While Ms. Stein condemns both “zombie political parties” as tools of Wall Street and war profiteers, her campaign has focused largely on hammering Ms. Harris, blaming the White House she serves for relentless violence in Gaza and Lebanon.
And Democrats, as never before, are focused on Ms. Stein.
The party has prepared a negative ad blitz for the election’s final weeks, its first-such effort ever directed at a third-party candidate. Fearful that Ms. Stein might divert critical votes in places like Michigan, Democrats are also pressing their case on billboards plastered recently across swing states:
“Jill Stein Helped Trump Once. Don’t Let Her Do It Again.”
She dismisses the “spoiler mythology” that has come to define her mainstream identity, noting — accurately enough — that some of her supporters would never back Ms. Harris anyway.
She says that Democrats would do well to look inward, disputing that she bears any responsibility for Mr. Trump’s fortunes, then or now.
“Those conversations never go anywhere,” Ms. Stein, 74, said in a wide-ranging interview.
Why should she? Her party represents different interests to the Democratic party. In a fair and just democracy she should be allowed to run for office to represent that platform. If the Democrats have an issue with that, then they should adopt some of those policies. For instance, one of her policies is an anti-genocide policy. This might seem a bit radical and extreme but it's apparently very popular. If the Democratic party stopped being pro-genocide then there would be less threat from Stein.
People really need to stop acting like the Green Party just came about in the last decade to spite the Democrats. If the Democrats had a decent platform they'd stop losing votes to them.
For instance, one of her policies is an anti-genocide policy. This might seem a bit radical and extreme but it’s apparently very popular.
it saddens me greatly that the question of genocide in this overton window is not whether or not genocide should exist; but instead the question is how much genocide is acceptable and the only incorrect answer is "zero".
it makes me sadder still that social media is dominated by manufactured consent so thoroughly that pointing something like "genocide is bad" only brands you a radical; a malcontent; too idealistically optimistic; or simply ignored.
It's because "the overton window" is liberal nonsense. Genocide has always been acceptable to the liberal ideological hegemony. It only ceases to be acceptable when it's an enemy that does it.
People really need to stop acting like the Green Party just came about in the last decade to spite the Democrats. If the Democrats had a decent platform they’d stop losing votes to them.
Deep down I think Liberals know this. That's why they rage over it more every general election.
Addiitionally I find that Democrat supporters ignore the flipside of ridding the country of minor parties. The logic suggests that the Republican party would get an even larger boost of voters from the Libertarians. -That is if their reasoning were sound and applied universally.
Yeah in any other parliamentary system Trump would have formed his own party and random independents wouldn't get anywhere near a major party's presidential nomination. It would be completely locked down by party establishment figures. There would be a number of other conservative and fascist parties "splitting" the vote as well.
