Democrats aren't attacking Jill Stein because they think she is taking votes from Kamala Harris. No one I know who's voting Green would consider a vote for Harris at this point. They're attacking Jill Stein because they don't want voters to know that there can be a worker-centered party to the left of the Democrats that supports popular policies like Medicare for All, a $25 wage and federally guaranteed housing.
There are 80+ million eligible voters who don't vote at all because they don't see the point. Democrats are okay with this, in fact, they don't want any candidate to their left to appeal to those voters with popular policies.
The fact that the Green Party exists shows that the Democrats aren't pushing the most progressive policies. Jill Stein's candidacy shows that it's possible to support reproductive justice AND be against funding and arming a genocide. That we can end homelessness if we stopped funding endless wars around the globe.
Democrats don't want anyone to the left of them to exist because it's the only way they can convince Americans that Dem policies are "the best that we can do". To Dems, anything else is just "asking for a pony".
Don't fall for it. Despite Dem's desire to have you think otherwise, things don't have to be this way.
Another world is possible.
This is so naive I'm gonna have to assume you're a literal child.
So actually the way voting works is if you vote for a candidate then they get your vote and if you vote for another candidate, then that candidate gets your vote and if you vote for a third candidate, then that candidate gets your vote and if you don't vote for any candidate then no candidate gets your vote.
Oh boy politics sure are complicated, huh? The only way your idea of 'how voting works' would in any way approach rationality, would be if you assumed that the democrats were somehow owed our votes. That doesn't really make sense. The way it actually works is that a party - or a candidate - courts voters by appealing to their interests and presenting themselves as a reliable steward for advancing those interests. If a candidate or a party fails in this, then they lose. In other words: If you want people to vote for you, listen to what they want you to do and then do that. Kamala Harris' campaign is a great example of what happens when you don't do that.
We don't count the amount of not-votes a candidate gets, only the votes. But if it makes you feel any better we can say I'm not voting for Trump 1 million times and I'll only be not voting for Harris 100.000 times. We can even say I'm not voting for him in swing states! Hope that clears your heart flutters just a little so you can cool your head and let go of those no-no words.
Okay sweetie, so there's actually a genocide going on right now. You probably don't follow the news, but palestinians are being put in concentration camps and mass graves. And Harris has said she will increase support! I don't even know how it can get worse over there, but she has promised she's gonna let it get worse.
Do you know what a genocide is? Probably not, because if you did you wouldn't be running your mouth saying wacky stuff like your doing. The end point of genocide is extermination. The end result is Palestine being eradicated.
I know this can all be terribly abstract, so I'll try to help you understand what is going on. Now sweetie this will be a bit scary and it does contain some no-no words and I'm sorry about that, but I do feel it's necessary to make you understand. Still I don't want to shock you or traumatize you, so I'm gonna put it behind
this little tag
Booh! Scared you! Teehee. Sorry for the prank, but it's actually just a link to a discussion I had with a real meanie-poo >:( But I thought it would be better to give you a two-stage launch so you can really prepare yourself for reading some super scary stuff. Don't want you to be too scared to go to sleep at bedtime, now do we?
and when you feel comfortable and safe, then you can just click it and read it. Maybe have a juice brick next to you so you can have a sippy if you get scared.
Oh boy you sure are the first person to come with that analysis. You know liberal "democracies" are actually incredibly understudied, especially on the left. There's barely any text on the faults of electorialism, so I'm super glad to see your little theory you brewed up all on your own there. Proud of you buddy. If you wanna expand your horizons a bit, then here's a little bit of literature. Don't get scared by the fact there's no pictures! I know you can do it!
Now you can probably figure out since I linked you a few texts that I'm being a bit facetious. And you got me. Good on you again! Maybe you can use that big brain of yours and think yourself some humility, it would do you some good. Maybe assume that the bare-bones drivel (sorry buddy, but it's really not very good) you're serving us as some unique insight, isn't really novel or unknown to us. We all exist in this society, we all see the same takes on the frontpage of reddit, we just... You know, think a little about it. We're a little curious over here. A curious little group of people that likes to just look a teeny tiny bit deeper instead of just incorporating whatever the TV told us that morning. Maybe you should consider doing the same yourself.
Aw buddy, did you discover incrementalism? I remember when I did too, it sounded real swell. Sadly it doesn't really work, we've been hearing that stuff since the 1970's. Really we heard it before that too. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that, I know it sucks to learn you're not the brightest bulb in the room. Hopefully this can be a learning experience for you!