Green Party candidate Jill Stein is gaining ground among Muslim-American voters in three critical swing states: Michigan, Arizona, and Wisconsin, according to a recent poll by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Stein leads Vice President and Democrat candidate Kamala Harris in these states, with 40 per cent support in Michigan, 35 per cent in Arizona, and 44 per cent in Wisconsin. This surge in popularity appears tied to Steinās vocal criticism of US support for Israel during the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
Kamala isnāt president yet. You can call on her to sanction Israel as president, without also pushing another candidate.
Jill Steinās only practical role in this election is as a presidential spoiler benefitting Trump, and if Trump wins then Palestine is really truly fād anyway.
It also doesnāt help that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for the disbandment of NATO and the disruption of Ukraine aid. Those are extreme positions that have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine, and many of those interested in voting for her are likely not even aware of those stances.
Sheās the VICE president! We can already judge her actions and make pretty accurate judgements on how she will act as president based on what she is currently doing. Which is aiding genocide.
Being the VP by itself doesnāt give her any authority to make decisions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict.
You can criticize her on the basis that sheāll likely continue the same kinds of actions Biden has already taken in the conflict, which has involved support for Israel, but also some sanctions against Israel, ceasfires, and calls for a two-state solution. Iām under the impression that if Biden was truly unconditionally pro-Israel, that the conflict would be over by now in the most violent way.
The fact that sheās at the highest levels of Biden admin is itself an endorsement of the policies of the administration sheās part of. She absolutely can be judged on that basis. On top of that, everything she has said publicly clearly indicates that sheās all in on the genocide. She even repeated debunked October 7th rape claims at the debate. There is no question of where she stands. Itās the height of intellectual dishonesty to continue pretending otherwise.
He literally sidestepped around congress twice to shovel guns and bombs to them faster than even the bloodthirsty Zionists in Congress could ā who were already themselves bipartisanly moving to do the same.
He 100% wanted Gazans wiped off the face of the earth before the elections hit. Donāt make yourself such an easy mark for the most despicable racketeers, murderers, and liars that billionaire and arms-dealer money can buy. These democrat politicians, just like their Republican colleagues who work for the same class of people, would disappear both of us and our entire families to one of the countless bipartisan CIA blacksite torture camps around the world before showing real humanity toward the working class and the victims of their imperialism. There is never any reason to defend them.
I appreciate the source, I was not aware of this.
That said, has Biden sidestepped Congress since these sales to send additional weapons to Israel? These sales happened just 2 months after the assault on Israel, and just a few weeks apart from one another. Itād be nice to know if any other sidestepping occurred in the following 9 months, the bulk of the conflict.
Edit: added quote
She has promised to always keep sending Israel bombs. She can promise to sanction Israel if she wants to regain votes she is shedding by promising to continue genocide.
Jill Steinās platform is a lot better than the Democrats, votes for her pull the DNC to the left. If Trump wins, he will indeed continue the genocide started under the Democrats, but so would Kamala.
Then tell people what she stands for. For what itās worth, disbanding NATO is the single greatest thing any American President could do for the Global South, taking a firm stand against Imperialism.
She has not promised to ākeep sending Israel bombsā. She has said that she would continue to arm Israel, but a) she would have to support Israel so far as Congress continues to apportion aid to Israel, and b) she has also repeatedly stated that she wants a 2-state solution and to enact a ceasefire.
I disagree with this. Youād think that voting for Jill Stein would pressure the DNC to go further left, but if Trump wins then it sends the message that the progressive left canāt be trusted to vote for them, so theyāll go back to appealing to moderates. So the gains created by giving Sanders/AOC-types more leverage in the party and nominating Tim Walz for VP (the most progressive pick out of everyone considered) would be lost.
I believe the assault on Palestine would be accelerated under Trump. You can call it lip service if you want, but at least Kamala has repeatedly called for a 2-state solution, meaning sheād continue to do the bare minimum reqād by Congress as far as supporting Israel would be concerned. Trump has never supported a 2-state solution, verbally or otherwise - the guy even moved the Israel embassy into Jerusalem, against the suggestion of virtually all his foreign aid experts. He has more interest in stoking this conflict than not.
I disagree very, very strongly. I donāt see how this ātakes a firm stance against imperialismā because Russia is 100% the aggressor of that conflict. They had no legitimate reason to cross into Ukraineās border and open fire, other than to further imperialistic ambition. The whole point of NATO is to discourage that ambition.
lol
Site tagline material.
Copied from my other reply:
Iām sorry, but āsaying that sheād continue to arm Israelā, which would literally be her job if Congress apportions funds for her to arm Israel, is not equivalent to āpromising to give Israel bombsā. The keyword āpromiseā, to me, suggests she would do anything her power to aid Israel, even if she doesnāt have to. Iāll accept any constructive criticism of this take, but not a strawmanning that strips away the context that itās literally the law to do what Congress says in this case.
Hereās the thing, taking your paraphrased quotes as accurate (and I believe they are) she is not appending any condition on arming Israel. She did not say āIf Congress apportions funds, I will arm Israel,ā [let alone āIf and only if,ā] she said āI will continue to arm Israel,ā without any conditional, which Biden has demonstrated the President can do at least to some extent through unilateral executive authority in addition to Congress being able to do it. Therefore, the statements are equivalent. I therefore maintain that ālol/lmaoā is a valid response to claiming they are different.
Lmao
Historically this isnāt the case. The DNC only throws the left a bone if they need to.
We arenāt talking about Russia and Ukraine, though NATO did provoke that. NATO itself is an offensive alliance that has plundered the Global South, period, without needing to reference Russia nor Ukraine. Ask anyone in the Global South what their opinion of NATO is.
> Lmao
Iām sorry, but āsaying that sheād continue to arm Israelā, which would literally be her job if Congress apportions funds for her to arm Israel, is not equivalent to āpromising to give Israel bombsā. The keyword āpromiseā, to me, suggests she would do anything her power to aid Israel, even if she doesnāt have to. Iāll accept any constructive criticism of this take, but not a strawmanning that strips away the context that itās literally the law to do what Congress says in this case.
> Historically this isnāt the case. The DNC only throws the left a bone if they need to.
Do you have any sources for this?
> We arenāt talking about Russia and Ukraine, though NATO did provoke that. NATO itself is an offensive alliance that has plundered the Global South, period, without needing to reference Russia nor Ukraine. Ask anyone in the Global South what their opinion of NATO is.
This segment of the discussion IS about Russia and Ukraine, because itās what I raised at the end of my first post.
In any case, do you have any sources for this? Because from my perspective, I donāt see how NATO provoked that conflict. It was Russia, not a NATO-membered country nor Ukraine, that crossed the Ukrainian border and opened fire on Ukrainian territory that started the war.
She has promised to always support Israel and aid it in its defense. Itās cut and dry, she will posture for a ceasefire while supporting genocide.
Sure. During FDRās campaign, coming off of the Great Depression, the Ruling Class feared a US October Revolution like what happened in the USSR, so the US became a Social Democracy for a time. Leftward movement comes from fear from the Ruling Class.
My point was not. My point was that pulling out of NATO is the single greatest act for the majority of Mankind that any US President could do. Youāre shifting it back to Russia.
Stoltenberg admitted it. āThe opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.ā
In other words, NATO expansionism and encirclement of Russia despite Russia warning against it caused it. NATO was formed by Anticommunists against the USSR, and retained its anti-Russia purpose even after the dissolution of the USSR. Had NATO not expanded against Russiaās wishes, Russia would not have invaded Ukraine.
Paying lip-service to the support of Israelās defense is not equivalent to personally supporting genocide. You could argue that itās practically the same thing if she ultimately continues to arm Israel and Israel continues to attack Gaza, but I donāt think the blame should be placed on her, it should be placed principally on Israel, next on a Congress that apportions funds for Israel.
My original claim was that if progressives split the vote, and the GOP wins as a result, thatāll shift the party right.
This isnāt a counter-example to that, IMO itās an example that the worse the economy is for the working class, the harder the working class swings politics left, which I would agree with. That said, the Great Depression was also a much worse economic period.
I think an example in favor of what Iām talking about is the 2000 election. Bush won Florida by less than 1000 votes, but 100k votes were cast for the socialist candidate, most of which wouldāve otherwise gone to Gore. The result was Bush not only winning in 2000, but again in 04. And in 08 we get someone who appealed moderates as much as he did to progressives.
Iām not shifting the entire conversation back to Russia, just this portion of it, because thatās where this portion started, and your point about dissolving NATO being an anti-imperalist move contradicts my take that removing the check against Russia is a pro-imperialist move. Also I donāt see how disbanding NATO would be āthe single great act for the majority of Mankind that any US President could doā, feel free to elaborate.
Russia could have simplyā¦not invaded Ukraine? NATO is just a defensive alliance, it getting bigger doesnāt put Russia in danger unless Russia has imperialistic tendencies.
You could argue that Russia feared that NATO getting bigger meant that the individual countries get bigger, meaning they may choose to attack Russia themselves with larger power. But Russia could use that as an excuse to shore up its own alliances and continue building its own military (both actions taken in case of Russian invasion), not to invade a non-NATO country for no other reason?
No, she agreed to send bombs for children.
Youāre missing 9/11, which fundamentally changed America.
Itās simple, NATO is the most Imperialist offensive coalition on the planet. These countries hyper-exploit the Global South and defend themselves via NATO. Here is an article on it.
No, NATO is not ājust a defensive alliance,ā go on, have a read. Itās a millitary alliance of Imperialist countries. Yes, Russia could have just not invaded, thougj given the shelling of ethnic-Russians within Ukraine by Kiev itās impossible to say NATO wasnāt deliberately provoking it as well.
Given the shelling of Donetsk and Luhansk, areas with majority ethnic Russians within Ukraine, Russia decided to take advantage of that and cripple Ukraineās military. It isnāt ājustified,ā but thatās what happened, and the invasion never would have happend if NATO wasnāt deliberately encircling Russia. Russia even tried to join NATO, but was denied.
If you earnestly believe that Kamala Harris doesnāt give a damn about children in Gaza, then I can see how youād make such a charged statement. I disagree, but pulling away from Israel is clearly very complicated and making strong claims to severing Israeli ties could cost her the election.
I donāt think either of us has anything more to say about the subject that would be constructive, so Iād like to leave this at that.
Thatās a fair point, 9/11 did fundamentally change America. But then, that feels like it makes your point about FDR even less relevant - do you really think America is back to how it was pre-9/11? Do you think kicking a couple extra points to Stein leads to comparable leftward pressure to the Great Depression, in a post-9/11 America? I say, reward the leftward gains the DNC has already made so theyāre incentivized to keep pushing.
I appreciate you sourcing your argument, but this article touches on a ton of historical conflicts with very little context given to each of them. The premise is that NATO is a chief and unjustified aggressor in all of those conflicts, but Iād need to do further reading on them. This article is not a good starting point as itās biased and doesnāt provide citations of externally collected data, e.g. on its claim that NATO is responsible for >10m deaths in 25 years (Is that just from every joint NATO operation, or from all of the fighting done by constituent countries? Who were the chief aggressors in the individual conflicts? What was the justification? Thereās a lot of info to be broken down).
NATO is still a defensive alliance. When NATO takes action outside its jurisdiction, such as in these operations, member countries choose to do so b/c they see that being in their best individual interests. If NATO were disbanded, formerly member countries could still choose to execute joint military operations. All they no longer NEED to do is retaliate against attacks on a former NATO countryās soil. I donāt see how removing that obligation is āthe single greatest act for the majority of Mankind that any US President could doā.
If youāre talking specifically about the alleged genocide in Donbas, then thatās an unsubstantiated claim by Russia. If youāre only suggesting that Russia had interest in involving itself in the war in Donbas, started by Russia-back separatists in the first place, that still doesnāt even excuse every other region of Ukraine hit by Russia at the start of the war.
Itās not that itās not ājustifiedā, itās simply not justified. No quotes. Putin has not made a single substantiated claim that would justify its assault on Ukraine.
Even if it were justifiedā¦why make intervention conditional on NATO operations? If something truly horrifying and unjustifiable were happening in Ukraine, but NATO agreed to stop expanding, then Russia would agree to ignore atrocities in Ukraineā¦why exactly?
Can you explain why?
Sure.
When I say āpractical roleā, Iām referring to how Stein affects the results of this election.
There is a nearly 0% chance that Jill Stein is going to win the election, and a nearly 100% chance the winner will be either the Dem or GOP nominee. Given that sheās left of Kamala, whoās left of Trump, there are far more Stein voters who wouldāve otherwise voted for Kamala than Stein voters who otherwise wouldāve voted for Trump. So long as one or both of these voter groups are significantly large (which can mean as few as ~81,000 votes in the right states, since thatās the margin of victory Biden had in 2020), Stein would serve as a significant spoiler for Harris.
Consider the effect that Ralph Naderās 2000 presidential campaign had on the 2000 election.
Itās literally 0. The entire country could vote unanimously for Stein and the electors could (and would) still just pick a winner from the two major parties.
Stein has been primarily campaigning on āDrop Kamalaā, bleeding democratic support away from Harris.
Please research the electoral college before you discuss US presidential elections online.