this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
385 points (93.1% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3165 users here now

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“Federal Election Commission records show Stein paid $100,000 in July to a consulting outfit that has worked with Republican campaigns, as well as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s independent presidential bid. The firm, Accelevate, is operated by Trent Pool. The Intercept reported that he appeared to be part of the mob that breached the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6., 2021. The Journal hasn’t independently verified the reporting.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 102 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And not just republicans. You can find all stripes of accelerationist crazies doing that on this very website.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We must bring about glorious revolution, even if our methods aren't particularly effective and millions suffer.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (17 children)

No you see they have a plan.

  1. Convince people likely to vote for Harris to throw away their votes by voting 3rd party or staying home
  2. Suppress democratic turnout while leaving Republican turnout untouched.
  3. Spoil the election while haughtily going “oh not voting is a vote for trump somehow” and snorting to themselves. Completely blind to context.
  4. Have the things they claim to really super duper care about like genocide in Palestine continue under trump
  5. Also have vulnerable groups in America, like legal Haitian migrants, be the target of Republican vitriol.
  6. (step missing)
  7. Glorious proletariat revolution against the most powerful military and militarized police force to ever exist

Its brilliance is in its simplicity!

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This is the hilarious tragedy of the Democratic party:

If the race is close, then the electoral college, courts and other methods can be used to bump things to the GOP (2000).

If the race isn't that close, then people will feel comfortable voting third party to "make a statement", which can cost enough votes in key states to cost the election (2016).

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I mean, in 2016 Dems still handily won the popular vote, so it was still the electoral college as the ultimate problem, and third parties were only contributing factors.

In addition to just being a good idea, getting rid of the electoral college would be good because we’d never have to hear about meaningless third-party candidates acting as spoilers. They’d either be real contenders or just narcissists like Jill Stein.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Getting rid of the electoral college would not solve spoiler candidates necessarily. For that you would need to replace it with ranked voting or multiple rounds. Would still be a good idea, as the college just means presidents caring a lot more about swing states.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

Without the electoral college though, the only time a third party candidate could act as a spoiler would be if they had a significant share of the vote. They deserve to be spoilers in those cases I think. My problem is with folks pulling in 1% - 3% of the vote in a single state ultimately deciding a national election.

But yeah, RCV would be the best way to ensure better representation (though honestly it can still easily have what could be viewed as “spoilers”)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (83 children)

Haven’t we all known this about Shill Stein for a very long time, or are we supposed to pretend it’s a big shocking reveal so the leftists can feel better about being duped?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The people duped by Stein are not the people who call themselves leftists.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

On the contrary, many that call themselves leftists have been thoroughly duped. Or they're all bad faith actors, but I try to never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by incompetence.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (82 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No! Come on, everyone! Third party candidates are what's best for the country. We aren't doing this to dilute the vote, we just want to have our voices heard. Sure, everything we are saying is being said by the main two parties, but we also smoke a lot of weed. So, come on, guys, just vote for the Green Party.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I vote Green.

Because I live in a country with an actual proportional representation system, so my vote for a minor party still allows the major party that I most closely align with to gain power

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That has no barring on the Green Party this post is about. They are not the same just because they share a name.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (3 children)

And I couldn't be more happy for you.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Whoop di do, who gives a fuck?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

Putin's party supports Putin's hand pick spoiler candidate.

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

Wait so she is just using a consultancy firm that has previously worked with republicans? Is that the story here?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

Sort of. She also has some Russian ties.

While I don't think she is some kind of Soviet black ops plant, she's secured funding many times by less savory means. That does mean the things she says and does require a little extra thought though.

I do wish it wasn't part of the "assassinate the left, cozy towards center" mentality that democrats are embracing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes as much as I don't like Stein nor will I vote for her I feel the splurge of news on her is mediocre at best and very obviously being paid for.

She's not done anything to warrant the scrutiny she literally hasn't done ANYTHING at all. Why am I hearing about her so much?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Weird how Republican interest is a 100% match to tankie talking points. So super weird and beyond explanation.

There is no way they're the same folks, that would be insane 👌

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›