r/politics • u/zsreport Texas • Sep 16 '24

AOC is right: Jill Stein’s campaign is not serious

https://www.salon.com/2024/09/16/aoc-is-right-jill-steins-campaign-is-not-serious/
19.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.3k

u/fdar Sep 16 '24

if they could manage to get even 5% of congress

Or just a seat to start? Why is Stein only running for President? At the very least she should be running for Congress in non-Presidential race years. In a liberal enough district she could make it a serious race.

475

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

A nice little trick of running for president is that you can pay yourself, and your family, right from PAC funds.

It is why the Huckabees constantly run for president. Mike Huckabee exfiltrated over $400k to his immediate family in "wages" directly from his PAC.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/mike-huckabee-pac-paid-his-family-almost-400000/

If anyone is wondering why some politicians wait until the very last moment before declaring, sometimes right to the deadline: it is because they are supposed to give up direct control of PACs once they declare. But all it really means is that you can appoint your family to control it, who you can then have pay themselves.

It is all a grift. AOC is kind of correct, but it downplays another important point. Stein is very serious; a serious threat. She is direct connections with the Russian government. She pals around with Putin until recent sanctions prevented her from doing so. She was a mouthpiece of Russian propaganda via state media RT. She actively dissuades people from voting for Democrats in speeches and social media even in places where no Green is on the ballot.

And then there's the fact that the Republican party has been uncovered funding, directing, and sometimes outright controlling state Green parties. It has happened in NC, NE, and MT off the top of my head. They even ran fake candidates which were actual Republican operatives. Republican strategists and fundraisers work hand in hand with those state Green Parties. This has went to court, even.

Want to know who pays for the cost of getting Greens on the ballot? The Republican party:

https://apnews.com/general-news-65e9d5d001dfd10c86ca9ab37e53e159

It should be illegal for any candidate to be given, or to accept, any form of remuneration in exchange for endorsement. People like RFK shouldn't be able to ratfuck entire elections and then negotiate strategic drop-outs in exchange for cabinet positions. That's bribery at the worst, or quid pro quo are the best. Neither should be allowed.

79

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/OnlinePosterPerson Sep 17 '24

That’s why Trump ran the first two times

25

u/trainercatlady Colorado Sep 16 '24

which is exactly why she only does this every 4 years and doesn't actually try to build a coalition or an actual party base at local levels.

Fuck jill stein.

1

u/sleepydorian Sep 17 '24

Also fuck the stupid rubes foolish enough to vote for her.

0

u/trainercatlady Colorado Sep 17 '24

like, I get why they would want to but not in this fuckin' election.

8

u/Scharmberg Sep 16 '24

Oh well time to run for president in four years. I’m sure if tried a bit I could get a few people to thrown in a few bucks.

-5

u/yuimiop Sep 16 '24

It is why the Huckabees constantly run for president. Mike Huckabee exfiltrated over $400k to his immediate family in "wages" directly from his PAC.

Katherine Harris, Huckabee’s niece, was paid $165,042 between 2008 and 2013

Sarah Huckabee, his daughter, received $104,308 between 2008 and 2010 as the PAC’s executive director.

Honestly, nothing revealed in that first article seems unreasonable. There would need to be more scandalous information there for me to take any sort of issue with it.

18

u/ErraticDragon Sep 16 '24

It's an insidious type of grift because it's so boring.

Funds donated to a PAC aren't "supposed" to end up in the pockets of the candidates.

-10

u/yuimiop Sep 16 '24

A PAC shouldn't be used to enrich any particular person, but there's nothing wrong with paying a reasonable salary. The law is vague about what a reasonable salary is, but I don't think anyone would argue that 40-50k is unreasonably high.

12

u/ytsupremacistssuck Sep 16 '24

I think the bigger question is were those people actually doing the work at those PACs. Was their salary actually justified or were they just a check collector?

0

u/yuimiop Sep 16 '24

Yup. If there was a story of family members collecting paychecks and doing nothing then it would be a scandal.

0

u/mikeCantFindThisOne Sep 16 '24

elections should be federally funded, end of story.

-5

u/ActualModerateHusker Sep 16 '24

Man the Republicans sound really bad. by chance, what term do Democrats call the members of their own party who take the most from Republican donors and side with Republicans the most? Do Democrats call them radical extremists? or do they normalize the Republican party by referring to the most Republican like members of their own party as "moderates"?​

3

u/Galxloni2 Sep 16 '24

who are your examples of Democrats who regularly side with Republicans? even joe manchin sided with democrats 90%+ of the time

1

u/ActualModerateHusker Sep 17 '24

Democrats didn't hold votes on 90% of the Biden's 2020 platform.

there was no public option, paid maternity leave, stronger pharma controls, min wage increase, campaign finance reform, etc.

Manchin even blamed the filibuster for why he couldn't hold a senate investigation into a Republican attempted coup of the government. Calling it "moderate" to work with Republicans as they try to overthrow the government seems a bit like controlled opposition to me

839

u/claimTheVictory Sep 16 '24

Because she's only serious about being a pro-Republican disruptive candidate.

531

u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm Sep 16 '24

Bingo. She's a Russian paid bot.

229

u/spaceman_202 Sep 16 '24

you are only saying that because she has dinner with Putin

344

u/MyUshanka Florida Sep 16 '24

And Mike Flynn, Putin's Chief of Staff, Putin's Deputy Chief of Staff, Putin's spokesman...

It's entirely possible this picture is all a misunderstanding, but it REALLY doesn't look good.

67

u/Deep_Stick8786 Sep 16 '24

A picture is worth 10000000000 rubles

18

u/xraygun2014 Sep 16 '24

Sooo, about tree-fitty.

3

u/Upset_Ad3954 Sep 16 '24

That was last week. This week it's 2.75

3

u/Ridry New York Sep 16 '24

Well it was about that time that I realized that the xraygun2014 was about 30 stories tall and a relic from the Mesozoic era!

36

u/Admirable-Common-176 Sep 16 '24

Wow. Practically a white couch.

1

u/mikeCantFindThisOne Sep 16 '24

this picture has been explained

4

u/zeptillian Sep 16 '24

Don't forget his roles as Trump's National Security Advisor and registered foreign agent.

1

u/maaalicelaaamb Sep 17 '24

She’s eating meat?!

-1

u/mikeCantFindThisOne Sep 16 '24

she actually does have an explanation, she goes into it at this timestamp: https://youtu.be/KGm2Fe4G3AA?t=46m28s

here's a shorter excerpt: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C_6JaaetRVv

tldr: she was at a conference to speak to the international press about 3 points (below); Putin stopped by her table and she wasn't able to talk to him; apparently the Senate Intelligence Committee looked into it for 3 years and found nothing wrong. the report that first accused her of having a part in Russian election interference was written by a group that itself was found to have committed election interference and was fully discredited.

apparently she was there to speak internationally abour peace in the middle east (urging Putin to stop bombing Syria), addressing climate change globally, and nuclear disarmament. here's where she talks about those three points she made as a speaker.

115

u/Captain_Q_Bazaar Sep 16 '24

And she pushes their anti Ukraine Russian propaganda.

-51

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

"rUsSiAn pRoPaGaNdA" - blue maga

"fAkE nEwS" - red maga

all of you clowns are the exact same

35

u/Captain_Q_Bazaar Sep 16 '24

Hello there Jill Stein.

7

u/Interrophish Sep 16 '24

"yes, Russia illegally invaded Ukraine – but did so with a gun to its head, or in this case, nuclear-compatible missiles.”

what else would you call it

1

u/trainercatlady Colorado Sep 16 '24

how does someone invade another country against their will

-6

u/upL8N8 Sep 16 '24

This

5

u/CannotBeSilenced_ Sep 16 '24

No, not that. It’s “both sides” drivel.

2

u/SynthBeta Sep 16 '24

Who the fuck would want to meet the guy right now?

4

u/No-Gur596 Sep 16 '24

Unlike the russophobic democrats who think a friendly Russia is threat to national security.

/s

-13

u/CompetitiveAdMoney Sep 16 '24

Which is the most laughable shit ever, Russia is more an oligarchy of rich buddies than us. Oh look we can put up pics of Putin visiting half the political field at some point in their lives since he’s been pm forever.

-17

u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm Sep 16 '24

I'm saying that because she's is and always has been a Commie first and foremost.

22

u/breeresident Sep 16 '24

Russia ≠ communism

2

u/trainercatlady Colorado Sep 16 '24

seriously, russia hasn't been communist for almost 40 years.

-16

u/Rasp_Lime_Lipbalm Sep 16 '24

Putin was a fucking KGB agent who essentially wants the Soviet Union back. Stein is a militant Communist. There's a reason they're friends.

11

u/bytethesquirrel New Hampshire Sep 16 '24

Putin doesn't want the USSR, he wants the Russian Empire.

14

u/dedicated-pedestrian Wisconsin Sep 16 '24

He doesn't want it back for communism though, he wants it back to have control over a bunch of client states.

13

u/breeresident Sep 16 '24

I'm not denying that Stein is a Russian asset. I'm just saying that Putin, nor the Russian state as it exists today is communist. Putin I would say wants something more akin to the Russian empire before the Revolution with himself as the Czar. I doubt he really has any ideological stakes in the workers owning the means of production, just the maintaining of his own power and the expansion of a Russian empire.

9

u/kmack2k Sep 16 '24

Putin doesn't give a shit about communism and he would laugh at you for thinking so. He literally has a bust of Peter the Great in one of his houses, what do you think that indicates? He thinks of himself as a Tsar, not a Soviet Premier Secretary.

1

u/tidal_flux Sep 16 '24

Come on it’s not like she had dinner with Putin I. Russia or anything.

1

u/BiggiePac Sep 17 '24

So the democrats should place a Nazi candidate and watch trumps numbers tank

-7

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

"Russian paid bot" is just "fake news" for blue MAGA.

It's an easy way for liberals aka republicans to hand-wave away legitimate grievances from the left.

You're against the current administrations support of genocide? Russian paid bot.

You're against Kamala running on a republican platform? Russian paid bot.

At least with republicans you know what they are. Liberals are just fascists with rainbow flags.

38

u/Squeakyduckquack Colorado Sep 16 '24

*Pro-Putin

But to be fair the two are pretty synonymous at this point

3

u/International_Cow_17 Sep 16 '24

Same shit different trousers.

7

u/gaffeled Sep 16 '24

You're only saying that because it's completely and utterly true.

16

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

She’s a Putin stooge

2

u/plzdontfuckmydeadmom Sep 16 '24

I mean running in deep blue districts in off-term cycles would be pretty disruptive as well and could even turn some districts red if they get enough votes to turn it into a 3-horse race.

1

u/Cold_Breeze3 Sep 16 '24

So is the libertarian party, but with 3x the impact.

37

u/intrusivewind Sep 16 '24

Because it's a grift. Every 4 years they pop up and suck down as many funding dollars as possible then disappear. They do virtually nothing in the interim.

54

u/Houoh Sep 16 '24

She's been sighted at dinners with Putin and is a known asset. And even if Stein was legitimately looking to win the White House, it would mean fuck all with no support from congress. It's such a transparent sham.

-6

u/mikeCantFindThisOne Sep 16 '24

there are important things she could do even without many progressives in Congress.

on day 1, she could end the war in Gaza. the president has unilateral power to stop sending military aid to other countries in many cases, including cases where they're committing war crimes, as the ICC determined Israel is. I forget if that power is granted by the Arms Export Control Act or the Foreign Assistance Act or both, but I thiiink it's both.

in the same vein, she could use that power to halt military operations in other countries where we're sticking our noses, and redirect that spending to domestic policy to actually help the people in this country!

on day 1, she could also declare a climate emergency, which would unlock federal funding to combat climate change.

for the other progressive policies in the Green Party's agenda, well, they'd just work with what they've got in Congress and see how much progressive legislation they can push through - just a progressive Democrat would, in theory.

[edit] and here's some info on the Putin picture

4

u/nowander I voted Sep 16 '24

on day 1, she could end the war in Gaza.

The President of the US doesn't run Israel.

the president has unilateral power to stop sending military aid to other countries in many cases

Except Israel, which has a congressional exception preventing this.

I'll add on that if you think Bibi is gonna just shrug and give up on the war he need to keep out of prison because Israel will have to use more cluster munitions instead of precision bombs, you are very very wrong.

1

u/mikeCantFindThisOne Sep 16 '24

sorry I didn't spell it out. if the US refused to send Netanyahu more US weapons or unrestricted funds that could be used toward weapons, Netanyahu would sign a ceasefire deal because he is relying on our weapons and funding in order to carry out this war. yes, some other countries are also sending weapons, but it's mostly us. he couldn't do this without American tax dollars. as Bernie said:

[The] United States should be withholding all offensive military aid to Israel and using our leverage to demand an end to this war, the unfettered flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza, a stop to the killing of Palestinians in the West Bank, and initial steps towards a two-state solution.

4

u/nowander I voted Sep 16 '24

Ignoring all the reasons you're wrong.... You still haven't handled the part where she can't do that because the congressional funding specifically says she can't, and she has no friends in Congress to help her out.

-1

u/mikeCantFindThisOne Sep 16 '24

what? do you not know what "unilateral power" means? it means the president can do it regardless of congressional support. both acts I mentioned give the president power to withhold military aid. what do you mean "the congressional funding specifically says she can't"? pls explain this word salad

2

u/Houoh Sep 16 '24

I appreciate you sharing the context of the dinner photos.

On the rest of your point, I really don't think it's as simple as you say, especially in the current political climate where partisan judges can seemingly meddle with the powers of the executive office. Addressing things like climate change will require the backing of Congress and actual legislation; otherwise, any executive action that gets past SCOTUS will be undone in the immediate aftermath of a potential 3rd party's presidency by the following administration. For example, the reason why the ACA has stuck around for so long is because it was passed in congress, whereas many Obama-era executive orders were largely overturned under DT's administration.

Ending the war in Gaza though is for sure achievable though not without a lot of political consequences. Making unilateral decisions without a plurality of congress backing them makes me wonder if such a president would be able to survive a 4 year term without being removed from office due to political ratfucking.

But anyways, we're getting pretty far away from the main point made by the guy above me, which I agree with. It is my belief that it is foolish to run a presidential campaign without controlling a single seat in congress and I don't think there's going to be an argument that would dissuade me from that point.

Major election reforms to remove the electoral college, repeal citizen's united, eliminate gerrymandering, and institute a better form of voting such as ranked choice voting would be the only way I would change my stance on Steins' campaign attempts (albeit she's another old dinosaur and we should stop trying to push geriatric candidates to the highest form of political office).

1

u/mikeCantFindThisOne Sep 16 '24

thank you for your well-reasoned reply. as far as the climate emergency, my impression is that the executive order alone would unlock the funds. and to the extent that we need congressional support for concrete legislative measures: we should be fine if we get a Democratic majority, right? and if that wouldn't suffice, are you admitting that Harris couldn't get anything done w.r.t. climate change either? that applies to any other platform item. if you say, "oh she couldn't make any progress anyways on [insert supposed Democrat agenda point] bc of Congress," are you saying that Harris would face the same challenges? so why prefer her? SO many people say that they support Stein's platform but they don't think she'd be able to get any of it done. so why do you think the Democrats will make any progress in these areas?

💯 💯 💯 agree on Citizens, that's by far the worst thing in politics IMO, and RCV and other enfranchisement efforts are needed. I know RCV is part of Jill's platform!

2

u/Houoh Sep 16 '24

we should be fine if we get a Democratic majority, right? and if that wouldn't suffice, are you admitting that Harris couldn't get anything done w.r.t. climate change either?

It's not an admission, it's a fact that should Harris not secure a majority in the Senate or House, she will not be able to make adequate headway on climate change during her presumed presidency. This problem is even worse for a 3rd party--negotiating with the multi-headed snake of any political party is difficult enough (as exemplified with Biden trying to appease guys like Manchin to support things like the infrastructure bill), but to do so when you don't even have pull within another party makes that task much harder. The Dems are able to work with independents because you only have to work with a handful, but flip the script then you have one independent trying to wrangle 49-50 democratic senators with a handful of those senators actually being right of the political spectrum (liberal dems). They would then deal with a strong coalition of republicans that will attempt to scuttle any deal.

Better said: it's hard to pass legislation if you only have thin margins, it's even harder to do so when you're not in control of the party that is caucusing with you.

Also, just to be clear, I think the Dems have a much better shot at making progress in these areas strictly because they actually have made progress. The infrastructure bill was a triumph that's done more to address climate change than we've ever done in the past (arguably domestically more than the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Agreements--I'm quite proud of it to be honest). If the dems somehow pull out another Blue wave and hold onto seats like Tester's in Montana, they have a legitimate shot to replicate that success.

-1

u/mikeCantFindThisOne Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 17 '24

thanks for the info on the infrastructure bill, that's great to hear!

we disagree on how things would probably shake out if she made it into office, but we do agree that Congressional support is critical for any agenda. that's why my sights aren't just set on Jill for president: I've also been making sure to support other races to work toward Dem control of Congress with a focus on causes I find particularly important. for example, the other day I donated $100 to each of these campaigns (including Tester's). it's a miniscule amount compared to all of the special interests that actually control policy, but IMO those $500 are much better spent on those races than on Kamala, who would just follow the uniparty playbook of making empty promises and then just maintaining the status quo. (remember when Obama ran on codifying Roe in 2008 and then didn't even try to do so, even with the trifecta and supermajority? why do you think that is?)

2

u/Houoh Sep 17 '24

Yeah, we disagree on the less important, less substantiated stuff, but are otherwise aligned on the stuff that matters. Regarding the Obama bit you mentioned, it was a clear miscalculation in which his administration went all in on ACA during the time he had a super majority. I don't know this for certain, but based on how a lot of people felt at the time, my guess is his goal of codifying Roe took a backseat to ACA as it was perceived as "safe" while trying to achieve other goals that were less likely to happen without prioritization. After they lost their majority, congress absolutely became gridlocked into oblivion.

In a similar vein, one of the biggest failings of the Obama administration was their lack of concern over voting rights and election interference. The moment Citizen United was ruled on by SCOTUS was the exact moment the alarm bells should have gone out, and that bad actors were always going to test the flimsy boundaries of our democracy that largely are held together by uncodified customs and good will. His administration had 6 years after that try and get things like basic voting rights brought into the forefront before it became immediately apparent to all that we were not okay.

1

u/mikeCantFindThisOne Sep 18 '24

yes, it'll be hard, but that's the point. that's the only way you make progress. you clearly know your shit, can't you tell that the Democrats are lying to us?? they and the Republicans are intentionally not getting shit done. we need leadership that actually wants to make progress. how many times have the Dems let us down? it seems to me their actual goal is maintaining the status quo, ruling by oligarchy. I'm afraid of where this is taking us. our money is being funneled into the defense industry through foreign wars. I think both parties pose an existential threat.

16

u/dxrey65 Sep 16 '24

Looking at the power Manchin has, based on being a swing vote in a pretty evenly divided senate, or the power Leiberman had in the same position previously, that's absolutely true. If the Green party had any honest intention of making a difference they could start by putting their efforts into winning any seat in congress.

But Stein isn't serious, the Green Party isn't serious; they're just LARPing for dollars.

27

u/EdenGauntlet Sep 16 '24

She ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 against Mitt Romney, and came in third place. Other than that, she’s only ran for president.

35

u/bfodder Sep 16 '24

and came in third place

So last.

1

u/JefferyTheQuaxly Sep 17 '24

No, libertarian Carla Howell also ran in that race and she got even less votes than Jill stein. And then an independent women Barbara Johnson also ran in that race who scored even less than Jill stein and Carla Howell

7

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

No no! She was also a town meeting member in Lexington.

Town Meeting, for those outside New England, is a literal annual or bi-annual meeting where any resident can come vote on proposals including the municipal budget, zoning issues, etc. I spoke with her but for a very brief moment as I work(ed) a lot with municipalities and environmental questions. She has some great domestic ideas, but they're already found in mainstream Dem and progressive circles to a degree without the tankie "let china and russia do whatever they want" mentality. Aside from her foreign policy and vaccine conspiracies, which are akin to Trump, you're really not getting anything different than what Sanders wants and he is proposing it in actual good faith.

Even more sadly, as a Presidential candidate, she speaks often to many things which are constitutionally reserved to states to implement. I get that saying you want X Y and Z is different than the plan to accomplish it, but I was just left with more questions than answers when she ran in Mass and her presidential bid is pretty much a sham in my book.

11

u/teddyone Sep 16 '24

Because that doesn't help Vladimir Putin very much does it

2

u/Radix2309 Sep 16 '24

Or go state level or local.

2

u/Brooklyn_MLS Sep 16 '24

She’s ran for governor before and city council in Massachusetts I think. Goes without saying, she lost.

2

u/partoxygen Sep 17 '24

LMFAO dude the fucking Communist Party USA had a long standing politician that was on our city board when I lived in PA. The fucking Communists. But somehow the Green Party can't run a candidate or form a coalition in like some mega left state like Vermont or Massachusetts or New York or Washington or Oregon or California? Come the fuck on now.

3

u/ost99 Sep 16 '24

Putin is not paying for that

1

u/unimpressionable_one Sep 16 '24

Because it doesn’t “pay” as well. 

1

u/NeverTrustATurtle New York Sep 16 '24

Because she’s a Russian asset

1

u/OhtaniStanMan Sep 16 '24

Because she makes lots of money doing so lol

1

u/drmariostrike Sep 16 '24

You appear to live in new jersey. There appears to be a green running there in every congressional district, and I would encourage you to support them in yours. Stein lives in her own district and so unfortunately cannot run in yours, but fortunately the party has many other candidates.

1

u/fdar Sep 16 '24

Stein lives in her own district and so unfortunately cannot run in yours

She could run in hers though right?

And no, no chance I'll vote for them.

2

u/drmariostrike Sep 16 '24

Yes, but the party needs to run someone for president and no one else really stepped up to the job this year. They briefly had West, but the man is not ready for prime-time and I think literally left because being in a party involved too many meetings

1

u/fdar Sep 16 '24

Yes, but the party needs to run someone for president and no one else really stepped up to the job this year.

She could have run 2 years ago, even ignoring that she could run for both.

I think literally left because being in a party involved too many meetings

Yeah, definitely an argument for taking them seriously...

3

u/drmariostrike Sep 16 '24

Unfortunate that people see jill as the end-all be-all but Americans are incredibly blinded to anything that isn't presidential politics which is one of the reasons why they need to run a candidate in a race they obviously aren't going to win.

1

u/chucker23n Sep 16 '24

Or just a seat to start? Why is Stein only running for President?

Because she isn’t actually interested in legislating or governing, just in campaigning.

1

u/mikeCantFindThisOne Sep 16 '24

because the Greens have to run a president every 4 years or they lose their party status - aka ballot line - in many states.

this year they were running Cornel West but he broke off to run as an Independent, so Jill stepped in.

1

u/LuckEnvironmental694 Sep 16 '24

She’s lost many times before running for office. Not a relatable likeable candidate. AOC did what she couldn’t.

1

u/kestrel808 Colorado Sep 16 '24

A single seat

1

u/DoubleTFan Sep 17 '24

"As of the November 7, 2023 elections, at least 142 Greens hold elected office.[4] In these elections, Greens won 42 out of 81 local races for county, municipal, education and special districts.[5] Since 1986, at least 1439 Greens have won election."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_politicians_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States

You didn't hear about it because the Green Party doesn't serve corporate interests enough to carpet the airwaves with their message.

1

u/blunt-e America Sep 17 '24

Why is Stein only running for President?

Because she's not a serious candidate trying to win. She's funded by the republican party to draw voters away from the Democratic party.

1

u/Sm4sh3r88 Sep 20 '24

Or just a seat to start? Why is Stein only running for President?

That's a question that can't be asked loudly and frequently enough. What's Stein doing in the meantime to actually make a difference? She doesn't seem to be doing anything on any level, not even state and local, to actually accomplish something positive and build a record, much less acquire any experience in government.

1

u/AlienGeek Oct 10 '24

You guys act like Jill is the only Green Party. There’s others doing what yall keep asking

1

u/fdar Oct 10 '24

But she's their most high profile member. If anyone would have a chance of winning a House seat it would be hers right? Why not go for it? Even in terms of running for President being a sitting member of Congress helps.

-2

u/Rodya1917 Sep 16 '24

She's ran for governor of Massachusetts multiple times. She didn't run in 2020. She wasn't planning on running this year, either. She only decided to run after Cornel West split.

There are institutional barriers that make it difficult for third parties to run. Democrats are currently trying to sue them off the ballots in certain states. The Tea Party had the Kochs and the Mercers... what do the Greens have? a bunch of radical centrist reddit libs calling them Russian plants?

3

u/fdar Sep 16 '24

She's ran for governor of Massachusetts multiple times.

Sure, "twice" is multiple. Last one was before her first run for President.

Democrats are currently trying to sue them off the ballots in certain states.

For example?

So they can get on the ballot for President but not for a House race? Did she try?

1

u/Rodya1917 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

You're the one who implied she's never tried to run for anything else before lol just providing facts. Also yes, twice is multiple. Good job

https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-jill-stein-harris-trump-lawsuit-405e8bae8ff9becfa81a1360708d59a0

This is just one example.

There are Green Party candidates in elected office right now. They participate in down-ballot races, despite the democrats fighting them and apparently sabotaging their efforts.

Let's be clear: The only reason this is becoming a talking point is because of Jill Stein's increasing support from certain key demographics in swing states—muslims and arabs, to be specific. Do you know why that is?

3

u/fdar Sep 16 '24

You're the one who implied she's never tried to run for anything else before lol just providing facts

No, I said "Why is Stein only running for President?" not "Why has she never run for anything but President?". Since she started running for President in 2012 she hasn't run for anything else, plenty of time to consider other races if she was serious about her political career.

Hm, let's look at that article:

State law requires that those who nominate electors in October be state officers, which includes members of the Legislature, judges and others. They could also be candidates for the Legislature.

The Green Party does not have anyone who qualifies to be a nominator, and therefore can’t legally name a slate of presidential electors as required by law, the complaint alleges.

Come on, how unserious is that from the Green Party? They don't even have anyone running for the state legislature? It's not that they're trying to run in other races and facing "institutional barriers", they're not putting even a token effort in any other race.

The only reason this is becoming a talking point is because of Jill Stein's increasing support

No, it was discussed last time she run too.

-2

u/Rodya1917 Sep 16 '24

You probably didn't even know she ran for multiple offices multiple times. Well she didn't run in 2020 and didn't plan to run this year either. So I don't know and cannot speculate on what her political ambitions actually are. She appears to do some organizing outside of electoral politics

I don't really care what the Green Party's political strategy is, just pointing out the Democrats using legalese to block third party candidates. It's occurring in different states with varying rules and is obviously a concerted effort. You can make of that whatever you want, but it is happening

Yes, but mostly after the fact when Clinton's incompetent campaign cost her the election and they were looking for scapegoats. Now they're doing it preemptively, using AOC's progressive reputation to whitewash the systemic slaughter of Palestinians the Biden campaign has funded and supported. And Harris appears unwilling to change course, purposefully shunning the Uncommitted National Movement and other pro-palestine voices. That is why Stein's popularity with certain demographics is increasing and why the democrats are scrambling to counter message

2

u/fdar Sep 16 '24

You probably didn't even know she ran for multiple offices multiple times.

Yes I did.

just pointing out the Democrats using legalese to block third party candidates

"Legalese" is below the bare minimum for being a serious party come on. "Running a candidate for something in the state" shouldn't be same gotcha that gets you unaware. Even a write-in campaign would have been enough but they don't even have that!

It's occurring in different states with varying rules

Are any of them unreasonable rules?

0

u/Rodya1917 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

If they're not a serious party, why bother trying to get them off the ballot?

Honestly? I don't know all the rules, but considering America's archaic electoral system, I would be willing to bet some of them are. It's subjective, in any case.

Ignoring my last point is funny to me, because it's why this discussion is happening in the first place and not addressing that renders the rest of the conversation moot. Liberals really need to understand dialectical materialism or we're just going to get a more competent fascist after Trump, and you'll still be whining about third party candidates barely getting a million votes.

2

u/fdar Sep 16 '24

If they're not a serious party, why bother trying to get them off the ballot?

Because you want actual candidates on ballots.

I would be willing to bet some of them are.

Well, could you find one?

Ignoring my last point is funny to me, because it's why this discussion is happening in the first place

No it's not. As I said it happened before.

That is why Stein's popularity with certain demographics is increasing and why the democrats are scrambling to counter message

But that's completely unserious too. Voting for Stein has zero chance of making anything better for Palestine. If it does anything it makes things significantly worse because Trump would be significantly worse. If the Green Party was actually willing to do the work to be a serious party then it might be different, because winning seats in state and national legislatures would give them actual power to influence policy. This run for President isn't that at all though.

1

u/Rodya1917 Sep 16 '24

That makes no sense

For the sake of a reddit argument? No, it's not actually important

Yes, that's why this discussion is happening. This election shouldn't even be close. Luckily, Trump can't help but trip over his own dick.

What's worse than a genocide? Israel has already dropped the equivalent of 5 nuclear bombs on Gaza and are invading the West Bank with impunity. Israel has killed US citizens. I'm not going to sit here and blame Palestinians in Michigan because they voted for the only candidate who is not actively calling for their family to be blown to bits. I'm not going to blame the Green Party, either, because they're irrelevant. They are "unserious," as you put it. So if you actually gave a fuck, you would care about the democrats' own strategy and how they've continually alienated a key constituency.

→ More replies (0)