this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2024
750 points (96.0% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2588 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Green Party leader has hired a GOP consulting firm and worked with Trump-affiliated lawyers.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 154 points 2 months ago (11 children)

I'm sure the usual suspects will be along shortly to explain how this isn't what it absolutely, positively is.

[–] odelik@lemmy.today 52 points 2 months ago (23 children)

Our biggest offender would, but they're currently serving a 3-day ban for Sealioning (public mod logs are awesome).

[–] IMNOTCRAZYINSTITUTION@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

TIL there's a public mod log

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] darharrison@lemm.ee 48 points 2 months ago (4 children)

"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)
[–] KnitWit@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.’

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 38 points 2 months ago (41 children)

Third party that are just Russians. What a pathetic way to protest.

load more comments (41 replies)
[–] Soup@lemmy.cafe 15 points 2 months ago

You called it!

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ravhall@discuss.online 67 points 2 months ago (160 children)

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?

[–] logos@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It could just be she made a career out of unsucessfully running for president and doesn't care where the money came from.

That's supposedly how the whole Trump mess started.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 14 points 2 months ago

You mean him just wanting to make money by running for president never actually expecting to run and regretting every minute of it while trying to be so vile he could never get elected again only to realize that’s what his base wants?

load more comments (159 replies)
[–] Cheems@lemmy.world 49 points 2 months ago (6 children)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago (13 children)

...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)
[–] nexguy@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I wonder where she got the money from?

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 20 points 2 months ago

Uncle Putin?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 28 points 2 months ago

Jill was always a double agent

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (3 children)
[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 27 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I think he’s still under his temporary ban ;)

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Only 21 hours to go before we get graced with their wonderful presence again!

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

Honestly, I think the mods should be promoted to sainthood for the level of patience they've shown with Monk (who as of late runs what seems to be a community related to MGTOW but without the toxicity called MRTOW) which is so beyond what I feel I'm capable of. I hope Monk appreciates the level of leeway they've been given here.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

I’m honestly not sure if sainthood is the way I’d put it. It feels negligent to me. But in fairness I’d love to hear the mods perspective on what they consider the threshold for trolling. It almost feels like it’s a secondary offense here. Like they won’t ban you for trolling, it’s got to be trolling aaaand [pejoratives|hate speech|etc].

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I thought that username felt familiar, so I clicked through to their profile. Yup, already blocked lol.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Green Party in the USA is f'n weird.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The Green Party has no incentive to act professionally because voters cannot punish them electorally for it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (21 children)

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)
load more comments
view more: next ›