politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wait, the Green Party only had 300k members at it's peak? That's 0.001% of the American population. Why are all the tankies in here talking about how voting for Stein will make a difference? That's not even enough to consider her a contender in most states, much less for the whole country.
Edit: should be 0.1%. My bad and thanks for the correction!
Because they are not trying to get her elected, they are trying to destroy the west by getting trump elected.
Hey, at their peak, when Nader was running in 2000 and Bush was installed as President by the Supreme Court, the Greens got 2.7% of the vote!
The best they've done since then is Stein in 2016 with 1.07%.
Generally, they're 0.1%, 0.3%. In that range.
People forget, but in the 70's Nader was so feared by the DC elite that Nixon repeatedly complained about him on the Nixon tapes. Nader would have been a good president based on his record of advocating for citizens over corporations.
Ah yeah I remember that! I remember everyone talking about the 3% threshold where (if I remember correctly) the green party would be included in debates and receive federal campaign funds. Hell, if they couldn't do it at the height of Nader always I don't see that happening now, particularly under Stein.
(319,000 / 293,000,000) * 100 = ~0.11%
Not 0.001%. Unless you were just overexaggerating their insignificance on purpose. However that's then potentially 319k less voters for the Dems.
Nope, you're right. I did it in my head and forgot to multiply by 100. Good catch!
Because they can smugly claim to have accomplished something with their vote while the country burns around them. Must be nice not being at risk under a Trump administration.
Smugly is the perfect word for it. People like that turn my stomach with their attitudes
Because for as long as they remain an available alternative to the democrats, they place pressure on them to address their policy shortfalls.
The real question is why the Democrats have suddenly decided they are an unacceptable threat, despite their declining registrations numbers.
Because the polling is currently a toss up between Trump and Harris. And the closer the race, the easier it is for spoiler candidates to spoil the vote. Hence the panic.
The last three or four elections have been 'toss-ups', though. Basically since the Greens were a party.
Previously, though, democrats were fairly dismissive, and I'd say even moderately receptive to addressing or responding to their main grievances. Democrats even adopted the Green New Deal from them as recently as 2018.
It's not an exaggeration to say that the democrats have had a very sudden change in tone around the green party, right at a time when their platform is making a swing to the right. I think it's fair to speculate that someone made a calculated decision to abandon any effort to match or compete with the greens on policy and instead attack them on the basis of their opposition.
It's also right at a time when the conservatives have been at an all time high with their open fervor for fascism.
Best to quietly affirm their fears of immigrants, then, amirite?
A classic 'missing the forest for the trees' moment if ever there was one.
I agree that it's a stupid ass decision/strategy. But you can't ignore other parts of the context.
If the context is a growing fascist movement in the US, appeasement isn't exactly a strategy we would be hoping to see.