-34

Democrats try to block Green Party from presidential ballot in Wisconsin, citing legal issues (apnews.com)

submitted 3 months ago by UniversalMonk@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Sorry, if you can't follow the rules, you can't play the game. No ability to field electors, no ability to offer a candidate. Bet all the others fail as well, and we don't have any Russian aided spoilers helping Comrade Trump.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

State law requires that those who nominate electors in October be state officers, which includes members of the Legislature, judges and others. They could also be candidates for the Legislature.

The Green Party does not have anyone who qualifies to be a nominator, and therefore can’t legally name a slate of presidential electors as required by law, the complaint alleges.

Sucks to suck. Maybe do your homework next time you attempt to help a man baby get elected again.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

A Pew Research Center survey, released Wednesday, found that if the election were held today, Harris would shore up 46 percent support from registered voters. Trump followed closely behind with 45 percent, Kennedy brought in 7 percent of the vote and 1 percent picked none or other.

Quoted Article

Jill Stein is sharing that 1% with all the other third party candidates besides Bobby Brainworms.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yep, here to convince us that Stein isn't still just one of Putin's useful idiots trying to get us a 2nd Trump administration like she did in 2016. And it wasn't just Wisconsin that she handed to Trump in 2016.

Here are the Stein votes from 2016 vs Trump's margin of victory in those states.

Michigan: 51,463/10,704

Pennsylvania: 49,678/46,765

Wisconsin: 31,006/22,177

Without Stein on the ballots in those states, there would have been no Trump administration.

Also, from OP's article:

There are signs in some swing states, including Wisconsin, that those behind third-party candidates are trying to affect the outcome of the presidential race by using deceptive means — and in most cases in ways that would benefit Trump. Their aim is to to offer left-leaning, third-party alternatives who could siphon off a few thousand protest votes.

Everyone, including Stein, knows Putin helped her last time, whether she knew it then or not. She must realize he's helping her again and she knows what the likely result is. She knows she can't win the presidency, all she can do is help Trump win.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Voting is a fundamental American right, and every citizen has the right to vote for the candidate they believe in, without being accused of ulterior motives.

The idea that supporting a third party is somehow working for Trump or any other major candidate is both historically inaccurate and logically flawed.

Throughout American history, third parties have played a crucial role in shaping political discourse and pushing important issues into the spotlight.

The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and labor rights were all advanced by third parties before being adopted by the major parties.

The notion that a vote for a third party “dilutes” the vote is rooted in a fear-driven mentality rather than in democratic principles.

It assumes that votes are owned by the two major parties, which they are not. Our electoral system is supposed to represent the diverse views of the electorate, not just those of the dominant parties.

Suggesting that Jill Stein is a “Russian stooge” dismisses legitimate political discourse and attempts to silence alternative viewpoints. It’s a tactic to coerce voters into conformity rather than encouraging healthy debate and democracy.

Democracy thrives on diversity of thought.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I must admit, I do find it slightly ironic that you champion diversity of thought in bold typeface, except for the thought that Stein might be working with Russia. That thought is apparently special and should be barred. This is hypocritical.

There is nothing logically flawed with the idea that she may be coordinating with American rivals in any way, shape or form. Plenty of people throughout history have worked to harm our country for their own best interest, and rationally it would behove us to consider the possibility instead of granting her some immunity to suspicion that no other politician receives.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -7 points 3 months ago

except for the thought that Stein might be working with Russia. That thought is apparently special and should be barred. This is hypocritical.

I don't "bar" that thought at all. You are free to think that. I don't think it. News orgs don't seem to think it, and I would think hat would be a major front page article if there were evidence of it.

But you are totally free to think that. And say that. But I don't agree/belive that, so I would reply the same.

There is nothing logically flawed with the idea that she may be coordinating with American rivals in any way, shape or form.

Again, that would be major news. So I personally don't think that.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

It very much was in the news. Every time that news is presented to you though, you simply pivot to her campaign statement about it being a speech about peace. To a dictator.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -7 points 3 months ago

It very much was NOT in the news as proof. In fact, newsweek wrote about it. Plus The Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the trip and found no wrongdoing whatsoever.

I know that you lean conspiracy, I get it. You want it to be true. Bu there has been no conclusive proof that she is paid for by the Russians. The Russians tried to divert left leaning voters away from Clinton by boosting Stein’s candidacy. There is ZERO evidence there that Stein was contacted by Russia or even aware of the way in which her campaign was being hijacked.

You believe she is, I don't believe she is. It's that simple. Just accept it and move on.

Harris will win by a landslide anyway, so you don't even have to worry about it. lol

Not changing my vote, tho!

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Have I ever claimed she was paid by the Russians? This is you trolling, saying I am saying something that I have never said.

Also, you cannot say she was not contacted by Russia when she was inside of Russia. Russia is full of Russians, as I imagine you knew.

You cannot dispute basic facts, but you can make up lies like "she was never contacted by Russia" when she very provably went to Russia and sat with their leader.

Have I asked you to change your vote? Or do I simply like facts being straight?

edit: Oh, and she never actually complied with that investigation, by the way. I forgot that detail.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/30/politics/jill-stein-russia-documents-senate-request/index.html

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -7 points 3 months ago

Have I ever claimed she was paid by the Russians? This is you trolling, saying I am saying something that I have never said.

Oh ok, so you DON'T believe she is being paid by the Russians then? Right?

And again, stop accusing me of trolling. We have had this conversation. If you say I am "a troll" or that I am "trolling" again, I will report you to the mods.

It is a baseless accusation and you and I have already had this conversation.

Stop.

but you can make up lies like “she was never contacted by Russia” when she very provably went to Russia and sat with their leader.

I mean, contact as in they didn't contact her to pay her to run against trump.

Yet again: https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-ties-vladimir-putin-explained-1842620

Have I asked you to change your vote?

Didn't say you wanted me to change my vote. Because you DO support me voting for whoever I wish, right?

Not changing my vote.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

You can report me as much as pleases you, that is fine, but it is absolutely a common trolling tactic when you make claims for me that I have not made, just so you can argue against them. It's dishonest and unconducive to healthy conversation, and a very common tactic of practiced trolls. So, report away.

Oh, so it's contact her to pay her to run now? How convenient, you certainly didn't explain anything like that earlier. And you call me the conspiracist?

Let's review the basic facts: Jill Stein attended Putin's gala for his propaganda network. She sat at his table. She did not cooperate with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. She neglects to criticize Russia, either on their climate policies or the invasion of Ukraine. Russia assists her by working to funnel votes for her.

Against these facts, all you have is her campaign statement about a speech regarding "peace", to a dictator that had already been helping Assad in Syria wage war on his own people, and a Senate investigation she did not cooperate with.

No, I have not told you to change your vote, the only one bringing up you changing your vote is you, pretty much every time it seems. This trolly attitude becomes tiresome, but I'm afraid I'm not going to let you continue to muddle facts.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -7 points 3 months ago

You can report me as much as pleases you, that is fine, but it is absolutely a common trolling tactic when you make claims for me that I have not made, just so you can argue against them.

Just because some trolls does that, doesn't mean I am a troll.

Dude, we have had this conversation, both in public and private. Remember when we agreed to be more civil about this.

You have to stop accusing me of being a troll. You have ZERO PROOF, and I have proven to you many many times in my comments and my post history that I am not a troll.

Stop accusing me of being a troll, and keep the comments civil.

Accusing me of being a troll is against the subs rules. You have already had comments removed for calling me a troll. And now you are doing it again. Are you trying to get banned or something?

Just stop. Block me, and move on.

Let’s review the basic facts: Jill Stein attended Putin’s gala for his propaganda network. She sat at his table. She did not cooperate with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. She neglects to criticize Russia, either on their climate policies or the invasion of Ukraine. Russia assists her by working to funnel votes for her.

We have talked about this several times. I don't believe that she is paid for by russia? Ok? Let it go.

No, I have not told you to change your vote, the only one bringing up you changing your vote is you, pretty much every time it seems.

So you support and respect my right to vote for whoever I please. Right?

I don't want to report you again. But if you call me a troll again, I will, and I'll ask that they view all the times you have done it. They banned another user from this community for doing that.

Do you really wanna get banned from a community just because you wouldn't stop calling a person a troll. Is that your end game here? I don't get it.

Block me, move on, and/or accept it. I'm voting for JIll Stein. And you support and respect my right to do that, right? Ok, then move on.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

You have proven nothing except that you are willing to engage in dishonesty and have a large amount of free time on your hands.

If my comments trouble you, and you believe they break the rules, then you should probably report me. I'm afraid you're not going to find much success by threatening me though.

There you go again, all you have left is "paid by Russia", despite, again, me never accusing her of being paid by Russia. Despite me clearly saying that just one post ago, you simply repeat it. This is a classic logical fallacy known as a stawman argument, and when done intentionally, clearly a trolling activity.

Vote for whatever you want, but if you try to muddle facts, I'll be here to call you out.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Removed, civility.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ah, it’s our 55 year old transracial troll friend again. Hello. I never was able to find your reddit account.

I'd prefer we keep this conversation focused on the article and please stay civil in tone so we can live up to the standards of this community. Thank you!

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Ah, I see. Well, it is a social media comment section, and I'm pretty sure casual chit-chat is not banned, but sure I guess.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ah, it’s our 55 year old transracial troll friend again.

Ah, I see. Well, it is a social media comment section, and I’m pretty sure casual chit-chat is not banned, but sure I guess.

Do you feel that falsely accusing someone of being a troll is "casual chit-chat"? And what does my age have anything to do with in regards to this article?

Thank you for respecting and supporting my right to vote for who I believe in. And my right to post political news articles to a political sub. As I respect and support your right to do so.

Let's move forward by trying to stay focused on the article and try to adhere to the rules and tone of this community. Thank you!

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Yes, very typical casual chit-chat for a social media community, no question about it. And note, I don't really think it's falsely, but I suppose that is just my opinion.

I mean, we talk about things independent of the article all the time, but sure, that's reasonable and fine.

[-] DMBFFF@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Free Palestine.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago

Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Associated Press:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-jill-stein-harris-trump-lawsuit-405e8bae8ff9becfa81a1360708d59a0

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024

-34 points (23.4% liked)

politics

19145 readers

1994 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News