politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
hAs ThIs BeEn PrOvEn In A cOuRt Of LaW?? I'm JuSt EnGaGiNg In GoOd FaItH bRo
Apart from that 1 diner, she is also openly supportive of several talking points of Russia, such as saying that ... nato expansion is to blame for Russia invading countries; the USA shouldn't support Ukraine; after the euromaidan revolution neo-nazis came to power in Ukraine ...
And she also has geopolitical goals of Russia that she thinks are good ideas, which she basically shares with Trump: supporting Brexit, disbanding NATO and saying that the USA should abandon smaller nations to Russian and Chinese aggression for appeasement. Worded differently of course, but that's what it comes down too.
And she must also know that Russian agencies have massively promoted and aided her in the past. She's more than a useful idiot for Russia imo.
Having your photograph taken at the same table as someone else is damning evidence of an election conspiracy, apparently. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/jill-stein-says-nothing-happened-at-her-dinner-with-putin/
Yea, it is unsurprising but disappointing how quick folks are to just devolve into autocracy but hey, there's no reason to be found here.
Oh, well gee, if Stein says the dinner was nothing in an interview and provides literally no evidence, then obviously it's benign.
Like come the hell on, was your hope that people would just say "Welp, they've got a link to an article. I won't bother to read it, but I'll assume it's strong (let alone any) evidence in favor of Stein. Case closed, I guess." It's kind of insulting that you think I and the rest of the userbase are actually that media illiterate.
Where's your evidence for what you're accusing her of doing exactly?
Edit: And just to be clear, you're the one making the claim that she is somehow scheming with Putin. The onus is on you to prove that, not on Stein or anyone else to disprove that. Otherwise, anyone could accuse anyone else of anything and then the accused would have to disprove that. Literally makes no sense.
You're defending a person being barred from running for elected office - I'm absolutely happy to agree that Jill Stein is ineffective and misguided but I'm not willing to cross the line into barring her from running for office.
This is a fucking travesty and erodes our democratic system - just because she's easy to hate doesn't make this situation okay.
Something a Trump presidency has proven to do wonders for and something that Trump has espoused a deep desire to protect.
Democracy itself is on the line. The man Stein is working to get into office incited a violent coup attempt on the US Congress, tried to steal the election in multiple ways, eroded institutions and norms left and right, and has expressed that he wants to make sure people never have to vote again which is entirely possible if he's given another four years inside the Oval Office. I'm defending it because I actually understand what's at stake here and that politics isn't a stupid game. People in the US will die. People in Gaza will die. People in Ukraine will die. People's lives – especially those of the poor, the middle class, and ethnic and sexual minorities – will be ruined. The US will take decades to recover if it ever even starts recovering at all.
It's a really bad idea to abandon democracy to avoid an autocrat. I think we absolutely should be doing what we can within the system to defeat Trump but this is a really terrible decision. We don't need to do shit like this to beat Trump and it'll set a bad precedent.