this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024

529 points (94.2% liked)

politics

19126 readers

2596 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

• 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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

529

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Lashes Out at 'Predatory' Jill Stein (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

425 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 7) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

She wrote in a second post, "Democrats sue to kick us off ballots, hire operatives to infiltrate and sabotage us, lock us out of debates, fight ranked-choice voting, then act concerned that Greens have only won 1400 elections. So which party is authentic, and which is predatory?"

Not wrong. But I still think you're dishonest for continuing to court peoples' votes when you aren't on the ballot in enough states to win.

In her 2017 book, What Happened, Clinton wrote: "So in each state, there were more than enough Stein voters to swing the result."

No. You're just unlikable.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

And how many millions of "centrist" suburbanites that voted for Obama but not Clinton get balmed for her loss? Why are those to the left of the Democratic Party line always blamed while those to the right are coveted? Republicans are always turning extreme rightwing positions into mainstream issues, so why cant the left do the same? Either Leftists are an insignificant voting block, or their support for leftist candidates is as sabotaging the Democrats. You have to pick one.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 76 points 2 months ago (28 children)

Look, whatever you think of Jill Stein, she can only be a threat to democrats because they are vulnerable to arguments from the left. If you don't want to be vulnerable from the left, adopt some of their popular ideas. Putin isn't tricking Americans into being anti genocide, or into wanting universal health care.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I do think RCV would be a better system than what we have now, but I have very little confidence that it could ever be implemented without some loopholes that would essentially undermine it.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

She can only be a threat to democrats in a first past the post voting system.

The Green party doesn't run on its policies. They've opposed nuclear for decades, and we'd be having a very different conversation about global warming if they hadn't basically won there. They have opposed WiFi and cell phone radiation as "cancer causing", and have supported homeopathy. If they ran on their policies, they would find a dwindling number of people on the left who actually support them, because they're vestigial loons concocted in a 1960s hippie lab.

The Green party runs on being the only party on the left that's bigger than almost nothing. That's it, that's all they do.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 months ago (1 children)

She isn't so much making arguments from the left, but arguments from fantasy land. She thinks wifi is bad for kids brains and that we can stop using fossil fuels AND nuclear by 2030. Most of what she says simply had no basis in reality.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Are those the arguments you think that are siphoning off democratic voters?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Lots of people live in fantasy lands, not just the diehard Trumpers

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (16 children)

Sure. Even plenty of dem voters! But just to be clear, do you think that the WiFi issue or the genocide issue is costing democrats more potential votes?

load more comments (16 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

The spoiler effect is a geometric problem, a problem of the relative positions of candidates. It has nothing to do with how strong or good of a candidate someone is.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I know there are plenty of arguments to hit the dems on from the left. However, most of the attacks I'm privy to seem to be more about establishing leftist cred than actually doing something productive, and Jill Stein is one of the best examples of this.

[+] [email protected] -9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's not clear to me what you mean here. Are you saying that AOC is attacking Jill Stein in order to bolster her own "leftist cred", or that Jill Stein is chasing "leftist cred" by attacking democrats?

If it's the second one, then I would just refer you back to my previous comment. Any attacks from Jill Stein could be easily defused by adopting a few popular planks. If you actually meant it the first way, then yeah I kind of agree!

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Jill Stein attacking others on the left to establish leftist cred, just like so many other leftists we see on the net.

We have so much more in common than we have differences, and we could get a lot done if we were to band together - but instead we do the right's job for them by dividing ourselves.

[+] [email protected] -9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't think that's a very charitable interpretation of what is easily explained by honest political differences. People can and do work together when possible, but there are also issues too important to compromise on.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

She wants to play them off as honest political differences anyway.

When her actions match her supposed intentions then I'd be more willing to give her charity.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're painting "so many leftists we see on the net" with that same brush though. Is it so hard to believe that there are people genuinely to the left of you politically? What "actions" do you need to see from Jill Stein? She's been running for office, giving interviews and speeches that platform issues that the dems are weak on. If nothing else she's forcing democrats like AOC (and you, presumably) to engage with these ideas or risk political consequences. If we didn't have 3rd party candidates to the left, there would be even less pressure on the dems to adopt leftist policies.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

She could start by dropping out of the race, endorsing Kamala, and then putting every dollar she has into organizing for national ranked choice voting so that hopefully once in my life I can vote my conscience at the same time I vote pragmatically.

I sincerely doubt there is much room between where Stein is at on the issues and where AOC is at on the issues - the main difference is that AOC is not running for president and making it easier for despicable people who don't care about anything to win.