760
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
760 points (96.0% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2470 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
From another article:
SCOTUS ruled with the Nevada Supreme Court and chose to keep the Green Party off the ballot. Their only real mistake here was really just some legal red tape filled out incorrectly. It doesn't really matter if Jill Stein is a terrible candidate or not, the two party system will clearly go to the ends of the earth to kill 3rd parties from every becoming a thing lol. I guess it matters more for democrats since green party would be taking out more of their votes than republicans.
Wow.
Wow, Dems actually exercised power in a legal manner to improve their chances. That is wild. Hope they don't break their backs slapping themselves.
They will always do it so long as it weakens the left. The DNC exists to badger any left of center movement toward their center right position, and even put DNC funds to extremist right winger campaigns boosting Christian nationalist platforms... learning nothing from clintons pied piper failures only pushing us all closer to a fascist hellscape just to say guess we vote blue since we have nowhere else to go. Fuck Jill Stein and all but this is the exact shit that leaves me voting for literally any socialist instead.
And the left exists to siphon votes towards the right. See? Unsubstantiated claims work both ways.
Its funny because Jill Stein being a shill is an unsubstantiated claim too.
Because everyone uses their opposition’s lawyers when there’s thousands of other choices. Additionally, everyone refuses to call a war criminal a war criminal when asked- several times.
It’s only unsubstantiated to people who refuse to accept it.
She put out an official statement saying Putin is a war criminal. Thats like a reverse uno substantiated claim!
She was grilled over and over again, and side-stepped the question every time. Putting out a statement afterwards is simply her doing damage control. Anyone with any common sense that’s paying attention would have had no problem answering the question when asked.
There is no defense for her shilling.
NONE.
"Either you're a war criminal or you're not. Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?" he asked again.
"In so many words, yes he is," Stein said. "If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don't begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal."
Which was then followed by a written statement calling him a war criminal.
I think she made a fair point about the difference between russia and israel. One is sponsored by the US and one is not. We have responsibility towards who we sponsor. There isnt much to gain by calling Putin a war criminal if you intend to take an office where you'd then need to negotiate with him diplomatically.
Do you really expect the anti-war party to throw out escalating rhetoric?
She’s a Shill, bud. And not only that, but- she’s over. Finished. The cat is out of the bag and thankfully, she will never see herself in a position of authority in America. And because of this. No one has to take any of you seriously anymore.
So please, just stop defending her to me. It’s pointless.
Its not pointless if I'm enjoying thr conversation! I'll give you a break though.
I mean I agree with everything you said about democrats, but I don't view voting as some endorsement of a system or party. I vote for the conditions I want to organize under.
Fair enough. Thats why I usually downballot blue too. At best it prevents local rightwingers from gaining momentum and at worst it gives the DNC enough rope to hang themselves with.
I only see the system changing in two scenarios short of civil war or coup. Either the dnc will lose and all the less privileged libs who wont collaborate with the fash join the fight, creating an actual resistance OR the dems will sweep a super majority and continue to enact right wing policies for the entire term with no excuses, disenfranchising young voters and creating a vacuum for a third party.
See also: the Dems suing to kick Claudia De La Crúz off the ballot in Georgia and PA. "Democrats" in name-only.
Exactly! Good point!
Sort of upsetting all your up votes are from people that are happy Nevada "beat" Jill Stein, which is not really the point I think you are making.
I agree that its shameful behavior from the democrats. I wish they would consider why they've lost 2 million people to the Green party rather than try to ban them.
Lol.
The Green Party's membership encompasses the fourth-highest percentage of registered voters in the United States, with a total membership of 234,120
I was referencing the amount of votes they got in recent elections, although in 2016 it was 1.5 million not 2, so my bad there.
The DNC seems overly happy to use bureaucracy as a cludgel to reduce options "legally" to themselves.
While I get the fear beating down your competition in an underhanded manner doesn't inspire a whole lot of good will and also seems extremely unlikely to get the people you have just disenfranchised to vote on your side.
They resist any movement or adoption of new policy in favor of it staying as stagnant as possible. It's a deeply confusing and long term failing idea. Just look at how Kamala is now polling worse with each passing week. She felt like change and initial momentum of "joy" was able to carry her a little but it's not a permanent state and the initial dopamine is running out.
I honestly feel it. They took the high road for like a month. Back to slinging shit though they go. What a joke. How is anyone supposed to trust them?
They had the momentum of a new candidate and it was full of excitement for new policy then she was seemingly told to not change things still.
I mean literally pro gun and loose company first economic policies are early 2000 Republican policy. So now it's instead just focus on how shitty the orange bastard is, which is a low bar to easily walk over.
It really does feel disingenuous to blame people uninspired by that and to claim it's a fixing party. I get the other option but people need to not act like angels when stagnant bullies that refuse to budge or listen anymore.