This whole topic is the same people who make excuses for why the Cheney endorsements are good (or at a minimum irrelevant) saying how David Duke’s endorsement should make people supporting Jill Stein think twice.
Jill Stein is a grifter and a spoiler working to advance conservative causes, but the hypocrisy here is breathtaking.
Yep! Insane hypocrisy around these parts.
And anyone who doesn’t agree with the echo chamber, is a “Trumper” or works “for the Russians” or my personal fav, “posting/commenting in bad faith.” lol
There’s a very clear difference: Stein is a well-documented, intentional spoiler who’s funding comes primarily from Republican mega-donors and Russian interests, and who recently said out loud her purpose isn’t to advance her party but exclusively to block Harris.
Her track record makes that endorsement poignant.
If she was sincere and didn’t already align with fascist interests, we wouldn’t care what Nazis say about her.
LOL, no there isn’t.
Horrible person endorses candidate I like: “you can help who endorses you, it doesn’t mean anything about their values”. Horrible person endorses candidate I don’t like: “see, if you support them you’re in bed with [the KKK/war criminals]”.
If she was sincere and didn’t already align with fascist interests, we wouldn’t care what Nazis say about her.
If Harris was a progressive peacenik who didn’t seem open to aligning with neocon foreign policy, no one would think anything of welcoming Cheney into her campaign.
It’s the same exact reasoning, just reformulated for whether you like the candidate in question.
This isn’t about like or dislike. Again, it’s about her track record. If Duke had come out to support Cornel West, we’d have collectively shrugged. I’d still strongly recommend nobody vote for him because he’s a spoiler, too, and I don’t like him as a candidate, but a Nazi endorsement for him would not make any difference.
The entire reason Duke supporting Stein matters is because of her history supporting fascists. How is this difficult to grasp?
