At Seattle rally, Sawant says Harris deserves to lose ‘1,000 times’
At Seattle rally, Sawant says Harris deserves to lose ‘1,000 times’
www.seattletimes.com
At Seattle rally, Kshama Sawant says Harris deserves to lose ‘1,000 times’
25 comments
-
-
In Nevada, Stein’s campaign was represented by Jay Sekulow, a conservative lawyer who represented Trump in his first impeachment trial. In Wisconsin, Stein’s campaign was represented by Michael Dean, a conservative lawyer who regularly works with Republicans. Her campaign has also hired Accelevate, a political consulting group that’s previously worked with Republicans.
And at a rally in Philadelphia in June, Trump was explicit in his appreciation of Stein and Cornel West, another left-wing candidate who could pull votes from Democrats.
I also love the shortsightedness of them flat out saying Stein doesn't have a chance, and that their aim is to "punish" Harris - when all voting for Stein will do is punish Gazans, Lebanese, Ukrainians, and every woman, minority, and LGBTQ+ person in the US.
-
Hey look, it's the mystical third party that only ever exists as a wedge for vote manipulating in the last month before federal elections.
Seriously, these folks do not exist at the local level or when campaigning really matters.
-
No idea who that is but her Trump support ensures I do not want to know.
-
Sawany and Stein are Russian/GOP agents and can go fuck themselves.
-
Who???
-
A fake Socialist that Seattle ran out of town.
-
-
Post it again,maybe next time it will be true
25 comments
Any third party that’s telling you to vote for them under FPTP, but isn’t heavily promoting RCV to fix the system, isn’t trying to win. They’re trying to spoil the FPTP election.
RCV is already law in a surprisingly large number of places. It may change the majority in the house in this upcoming election, because the difference in vote-counting within the two states that use it for US congressional elections might be enough to change the razor-thin outcome.
RCV is on the ballot, in one form or another, in 7 states and DC this year. Go vote. You might be able to fix the system, and move toward the future that all the people in this thread who are being vocal about Jill Stein say that they want. Remember back when marijuana was illegal? That changed. This can change too, and it would be glorious, for a lot of important goals that a lot of people claiming to support Jill Stein claim they’re supportive of. It would be practical and realistic. It would work.
Since you're saying Jill Stein is extremely important, but you haven’t been saying anything about ranked choice voting or changing the voting system to make third parties realistic: Why? What’s your goal, why did you make that decision about your priorities?
Register and vote, for RCV as well as for Harris. We have 19 more days.
Stein has expressed support for RCV before (source: https://fairvote.org/drjillsteinsupportsrankedchoicevoting/ ) though she still runs without it.
I don't get how Sawant can't see the hypocrisy of her position. Harris might not be the best but she's more likely to listen and allow her views to evolve on the single issue. Meanwhile, if the GOP candidate wins, there's just no chance period.
At the very least, if supporting Stein, Sawant should also be advocating vote swapping...
I'm not sure if the "you" you're referring to is the person in the article or me.
I know for me personally, that I've supported and voted for ranked choice voting from the beginning. In fact, my local city ballot had ranked choice on the ballot this year, and I supported it.
I didn't vote for Jill Stein. I appreciate the conversations she has started though, and I hope that what she's done will stir the Democrats into being more pro-active about issues rather than just yelling "vote against Trump!"
Not everything is about you
You have made 15 comments that reference ranked choice voting in any way, with several of those emphasizing that in your opinion, Green Party support needs to come first, and only after that, can ranked choice voting come about.
Here are some examples:
There's also this absolute gem:
You've also made two posts about ranked choice voting. I don't know how many of your 5,000+ postings have dealt with Jill Stein, since the API doesn't let me count up that high, but if we conservatively say that one-third of what you say is supportive of third parties in some fashion, that means you've posted approximately 99% content supportive of third parties within our current FPTP framework, and 1% supportive of changing the framework in a way that would let third parties get some traction, which in the current system they cannot.
The question I was asking, which you didn't answer, was: Why? It seems like putting 99% effort to changing the system to allow the third parties to succeed, and 1% effort into supporting them in their currently-doomed effort, would be a better use of your time to accomplish the future you claim that you're trying to accomplish. What am I missing?
Right - you said you voted for Rachele Fruit, who is vocally pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. Odd that you find this article interesting to share when the main thrust of the event is that Harris is bad for not doing enough about Gaza and needs to be "punished". Is your problem with Harris that she isn't more strident in demanding more Palestinian civilian deaths? Just curious as that seems to be the stance of the candidate you claim to have voted for.