Of course it does, but again it defeats the purpose of what voting is supposed to be for if you’re voting for the candidate one feels is best for them.
Look at this shyt:
Platform
www.jillstein2024.com
It says Reparations in big bold letters:
REPARATIONS AND THE AGENDA TO FACILITATE BLACK LIBERATION
A Jill Stein Administration will guarantee as a human right reparations to the descendants of African slaves for the historic crime of enslavement. Reparations is a cornerstone of the Black Agenda, but reparations is far from the only policy needed to begin to redress what has been stolen from the Black community over 400+ years.
Scholars and activists who have studied and formulated propositions for Reparations itself have put the minimum cash value of reparations at $12 trillion, to be paid to those who claim legitimate descendancy from enslaved Blacks prior to the Civil War. This number is derived not only from the stolen labor prior to 1865, but also from the reneged promise of Field Order 15, commonly referred to as “40 acres and a mule”, which was never made good upon.
We don’t need any further debate on whether reparations should be paid. They should, without question, as they were in 1988 to those impacted by WWII Japanese internment camps. The Stein administration will confer with Black community leaders on who qualifies, how they qualify (historical records exist), how much they will be paid in cash, and how those payments will be made.
There are other policies essential to the overall Black Agenda, as slavery was not the only historic crime against the Black community in America. We recognize both historic and existing racism in America, While it has been addressed in legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to this day an end to systemic racism has never been realized. Many of these essential policies, such as universal healthcare, immigration, policing, and free public college education, are addressed in other areas of this platform. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Black Agenda is a progressive agenda.
That's an easy answer and you can start by reading the comments from some of the usual suspects in this thread shooting down the idea and even clowning it.
It's getting clowned because it's a clown idea.
The founding fathers who created the foundation of the two party would say otherwise especially if they knew how one can hold the country hostage along with how corporate money influences even the highest levels of the government.
have it your way.
This 100%.
Congress proposes laws not the president.
On the national level, it's a dub. But on the local level, where we have actually majorities and can get actual Reps in, there's a real chance for that.
The irony of that is that George Washington didn't want the US to adopt national parties because of the very issue we face today.
whowhatwhy.org
www.nbcnews.com
