-72
Jill Stein slams ‘attack dog’ AOC after ‘predatory’ comments: ‘Democrats are running scared’
(www.washingtonexaminer.com)
One of the advantages of having no chance of winning is that you can say whatever you want without consequence.
Running scared from......what exactly? Certainly not Jill Stein.
How fucking transparent can you be to issue a statement like this, then turn around and say you're not a spoiler candidate.
Fuck you, Jill Stein.
"Slams", while avoiding the actual context and pivoting to attack on a different subject entirely.
Needs more Grassroots, not grass clippings.
You already posted basically this same story two days ago.
Gotta keep up the engagement otherwise they don't get paid.
I'm surprised you didn't post the essay long comment about not being silenced?
I think it's funny they lecture about not being censored or silenced, but if you look at the modlogs for their communities they're constantly removing comments and banned posters.
How hypocritical.
Oh is that cut and paste bullshit not spam? I've been reporting it as spam.
“Old woman shakes fist at cloud.”
I mean Stein is pretty spry for her age, but she’s still 74 and she’s sounding more and more deranged as time goes on. Honestly have to wonder how much of this campaign is her and how much is her handlers - whomever they might be (or whomever is paying for them).
Washington Examiner - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Washington Examiner:
MBFC: Right - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/3143730/jill-stein-slams-attack-dog-aoc-predatory-comments-democrats-running-scared/
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
-72 points (10.0% liked)
politics
18853 readers
4142 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS