30
submitted 8 months ago by negativenull@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Will she be funded by Donald Trump again like in 2016?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sanity_in_Moderation@lemmy.world 94 points 8 months ago

She will once again campaign only in states where it is possible to flip to Trump. Instead of safer states where she could get 5% of the vote and thus qualify for matching funds for the green party.

That is how you know it's completely bullshit and she is being run as a spoiler candidate for Trump.

Well that and the picture of her and Michael Flynn sitting at Putins table at a Russian state dinner in December of 2015.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Dee@lemmy.world 52 points 8 months ago

Until we get ranked choice voting or similar the Green Party is a joke with zero chance of election. Voting for them only helps Republicans at this point in time.

load more comments (67 replies)
[-] awnery@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago

ranked choice voting because i'd choose a chupacabra's cloaca over trump. but jill stein is just here to talk and distract. she has a platform, she can use it, she doesn't have to make shit worse.

[-] Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 months ago

Chupacabra's cloaca.

There are at least three truly cursed combinations of words out there in the world that most only see a handful of times throughout their lifespan. They are both forbidden and beautiful in their execution.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 34 points 8 months ago

Is this the first election in American history with more Russian candidates than American ones?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Hexbear has assured me that RussiaGate was a hoax, so, no.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 27 points 8 months ago

Let's see:

  • Fascism is calling from inside the house
  • All of the Republican candidates are fascists
  • The Supreme Court is stacked with Federalist Society-bred Christian Originalists.
  • Trump is likely going to be the Republican nominee

And here's Jill, like, "Mmm, yeah. Now's a good time to try to split the vote."

load more comments (63 replies)
[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago
[-] DrSleepless@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Putin"s other bitch

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 16 points 8 months ago

Because of course she does.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

This old donkey needs to ride off into the sunset. This is a spoiler campaign.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Russian pawns gonna pawn

[-] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 8 points 8 months ago

How 'bout No?

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 7 points 8 months ago

Wasn't she the dividing vote for democrats in the 2016 election?

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Hillary being a shitty candidate is what caused 2016

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No thanks. I'll vote who is likely to win based on mathematics with weighs on preference on top and those I prefer on the downballot. Do this enough time, and there will be a split between progressives and moderates when conservatives eventually become ineffective minority.

[-] oDDmON@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

She sounds good on paper, but not much else. Needs to stay off the stage.

[-] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I cast a Jill Stein protest vote in 2012 because Obama had a lock on my state, and I felt like Obama and the Dems in general had strayed too far to the right. Obviously, Obama won my state and the presidency, which is what I actually wanted. I just felt like we could move the Dems to the left by showing them they were leaving votes on the table. That does not work. I can get into why, but the basics are that third parties only act as spoilers.

In any case, Jill Stein is a terrible candidate on paper. All she does is mouth the dream set of policies a lot of us would love, but has no program to achieve them, she has no experience picking staff or running a large organization, she has all the charisma of a rotten banana, and she refused to throw down against anti-vax because it’d alienate half her base.

I’m for a serious Green Party in the US - one that is actually oriented towards governing. The Greens internationally are a real party, not the party equivalent of Vermin Supreme.

Honestly, most of the US agrees with the Greens on a lot of issues, and they could make enough of a big tent that a seriously (constructed and funded) Green Party could probably take multiple seats in the House, at the very least. They could caucus with the Dems, but try to pull things left. They’d work like the Squad, or Bernie and Warren. Between the coasts and the big cities, they could probably swing ten or more seats.

But instead we get Jill, yet again. Honestly, I’d like to see an investigation of her Trump-like election challenging fundraising.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

They rarely even run in down ticket elections.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
30 points (66.3% liked)

politics

18129 readers
3591 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS