With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.

"How has Stein fared as a leader? By AOC’s perfectly reasonable standard, she’s done abysmally. As of July 2024, a mere 143 officeholders in the United States are affiliated with the Green Party. None of them are in statewide or federal offices. In fact, no Green Party candidate has ever won federal office. And Stein’s reign has been a period of indisputable decline, during which time the party’s membership—which peaked in 2004 at 319,000 registered members—has fallen to 234,000 today.

This meager coalition can’t possibly kick-start a legitimate political movement, capable of organizing voters and advancing ideas outside of perennial electoral events. It’s just large enough, however, to spoil the work of those who put in this kind of work."

  • cabbage@piefed.socialEnglish
    160·
    1 month ago

    It’s a two party system. Everybody knows if you run as a third party you’re merely increasing the chances that the ones furthest from you politically will be elected.

    It’s impossible for a third party candidate to be running for president in the US in good faith unless they’re complete fucking idiots with no idea how the political system works.

    Jill Stein knows how the system works. So obviously she’s not acting in good faith.

    Simple as that.

    • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
      59·
      1 month ago

      Seems like you beat the coin flip today, and people agree with you. Watch out, next time the Libertarians and Communists will tell you that just getting on the ballot is enough to make a dent in the two party system…

      • cabbage@piefed.social
        55·
        1 month ago

        It’s a thread about the Green Party, those trolls don’t bother coming here. The third party enthusiasts only show up for the Harris threads.

        …speaking of good faith.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        43·
        1 month ago

        The communist party of the United States has consistently refused to run candidates for major offices very specifically to avoid spoiling the vote.

          • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.worldEnglish
            9·
            1 month ago

            I am a leftist and I celebrate everyone’s right to vote how they please. If people would like to hear my reasons for voting for Kamala, or my concerns about third party spoiling, I can tell them. But a person’s right to vote is more important to me than how they vote. That’s what democracy and being for the people is about. Use your rights, I support that. We all deserve to use our rights.

            • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
              5·
              1 month ago

              I’m not sure you could be more milquetoast if you tried. Sure, it’s important that everyone has the right to vote. It is equally as important that everyone understand that unless they vote one of two ways, their vote is essentially going to waste at best, and going against their best interests at worse. A vote for a third party candidate is a vote cast against your closest aligned Democrat or Republican candidate. A vote not cast for them is cast against them. That’s just the way the system works. It sucks. I hate it. I want to change it, but wishful thinking isn’t fixing the problem, and until its fixed, voting third party is a net loss for the voter. That’s the shitty reality of it. People that tell you to vote third party are either idiots, or malicious, and no one should be listening to either of those groups when it comes to voting for the future of the country. Work on changing the system first, then cast the vote you want to cast.

              • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.worldEnglish
                8·
                1 month ago

                It’s not “equally important.” No, the right to vote is more important. Period.

                Sure, your perspective and how you and many others view this election, is that it’s important to vote for either Kamala or Trump. But that’s your perspective. Totally fine to discuss but it doesn’t supercede the literal civil right to vote. Or to run for office.

                Today and yesterday, I’ve seen people advocate for removing the right to vote and run for office here on Lemmy. I’ve seen people use the word “disenfranchised” wrong. Our civil rights are actively in jeopardy - see: abortion access. People being confused on how important voting rights are and what that means is BAD. I have seen a LOT of fascist rhetoric lately. It is NOT leftwing or radical or progressive to be fascist and deny people their vote just because you dislike it. It is NOT leftwing or radical or progressive to deny people the right to run for office because it makes another party’s job harder. That is actually literally fascism. What the fuck.

                And again, I’m voting for Kamala. I generally agree with your reasoning. I do not agree with the messaging or the idea that people should be forced into thinking and voting like me.

                • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
                  7·
                  1 month ago

                  Totally fine to discuss but it doesn’t supersedes the literal civil right to vote. Or to run for office.

                  By that logic, the right to own a gun supersedes the need to be educated on how they work. “Here’s a loaded 9mm, Timmy. I’m sure you can figure the rest out.”

                  I do not agree with the messaging or the idea that people should be forced into thinking and voting like me.

                  And I’m not saying that anyone should be forced to vote any one way. Vote however you want, but being educated on how it works is just as important as the act itself. If every voter were educated on the system and understood how it worked, then we wouldn’t have third party candidates. Actually, strike that, we would have them. We wouldn’t have this first past the post bullshit we do now, and third party candidates would have a chance at being elected if they represent the will of the majority.

                  Untl we have that, though, people should understand that voting doesn’t work how they want it to, it works how it works. If you want to feed your family by fishing with cheetos, go for it, but don’t tell everyone else that if we all fish with cheetos suddenly fish will take the bait. The nature of the beast is that we vote in a two party system, and we will until we change it at a fundamental level. The fact that we have people saying that third party voting is a viable option tells me that there is a lot of misinformation and a strong lack of education in our voting populace.

            • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
              2·
              1 month ago

              What an insufferable position and way of arguing for it. To anyone reading this thread, she only gets worse with each reply. She’s arguing for… Literally Everything necessarily taking a backseat to protecting people from even the mere concept of them feeling like their voting rights are taken away. Despite the fact that no one in this thread is trying to do that, and only Republicans are ever interested in such a thing, she’s really oddly interested in making sure people vote for third parties, which helps Republicans, without ever hearing the truth about third parties because it might hurt their feelings. Which as we all know, is definitely taking their voting rights away.

              She undoubtedly will point out some out of context quote about how the rational person in this discussion is a fAsCisT but each time she did that previously in the thread below, she wasn’t doing it in good faith so you be the judge.

              • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 month ago

                You realize your strawman here is a bad faith argument? In fact, I actually can’t find a single good faith argument in anything you’ve written. You start out with an appeal to emotion. Then strawman. Then no true scotsman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Then strawman. Also we all know you’re the “”“rational”“” other person on an alt account. You type the same and it’s been days since anyone responded to this thread. Lol.

                I am voting for Kamala and I’m perfectly happy to tell people why. Maybe people will agree with me and that’s great. Otherwise, I still support someone’s right to vote no matter how they vote. Because that’s what a right is, and that’s what the right to vote grants. I disagree with any speech that advocates for limiting the right to vote, particularly because I’m a woman and women’s rights are being taken away actively.

                I also think that while yes, obviously Jill Stein is a Russian asset, that doesn’t mean every independent or third party candidate is. I am on the side of the every day person and am fine with hearing criticisms of Dems and of the way we currently vote.

                I will point out any speech that is a dog whistle to eroding our rights, though. I’ve quoted the specific issues with what you said. I don’t really need to say more. I accept you think it’s fine to control others. I accept that you refuse to learn about civil rights and the right to vote. I accept that you refuse to analyze propaganda and dog whistles in your speech. Whatever, it’s your opinion. I also think your little comment serves as an advertisement anyway for any people reading this thread besides you, lol.

                • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  1 month ago

                  Quite conspiratorial to think I’m that other person… do you do that? Why would you even think that people would go through the trouble? Weird.

                  I will point out any speech that is a dog whistle to eroding our rights, though.

                  More conspiratorial thinking. in any case it’s pretty ridiculous to try and tell someone they shouldn’t inform people about third parties because they might get their feelings hurt and then… Feel unable to vote or something?

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        7·
        1 month ago

        Guys as soon as we’ve got 5% popular vote we get on the ballots automatically. That prevents unavoidable blockers like how our own campaign fucked up the paperwork! It will be all over for these fuckers, we will win it for certain after that.

    • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      1 month ago

      There’s room for 3rd party candidates who have principals that voters can compare candidates to and not let the 2 party system shift in whatever direction it wants as soon as the 2 parties start racing to the bottom. But if you accept Putin’s money and influence it is your party who is racing to the bottom and you have no principles so that’s when you become a useless drain.

    • pooperNickel@lemm.ee
      4·
      1 month ago

      Everybody capable of rational thought knows that. However there are plenty of tankie douchebags who would love to tell you what a wrong ShItLiB you are for saying this basic truth

  • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.worldEnglish
    55·
    1 month ago

    When I was a teenager and foolish and a republican, we campaigned for the green party because we thought we could trick democrats into voting green but we’d never get them to vote republican. make of that what you will.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      28·
      1 month ago

      It’s literally one of the things they do every election. This isn’t new. Or even news. Unless people were living under a rock, or blind.

      Just like Russia, China, etc help any misinformation and disinformation campaign they can all over the world in other countries. All chaos is good for them in the end. Even if their ideal candidate doesn’t win, the bickering they help stole makes it harder for other countries to rally very well against their interests.

      It’s the same reason the US has done the same shit all over as well. Promoting and supporting coups is a national passtime because it helps the US indirectly either way.

    • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
      3·
      1 month ago

      And Dems funneled money to MAGA fascists to split republicans. It’s art of war 101: divide and conquer; it doesn’t really reflect on the merits of anyone involved.

      Green could be a false flag puppet of the Republicans or they could have a legitimate platform and genuine candidates working to better the world for all the rightwing cares, what matters is that they are popular enough to detract from dems.

      Ironically, reacting to this as if Green is the enemy also plays into this tactic: dems become more isolated from other interests and therefore more resistant to change and adaptation to a changing political climate, which makes them less appealing and more likely to die out.

  • Thrillhouse@lemmy.world
    44·
    1 month ago

    It makes total sense for Russia to make Jill Stein a Russian asset because it neutralizes an anti-oil organization. Oil is very important to Russia’s economy so of course they don’t want any phase-out of fossil fuels.

  • Chapelgentry@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    37·
    1 month ago

    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!

    • ravhall@discuss.online
      24·
      1 month ago

      Because they are not trying to get her elected, they are trying to destroy the west by getting trump elected.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      17·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • ansiz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        1 month ago

        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.

      • Chapelgentry@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        7·
        1 month ago

        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.

    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      16·
      1 month ago

      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.

    • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
      15·
      1 month ago

      (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.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
      4·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            1 month ago

            right at a time when their platform is making a swing to the right.

            It’s also right at a time when the conservatives have been at an all time high with their open fervor for fascism.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    27·
    1 month ago

    Jill Stein is so bad that if I lived in a ranked choice voting state, I would still rank her pretty low.

  • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
    17·
    1 month ago

    Can you imagine if you campaigned against trump half as much as you campaign against progressive parties?

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      63·
      1 month ago

      Jill Stein is a lot of things, but “progressive” ain’t one of 'em. I’d love for Harris and the Dems to be more progressive, but they’re going to need a better example than Stein.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          1 month ago

          Ah yes, the platform of a candidate that does not have a chance at win ing, even by mistake, and can say whatever the fuck they want because of it.

        • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          1 month ago

          No one is going to read that, let alone answer you. See, this is a Stein hate thread, you’ve already lost the game.

          (I know nothing about her.)

          • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
            8·
            1 month ago

            And while your first point is sound, the buried lede, (the part in parenthesis) is the real point, isn’t it?

            dems itt maybe knew her name before the party started smearing her. wonder how many will ever bother to look her up?

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          3·
          1 month ago

          That’s a long list of progressive ideas. Too bad she can’t possibly win in a two party system. I like the assumption that if she did get the office all that would immediately take effect. That’s not how it works. Unfortunate for many of the ideas she lists, but also as a protective measure in case people like Trump get in and sweep what’s left away to put in place a dictatorship. Like he’s promised to do.

          So putting away the policy comparisons and party names, and just looking at the math. Can a third party win in an established two party system in a FPTP election? The answer is a simple no. I’d love to see a ranking system in place to allow diversity of opinions have a chance in elections, and there’s a bill right now to do that nationally, by Democrats because they’re the ones that would do well in such a system. Let’s fix the real problem and stop this decades-long third party dream to do the impossible.

          And until there’s a grassroots movement and support at the local levels, the Green Party is always going to look like and be the spoiler party, no matter how many nice ideas they have bullet points for.

          Here’s a question for you: How many of those Green policies are similar to Harris policies? I saw a few, I just wonder if you realize that you could get some of that stuff done easily with Democrats in all three seats of power. Which we have a chance to do.

          • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 month ago

            I like the assumption that if she did get the office all that would immediately take effect.

            Well if youre just gonna flat out lie

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      9·
      1 month ago

      Or if for policies popular with a wide swath of America? Naw. I believe what MSNBC and all the real adults in the room agree with:

      Our party should ebrace moderate Republicans! Smear the greens! Keep leftist spoiler parties off the ballot! Dismiss Dem party dissidents as traitors and foreign assets! This is what real leftists do. All leftists to the left of me are actually to the right.

      I would know, i’m a Democrat, and I’m as left as they come

    • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
      1·
      1 month ago

      I imagine that most of it is going there, at least if one were to follow the money trail. It’s just that the Green party is so much smaller, so a few bits of afterthought saber rattling hurt them a lot worse than a much larger spend (by the Dems) against the GOP hurts the GOP.

  • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
    15·
    1 month ago

    ITT: Blue MAGA and preaching to the choir.

    Dr. Jill Stein has improved the Green Party; y’all just believe anything the duopoly and owner-class media spit out when it agrees with your thinking.

    Muslim support is at an all-time high for Dr. Jill Stein; that is why AOCPelosi, the new attack dog of Blue MAGA, started up again.

    I suggest getting out of the echo chambers and checking out independent journalists instead of continuing the self-censorship.

      • EndlessApollo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        1 month ago

        They are and they call you a nazi for saying free palestine or saying anything remotely negative about any democrat ever

        Edit but also the guy you’re replying to is dumb, wtf do they mean by AOCPelosi? They hate eachother xD

        • darharrison@lemm.ee
          1·
          1 month ago

          They are absolutely not. I’m voting Democratic all the way down the ticket this year and I will say all day that Biden needs to cut the crap with his support for Israel (while also mentioning Trump has been accused of illegally contacting Israel to sabotage the ceasefire deals). Lots of people I know share this exact opinion. Your argument is a strawman.

          • EndlessApollo@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 month ago

            You and your friends not being that doesn’t mean they’re not real. A lot of democrats will call you a Chinese spy for suggesting that Biden or other democrats could do better on Israel, and to them even remotely questioning whether we should be blindly VBNMWing for all eternity makes you a nazi who’s trying to get trump elected. Blue maga is real, and their existence and the fact all other democrats deny they exist is gonna get Trump elected 100x faster than trying to make democrats more electable and less genocidal. I promise you the moment trump dies, I never vote blue again unless yall get your shit together and stop trying to be almost as far right and and blindly fanatical and genocidal as republicans (slight edit bc I was being kinda hyperbolic on how many dems are magalike)

          • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
            5·
            1 month ago

            Liberals commit social murder daily and you want to go on about violence and suffering.

            Low wages is violence, no affordable housing is violence, income inequality is violence, social inequality is violence, for profit healthcare is violence.

            Do you see the trend? Violence isn’t just physical, it’s also mental, and economic.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              7·
              1 month ago

              Yeah sure anything you need to not feel bloodthirsty, buddy. Something something both sides. Maybe if you ever spoke to another human being irl you would not be like this

            • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
              1·
              1 month ago

              When people say you twist words, this is what they mean.

              “Murder” and “Violence” have well accepted meanings - redefining them to mean “anything that doesn’t line up with fringe-left communist ideals” is a propaganda tactic.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      20·
      1 month ago

      Oh it’s our resident “independent journalism” guy who seems to post nothing but far-right podcasts.

    • ALostInquirer@lemm.ee
      15·
      1 month ago

      Dr. Jill Stein has improved the Green Party; y’all just believe anything the duopoly and owner-class media spit out when it agrees with your thinking.

      In what ways, alongside the one point mentioned, and according to what sources (presumably not from the party itself)?

    • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
      12·
      1 month ago

      The greater part of the population is not very intelligent, dreads responsibility, and desires nothing better than to be told what to do. Provided the rulers do not interfere with its material comforts and its cherished beliefs, it is perfectly happy to let itself be ruled.

      ~Aldous Huxley

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        1 month ago

        Wow! Never read that quote. Perfectly explains how American politics got to be such a mess. I laugh at all the revolutionary talk around here.

        material comforts

        Yeah, no, we’re so well-fed we have to find excuses for our rampant obesity. There won’t be a revolution until people are literally fighting for food and our masters will never allow that to come to pass. Look at lemmy, bitching and moaning about video game prices and such. We’re pretty fucking far from lacking material comforts. To add, a lot of people think they’re suffering, but haven’t seen a day of true poverty in their lives. Y’all, you’re suffering in comparison to what could and should be.

        cherished beliefs

        As fast as we in the West are dropping religion, notice the politicians haven’t done anything about the rampant sex abuse? Taxing the church? Unheard of! Let the masses have their silly beliefs, stick to the middle of the road if you must, get elected again.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    12·
    1 month ago

    Reactionary people are unable to accept that some of us are socialists who have an absolute fear of more orange bad. I love where I live and planned to stay the rest of my life, but will be forced (by my own standards and fear) to leave the country if he returns to office.

  • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
    11·
    1 month ago

    Liberals are desperate to smear any threat to their existence and power. Watching it reminds me of Southerners that were desperate to cling to their ‘heritage’ of hate and bigotry. They didn’t see it as hate and bigotry, but everyone else paying attention did

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        5·
        1 month ago

        The comment above you was quite harsh, so if you wanna respond harshly, I say go for it. But please include at least one example or reason or detail. If the only thing you can do is ad hominem, it’s boring.

  • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    10·
    1 month ago

    I think Ralph Nader killed it when he helped get us Bush and the war criminals.

    Jill just figured out the Putin would pay to reanimate its corpse.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      6·
      1 month ago

      The Green Party really didn’t exist before Nader. There was a loose coalition of state Green parties that united under Nader in 1996. But the idea of a national Green party wouldn’t happen until 2001.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        5·
        1 month ago

        Good point, but I still think that even if he created it, he also damaged its reputation the most in the 2000 election.

        Stein being a stooge for Putin is just the result of a weak/desperate organization that needs funding and has no real leadership or ideals outside of at best, wanting to exist, but at worst, planning to spoil for an ideologically opposite party.