With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.

"How has Stein fared as a leader? By AOC’s perfectly reasonable standard, she’s done abysmally. As of July 2024, a mere 143 officeholders in the United States are affiliated with the Green Party. None of them are in statewide or federal offices. In fact, no Green Party candidate has ever won federal office. And Stein’s reign has been a period of indisputable decline, during which time the party’s membership—which peaked in 2004 at 319,000 registered members—has fallen to 234,000 today.

This meager coalition can’t possibly kick-start a legitimate political movement, capable of organizing voters and advancing ideas outside of perennial electoral events. It’s just large enough, however, to spoil the work of those who put in this kind of work."

  • @[email protected]
    1•3 months ago

    What an insufferable position and way of arguing for it. To anyone reading this thread, she only gets worse with each reply. She’s arguing for… Literally Everything necessarily taking a backseat to protecting people from even the mere concept of them feeling like their voting rights are taken away. Despite the fact that no one in this thread is trying to do that, and only Republicans are ever interested in such a thing, she’s really oddly interested in making sure people vote for third parties, which helps Republicans, without ever hearing the truth about third parties because it might hurt their feelings. Which as we all know, is definitely taking their voting rights away.

    She undoubtedly will point out some out of context quote about how the rational person in this discussion is a fAsCisT but each time she did that previously in the thread below, she wasn’t doing it in good faith so you be the judge.

    • LustyArgonianEnglish
      0•3 months ago

      You realize your strawman here is a bad faith argument? In fact, I actually can’t find a single good faith argument in anything you’ve written. You start out with an appeal to emotion. Then strawman. Then no true scotsman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Also we all know you’re the “”“rational”“” other person on an alt account. You type the same and it’s been days since anyone responded to this thread. Lol.

      I am voting for Kamala and I’m perfectly happy to tell people why. Maybe people will agree with me and that’s great. Otherwise, I still support someone’s right to vote no matter how they vote. Because that’s what a right is, and that’s what the right to vote grants. I disagree with any speech that advocates for limiting the right to vote, particularly because I’m a woman and women’s rights are being taken away actively.

      I also think that while yes, obviously Jill Stein is a Russian asset, that doesn’t mean every independent or third party candidate is. I am on the side of the every day person and am fine with hearing criticisms of Dems and of the way we currently vote.

      I will point out any speech that is a dog whistle to eroding our rights, though. I’ve quoted the specific issues with what you said. I don’t really need to say more. I accept you think it’s fine to control others. I accept that you refuse to learn about civil rights and the right to vote. I accept that you refuse to analyze propaganda and dog whistles in your speech. Whatever, it’s your opinion. I also think your little comment serves as an advertisement anyway for any people reading this thread besides you, lol.

      • @[email protected]
        0•3 months ago

        Quite conspiratorial to think I’m that other person… do you do that? Why would you even think that people would go through the trouble? Weird.

        I will point out any speech that is a dog whistle to eroding our rights, though.

        More conspiratorial thinking. in any case it’s pretty ridiculous to try and tell someone they shouldn’t inform people about third parties because they might get their feelings hurt and then… Feel unable to vote or something?

        • LustyArgonianEnglish
          0•3 months ago

          https://youtu.be/VbFmicUTb_k?si=KWic5pGj9STRmw4j

          https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-rightsadd.html

          For, with a country as with a person, “What is man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

          “All men are created equal.” “Government by consent of the governed.” “Give me liberty or give me death.”

          And those are not just clever words, and those are not just empty theories.

          In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty risking their lives.

          Those words are promised to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man’s possessions. It cannot be found in his power or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others.

          It says that he shall share in freedom. He shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.

          To apply any other test, to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race or his religion or the place of his birth is not only to do injustice. It is to deny America and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom.

          Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders.

          The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of that right to all of our people. Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument:

          every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.

        • LustyArgonianEnglish
          0•3 months ago

          I already explained that you speak and type the same. No, that’s not something I do, but that’s something you seem to do. Based on you doing it.

          I quoted the speech you engaged in exactly as it relates to anti-democracy speech and dog whistles.

          I’m not engaging in conspiratorial thinking, that’s not what that is. Conspiratorial thinkers are known for:

          displaying a deep skepticism that who one votes for really matters.

          Gee, I think that voting really counts. Conspiratorial thinkers believe that voting is pointless. I also think people should run for office and use their rights and communicate with their government. I am not antigovernment. Wild, it’s like you’re wrong and you think that conspiratorial thinking just means suspecting anyone of being hostile. Lol.

          I’m so tired of fascists.

          • @[email protected]
            1•3 months ago

            Yikes, yeah you’re just as wrong about this as you were about the things you’re being criticized for in the first place.

            • LustyArgonianEnglish
              0•3 months ago

              OK. Agree to disagree.

              https://youtu.be/VbFmicUTb_k?si=KWic5pGj9STRmw4j

              https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-rightsadd.html

              Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders.

              The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of that right to all of our people. Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument:

              #every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.

              • @[email protected]
                0•3 months ago

                No one here is trying to take anyone’s rights away. The other person commenting that they prefer more informed votes to uninformed votes doesn’t even begin to border on removing anyone’s rights, nor is it a “dog whistle” for anything. It’s patently ridiculous. As is the assertion that I am an their alt. Seriously, I write like them? They wrote long detailed responses to your bluster, I’m simply dismissing you on the grounds that your idea is so ridiculous it’s not worth actually engaging in, clearly since no matter what the dude wrote you took away something weird and persecution-y from it. Us both using spellcheck and capital letters doesn’t make us the same person. What reason would anyone have to care so deeply about what you wrote to switch accounts and pretend to be someone else? Even if it looked like we wrote exactly the same (we definitely don’t), that still shouldn’t be your first assumption. Yet it was, and that’s delusional.

                • LustyArgonianEnglish
                  0•3 months ago

                  The other person commenting that they prefer more informed votes to uninformed votes doesn’t even begin to border on removing anyone’s rights,

                  I have no issue with this statement. I quoted exactly what I took issue with, which is that they said “it should be a REQUIREMENT to have an education in order to vote.” That’s literally unconstitutional and illegal and fascist. Just like any other fascist speech, I am against that. That is indeed advocating to take away people’s right to vote. Quite clearly.

                  • @[email protected]
                    1•3 months ago

                    That is not clear at all, it is either not literally meant, despite the wording – that’s normal now – or it’s an opinion I understand. It is not fascist to require education. We do that all the time in our society. So yeah, still patently ridiculous.

          • @[email protected]
            0•3 months ago

            I’m so tired of fascists.

            Absurd thing to think from what I’ve written. I’m so tired of people defending garbage ideas. And no I don’t mean right to vote. The only people attacking that are republicans. The garbage idea in question is defending third party voters who refuse to be educated in a basic way.

            • LustyArgonianEnglish
              0•3 months ago

              The only people attacking that are republicans

              No, itt alone there are Dems advocating for these ideas.

              Taking away people’s right to vote, or advocating for speech that does so, is fascist in nature, yes.

              • @[email protected]
                1•3 months ago

                Practically no one would agree with you that what was said was fascist or taking rights away or any of these other scary words you’re throwing out. Unless they are trying hard to justify third party voting.

                • LustyArgonianEnglish
                  0•3 months ago

                  https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-8-6-2/ALDE_00013450/

                  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                  The Supreme Court has determined that, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, states may require a duration of residency as a qualification to vote, but such requirements will be held unconstitutional unless the state can show that the requirement is necessary to serve a compelling interest.1 According to the Court in Dunn v. Blumstein, [t]his exacting test applies because the right to vote is a fundamental political right . . . preservative of all rights, and because a durational residence requirement directly impinges on the exercise of a second fundamental personal right, the right to travel.2 While acknowledging that states have a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing fraud by voters, in Dunn, the Court determined that a one-year residency requirement in a state and a three-month residency requirement in a county was not necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.3 In contrast, the Court in Marston v. Lewis upheld a fifty-day durational residency and voter registration requirement, determining that the law was necessary to serve the State’s important interest in accurate voter lists.4

                  Kinda seems like majority opinion agrees with me that making education a requirement to vote would be blatantly unconstitutional. Because it denies people their right to vote. Which is literally fascism - an authoritarian dictatorship - when people don’t have democracy or the ability to vote.

                  • @[email protected]
                    1•3 months ago

                    We all know the reasoning for that wording. Discrimination and such. We’ve made plenty of amendments in the past. Do you call those unconstitutional? You’re very much overreacting to this very specific idea which btw practically no one throws around. But I understand it completely. It is not even in the same ballpark as fascism, that’s ridiculous bullshit and the wrong thing to hyper focus on. We have a problem with people not understanding what they are even doing. That is something to try to address and calling that fascism is absolutely and plainly ridiculous af