Here are the top few questions, and the responses:
Kismetatron
Hi Jill, thanks for doing this AMA. I have so many questions but first can you address this statement?
“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 MI. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without MI.”
I mean it really, really sounds like your true intent is to get Trump into the White House. Which is weird because I thought the Green Party was for climate action and saving the the environment. Silly me.
Quick question, if you do succeed how do I look my legal immigrant wife in the eyes and tell her she may deported back to her home country simply for being the wrong skin color? Trump guaranteed that this is gonna happen if gets back in office so I really want to hear the mental gymnastics behind why you would cheerlead for this kind of misery.
JillSteinOnReddit
(no response)
LizukaWest
If the intention of the Green Party is in fact to actually be a viable third party, then why is there virtually no effort made at growing power at levels below the presidency? There has not been an elected Green member of the House in years, there are only four mayors in the entire country and there are barely any city or student council members. Wouldn't focusing on lower stakes, winnable races be ultimately more efficient than doing nothing but running doomed campaigns?
JillSteinOnReddit
Hi Lizuka, the vast majority of Green campaigns are down-ballot campaigns, mostly on the local level. Greens have won over 1500 elections, making the Green Party the most successful independent party in the country that doesn’t take corporate money.
Ballot access rules designed by the duopoly require the Green Party to run for president and other high offices - or lose ballot lines and the ability to run at all levels.
Roughly 60% of US voters believe the 2-party system doesn't represent us and we need a new party. We don't have a democracy unless voters have a right to choose at all levels of government.
AsherGray
How many of the 1,500 elections won were in the last decade? I've noticed that the green party has zero seats in the senate, zero seats in the house of Representatives, zero state governorships, 0 out of 1,972 seats in state upper chambers, 0 out of 5,411 state lower chambers, and the list goes on.
Why should the American people vote for the candidate of a party that is incompetent at getting elected to smaller divisions of government?
JillSteinOnReddit
(no response)
forgedbygeeks
What did you discuss with Putin and Flynn at the infamous Moscow dinner photo?
TeamJillStein
Jill has answered this before! Here is a link to her answer on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@drjillstein/video/7342590195394546987
Jan_17_2016
Yes, she just so happened to get invited to attend the 10th anniversary of a Russian propaganda network, and just so happened to get put at Putin’s table with Michael Flynn, just before she just so happened to siphon enough votes away from Clinton to allow for a Trump victory.
Sure, Jill.
TeamJillStein
(no response)
How does that take into account users from instances that don’t support downvotes? Also I get drunk and say dumb shit so I’ve probably got some weird swings between upvoted and downvoted posts, so I’m really just posting so you can have another data point.
You can still collect downvotes from other instances. Even if your instance doesn't accept or display them, they'll still get federated to the instance that hosts the community.
You've got a bunch of negative rank, mostly from the argument under the "Network Switch" post, but you're fine. If you did that habitually, you'd get banned. It's hard to get banned for real. The intent, and most of the reality, is that bans are limited to people who go around getting downvoted constantly because they are consistently obnoxious.
does santa have a list of users who've been automoderated like that? without user input on whether it's making the right call, you'll end up on the hook for evaluating those bans all the time, and at that point you might as well not have the bot
edit: i like the idea though
I don't watch its every move. I do spot checks of its judgements. I tried posting some of them to [email protected] to democratize the process, but I think it's too abstract for people to be all that interested.
Something just clicked for me when you said that, though. I think the way to set it up is for moderators to be able to have Santa to auto-report comments, instead of autonomously removing them on its own.
That would only be of interest in communities where the moderators are interested in removing consistently obnoxious people. For some reason, that doesn't seem to be the case. It's very strange to me that so much moderation on "mainstream" Lemmy is based on an arbitrary set of rules, inconsistently applied, instead of relying to any extent on common sense or realizing when someone's an obnoxious jackass and getting rid of them.
Post a politics-related web site or tool? A video? Sorry, it's not an article. FUCK YOU, GET OUT.
Post 72 times per day, every day, and overtake MediaBiasFactCheck as the most downvoted account in Lemmy history? Nothing we can do. We are powerless to do ought but give you a little safe space for your propaganda. If only there were something we could do. But there isn't.
I don't think there's any tool in the world that can fix that.