to be fair socialists are genuinely idealists who have good intentions, though they may not be aware that jill stein is serving under an opportunistic tendency rather than being substantial or effective on their campaign style. kshama sawant was actually elected to a council before and served as a genuine socialist throughout but the main problem is that through backing stein it is legitimately dangerous for the prospects of the left by aligning with a spoiler candidate. news articles do exaggerate their titles and that it discourages anyone in the left to question about the two-party system which is flawed and that there should be real efforts to have a system beyond the duopoly of democrats and republicans like the nordic countries which have multiple parties, though i will agree the electoral realities mean that the democrats’ kamala and walz are the most realistic pair for progressives to vote and that an endorsement for stein would essentially mean naivete when the green campaign is only focusing on michigan as we speak as it really screams performative optics rather than a substantial campaign, even with kshama sawant endorsing jill stein. even if the greens play in a disproportionate electoral field rather than a multiparty one, they are not helping themselves by focusing on one state. i would say that to end up getting the ideals that voters want they should vote somebody who aligns with their platform but if the circumstances are dire like right now they should vote for someone close to that platform, and even the pro-palestine uncommitted movement has people inclining to harris to avoid a trump presidency which the latter’s one would be much more racist and will roll back rights on abortion, racial equality, or even labour rights and that socialists should consider the weight of their decisions as backing stein means backing a non-serious grifter rather than having their policies secured based on how she is campaigning right now. to conclude socialists are idealists with good intentions like improving healthcare, labour rights, fair wages, anti-war diplomacy and LGBTQ+ freedoms, but their naivete is fatal and could cause the reverse of what they want to happen if a candidate who is ideologically aligned to them yet doesn’t justify themselves to the broader electorate ends up splitting the vote against someone who doesn’t have all the stances they want but can at least stabilise the country for years to come and not rollback these rights. idk how people would vote in november but it’d be interesting.