- cross-posted to:
- thirdpartynews
- cross-posted to:
- thirdpartynews
WASHINGTON (TND) — Dr.Jill Stein, who is a Green Party presidential candidate, has selected Professor Butch Ware as her vice-presidential running mate.
WASHINGTON (TND) — Dr.Jill Stein, who is a Green Party presidential candidate, has selected Professor Butch Ware as her vice-presidential running mate.
Okay, so to anyone who reads this exchange: I’m pretty sure this is a bot.
On top of it being a very botty response to my question, that didn’t even answer my question, they typed out three whole paragraphs with a thesis statement and conclusion, with some bold-face typing…in less than a minute. That’s fucking sketch.
But I’ll respond back at least once more:
Again, if you believe that the “electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate” and you don’t like voting “against your conscience”, then it seems like you value honest voting very highly.
But honest voting goes beyond parties. If you value voting honestly, then you should vote for the person you think is best suited for the presidency. It doesn’t have to be Jill Stein, it can be any of the other hundreds of millions of Americans, as a write-in.
What is your take on that?
Careful, accusing someone of being a bot is against community rules and this user has and will report any perceived rules infringement.
The response in question is a copy-pasted spiel they have employed before to several users - me included. Often repeated verbatim, and sometimes multiple times to the same person such as to me here and here (within minutes of each other).
I’m not sure of any rules being broken, but it doesn’t feel like good-faith organic discussion. Might just be able to skirt around the rules though.
Fair enough, thanks for the background. And I didn’t know that was a rule, so thanks.
I did also respond to the user organically in the second part of my post, so hopefully my post stays within the rules.
Oh I have no reason to report anything in this thread. It’s just that some users can be very uncivil, which is against the rules.
You thought I was a bot and gave your reasons. And I replied to you telling why that assumption would be incorrect. That’s fine.
But I have had some very nasty, very personal, very uncivil responses. And I did have to report them.
And the mods removed them for the toxicity. And those users got REALLY mad about it. One even sent me DM’s that he would “follow me around, just to keep an eye on” me. So yeah, creepy stuff.
All because I posted political news story about the Green Party to this political news sub. lol
This is true!
Except I get asked and accused of the EXACT same things over and over. So of course my responses will match for the sake of brevity.
Especially the whole, “Jill Stein is a russian asset” one. I always have to post a link to the newsweek article rebutting that.
I’ve discussed this poster in other threads. I suspect that the user is a real person using an LLM to respond to messages, but they enter the chat when directly called out on it, and give a human response to sow confusion.
However, as you can see from the OP response you directly responded to and others in the thread, the “LLM”-style responses are laser focused on splitting the left vote. They always jump to “stop trying to silence my third party vote” straw men arguments, and don’t respond directly to the points being made (except when accused of being a bot, and then they respond to that).
At the very least, the user is extremely suspicious and not credible.
Yeah, I think that’s a very reasonable assessment.
I like to come to conversations in a good-faith manner anyway, cuz I mean, you never know for sure.
But of course, there’s a limit to that, especially when they stop answering your questions, and later straight up say “you will never change my mind about XYZ” like that’s a good-faith thing to say.
I agree that your hypothesis seems likely. You can see a sharp shift in tone too, between “LLM-style” essays and then sudden abrupt uses of stuff like “lmao” and smiley faces “:)”. I’m surprised they’ve been able to avoid being banned, but I guess they seem very focused on skirting the rules by the letter of the law. I would argue they don’t engage in good-faith arguments, but maybe that’s not bannable, what do I know.
I still can’t say for sure whether they are intending on promoting third-party voting for political reasons, or if they’re just addicted to arguing online and have found a fertile hunting ground.
This has been my exact suspicion as well. A staggering number of their responses fall end with ‘Well I am voting third party whether you like it or not. Accept that.’, or some variation of that kind of a phrase.
How am I bot? Feel free to look at my past posts and conversations. lol
I 100 percent agree. And I think that Jill Stein is best suited for the presidency right now. Also, voting for someone who is officially on the ballot gives the party more recognition, influence, and potential access to resources and ballot access in future elections, which wouldn’t happen with a write-in vote that doesn’t carry the same weight or visibility.
Now having said that, if a good socialist candidate is allowed on my state ballot, I may switch over, depending on who it was.
But I really, really like Stein’s pick for VP. So far. I mean, if something comes out or it’s uncovered that he’s done something wrong, I could change my mind.
Also, just because someone goes against the mainstream grain about who they vote for, doesn’t make them a bot. Just saying…
My bad, I didn’t know you just had a copy-pasted snippet. That snippet didn’t feel like it answered my question at all, hence my suspicion.
Again, that suspicion had nothing to do with your apparent views, it was entirely because it didn’t feel like you were responding to my question at all - it was a long, well-written, yet generic, almost immediate response.
But I am sorry for sounding accusatory.
I do generally agree with this sentiment, so don’t get me wrong on that. However, I see this is a strategic/practical consideration in who to vote for. I don’t see it as a valid consideration in an honest vote.
My point is this: it sounds like you are a principled voter, but one who’s not blind to strategic or practical considerations. That’s how I feel as well, but I value the spoiler effect very highly in my strategic/practical consideration. Fighting the political science inches us both closer to our least preferred candidate getting elected.
I wish that your energy of “Consider voting for Jill Stein” was instead put towards “fight for electoral reform, so we can all honestly vote for candidates like Jill Stein without fear”.
No need to be sorry at all. I took your comment within the spirit it was given. I wasn’t offend or upset at all. You had your suspicion, voiced it, and I gave my response. All good, friend!
Well, for me, it’s the person I believe in the most and who aligns with my views. Jill Stein fills in those blanks. I don’t care about “spoiler” voting. I vote for who I want.
If the American people choose someone else as president, regardless of who that is, I’m fine with the decision. We’re a democracy.
Almost half of the American people aren’t gonna vote for Harris. That’s what part of democracy is. Our personal favorite side doesn’t always win. Regardless of the political spectrum.
I put it towards both. I 100 percent agree with and fight for electoral form. The thing is that the 2 main parties never want that at the time that they are the winning candidates and in office.
How many years have Democrats had a chance to change it? How many years have Republican had a chance to change it?
Neither party has, nor wants to.
They aren’t getting my vote.
Also, I don’t have “fear” of any political party.
Normally I’d feel the same way, but it sounds like you’re not concerned about a 2nd Trump term. I am VERY concerned.
If Trump wins, he’ll have 4 years with a SCOTUS supermajority, a platform that was written for him that will deal massive damage if even a fraction of it is implemented, and an already promised decision to implement Schedule F which’ll increase the appointive power of the presidency by a factor of 12-100. That’s literally not even the half of it.
We have to send a message that any of that is NOT OKAY. That message cannot be sent if he wins.
Perhaps you’re telling the truth, but it just doesn’t feel like that, simply because most of your posts appear to have been about defending third party candidates rather than speaking in favor of reform (I say “appear” because I have not combed through your entire post history or anything, nor will I).
I will say in your defense that recent news in the US doesn’t say anything about electoral reform, so there’d be no recent developments to post. I’m just talking about the impression it leaves that it appears to go unmentioned by you.
This is not true in general. See this. Ranked choice is slowly being adopted at the local level, and made it to the state level in Alaska and Maine. Yes, it’s banned statewide in several states, but that’s a hell of a long way from being banned everywhere. It’s slow but steady progress, from the ground up.
Although ranked choice isn’t my preferred system, it’s something, and that something sets the precedent that reform is possible.
Correct, I am not. I don’t think the world ends if Trump wins again. (But he won’t win anyway, so I’m double unconcerned.)
Well, you feel that YOU have to send that message. And I support your right to do that.
I, however, don’t feel the need to do that.
I am telling the truth. And I love the idea of reform. But no, you don’t have time to go thru all my posts. (tho you are welcome to!) People argue with me a lot, and are very mad that I am not voting for their candidate, so it would take you forever. But I have advocated for reform plenty of times.
But I’m not going to sit around waiting for that; I’m going to vote for the candidate I believe in now.
So you aren’t concerned about any of the issues I brought up - the 4yrs of conservative SCOTUS supermajority, Project 2025, Schedule F, etc?
Are you not concerned about Trump potentially invoking the insurrection act, especially noting that has said he would consider sending troops into liberal cities “to curb crime waves”?
Even forgetting things he “plausibly might not want to do”, his official policy plans are very concerning to me.
I don’t think the world ends if Trump wins either, but I think it’ll be very bad. Furthermore, I think 4 years of the president having zero climate protection policy will be detrimental to the environment. It feels ironic that you support the Green Party but aren’t concerned about a Trump presidency in that regard.
Nope. Pure fearmongering created by Democrats.
If Trump somehow won (which he won’t), then in 4 years, we’d have another election. And in that election, Democrats would be saying variations of “Republicans are trying to destroy the world. This is the most important election ever!” like they have always said.
And the Republicans would be saying variations of “Libs are trying to destroy the world. This is the most important election ever!” like they have always said.
I won’t be voting for either one of them.
Again. This isn’t about stopping apocalypse, or the end of the world, or anything like that. It’s about stopping a guy who has literally threatened to send the national guard into cities…just cuz.
And again. The irony of supposedly supporting the Green Party, while not caring about the threat of Trump on the environment. When caring about the environment is literally the namesake of the party……
Please, at least read my link to his Agenda 47 if you have not already done so. Or watch his official Agenda 47 videos, which are videos and not easily navigable text for a reason.
You like to say that people are mad about you not voting for their candidate, but that’s just your spin. Personally I was mad about you constantly giving shifting strawman arguments about how it was impossible for Stein to be working with Russia. Like most conservatives-at-heart though, you seem to struggle with owning up to any wrongdoing, everything must always be someone else’s fault and you’re always some innocent victim.
With a majority sufficient to overcome opposition? Zero. The GOP hasn’t been without significant influence through the filibuster in decades.