this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
786 points (92.4% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3520 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently made headlines for calling perennial Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein “predatory” and “not serious.” AOC is right.

Giving voters more choices is a good thing for democracy. But third-party politics isn’t performance art. It’s hard work — which Stein is not doing. As AOC observed: “[When] all you do is show up once every four years to speak to people who are justifiably pissed off, but you're just showing up once every four years to do that, you're not serious.”

To be clear: AOC was not critiquing third parties as a whole, or the idea that we need more choices in our democracy. In fact, AOC specifically cited the Working Families Party as an example of an effective third party. The organization I lead, MoveOn, supports their 365-day-a-year efforts to build power for a pro-voter, multi-party system. And I understand third parties’ power to activate voters hungry for alternatives: I myself volunteered for Ralph Nader in 2000, and that experience helped shape my lifelong commitment to people-first politics.


Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

What do you believe will happen if those of us who do care, which are predominantly those on the Left, decide to step up and say we won't support a candidate?

Here's what I would do if I wanted to be a malicious and controlling dictator type:

First, let's assume both sides are the same. This is your stance so I'll take it too. That means that Blue wants what Red wants: To continue the genocide. The solution then is very easy: I convince the Blue side to step aside and allow Red to take control. I do this because I have wealth, I have power, I have status, I have the ability to suck up to Trump to save my own ass. If both sides are the same, Blue will do exactly as I've said. The end result is even better genocide, with golden stars on each day of the week another atrocity is committed.

Congratulations, both sides are the same. Which means the worst case scenario based on your logic.

Do you know why this is such a silly scenario?

Because whatever the Democratic Blue may be, they largely are not idiots. They know the game. They've likely held little debate sessions behind their definitely gilded doors and 100% golden toilets in argument for and against exactly what you just claimed. Why? Because **they're playing the same fucking game at every level. Moreover, they've proven they aren't the same, time and time again, which is a huge reason why no one ever agrees with you.

I am not saying your stance doesn't have merit. I AM saying that what merit it has must wait until we remove the current threat. Doing so means being in agreement, and it sucks. I personally want Bernie or AOC, yet you don't see the millions of people who agree with me championing them. We understand Gaza is a terrible situation and abhorrent. We also understand how it can get worse. Not just for Gaza, for Ukraine, and for the American people.

Though since you all like to strawman so much let me get in on it: If Trump is Putin's puppet, and Russia is at war with Ukraine, why are you saying that we should help Gaza at the expense of the Ukrainian people?