this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
-2 points (0.0% liked)

politics

19098 readers
4080 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] abracaDavid@lemmy.today 1 points 2 months ago

Does anyone else feel like it sets a really bad precedent to attack anyone running under a different party?

[–] Plavatos@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it bodes well she sat with Putin at a conference, whether there was "language barriers" or not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Calling for an arms embargo is productive.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is admittedly a little ironic that the Greens' existence has likely resulted in the rollback of environmental regulations. It's almost like their top leadership post-Nader is just accelerationist in philosophy.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I trust Greens to protect environmental policies much more than the DNC, they would follow through with their promises and not just spout populous bullshit while doing nothing.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's great that they can pretend that'd be the case while standing literally no possible risk of being elected. It's easy to stand by your morals when there is no risk at all of having to defend or enact them.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I would rather vote for what I want in government and not get it than to vote against something and get it anyway. Democrats voted against Trump and his policies in 2020 and got someone keeping his worst policies, and now want someone even further to the right than Biden was.

[–] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a completely infantile concept. You wanna throw a tantrum for something you want, regardless of how asinine or unlikely it is, and despite all facts pointing to its irrationality? smdh. 🖕🏽

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Voting for the same people and policies and expecting a different result is the infantile concept

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And, just to be clear, how has voting Green ever changed literally anything?

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago

Just to be clear how has voting for the same people expecting different results changed literally anything? We are having the exact same conversations about wages, housing, employment, healthcare education, etc. that they were having during the civil rights movements, that they were having during the Great depression. If we're continuing to have the exact same conversations, things are not getting any better

[–] bobburger@fedia.io -1 points 2 months ago

So voting for a random third party and changing absolutely nothing is an infantile concept?

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Then they should join the DNC and reform it from the inside. Join the progressive movement. Shift the Dems back to the center-left. All they’re doing as a separate party is siphon votes away from DNC, which gives an advantage to the RNC, which erodes their own efforts to push green policies.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Reforming from the inside is liberal fantasy. The party is operating as designed and they will not allow anyone to vote away their power.

The solution is to abandon the DNC and support an actual party representing the working class. 3rd party's do not siphon away votes because we wouldn't vote for your party if there were no 3rd option on the ballot. We are not democrats so we would not vote for a democrat

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I voted 3rd party as a protest vote in a few elections up to 2012, but I recognized that it was exactly that. I also have lived through a term with Trump as president. Because of Trump, women in this country have lost their reproductive rights. That is just the most obvious example of how he has hurt this country. The fact you are still not recognizing that Trump regaining the presidency is an existential threat to democracy is exasperating, especially when the majority of Democrats are allies to a good portion of the Green Party's so-called platform. Ultimately, you need to face facts: Stein is clearly a shill for Putin and a spoiler for the election.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The protest vote is a vote of capitulation for the duopoly. A 3rd party vote cast out of conviction is a vote for democracy. Yours is based on fear and irrationality.

Dems are only mouth pieces for progress, all talk, zero action. Rince and repeat every election cycle.

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I am sure your moral high ground will comfort you when Trump opens concentration camps in our own country for the undocumented (among others), and we literally live in A Handmaiden's Tale. When the "dictator on day one" throws away our constitution and strips our lives away, remember how stoic you are! It could be the last election your vote is even counted for the Green Party, so I hope you are proud of your convictions!

The Dems aren't perfect, but they aren't comprised by Russia like both The Green Party and the GOP. Yes, I'm scared. I saw what happened last time. Why the hell aren't you?

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Like a rabbit in the open terrified of the wind. Everything you claimed is hyperbole

[–] revelrous@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Riiiiight. They'll never overturn Roe, that's got judicial standing. It's downright hysterical to suggest such a thing could happen. It's not like we could live in an America with a 3rd of American women under an abortion ban right, and a national ban looming? RIGHT? And it would be unthinkable to intentionally and irrevocably separate families right? Not for any procedural necessity, but just to brutally traumatize anyone who tries to make a crossing. That'd be a pretty fucked up inhuman policy RIGHT?

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The dnc knew it did not have judicial standing, that's why they had promised for decades to codify Roe into law. Democrats have this bizarre worldview that everything Republicans do is inhuman, but when their own party adopt those same policies they're busy at brunch. Or even better yet, when it's Democrats that build the systems that Republicans take advantage of you turn a blind eye and only point fingers at Republicans, the way that they screamed about kids in cages under Trump while ignoring who built the motherfucking cages and is still locking kids up in cages. while adopting more draconian immigration laws than Republicans have in decades.

[–] revelrous@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. None of what you said it true tho? For the border I'd recommend this book Everyone who is gone is here by Jonathan Blitzer. And they can't codify without the votes? Remember Obamacare? To agree with you I'd have to only become political aware a couple years ago and never read more than headlines. Pick up a book, watch some cspan, try again.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago

It's 100% true. And when Democrat voters were told that they did not have the votes, where were their calls to have those voting pro life primaried? Their typical answer has always been 'We've tried nothing and are all out of ideas"

[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In a first past the post democracy there is no 3rd party. There is only the thing that is slightly better. Who is better in everything you want? Trump or Harris? If you say something else. But Harris is Closer to what you want and you choose the 3rd option you are choosing to help Trump win in your state. You choosing 3rd party is one less vote Trump has to win. If you want the green parties policies Trump is the furthest away from it. The time to move the party was during the primary. Now we have to vote for the furthest left thing that has the strongest chance of winning OR we get the right wing thing. Potentially never getting a chance to vote again if you listen to Trump.

The most minuscule way protest votes are possible is if you live in an overwhelmingly Blue state and you know Harris will win sure vote 3rd party but in Georgia when 11,000 people decided the outcome we can't risk a movement of voting 3rd party. Title 9 , abortion, climate change belief in government, federal agencies, EPA, postal service, FTC, SEC, redistricting to make fair election maps for the senate and congress, manufacturing, and so much more is on the chopping block for Trump and Republicans let alone more supreme court and federal judges

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago

That sounds like a bunch of lesser evil bullshit, lesser evil doesnt exist. That's bullshit liberals tell themselves to make them feel better for not having the proverbial balls to vote their conscience and do what's right. It prolongs the suffering of marginalized because they prefer a slow agonizing death over a quick one. There is also the choice of no death. 50.yesrs of liberal 'lesser evil' has grown into an enormous one that they can't control. This is the bed they made and want non Democrats to help them out of the mess they created. Good luck

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. The Green Party sits on their ass until presidential election. They haven’t moved the needle. Best case scenario, they’ve convinced a few non-voters to participate. Worst case, they’re dishonest opportunists.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This angle also needs to be considered). She’s not running in good faith. She’s essentially functioning as a 5th column to pull away voters who would otherwise vote for Harris.

I’m not saying Harris shouldn’t be pushed on environmental issues. I am saying that trying to do that by voting for Stein is actively harmful to the goal of not letting the fascists win this election.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

More importantly, if you are voting for her because of the environment, voting for stein is actually harmful to that goal because it helps trump win, which means instead of making baby steps in the right direction, we'll run full steam in the wrong direction.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Dems aren't making baby steps in the right direction, though, look up the progression of natural gas exports under Joe Biden. They're actively making big steps in the wrong direction.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (9 children)

One metric is the only thing you go by? Do you really think that climate change is driven solely by how much natural gas we export?

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The green party aka the gop distraction party.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's not how it works. Hillary wanted someone to blame. Can't blame herself for having weak stances, god no, never that. Better to blame people who represented what she lacked.

If you want the left to vote for you, start acting like you'll push their interests. Or don't, and blame them when you lose.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just look at Jill Steins Twitter. She is basically Gaza and attacks on the Democrats. She exclusivly attacks the Democrats. No attacks at all on Trump or the Republicans in general. She also has no problem with climate change or enviromental problems. That is very intressting for a supposed Green Party.

Other countries with similar electoral systems have Green parties with seats in national parliaments. Compare that with the UK Green Party. They are perfectly able to not just talk about Gaza, but also about UBI, more renewables, public transit, 4 day workweek and so many more left issues.

[–] berno@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Democrats deserve to get attacked from the left. Nobody in their right mind is going to vote GOP if they're voting green, get a fucking clue

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net -1 points 2 months ago

Are you seriously suggesting that Gaza is the only problem the Democrats have?

This is what you do, when you want to take votes from the Democrats. If you wanted to built up real power, to challenge the Democrats from the left, you have to win local smaller elections first. That means city council, house of representatives, state level politicians, school boards and so forth. You focus on the most left leaning regions, so you can actually go first past the post. The Greens do not do that. They run in FOUR elections in California this year. That is the largest blue state, with some very left leaning areas.

Also once you sit in congress, councils or whatever, you need allies, unless they win a majority. So in most cases that would mean winning the furthest left seats and having to work with a more centrist party, to change things. In the US that would be the Democrats. In some countries there are deals made to not run candidates in certain districts, to make sure left parties win. That just happened in France for example. No reason those deals could not be made between the Democrats and the Greens.

Also Gaza can only be solved by becoming president. Jill Stein is not going to win the election and everybody with half a brain should no that. So the goal of running, should be to show what the Green Party stands for in local elections. Nobody can solve Gaza when sitting on a city council in the US, however they can built bikelanes, promote renewables, improve public transit, cheap dense green housing and so forth. Jill Stein does not mention those at all. She should, to help out the local candidates, which they are not running. It also means less issues the Democrats might copy. After all who cares, if the Greens or the Democrats pass good laws, as long as they are passed.

Attacking the Democrats from the left is just going to hurt the Democrats, which helps the Republicans. Instead the Green Party should either try to built an alternative or push them towards the left. Right now it is obvious that they just want to help the Republicans.

[–] Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

democracy enjoyers when people vote for parties that best represent their interests: 😡😡😡😡😡😡

[–] Cyteseer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[–] skeezix@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

One might argue that a two-party system (with the electoral college the way it is) is not a democracy

[–] Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago

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!

load more comments
view more: next ›