• Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I see this more as a loss of support for Trump, just like the many Republican endorsements for Harris. It doesn’t change Stein’s chances either way, and who supports someone is more a sign of how that person leans, not the candidate.

    What will be interesting (but again, inconsequential) is how Stein will treat this. Ignore? Simple thanks? A rally to try and pull more of those who would follow him? (I think some will see where I’m going there)

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      It doesn’t change Stein’s chances either way

      Which is 0% since she literally cannot win enough electoral votes.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.>

    • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Nothing can hurt or help Stein’s chances. She’s not a real choice. I don’t even think she’s on enough states’ ballots to get the required number of electoral votes.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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.

        • GraniteM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Florida 2000 Presidential Election results:

          • Bush: 2,912,790 (48.847%)

          • Gore: 2,912,253 (48.838%)

          • Nader: 97,488 (1.64%)

          If just 538 Nader voters had gone to Gore, representing 0.0091% of the total vote, Al Gore would have been president.

          Tiny fucking margins can change the world. Ask a bunch of dead Iraqi people if they feel like there would have been no meaningful difference between Bush and Gore.

          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Given that more Iraqis were killed by the Clinton era sanctions, crippling food and medicine access for Iraq, as well as the general hawkishness of the Dems, as evident again with Israel today, it wouldn’t have made a difference.

            When it comes to invading and murdering brown people, both parties are pretty similar. Heck Hillary Clinton always got a hard on for escalating to war with Iran.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            To be fair, the US Supreme Court decided the 2000 election. Gore’s lead would have needed to be higher than the threshold to automatically trigger a recount for that outcome to have changed.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Right? Imagine Trump not being racist enough for David Duke. I bet he’d be really mad if he weren’t straight vibin