This is a debate between the parties of war and Wall Street who agree with each other on the fundamentals of our economy and on the fundamentals of our foreign policy
Jill’s solution to “endless war” is to disband NATO, stop supporting Ukraine, and hand Kyiv to Putin. With NATO disbanded, further European countries will be sure to follow.
A lot of that platform actually sounds good. But you are right.
Disband NATO and replace it with a modern, inclusive security framework that respects the security interests of all nations and people
Thats pretty vague, so no idea what this entails in reality.
That's how Green works. Big vague, impossible promises. It's because they never have to worry about needing to keep them.
True, but the social services in that platform aren't bad even if they aren't meant to be real. Like can we get a real chance at this please?
No one cares about the opinions of a Putin supporting Republican shill.
I guess some people do, I mean, they made a news article out of the subject.
198 Posts
1.24K Comments
Joined 1 month
Source: https://lemmy.ml/u/UniversalMonk@lemmy.world
If it took only 10 seconds to post each time, and 20 seconds to make a comment, that means you have spent:
(198 * 10) + (1240 * 20) = 26780 seconds
Or, 7.44 hours, in one month. That's almost 5% the amount of time people spend working full time. Almost a full work day. And these are extremely generous estimates that assume you are very fast. I have no doubt you have spent minutes responding to some of the comments calling you out.
A more realistic set of numbers would be
(198 * 30) + (1240 * 45) = 61740 seconds
Or, 17.15 hours, in one month. That's almost 43% the amount of time people spend working full time. Over 2 full work days.
To calculate the number of times you submitted content per waking hour:
(198 + 1240) / (16 * 30) = 3
Or once every 20 minutes on average, assuming you sleep. Almost every single one promoting third party candidates. Totally and completely not sus, at all. Not even a little bit.
I don't have to explain anything to you. But keep posting stats because I am posting more articles. Thank you!
Of course. You would only explain why you post three times per hour
If the explanation would not get you permabanned.
I don't have to explain anything to you. Thanks!
But the fact is that if there were a legit reason, you would.
No one owes you an explanation for anything, You're demanding an explanation for someone else's actions the same way that Democrats demand votes from everyone. They're not entitled and you were not entitled.
I am a Dem and I'd really love that all citizens people vote. Be good if they took an active interest in our democracy. Your statement isn't entirely wrong it's just not entirely correct.
Not entirely wrong and not entirely correct makes perfect sense for someone with a hammer a sickle next to their username.
Thank you!
Nope. I don't have to explain anything to you. Stay as mad as you want. Under this username or your various other ones. But I owe you nothing. :)
You apparently are pretty confused. "you have to" and "you would" are extremely different phrases, and I never once implied they were similar. Only that you wouldn't need to pretend "the articles are interesting" is your motivation, in a context which implicates you as sketch af, if you weren't sketch af.
You'd simply explain it and avoid thousands of replies telling you how horrible you are. I guess it's possible you're a masochist who likes being insulted, but I think the other explanation is much more likely ;)
You’d simply explain it and avoid thousands of replies telling you how horrible you are.
I don't care if "thousands" of people are telling me how "horrible" I am. I can post what I want as long as it fits the community guidelines. And I will continue to do so.
And I don't have to explain anything to you. Thank you!
I don’t have to explain anything to you
Again, no one said you had to. But you would, if there weren't something insidious behind this bizarre behavior.
But you would, if there weren’t something insidious behind this bizarre behavior.
No I wouldn't, because I don't have to.
Your only principle is "if I have to do something, I'll do it, I guess".
rofl
I don't know what you mean. But I don't have to explain any of my personal views to you. Thank you!
Are you Donald Trump in disguise?
She's trying so damn hard to get Trump elected lmao.
Almost as hard as OP is, whatever his name is this week.
Almost as hard as OP is, whatever his name is this week.
Not sure what you mean. I also just posted a libertarian article where he wants to take down Trump. Hmmm...
https://lemmy.world/post/19662638
Doesn't really fit your narrative though, does it? But hey, you believe what you wanna belive. I don't care.
It's a fine take and I mean, I'd love to have the option to vote for that alternative, but realistically right now, none of us do. No matter which side of the aisle you're on, if you abandon the side you'd normally vote for to vote third party, you're only helping your own personal worst case scenario.
Really, all of these third party... parties should be focusing more on pushing for an alternate voting system. I know they say we should get away from two-party politics, but I rarely see any actual action taken to try and accomplish that. Ranked-choice was on the ballot 4 years ago in MA, but didn't pass, and if these third parties had poured their campaign budget into getting it passed, they'd be getting my vote in November. As it stands, they won't be. Their policies, frankly, don't matter, because we can't vote for them, as much as we'd like to, without voting against our own self-interests and really, those of the entire country.
Any third party that only focuses on the presidency isn't a real party. Jill Stein isn't actually running for president. She is simply a foreign agent of Putin trying to act as a spoiler against the Democratic ticket. That is literally the only reason she is running.
Real political parties try to build power from the ground up. You want your party to be a serious candidate for president? Try winning several hundred state house seats and least a few dozen US house seats, maybe a Senator or two. I disagree vehemently with the Libertarian Party, but I'll give them credit for being a real political party. Clowns like Stein, Kennedy, and West are just Republican agents running as spoiler candidates. They have zero intention of winning. Their only goal is to appeal to their own vanity and to syphon off a few percentage points from the Democratic candidate. That is the only reason they are running. They take Republican and Russian money and are doing the bidding of their masters. Anyone who even considered voting for them is a fool.
Real political parties try to build power from the ground up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_politicians_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States (thanks to @SyntaxTerror@feddit.org for the info)
State-Level Green Party Officials (Former)
Current Green Party Mayors
Former Green Party Mayors
Current Green Party City & County Council Members
Former Green Party City & County Council Members
Other Green Party Local Officials (Current)
Other Green Party Local Officials (Former)
This list proves my point. They hold less than 1% of 1% of LOCAL positions. According to your list, they don't even hold a single seat in any statehouse in this country. It is an absolute disgusting joke that this party would seriously attempt to run a presidential candidate. This like an elementary school little league player trying out for an MLB team. It's a complete embarrassment, a clown show.
What kind of hubris do you have to have to think your party has any business putting up a candidate for president when you don't currently even a single God-damn state house seat?
And my point is that they don't just run in presidential elections.
It’s a complete embarrassment, a clown show.
Well, they've made enough of an impact that the democrats are really really mad at them and want them off the ballet. So for a clown show, they are causing quite a stir.
I'm not voting for her, but I have no issues with Jill Stein. I like her.
But what other elected office has Stein held?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein
"Stein began her political career by running as the Green-Rainbow Party candidate for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. Her running mate was Tony Lorenzen, a high school theology teacher. She finished third in a field of five candidates, with 76,530 votes (3.5%), far behind the winner, Republican Mitt Romney.[14]
In 2004, Stein ran for state representative for the 9th Middlesex District, which included portions of Waltham and Lexington. She received 3,911 votes (21.3%) in a three-way race, ahead of the Republican candidate but far behind Democratic incumbent Thomas M. Stanley.[15]
In 2005, Stein set her sights locally, running for the Lexington Town Meeting, a representative town meeting, the local legislative body in Lexington, Massachusetts. Stein was elected to one of seven seats in Precinct 2.[16] She finished first of 16 candidates, receiving 539 votes (20.6%). Stein was reelected in 2008, finishing second of 13 vying for eight seats.[17] Stein resigned during her second term to again run for governor.[18]
At the Green-Rainbow Party state convention on March 4, 2006, Stein was nominated for Secretary of the Commonwealth. In a two-way race with the three-term incumbent, Democrat Bill Galvin, she received 353,551 votes (17.7%).[19]
On February 8, 2010, Stein announced her second candidacy for governor.[20] Her running mate was Richard P. Purcell, a surgery clerk and ergonomics assessor.[21] In the November 2 general election, Stein finished fourth, receiving 32,895 votes (1.4%), again far behind the incumbent, Democrat Deval Patrick.[22]"
She's a perennial candidate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_candidate
"A perennial candidate is a political candidate who frequently runs for elected office and rarely, if ever, wins.[1]"
She’s a perennial candidate.
I would agree with that about Jill Stein. But sometimes people are under the impression the entire green party is like that, which isn't true.
abandon the side you’d normally vote for
That's part of the liberal delusion we would not vote for a democrat or Republican, because we are not Democrats or Republicans. They do not represent the needs of the marginalized, the working class, They only represent the needs and the wants of the donor class. They only listen to the donor class While our needs get ignored.
Yep! Well said!
I’d love to have the option to vote for that alternative, but realistically right now, none of us do.
I do and I AM voting for an alternative.
That’s not bright of you. You going to clutch your pearls as Trump is inaugurated?
How about when he carries you off to a camp?
You going to clutch your pearls as Trump is inaugurated?
No, because I am not afraid of him. You can be, but I'm not. I'll vote for who I want. Thanks!
Don't be afraid of Trump for yourself, be afraid of Trump for women, minorities, the rule of government, and posterity if he forces Thomas and Alito off the court like he did Kennedy and gets 2 more Supreme Court picks.
You mean those same women and minorities that are currently under threat by the duopoly? The marginalized are still kept marginalized by Democrat as much as they would be a Republican. 50 years of Democrat inaction on women's rights led them to lose their reproductive rights.
Which Democrats are taking away reproductive rights? Or want to repeal womens rights to vote? It's not the duopoly doing that.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/21/politics/john-gibbs-womens-suffrage-19th-amendment-kfile/index.html
Democrats fundraising off Rpe for 50 years while promising to codify is what got women's reproductive rights taken away. Endless lip service is all they've ever been.
Peak white guy energy here.
“Fuck everyone else. I’m all that matters.”
And if Trump wins, we'll all remember that you didn't do your part, but I doubt you'll still be here if he wins, having accomplished your mission.
Bet she also “urges” withdrawing support from Ukraine.
Doesn't change my opinion of her. You are welcome to your opinion too.
MSN.com - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for MSN.com:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/jill-stein-delivers-scathing-response-to-harris-trump-debate-and-urges-green-alternative/ar-AA1qoTPO?ocid=BingNewsVerp
To cut through the nonsense and save everyone time, especially since many in this community have a habit of resorting to personal attacks when responding to posts recently: I support and respect everyone’s right to vote for who they want to.
I'm just posting this article that’s already available on a much bigger platform than Lemmy—I didn’t write it, just sharing it for discussion.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News