this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
554 points (95.3% liked)

politics

31007 readers
1978 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 24 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I see this more as a loss of support for Trump, just like the many Republican endorsements for Harris. It doesn't change Stein's chances either way, and who supports someone is more a sign of how that person leans, not the candidate.

What will be interesting (but again, inconsequential) is how Stein will treat this. Ignore? Simple thanks? A rally to try and pull more of those who would follow him? (I think some will see where I'm going there)

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 18 points 2 years ago

They rejected it. From the article:

Stein’s campaign manager, Jason Call, disavowed the endorsement and called Duke "trash."

"We had no idea about this and are very, very not interested in David Duke's endorsement," Call told NBC News.>

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nothing can hurt or help Stein's chances. She’s not a real choice. I don’t even think she's on enough states' ballots to get the required number of electoral votes.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

She can't win, but she's on enough ballots to affect the outcome. I assume she knows this and either directly wants Trump to win or is so twisted around with hatred for the Democratic party she doesn't care that hurting them hurts the entire country.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Florida 2000 Presidential Election results:

  • Bush: 2,912,790 (48.847%)

  • Gore: 2,912,253 (48.838%)

  • Nader: 97,488 (1.64%)

If just 538 Nader voters had gone to Gore, representing 0.0091% of the total vote, Al Gore would have been president.

Tiny fucking margins can change the world. Ask a bunch of dead Iraqi people if they feel like there would have been no meaningful difference between Bush and Gore.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 years ago

To be fair, the US Supreme Court decided the 2000 election. Gore's lead would have needed to be higher than the threshold to automatically trigger a recount for that outcome to have changed.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org -1 points 2 years ago

Given that more Iraqis were killed by the Clinton era sanctions, crippling food and medicine access for Iraq, as well as the general hawkishness of the Dems, as evident again with Israel today, it wouldn't have made a difference.

When it comes to invading and murdering brown people, both parties are pretty similar. Heck Hillary Clinton always got a hard on for escalating to war with Iran.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Right? Imagine Trump not being racist enough for David Duke. I bet he'd be really mad if he weren't straight vibin

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 years ago

It doesn't change Stein's chances either way

Which is 0% since she literally cannot win enough electoral votes.