Wouldn't a serious politician not being paid by the Russians actually, like, fucking know that?!
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
291 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22730 readers
3455 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Especially as she’s actually run for President twice before! It’s like coming into the same job interview multiple times and giving worse answers each time.
Why are Democrats afraid of a candidate stealing votes if the opposition party is doing worse with every election?
No one is “afraid” of Jill Stein. What they’re afraid of is a GOP and Russian misinformation campaign disguised as a third party presidential campaign causing chaos in an election with likely extremely close margins of victory.
The idea that anyone is afraid of Stein is hilarious by the way. The 74yr old perennial candidate whose only elected experience is partial representation of a district in a municipal legislature for a town of 30k people? Yeah, not a serious candidate - because if she was, you’d hear something from her in between pointless presidential campaigns.
It's sad that this has been repeatedly explained to this user, and yet without any substantive rebuttal, they persist without any evolution of their view.
Isn't that a bit... Odd? Perhaps suss? Weird?
They’re not asking the question in good faith, and it’s pretty obvious.
Look at the math.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-president.html
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president
Two last elections were won with 1 or 2 percent of certain states swinging one way or another. 1% of people voting Green in a swing state can absolutely hand the election to the fascists.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Gerrymandering. Next question.
Spoiler Effect, too!
Gerrymandering only has to do with US Congressional House districts. Though I take it your point may be that the EC and Gerrymandering are propping up a dying party., which is absolutely true.
Bonus: Weevil ran away from a discussion we had when they tried to claim Democrats were blocking DC statehood because they, "didn't want a black state." when in fact it has always been Republicans to blame for blocking it. lmfaowtf360bbq.
Exactly. In a fair and independent contest, the concept of a "spoiler" wouldn't really exist. But given that the Presidency basically gets decided by a few million voters who live in swing states' contested districts, it turns out it's really easy for a niche candidate to derail the more likely ones just by trying to appeal specifically to them.
Nothing you can do about people like that shitting on your doorstep and running away other than to hose it down and hang up a sign that says "Please do not shit on porch". We live in a post-truth society.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Add in actual prevention of people to cast a vote. Voter ID laws, closing polling stations in specific areas, trying to prevent mail-in voting, actively protesting in voting areas to scare away voters.
lmaowtf360bbq
Ohhhh this brings me back..
I'm not afraid of shit. Jill Stein has proven she's anti-science with her stances on GMOs and vaccines. She's proven she's politically illiterate and unfit for office by not being able to answer simple questions about our government. And she's proven she's a Russian asset by meeting with Putin officials and encouraging people to vote for Donald Trump.
Because the spoiler effect is the result of geometric proximity, not the strength of candidates.
Because doing worse doesn't mean they're not still an imminent threat to our democracy.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Herp derpty derpy derp derp herp derp derp?
Cool story bro.
No party wants to lose voters. No company wants to lose customers. No house of worship wants to lose congregants. It’s that simple; I believe.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Is not problem. She received excellent education from People’s University of Harvard, near the warm-water port city of Boston in Massachusetts oblast. Do not worry about these silly details.
/s because internet
If Jill Stein and The Green Party were serious, they would advocate for progressive policies from within the Democratic party, push for ranked choice voting in each state, and run for local elections.
There is a ton of work that needs to be done before a third party is a politically viable strategy, there is no way Jill Stein isn't aware of that.
Make sure our local Lemmy Green Party Propagandist sees this.
He blocked me, so doubt he’ll see it :P
Sinema+Gabbard vibes.
Stay far away.
Any Lemmy Green Party shills trying to convince people to vote for Stein over Harris want to weigh in?
Anyone?
The most notorious of them blocked me, so they’re not even seeing this. :)
Ha, you know what... I think same here.
load more comments
(1 replies)
She appears incapable of recognizing reality, and we don’t need another candidate like that. By staying so obstinate her votes will likely go to Trump. If she doesn’t understand that political reality, she shouldn’t be anywhere near a general election.
A normal person would learn from their multiple failures, but not Stein.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt that she isn't a Russian agent, if she doesn't understand how the Electoral College works, then it makes sense she doesn't see herself as a spoiler and a waste of a vote. Clearly in the past 20ish years, she must have come across FiveThirtyEight and, so even a guess of 538 would be somewhat reasonable. 600 just shows lack of reasoning skills and/or knowledge of how the electoral college is made up.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Look she's a full of shit opportunist. A distraction for people who think they're too moral to vote for corporate dems.
I never read much about her but I’m really shocked at this level of ignorance.
The more you look for it the more you recognize that a lot of the people in charge of politics (and business for that matter) aren't smart or knowledgeable or even master strategists, they're just the sort of person who skirt through life through some combination of charisma and utter willingness to say whatever it takes to please the people who can advance their career.
Like you expect the dumb shit they say to be an act by a keen mind who understands politics deeply and is manipulating the public into advancing their interests, but they're often just fucking idiots with no principles who whenever they've been stymied due to their idiocy just let it slide off their back and move on to a new path with utmost confidence.
Jill Stein isn't going to slink away into the darkness after a public demonstration of political ignorance for a lady whose whole public persona is supposed to be about politics, she's just going to forget about it and keep the scam going. Not knowing the basics of government isn't going to stop her from saying she knows how to fix the problems with government. Not being on the ballot in states is unimportant for whether it sounds good to her in the moment to say they can win in all 50 states. They're all just unimportant "facts" and you can just keep talking and most people will forget or not know that you're an idiot.
Jill Stein may be an idiot politician with laughably unrealistic positions and a totally unworkable take on foreign policy (even dining with Putin) but she’s also a physician who practiced internal medicine for decades.
She’s not an idiot in general. I think she’s just unbelievably naive about people and their motivations.
Ben Carson was a (by all accounts excellent) brain surgeon.
I'm sorry, but that man is stupid.
Brains are weird, man. I work in a STEM field, but I had 3 or 4 semesters of University before declaring my major, and therefore I was able to get a much more well-rounded education than my colleagues, and I will tell you: It shows. Big time.
Lots of people who are great at what they do, and when it comes to their one very specific, silo'd, expertise, they're brilliant.
But in terms of general intelligence, rationality, ability to think critically in a novel situation, etc? Not bright.
Then there's the old (true) joke: What do you call someone who graduated at the bottom of their class in medical school? Doctor.
load more comments
(4 replies)
A specialist in one field isn't necessarily adept in another, and particularly coming from STEM to humanities seems a particularly treacherous transition because so much about humans is based on premises that cold, logical STEM principles just aren't aware of. That doesn't mean we STEMs are stupid, we just don't know just how much there is that we don't know and would need to know before we can understand, let alone predict human behaviour.
I know I've found myself grossly misjudging human reactions in some case because humans are complex and there are so mamy premises and factors affecting individual behaviour and so many more for collective behaviour that they're effectively non-deterministic and even predicting the probabilities requires such familiarity with the people or demographics, respectively.
All that is to say: Yes, I think so too. She's well-educated, but not above tripping over the same, common stone that many smart people have stumbled on.
load more comments
(2 replies)
If they were serious, they would be building Party infrastructure down ballot. Taking over state houses and local government positions. Doing an every four Year presidential run doesn’t help in the slightest. The most progressive messaging that has actually made some semblance of an impact is Bernie.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Alleged russian agents aside:
I actually have no problem with a politician not remembering the exact number of House representatives there are. That number actively does not matter because it is never a case of "I need 435 to vote for this". It isn't even "I need 218". It is "After checking with everyone, we need to convince five more people to vote with us".
But there are definitely ways to answer that convey that. Guessing a number and hoping you got it right is... not.
Also, because I had no idea and other people in this thread are outright wrong:
435 in the house. 100 in the senate. And 3 electors for DC and Puerto Rico (?) who don't get a say in legislature because Yes Taxation Without Representation.
Would you trust a brain surgeon who didn’t know and understand the various regions and structures in the brain? Or an electrician who wasn’t exactly clear on what the building codes allowed regarding which gauge of wire could be installed and what material it was made of?
A President shouldn’t have to know everything, but they should at least know enough to ace a high school civics exam.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Blyat!
I would have had to guess too, but I'm not in politics where that's something I should know. What I do know and would have answered is "not the right proportion to the population".
Where I live we get lots of local candidates who are some combination of democrat-green-progressive-working family alliances. Building coalitions from the bottom up like that, and showing that people with “green” in their bio can really be elected, is the way to move things forward. At the national level, the two-party system is far too entrenched to have a third party be anything but a defacto spoiler that turns off their own supporters more that anything else.