363
Former KKK leader David Duke endorses Jill Stein
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
363 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19043 readers
3221 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't give af what their reasons are Dick Cheney is one of the worst people on the planet. It is easy not to stand by him. But I'm fine with voting third party this point. I don't want to be allies with liberals who will throw anyone under the bus to retain comfort.
Nobody is ‘standing by him’. Hitler liked dogs. Am I supposed to hate dogs because Hitler ‘stood by’ them?
I couldn’t give less of a fuck who the Cheneys support. Their opinions don’t factor into my choices at all.
Yeah having his daughter who defended all of his bad actions on your events isn't standing by him and he going on about how honored she is. Liberals will literally work with fascists. Malcolm X was correct long ago. Vote for who you want best of luck.
No, this is a situation where the dems need to get as many votes as possible, and you’re underestimating the voting power of old people.
The dems are accepting the Cheney’s support specifically to wake up some moderate, old conservatives who would otherwise vote reflexively for trump simply because of the R after his name.
This isn’t an ideological move, but a purely political one. Politics is not always tasteful. Ideological purity is useless against actual, real-life fascism, and it’s a strategic move. Reality isn’t always rainbows and unicorns.
It isn't ideological purity. The only people who give up ground is Dems that is why the GOP can dog walk them while going on about space lazers and weather control. There should be some limits when it comes to people like Dick Cheney getting a pass. I've done the whole vote for the lesser evil. I'm good. I'll do what I can locally and vote down ballot for in local elections.
When Trump can come out call Harris for adopting his policies and she has nothing to say back. I'm good. I don't support right-wingers even with (D) next to their name.
We all know who you really want in power. Transparent as fucking glass.
A person who isn't backing genocide and with an agenda for working class and poor people. Pretty lowbar.
genocide jill is perfectly fine with genocides except for the one that's hot in the news right now.
by the way, those people are who are being genocided in the genocide hot in the news right now? they support kamala harris.
you don't care about genocide. especially that one. because if you did you would be voting for her. it's either you hate israel or you just refuse to vote for a black woman or you want to vote for trump or some combination of the 3.
And who is that?
It could be Harris if she decides to change course She wants to earn support and the ball is in her court. She can do things for the mythical centrist Dick Cheney voter. Then asking for her to follow international law and stop being active in genocide isn't much.
You mean the Reagan/Bush era republicans who are now the most reliable voting block, and who feel like the current Republican party has gone too far, but have been dutifully ticking that R every election since they were able to vote? The ones on a steady diet of Fox News who think trump can’t really be that bad, but if the Cheney’s of all people, those dyed in the wool conservatives, are supporting Harris, maybe they should at least look a bit closer at it – those people who don’t exist?
I assure you, those people exist. Especially in swing states. They exist so much, professional pollsters warn they might be over represented.
Ok. You didn't answer the question.
This is not giving up ground. The only people looking at this and thinking it means Harris somehow supports the Cheneys rather than the other way round are ideological purists. Nobody sane is giving the Cheneys a pass. They’re slime and we all know it. The only thing this tells us is that he’s* so unabashedly heinous that even old school Republicans can’t stomach him. It’s not a difficult concept.
e: *
This whole topic is the same people who make excuses for why the Cheney endorsements are good (or at a minimum irrelevant) saying how David Duke's endorsement should make people supporting Jill Stein think twice.
Jill Stein is a grifter and a spoiler working to advance conservative causes, but the hypocrisy here is breathtaking.
There’s a very clear difference: Stein is a well-documented, intentional spoiler who’s funding comes primarily from Republican mega-donors and Russian interests, and who recently said out loud her purpose isn’t to advance her party but exclusively to block Harris.
Her track record makes that endorsement poignant.
If she was sincere and didn’t already align with fascist interests, we wouldn’t care what Nazis say about her.
LOL, no there isn't.
Horrible person endorses candidate I like: "you can help who endorses you, it doesn't mean anything about their values". Horrible person endorses candidate I don't like: "see, if you support them you're in bed with [the KKK/war criminals]".
If Harris was a progressive peacenik who didn't seem open to aligning with neocon foreign policy, no one would think anything of welcoming Cheney into her campaign.
It's the same exact reasoning, just reformulated for whether you like the candidate in question.
This isn’t about like or dislike. Again, it’s about her track record. If Duke had come out to support Cornel West, we’d have collectively shrugged. I’d still strongly recommend nobody vote for him because he’s a spoiler, too, and I don’t like him as a candidate, but a Nazi endorsement for him would not make any difference.
The entire reason Duke supporting Stein matters is because of her history supporting fascists. How is this difficult to grasp?
This is literally the argument for why the Cheneys endorsements raise concerns for Harris. Her history and current reticence to break from Biden (whose foreign policy is not obviously different from Cheney's) and more directly criticize Israel indicates they might, at least to some degree, have some issues they agree on. If the Cheneys endorsed Cornel West, we'd also have collectively shrugged, but Harris has been explicitly tacking to the right and supporting a destructive war in the Middle East.
No, it isn’t. The Cheneys aren’t supporting Harris, but rejecting trump and trying to pull more moderate conservatives away from him. Not towards Harris – their platforms are not aligned at all – but to try to bring the GOP away from self-immolation.
Again,their motives are purely self-interest.
On the other hand, Duke is saying he supports Stein because her interests align with his. Huge ass difference.
e: formatting
Uh, they're definitely supporting Harris. Liz Cheney is out there appearing at events trying to get her elected. That's a hell of a lot more than Duke is doing. This claim is just expanding the mental gymnastics in a new direction.
You still haven't addressed how Biden's foreign policy and Harris's presumed foreign policy (due to her unwillingness to create daylight) isn't a part of her platform aligned with the Cheneys. Dick Cheney's defining political interest was foreign policy, specifically one that bombs Arabs for geopolitical gain, and it just happens to be pretty compatible with what's going on right now. If her platform was that neocons were war criminals and should be tried at the Hague they might have been a little less likely to get on board.
David Duke, who said he doesn't agree with Stein on most issues and was actually rejected by the Stein campaign, is somehow an all-in representative supporter, but Liz Cheney, who also said she doesn't agree with Harris on most issues but was embraced by the campaign and is literally campaigning for it, isn't. Hell, Duke's endorsement, if anything, is likely to work against the supposed shared goal of electing fascists. He could have just endorsed Trump, the fascist who most of his racist followers would have naturally supported.
Their endorsements are both self-interested with a limited overlap on platform, but one counts because you want it to. And by every possible measure the Cheney endorsements is getting more acknowledgement and encouragement from the campaign. Either bad people endorsing a campaign is in itself a mark against the campaign or it isn't. You're trying to figuyre out some complex logical structure that permits one and not the other but it's nonsensical, especially since one set of the bad people was embraced by the campaign and it wasn't the one your end goal demands.
I think I understand why you’re not getting this. You simply can’t understand that under FPTP, the only way to vehemently deny one candidate and to keep them out of office is to ‘support’ the other, even if you don’t agree with them. When one candidate will destroy democracy and usher in an autocracy, if you actually care about having a choice in the future, the only effective solution is to support an opposition that will not destroy everything.
This is not the topic of conversation, and I’ve already given you enough of my time. Google exists., and I’m not your polisci professor. You can look the rest up for yourself.
Oh my god, what a mind numbingly stupid lesson from someone stubbornly refusing to answer the question that blows their whole argument up. I'm not even sure why you would think my question, a question to you personally, would be answerable by either a polisci professor or Google. It's just a nonsensical response by someone who knows they don't have an answer and simply wants to avoid acknowledging their hypocrisy.
None of this is about who I want to win or whether I think Stein is a responsible and sincere political candidate (she isn't), it's about your hypocritical assertion that bad endorsements only sometimes reflect on candidates.
“I don’t like that one of the worst people in the world is advocating for a candidate, and I’m not going tk vote for that candidate because of this- even though *the other candidates is objectively far worse than the guy I hate”
Is how I interpret that.
Throw your vote away if you want. Just don’t whine here when trump wins because of you.
Trump's rise is literally because of Dems lack of action results for poor and working class people. Harris is closer to him on Policy than anyone else. Even Trump said so at the debate, and she is still building the wall. You guys don't have Trump as much as you claim.
Donald Trump thanks you for your support.
Harris literally continuing some of his policies, you folks don't hate Trump as much as you put on. Dems gave up in my state so he is going to win it either way next.
And you hate him so much you're voting to help him win. I'm doing more than you are.
That's a cop out and you know it.
You know damn well there are some states that he is going to win for free. I'm in one of them. Yes Dems have given up on some states as well due to seeing it as a waste of resources. Plus she is openly courting Republicans and I don't support right-wingers. Maybe you do.