https://www.voanews.com/a/teamsters-union-declines-to-endorse-trump-or-harris/7789592.html
Union leaders say neither candidate has sufficient support from the 1.3 million-member union
Oh oh, that means they must be working for the russians and want Trump to win! Right, Lemmy?!
All of his conclusions are bad, no surprise this one is also.
He's been campaigning for MAGAs while cosplaying as an independent. He is big mad that people keep calling him out for it.
Have you seen the comments I get for posting a news article about third parties?! lmao
That’s not why you get those comments. Your behavior in the comments is. The volume and selection of articles is just the decoration.
Oh ok. So give me a sample of my behavior that calls for that. But be sure to note the comment I was replying to as well. Let's take a look!
Oh, I stand by all those! The guy was stalking me and sending me DM's that he was gonna follow me and keep and eye on me.
BUT, they are not from this sub, so doesn't work for this conversation!
Look at those goalposts move!
I'm glad to see that you're still the same people you've always been.
Yes, and it depends on the article, source, title, and body context how that article goes.
But how does any of that have anything to to do with this article?
Because the Teamsters refuse to endorse Harris. And I refuse to vote for Harris. And a LOT of people think that a vote or endorsement that's not for Harris is one for Trump.
I post a third party news org article and people attack me for secretly being a trump operative. That's what I mean and what it has to do with the article. Cool?
That's some major logical fallacy stuff that you've got spinning in your head over there. It's also not the first time I've seen you make conclusions based off logical fallacies too. Please, please, please, do yourself a favor and do some studying on logical fallacies and public speaking. It'll do you wonders on effectively communicating and reducing your negative outcomes.
And for the record.
I believe in the idea of third parties. I will vote for serious third party candidates that have done the real work of getting out there and recognized for their platform and constituents in down ballot elections (as long as those platforms align with me). However, I am not going to vote for any current third party in a presidential election since barely any of them have done the down ballot work to make them even possible from being serious presidential candidates. So I will vote for harm reduction, because my life & lifestyle doesn't have the benefit of surviving another Trump presidency.
Lastly.
Not everything is about you. Somehow you made this post that was unrelated to you or third parties about you and your third party interests. I hope you can see how that could annoy people in this community and make you come off as disengenous with ulterior motives at worst or unstable and self-absorbed at best.
And for the record, I totally support and respect your right to vote for you who you want. Just like I'll be voting for who I want. As long as we vote, it's all good, brother.
What a fucking stupid take. Not surprised that it's you posting this comment. Seems you're getting your feelings hurt by being constantly shitted on.
What a fucking stupid take.
And it's the "take" I hear every day. And nah, my feelings aren't hurt. I feel emboldened that people seem to think I am so much drama.
But you are not being very nice.
You're clearly riled up about the feedback you're getting from some people on Lemmy. And that's understandable, given that I don't think you are a Russian operative or anything like that. I think you are on this platform with the best of intentions.
But from the outside looking in, it seems like you are doubling down because of this reaction. You are seeing the community's backlash against your contributions (be they right or wrong) and you seem to be thinking "well screw you guys, I'm going to just post even more of this content!" That's your choice, of course.
But regardless of the sentiment, you are posting about Stein and other third party candidates a lot. In my opinion (and that of a fair few other people, it seems), some of the links you are sharing are decent but unpopular; and some of them are dubious.
I know you and I have had one or two recent back-and-forths on this topic. For what it's worth, I haven't downvoted your replies to me. You are entitled to your opinion, and to share it on this platform.
But I suggest taking a breath and relaxing a bit. I'm not saying that to be a dick or to be patronizing or to put you off from sharing links. And before you say something like "oh I'm already super relaxed!", I'm not implying you are raging or wound-up behind a device. I just know from my own experience online that it can be easy to get lost in a kind of crusade to share your opinions and passions.
I appreciate your well-written post. And you bring up some good points. But I disagree with some as well.
It may seem like I post only about Jill Stein, but the truth is, I just share third-party news in general. If you check my posts, you'll notice I share articles on multiple third parties, not just Stein.
The reason you see more Stein-related content lately is that the media has ramped up coverage on her. Think about it: news orgs live off of clicks. And what has made LOTS of hate-clicks lately? Jill Stein.
Whenever I find a relevant third-party article, I post it. Feel free to look for yourself. Go to google. Type in third party. You'll see far far more Jill Stein articles than libertarian articles or socialist party articles.
My news feed is favored to third party news. So I see a new Jill Stein one almost every single day. Feel free to look at my post history and see how many more non-jill stein articles I post than jill stein.
People here often jump to conclusions, assuming I’m a Russian operative, a Stein fanatic, or even a Trump voter. They conveniently overlook the fact that I’ve shared far more socialist third party content than anything related to Stein.
And just to clarify, it’s not like I’m picking favorites—if there were more libertarian articles out there, I’d be posting those too.
What’s interesting is that libertarian posts don’t seem to get the same level of hate, probably because they’re perceived as spoilers for Republicans, while anything anti-Democrat, like a Stein article, gets slammed. There’s a clear bias.
You could even test it yourself: pick a different username you have, post a libertarian article, then follow it up with a Jill Stein article, and watch the difference in reaction. It’s pretty telling.
I’ve actually started a new community on Lemmy where we share news from all political perspectives—Democrat, Republican, third parties—you name it. The goal is to foster an environment where people can access diverse opinions and make informed choices.
Funny enough, some of my harshest critics from here have posted pro-Democrat content there, and it’s still up. That’s the point—everyone should have the chance to see all sides.
Thank you. It's a fun little side project. People seem to think I spend way too long on here, but I actually don't (one guy seems to think I spend 8 hours a day on here!) I work full time and I am finishing my degree. So I just do this on breaks between my other stuff. I don't take any of it too seriously. All good fun!
If you spend eight hours a day here, you post (on average) every six minutes during that time.
If you spend four hours a day here, it's every three minutes.
So how much time a day do you spend here?
An hour and just frantically post every forty-five seconds the whole time?
Teamsters are a freaking huge union, that includes, for example, truck drivers. (It’s even in their name. A Teamster was the person who managed an ox gang pulling wagons, way back when that was the most common means of transport.)
Truck drivers, at least the ones I’ve met are full-on maga, so yes, they’re republicans. I’m sure there are progressive truck drivers, but I haven’t met any.
It’s hardly surprising that their member base are fairly conservative. Enough so, at least, that they don’t want to weigh in on it.
You flack for Jill Stein- I know you say you don’t, but the majority of the articles you post are pro-her, and you’re going as far afield as German gossip rags (that you subsequently hide behind an aggregator link,) to get material.
You also get extremely defensive, especially when people aren’t critical of you, but rather Stein. And yes, she might not be a typical Russian asset, but she certainly parrots the Russian agenda and receives propaganda-support for that.
You flack for Jill Stein- I know you say you don’t, but the majority of the articles you post
Nope. My post history: https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts
:)
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.
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.
60% of the last ten seems
But it's not 60%
which is a comment you seem to be saying a lot.
Because it's true.
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.
::: spoiler Voice of America - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Voice of America:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
:::
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.voanews.com/a/teamsters-union-declines-to-endorse-trump-or-harris/7789592.html ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
