Green politicians from across Europe on Friday called on U.S. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to withdraw from the race for the White House and endorse Democrat Kamala Harris instead.
“We are clear that Kamala Harris is the only candidate who can block Donald Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian policies from the White House,” Green parties from countries including Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ukraine said in a statement, which was shared with POLITICO ahead of publication
Fun fact: if jill wasnt on the ballot harris still wouldn’t have received my vote. Harris losing votes has nothing to do with jill being there. Harris’ struggles are purely her own fault, propaganda from Russia only works if there is a edge to grab, the only reason there is an edge to grab is because harris has decided to treat arab Americans absolutely horribly this entire campaign.
Learn to focus your energy properly: on changing Harris’ mind not the voters for whom preventing a genocide is important. Trust me it’ll be easier.
Jill has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning and if you think voting for her helps the “Arabs” you are wrong. It cancels out your voice because Jill is not a viable candidate. Your vote has been effectively split.
Your choices, like it or not, are Harris or Trump. So let’s break this down since you seem to think a vote for Harris is worse than not voting.
Kamala Harris has prioritized a ceasefire in Gaza, advocating for Israel’s right to respond to Hamas attacks while emphasizing civilian protection and addressing humanitarian needs. Harris’s approach focuses on a three-part plan for Gaza’s future: reconstruction, enhanced Palestinian Authority security, and governance reforms to stabilize the area post-conflict. Harris, however, does not support an arms embargo on Israel but has backed withholding specific weapons amid Israel’s military operations in Gaza. She views a two-state solution as a path toward long-term stability, but she stresses that immediate efforts should be humanitarian and diplomatic to prevent civilian harm and prepare for a sustainable resolution.
Donald Trump, in contrast, has heavily criticized ceasefire calls as limiting Israel’s ability to eliminate Hamas, framing his support as “unconditional” for Israel’s military objectives. Trump argues that his policies would have prevented the escalation of violence, asserting that Hamas’s attack on Israel would not have occurred if he were in office. While he has expressed skepticism about a two-state solution, Trump is more focused on empowering Israel to pursue military action without restriction. Trump has also suggested that his approach would involve exerting pressure on Israeli leadership if necessary to secure what he describes as a “final resolution” to the conflict, though specifics remain vague. Trump’s campaign has used pro-Israel rhetoric to appeal to voters and has signaled a hardline stance against Hamas.
So, I am sure your voting for the lady who can’t win as opposed to the lady who can win will help the “Arabs” you seem to care so much about. Good on you for picking a hill to die on though, I hope you like it because you and your people are about to die on it.
Who would have recieved your vote, if only Trump and Harris were on the ballot?
Oh! Oh I’ve seen this one in another thread!
“I wouldn’t vote for either of them.”
That’s not an option in this exercise, you have to pick one or the other.
“I don’t see why I’d have to choose. I pick neither.”
Again, that wasn’t the question. Harris or Trump are the only acceptable answers. If you have to choose one, which would it be?
That’s how the exchange generally went. It shone a really nice spotlight on the ridiculous mindset at play.
I’m waiting for jatone to chime in. Humans aren’t good at logic problems, especially real world ones where they don’t have to follow instructions. Ever try giving a logic puzzle to a 6 year old and they answer “well I wouldn’t do either of those things I’d buy an airplane and use a laser gun and then…”
That’s what this stuff is. While I understand the desperate need to reform the system, you don’t do that by throwing the game. I know how unlikely it is to change their minds (and they already voted) but others reading this who aren’t as bull-headed might take half a second to re-evaluate the actual outcomes available from the actions to be taken. That’s the hope anyways.
Good on you for remaining hopeful! In cases like this, though, the ignorance is willful. They know how absurd they’re acting. Once the conversation goes past the point of their ability to just be obstinate, they abruptly cease responding.
And that lack of response will be another data point for anyone reading this in the future.