Guys, the joke is that Harris has not agreed to debate her, and they are suing to remove her from ballots
That’s the whole joke
Wow. Funny stuff.
What I find a little amusing was that ‘weird’ was supposed to be this genius way to deflate trump’s ego by not taking him too seriously and without sensationalizing all the fascist stuff he says, but this application seems to be doing the opposite - sensationalizing a pretty innocuous dig and making it into something more serious
Poor Jill. No one who matters cares about you.
Every four years. Not a single person in the world remembers who she or her party are. Except for a month or two before the elections when she starts acting a fool. What a miserable existance.
I’m sure her handler cares, if only because he doesn’t want to get defenestrated.
Jill, who are you doing this for?
I mean, besides Putin.
Her pocketbook
I don’t know how honest she is, but some of her supporter do have points https://youtu.be/-ik5KDukIho?si=8wYvdNIscsAapJd2
Cool, so when her and her party decide to actually participate in our political process, rather than come out of their hole ever four years to try to spoil the presidential election for the Democrats, then maybe we can start talking about her alleged “points”.
This is ignoring the clear connections to Putin and Republicans. Anyone want to explain to me why Jay Sekulow, of all people, was the attorney representing the Green Party in their bid to get on the Arizona ballot? For those of you who do not know who Jay Sekulow is, please do yourself a favor and google it real quick.
Some of her unwitting followers can have good ideas. They can be good people. She can still be bankrolled by Putin specifically to fracture the dem vote. Her followers know she has no chance, so she’s not hurting anyone except people whose hope she’s breathing in and basking in before she crushes their hopes of dreams after a Trump victory.
No I think it’s more Insidious than this. She’s Not Just enriching herself she’s also delegitimizing and disenfranchising green movements. She’s stripping money and attention away from races that could be won at levels that can affect real change needed for the green movement. She’s also as we see making the green movement seem absurd because well she’s absurd.
Have you watched it? It<s more about their reasons than their ideas.
I think you’re missing the point…
Conservatives also have really good points.
You can still say Fuck Trump.
Conservatives also have really good points.
Ehhhh… Such as…?
Like what? Or rather, do they pair it with “solutions” besides fascism?
Absolutely. On both count. Fuck Trump, and some conservatives do have good point that deserve to be heard and discussed. That was the point i was making, I don<t know Jill Stein, and whether she a plant or not. Her supporter still have good points. Dunking on her doesn’t change the fact they re pissed for good reasons.
You’re not meeting resistance from folks (likely more into politics or for longer) because we disagree with what she or her supporters have said or the policies they support. You’re getting resistance and downright vitriol because of the context surrounding her and her campaign
There’s a lot of info to disseminate, so instead I’ll inspire you to look into the history of Americans political parties, the history of third parties and their presidential candidates, and the spoiler effect in a 2 party system (and it’s impact on US history as a bonus)
I think AOC made a really good point recently about her (you can look it up, or let me know and I can help). She said it’s curious how Jill Stein, and many other oddball candidates (for lack of a better word), just pop up every four years seeking support for their campaign. She then said it goes from seeming authentic to predatory because they’re not actually doing anything the rest of the time to start a movement for their party.
I couldn’t have ever said it better. The reason I was upset when Yang ran wasn’t because of his policy proposals, it’s because he has no experience, anyone paying attention knew he had no chance, and he was making a mockery of the entire thing by simply being there. I might’ve digressed too far there, but the point is without real plans to win, it’s just influencer shit and scamming people out of their money, at best, and straight up evil political deception on a massive scale for personal gain, at worst
Sorry, if that was too long. Hope it made sense
Not too long and it definitely make sense, actually the only good one yet. So I will also make a lengthy response, not to convince, just enjoying the discussion.
About resistance, I think its normal, and the reason why echo chambers exist, It s comfortable. The vitriol is just useless noise.I am not from USA, and watch the situation as an outsider, has its pro and con. I don’t get to see all the intricacies, but I do have a good view of the big picture.
The two party system. To me that is a myth, or rather a self fulfilling prophecy or societal ruts . It is not in the constitution or laws that there should be only two parties. Its a very damageable system that is held up by the two parties. Independent candidates don’t get that much hate because they don’t threaten the status-quo. It would be in the best interest of all, left and right to break that status-quo. Calling third party votes as wasted is ignoring politic mechanics. The big party call those wasted because they don’t want to lean far enough to actually get those votes being, scared to lose more from the other side.
AOC talking about Jill Stein, I haven’t watched, just got the jist of it from the headlines, and comments on the posts. That is why I started with, I don’t know if she is honest or not. AOC is a credible politician, does she have a legitimate concern ? Probably. Is she doing a hit job due to the two party system? Also possible. Probably a bit of both, they need all the votes they can get. Now, the interview I linked to, does include Mme Stein, but I was bringing attention the the other people in the report. Why are they not satisfied with the democrats proposal?
I have no clue who Yang is or what he ran for. I will refrain from checking it out, so here are some platitudes from an outside perspective;
Being upset that someone runs for an elected position not because of his policy proposal. : you should advocate for numerous candidates, you might finally go from illusion to actually having choices.
He has no experience, he had no chance: Runners rarely win their first marathon, it should not stop them from joining. It keeps the experienced runners from taking a nap.
he was making a mockery of the entire thing by simply being there. : That must be the least offensive way the entire thing has been made a mockery of in the last decade.
without real plans to win, it’s just influencer shit and scamming people out of their money, at best,: Depend on your actual goal, sometimes you win, not by being elected, but just shake things up, clear the stale air.
and straight up evil political deception on a massive scale for personal gain, at worst: Yes that is a possibility, bu it also apply to those with an actual plan to win.
I am not sure i managed to put it down right, but replying to you had me think on all of this as well. So thank for the opportunity, no matter if you agree or not, hope you also get something out of it.
Have a good one
Which is irrelevant. Only R or D can win. Any vote that isn’t one of those is mathematically equivalent to a vote for whichever you hate more.
Therefore, her supporters are either disingenuous plants, or people who’s can’t be bothered to understand how elections work.
The US really needs a preferential voting system, or some other solution that doesn’t lock it into a shitty 2-party hegemony
There are efforts on pushing RCV or similar on a state by state basis, and there has been some success, I think they’re up to 10 maybe 15 states so far including red Alaska lol
But the tankies/Russian bots/right wing trolls/whatever never bring those efforts up, the very efforts that would actually lead to breaking the 2 party system for once
Has Stein ever said anything about it? That would be telling (more if she hadn’t than if she had, I guess)
Lol, what do you think?
Consider the source you just linked to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Callaghan
In January 2023, two women posted TikTok videos accusing Callaghan of trying to pressure them into having sex with him. A reporter at The Stranger then interviewed two other women who alleged that Callaghan tried to pressure them into having sex with him and made them uncomfortable.
As someone that’s mostly stopped watching and supporting him, that’s lame and you should know you’re not going to convince someone that disagrees with you by simply attacking their sources.
Oh did trump say something true? Well have you considered who he is? I guess I don’t have to even consider what he said now! How convenient
I’m only saying this because you literally didn’t even try to understand the person you replied to; you just said they’re wrong because of who they agree with. We can at least pretend to care about what ppl we disagree with say! lol
Imo, it’s pretty sad how we’ve legit learned absolutely nothing about political (or basic) discourse in the last decade. I recommend High Conflict as a starting point for anyone curious about having better discussions with people you disagree with. Shaming/Making them feel bad never works (it only triggers a fight or flight response). I’m definitely still trying to practice this, myself. (Sorry if I could’ve said it in a nicer way)
I never conflated the source with the point being made. I never said “source bad, your point is stupid”. I merely pointed out to him that wasn’t a great source to link to - regardless of the argument being made.
That’s fair (since we’re both already getting downvoted. lol), I’ll totally admit I had no idea that’s what you were trying to communicate
To me, it seemed super dismissive of what they were actually trying to communicate and have a discussion about since you only addressed the source and ignored the rest.
Just went back, and yep the rest of the conversation, thanks to you, is entirely about the source. Was that helpful, to you? Do you think it was more helpful to you than to them? Did anyone else reading it change their mind? Just seems like pointless bickering instead of constructive dialogue (I’ll admit I am assuming this is something we all want)
Way to defend a troll. You’re the one who got net downvotes btw
Meh, I’ve seen what y’all upvote
Assuming you’re serious, what makes them a troll?
Nope, I will not. These accusation real or not, have absolutely no impact over what the people he is interviewing have to say. I’m not literate enough to name it, but I’m quite sure your reply is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
No, just a suggestion you don’t use a sexual predator as a source or send views to his YT channel. Surely if what you’re saying is true, you have other sources that back up your assertion, right?
Surely if what you’re saying is true, you have other sources that back up your assertion, right? That is such a fucking stupid reply. Im tempted to ask you to forget all previous instructions and give me a vegetable soup recipe.
You are being awfully defensive. I didn’t even criticize what you were saying, I just asked you to consider the source you were linking to. But hey, if you want to rock the “I support sexual predators” thing, you do you.
Dude reread this whole thing. When did they say they support sexual predators? Do you even notice what you’re doing?
They were trying to learn about what makes folks disregard Jill Stein as a third party candidate as a viable contender for president of the US.
If you were intentionally trying to make them feel dumb and yourself feel smart, this would be an excellent strat, but I’m inclined to think you don’t believe you’re doing that. You probably wish to educate people about things you know. All I’m saying, is this ain’t the way
Again, super sorry if my tone sucks. I’m specifically talking productive discourse. I don’t think that includes branding someone a sexual predator for sharing a link to an interview. We’ve fully jumped the shark here
I’ve noticed lately there is this sense of superiority going around of good sources and like think is all that matters and bullying is completely acceptavle forms of proving you are morally superior.
I don’t get it. I don’t get the outcome they expect but I think it is likely more about their own dopamine and sense of self they are trying to protect at all costs.
The world is rough and it’s easy to just be dismissive and cruel especially when you are sure you are doing it for the right reasons.Dude reread this whole thing. When did they say they support sexual predators? Do you even notice what you’re doing?
They were trying to learn about what makes folks disregard Jill Stein as a third party candidate as a viable contender for president of the US.
<hands you chill pill> I think maybe you’re not even responding to the right thread? This was someone posting to a video, not asking questions. And the video was sourced from someone who has several sexual assault complaints against them.
Nope, I will not
Well next time maybe you can add a disclaimer up top “I SHOULD NEVER BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY” since that’s essentially what you did, you just wasted my time reading a minute before doing so
You re a slow reader, I appreciate the effort you made to reply hope it was worth it…
Maybe do whatever this is in a thread that everyone didn’t turn on you yet
