Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
I already didn't think much of her but this has me convinced that she is unserious.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
Maybe she was schooled, but I bet she learned nothing.
Oh, she’s not an idiot. She didn’t need to learn anything. She knows what she’s doing. It’s intentional.
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.
Piers Morgan asked her about this and she just sounds like an idiot. She apparently came to talk to Putin and got snubbed entirely.
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.
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.
they are Russian shills
Hey, the money is really, really good.
I don't think troll farms get paid well, but I'm open to being personally proven wrong with a better offer.