229
Jill Stein formally launches 2024 White House bid as Green party candidate
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
229 points (100.0% liked)
News
28930 readers
5052 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Something something Russian check is in the mail Jill.
Totally not running as a spoiler, nahhh. Not good ol Jill Spoiler Stein! She just wants you to Send A Message™ (at an incredibly important time that has lasting repercussions if you actually follow through.)
Here's an idea, if you actually gave a shit Jill, why not lead the charge for ranked choice voting!!! Put your damn face all over the media when it's not an election year so you can actually push for positive change. At least then you'd stand a chance and people could actually vote for you! But no, that's not the intent. The intent is to syphon votes from Democrats again.
democrats don't own the votes, the voters do. they need to earn them like everyone else.
Of course they don't own the votes, but you vote to get an outcome. If you're voting for someone third party who has literally 0 chance of winning, but actually agree with some of what the Democrats want and not much at all of what Republicans want then the only outcome you get is the party you agree with least winning because you wanted to send a message to the party you partially agreed with.
it's not about sending a message to democrats or republicans. it's about who i want to win. also, it's really hard to tell which party i agree with least.
That's what I thought the first time as well. It turns out that who you want to win means fuck all in real life. It's a bit like saying "I don't want my arm to be broken" when you fall on it. I'm sure you don't, but if you care about how it heals you'll go to the hospital and get a cast put on it, even if it's uncomfortable.
And to me, it's easy to figure out who I agree with least. One of them actively wants LGBT folks dead, and the other one doesn't actively want that. Everything else could be exactly the same and it would still be braindead easy to figure out.
I wouldn't count on the Democrats to keep genocidal maniacs from your doorstep. better to get a gun and join a local resistance movement.
I'd rather the people that don't presently want genocidal maniacs killing me and my friends be in office than the genocidal maniacs themselves, and you must recognize that it is, in fact, one of those two choices that are going to win.
Democrats fund genocide. you need to save yourself.
And republicans don't do that even more?
there aren't acceptable degrees
So given the choice between someone actively demanding genocide and someone who's passively supporting a genocide, you'd sooner see more people murdered than vote for the lesser evil?
id sooner not support either one. neither is acceptable
So you would sooner choose to let more people suffer than involve yourself in seeing fewer people suffer. What an awful person you are.
in the trolley thought experiment, I don't pull the lever because I'm not a murderer
Yeah you are. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You don't get to not involve yourself, not pulling the lever is as much an active choice to kill 5 people as pulling the lever is a choice to kill one.
You value your own sense of self righteousness over the lives of other people, and that's awful and selfish.
I do
and I'd say you value your own sense of power over the lives of the person you killed.
That's totally incorrect. I value the lives of the people that aren't going to die. Unlike you, I don't make decisions based on how I personally feel about them, but rather what the outcome will be.
that's not what deontologists believe
they're not the same with one exception tho. they're both deeply bad In similar and unique ways. neither is acceptable.
In what way are Democrats bad, that Republicans aren't?
they want to restrict guns to government thugs. they lie about supporting unions, stabbing the working class in the back.
Better than republicans who were the first ones doing gun control because black people had guns, and who are openly hostile to unions and the working class, and treat them even worse.
I don't think getting stabbed in the back is better than getting stabbed in the front.
if it means so much to you, I live in a swing state. the state penalty for selling my vote is $5k. that's the federal fine, too. put another 10k on top for my troubles and I'll vote any way you like.
Good news is there's like 300 of you in the country so it doesn't matter
i think she'd be just as happy to "syphon votes from" republicans. i think she wants all the votes she can get and doesn't much care who your second choice would be.
Show me a republican who would vote for the green party, and I'll show you a very confused and lonely magic crystal and energy healing enthusiast.
technically, at the moment, i am registered republican, but i vote green.
Her last campaign went heavy on ranked choice (as all green party candidates have been) but the green party has to run candidates to retain ballot access and therefore retain members. Campaigns are also a great way to promote issues ignored by major candidates (such as rcv) but the press has not been kind to third parties since ross perot so its not a surprise most people are unfamiliar with green party platforms.
in 2023 post covid her tepid vaccine skepticism seems like some major baggage (along with 2016s brutal coverage) and I wouldn't be surprised if she was more picking up jimmy dore style dumbass voters this time around and less acting as a spoiler. Her reputation is so toxic at this point that it does seem like the green party is throwing democrats a bone here.