528
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Lashes Out at 'Predatory' Jill Stein
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
528 points (94.4% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3573 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Ok, can you please give me other metrics? How many nuclear plants have been built? How much has been invested into new rail infrastructure, whether for freight or for passengers? Have there been any new tariffs on the import of electric vehicles? Any regulation against single family housing, against car dependency, or against meat consumption?
Please, what metrics have improved, other than renewables being installed (at a much lower rate than in many countries)?
You do realize that Stein is against nuclear power and the Green Party constantly fear mongers against it?
https://www.wri.org/insights/biden-administration-tracking-climate-action-progress
There... are no metrics in the link you sent me... There's "plans to reduce emissions by X year", but no mention to progress so far. There's "investment into carbon capture and sequestration" (famously known to not work) but no metric. There's "a pause in the approvals for new natural gas projects" (but the ones approved keep opening up)...
Have you even read what you sent me?
We either get this, or we get full steam the other way. I'm not blown away by what he has done, but arguing that he is going in the wrong direction just doesn't align with the facts.
So no metrics by which things are improving, gotcha.
If passing the largest climate legislation in us history is a non metric, yes you do got me.
Ok, give me some metrics that explain why this is the most effective climate legislation please, other than Biden claiming so
When a poster blatantly misrepresents what I've said, I view that as them just admitting they realize I'm right.
lol you act like I didn't just link you the analysis of some third party.
I asked for metrics, you're bringing words, do you see the problem?
Fascists and Putin are sure to support her however they can. Cue the trolls.
Most of the greens here on Lemmy convinced me to never consider a green canidate.
I would absolutely vote Green but to do so would be unthinkable until we have ranked choice voting. We should band all the leftists together for one big push to get that enacted everywhere. Once we do that we can go back to our divisive bickering.
The trouble with supporting a third party -- and I say this as someone inclined to support a third party -- is that anybody who actually does it is either (a) an idiot who doesn't understand the game theory of first-past-the-post voting, or (b) an incredibly fringe nutjob. The result is that all third parties absolutely destroy all their credibility and ruin any chance of getting more mainstream.
If you're a third-party-inclined person who isn't an idiot or a nutjob, your only real option is to vote for Democrats in general, and ones who support ranked choice voting in particular (because you sure as Hell aren't gonna get it from the Republicans), and then switch to your third party of choice only after ranked-choice voting is passed.
My state is nowhere near anywhere close to being a swing-state. My vote for president carries very little weight. For this reason, I vote for whichever party actually aligns with my ideology.
An acquaintance once tried to scapegoat me and my vote for Jill Stein as the reason that Donald Trump won in 2016.
That's not how the electoral college works.
If you live in a deep Red or deep Blue state, you definitely aren't responsible for Donald Trump's win in 2016, BUT we need to defeat Trump, and we need every vote we can get, everywhere we can get it, so Trump finds it hard to steal the election, because we know he will.
At least, if you live in California or Oklahoma, your nonsense vote won't give us Trump, but unless you are CERTAIN you can throw your vote away, I'd ask you to look at your wife, sister, and/or mother and ask yourself if you want them subjected to Project 2025. If you don't, and I hope you don't, save the protest votes for your city/county/state governments where they might actually accomplish something.
Virtue signalling into the void. Don't get me wrong, I did it too in 2012 because I was disillusioned with Obama and I live in a deeply blue state. But that's all it is. You're better off writing an encouraging letter to your candidate of choice, or talking to your neighbors about the city council, or any number of other things that might actually make a material impact on someone's life.
It doesn't do anything, but neither does voting for a Democratic president in a non-swing state. They could just leave the box blank too. They're not choosing "should I check the president box or talk to my neighbors", they're at the voting booth, presumably because other races matter, and filling in the box because it's there. None of the options in that race matter and the comment you're replying to is explicitly about how it doesn't matter, so why are you even complaining?
Your point is that doing something is more effective than doing nothing? You sure got me there. I have to say that I agree.
The Democrats are going to give you ranked-choice voting so they can potentially lose your vote.... Thank god you are not an idiot.
San Francisco has ranked choice voting because there's no way in hell a Republican could win here. That's what we should be aiming for.
The Democrats give us nothing. We voters take.
Maine and Alaska use RCV now, and while Alaskan politicians are trying to ratfuck the votes (because Sarah Palin lost to a Democrat under FPTP), both states have seen people not get a Republican thanks to their vote for Third Parties on the Left, as long as they at least grudgingly mark the Dem ahead of the Rep on the RCV ballot.
Colorado's going to vote on this this November, too, which means I can actually vote Third Party without being ratfucked by that choice. Then I'll happily say 'Vote Green to hold Blue accountable, but make sure Blue shows up before Red so Red doesn't ratfuck all of us on the Left."
If you wonder about the constant use of ratfucking in my post, have a read and see what it means...
Yes. That's because the Democratic Party isn't some monolithic machiavellian organization.
Libertarians == conservatives who smoke weed
Wrong. http://gpus.nationbuilder.com/officeholders
You're the one sitting on your ass.
The DSA has far more electeds in every level of the government, and they've managed to do it without spoiling presidential elections. It's easy, all you have to do is run through the Democratic Party primaries, they figured it out decades ago, curious that Jill Stein and the Greens somehow didn't.
Democrats have you fooled.
Lmfao. You mean AOC who the DNC hates and has struggled for years to freeze out of the party? Seems like some small third party has you fooled.
Says the person who thinks third parties are viable, would you like me to name the dozen socialist parties that have failed?
If you actually supported any of the policies that you claim, you would be working to make them viable instead of working against your own interests.
Saying this after saying to vote third party is certainly a pot calling kettle black moment.
They hold over 140 offices across 20 states. Seems a little disingenuous to claim that.
Across an entire nation, they have 140 whole offices. They have more people on their party organizing committee than people in office. None of those 140 are even at the level of state legislature, despite there being many races with unopposed Democrats that only have a few thousand total votes cast in them.
The last election for my state rep had 4,000 votes cast. He had a single opponent from a party I've never heard of who got 1,000 of them. There were more candidates running under that low name ID and sparesly funded local party than there were Green candidates. If they were a real party trying to advance progressive causes, this would be an ideal place to build local representation. Single-party state, tons of DINOs to challenge from the left, and low turnout that could make successful challenges possible.
That's uhhh. A very interesting data point. Really kind of hangs the light on the problem...
Wow, 143 elected offices is massive. Such prestigious positions as "Neighborhood Council", "Conservation District", "Town Commission", "Planning Group", "Park Commission" (Pawnee reference??), "Select Board", "Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate", "Water District Board of Commissioners", "School Committee", "Advisory Neighborhood Commission", and gasp what's this? The mayor of a California town of 22,000 people? Why if all of them banded together and moved to Connecticut (and somehow became popular with the residents there), they could collectively make almost 77% of an entire Connecticut General Assembly and literally no other offices including mayorships, governorships, all of the other state legislatures and the federal legislature, and all the god-knows-how-many positions in local governments.
So now the goalposts are moved from they don't do anything but presidential candidates to they don't do enough? Maybe if they had better funding they could run more candidates. Saying they do nothing but presidential candidates is still disingenuous no matter how much you want to belittle their othet work.
That's a drop of LSD in a lake.