Jill Stein encourages Nevada voters to vote for Trump

[Bronco 25,079]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

Their initial submission was entirely correct though.

Except it wasn't because it missed the legal requirement of providing residency for every signatory to prove support came from Nevada. It was an outdated form they'd used in place of one they'd presumably identified as being the incorrect one. Given the fact the Green Party hasn't run in the state since 2008 I'd take a stab in the dark and guess that's how old the form they used was if they went hunting through older docs to find it. 

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

I don't know why people here are pretending it would be logical for the Greens to then meticulously scan the supposedly "correct" document for errors, especially the "error" of one meaningless line. Why would anyone do that? Because they expect the Secretary of State to mess with them? Why would you expect to be denied access to an election because you fill in paper work you are told to submit to be given access?

Simple logic - when acting as the legal officer for a party during a Presidential campaign, the main responsibility of your job is to ensure that your party is meeting the legal requirements made neccessary by the state. 

Further, they didn't have to meticulously scan - they clearly knew the document sent originally was wrong as they used an alternative one (albeit an outdated one) meant for the race they were submitting to enter. It's not about whether or not they were messed with, and there will never be a paper trail able to prove this. It's the job requirement of the legal officer to ensure legal documentation is accurate & correct. 
And they presented no evidence to the court according to your source to suggest they had fulfilled this role and challenged the SoS's office staff they were in communication with. 
 

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

It's selective criticism is what it is. A party should not be able to be sued off the ballot by another party for filling in paper work that is officially yet falsely offered as an obligatory correction to a perfectly fine submission. Is it a mistake? Yes. No one is arguing that. It's the unnecessarily targeted punishment that makes no sense.

The submission was missing a legal requirement under state law. It was never a perfectly fine submission. You are arguing whether or not it's a mistake by saying the submission is "perfectly fine". 

I think there should have been more done to ensure the original signatories were given the chance to supply the information of their residency and allow the submission in the interest of democratic opportunity on the ballot. Especially given half of the blame for the error comes from the office staff of the Secretary of State. 

I don't think it is a targeted punishment unless you have any evidence that another individual on the ballot has been allowed despite not providing the legally required information? If you do, it absolutely is election interferrance. 
As it currently stands, a political party has failed to meet it's legal requirements to stand in the state of Nevada and that has resulted in it being blocked from standing in that state. It does make sense, whether you agree with the system or not is a seperate issue. 

[skaxboy 6,917]

 

I only hear about this woman every four years and on American Horror Story: Cult.

 

Who’s Jill Stein in this world?

Spoiler

 

 

 

[freebit 6,264]

It’s been downhill for her since AOC called her out and I’m glad everyone is starting to realize how it is with her. 

[Didymus 34,380]

@Bronco I'm sorry but you don't have your facts straight. That's ok, I was confused at first too.

9 hours ago, Bronco said:

Further, they didn't have to meticulously scan - they clearly knew the document sent originally was wrong as they used an alternative one (albeit an outdated one) meant for the race they were submitting to enter.

This is not correct. You are mixing up the timeline. There was no initial alternative document. The Democrats first sued the Green Party because they supposedly did not collect valid signatures which is bull. The Greens then showed they collected far more signatures than necessary and a judge ruled in their favor, legally confirming their petition document as valid and sufficient. Next, the Democrats amended their lawsuit to entirely focus on this document technicality instead.

There is no evidence that the original, valid petition document the Greens used was in fact an older or insufficient version, that is just what they were told by the Secretary of State employee.

9 hours ago, Bronco said:

Simple logic - when acting as the legal officer for a party during a Presidential campaign, the main responsibility of your job is to ensure that your party is meeting the legal requirements made neccessary by the state. ... It's the job requirement of the legal officer to ensure legal documentation is accurate & correct. 
And they presented no evidence to the court according to your source to suggest they had fulfilled this role and challenged the SoS's office staff they were in communication with.

I understand the logic behind this but I do not think it's fair. Like, sure, your responsibility is to make sure your party meets legal requirements, which is exactly why you listen to the Secretary of State telling you you need to use a different document to collect signatures lol

This is giving me Disney claiming well you should have read your Disney+ subscription logic teas. Even if that was technically true and the man willingly signed away his legal rights, that didn't stop anyone from saying the obvious: what Disney is doing is pathetic and undemocratic. I didn't see any "well but the man SHOULD have read his Disney+ terms, like it or not, this is democracy!!" nonsense.

I know you will argue that this is not just one person but a political responsibility of a whole party but if we follow that trail, we also have to talk about the responsibility of Democrats suing Greens across the whole country, systematically trying to boycott their signatures from having democratic impact. I still think it's weird that people are happier to talk about the "amateurish" mistake of the Greens vs. this Democrat led targeted campaign against third parties. This is not a conspiracy, this has been widely reported on, such as back in January by Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-allies-plot-thwart-third-party-bids-that-threaten-his-reelection-2024-01-18/

The obvious response all the friggin time is well this is to protect the country from Trump being re-elected! Ok, how about you just give Democratic voters what they want and improve your game? This tactic is offensive on every level and I'm surprised people on this site can't even bring themselves to admit that.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,965]

2 hours ago, Didymus said:

@Bronco I'm sorry but you don't have your facts straight. That's ok, I was confused at first too.

This is not correct. You are mixing up the timeline. There was no initial alternative document. The Democrats first sued the Green Party because they supposedly did not collect valid signatures which is bull. The Greens then showed they collected far more signatures than necessary and a judge ruled in their favor, legally confirming their petition document as valid and sufficient. Next, the Democrats amended their lawsuit to entirely focus on this document technicality instead.

There is no evidence that the original, valid petition document the Greens used was in fact an older or insufficient version, that is just what they were told by the Secretary of State employee.

I understand the logic behind this but I do not think it's fair. Like, sure, your responsibility is to make sure your party meets legal requirements, which is exactly why you listen to the Secretary of State telling you you need to use a different document to collect signatures lol

This is giving me Disney claiming well you should have read your Disney+ subscription logic teas. Even if that was technically true and the man willingly signed away his legal rights, that didn't stop anyone from saying the obvious: what Disney is doing is pathetic and undemocratic. I didn't see any "well but the man SHOULD have read his Disney+ terms, like it or not, this is democracy!!" nonsense.

I know you will argue that this is not just one person but a political responsibility of a whole party but if we follow that trail, we also have to talk about the responsibility of Democrats suing Greens across the whole country, systematically trying to boycott their signatures from having democratic impact. I still think it's weird that people are happier to talk about the "amateurish" mistake of the Greens vs. this Democrat led targeted campaign against third parties. This is not a conspiracy, this has been widely reported on, such as back in January by Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-allies-plot-thwart-third-party-bids-that-threaten-his-reelection-2024-01-18/

The obvious response all the friggin time is well this is to protect the country from Trump being re-elected! Ok, how about you just give Democratic voters what they want and improve your game? This tactic is offensive on every level and I'm surprised people on this site can't even bring themselves to admit that.

So they used the right form but from the wrong year? And it didn't include the districts from the petitioners? I don't expect my 2023 tax return forms to still work for 2024. Things change all the time. That's what you have a lawyer for. Both sides messed up. But to say it's election interference is dangerous. And intentional. We're opening rhetorics to open way for Trump to make the same argument in November and that's all this is about. 

[Bronco 25,079]

3 hours ago, Didymus said:

There was no initial alternative document. The Democrats first sued the Green Party because they supposedly did not collect valid signatures which is bull. The Greens then showed they collected far more signatures than necessary and a judge ruled in their favor, legally confirming their petition document as valid and sufficient. Next, the Democrats amended their lawsuit to entirely focus on this document technicality instead.

There is no evidence that the original, valid petition document the Greens used was in fact an older or insufficient version, that is just what they were told by the Secretary of State employee.

Right I'm going to quote the source you provided since you're claiming I'm wrong despite only ever referring to the source you selected.

"The party still managed to submit the petition with the right affidavit the first time, by not using the same form the secretary of state's office provided them. However, this petition did not include a blank space for signers to put their petition district, so the office sent it back and notified the Nevada Green Party that they needed the petition district, and emailed the party new instructions.

The employee who provided the Green Party with further guidance told them they had an "older version," according to the dissenting judges' opinion."

Under state law the petition district is required, a form that does not include this is clearly outdated. The evidence that it is insufficient is undeniable on the basis it does not include the space for signatories to provide their district location for the petition. A legal requirement.

"Still, the secretary of state's online guide for minor political parties to apply to be on the ballot states the petition needs the verification that signatures are from people who are actual registered voters."

The original submission was never legally valid due to not including the petitioner district. Even when the original District Court case ruled against the Democrats unamended case. 

The original court decision by the district court was made on the basis of challenging the signatures on the claim that "some were signed too far in the past or seem altered, making them invalid." Which the court struck out. The district court's ruling never made any judgement on the documental issues raised as this was only raised in the appeal to the Nevada State Supreme Court.

The original submission was never legally correct due to this documental issue. There is no "original, valid petition" as there is no petition that included all of the legally required information. That is per your own source. 

[Didymus 34,380]

3 hours ago, TortureMeOnReplay said:

So they used the right form but from the wrong year? And it didn't include the districts from the petitioners? I don't expect my 2023 tax return forms to still work for 2024. Things change all the time. That's what you have a lawyer for. Both sides messed up. But to say it's election interference is dangerous. And intentional. We're opening rhetorics to open way for Trump to make the same argument in November and that's all this is about. 

I'm not necessarily accusing the Secretary of State of engaging in election interference. I'm directly accusing the Democratic Party of engaging in it. How is trying to sue a party off the ballot even after a judge throws out your case not intentional election interference? Yes, you can argue that the Greens should have been smarter about it but my whole point from the beginning was that this doesn't absolve the Democrats from entering this shady terrain of using resources to boycott other candidates.

2 hours ago, Bronco said:

"The party still managed to submit the petition with the right affidavit the first time, by not using the same form the secretary of state's office provided them. However, this petition did not include a blank space for signers to put their petition district, so the office sent it back and notified the Nevada Green Party that they needed the petition district, and emailed the party new instructions.

The employee who provided the Green Party with further guidance told them they had an "older version," according to the dissenting judges' opinion."

Under state law the petition district is required, a form that does not include this is clearly outdated. The evidence that it is insufficient is undeniable on the basis it does not include the space for signatories to provide their district location for the petition. A legal requirement.

Ok but you were saying previously that the Greens first denied to use an official document in favor of an older one which proves they were already aware of the chances of receiving false documents, etc. etc., which is simply not true, though I understand the article makes it seem that way.

It is also wrong that the initial document is undeniably insufficient, which is what Justices Herndon and Pickering explain (and they explain it best in the actual court scans which you can also find in the same article).

It is not mandatory to include such a blank space on a minor party petition. Such petitions only have to comply with the statutory obliations, not the regulation ones referred to. The Green Party verified that the signatures came from registered state voters in other ways that explicitly showed the district location of each signature, which is perfectly legal. The final decision against the Greens is defended with some bizarro claim that the missing blank space is necessary anyway to prevent fraud, which Herndon and Pickering also reject, as this isn't at all true historically.

2 hours ago, Bronco said:

The original court decision by the district court was made on the basis of challenging the signatures on the claim that "some were signed too far in the past or seem altered, making them invalid." Which the court struck out. The district court's ruling never made any judgement on the documental issues raised as this was only raised in the appeal to the Nevada State Supreme Court.

Also wrong. The district court specifically rejected the Democrats' claim that the Greens' petition was legally insufficient. This might not have been in the article I posted (and why should it be, omg, can't you people read multiple sources before you make claims about things) but it's explicitly in the court documents.

ANYWAY. My point is that, however weird the Supreme Court's decision is to me and others, the Dems play a dirty undemocratic game. No party should be sued off the ballot for technicalities like this. As Herndon and Pickering argued in their letter of dissent, this is in fact unconstitutional. We can argue about whether that's true all day long but my only objective here is to pierce this "the Greens clearly deserved to be sued" bubble y'all are just swallowing for transparent reasons. Even if you agree with the details of the legal proceedings, the very aim of the Dems to sue third party candidates is completely ****ed up and, still, not a word from any of you about that.

[Bronco 25,079]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Also wrong. The district court specifically rejected the Democrats' claim that the Greens' petition was legally insufficient. This might not have been in the article I posted (and why should it be, omg, can't you people read multiple sources before you make claims about things) but it's explicitly in the court documents.

 

If you bring up a point and source it. I'm going to discuss your point using your source. 

If you dislike the quality of the source, find a better one. It's not on me to justify your positioning with a better source material. You clearly felt the source was usable until people started opposing you as a result of it's content. 

[Bronco 25,079]

7 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Even if you agree with the details of the legal proceedings, the very aim of the Dems to sue third party candidates is completely ****ed up and, still, not a word from any of you about that.

 

16 hours ago, Bronco said:

I think there should have been more done to ensure the original signatories were given the chance to supply the information of their residency and allow the submission in the interest of democratic opportunity on the ballot. Especially given half of the blame for the error comes from the office staff of the Secretary of State.

Literally said I think the Greens should have been allowed to fix the slight procedural issue and be given ballot access. And I said that 16 hours before you accuse me of saying nothing. 

Don't lie about me and make me regret un-ignoring you.  You read that post from 16 hours ago, you responded to it and quoted it at length. Just because I've disagreed with you does not give you the right to start bullshitting your way to attempted success. 

The American political system is terrible. I've said this repeatedly on this site in multiple threads, and you have interacted with such posts in the past to the extent you should know my position on the topic at hand that I don't need to rewrite my entire political belief system to you every time you get annoyed I disagree with you on a subject. 

[Didymus 34,380]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

If you bring up a point and source it. I'm going to discuss your point using your source. 

If you dislike the quality of the source, find a better one. It's not on me to justify your positioning with a better source material. You clearly felt the source was usable until people started opposing you as a result of it's content. 

I don't dislike it... It's good. Just not entirely complete, which it doesn't have to be, as it links directly to the court docs themselves.

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

Literally said I think the Greens should have been allowed to fix the slight procedural issue and be given ballot access. And I said that 16 hours before you accuse me of saying nothing.

I don't think that's fair to throw in my face now when that statement included this: "I think there should have been more done to ensure the original signatories were given the chance to supply the information of their residency".

The signatories did in fact do this, so I obviously take issue with the stance that the party "failed to meet its legal requirements" as you put it.

I'm not personally gunning for you. But it is also true that you did not speak on the Democrats' general strategy to sue third party candidatesl, which is what my "y'all aren't saying anything about this" remark was about. It was not about the fairness of this case. I think I literally spelled that out in my last post's last sentence but I get it, I'm triggering you, I'm being annoying to you, and I don't want that 'cause I actually like you but I do think this thread is filled to the brim with gleeful misinformation and it bothers me. That's all.

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,965]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

I'm not necessarily accusing the Secretary of State of engaging in election interference. I'm directly accusing the Democratic Party of engaging in it. How is trying to sue a party off the ballot even after a judge throws out your case not intentional election interference? Yes, you can argue that the Greens should have been smarter about it but my whole point from the beginning was that this doesn't absolve the Democrats from entering this shady terrain of using resources to boycott other candidates.

ANYWAY. My point is that, however weird the Supreme Court's decision is to me and others, the Dems play a dirty undemocratic game. No party should be sued off the ballot for technicalities like this. As Herndon and Pickering argued in their letter of dissent, this is in fact unconstitutional. We can argue about whether that's true all day long but my only objective here is to pierce this "the Greens clearly deserved to be sued" bubble y'all are just swallowing for transparent reasons. Even if you agree with the details of the legal proceedings, the very aim of the Dems to sue third party candidates is completely ****ed up and, still, not a word from any of you about that.

To me personally the context matters in regards to the election interference. Is it absolutely trash that the democrats are doing this? Sure. But at this point, literally every single person on any POTUS ballot and their associates is doing this. The Green Party is doing it to steal progressives from Dems and then crying foul because they're not blatantly getting away with their own form of election interference. They're running purely to steal votes and now crying about it to pave way for Trump saying Dems stole it all. RFK literally said he's only fighting to remove himself from states in which he'd hurt Trump and fighting to stay in states in which he'd help Kamala. Trump already said he's only accepting the results if he wins. That's all election interference. Republicans have been trying to illegitimatize a bunch of voters and restrict voter access. 

 

Yes it's all disgusting. Yes it's all corrupt. Yes I can acknowledge it's happening and I hate it. But blame the electoral college. Blame gerrymandering. Blame voter suppression and disenfranchisement via mass incarceration. I think Democrats have taken the high road a lot of times in regards to decorum and ethics, even though I know they're not clean. But I think it would be absolutely stupid losing another election via electoral college (because Trump didn't win the popular vote in 2016 or 2020) because Democrats once again tried to rise above. Yes there's an ethical part eating at me, but we are talking about a LOT of rights being taken away for generations, the biggest gap in our class system, and possibly aggravation into a world war if not also a civil war. I'm not cool with corruption, but I can swallow that pill if it means women get access to the healthcare they need, we get somebody in office respected on the world stage, and we're gonna avoid stacking a even bigger supreme court supermajority in favor of conservatives.