this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024

34 points (70.7% liked)

politics

18966 readers

4127 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.
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.
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

• 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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Supreme Court won't let Green Party candidate Jill Stein on Nevada ballot (www.msn.com)

submitted 1 week ago by UniversalMonk to c/politics

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Good. One less State allowing her betrayal of America.

“We are stuck with Biden[/Harris] now, in a two-party duopoly, if one should be defeated ferociously, the logic is that the other one prevails.” (Ralph Nader, 2023)

Putin’s Shill Stein wants Nato disbanded, the US to give up their SC veto, and revoke weapons to help Ukraine defend itself while simultaneously forcing ‘peace’ (subjugation) negotiations with russia.

2015 Stein breaking bread with Putin, his senior staff, and Mike Flynn (later Trump's national security advisor

More context:

Emir Kusturica is a propagandist filmmaker quoted as saying "if I was Russian I would vote for him". He also supports Russian annexation of Crimea.
Willy Wimmer was a Right-wing German politician who in his retirement has effectively become a far-right conspiracy theorist that regularly posts to the Epoch Times.

For those that don’t understand how the Electoral College + FPTP voting works, voting for her means helping donald become president due to the spoiler effect.

[+] anticolonialist -29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Your vote for Harris takes away a vote from a 3rd party candidate and gives it to Trump

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is why we need better education. People who think they can just say words and they don't even need to make any logical sense

[+] anticolonialist -6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's what the bullshit coming from Democrats sounds like from a leftist point of view

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes for you all we have to do is convince 45% of voters to do something they would literally never do to succeed. And then if we don't succeed, burning the country the rest of the way to ground at the expense of every vulnerable person is not only not cruel, it's a fine choice. And that's the only way to be a logical true leftist. Limiting suffering is clearly a horrible choice. I guess once we realize that suffering and cruelty is the whole point, your positions do make a lot of sense.

[–] jhymesba 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's worse than that. And understanding this is key to understanding why voting third party will never work in the USA without reforming our electoral system.

Suppose tomorrow, a genie grants one of these posters' wishes and suddenly it's Stein with 48.0% of the vote in critical swing states, and Harris and other candidates on the Left sit on 3% of the vote, while Trump has 51% of the vote. Suddenly, it's Harris who's the spoiler and we end up with Trump because 10k voters thought Jill was too cosy-cosy with Russia.

I have specific issues with Stein that would definitely have me far less sure of my vote, but I'd still take her over Project 2025 and DJT. I'd still be calling as hard against voting third party as I am in this universe where it's the Greenie and not the Democrat that would spoil the election.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Exactly, this is not an ideological dispute, this is statistics. And that is the key to understanding why the third party astroturf posts and replies are not credible.

Every time someone helpfully responds with a statistics explanation, these users respond with ideological escalation. It always reframes the debate to be about an entrenched system or Gaza or miming offense or generic DARVO. (All of which coincidentally mirror right-wing talking points or known election disinformation goals - i.e., push deep state conspiracy theories, escalation political divisions to fray unity - if you find that coincidence interesting.)

What they never try to do is explain how a vote for a third party in our FPTP system results in a desirable outcome for their stated "third party" policy priorities.

Which is why none of it is convincing: they cannot be both ideologically so pure that it's a moral imperative to vote third party, and simultaneously so ideologically aloof that they do not care that that vote can only undermine that outcome. So it's either bad faith, or reckless ignorance.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Your vote for any candidate that isn't yourself takes away a vote from the only candidate whose opinions match yours perfectly.

[–] anticolonialist -5 points 1 week ago

Capitalists represent nothing I want in government.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Good, if your campaign isn't competent enough to even file the right bureaucratic papers you proooobably don't have anything together enough to run a country

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

In fairness to the Greens, they actually had the right paperwork prepared and ready to file, and it was refused with the state officials saying to file incorrect paperwork instead.

I feel this is bad in terms of (non-legal) precedent - the GOP might be able to use a similar strategy to keep the Dems off the ballot in the future in any battleground states where they control both the governorship and the state legislature.

E.g.

Dems: Here's the correct paperwork. Put us on the ballot and see you on election day.

State officials (GOP affiliated): No, wrong paperwork. Fill this out.

Dems: You sure? We think this is right.

State officials: Yep, you gotta do this one or no election for you.

Dems: Fine.

National GOP: They filled the paperwork wrong. Keep them off the ballot.

Dems: Nope, we were told do this by the State.

State officials (GOP affiliated): Sorry, we made a mistake. You're off the ballot.

Dems: Courts?

Courts: Sorry, but you're still off the ballot even though it's not your fault.

[–] Myxomatosis 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

A full report on your failure is due tomorrow morning in Daddy Vlad’s quarters, Shill Stein.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

SoMeThInG sOmEtHiNg DuPpOlY ThO!!1

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's odd because if I am understanding correctly the unsigned order does not explain why.

Which means no precedent is set.

But on the flip side, I would have liked to know if the SC declined to hear it because they thought it should be left to the State, it was undue federal interference if they overruled a state supreme court on a matter of State law, or there was some federal law that barred the suit, etc.

Anyways, this does raise the following contradiction - if both Stein and the SC are in the GOP's pocket, how come the SC didn't help the GOP by ordering Stein back on the ballot?

[–] UniversalMonk -5 points 1 week ago

Anyways, this does raise the following contradiction - if both Stein and the SC are in the GOP’s pocket, how come the SC didn’t help the GOP by ordering Stein back on the ballot?

Exactly! Very good question.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker -3 points 1 week ago

MSN.com - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for MSN.com:

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

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-won-t-let-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-on-nevada-ballot/ar-AA1qUzCi?ocid=BingNewsVerp

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support