-65

Green Party members trash AOC after she calls Jill Stein ‘predatory’ (www.dailydot.com)

submitted 3 months ago by UniversalMonk@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 29 points 3 months ago

Stein didn't answer the points AOC made, she just went into her own attack. I find it funny calling AOC "idle"...I realize she's focused on the one issue that Stein can hammer in to hurt the Democrats, but the way she phrased it was really stretching things.

So why does Stein only show up during elections to fan flames? This goes to another point I made on a different thread, we need good variety in the down-ballot, so why don't we see more Green and other parties when the grassroots is where things like that start growing the best? I'm not saying they aren't there, but the candidates have never had much support from the bigger organization, and honestly have always lacked credibility when comparing them to the Democrat choice. Mainly because they're usually a one issue campaign and don't have substance on the day-to-day stuff that's needed for locals. Put better people in these positions, they might get votes.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -23 points 3 months ago

Californians have elected 55 of the 226 office-holding Greens nationwide. Other states with high numbers of Green elected officials include Pennsylvania (31), Wisconsin (23), Massachusetts (18) and Maine (17). Maine has the highest per capita number of Green elected officials in the country and the largest Green registration percentage with more than 29,273 Greens comprising 2.95% of the electorate as of November 2006.[68] Madison, Wisconsin is the city with the most Green elected officials (8), followed by Portland, Maine (7).

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 16 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Why are you lying?

Greens in Office

At least 143 Greens hold elected office in 20 states across the United States as of July 1, 2024, according to these criteria of who qualifies for inclusion in this list. Below includes 130 Greens currently serving in elected office, who were elected to those offices. Five more joined the Green Party after being elected, and another seven have been appointed to elected office. (Last updated August 23, 2024)

(https://www.gpelections.org/greens-in-office/)

[-] twistypencil@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Maybe don't start with an accusation, could be just inaccurate information?

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

He conveniently cut out the very first part of the Wikipedia section that states the info is from 2017, he posts and comments for 8 hrs a day, and this is his 3 name change.

That screams paid troll

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -18 points 3 months ago

Why are you lying?

My information was a cut and paste from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States#Membership

--The Green Party's membership encompasses the fourth-highest percentage of registered voters in the United States, with a total membership of 234,120.[67] The Green Party has its strongest popular support on the Pacific Coast, Upper Great Lakes, and Northeast, as reflected in the geographical distribution of Green candidates elected.[68] As of June 2007, Californians have elected 55 of the 226 office-holding Greens nationwide. Other states with high numbers of Green elected officials include Pennsylvania (31), Wisconsin (23), Massachusetts (18) and Maine (17). Maine has the highest per capita number of Green elected officials in the country and the largest Green registration percentage with more than 29,273 Greens comprising 2.95% of the electorate as of November 2006.[69] Madison, Wisconsin is the city with the most Green elected officials (8), followed by Portland, Maine (7).--

Being incorrect isn't "lying." If you feel your information is more up-to-date and accurate (which it may be!), please feel free to update the Wikipedia article.

And the point being made was that Greens don't just run for presidential elections. Again, feel free to update the Wikipedia article.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

as of June 2007

Nothing like using 17 year old data to prop up your spoiler party!

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago

He won’t see this because he blocked me, but he’s either intentionally lying or using an inaccurate source. There are currently only 142 Greens in elected office in the US. No federal positions, eight state positions (though most were not elected as Greens), and the rest have been local/municipal elections.

Source - Wikipedia

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Wikipedia seems to be using this website for it's source on that, and perplexity gave a quick break down of the positions, which I'd sum up as "City councils, library and school boards and stuffs."

In any case, I'm not sure if gpeletions are owned/affiliated with the green party directly. but yeah. I can't find a single person in the CA state assembly or senate that's not DFL/GOP.

edit: also, looking at wikipedia, it seems that the 8 state holders are all former office holders. There's no currently seated green party members at the state level.

edit 2: gpelections seems to be part of the green party's official set of websites. (if you go to gp.org, which is the green party official site, and click 'officeholders', it takes you to gpelections.org)

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago

The way he keeps changing his name, I'd say he's intentionally lying.

[-] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 2 points 3 months ago

My take after interacting with him is that he's taking pleasure in dancing around the rules of the community and being "technically correct" in adhering to the rules, while instigating heated discussions in others. With how often he brings up the civility rule I also wouldn't be surprised if he takes pleasure in manoeuvring others into overstepping and consequently reporting them.

I don't personally believe he's following the "good faith discussion" rule since he's demonstrated repeated refusal to consider facts (such as his personal "belief" that the spoiler effect doesn't exist), but I'm not a mod here.

[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Why do we care what a fake politician says about a real one?

And before someone takes offense at me calling Stein a fake politician, what office has she held?

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml -3 points 3 months ago

AOC has the gall to call Jill Stein a predator meanwhile Kamala Harris as DA in San Francisco sided with actual sexual predators in the Catholic Church and ignored survivors of clergy abuse who were trying to get help from her office.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Whoa. You guys get replies when you email DAs of the biggest cities in the USA?

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago

Daily Dot - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Daily Dot:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/jill-stein-aoc-ocasio-cortez-green-party/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[+] Suavevillain@lemmy.world -8 points 3 months ago

She is correct on AOC. AOC's point about Greens needing to reach a wider audience is fair. That is also hard to do when you get no coverage and don't have a donor class of billionaires behind you. I have no issue with Greens running for Presidency, since there is no real overlap with Dem and Green voters. If Green options weren't there, you still wouldn't be getting the vote for Dems. They just wouldn't vote at all.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

Oh so that's why she dines with traitors. Does she want that audience, or is she colluding?
Seems she needed to collude before getting their support.

[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago

She has been cleared of that by The Senate Intelligence Committee Investigated and exonerated Stein. It is an old talking point.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Cleared? There's pictures and you can see where she gets her funding from...

Nice propaganda

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -36 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

To save you all some time:

I posted an article that's already widely available on a much bigger platform than Lemmy. I didn’t write it or create the content. It's already out there for anyone to see, so all I did was share it here for discussion. If you disagree with the article itself, that's fine, but calling for it to be censored or accusing me of pushing an agenda simply because it's not what you want to read seems misguided. Open debate requires different perspectives, not shutting down content you don't like.

I’m done wasting my time trying to convince you that I’m not a Republican, that I don’t live in Russia, or that despite posting hundreds of socialist articles to the socialist community, I’m somehow not a socialist. If that’s what you want to believe, fine, go ahead.

If you’re getting worked up over a news article I didn’t even write, that’s on you. Be mad if you want, but it’s not my job to prove anything to you. I’ll share my opinion, and you can take it or leave it. Either way, not my problem.

In the past, when I’ve tried to defend myself, people accuse me of not listening. If I stay quiet, they take it as guilt.

Here’s the deal: I’m still going to post what I want in this community because what I’m posting fits within the theme and guidelines of this community which celebrates diversity of thought and opinion.

So, go ahead and expect me to copy and paste this comment into the many, many arguments you’re going to try and start. Whether you believe me or not, it’s not my job to prove anything to you. I’ll share my opinion, and you can take it or leave it. Not my problem. :)

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago

You know, you may as well just put this into the post body.

this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024

-65 points (12.6% liked)

politics

19248 readers

2296 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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. 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.
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

• 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