551
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 33 points 1 month ago

If you think this reflects badly on stein ask yourself 2 questions, did he endorse her because she's also a white supremacist? Did she accept the endorsement?

The answer to the first is probably no since stein is a Jewish women so I don't think she'd get along well with all the other white supremacists who think she's sub-human. The reason he endorsed her was because she's the only one who would end the war in Gaza and fight the "Jewish lobby". If your a Zionist and believe that any action against Israel is anti-Semitic then yeah stein and Duke are the same. If you live outside that delusional world then you'd recognize dukes dislike for Israel and steins, (and most of the worlds) dislike for Israel come from two completely different values systems and world views.

The answer to the second is easier, No, her campaign rejected it and called him trash as soon as they heard about it.

So does this actually reflect badly on stein, or is this just the ravings of an insane person who's trying to elect a Jewish woman to take out his imagined grand Jewish conspiracy? Critique stein if you want but this is nothing.

[-] Vorticity@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I generally agree with you, but it does make her eat some of her own words as pointed out elsewhere in this comment section:

[-] LengAwaits@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Stein stans refusing to engage with this screencap while also arguing that it's okay because Stein disavowed Duke's endorsement:

[-] LifeGivesYouLemmys@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

They share the same goal so it's not a coincidence he'd endorse her.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 month ago

What exactly is the goal you think they share and how does his endorsement advance that goal?

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 3 points 1 month ago

Seems like a fair question on such a vague statement. Like climate goals? Israel? Snack cakes?

He left it up to readers to self insert to not have to make a statement that can be fact checked. It's cheap conversation.

this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
551 points (95.2% liked)

politics

19102 readers
3973 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