411

Jill Stein Is Killing the Green Party (newrepublic.com)

submitted 1 month ago by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] pooperNickel@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month 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.

[-] pooperNickel@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month 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.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Disagree.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month 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.

[-] pooperNickel@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month 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.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

https://civilrights.org/blog/to-honor-brown-v-board-of-education-give-everyone-the-ballot/

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 established the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and authorized officials to seek injunctions against voting discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 allowed federal inspection of local registration polls and created penalties for obstructing the vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned unequal requirements for voter registration and prohibited denying the right to vote based on non-material errors.

But it was not until Bloody Sunday in Selma — where former Rep. John Lewis and hundreds of voting rights marchers were assaulted and beaten on the world stage — that President Johnson and Congress would deliver the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The VRA outlawed voting discrimination and required jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to seek preclearance of voting changes from the Department of Justice or a federal court. Its impact was immediate; by the end of the year, a quarter of a million new Black voters had registered.

And, the Supreme Court has substantially weakened what remains of the VRA. One federal appellate court also recently ruled that voters of color can no longer even pursue claims under this law.

Instead, as Dr. King urged in the wake of the Brown decision, we must demand the president and Congress protect the right of everyone to vote, regardless of their race or background. We need legislative remedies that will immediately and permanently restore the ability of every citizen to fully participate in democracy. Congress can and should pass at the very first opportunity a trifecta of voting rights bills that would reinstate and strengthen the provisions of the VRA and expand access to the ballot in a host of meaningful ways for communities of color. And President Biden should continue urging Congress to do so until it happens.

In his “Give Us the Ballot” speech, Dr. King recognized that the right to vote is foundational and protects all other rights and freedoms: “Give us the ballot, and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights.” Today, we face an intersectional moment where every freedom and right we enjoy is in jeopardy. From reproductive rights to climate justice to labor rights to protecting against LGBTQ discrimination, the pathway for change that our communities seek is through the ballot — at the federal, state, and local level.

I can link this literature allllll day

[-] pooperNickel@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

The reason for amendments is that conditions change. I can quote basic logic all day but I grow tired of this bullshit.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

What conditions have changed in present day that would make denying someone their right to vote not fascist?

You mean you're quitting because you've obviously lost.

Making a fascist idea into an official amendment does not make it less fascist but instead more so.

The point of me referencing the constitution was to show that indeed, many many many people think like I do, so much so it's in our literal constitution. Keep up with your own arguments.

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024

411 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers

4538 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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