this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
535 points (85.5% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3713 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 61 points 1 month ago (33 children)

"Once noble party" - ffs.

Jill Stein is a bad actor in this election, she understands how the electoral college works and she understands she's weakening the democratic party position. But let's not blame shift - the Democrats could be much better on climate change then they are today and if they were better Stein's BS wouldn't have such an easy time attracting voters. I dislike the title posing it as "Stein may hand Trump the whitehouse again."

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago (11 children)

Even if the argument about getting X% of votes was true, the states to campaign heavy in would be the deep blue/red states. Especially since they tend to get ignored by candidates.

Instead she sticks to the states where <30k votes could decide the election and the market is saturated with the most expensive ad costs

It's blantantly obvious what's she's doing.

the states to campaign heavy in would be the deep blue/red states.

Agreed. If a third party pulls off a major change in one of these states, it's still likely to go for it's color regardless so the presidential outcome is not affected, but it'd force the relevant parties to examine why the third party was able to make such huge inroads and what of their own policies that they should change.

It’s blantantly obvious what’s she’s doing.

But for posterity I'll state it; she's spoiling for a GOP win.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The GOP is the "drill baby drill" party though.

The Green Party is not going to win. The only message that voting for Jill Stein will send to the Democratic party is they need to move more to the center to get more reliable voters. It's already heppening. Harris doesn't like fracking but she's not going to ban it and she has to talk about increase US oil production to get votes from people she knows will turn up and won't flake out and vote green or be uncommitted or whatever.

If she wins she will be more inclined to fulfill promises made to the people who actually voted for her. Sure she'll need to represent everyone, but there'll be far more people that voted GOP she'll need to represent (and entice to maybe vote for her in the next election) than green party voters.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think that Hillary Clinton showed us the opposite. If the Democratic candidate goes too close to the center, they risk losing the left, and they deserve to lose the left at that point. If the Democrats had tried to put a halfway decent strategy together about Israel, there would be zero worry about a third party. And I don't like single issue voters, but if I had to pick a single issue, genocide would be at the top of the list.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago

"Genocide is a single issue" is basically "I've tuned out the screaming so how can you hear it?"

Back in 2004 when we bombed countries it was considered murder and bad. Bush then normalized it with "You just love 9/11, commie!", Obama continued it, Trump expanded it, and now Biden helped to normalize it.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

If the Democrats conform to Iranian disinformation campaigns about Israel, how would they be any different from Republicans that conform to Russian disinformation campaigns about Ukraine?

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Voting isn't public so how the hell does everyone keep assuming we know who voted for her at the election?

The people that didn't vote for her didn't vote for her.
You can't claim she didn't get the trump republican voters so it's an indicator she needs to move to the left, right? Or Libertarian party?

Its weird false logic based on feelings about justifying a truly tiny group of people voting green as villians. the main base of Kamalas voters should also be Democrats who shouldn't pander and frack just cause she needed an extra 2% at the polls. We are gonna shift further right for that and more Republicans instead of going for any undecided first?

I don't get it. Make the logic make sense.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

I'm not saying people that vote green are villains. They're just ignorant of how things work and act irrationally because of their ignorance.

load more comments (31 replies)