I'm sure the usual suspects will be along shortly to explain how this isn't what it absolutely, positively is.
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
749 points (96.0% liked)
politics
19022 readers
3130 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.
- 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
Our biggest offender would, but they're currently serving a 3-day ban for Sealioning (public mod logs are awesome).
load more comments
(24 replies)
"Anything to beat the 'duopoly' of political parties, even if the party is tainted by neo-fascist dark money!"
Absolutely wild mental gymnastics lol
load more comments
(4 replies)
Probably at the stage where it turns into ‘it doesn’t matter since she won’t win anyway, this is just a protest vote to show support for third party.’
load more comments
(8 replies)
Nothing about this story or Jill is important except for one thing. She is aligned with Putin in denying Ukraine weapons to defend itself. She may not be purposefully supporting Putin but she is supporting his position and making his position stronger ignoring Putin's past patterns of behavior.
The Green Party in the USA is f'n weird.
The Green Party has no incentive to act professionally because voters cannot punish them electorally for it.
They also, unlike their voters, understand there is no possibility of electoral success. So there is no positive incentive for it either.
load more comments
(1 replies)
With all this stuff about Jill coming out, it’s no wonder all the Lemmy.ml and Hexbears are so supportive of her. She’s a Russian asset!
What is the Russian word for Wumao?
load more comments
(161 replies)
Insurrectionist*
...I would argue that even insurrectionist is being far, far too lenient. They should be called terrorists. But, yeah, calling them "rioters".....barf.
load more comments
(13 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Jill was always a double agent
I wish she'd go away tbh.
In Nevada, the Democratic Party initiated a lawsuit to exclude the Green Party from the ballot, claiming the party used the wrong form to collect signatures from voters. The Green Party appealed the case and was represented by Jay Sekulow, an attorney who defended Trump throughout his impeachment trials (last week, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected Stein’s bid to be put back on the ballot).
In Wisconsin, Democratic National Committee employee David Strange sought to remove Stein from the ballot by arguing the Green Party can’t nominate presidential electors without legislative candidates eligible to do so. The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Stein was again legally represented by a Trump-affiliated lawyer, Michael D. Dean, who was involved in lawsuits that attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, the Journal reported.
From another article:
The affidavit originally submitted with the Green Party’s petition in July 2023 was the correct one. However, because the petition that the Green Party submitted contained a separate mistake, an employee in the secretary of state’s office sent the party a sample petition that included the wrong affidavit – for use with petitions to put initiatives and referenda on the ballot. As a result, the affidavits that the Green Party later submitted with its petitions did not contain the attestation required for access to the ballot.
The secretary of state eventually announced that the Green Party had submitted enough signatures to qualify for the 2024 general election ballot.
The Nevada Democratic Party went to state court in June of this year, arguing that the signatures were invalid because the Green Party had used the wrong affidavit.
On Aug. 12, the state trial court ruled in favor of the Green Party, but on Sept. 6 a divided Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It concluded that the attestation that the Green Party had failed to include “serves an essential purpose.” Therefore, the majority reasoned, allowing the Green Party to have its candidates on the ballot when it had not fulfilled all of the prerequisites to do so would nullify “the requirements that were put in place for the public’s benefit.”
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.
load more comments
(21 replies)
view more: next ›