• @Boddhisatva
    link
    1142 months ago

    “It is amazing to hear you talk about women of color as parroting talking points instead of us looking at basic math,” Rye said. “The one thing AOC has done that you haven’t is win some elections.”

    Solid point. Also, the fact that a candidate for the Presidency doesn’t even know how many members there are in the House of Representatives shows just how little attention she pays to the basic mechanics of our government.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod
      link
      English
      49
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      As much as I’d love to have a legitimate third party to disappoint me, they’re not going to get anywhere if they can’t win outside of random local elections.

      Show me a Green House rep, Senator, or Governor and then we’ll talk about how you’ll inevitably let me down after I vote for you. Until then I’m going to vote for the disappointments who can actually win office.

      • @Passerby6497
        link
        English
        122 months ago

        they’re not going to get anywhere if they can’t win outside of random local elections.

        This point seems to be beyond the comprehension of some people (those who aren’t bad faith trolls, anyway). I’ve had so many conversations with people, both online and in person, where they don’t understand that a third party with no offices or political infrastructure cannot win and is just a spoiler party (and in the case of the green party, an obvious joke spoiler party).

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod
          link
          English
          92 months ago

          Exactly. I get that they can’t win everywhere, and that there’s actually quite a few of them in office all over, but if they can’t put up credible opposition to the Democrats at a multi-state level how the hell are they going to get elected to a national position?

          I’m gonna make a deal with the Green Party: If you can get a Senator elected, I’ll vote for you for president.

    • Admiral Patrick
      link
      fedilink
      English
      482 months ago

      A speed bump normally doesn’t concern itself with the rules of the road; just has to disrupt the flow of traffic in the intended way.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1022 months ago
  • @Buffalox
    link
    342 months ago

    Maybe she was schooled, but I bet she learned nothing.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      152 months ago

      Oh, she’s not an idiot. She didn’t need to learn anything. She knows what she’s doing. It’s intentional.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    192 months ago

    I am beginning to wonder if the person who keeps spamming this board with vapid third party posts and then refusing to ever engage in genuine non-adversarial discussion about them is deliberately trying to sour everyone here on third parties.

    Like, a few months ago no one cared. Now though, EVERYONE is well armed with facts and opinionated as hell.

    It’s probably the Streisand effect though! And it’s great to see.

    • @Carrolade
      link
      English
      182 months ago

      I’m more inclined to think it’s just a dedicated conservative troll that didn’t really think things through. Everything about it is just too reactionary and knee-jerk.

      I think the kids call it sea lioning? Where you use a facade of civility to break down a community with subtly divisive trolling.

      • Coelacanth
        link
        fedilink
        82 months ago

        I would call it a mix of sealioning and concern trolling. Also be mindful of direct accusations as this person also enjoys reporting people for the slightest perceived rules infractions.

    • @barsquid
      link
      142 months ago

      I couldn’t possibly make myself complicit in the acts of the bothsides duopoly. That’s why I will instead vote how the furthest right party wants people to. Additionally, I am on here all day every day campaigning for others to do the same, and that doesn’t make me complicit in any acts because reasons.

  • Diva (she/her)
    link
    fedilink
    62 months ago

    I find Stein a bit grating, but I always finds greens hard to pin down politically. I’d much rather this air time have gone to someone like Claudia de la Cruz with something interesting to say and some principles to back it up

  • @SirDerpy
    link
    -142 months ago

    Stein sucks. She’s there because she pays Executive Committee bills. No one votes Green for candidate as that candidate can’t win. They hope 5% vote Green, which would put their platform on every ballot in 2028, which would attract a quality candidate to represent it. There was an influx of new persons during COVID. Now, the masses must be inoculated with propaganda such that it cannot happen again when the DNC compromises everything they’ve promised us to suit corporate donors, once again.

    • snooggums
      link
      English
      312 months ago

      At least the Dems are not in favor of disbanding NATO.

      • @SirDerpy
        link
        -21
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Of course not. The Democrats rely on the military industrial complex to pay the bills, just as the Republicans do. Neither is so stupid as to shit where they eat. Only Trump is that dumb.

        • @Carrolade
          link
          English
          42 months ago

          The revenues of all the military companies in the US are a small fraction of Apple’s, much less the rest of the tech sector.

          Gotta keep up with the times there gramps, or next you’ll be forgetting things like we’re a net energy exporter now.

          • What do you count as military companies? Just things like Raytheon and Blackwater? Or do you include companies like Amazon and Kraft? If you’re excluding companies like Google and MS from the MIC, you’re greatly underestimating it…

            • @Carrolade
              link
              English
              12 months ago

              Fair question. Yes I was considering arms suppliers specifically. I’m not sure we can simply include every company that works with the military in any way though, it makes more sense to consider companies that get the majority of their profits from the military-affiliated work.

              I would not count Kraft as part of the MIC for instance.

          • @SirDerpy
            link
            -72 months ago

            Revenue is quite an oversimplification of geopolitics in a heavily interdependent economic paradigm, kiddo.

            • @Carrolade
              link
              English
              52 months ago

              Regardless, thinking the MIC is what pays the bills is just, frankly, wrong. Very outdated.

              • @SirDerpy
                link
                -72 months ago

                You’ve invalidated my reasoning. Luckily, I can keep repeating my ageism.

                Good luck with that, kiddo.

                • @Carrolade
                  link
                  English
                  42 months ago

                  No, you have not invalidated my reasoning I’m afraid, all you did was point out that revenues are not the whole picture. While true, this does not equate to the MIC being what suddenly pays the bills. To do so, it would have to either directly or indirectly contribute to the coffers the majority of the money spent. It does not, not even close.

                  You can blather about geopolitics all you want, but at the end of the day a budget is a budget, and most of the money comes from a very wide variety of domestic sources that the military has no relation to. The health care industry, for instance, does extensive lobbying to the parties. No military relation, and that’s just one example.

                  Your ideas are out of date. By a couple decades. Which is extremely common on here, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if you started discussing petro-dollars and an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East next, like so many of the other people on here.