This talking point again. What are you accusing them of doing or not doing - specifically? What should political parties do in between elections? What are they doing that you have researched? What are you claiming that they haven’t done? What does “asking why nobody takes them seriously” mean? Who asked this, and when? What does it mean to “whine through the election” - pointing out how the two main parties are a genocidal machine? Is that “whining”? Is that accurate, insightful political critique? I would frame it as the latter. Why are are you framing it as the former? What is your axe to grind here? Why are you speaking with such bias?
For reference:
GPUS publishes a semi-annual list of Greens in elected office[1] and an annual list of Green elections & winners by year[2] and by state.[3]
As of the November 7, 2023 elections, at least 142 Greens hold elected office.[4] In these elections, Greens won 42 out of 81 local races for county, municipal, education and special districts.[5] Since 1986, at least 1439 Greens have won election.[6]
Any insight into how lobbies actually fight to exclude politicians that upset corrupt political norms? Look what happened to Cori Bush this past election. That’s a Democrat and they still abandoned her. How does the Green Party fight against that kind of influence. Clearly that needs actual grassroots, popular support. Have you offered any? How much time in your life have you actually dedicated to exposing these kinds of machinations and doing things like canvassing for politicians? Zero? You just sit on social media and talk trash about the only people trying to accomplish something?
Truly the Hallmark of these posts is that they are still basically children that don’t recognize the world as continuously existing even while they are not looking.
So if you’re a member of the Green Party I can understand why this makes this info harder to take in. If not idk what’s up but here are several sources on the many reasons why folks should be skeptical of her. And no, it was not one dinner.
Right, so “report commissioned by the Senate”, “some account supposedly from Russian troll farm mentioned supporting her”, “she’s invested in a mutual fund that has bad stocks”, etc.
This “thirdway.org” source, on the surface, appears to be most damning, but that’s until you start picking apart their claims. Why is this article so biased? Look at this:
Stein told the Committee that her motive for seeking these meetings with Russian government officials was that ‘my campaign said ‘go to the top. Ask to meet with Putin.’ Why not? So, Putin. Lavrov. They badly needed to hear what I have to say…”
But if you follow the link, they clipped out this:
(U) Stein told the Committee that her motive for seeking these meetings with Russian
government officials was that “my campaign said ‘go to the top. Ask to meet with Putin.’ Why
not? So, Putin. Lavrov. They badly needed to hear_what I have to say [about disarmament].”
Why’d they leave out the “disarmament” part? And in the PDF, that’s in square brackets, meaning there’s a whole context here - about nuclear disarmament maybe? - that’s just completely omitted. What was the conversation with the Committee about? We can’t even see the full context of this quote, because it’s only available from this PDF - if you search for it, you get the smear article that you linked, and then that PDF itself.
Look at this heading too:
Jill Stein is a hypocrite on war, the environment, abortion rights, and basically everything else.
“and basically everything else”? Is this journalism or a smear? She is a hypocrite on EVERYTHING?
The actual content of the article is focused on the tactic of accusing her of some affiliation with Russia - which they REALLY strain to establish - and then just criticizing her for investing in a random Vanguard mutual fund. Buddy, if I log into my 401(k), Vanguard funds are like half of what they offer. They’re not even individual stocks she’s invested in, if she has an accountant or financial manager they probably just threw her money into a default set of investments. I’d like to see her not invested in those, sure, but this criticism applies to everyone in Congress a hundred times over, this is such a strain of a criticism.
This talking point again. What are you accusing them of doing or not doing - specifically? What should political parties do in between elections? What are they doing that you have researched? What are you claiming that they haven’t done? What does “asking why nobody takes them seriously” mean? Who asked this, and when? What does it mean to “whine through the election” - pointing out how the two main parties are a genocidal machine? Is that “whining”? Is that accurate, insightful political critique? I would frame it as the latter. Why are are you framing it as the former? What is your axe to grind here? Why are you speaking with such bias?
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_politicians_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States
Have you ever visited this page?
Any insight into how lobbies actually fight to exclude politicians that upset corrupt political norms? Look what happened to Cori Bush this past election. That’s a Democrat and they still abandoned her. How does the Green Party fight against that kind of influence. Clearly that needs actual grassroots, popular support. Have you offered any? How much time in your life have you actually dedicated to exposing these kinds of machinations and doing things like canvassing for politicians? Zero? You just sit on social media and talk trash about the only people trying to accomplish something?
“I don’t hear about them therefore they don’t exist”
Kanamens ‘what you see is all there is’ principal in full effect on that person.
Truly the Hallmark of these posts is that they are still basically children that don’t recognize the world as continuously existing even while they are not looking.
When the Green Party ditches Jill Stein they can re-enter the conversation. Do I really need to explain myself here?
I will concede I forget they actually hold some seats.
Why, because of some smear about her you read? Let me guess - the dinner at the RT event?
So if you’re a member of the Green Party I can understand why this makes this info harder to take in. If not idk what’s up but here are several sources on the many reasons why folks should be skeptical of her. And no, it was not one dinner.
1
2
3
4
At best she is a useful tool for the russian propaganda machine. It took her way too long to expressly denounce Putin.
Right, so “report commissioned by the Senate”, “some account supposedly from Russian troll farm mentioned supporting her”, “she’s invested in a mutual fund that has bad stocks”, etc.
This “thirdway.org” source, on the surface, appears to be most damning, but that’s until you start picking apart their claims. Why is this article so biased? Look at this:
But if you follow the link, they clipped out this:
Why’d they leave out the “disarmament” part? And in the PDF, that’s in square brackets, meaning there’s a whole context here - about nuclear disarmament maybe? - that’s just completely omitted. What was the conversation with the Committee about? We can’t even see the full context of this quote, because it’s only available from this PDF - if you search for it, you get the smear article that you linked, and then that PDF itself.
Look at this heading too:
“and basically everything else”? Is this journalism or a smear? She is a hypocrite on EVERYTHING?
The actual content of the article is focused on the tactic of accusing her of some affiliation with Russia - which they REALLY strain to establish - and then just criticizing her for investing in a random Vanguard mutual fund. Buddy, if I log into my 401(k), Vanguard funds are like half of what they offer. They’re not even individual stocks she’s invested in, if she has an accountant or financial manager they probably just threw her money into a default set of investments. I’d like to see her not invested in those, sure, but this criticism applies to everyone in Congress a hundred times over, this is such a strain of a criticism.