Failed to win either major party’s nomination.

You failed to win the nomination, so by your logic you're a fascist. I can't make sense of this.

And I thought we were talking about the two people who did win the nomination of their major party.

This isn’t a game of “gotcha"

You were clearly trying to pretend you caught them admitting Harris is a fascist. You can't play gotcha and then claim you aren't playing gotcha.

I’m just happy to see users calling out these bullshit articles taking shit outta context.

But what bothers me is that even when the blatant deception is pointed out, you still have a large percentage of people here actually defending such bullshit.

Then don’t. You aren’t obligated to defend him.

Really they are just defending honest assessments of facts. Unfortunately, because the title of the article is so disgustingly disingenuous and blatantly misleading, it led a lot of people to believe his statement is blatantly hypocritical. . .so by pointing out reality you are actually "defending Trump."

You are all but admitting that reality doesn't matter. Sounds exactly like Trump supporters. Please don't be like them.

Go out and do an informal poll of the people you know and ask them who they think is a worse human.

If one has more power, they are likely to do more harm in the world, regardless of how shitty they are of a human being. While I have no love affair with Cheney, he is not the absolutely piece of human garbage that Duke is.

You think that people here are defending Cheney, but really it's you defending Duke.

So...you lie about what a poster said and then block them when they call out your lie. This is an incredible level of intellectual cowardice.

Lol in what fantasy world have I been defending David Duke?

What am I supposed to do? Repeated that an endorsement is a one way thing?

It’s stupid if you ignore the context of why people would have a problem with it, Taco.

I'm not ignoring any context. It was a picture provided with no context.

The context you've now provided "There is no good reason for her to be having dinner with Vladimir Putin," is stated as if it is a priori, but it's not.

And that seems to be your whole point: it's damning because she shouldn't have been there, because I say it's damning that she is there. It's circular. The reality is that because you can't explain it, it's suspicious, not damning. And I agree with that. It should raise suspicions. You're confusing your suspicion with knowing something.

You still haven’t explained why it’s okay for Stein to be having dinner with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin.

That's not how it works. You're the one claiming something nefarious. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying the evidence provided of your claim is "r/conspiracy levels of stupid" as it's one of their favorite pieces of non-evidence.

While I absolutely agree, I find the "average poster" here to be at least as gullible as the average redditor. But not quite as bad as the "average /r/conspiracy" poster, but getting pretty close. My experience seems to be the more adamant people are about their beliefs, the more open they are to confirmation bias.

It's a product of our fptp voting system, so any country that has this is going to trend towards two parties.

You're acting like she has the election locked up and all she can do is blow it at this point.

It looks close to a toss up at this point, and the debate was a winning thing for her before. trump and painted himself into a corner because he either takes the debate, and then they can hammer him on flip flopping, and she likely wins again, or he keeps hiding and she can chip away at that "strpng man" nonsense he is trying to paint himself as.

Sure there is an outside chance that he takes the debate and wins...but he's not taking it because even they realize what an outside chance that this.

This is a great bet by her that you would have to be stupid not to take.