The survey by the Council on American Islamic Relations finds 40% of Muslim-American voters in Michigan say they support Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.
The dude is, at best, an idiot, at worse, a foreign paid troll pushing to get Trump elected.
To suddenly pop up 3 months before an election pushing 3rd parties when they have zero chance of winning and a huge chance at causing what happened in 2016 again, posting like it’s their job, and changing your name at least 3 times?
Dudes account is only 1 month old. Has almost 1000 posts and almost 2000 comments. Seems like this is his job or he is terminally online. Both are pathetic.
Is there some limit to how much we can post? I didn’t read that anywhere. What are the numbers you think people should have when it comes to posting. Just let me know, thanks!
I’m good. I’d rather call you out than let you spread your bs.
What “bs” am I spreading? I didn’t write the news article. So are the authors of the article spreading the “bs”? Would you rather some news doesn’t get reported?
While I generally agree with your sentiments. In this instance at least I don’t know that I would call it misinformation. Ignorant people do ignorant things out of emotion very often. And I’m sure that a lot of people in those populations are being a heavily propagandized and feel a need to do this despite how much they stand to suffer from it.
Portraying third party presidential candidates as anything more than an ineffectual handwavy the way to absolve yourself of responsibility without actually taking responsibility. Absolutely is misinformation. Highlighting that the misinformation and propaganda are working, which is ironically all this really does. Despite OPs intentions. Does have some value. Though I understand your frustration with them.
Not so well said. What exactly do you think my “intentions” are? I am posting an article that is online in a much more public environment than Lemmy. And I didn’t write the article. Or have anything to do with it’s creation.
So if you were giving me the undeserved benefit of the doubt, why talk about my intentions prefaced with the word “despite”? I actually think your post was well-written and had good points, but when you say “despite OPs intentions” it’s very easy to misunderstand what that means. I apologize if I was incorrect.
Getting really tired of the continual misinformation on 3rd Parties, Monk.
Understood. But what misinformation are you seeing? This article doesn’t speak out against any of the issues you pointed out.
You know I respect you, but in this instance, it seems you are more tired of people “overlooking” the facts you are quoting, rather than “misinformation” for this particular article.
Because I am not seeing anything in this article that contradicts the information you have posted.
But the article doesn’t address those issues. They are simply reporting information about Muslim American voting choices based on interviews and polls.
Getting really tired of the continual misinformation on 3rd Parties, Monk.
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-data-how-third-parties-could-be-spoilers-that-elect-trump
“The Data: How Third Parties Could be Spoilers that Elect Trump”
https://web.archive.org/web/20240122162245/https://theintercept.com/2024/01/22/biden-trump-president-election-third-party/
"Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick
A progressive who stays home on Election Day — or backs Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, or No Labels — is voting for Donald Trump."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/11/robert-reich-third-party-candidates-will-help-trump-win
“Third-party candidates will help Trump win”
https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-dangerous-illusion-of-a-presidential-third-party-in-2024
“The Dangerous Illusion of a Presidential Third Party in 2024”
The dude is, at best, an idiot, at worse, a foreign paid troll pushing to get Trump elected.
To suddenly pop up 3 months before an election pushing 3rd parties when they have zero chance of winning and a huge chance at causing what happened in 2016 again, posting like it’s their job, and changing your name at least 3 times?
The smells, Homey. It smells to high heaven
Reported for civility. You can disagree with articles I post without calling me names.
I only found Lemmy last month. Was there a time limit I should have before I post article I am interested in? I didn’t see any.
And I’ll still be posting after the election. So then what will your complaint be?
Dudes account is only 1 month old. Has almost 1000 posts and almost 2000 comments. Seems like this is his job or he is terminally online. Both are pathetic.
Is there some limit to how much we can post? I didn’t read that anywhere. What are the numbers you think people should have when it comes to posting. Just let me know, thanks!
No, but like I said, it’s pathetic.
In your opinion. I have no problem with it though.
Maybe you should block me if you find my posts so “pathetic.”
I’m good. I’d rather call you out than let you spread your bs.
What “bs” am I spreading? I didn’t write the news article. So are the authors of the article spreading the “bs”? Would you rather some news doesn’t get reported?
That’s your go-to argument with every person. You know damn well wtf you’re doing my guy.
While I generally agree with your sentiments. In this instance at least I don’t know that I would call it misinformation. Ignorant people do ignorant things out of emotion very often. And I’m sure that a lot of people in those populations are being a heavily propagandized and feel a need to do this despite how much they stand to suffer from it.
Portraying third party presidential candidates as anything more than an ineffectual handwavy the way to absolve yourself of responsibility without actually taking responsibility. Absolutely is misinformation. Highlighting that the misinformation and propaganda are working, which is ironically all this really does. Despite OPs intentions. Does have some value. Though I understand your frustration with them.
Well said.
Not so well said. What exactly do you think my “intentions” are? I am posting an article that is online in a much more public environment than Lemmy. And I didn’t write the article. Or have anything to do with it’s creation.
I was giving you the undeserved benefit of the doubt. The fact you assume otherwise probably says more about your own behavior.
So if you were giving me the undeserved benefit of the doubt, why talk about my intentions prefaced with the word “despite”? I actually think your post was well-written and had good points, but when you say “despite OPs intentions” it’s very easy to misunderstand what that means. I apologize if I was incorrect.
Understood. But what misinformation are you seeing? This article doesn’t speak out against any of the issues you pointed out.
You know I respect you, but in this instance, it seems you are more tired of people “overlooking” the facts you are quoting, rather than “misinformation” for this particular article.
Because I am not seeing anything in this article that contradicts the information you have posted.
That 3rd parties are somehow viable? (They aren’t). Or that voting 3rd party won’t harm the Democratic candidate? (It does).
But the article doesn’t address those issues. They are simply reporting information about Muslim American voting choices based on interviews and polls.
Information you disagree with is not misinformation.
Exactly.
And here’s the other one.
Another what?