AOC is right: Jill Stein’s campaign is not serious
AOC is right: Jill Stein’s campaign is not serious
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently made headlines for calling perennial Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein “predatory” and “not serious.” AOC is right.
Giving voters more choices is a good thing for democracy. But third-party politics isn’t performance art. It’s hard work — which Stein is not doing. As AOC observed: “[When] all you do is show up once every four years to speak to people who are justifiably pissed off, but you're just showing up once every four years to do that, you're not serious.”
To be clear: AOC was not critiquing third parties as a whole, or the idea that we need more choices in our democracy. In fact, AOC specifically cited the Working Families Party as an example of an effective third party. The organization I lead, MoveOn, supports their 365-day-a-year efforts to build power for a pro-voter, multi-party system. And I understand third parties’ power to activate voters hungry for alternatives: I myself volunteered for Ralph Nader in 2000, and that experience helped shape my lifelong commitment to people-first politics.
Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
You're viewing part of a thread.
People are upset with 3rd party voters because they won't fall in line and do what the DNC wants them to do. The DNC feels entitled to every vote not cast for a Republican. If they want our vote they need to earn it, and they never have.
I don't care about the reasoning you make for your actions. We're talking about the results of those actions.
You will affect the race in one of two ways regardless of what you do. You will either benefit Party A or Party B, those parties being the two largest parties, aka Democrats and Republicans. Non votes and 3rd party votes benefit the smaller party, which is the GOP. This is an absolute fact within a FPTP system, even if you can't accept it because of the obvious implications.
If you feel the GOP has done more to earn your support, that's your call. I just think that's some next level dumbassery.
Your vote for Harris is stealing a vote from a 3rd party and giving it to Trump.
You will affect the race in one of two ways regardless of what you do. You will either benefit Party A or Party B, those parties being the two largest parties, aka Democrats and Republicans.
When a 3rd party becomes larger than the Democratic or Republican party, you would be correct. That is not the case, so you're still incorrect.
So in your opinion what makes the GOP more deserving of your support compared to the Democrats?
Neither one of them is deserving of support.
And yet when you look at this from the perspective of voting in the general election, everyone is going to support one of them regardless. Unless you can explain how a 3rd party will realistically win the election or how the GOP winning is beneficial. Why can't you explain that?
So again, why do you want to support the GOP over the Democrats?
I don't support the GOP over Democrats. They may have different methods of delivering their message but the overall outcome is the same. They take money from the same people, the same bankers, the same CEOS. One is just covert in their racism bigotry and lies.
If you think the GOP and the Democratic Party are equal threats that's an opinion you are welcome to hold.
I find that view to be completely asinine and at odds with reality but you do you. That doesn't change the end result of your actions if you don't vote or vote 3rd party: you're supporting the GOP.
I truly don't care why you choose to vote the way you do. I just want you and everyone on earth to know the results of your actions, support for the GOP.
A vote for a right wing authoritarian Democrat is closer in ideology to GOP and their end game than voting for 3 party.
Are you going to back up ANYTHING you say?
-
How does the election result in neither the Democrat or Republican nominee winning? If your 3rd party vote isn't helping one of those two parties, there must be another possible outcome. Just give us one. One single realistic alternative outcome.
-
Assuming you can't handle #1 (which I'm pretty sure you can't without resorting to fantasy), how does a vote for the "right wing authoritarian" Democrat help the GOP MORE than a vote for a 3rd party when there are 2 possible outcomes?
If you can answer for either of these giant gaping holes in your logic I will be astounded. I'll let you answer but I think I'm done with this thread. Have a good night!
In a FPTP system all it takes is enough voter refusing to vote for either fascist and vote for a 3rd party.
-
Which third party candidate deserves support? Stein is Russian trash
You're not supposed to drink the entire pitcher of propaganda.
Only if that third party stood any chance of winning. Which they don't.
If you have to go back 160 years, maybe that should tell you something about how realistic it is.
the only vote that can benefit any party is a vote for that party. don't spread misinformation.
You are incorrect. While a vote for the GOP candidate certainly carries more weight, it doesn't mean they don't benefit from non/3rd party votes. That is how FPTP voting works.
they literally cannot benefit from it at all. it's a vote against them and for another candidate.
Non/3rd party votes make it easier for the SMALLER party to win, and that happens to be the GOP here. This is just how FPTP voting works.
There are two possible outcomes, how could your actions not benefit one of the two possible winners?
I get that it feels icky, especially when someone views voting as a way to send a message or present their own moral views, but that's not what voting is. Not in the general election at least.
you have no authority to tell others what their motivations ought to be for voting.
Your motivations can be whatever you want. You just don't get to absolve yourself of responsibility for the results of your actions. I think that's a fair position.
so you'll take responsibility for empowering the genocide enablers?
I will take responsibility for enabling one of the two genocide enablers that I can choose from, yes. I am choosing to enable the one that contains a modicum of dissention from the status quo vs the one that wants to wipe Gaza from the map entirely.
Why would you want to enable the party that wants even more genocide than the Democrats do?
You are too by voting third party.
de la cruz, west, and Stein all oppose supporting genocide
Telling other people that their votes do not matter is a common right wing voter suppression tactic. And then they wonder why there's over 100 million people that do not vote. Because they've been told time and again that their votes only matter if they vote for one of the right wing parties.
Third parties are not bothering to earn your votes either. They put in zero work except for presidential elections.
Thats the only time YOU start paying attention to 3rd parties, by parroting what youve heard from the media, who has a vested interest in keeping the oligarchy in power
Ok, show me all the Green party candidates running for local and state elected positions.
Wanting someone else to do the work for you? It's your job to pay attention not mine or anyone elses
Oh I'm pretty confident of what the answer is. I just want you to look for yourself.
I looked:
Currently almost 140 Greens holding elected office across the nation. source
You haven't actually looked at the list of the 140 positions they're counting to get that already embarrassing number, have you? They don't even have a single state representative.
My state had more people running under a niche local party than the Greens, and we're a solid blue state infested with DINOs just begging to be challenged from the left. That's not a party trying to break the duopoly and challenge the neoliberal establishment. They're a joke.
Park Commission
Leslie Knope getting her start.
They put in zero work except for presidential elections
show me all the Green party candidates running for local and state elected positions
Thanks for linking the proof
Flags of convenience for local people elected to powerless neighborhood boards do not indicate the party itself actually did anything. It's actually not even that. They claim any win by a member of the Green party who's not a member of another party is a Green party win. So the criteria is more about the candidate themselves giving money to the Green party than any effort in the other direction. And no, winning neighborhood board seats is not the level of foundation needed to launch a presidential run.
Like I said, my state is a prime target for contesting elections from the left, but they do less than nobody parties organized around niche local issues. We've got low turnout, plenty of uninspiring neoliberal Democrats that are to the right of many voters (or even outright conservatives), and no real Republican party to worry about spoiling for. I've never even received so much as a flier from them. I had no idea they even fielded any candidates until well after the fact. This is possibly the best possible environment for Greens to come in and challenge the Democrats and it's hard to even call their level of effort an afterthought. They fielded candidates in two whole races in the entire state.