Green Party members trash AOC after she calls Jill Stein ‘predatory’

Stein didn't answer the points AOC made, she just went into her own attack. I find it funny calling AOC "idle"...I realize she's focused on the one issue that Stein can hammer in to hurt the Democrats, but the way she phrased it was really stretching things.

So why does Stein only show up during elections to fan flames? This goes to another point I made on a different thread, we need good variety in the down-ballot, so why don't we see more Green and other parties when the grassroots is where things like that start growing the best? I'm not saying they aren't there, but the candidates have never had much support from the bigger organization, and honestly have always lacked credibility when comparing them to the Democrat choice. Mainly because they're usually a one issue campaign and don't have substance on the day-to-day stuff that's needed for locals. Put better people in these positions, they might get votes.

Why do we care what a fake politician says about a real one?

And before someone takes offense at me calling Stein a fake politician, what office has she held?

AOC has the gall to call Jill Stein a predator meanwhile Kamala Harris as DA in San Francisco sided with actual sexual predators in the Catholic Church and ignored survivors of clergy abuse who were trying to get help from her office.

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

She is correct on AOC. AOC's point about Greens needing to reach a wider audience is fair. That is also hard to do when you get no coverage and don't have a donor class of billionaires behind you. I have no issue with Greens running for Presidency, since there is no real overlap with Dem and Green voters. If Green options weren't there, you still wouldn't be getting the vote for Dems. They just wouldn't vote at all.

To save you all some time:

I posted an article that's already widely available on a much bigger platform than Lemmy. I didn’t write it or create the content. It's already out there for anyone to see, so all I did was share it here for discussion. If you disagree with the article itself, that's fine, but calling for it to be censored or accusing me of pushing an agenda simply because it's not what you want to read seems misguided. Open debate requires different perspectives, not shutting down content you don't like.

I’m done wasting my time trying to convince you that I’m not a Republican, that I don’t live in Russia, or that despite posting hundreds of socialist articles to the socialist community, I’m somehow not a socialist. If that’s what you want to believe, fine, go ahead.

If you’re getting worked up over a news article I didn’t even write, that’s on you. Be mad if you want, but it’s not my job to prove anything to you. I’ll share my opinion, and you can take it or leave it. Either way, not my problem.

In the past, when I’ve tried to defend myself, people accuse me of not listening. If I stay quiet, they take it as guilt.

Here’s the deal: I’m still going to post what I want in this community because what I’m posting fits within the theme and guidelines of this community which celebrates diversity of thought and opinion.

So, go ahead and expect me to copy and paste this comment into the many, many arguments you’re going to try and start. Whether you believe me or not, it’s not my job to prove anything to you. I’ll share my opinion, and you can take it or leave it. Not my problem. :)