobbying to the parties. No military relation, and that's just one example.

Your ideas are out of date. By a couple decades. Which is extremely common on here, I wouldn't be surprised at all if you started discussing petro-dollars and an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East next, like so many of the other people on here.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024

165 points (94.1% liked)

politics

18870 readers

3857 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.
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.
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

• 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