this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
-80 points (6.5% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3779 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
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] faltryka@lemmy.world 46 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ever since reading about her at a table with Putin and Flynn at a Russian state propaganda outlets fundraiser during the initial Trump election, and her subsequently getting significant boosts and support from Russia during the 2016 election….

I just can’t trust her. Even if she was just getting played for a fool by the company she kept, that’s a level of dangerously ignorant that isn’t appropriate in a political leader in my opinion. That’s giving her significant benefit of the doubt, the worse case is that she knew exactly what she was doing.

[–] solidgrue@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Astroturfed some agendas, maybe.

I like what Green says. Nobody knows what Green does. I'd be happy enough to throw them some votes for a municipal or county level seat or two to see what they do with it, but a Green vote is a wasted vote at the Federal level right now.

*points up* that's me, voting my conscience.

edit: minor typo for grammar

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The green party is more interested in messaging than they are in getting actual positive change done. They have no interest in actually fixing the system, they just want to bitch about it. It'd be really cool if they could get on the same team, but as it stands now the green party is 100% functioning as an asset to the Trump campaign and they're doing it willingly.

Jill Stein is not a serious person. She shows up every 4 years and does nothing but spread bullshit talking points very similar to most of the content OP posts. Fluff about how evil the duopoly is and exactly zero about how helping the GOP win helps us.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

If by "transformed" you mean "killed", sure.

How did that "Green New Deal" work out?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal

"The first U.S. politician to run on a Green New Deal platform was Howie Hawkins of the Green Party when he ran for governor of New York in 2010.[10] Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein ran on a Green New Deal platform in 2012 and 2016.[11]

In the 2014 Congressional race in California, Independent candidate for CA-33 and author Marianne Williamson endorsed the Green New Deal in her campaign platform.[68]"

It's a punchline, not a policy.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Jill Stein has caused untold damage to the environmental movement and should go away and never come back.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

WMNF - NPR - Tampa - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for WMNF - NPR - Tampa:

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

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.wmnf.org/presidential-candidate-jill-stein-says-green-party-has-transformed-political-agendas/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support