‘Useful Idiot for Russia’: DNC Decides to Go Off on Jill Stein
thebulwark.com
“Jill Stein is a useful idiot for Russia. After parroting Kremlin talking points and being propped up by bad actors in 2016 she’s at it again,” DNC spokesman Matt Corridoni said in a statement to The Bulwark. “Jill Stein won’t become president, but her spoiler candidacy—that both the GOP and Putin have previously shown interest in—can help decide who wins. A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.”
You are viewing a single comment
All these articles attacking Stein my make people not vote for her, but they aren't going to convince anyone to vote for Harris.
If you don't want Trump, you only have one choice.
I don't want any cheerleader for genocide.
In what world has Trump done anything to suggest he'd support or push a ceasefire?
Harris has both said and done more to push for a ceasefire than literally every other candidate on the ballot.
There is no third party candidate that has a hope of winning right now, thus every vote for third party is the same as not voting.
And not voting is effectively the same as voting Republican, so you're either voting for Harris, or you're supporting Trump.
Where the hell did you see me say I would ever vote for Trump? Harris has not done a fucking thing to "push for a ceasefire". The strongest thing she has said, as far as I know, is that she " wouldn't be silent about what is going on in Gaza". The very next day, she published a letter condemning the people who protested Netanyahu's visit. The dem party is full of outright and de facto Zionists, who preferred to have conservatives speak at their convention rather than Palestinian Americans. I'm not voting for, or supporting either Trump or Harris. Harris does still have time to win the votes of people like me. I hope you're calling your dem reps and demanding it.
If you don't think Trump would be even worse
forthan Harris in regards to Palestine, you're delusional. Contrary to popular edgelord opinion the lesser evil is still better than the greater evil.I agree that she should be more clear on demanding a ceasefire (although she did actually partly demand just that in March, at least for 6 weeks - and again during the debate), and that this war could probably be stopped if she made such demands. The current US administration is working to end the fighting, so not voting for the party that is actually working to end the war is at the detriment to the people of Gaza.
Now compare that to Trump:
So he would basically allow a full scale genocide, no holds barred.
That being said though, this is likely not going to end anytime soon due to the massive pager/radio attack on Hezbollah that's likely going to make this whole quagmire even worse. And I 100% agree with you that the US/Kamala/Biden should put Israel in it's place before this whole powder keg turns into WWIII, which is not outside the realm of possibilities to anyone who has studied history and the role multiple global conflicts played in the past to lead to world war.
But she's working night and day on a ceasefire deal....😂
Are you people allergic to good faith arguments?
No, but it seems like you people are.
They arent going to convince anyone to vote for Trump either, so what's your point, comrade?
My point, comrade, is that all this desperate energy spent tearing down Jill Stein would be better spent changing the policies that are turning off potential dem voters.
Methinks perhaps you overstate the intensity and desperation of the energy, but your point is absolutely valid, and they should do that outside of election season too!
Going to add as well that the only party that might actually change those policies will be the dems, since the GOP SUPER won't, and the green party has zero chance of gaining any power.
Well since you've said it - yeah the Dems have more political power. Which is why it would show leadership and political finesse for Dems to focus their messaging around policy changes that would enable a fairer and safer voting system that eliminates spoiler candidates, like approval choice voting. THAT would attract 3rd party voters. Because it includes them. Instead the messaging above alienates and divides people. It's bad.
I actually don't understand how we all collectively watched Whose Line? in the 90s and somehow still don't understand the concept of "yes, and," and including people's concerns. If Dems want 3rd party voters, they will have to respect their concerns and not try to verbally abuse them, or use fear, obligation, guilt, or shame to emotionally abuse them.
And btw yes I'm voting for Kamala. But man watching Dems fumble EVERY ELECTION because they can't let go of emotional manipulation and abuse rhetoric is so cringy.
Yeah watching the Dems is painful AF. They get real close to GETTING it and then fall back into their political safe zone. The 3rd party voters might not have the numbers, but they have good ideas for the future of the country that need to be considered.
We need more Bernies & AOCs on the inside to pull dems back (at least) toward centre and make them understand that 3rd party voters have some great ideas for bringing positive change and equity. Even if the Dems can't fully embrace them, let's nudge the needle back toward progress by paying attention to them. The Dems might do. The GOP won't. So if there are only two viable parties in the presidential (and congressional) race there's a clear choice if anyone really wants the opportunity to (frustratingly slowly) change anything for the better.
I always say it's easier to shame dems into doing the right thing. The GOP have no shame to leverage.
Trump doesn't care about Ukraine at all. What do you think of that?
I agree. This feels the similar to gerrymandering or restricting access to vote for minorities. They should be able to win without having to walk through a gutter.