this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
531 points (94.2% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2425 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.

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

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 235 points 2 months ago (16 children)

Agreed. The Green Party sits on their ass until presidential election. They haven’t moved the needle. Best case scenario, they’ve convinced a few non-voters to participate. Worst case, they’re dishonest opportunists.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 111 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This angle also needs to be considered). She’s not running in good faith. She’s essentially functioning as a 5th column to pull away voters who would otherwise vote for Harris.

I’m not saying Harris shouldn’t be pushed on environmental issues. I am saying that trying to do that by voting for Stein is actively harmful to the goal of not letting the fascists win this election.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 72 points 2 months ago (12 children)

More importantly, if you are voting for her because of the environment, voting for stein is actually harmful to that goal because it helps trump win, which means instead of making baby steps in the right direction, we'll run full steam in the wrong direction.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 49 points 2 months ago (12 children)

Most of the greens here on Lemmy convinced me to never consider a green canidate.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 35 points 2 months ago

I would absolutely vote Green but to do so would be unthinkable until we have ranked choice voting. We should band all the leftists together for one big push to get that enacted everywhere. Once we do that we can go back to our divisive bickering.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Plavatos@sh.itjust.works 152 points 2 months ago (31 children)

I don't think it bodes well she sat with Putin at a conference, whether there was "language barriers" or not.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 102 points 2 months ago

Oh come on, she had another American there to make sure nothing fishy was going on. The always beyond reproach Michael Flynn.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 55 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Putin obviously could give two shits about the planet. He just knew that she’d pull more votes from Clinton than Trump.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russians-launched-pro-jill-stein-social-media-blitz-help-trump-n951166

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BetaBlake@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Flynn pisses me off so much, it amazes me you can spend your entire career serving your country in mostly a leadership role and still end up a traitor.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 121 points 2 months ago (53 children)

It is admittedly a little ironic that the Greens' existence has likely resulted in the rollback of environmental regulations. It's almost like their top leadership post-Nader is just accelerationist in philosophy.

load more comments (53 replies)
[–] Snapz@lemmy.world 92 points 2 months ago (21 children)

Putin owns this lady. You're a dumb, bad, selfish person, Jill.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 89 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wonder where Stein’s money comes from right before elections.

Some people are asking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 76 points 2 months ago (31 children)

Look, whatever you think of Jill Stein, she can only be a threat to democrats because they are vulnerable to arguments from the left. If you don't want to be vulnerable from the left, adopt some of their popular ideas. Putin isn't tricking Americans into being anti genocide, or into wanting universal health care.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 55 points 2 months ago (1 children)

She isn't so much making arguments from the left, but arguments from fantasy land. She thinks wifi is bad for kids brains and that we can stop using fossil fuels AND nuclear by 2030. Most of what she says simply had no basis in reality.

[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago (23 children)

Are those the arguments you think that are siphoning off democratic voters?

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (30 children)

She can only be a threat to democrats in a first past the post voting system.

The Green party doesn't run on its policies. They've opposed nuclear for decades, and we'd be having a very different conversation about global warming if they hadn't basically won there. They have opposed WiFi and cell phone radiation as "cancer causing", and have supported homeopathy. If they ran on their policies, they would find a dwindling number of people on the left who actually support them, because they're vestigial loons concocted in a 1960s hippie lab.

The Green party runs on being the only party on the left that's bigger than almost nothing. That's it, that's all they do.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 17 points 2 months ago (4 children)

If the democrats weren't insisting on holding water for Israel's genocide, the green party wouldn't even be a nuisance to them.

Say whatever you want about how crazy they are, but the one issue the democrats are actually hurting from is their genocide support. If for no other reason than to push the dems to change that policy I think the greens are a huge benefit.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] makyo@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (16 children)

I know there are plenty of arguments to hit the dems on from the left. However, most of the attacks I'm privy to seem to be more about establishing leftist cred than actually doing something productive, and Jill Stein is one of the best examples of this.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 75 points 2 months ago (8 children)

The green party aka the gop distraction party.

[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 34 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I can’t believe people STILL can’t see them for who they are.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] graeghos_714@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (26 children)

If we had a normal election I'd be voting 3rd party because of the Dem's unwavering support for Israel with a genocide happening there. Unfortunately our choice is like choosing between a shit sandwich or pureed cauliflower for dinner. Pureed cauliflower sounds disgusting but when so many people are going to choose the shit sandwich I better vote for Cauliflower so I don't eat shit

load more comments (26 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›