“Jill Stein is a useful idiot for Russia. After parroting Kremlin talking points and being propped up by bad actors in 2016 she’s at it again,” DNC spokesman Matt Corridoni said in a statement to The Bulwark. “Jill Stein won’t become president, but her spoiler candidacy—that both the GOP and Putin have previously shown interest in—can help decide who wins. A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.”

10 points

Jill Stein needs to go, condemning Putin should be the easiest thing in the world to do for any non-Russian.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

she has done that

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Or anyone not in Putin’s pocket. Yes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Jill Stein wouldn’t say that Putin is a war criminal. You should really listen to how she dances stupid the interview with Medhi Hassan.

https://boingboing.net/2024/09/16/kremlins-favorite-candidate-jill-stein-refuses-to-call-putin-a-war-criminal-during-interview.html

The fallout/optics from that blatant fear to speak clearly about Putin was bad enough it seems that she’s now made a follow-up statement to lightly say the phrase, with qualification (after checking with daddy) and associating it only with Syria and refusing to mention Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

permalink
report
reply
1 point
*

in that interview she immediately says “yes”. framing it as though she isn’t saying it is just lying.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

“Say it” means a specific thing. She’s given multiple opportunities to do so directly in that interview and she’s terrified of a sound bite of her acknowledging it directly. She readily says it (appropriately) about Netanyahu, she will not say or about Putin. You’re either an apologist yourself or you’re undereducated on the subject matter - either way, do better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

making a woman perform like that is one of the most misogynist things I think anybody’s ever proposed me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-19 points
*

a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump

It’s also… not a vote for Trump.

If Stein has 50% of Trump’s votes, Harris still wins, by a knockout.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Again. This is not how this works.

Stein isn’t taking Trump voters. She’s a Left-Wing distraction candidate. In some systems, like RCV or Proportional Representation, her candidacy wouldn’t hurt the Dem as long as voters were thoughtful with their votes. But in FPTP, which we have here, she’s definitely a threat. We’re bitterly divided here, to the tune of close to 51% wanting lefties and 49% wanting righties. All she needs to do to throw this election to the Right is poach 3% plus whatever Right-Wing third party candidates there are. Since the Right is unifying behind the Shitgibbon, it’s real easy for her to spoil the election and get all 51% who want progressive and/or liberal policies to get conservative policies instead. This is even worse when you realise Conservatives have gone Fascist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

It’s not conservative voters who are going to be voting for her.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

There is next to a zero chance that MAGA is gonna vote for Stein. If that ain’t true, then prove me wrong. I’d love to see the analysis.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

Any of the Stein shills want to explain to everyone why Trump (among many other awful people/companies/etc) attorney Jay Sekulow was representing The Green Party in their case against the State of Nevada?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/09/18/how-republicans-and-democrats-are-boosting-third-party-spoiler-candidates-as-trump-lawyer-represents-jill-stein/

Anyone?

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Trump and his team believe the same thing Democrats do: so-called third parties “steal” votes from the dominant parties. just because they believe it doesn’t make it true

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Oh ok… So everyone who literally does this for a living and has done it for decades believes this. All evidence from previous elections indicates this. Evidence we have about this current candidate in this sham “party” clearly supports this…

You’re really not helping yourself here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

All evidence from previous elections indicates this.

that’s not true

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

then stop bitching and unfuck your electoral system

permalink
report
reply
20 points

Oh, it can be done, but that means amending the Constitution.

To do that you need 290 votes in the House, the people who needed 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to pick their own leader.

Then you need 67 votes in the Senate, a body that’s incapactitated by needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

Then you need ratification from 38 states, when 25 went to Biden in 2020 and 25 went to Trump.

There may be a way around it, but that doesn’t kick in until enough states with 270 Electoral College votes agree to it, and that hasn’t happened yet either:

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Man, it’s incredibly hard to change anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yup! And intentionally so!

Thomas Jefferson’s preference was to throw out the whole thing and re-do it every 20 years. Can you imagine?

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/jefferson-memorial-education-each-new-generation.htm

“It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.”

Can you imagine? The Constitution was ratified in 1788, took effect in 1789.

So, by Jefferson’s standard, we should be on our 11th Constitution by now? Ratified in 2008? Next one due in 2028.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 213K

    Comments