this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
48 points (68.2% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3792 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And I promise you, all but 2 of those options have a 0.0000% chance of winning. Like it or not, that is the system we have.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

i think i saw it was more like 1/500 so it's more like 0.2%. at least that's what the betting odds called for stein and west, who are the only two candidates i see that deserve my vote.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Jill Stein, friend of Putin who Russians pushed for to help Trump?

And, no, those odds are way too high. Ross Perot was the last big 3rd party candidate, and he managed 18.9% of the vote. He got zero electoral votes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Speaking to The Intercept in 2017, she said the notion that it was an "intimate roundtable" was "mythology," and that Putin and his associates "weren't at the table for very long." Stein said that "nobody introduced anybody to anybody" and that she "didn't hear any words exchanged between English speakers and Russians" due to the lack of a translator.

from your first link

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But why was she there in the first place?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

it was the tenth anniversary of a media outlet that gave her more time than probably all American media combined. she paid her own way. it's a nothing burger

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And what media outlet is also inviting Putin? You are burying the lede that it is Russian State TV, RT. Kinda proves my point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

that's not proof: it's innuendo

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh, please. Why hide that it was Russian state media? You know it smells to high heaven.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

a media outlet that gave her more time than probably all American media combined

Yeah, no deception or spin there. /s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

you asked why she was there. its state affiliation wasn't relevant to the answer, but it is a well-known fact.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

your second link contains actual lies or facts that have changed since it's publication.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think so. Stein is a Russian agents.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

you can't prove this, mostly because it's not true, but partially because there isn't any proof

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

those odds are way too high.

then you should take the bet.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What, bet $1,000 to win $0.50 that 3rd party candidates will lose?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

no, take 50 cents from anyone who thinks your wrong