The linked CNN article has more information: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/15/politics/wisconsin-voter-intimidation-text/index.html

I was judgmental for the original comment seeming to be in bad faith, but have an upvote, that was a damn funny response.

You should read the comment chain before making non sequitur requests. It was literally two comments long. You couldn’t help but have read it before getting here.

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 an answer that 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.

A reasonable political observer does not have enough information to make a prediction either way at this point. It’s not even a “probably Harris will win, but Trump still has a shot”, it’s an actual toss up.

You don’t just post random political news from across a range of topics, you post stuff that talks about Harris being weak.

If you were confident Harris would win, why would it be interesting that a poll showed her down in a crucial state? Why would it be interesting that fewer Democrats are registered to vote? She’s supposedly got it in the bag, so none of these things would matter.

I think Trump winning is a very real possibility. It looks a lot more likely than 2020 and that was a razor thin victory.

You literally just posted a topic about Trump beating Harris in a battleground state poll. And another about good news for Trump. Along with a stream of other posts that seems curated to talk about bad signs for Harris.

They rejected it. From the article:

Stein’s campaign manager, Jason Call, disavowed the endorsement and called Duke “trash.”

“We had no idea about this and are very, very not interested in David Duke’s endorsement,” Call told NBC News.>

She can’t win, but she’s on enough ballots to affect the outcome. I assume she knows this and either directly wants Trump to win or is so twisted around with hatred for the Democratic party she doesn’t care that hurting them hurts the entire country.

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.

It does kind of depend on how you classify various police departments and whether they’re considered independent groups or cells under a single umbrella organization. But then again, in its heyday, the Venn diagram of the police and the KKK had quite a lot of overlap.

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.

If you browse a news aggregator site, you’ll notice how few of the headlines provide any indication the protesters were Jewish rather than just “anti-Israel” or “pro-Palestine”. While the latter is a more precise descriptor of their organizing cause, the former is also a very important aspect for this protest. It’s just not in line with the narrative the corporate news organizations have been cultivating.

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 she was sincere and didn’t already align with fascist interests, we wouldn’t care what Nazis say about her.

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 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.

Now pulling down Columbus statues can be called anti-Semitic. They liked how effective that was for the antiwar protests. When the BLM sequel happens (because nothing was actually done to fix any of the causes), they’ll have a ready message. It’s not about colonization or celebrating oppressive racists, it’s just leftwing youths being anti-Semitic again.

“4 dead and 60 injured in drone attack on terrorist training camp.”

The ethno-state problem exists regardless of where you draw the lines. A state cannot be both designed for ethnic superiority and treat those from other ethnicities as equals. You can’t maintain that inequality without violence.

Rich people love debt. Their existing wealth gets them great terms and they’re in the best position to apply the saved capital to investments that return more than the loan rate.

I doubt it ever will in Israel. Their military service is compulsory, so it just means you were a young adult who, when you were initially conscripted, didn’t jump through the hoops to get an exemption.