800

AOC is right: Jill Stein’s campaign is not serious (www.salon.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

359 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] Cataphract@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 months ago

Can I get some examples or what he "shifted left"? I honestly don't even understand what that means anymore in the US political environment. Rights? Healthcare? Basic competent legislation that isn't banning or removing something?

I don't consider right-wing "conservative" anymore with the whole immigration/border and increased law-enforcement funding that would be needed for all their draconian ideals. "Progressive" is just trying to catch up to the rest of the world at this point that's leaving us in the dust while we argue about the same shit for 100 more years. (sorry rant over)

I followed your advice and looked at his legislation since 2016 (link 1,2), what am I looking for? I see a new "national heritage area" (another national park designation for some reason), dropping methane regulations deemed necessary from the EPA (uk is doing fine with it). Maybe I should be looking at only introduced legislation for a better picture, not what's past?

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

I’m quoting Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia entry has such a list

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

[-] Cataphract@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 months ago

No, you quoted wikipedia then said "You can also look at his legislative history to see.." denoting a separate action. You just linked an entire like 50 page wiki article, what am I looking for?

While he has consistently advocated for progressive causes, Politico wrote that he has "rarely forged actual legislation or left a significant imprint on it." (link)

I was a Bernie voter in 2016, this comes from someone who has campaigned for him and researched him extensively. His performance the past decade has been subpar and I keep seeing him become worse while magically he's making the Dem party "Better"^TM^.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Look, I’m just quoting Wikipedia. It seems like you have an argument with them.

Your quote is followed with

According to The New York Times, "Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate ... Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others."[146] […] Nevertheless, he has sponsored over 500 amendments to bills,[148] many of which became law.

this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024

800 points (92.6% liked)

politics

19126 readers

2406 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