“The election has already started. Absentee ballots have been sent. We need to catch up rapidly. We need everyone here to get active. We need to be clear about what our goals are. We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic, we could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.”
Former Seattle City Council member and prominent Indian-American political activist Kshama Sawant made that clear at a recent event. Sawanta is against the Democratic and Republican parties, and she’s the founder of Workers Strike Back, which opposes the war in Gaza and calls for a ceasefire.
She spoke at a Stein campaign rally right before introducing Stein.
Sure would be historic to hand unchecked executive power to Donald Trump desperate to evade prosecution and repay favours.
Not in a good way, but historic for sure.
And to punish his perceived enemies, don’t forget that part. And give unchecked power to cronies who openly want to get rid of ‘undesirables’.
The Nazis didn’t go full Jews-in-ovens at the beginning. First they came for the socialists, and the queers, and the political dissidents, and then everyone who wasn’t white, straight, and christian enough.
Fascists eliminate everyone until the only ones left to oppress are themselves. They need an enemy, and if you don’t think they’ll eventually come for you, you’re wrong.
If trump wins, it’ll be historic, all right. Children in 2060 will learn about the 20s and 30s in school as a cautionary tale, and if they’re lucky, some holocaust survivors will still be alive to speak at assemblies. Hopefully those survivors won’t be showing the scars of a nuclear bomb like I saw in school as a child.
It’s fucking hilarious considering Harris in polls has the edge in MI, and the Green Party draw last election was almost null.
This is the right response, here. Everybody knows the existing “left” third parties are all either actively steered by 3-letter agencies or only relevant because the main parties get to sponsor them as spoilers for each other.
I wish I had the kind of confidence to make claims like this with a straight face. Politicians are so weird.
According to the modlog someone else (admittedly a slightly trollous user) posted this with the title “Jill Stein ally says the Greens’ strategy is about making Harris lose the presidency” and got banned for it based on rule 1. I thought removal was reasonable but apparently the rule says “If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.” Could someone clarify how the alterations to the title didn’t make it more descriptive?
I only know this because I was searching for certain keywords and stumbled upon comments in the deleted thread.
