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 a single thread.
Bernie Sanders was not able to change the system from the inside after spending his entire life compromising with Democrats. It is hard to take these "progressive" Democrats seriously.
Let me quote just one line from the Wikipedia entry
Sanders is credited with influencing a leftward shift in the Democratic Party after his 2016 presidential campaign
You can also look at his legislative history to see that he’s been pretty successful pulling progressive Democrats along, regardless of not changing the electoral system or getting nominated
Can I get some examples or what he "shifted left"? I honestly don't even understand what that means anymore in the US political environment. Rights? Healthcare? Basic competent legislation that isn't banning or removing something?
I don't consider right-wing "conservative" anymore with the whole immigration/border and increased law-enforcement funding that would be needed for all their draconian ideals. "Progressive" is just trying to catch up to the rest of the world at this point that's leaving us in the dust while we argue about the same shit for 100 more years. (sorry rant over)
I followed your advice and looked at his legislation since 2016 (link 1,2), what am I looking for? I see a new "national heritage area" (another national park designation for some reason), dropping methane regulations deemed necessary from the EPA (uk is doing fine with it). Maybe I should be looking at only introduced legislation for a better picture, not what's past?
I’m quoting Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia entry has such a list
No, you quoted wikipedia then said "You can also look at his legislative history to see.." denoting a separate action. You just linked an entire like 50 page wiki article, what am I looking for?
While he has consistently advocated for progressive causes, Politico wrote that he has "rarely forged actual legislation or left a significant imprint on it." (link)
I was a Bernie voter in 2016, this comes from someone who has campaigned for him and researched him extensively. His performance the past decade has been subpar and I keep seeing him become worse while magically he's making the Dem party "Better"TM.
Look, I’m just quoting Wikipedia. It seems like you have an argument with them.
Your quote is followed with
According to The New York Times, "Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate ... Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others."[146] […] Nevertheless, he has sponsored over 500 amendments to bills,[148] many of which became law.
Bernie Sanders would have been president in 2016 if it was possible to change the party from the inside. There is a shift to the right in the Democratic party. Not to the left.