14 points
*

A full report on your failure is due tomorrow morning in Daddy Vlad’s quarters, Shill Stein.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

SoMeThInG sOmEtHiNg DuPpOlY ThO!!1

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
MSN.com - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for MSN.com:

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

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-won-t-let-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-on-nevada-ballot/ar-AA1qUzCi?ocid=BingNewsVerp

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
35 points

Good. One less State allowing her betrayal of America.

“We are stuck with Biden[/Harris] now, in a two-party duopoly, if one should be defeated ferociously, the logic is that the other one prevails.” (Ralph Nader, 2023)

Putin’s Shill Stein wants Nato disbanded, the US to give up their SC veto, and revoke weapons to help Ukraine defend itself while simultaneously forcing ‘peace’ (subjugation) negotiations with russia.

2015 Stein breaking bread with Putin, his senior staff, and Mike Flynn (later Trump’s national security advisor

More context:

For those that don’t understand how the Electoral College + FPTP voting works, voting for her means helping donald become president due to the spoiler effect.

permalink
report
reply
-7 points

No, not good.

Anyone who votes for her is a fucking moron who is wilfully ignoring the reality of how FPTP voting works.

But they should still have that right. It’s undemocratic to say otherwise. Saying they shouldn’t be allowed to run just because you don’t like the effect that voting for them might have is the mark of autocracy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Couldn’t agree more. They used the form provided to them. Withholding ballot access based on a technicality smacks of disenfranchisement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Apparently “democracy should be open” is a controversial take.

Or maybe my comment got downvoted for saying that those voting for her are morons?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-29 points

Your vote for Harris takes away a vote from a 3rd party candidate and gives it to Trump

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

This is why we need better education. People who think they can just say words and they don’t even need to make any logical sense

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

That’s what the bullshit coming from Democrats sounds like from a leftist point of view

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Your vote for any candidate that isn’t yourself takes away a vote from the only candidate whose opinions match yours perfectly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Capitalists represent nothing I want in government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-34 points

Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

She doesn’t seem that far off from Trump based on both wanting daddy Putin’s policies anyways.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-23 points

Meh, I’m not voting for her anyway.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

This idiotic “point” will always fall flat. Your third party spoilers will get less than 3% combined nationwide. And your vote will be worthless unless you’re trying to help Trump.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Good, if your campaign isn’t competent enough to even file the right bureaucratic papers you proooobably don’t have anything together enough to run a country

permalink
report
reply
-18 points
*

Her campaign filed the correct forms, the elections official lied and gave them the wrong forms to resubmit. The DNC will lie and cheat if they feel threatened

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

You are absolutely right here and I appreciate you trying to inform people. Unfortunately this crowd is mostly anti-green-party to the point that it blinds them from being reasonable on the subject.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Verified proof of this? Or are those your Russian talking points given by your contacts?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevada-democrats-sue-to-block-green-party-from-2024-ballot

This is from back when they submitted the correct form, with around 3 times the required number of signatures. Democrats challenged it, the green party requested a new form, and the details of that incident are in OP’s article. The secretary of states office gave them the wrong form, they again submitted 3 times the required number of signatures, and democratic majority supreme court kicked them off the ballot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

No, they filed the wrong forms because they didn’t do any due diligence on what a clerk mistakenly sent them. The whole SCOTUS case was because they were saying that just because they were idiots, it shouldn’t stop the signatures from still counting. However there is well established precedent on the similar cases that puts the onus on the people filing paperwork with the government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

<<<<<<Citation Needed>>>>>>

permalink
report
parent
reply

In fairness to the Greens, they actually had the right paperwork prepared and ready to file, and it was refused with the state officials saying to file incorrect paperwork instead.

I feel this is bad in terms of (non-legal) precedent - the GOP might be able to use a similar strategy to keep the Dems off the ballot in the future in any battleground states where they control both the governorship and the state legislature.

E.g.

Dems: Here’s the correct paperwork. Put us on the ballot and see you on election day.

State officials (GOP affiliated): No, wrong paperwork. Fill this out.

Dems: You sure? We think this is right.

State officials: Yep, you gotta do this one or no election for you.

Dems: Fine.

National GOP: They filled the paperwork wrong. Keep them off the ballot.

Dems: Nope, we were told do this by the State.

State officials (GOP affiliated): Sorry, we made a mistake. You’re off the ballot.

Dems: Courts?

Courts: Sorry, but you’re still off the ballot even though it’s not your fault.

permalink
report
parent
reply

It’s odd because if I am understanding correctly the unsigned order does not explain why.

Which means no precedent is set.

But on the flip side, I would have liked to know if the SC declined to hear it because they thought it should be left to the State, it was undue federal interference if they overruled a state supreme court on a matter of State law, or there was some federal law that barred the suit, etc.

Anyways, this does raise the following contradiction - if both Stein and the SC are in the GOP’s pocket, how come the SC didn’t help the GOP by ordering Stein back on the ballot?

permalink
report
reply
-9 points

Anyways, this does raise the following contradiction - if both Stein and the SC are in the GOP’s pocket, how come the SC didn’t help the GOP by ordering Stein back on the ballot?

Exactly! Very good question.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 476K

    Comments