Gen Z advocacy group launches TikTok campaign against voting for Jill Stein

The kids are alright.

Young women are alright, right wing support amongst <35 y.o. men is surprisingly high...
- Agreed. I'm a teacher and see it in my classrooms. I often feel that they're not taught how to have healthy community, so they become lil fascists...
- right wing support amongst <35 y.o. men is surprisingly high…
  
  The media is flush with fascist attitudes in a country where going on the computer and listening to fascist rants is all you're allowed to do with your time.
I have great hope that they'll be better than our generation, just as we were better than our parents. Fuck the 'fuck the kids' mentality.
- I'm a classroom teacher, and I find that you've gotta sometimes have both "fuck them kids" and "for the kids" in different measures. But overall, I feel like they're doing a lot of cool things.
A side effect of me being terminally online is that you can predict the top comment of some posts

Anything that helps legitimize trump (increase overall pop vote numbers, regardless of loss) or props up green party and stein with a stated intention to get trump elected, in fact "helps trump"

Considering a vote for Dr. Jill Stein? I'm open if you have some insight I'm missing, but in my experience the green party has some exciting ideas on the surface, as lip service, but the party doesn't put in meaningful work in interim government outside of a presidential election cycle every 4 years. So it's a meaningless party.

You may think, "I'm in a solid red or blue state where my vote can't influence at the national level", but I find it hard to support Green/Stein in any capacity with how blatantly Stein has, in my opinion, been knowingly running as a spoiler candidate. The Green party has a (now publicly stated) intention to have Harris lose Michigan specifically. Below is clip from a Stein rally in Dearborn, Michigan. A surrogate for Stein is about to introduce her and spells out their intentions very clearly during remarks,

"We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic... we could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.”

I would ask anyone considering a vote for Stein, in any state, to consider that truth they speak openly - When they are admitting that they can't win, stating a goal to defeat the Harris campaign and acknowledging that Harris likely cannot win the election without Michigan, the undeniable net of that is that they are working to directly secure a second trump presidency, in my opinion.

As I see it, we just cannot have it both ways in a two party system. If the green party was a serious movement working against two party politics (and I would personally embrace and support this) they would become THE platform for ranked choice voting with a green party candidate in every meaningful on/off year election to make that issue ubiquitous with green. They speak endlessly about the flawed two party system (with a clear bias towards shitting in dems), but in the current two party system we actually have, you can't cast a protest vote without actually casting a vote for trump in this election - And that cannot be stated more clearly than this green party spokesperson states it at this event before Stein speaks.

Here is a link to direct feed of that green party rally in Dearborn Michigan if anyone wants to see first hand to consider. It's a longer video, but it starts at the point discussed and surrogate makes the above quoted statement within about the first minute speaking. https://youtu.be/WKSm2FQ8z60?t=5153

And trump acknowledges as much directly mentioning Stein and green party campaign by name recently,

"Cornel West — he’s one of my favorite candidates, Cornel West," Trump said. "And I like — I like her also. Jill Stein. I like her very much. You know why? She takes 100% from [Biden]. [West] takes 100%. Kennedy’s probably 50/50, but he’s a fake.”

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/trump-speech-jill-stein-cornel-west-rcna158627

I've heard individual positions I like from West, Stein and others in the past, but in my opinion if they aren't fighting to be the bridge to engage the flawed structure of elections in this country as third parties, these are just campaigns driven more by individual candidate ego than a motivation for systemic change.

Those are my thoughts.

I get the logic you put forth. Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I'm always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone's vote by default.

In this case, let's say there aren't any other parties on the ballot other than the Democrats and Republicans. In Michigan specifically you have a voter group, that says that they cannot vote for genocide especially if it is against their own families or people that look like them. And both parties are either promising the continuation thereof or have been engaged in it and have been excluding anything related to addressing it, or people representing that voter group, from their campaign. So the presumption, that if there wasn't a Green Party to vote for that they would be coming out to vote for the Democrats is imho just flawed. They might just as likely stay home.

What I find even more baffling is that this party can't seem to clearly outperform the even more clearly dangerous candidate to democracy. The Arabic or Muslim population in Michigan should not be this decisive for the outcome, if the Democrats were able to actually persuade voters to turn out by delivering an attractive policy plan, thereby earning the votes, instead of just arrogantly thinking, they're entitled to them.
- Nobody thinks they are entitled to votes. This is about triage during an emergency.
  
  To make it simple, let's assign a number out of 100 - Likelihood that a second trump presidency enthusiastically and loudly helps Israel escalate and "finish" their genocide in Gaza: 98.9
  
  Likelihood that post inauguration, a Harris presidency does something that doesn't go as far as the above, but still does meaningful damage, just more quietly through diplomacy and weapons shipments: 32
  
  Now it isn't great that the Harris number isn't zero, even negative, but the reasoning for her campaigns current position is likely a combination of election politics plus the vestiges of Biden's outdated and misguided position on blind support for an Israel that's in his mind and not in front of him.
  
  So first up in a triage... You get Harris in because less likelihood for absolute annihilation. I'd then wager a likely softening at worst to full end of support at best once Biden and election are out of the active picture. Most importantly, we eject Harris because a Harris presidency will preserve your right to protest Harris. A second trump presidency likely leads to the end of American democracy and the freedoms Americans take for granted.
  
  After a Harris admin victory she needs to be sworn in the following January, but on day one, I fully support that we FILL the streets across the country, a la Vietnam era protests. We block freeways and interrupt commerce until a Harris administration ends all US support of Israel's genocide. We will have that right and that chance with Harris, you'll get shot in the fucking eye and tackled into an unmarked minivan if you try that in a second trump administration.
  
  Realize the weight of this decision, and listen to Stein's own campaign telling you they are doing to get trump elected. Time to get WIDE awake and ADULT on the reality here.
- Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.
  
  If you live in a democracy where the spoiler effect isn't an issue, then just be happy, whistle, and move on.
  
  If you live in a democracy with first past the poll elections with an electoral college, then you should understand how the system works and vote accordingly.
  
  The spoiler effect is where you vote for someone (Jill Stein in this case) who you think better aligns with your particular set of policy goals, but since they have no chance of actually winning you help the candidate most opposed to your policy goals (Trump in this case) by subtracting votes from the less aligned candidate (Harris in this case) that actually does stand a chance of winning.
  
  It's an ironic outcome of voting in our system. By voting for the person most aligned with your preferences you actually help the person least aligned with your preferences.
  
  Trump is worse on genocide and climate and will be assisted greatly by idiots voting for Jill Stein in swing states.
  
  They've done research and provided these assholes aren't on the ballot, people usually choose a ballot-present major party option instead.
- In a nutshell, the Democrats can't convince people to vote against the dangerous candidate because right-wing populism inoculates people against facts and logic by making those things out-group markers, per se. Identity is powerful, and the human brain treats threats to identity in exactly the same way as physical threats.
  
  And, on the other side, Democrats can't recognize this and respond appropriately, because they've made not-recognizing-it a marker of in-group identity, and they are thereby unable to decode what would make an attractive policy plan.
- The situation is thus there are so many white people especially white men voting essentially for Hitler no matter what anything in fact more liberal than Obama risks losing enough votes on the margins to plunge our nation into darkness and chaos. A US where 35% of white men wanted hitler instead of 55% wouldn't have this problem.
  
  Oh BTW Trump wants to help Bebe kill 2 million gazans and build condos. If you can't distinguish between Trump and Harris positions or realize that Congress is who authorizes aid you might need help
If the dems lose votes to the greens it will be because of their own fucking policies including genocide. They could always change their policies. But instead they blame the public.
- If the greens lose votes it will be because of their own lack of policy including untested bullshit lip-service that no one with a brain is buying. They could always do the work between elections. But instead, they’d rather play spoiler.
- Well Putin and xi genocided my ability to give a fuck what your husk of a soul thinks about it.
  
  Enjoy your greenpartylossparty
- Preach, friend!

Shouldn't be hard to convince anyone not to vote for her who doesn't hate minorities.

Just let him know that David Duke endorsed Jill Stein.

If that isn't a literal mic drop on her campaign idk what more can be done. Just make sure everyone knows before they approach a voting booth.

She rejected the endorsement. Even if she is throwing the election don’t put that crap on her. She can’t control David Duke

Dick fucking Cheney endorsed Harris and she embraced it. And her poll numbers plummetted. That’s a bigger problem with an actual consequence.
Wait til you find out Dick Cheney endorsed Harris! Probably the chief architect of the "GWOT", responsible for over 1 million dead. Fuck David Duke, but he's fuckin small potatoes compared to Dick-Vader.
Duke endorsed Stein because she does not support Israel.

The Stein campaign called David Duke trash and disavowed him.

The dishonesty here staggering.
- Lmao bro David Duke is an overt white supremacist. The association alone is damning, despite the disavowal.
- Oh okay, so they're just ideological comrades...
  
  The politician you like best and the former head of the KKK are ideological comrades
  
  Say that out loud a few times.

I heard a piece on Here And Now today about a group of single issue voters in Dearborn that is actively working to disrupt and damage the Harris campaign. They are trying to get dems to vote for Stein.

"single issue voters" 🤣 🤣 🤣

"stop blowing up my family"

okay SiNgLe IsSuE vOtEr
- Thing is, there is no "stop blowing up my family" vote in this election.
  
  It's "status quo, maybe some improvements but don't hold your breath about anything major" vs "corruption, corruption, corruption, fuck everyone who isn't a billionaire or has their lips firmly attached to billionaire assess, especially the entirety of Palestine" vs "I won't vote for either of those options but will still need to live with the one everyone else votes for".
It seems like they're using multiple strategies in an effort to put pressure on the Dems. Some are saying that they are going to vote for Trump even though they are also anti-Trump. Their logic is that Kamala is actively contributing to a genocide, whereas Trump is not.

I doubt there is anything they can do to actually make Democrat politicians feel pressure, but I do agree with their sentiments. I'm not voting for some who is pro-genocide. Trump is both pro-genocide and fascist. I'm also not going to vote for a 3rd party candidate because most 3rd parties focus on the presidential race more than they focus on grassroots efforts.
- Their logic is that Kamala is actively contributing to a genocide, whereas Trump is not.
  
  This is literally the most braindead political take I've ever heard, and that's saying a lot
- Voting is a strategic choice, not an endorsement. You should vote for the candidate who you would rather have in office.
- Their logic is that Kamala is actively contributing to a genocide, whereas Trump is not.
  
  Even though he literally is, has put the Israeli Embassy in Jerusalem, and has advocated for the deployment of nukes in Gaza...
- I mean they're naming an illegal settlement after trump and Netanyahu is explicitly advocating for trump. What's crazy is polls show Kamala would get like a 6 point poll boost by breaking with biden on this and saying something a little more forceful about a peace deal, such as a deadline where arms deals are halted. It would almost singlehandedly secure michigan.

G.R.E.E.N

Get

Republicans

Elected

Every

November

The Green Party thanks Lemmy for all the publicity it has given to the Jill Stein campaign

Uncommited movement: "Guess I won't vote"

How do you do fellow young adults.

Good. Fuck Jill Stein. Fucking grifter loser.

Reminder: Jill is a transphobic ableist who doesn't believe autism exists

Didn't I read something somewhere about her being a Nazi or Russian spy or some shit?

- What the fuck

Shill who?

What would be harassment on Lemmy (learn to take a hint already), actually makes sense on tiktok. With it's giant, young user base, there should be someone you can convince to vote for Harris.

However, I do think getting Jill Stein's name out there could backfire. Remember, it was the media that made trump a viable candidate.

they should probably focus more on voting for Kamala Harris

A lot of (and probably most of) the people supporting Stein currently are Muslims whose main interest in voting is regarding the genocide, and on social issues are generally more conservative (and may not agree with her on stuff like LGBTQ) and may not align with either major political party so likely wouldn't be voting otherwise. I've seen a lot of Muslims support Stein on social media and the Stein rally I went to was almost entirely Muslims which is where I'm getting this impression. This is a case where the main parties need to earn their votes, and voting for Stein does not mean voting for Trump because they might not have voted blue either way.

(And regarding Lemmy drama most of the people here are voting PSL anyways so trying to convince people here not to vote for Stein is pointless because it's the wrong audience.)

hmm PSL.. Party for Socialism and Liberation? Claudia de la Cruz? I got no beef with them, how do you think that's popular on Lemmy? Ohhh you're on lemmy.ml

look Gaza and the wider Levant or whatever is not just potential real estate. But that is Trump's milieu, is real estate scams, and he loves the idea of selling off Gaza to rich white folk. So vote for a third party at your peril.

if you live in a state with preferential voting (eg alaska, maine?) wouldn't you be better off voting green if they represent you views better?

The Green Party, maybe. Jill Stein, with the stuff she's been saying I am not quite sure if she would actually present your views better or if she's an actual competent leader. Of course you can have the question of the best of the worst, but then still I'm not sure if she compares well.
What states have ranked choice?
- Alaska and Maine.
ah yes the party of "wifi causes brain damage"

So much energy from democrats that they should instead spend on pressuring their party leadership to change their evil policy of genocide support.

Gen Z advocacy group

Is just code for "DC Consulting firm". The energy is less popular appeals and more paid professional trolls.
- I read "totally organic grassroots movement" and hear "PAC funded astroturf campaign"
- Probably a fair assessment. Honestly, the energy I'm thinking of is all these Lemmy users.
I don't know, this might be a pretty effective strategy
- It might.

If you’re getting convinced by anti-green rhetoric, I don’t blame you. The greens are pretty bad.

You can always vote for the party for socialism and liberation instead. They’re running de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to israel.

Or don't vote against your own interests by voting third party. Because First Past the Post means that any third party is going to act as a Spoiler, siphoning votes away from the major party that is ideologically closest to the Spoiler.

What you should do is hold your nose and vote against the literal fascist.

Then on November 10th or so (for incumbents that win) and Jan 10th or so (for the newly elected), start writing actual letters to your congressmen, Call them, email, seek them out in person at meet and greets, and push for voting reform.

Now, the temptation will be to advocate for RCV. This is the wrong move as well. RCV is inherently broken and can actually produce worse results than First Past the Post, while also having some diehard fans who promise the fucking moon. No, if you want third parties to have any chance at all of growing and possibly winning, you need to advocate for Approval or STAR.

So remember, start pushing voting reform the second we kick the fascist to the curb. Push on day one of the new session, and keep pushing. Do the work ahead of time, and maybe, we can revisit the third party issue in the future.
- https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/alaskas-presidential-election-allows-voters-to-rank-up-to-eight-candidates/
  
  there is at least one state that has implemented ranked choice voting
- No.
  
  I haven’t held my nose for a democrat for going on fourteen years and I’m not going to start now.
  
  I’m politically active far beyond voting and have spoken face to face with several representatives. They don’t care or listen.
  
  No amount of voting reform will fix the fundamentally unjust American political system.
  
  I have been doing the work and will continue to do so. Voting for PSL in this election is part of that work.
  
  If you’re reading this, don’t fall for the “oh if only we had star or ranked choice” fiddlefarting around the edges garbage. We live in under a fundamentally unjust political system and especially when both major parties are advocating in support of genocide there is no reasonable argument for performing the calculus required to declare one the lesser evil.
  
  Walk away from omelas.
- Well, more and more people are pushing back against those thoughts. I'm see lots of people tired of waiting and going for third party this year. And it's awesome to see!
Yep! I voted for a different socialist candidate, but I really like de la Cruz. She's awesome.

NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for NBC News:

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

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/gen-z-advocacy-group-launches-tiktok-campaign-voting-jill-stein-rcna175498

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

According to the "lesser evil" rhetoric Jill Stein is the lesser evil candidate and anyone who doesn't vote for her is supporting fascists.

False. Jill Stein has ties to Vladimir Putin and a republican marketing firm.
- Look i know that you don't like it but to have ties with Vladimir Putin is less evil than being a fascist or supporting a genocide. If she lose things will be a gazillion times worst. The choice is limited buddy if you want to change the system you have to vote for the lesser evil.
Nice gotcha, but she's not going to win, so she's not practically a choice. "Vote for the lesser evil" is a good shorthand, but it's still shorthand; the philosophy is to vote in a way that will cause the least harm. If your candidate has no chance of winning, then you aren't doing that, since your vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. Voting for a third party only makes sense if you weren't going to vote at all, and in that case it's a better choice but still not the best one. Hope that helps clear up any confusion around the lesser evil sentiment.
Jill Stein recently, in an interview with Mehdi Hasan, repeatedly deflected when asked directly if Putin is a war criminal

Repeatedly, with obvious contrast from her (correctly) calling Netanyahu a war criminal.

She is cozy with fascists.
- Being cozy with fascists is "lesser evil" than being a fascist yourself or aiding fascists in a genocide. "do you want things to be x10 times worst?"

Isn’t this just effectively giving her more attention? I’m not convinced that this helps.

I’m not convinced that saying "I’m not convinced that this helps" helps.
- I know you think you’re really clever and that’s great. Howard Stern became popular because people started protesting him. Sometimes you should just ignore things and they go away.