Dr. Jill Stein announced her candidacy for the 2024 presidential race because of course she did

[Ana the Ist]

It is NOT the role of candidate or private citizen to meet with foreign leaders.

Why not?

 

[mark46]

The Logan Act for starters
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized American citizens with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government's position.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was amended in 1994, changing the penalty for violation from "fined $5,000" to "fined under this title"; this appears to be the only amendment to the Act.[2] Violation of the Logan Act is a felony.

Only two people have ever been indicted on charges of violating the Act,[3] one in 1802 and the other in 1852.[4] Neither were convicted.[4]

==========​

However, the point is that he meetings with foreigners, especially foreign leaders should be known by those who vote.

Certainly, in the US, in 2023, it important to know who is close to Putin and who is strongly opposed. We are not techincally at war with Russia. But, as it was during the Cold War, the relationship is a difficult one.

TO STATE THE OBVIOUS
A president makes many decisions that affect Russia. Voters should know the attitudes of the candidates toward Putin. In 2016, we elected someone who wasn't a strong opponent of Putin. perhaps, those who voted for Stein understood that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The Logan Act for starters
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized American citizens with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

What negotiations did Stein have?

She was in a photo with Putin. There's nothing regarding negotiations at all.

 

[mark46]

I'll be clear.

Stein is a friend of Putin.

When folks decide whether to vote for Stein or Biden, they need to know that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Stein is a friend of Putin.

Proof?

 

[mark46]

Proof?

You vote based on the PROOF you think that you have. Americans don't get to have such proof.

Voters for Stein know that a vote for her is a vote for Trump, and therefore a vote for a FOP (friend of Putin). This is quite legal. it is NOT against the law to be a president or senator that is friends with the country's enemies.

 

[JSRG]

The Logan Act for starters
The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized American citizens with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government's position.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was amended in 1994, changing the penalty for violation from "fined $5,000" to "fined under this title"; this appears to be the only amendment to the Act.[2] Violation of the Logan Act is a felony.

Only two people have ever been indicted on charges of violating the Act,[3] one in 1802 and the other in 1852.[4] Neither were convicted.[4]

The Logan Act seems a flagrant violation of the First Amendment and the only reason it hasn't been challenged in court is the fact the government doesn't actually try to convict people for it (resulting in no injury to anyone), and an injury is normally required to challenge a law as unconstitutional. The government's not going to try to convict someone for it nowadays because it would accomplish nothing for them in particular if the person was convicted, plus it'd be near guaranteed to be struck down if they did. They'd be spending a bunch of money in court just to accomlish nothing. No one should really be worried about breaking it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You vote based on the PROOF you think that you have.

So you don't have any proof Stein engaged in any negotiations with Putin.

It's a baseless claim that we should all ignore.

Voters for Stein know that a vote for her is a vote for Trump

It's a vote for Stein.

Perhaps the Democratic Party would find a better candidate than old Joe "I don't know where that money or classified documents came from" Biden if they knew people would consider voting for other candidates.

 

[mark46]

So you don't have any proof Stein engaged in any negotiations with Putin.

It's a baseless claim that we should all ignore.



It's a vote for Stein.

Perhaps the Democratic Party would find a better candidate than old Joe "I don't know where that money or classified documents came from" Biden if they knew people would consider voting for other candidates.

We've exhausted this discussion. Meeting with Putin is negotiating according to you. Ok so be it. I don't think that she negotiated. I just think that it is part of any US political discussion to acknowledge discussions with foreign leaders.
========
As far as 3rd party voting. This will always be a debate in the US until we move from our 2 party system, fairly unusual and difficult for those from other countries to understand.

In almost all elections, there are two candidates with a possibility to win. If you don't like the choices of the 2 major parties (as is the case for over 3/4 of US voters if the choice is between Biden and Trump.

A voter who doesn't like either can choose to stay home. This is a vote to leave the choice up to others.
A voter can vote third party, again leaving the choice to others.
If folks have no preference, both of these choices make sense to me.

What bothers me is that there are many voters who have genuine preference between the candidates and chose to vote third party. These voters have chosen to make their vote one of non-preference. Over the years, several presidents have been elected because their opponent lost enough votes to a 3rd party to give them the presidency. The 3rd party candidates care not at all. After all, they have shown that they have power. Well, congrats to them. In my lifetime, they have elected Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr, and Trump. These were NOT their choice of the two, but they got them elected.

Let me be clear. These candidates have every RIGHT to sabotage a candidacy by taking away votes from them by running. This strategy can me much more effective than supporting the candidate directly. The Green Party COULD become a national party and continue to gain membership, and perhaps eventually elect candidates. That won't happen in my lifetime because their methods have sabotaged Democratic candidates. All they need to do to not have this effect to is to not be on the ballot in swing states. Instead, they choose the way of sabotage.

 

[mark46]

The Logan Act seems a flagrant violation of the First Amendment and the only reason it hasn't been challenged in court is the fact the government doesn't actually try to convict people for it (resulting in no injury to anyone), and an injury is normally required to challenge a law as unconstitutional. The government's not going to try to convict someone for it nowadays because it would accomplish nothing for them in particular if the person was convicted, plus it'd be near guaranteed to be struck down if they did. They'd be spending a bunch of money in court just to accomlish nothing. No one should really be worried about breaking it.

I'm not sure that Americans have a constitutional right to travel to foreign countries meet with our enemy's leaders. I don't know how the Supreme Court would rule. In any case, the act hasn't been used much and probably won't be used again.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We've exhausted this discussion. Meeting with Putin is negotiating according to you.

Are you feeling OK?

I've never seen someone forget what they said so fast.

You're the one claiming Jill Stein was negotiating with Putin....not me.

In fact, you claimed she was guilty of breaking some law.

As far as 3rd party voting. This will always be a debate in the US until we move from our 2 party system, fairly unusual and difficult for those from other countries to understand.

You erroneously said a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. That's not how voting works.

In almost all elections, there are two candidates with a possibility to win. If you don't like the choices of the 2 major parties (as is the case for over 3/4 of US voters if the choice is between Biden and Trump.

Did you forget to finish this statement?

"If you don't like the choices of the 2 major parties.....*Insert end of thought here*."

A voter who doesn't like either can choose to stay home.

Right.

This is a vote to leave the choice up to others.

Or perhaps more accurately a statement about the quality of the candidates.

A voter can vote third party, again leaving the choice to others.

Well it's a vote. I'm not going to count out a 3rd party candidate. Plenty of people counted out Trump...and look how that turned out.

If folks have no preference, both of these choices make sense to me.

Ok.

What bothers me is that there are many voters who have genuine preference between the candidates and chose to vote third party.

Usually because they prefer the third party over the 2 candidates.

These voters have chosen to make their vote one of non-preference.

No...they voted for their preferred candidate.

Over the years, several presidents have been elected because their opponent lost enough votes to a 3rd party to give them the presidency.

Sure....or more accurately, they lost the election because they were unwanted.

The 3rd party candidates care not at all.

I don't think they'd run if they didn't care.

After all, they have shown that they have power. Well, congrats to them. In my lifetime, they have elected Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr, and Trump. These were NOT their choice of the two, but they got them elected.

That's a lot of speculation lol.

Let me be clear. These candidates have every RIGHT to sabotage a candidacy by taking away votes from them by running.

Sabotage a candidacy?

This strategy can me much more effective than supporting the candidate directly. The Green Party COULD become a national party and continue to gain membership, and perhaps eventually elect candidates.

Well they'd have to run candidates for office, won't they?

That won't happen in my lifetime because their methods have sabotaged Democratic candidates.

I think when you see a party forming on the left, that has enough appeal to draw votes away from the Democratic Party candidate, it's because the Democratic Party is failing its voters...

Not because the voters are failing the Democratic Party.

All they need to do to not have this effect to is to not be on the ballot in swing states. Instead, they choose the way of sabotage.

That's not sabotage....it's democracy. Perhaps if the Democratic Party spent more time pursuing policies that actually help their voters and the US in general....they wouldn't be having this problem.

It is nice to see the real reasons why you threw out the accusations of Stein and Putin though. I suspected it didn't have anything to do with Stein and Putin...you're just concerned she might draw away some votes from Biden.

I would suggest that if that does in fact happen....you should blame Biden,not Stein. He had an easy job. He only had to do better than Trump.

 

[JSRG]

I'm not sure that Americans have a constitutional right to travel to foreign countries meet with our enemy's leaders.

The Logan Act says nothing about "enemies" (and for the record, neither Putin nor Xi are formal enemies to the United States--they might be unfriendly, but to be an enemy you have to have actual declared hostilities, like a war). Here's the text:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

Nothing about enemies here, it applies to any foreign government. And it's not "merely" preventing you from traveling to them, it refers to correspondence; even writing a letter in violation of it would be a crime under it. It's an obvious restriction on speech and an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. But since no one's ever been convicted under it, there's been no opportunity to declare it as such.

I don't know how the Supreme Court would rule. In any case, the act hasn't been used much and probably won't be used again.

I would be very, very surprised if the SCOTUS didn't strike it down if it went to them. However, for there to be any case, there needs to be injury, and that won't happen until it's used... which, as you notice, is unlikely to happen. So the law might as well just not exist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not sure that Americans have a constitutional right to travel to foreign countries meet with our enemy's leaders.

There's absolutely no law against it lol. Dennis Rodman famously met Kim Jong Un.

I don't know how the Supreme Court would rule. In any case, the act hasn't been used much and probably won't be used again.

You know what would be refreshing? If Democrats found a valid criticism of their opponents or rational reasons for voting for their candidates instead of blanket smears and accusations of "working with/for Putin" which are baseless lies.

 

[RoBo1988]

I doubt that I vote for Stein, but I welcome her, as well as Manchin, RFK, Trump , Tulsi, etc, etc. May each of them get their messages out, other than calling each other "socialist!", " Russian asset!" Yada yada...

It's the only thing that will break the establishment media/ establishment politician stranglehold that's on this country

 

[Desk trauma]

I doubt that I vote for Stein, but I welcome her, as well as Manchin, RFK, Trump , Tulsi, etc, etc. May each of them get their messages out, other than calling each other "socialist!", " Russian asset!" Yada yada...

It's the only thing that will break the establishment media/ establishment politician stranglehold that's on this country

No, a new party would be established by boring ground up work not showboating moon shots like third parties have wasted their time on for my entire life. After all, why bother building a voting base, starting at the local level showing their ideas work on practice and building a party day in day out when you they just make a spectacle of themselves every four years instead.

 

[JSRG]

No, a new party would be established by boring ground up work not showboating moon shots like third parties have wasted their time on for my entire life. After all, why bother building a voting base, starting at the local level showing their ideas work on practice and building a party day in day out when you they just make a spectacle of themselves every four years instead.

Because "starting at the local level" attracts exactly zero attention outside of those limited local levels, whereas a presidential campaign gets national attention and is how you actually "build a voting base". Few people heard about the Libertarian Party or Green Party or Constitution Party or American Solidarity Party because of their local elections (of which all have had some), they heard about them mostly because of their presidential candidates.

Granted, I'm not sure either approach ("starting at the local level" or trying to get attention with more national campaigns) works out all that well, given the way the US political system is practically set up to thwart third parties (first past the post voting does that), so I'm not sure what the path actually is to them getting real power outside of making major changes to the electoral system itself. But if that path exists, it's pretty clear that "starting at the local level" has produced even less of a result for them than trying to run larger campaigns; I'm not aware of any third party that managed to achieve any real recognition via running local elections outside of The Rent Is Too Damn High Party, which was more from the name than anything else. Also, it never elected anyone to office and has been disbanded.

 

[Desk trauma]

Because "starting at the local level" attracts exactly zero attention outside of those limited local levels, whereas a presidential campaign gets national attention and is how you actually "build a voting base".

Yeah, they say that every presidential election cycle. Then never do any of the boring ground pounding between them, rinse and repeat.

Granted, I'm not sure either approach ("starting at the local level" or trying to get attention with more national campaigns) works out all that well, given the way the US political system is practically set up to thwart third parties (first past the post voting does that), so I'm not sure what the path actually is to them getting real power outside of making major changes to the electoral system itself. But if that path exists, it's pretty clear that "starting at the local level" has produced even less of a result for them than trying to run larger campaigns

Yep, you get less results when you don't put any effort into something.

 

[JSRG]

Yeah, they say that every presidential election cycle. Then never do any of the boring ground pounding between them, rinse and repeat.

Some of them do and run local candidates.

Yep, you get less results when you don't put any effort into something.

You seem to have misunderstood my point. You're claiming that the true path for third parties to gain power is to "start at the local level" rather than trying to actually get national attention. My point is that this doesn't seem to work, because no third party that has gotten any actual attention or power in the US, has managed to do so via that strategy. It seems like if the strategy you propose would work, we would've seen some rise to power doing so... but they don't, all the local ones just fade away and don't progress past that point.

 

[RoBo1988]

The Reform party had a good start (Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura) but the Democrat/Republican/media cabal put a stop to that