Omegamanthethird

It's okay to hate both terrorist organizations.

If Jill Stein thought she had a chance, she'd join the Democratic Party and actually campaign to win. She's just running for the self-indulgence despite hurting civil rights and climate initiatives.

They have a shot, by joining the Democratic Party. The same way that progressives join liberals, make their voice heard, and let the voters decide.

Any third party presidential candidate that aligns mostly (or entirely) with one of the other parties but doesn't join them is at best chicken shit. If you can't convince half of the population which is closest to you politically, you're not going to convince the other half.

The only way a third party candidate would even theoretically work is if they were moderate (think Joe Manchin) where they would appeal to moderates from both parties.

Someone like Jill Stein has no business running outside of the Democratic Party. If she can't convince the Dems, she's not convincing the rest of the country. Running as a Dem and convincing 26% of voters is her best road to the presidency, but she knows she'll never get that much support.

EXCELLENT!

Holy crap, she's 31? She looks like a 60 year old that had extensive work to kind of look 40.

Generally speaking , I don't think of npr when people complain about mainstream media.

Also, a couple reports aren't enough of a warning for the general population. The media does not do a good job of covering problems with the right-wing.

"The Big Lie" is one of the few examples of them actually taking a right-wing issue seriously. And that's because it was a direct attack on themselves. Otherwise it feels like they sanitize reporting as much as possible to appear unbiased.

I just read the letter she signed. I honestly didn't see anything egregious.

Hamas is bad.
Palestine is good.
Hostages need to be freed.
Israel and Palestine need to both be free and live in peace.

What am I supposed to be upset about?

Legion is my favorite show, period. She's phenomenal in it.

I support it. They have a job to let viewers know that the radical information is not true, and they should not take it as valid information to get worked up over.

It's the difference between Trump sounding like a maniac vs exposing a controversy. They don't need to stop him from sounding like a maniac. They just need to clarify that he is, in fact, a maniac.

I respect that viewpoint. That was the most famous example. But I know people generally thought she was mean, crass, or shrill because she would call Trump names (accurately) during debates.

Being aggressive is cathartic for us who pay attention. But swing voters are inherently easier to push away and are inherently not as "sold" on Trump being a national crisis and don't like being told what to think.

But I'm just an armchair analyst. So maybe I'm way off.

Yes, 100%. It happened with Hillary. You remember the controversy of her deplorable comment, which was statistically factual?

Moderate Republicans might show up for Trump.
Left leaning centrists might stay home.
Swing voters who are friendly to Trump's economy might "both sides" their personalities.
Some centrists just give Trump a pass on his personality. But Democrats don't get the same leeway.

Unfortunately these are the voters that can swing the election.