Kremlin's favorite candidate Jill Stein refuses to call Putin a war criminal during interview
Kremlin's favorite candidate Jill Stein refuses to call Putin a war criminal during interview
You're viewing a single thread.
If the propaganda is now directly targeting third parties it means that they are becoming popular enough to threat red and blue
Do explain how Medhi Hasan is "the propaganda." He doesn't even work for any major media company. He founded his own company.
He's wrong anyway, the green party isn't a threat to any of the parties, but it's designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans.
You said it's not a threat and then gave a reason it is actually a threat.
they are becoming popular enough to threat red and blue
Context clues
it's designed to
Doesn't mean it works
Tell that to Al Gore.
Why?
That was a different commenter....?
No, that commenter literally said they're not a threat and then gave the exact reason the green party is a threat to democrats.
Look at the thread again
Are you saying that something helping the republicans isn't a threat to democrats? Or are you saying it's not enough to help because you've already forgotten the lesson from 2000?
No... I'm saying you're mistaking two different commenters as one
No... Because I'm only referring to one post.
He's wrong anyway, the green party isn't a threat to any of the parties, but it's designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans.
I'll break it down for you. The first part of the post literally says this:
the green party isn't a threat to any of the parties
And then the very next part of the same sentence is:
but it's designed to shape off 1-3% off the democratic vote to help republicans
Which is exactly what I pointed out. It starts by saying the green party isn't a threat and then gives the exact reason why it is a threat.
the votes of Florida voters themselves show that Ralph Nader was not responsible for George W. Bush's presidency
What does Florida's fuckery have to do with independents?
I don't understand that conclusion. According to their table there, Gore lost by ~550 votes and Nader had over 90,000 votes. Do you really think those votes would have been evenly split?
I know reading is harder than looking at the picture, but give it a shot and you will have your answer. Of course, you won't. You will only cherry pick the things that you think will help your case. Problem is, no one believes you, and you aren't going to convince anyone otherwise
Edit: I did a bunch reading for you
Gore lost his home state of Tennessee and New Hampshire. If Gore had won just New Hampshire and lost Florida, we would be calling him Former President Al Gore.
As it turns out, only around 24,000 registered Democrats voted for Nader in Florida, compared with the 308,000 registered Democrats (or 13 percent of all Democrats in Florida) who voted for George W. Bush. It seems to me that the 308,000 Democrats who voted Republican in 2000 hurt the Democratic Party much more than the 24,000 Democrats that voted for Nader.
Gore lost because 200,000 Democrats voted against him in Florida, electoral chaos reigned, and he failed to win his home state of Tennessee.
Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Republican George W. Bush has now been completely nullified in the eyes of history by none other than former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted for Bush. Now she says, “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up.”
Imagine if O’Connor had thought that way in December 2000. Gore may have become president, and Nader would have had nothing to do with the results.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-al-gore-ralph-nader-2000-20160527-snap-story.html
A threat is viable. They are not
Flying Squid you have been around here for enough time to know what propaganda is so don't play the fool. There's clearly a bias in which news get posted and reach the frontpage and that's a direct and indirect result of the propaganda. How many news about third parties did you post up to a month ago?
The "bias" on Lemmy is that people use their personal biases to post an article they feel is interesting. If other people agree, they upvote it.
There's no propaganda there. Lemmy just isn't designed to cater to you personally.
There’s no propaganda there.
The fediverse has grown enough to draw biggest corporations in the world attention. Expect propaganda to be here too and expect people to repost here propaganda they get from other websites. I wonder where you got this news from.
As a mod constantly dealing with spammers, I can tell you that that's just a silly assertion.
So then she indeed did call him a war criminal on the record? You can't pretend that doesn't matter and expect any respect
Current president of usa has probably more pictures shaking hands and being friendly with putin than this person does. Politicians are all rigged and corrupted. I'm highlighting that news about third parties suddenly pooped out of nowhere and that it's most likely propaganda
Hmm, dodged successfully I suppose you think.
pooped
How do you expect me to take you seriously when you are using toilet humor smhmyhead
