Jill Stein can claim to not be a member of a party engage in genocide, can AOC say the same? neuman

Tweet

  • DerRedMax [comrade/them, any]
    ·
    4 months ago

    Unpopular opinion, maybe, but in the critique of Stein, AOC is not wrong.

    Of course she could have made the case at any point in her political career but she just happened to point this out as polls are showing a 50-50 split between Harris and Stein amongst Muslim voters.

    Locally, the Green Party has been successful here, but you’re not going to see Stein sharing a stage with down ticket candidates. In an off-year election, she won’t be going around the country building the party.

    I feel bad for voters who see the Green Party as a legitimate third party. I’m sure at least some of them would like to have someone else as their nominee every four years.

    But this is about getting a member of the squad to scold the progressives into voting blue no matter who.

    • Preston Maness ☭@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      4 months ago

      AOC's claim: The green party is "not serious" and is "predatory"

      For a "not serious" party, they've garnered more ballot access than any other option. I'd say AOC is worried precisely because the green party is serious. And "predatory"? That's big pot-kettle energy. The "predation" from the greens boils down to "gee, it sure sucks that the Democrats won't abandon literal genocide to earn your vote."

    • usa_suxxx
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      deleted by creator