a forbes article about Jill Stein fighting to stay on a ballot in one state or another being supported by a GOP lawyer. link hidden by MSN which isn’t a news source but a news aggregator
Georgia judge disqualifying 2 3rd party candidates, (west and De la Cruz)
the patently ridiculously misleading one about Stein leading harris and trump among muslims.
yahoo news about progressives being somehow perplexed by Jill Stein… (LOL).
One about West being removed from yet another ballot.
one about west and De La Cruz in georgia
Stein on gaza, and being ahead.
oh look another tag24 obfuscated by an MSN link… about De La Cruz in PA.
Green Party in nevada.
Ellison ragging on Stein and apparently some how being complicit in Gaza even though he has no power over anything that even remotely affects Gaza or Israel. (he’s a freaking State AG, for crying out loud.)
So in the last ten posts to this community… you have 6 posts about Stein, and 4 others. I’ve seen that similar ratio in every news/politics community I’m subbed to, and I’m not going to bother trolling through your… ahem… prolific… posting history to verify that globally.
That doesn’t seem like I only post about Jill Stein. And since you refuse to look at my posting history for global posting, doesn’t really seem to prove the argument that I only post about Jill Stein.
Seems like you have proven that I actually post about third parties. Not just Jill Stein. Which is what I have always maintained. :)
I don’t write the articles, I just post them. There are a LOT of Jill Stein articles written every day by news orgs–far more than are written about other candidates. So that’s on the news, not me, friend. :)
That doesn’t seem like I only post about Jill Stein.
“Majority” =/= “only”. I said “majority”. 60% of the last ten seems a fairly reasonable majority to me, and I’m not going to go through literally thousands of posts to sort that out. Congratulations, you’ve managed to say I said things I did not say and argued successfully against those words I did not say. Again. You seem to like doing that. you also seem to like sealioning.
which brings us to:
I don’t write the articles, I just post them. There are a LOT of Jill Stein articles written every day by news orgs–far more than are written about other candidates. So that’s on the news, not me, friend. :)
which is a comment you seem to be saying alot.
Lets just be real for a second here. You’re only posting articles that put 3rd part candidates in a positive light. The majority of which are about jill stein, and none are exclusively about RFK. (that I have seen, no I’m not going through your spam). Similarly, in the generalized subs about news and politics, you’re not posting about any other candidates.
See a pattern? you’re not “just” posting articles that news agencies are publishing. You’re publishing articles about 3rd party candidates (and not all of them, either.) that put them in a positive light. To be perfectly blunt: You’re cherry picking. So that comment you keep spamming when people call you out for this? yeah. I don’t buy it.
I have posted plenty of RFK articles. Again, you refuse to look at my post history.
You’re publishing articles about 3rd party candidates (and not all of them, either.) that put them in a positive light. To be perfectly blunt: You’re cherry picking.
OH! So that’s what you are pissed about . Ok, ok. So how many democrat articles do you all post where the democrats aren’t in a “positive light”?
Also, I created an entire community where people can post as many positive democrat articles as they want. And I have a socialist community where I have posted over 500 articles and posts that portray BOTH main parties in a negative light.https://lemmy.world/c/socialist
Again, you refuse to check my post history, but go on about how I mostly post Jill Stein articles. I can’t take you seriously, man. lol
And I get to post what I want, when I want. Even if it makes you mad.
the last ten articles posted in politics, by you:
So in the last ten posts to this community… you have 6 posts about Stein, and 4 others. I’ve seen that similar ratio in every news/politics community I’m subbed to, and I’m not going to bother trolling through your… ahem… prolific… posting history to verify that globally.
(Edit, a word,)
That doesn’t seem like I only post about Jill Stein. And since you refuse to look at my posting history for global posting, doesn’t really seem to prove the argument that I only post about Jill Stein.
Seems like you have proven that I actually post about third parties. Not just Jill Stein. Which is what I have always maintained. :)
I don’t write the articles, I just post them. There are a LOT of Jill Stein articles written every day by news orgs–far more than are written about other candidates. So that’s on the news, not me, friend. :)
Lol.
“Majority” =/= “only”. I said “majority”. 60% of the last ten seems a fairly reasonable majority to me, and I’m not going to go through literally thousands of posts to sort that out. Congratulations, you’ve managed to say I said things I did not say and argued successfully against those words I did not say. Again. You seem to like doing that. you also seem to like sealioning.
which brings us to:
which is a comment you seem to be saying alot.
Lets just be real for a second here. You’re only posting articles that put 3rd part candidates in a positive light. The majority of which are about jill stein, and none are exclusively about RFK. (that I have seen, no I’m not going through your spam). Similarly, in the generalized subs about news and politics, you’re not posting about any other candidates.
See a pattern? you’re not “just” posting articles that news agencies are publishing. You’re publishing articles about 3rd party candidates (and not all of them, either.) that put them in a positive light. To be perfectly blunt: You’re cherry picking. So that comment you keep spamming when people call you out for this? yeah. I don’t buy it.
But it’s not 60%
Because it’s true.
I have posted plenty of RFK articles. Again, you refuse to look at my post history.
OH! So that’s what you are pissed about . Ok, ok. So how many democrat articles do you all post where the democrats aren’t in a “positive light”?
Also, I created an entire community where people can post as many positive democrat articles as they want. And I have a socialist community where I have posted over 500 articles and posts that portray BOTH main parties in a negative light. https://lemmy.world/c/socialist
Again, you refuse to check my post history, but go on about how I mostly post Jill Stein articles. I can’t take you seriously, man. lol
And I get to post what I want, when I want. Even if it makes you mad.