Jill Stein on the Breakfast Club? Sounds like a must watch. I'm surprised she hasn't made more appearances like this.
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
politics
18878 readers
3838 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.
- 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.
- 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
Would you trust a brain surgeon who didn’t know and understand the various regions and structures in the brain?
Yes. Because surgeons are the grease monkeys of medicine and I care more that they know exactly what they are doing to a specific part of my brain rather than are reciting generalist brain facts.
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?
Very different scenario. That electrician is doing a specific job in my house, not wiring up an entire grid.
Which is kind of what it is. Getting a bill passed is very much about knowing what specific parts of Congress you need to interface with. And being a leader is actually having people who canvas the other congress people and figure out who to focus on.
Maybe it is just my engineer brain but I always prefer to work with people who know what it is important and are able to quickly look up the other stuff.
"Nurse please pull up Google and see where I'm supposed to be slicing this patient open from"
No. I expect them to have figured that out during the prep for my surgery. Even a surgeon who does that exact procedure every week should be reviewing the steps before they scrub up. Same with the team.
Yeah, we’re both probably getting too abstract here :)
Which is kind of what it is. Getting a bill passed is very much about knowing what specific parts of Congress you need to interface with. And being a leader is actually having people who canvas the other congress people and figure out who to focus on.
Maybe it is just my engineer brain but I always prefer to work with people who know what it is important and are able to quickly look up the other stuff.
So I guess the question is: Do you believe any of this applies in the analysis of Stein’s qualifications? She has essentially zero experience as an elected official, she has zero experience as a leader of any kind. And she has not demonstrated a basic understanding of the fundamental structure of the government.
Or do you believe there is any evidence that offers evidence to the contrary?
Oh, I think stein is a fucking moron and, at best, a useful idiot for putin.
This? This doesn't factor into that at all.
Wouldn't a serious politician not being paid by the Russians actually, like, fucking know that?!
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?
Because doing worse doesn't mean they're not still an imminent threat to our democracy.
If the Greens are an imminent threat to democracy, your democracy is already dead.
Don't be obtuse.
There are 10x more non-voters than Green voters in any given election. If you abolish the Green Party, all you're doing is feeding those Green voters into the non-voting demographic.
Why would any Green vote for a party that believes their organization does not have a right to exist?
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.
Framing this as only a small group of voters in swing states is stupid. No candidate can win with just a few million votes scattered across a handful of states.
You are taking something very minor and turning it into a major problem. Its like saying Hilary would have won if not for the last minute news reports about her emails or whatever it was, when she lost because she didnt appeal widely enough to the american people, and carried an awful attitude while doing it.
You're not getting my point. I'm not saying someone can win with just a handful of voters from swing states, I'm saying that someone can stop another candidate from winning by courting those voters. Hence, a spoiler.
Sure that could happen, but then you never had those voters. At some point you have to lay the blame at the people who voted like this, if it happens.
This is like saying that getting a question wrong on a test can be the difference between pass and fail, and then picking a question at random and deciding to focus on that instead of the whole test.
You are right it could be enough people to match the difference in votes, but thats not the same as saying its essential we get that voter block no matter what. Theres a ton of things that make a difference, but its the collection of them that makes a candidate.
Your test analogy kind of proves the point, though. Say you have a 10 question test and 8 are very easy, and the last 2 are very difficult. In general, if you've done your homework, you should get most of the first 8. Whether or not you get a really good grade will depend more on the last 2. I think both parties are guilty of assuming they'll get the first 8 correct no problem, but there is a tactically sound reason to focus on the last 2.
I'd argue they focus too little on the first 8 and too much on the last 2. Both would be an error in analysis of course.
Also it runs the risk of people applying statistics to individual cases, or groups too small to be statistically relevant.
I agree with you - and that's why gerrymandering is a problem, because it makes the last 2 questions more valuable to study for. As for statistics, that's for pollsters and analysts to work on.
If everyone knows gerrymandering is bad, why is it still allowed to happen?
Because a good chunk of the population doesn't understand what it is and why it's bad, and a serious percentage of politicians benefit from it.
Are you saying its essentially a thing Republicans don't know about or understand? I have to assume every democrat has heard the word, and it has simple explanations too.
I was under the impression republicans knee but defended it but it could be an ignorance thing, thats a fair point.