Nevada Supreme Court rules Green Party will not be on the state's general election ballot (www.rgj.com)

submitted 1 week ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Green Party submitted 29,500 petition signatures so its candidates could be included on the ballot, which was roughly three times as many as needed. Nevada Democratic Party then sued, claiming some were signed too far in the past or seem altered, making them invalid.

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Ooooh noooo

[+] xmunk@sh.itjust.works -21 points 1 week ago

To clarify, do you think Jill Stein should be barred from running for president?

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Jill Stein is knowingly coordinating with the Russian government for the express purpose of getting Trump into office, and to that end, she'll say whatever bullshit she can to draw leftist votes into a FPTP black hole.

Yes, Jill Stein should unambiguously be barred from running on the basis that she's a knowing pawn in a Russian election interference campaign to get a pro-Russian fascist elected. Her entire job is to ratfuck the election to ensure it's the last one the US ever has.

[+] xmunk@sh.itjust.works -28 points 1 week ago

Has this been proven in a court of law? Are you certain she is intentionally working to get Trump elected and isn't just a useful idiot? Do you think she genuinely endorses green beliefs?

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Photographed having dinner with Putin, Trump campaign national security advisor Michael Flynn who was later arrested for lying to the FBI about his ties to Russia, and several prominent Russian political figures the year before an election where Russian interference (Stein's spoiler candidacy included) provably put Trump in office

hAs ThIs BeEn PrOvEn In A cOuRt Of LaW?? I'm JuSt EnGaGiNg In GoOd FaItH bRo

[-] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] Saurok@lemm.ee -3 points 1 week ago

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/

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] Saurok@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[+] xmunk@sh.itjust.works -24 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

worried about "eroding our democratic system"

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.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago

Yup.

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

She’s a foreign agent. So, yes.

[-] morriscox@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Something that most people don't know is that if you are not in a political party in Nevada that you can only vote for certain positions. For years I couldn't vote for the neighbor that I really like that is a constable. He also couldn't be a constable without being in a political party. There's a question on the ballot about opening up all positions to be voted on for all registered voters.

[-] dingdongmetacarples@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Are you taking about closed primaries? You can certainly vote for any position in the general election in Nevada, even without being registered with a party. I've been doing it for years

[-] morriscox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yeah. I have looked at my ballot and then my wife's and it was very different.

https://ballotpedia.org/Primary_elections_in_Nevada

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevadas-largest-voting-bloc-cant-vote-in-a-primary-this-initiative-could-change-that-2925314/

However, I know for a fact that I couldn't vote for that neighbor. I bitched about it for years until they changed it.

[-] dingdongmetacarples@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Right, some positions are partisan and some aren't. You can't vote for partisan positions if you aren't registered with a party in their primary. It's not a big deal to register with a party if you really wanted to support a particular person, but hopefully the initiative passes and we don't have partisan primaries anymore.

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024

87 points (92.2% liked)

politics

18852 readers

2369 users here now

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

• 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