Does anyone else feel like it sets a really bad precedent to attack anyone running under a different party?
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.
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.
Calling for an arms embargo is productive.
Yes, but then being unwilling to take any concession is not. The green party could, for example, pull itself off of ballots in key states or elections when the Democrats agree to their policies.
Running a doomed to fail candidate that only weakens the likelihood of the most left candidates and pulling progressives out of the Democrat party is a bad move.
Say what your will about RFK, he’s getting political power from Trump by dropping (if Trump wins). What will the green party get? Nothing.
Dropping and endorsing after concessions is the real way for a minority party to weld power. Running no matter what is just delusion that works counter to any goal you might have.
I just want you to understand how this sounds when it’s flipped:
Yes, but then being unwilling to take any concession is not. The democrat party could, for example, pull itself off of ballots in key states or elections when the Greens agree to their policies.
It may be easier to identify this way that this is not a reasonable position, no matter which party it is about.
I don’t think it bodes well she sat with Putin at a conference, whether there was “language barriers” or not.
So what if they we were at the same dinner? I’ve had dinner with my enemies too. It seems like a lot of you are imagining much greater nefarious activity than you have any real evidence for, or I am missing something?
AOC states that Jill Stein somehow leads the most decentralized political party in the US, does so from a position that holds nearly zero organizational authority, and that their primary electoral goals are anything other than Secretary of State to ensure fair treatment in ballot access. Stein wasn’t even the nominee last cycle.
AOC is not ignorant. She’s sold her principles to neoliberals.
democracy enjoyers when people vote for parties that best represent their interests: 😡😡😡😡😡😡
What interests does Jill Stein actually represent for the people? The green party has never held a local office and she only ever pops up during the election for fundraising. If the green party actually did anything aside from campaigning for the presidency, no one would have this criticism.
off the top of my head, she’s the only one calling for a full arms embargo of Israel, and also the only one pushing for medicare for all. she has also consistently criticized trump and biden’s immigration policies. all of this aligns with my interests, and so she is who I will most likely vote for.
The green party has never held a local office
this is wrong. As of the November 7, 2023 elections, at least 142 Greens hold elected office. I found this with 2 seconds of googling.
One might argue that a two-party system (with the electoral college the way it is) is not a democracy
the system devised by wealthy landowners to keep power out of the hands of common people isn’t actually a democracy? I’m shocked. Shocked, I say!
