-53

Jill Stein 'Would Have to Look' at Pardoning Jan. 6 Rioters (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 2 months ago by UniversalMonk@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 29 points 2 months ago

Word of the day: quisling: a citizen or politician of an occupied country who collaborates with an enemy occupying force – or more generally as a synonym for traitor or collaborator.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -36 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Fun! So what citizen or politican are you referring to? Jill Stein? Because of this article or the rioters? Or both? I don't think I would refer to any of them as traitors. Idiots, maybe, but nah, not traitors.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago

Friend, I think with you and I, it's just best if I don't reply to you. No matter what I say, I think it's going to frustrate you. So I'll just pass on discussing things with you.

Your words, correct? And yet you then reply to me just moments later. Troll.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -35 points 2 months ago

Ok, I thought your most recent comment was interesting. Geesh. A wee bit of an over-reaction there.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago

Interesting how you also significantly changed the comment I replied to, without noting how you changed it.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

How did I "significantly change" the comment? I asked you if you were talking about jill stein. Then on further thought, I realized that you might be referring to the rioters if it wasn't Jill, so added that on.

That's not a significant change, friend. You need to relax. There's not some vast conspiracy going on.

Now that I have replied to you again, because I answered your question, are you gonna accuse me of being a troll again?

Because I can stop responding if you want me to.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago

Your initial reply was just the first sentence:

Fun! So what citizen or politican are you referring to?

I replied and then you added all the rest. Poor etiquette to change something that someone has replied to without noting the edit. And you didn’t even bother to correct the misspelling

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Plus your reply to me had nothing to do with my reply--either before or after the clarification. You didn't reference my comment at all. All you did was quote me from an earlier comment when I mentioned that I'm gonna refrain from answering you.

Then you called me a troll.

So were you referring to Jill Stein or the rioters?

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You’re sealioning again bud. You said you wouldn’t reply to me in a separate thread, you then replied to me, and I called you on it. As usual, you can’t stick to the subject at hand. Are you going to address the fact that you edited your response right after I replied, and that you do this frequently?

You do know folks can see when you’ve edited a comment after posting, right? In fact, as of right now you’ve edited four of your last seven comments after posting. If that’s not a sign that you should slow down and think before commenting, I don’t know what is.

And did you just find out how to take screen caps? You seem to be doing this a lot lately like it proves something when all it shows is that you edited your post and downvoted my comment~~s~~

Edit: see, like that 👆

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 0 points 2 months ago

My guess would be Stein herself (for collaborating with Russians, even tho that's not exactly what a "useful idiot" does).

Anyways, Stein's actual take is more reasonable:

When I look at January 6 it was dangerous, people broke laws, they should be held accountable for breaking laws
it was a serious and problematic event,
whether the sentences were reasonable, I would have to dive more into the weeds than I have done.

Basically she would have to individually review to ensure sentences are not unduly long, harsh, etc. And there's no commitment to actually pardon anyone, it may be no more than a check that due process was followed and punishment is not cruel and unusual, etc. (Of course, this is a politician using the usual vague words, etc.)

In fact, there's to commitment to actually do the review, this was just in response to being asked if she thought the sentences were fair - "i don't know, i'd have to get into the weeds to see if they were or not" perhaps with an implied "and i can't be bothered to do that".

[-] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 25 points 2 months ago

Russian shill.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 months ago

I can’t believe I voted for this chucklefuck in 2016

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

God damn. You give Jill Stein like 20 chances to answer a question the right way, and she fucks it up EVERY.SINGLE.TIME.

What absolute fools are voting for this woman?

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 months ago

This is like the only thing Stein would have power to do without the need of congressional support that she's mentioned doing, and it's the wrong answer

[-] pooperNickel@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Websites that have permanently banned this user:

It seems likely the reason each one banned him is the same reason their every post and comment is sitting at < -25. People detest the anti-democrat messaging and the way it's delivered. It's undeniable that this user rubs enough people the wrong way that they get a lot of attention for that alone.

During an election year especially, I expect better of any social media website than to just let this shit happen.

[-] pooperNickel@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

It makes me want to puke that we had proven pro-Trump Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and yet here we are on a "leftist" platform watching this happen without any effective type of ban hammer striking down, on the off chance that this behavior isn't exactly what it looks like. Fucking enraging.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Newsweek:

MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-pardon-january-6-rioters-1963910#:~:text=Jill%20Stein,%20the%20Green%20Party's%20presidential%20candidate,%20said

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024

-53 points (13.7% liked)

politics

19238 readers

2849 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News