65
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
65 points (100.0% liked)
conservative
933 readers
134 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Jill Stein's party is explicitly fighting to help Trump win. Stein is a pro-Trump spoiler. Voting for her is about the most self-defeating thing anyone who believes in democracy could do, short only of voting for Trump.
She's against genocide and Democrats are losing to Trump because they haven't earned the votes. Instead they want to shame and blame everyone but themselves for why people, including a large percentage of the Arab population are voting for Jill Stein in Michigan. Just like they blamed Bernie and Stein in 2016. I encourage everyone to go listen and learn about Jill Stein's platform yourself without a Democrat standing over your shoulder whispering nonsense into your ear. Both parties of the duopoly have a large cult.
Jill Stein's platform is, explicitly, not to win but to cause Harris to lose. Harris losing means Trump winning. Trump winning will be even worse for Gaza (and Ukraine, the US, and the rest of the world).
If your red line is Gaza, but your refusal to cross that line will make things in Gaza worse, it is straightforwardly the case that your tactics are wrong. 'I cannot condone X, so I'm going to do something that can only make X even worse' is not a position you can hold.
First, that is not her platform and you're just making up and repeating MSM Democrat propaganda. Second, Kamala is part of the current administration that has had the ability to take a different stance on Gaza. Stop blaming the voters and start demanding she change her position. If she loses it will be her fault and no one elses. Last, people voting for their preferred candidate that they think best represents them is the foundation of democracy. If you don't like democracy then vote for Democrats or Republicans who think they don't need to earn your vote.
Here's a member of the Stein campaign saying they know they can't win and want Harris to lose: 'We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic. We could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan.' This is straight from the Stein campaign. Not 'MSM Democrat propaganda' at all, but the Stein campaign itself acknowledging that they can't win and that what they mean by 'winning' is Harris losing - which entails Trump winning.
Again, you can blame anyone you like for this, but if you vote for Stein, the consequences for Gazans will be worse. To do so is, per your own values, nonsensical.
Inconvenient for that user, so they didn't respond
In fairness to the guy, he has now responded.
Your assumption is that these third party voters would be inclined to vote for Kamala if they weren't voting for Stein. There is nothing to support that claim by you. In fact, it is the opposite. They'd be inclined to vote for Kamala if she shifted her policy positions when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. Again, you can blame anyone you like for this, but if Kamala doesn't change her position, the consequences for Americans will be worse. To do so, is per Kamala's "own" values, nonsensical.
I'm not assuming that you are inclined to vote for Harris - you've made it clear that you are not!
What I'm saying is that the course of action you're advocating (voting for Jill Stein) can only have the opposite outcome to the one you want (because it will lead to the election of Donald Trump and a still worse situation in the Middle East). This being the case, you should reconsider your course of action.
Orrrrr, stay with me here, 50,000 people is an insignificant number of people in the context of preventing a greater war with Iran that would directly kill millions and millions of people. Trump has openly endorsed that war, so doing a thing to help elect Trump is not in any sense a strategy aimed at protecting the lives and rights of anyone in the middle east. On the other hand, standing by our ally and avoiding that war gives the western world a modicum of stability and a base of democratic governance to work with for the next hundred years. Don't talk about the lives of anyone if you're planning to help elect Trump because he is the actual supporter of genocide. It took Gaza one year to see 50,000 dead. You're talking about "let's elect a guy that wants to see 50,000 people die every week." Shove it. You're lying to yourself and to everyone here.
The war in Gaza has displaced what, two or three million people. A war between Israel and Iran will displace tens of millions of people. North Africa, East Africa, probably West Africa, the Mediterranean nations including Spain, France, and Italy, Greece, obviously, Eastern Europe and the Balkans, Western Asia, and South Central Asia including the Indian subcontinent. They don't have enough stress already for you? There's already a war refugee crisis from people fleeing war and turmoil in Syria and Yemen.
The continued stability of this massive region of the world is not worth it to you, because, let me see if this is right, you're so enraged at Kamala Harris for following decades of American foreign policy in the face of 50,000 people being killed by a country she's not in charge of?
I'm sorry, that's totally idiotic and short sighted.
And just to add to your point: it's not hypothetical that Trump would destabilise the Middle East, because he actually did so in his first term by giving de facto recognition to Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and by unilaterally tanking the Iran deal in exchange for nothing. The current situation is already partially Trump's fault and, as you say, he will only make it worse if he wins.