Europe’s Greens ask Jill Stein to pull out of US election to prevent Trump victory
Europe’s Greens ask Jill Stein to pull out of US election to prevent Trump victory
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
You're viewing a single thread.
Haha they must be new to this, Jill Stein isn't running for president, she is running to split the vote like they paid her to.
Of course they know that. They're saying this to make exactly this point. While the average US voter will be entirely unaware of and oblivious to what some pinkos from cheese eating surrender monkey land say, potential green voters just might take notice.
If they haven't already, they won't.
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.
Try not to tell me what my choices for president are, my ballot clearly listed them.
- Harris / Waltz
- Trump / Vance
- Cornel West
- Jill
- Claudia
Now fun fact: my state is 30+ dem. I can vote for whoever I chose at 0 risk of trump getting those electoral votes. And I happily exercised that this election rather than vote for a candidate with is hostile to not only labor, but apparently is quite happy enabling a genocide.
Now if I was in a different state would I behave differently? absolutely. but I'm not, many people are in the same position as i am. harris lost my vote and I had 0 compelling reasons to give her a hand based on her words and deeds. She was a bad candidate in 2020, and shes a bad candidate today. try to focus on the issues that actually matter. my critters know why I handed jill the ticket.
If you want harris to win instead of trying to wow me with your inane rambling about my voting options spend your effort on getting harris to see reason before she blows it in 3 days.
Bless your heart, you have a good day now.
next time try not to be an asshole to people pushing for good changes and respect people have different options than you. but given your response, thats probably impossible for an asshole like yourself. bless your heart.
Lol, you can't counter bless your heart with bless your heart that's not how it works.
Just because I told you you were wrong does not make me an asshole or disrespectful of your opinion. Jill Stien is a vote splitter, that's the original point. No 3rd party candidate has any chance of winning in any state and a vote for one splits the vote. Your condescending response and personal attacks don't change that.
Look, I am just happy you are voting and if you hadn't been condescending I would have talked more with you about it. I wish I lived in a state where I could throw my vote away in a form of futile protest but I dont, and there is a lot we could continue to argue about that point, but you decided to call my thought-out rebuttal "inane rambling" and then prove my point by stating that if you didn't live in a solidly blue state you would feel differently. So instead of engaging further, I gave you a bless your heart and walked away.
I am bored though so here I am engaged in the most noble of futile endeavors arguing with stupid on the internet...Fun fact, that's me being an asshole.
😂 bless your heart.
Well, look at you being so sweet. You have a blessed day now ya hear.
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.
We all know who they'd vote for
Hey look! you were right! I would choose neither. false dichotomy are not interesting questions. You'll learn nothing from them since you know, they don't represent reality. but in such a situation where only harris and trump were on the table. harris of course. but since that isn't the case, and my vote in no way endangers the country to trump, but does allow me to point my reps and say 'that could be my vote for you next cycle' which I absolutely have done. my 3rd party vote is providing more value for my reps to push back on harris when they need to. particularly in defense of ms khan and gaza.
What do you mean when you say "my vote in no way endangers the country to Trump"?
Exactly what i said. Trumpet isnt even a blip of a possibility in my state. We're talking 0.000001%. its pretty nice here we do good work.
Harris is the greater evil in my voting scenario. Its going to be very unfortunate if she loses this week to trump because the rank and file couldn't be bothered to pressure her over something as little as not genociding but ug here we are.
I mean she has larger issues as a candidate but explaining those is 1000x harder than 'genocide bad mmmmkay?' and even that message is struggling to get through because trumpet has managed to make everyone absolutely insane.
I agree with a lot of what you just said there.
Just not your conclusion.
Does your vote not count in the national "popular vote" for some reason? With a race this ... Whatever this is, don't you think you'd want to give every possible advantage to the person that CAN defeat Trump? Especially somewhere that she is likely to win, aren't you concerned many like-minded people will make the same mistake you are/did?
That's kinda the playbook here. Each of you individually thinks "Harris will win this in my riding, so I'm allowed to be special and vote for a third party so I can feel good about myself!"
It's literally why everyone is asking Jill to fuck off. She won't leach any Trump supporters from him. But she will leach people like you from Harris.
It's just selfish.
funny thing is you don't have to agree with my conclusion since its a fact. national results dont matter in a state by state result, and harris is on lock here.
👍
I realized i didnt respond to your 'if everyone thinks as you do' proposition.
Firstly most wont. We know this. Repeatedly elections show this. You have a few percentage points of people willing to make the call. Secondly, im in 25+ spread state. You'd need a candidate so unconscionably bad that 30% of the population would be willing to switch and even then it'd just be a 3 way horse race between the candidates.
And trust me if that was the case the chatter would be far more dramatic.
So no this is not a feel good vote. This is a vote to pump the numbers in my state away from harris so i can pressure my local reps on things like gaza.
You’re either a Russian agent, or a useful idiot. EITHER WAY, your opinion is worthless when it comes to American politics, so kindly skitter back under the rocks from which you came.
And you struggle with understanding how to apply contextual information to a situation and clearly come to the wrong conclusions. Either way Ill gladly be her with my bullhorn making you uncomfortable with the sad truth you're enabling a genocide.
in my state? it would have been left empty. you know thats an option right. you can say 'none of these'.
In that case, your voice is meaningless so you should just shut your mouth and let the adults continue to vote.
smile let me know when the actual adults show up. Because right now all i see are murderous children.
So you would not vote?
Do you understand how ballots work? They have more than one position on them. Yes id pass this election if there were not a single candidate with the moral grounding to not support a genocide.
But there are two even! Makes it pretty easy. Esp since there is 0 risk of my state going trump. If only the rest of the country was as correctly grounded that harris would be the greater evil.
Get it now? Been fucking telling you dunces in every post: in my state harris is literally the greater evil choice because trump isnt even on the map when it comes to viability. Its pretty nice, and you could have it to just by withholding support for candidates who support genocide. Not supporting a genocide is kind of a prior to having empathy which, i hope i dont need to explain why, is a really good quality for a politician to have. And harris doesnt. Withholding support its key to be explicit, does not necessarily mean withholding your vote as i did. It means speaking out, as i am, engaging others. And if its safe for you to do so with holding your vote.
I'm responding to your other, much more coherent response.
You're not saying "none of these", as it will ultimately still be one of them, more accurately you're saying: "I'll take either equally"
Incorrect. Did you ever learn about the monty hall problem? You seem to struggle with applying priors to a situation.
In my state the prior is: trump isnt even a blip of a possibility. We're talking 0.00001% not a blip. Not gonna happen. Harris is literally the greater evil in my state. Go through my history.
Its going to suck in a few days if harris loses because you nits thought that throwing labor, arabs and other minorities under the proverbial bus was a winning strategy.
I don't know about all that, I just enjoy logic. I'm replying to you saying "I'd choose not to vote", that is not the same as saying "none of the above", it's the same as saying "any of the above"
and you'd be wrong. shrug you're essentially saying anyone who doesn't vote doesn't have an preference. which is trivially incorrect. ask felons if they have a preference. ask teenagers.
if the prior is 'harris will win' me not voting for her isn't a statement of 'either' its a statement of 'I don't need to support her shittiness' you don't get to assert what my preferences are certainly.
I'm not talking about the narrative you've got in your head about what statements you're making with your actions, I'm also not including what you suppose or predict the result of the vote to be, that's not logical or helpful..
I'm talking about simple actions and consequences, let me lay this out more simply:
No vote: no change for either candidates chances of success == no preference
A vote for either: a change for both candidates chances of success (slightly improved and slightly decreased) == a preference
And like all children your simple mental model doesnt apply to reality.
My preference between harris and trump is harris.
Me pulling the lever for harris will not change her result in my state. (Shes won)
Harris is still an absolutely atrocious candidate who never would have won a democratic primary.
Me pulling the lever for her only prevents me from pressuring my critters on certain issues.
Your failure to apply priors to a situation is a you problem. I suspect this often leads you to incorrect conclusions in life as it has here.
I think you've confused our conversation with the other conversations you are having here. I started talking to you when you responded to the hypothetical question "if there were only X and y candidates as options, which would you vote for", to which you responded with something along the lines of: "neither, you can say 'none of the above', you know?"
I'm refuting that with you, voting neither in that hypothetical situation is not saying "none of the above' it's saying 'either of the above '.
I see you're involved in lots of conversations in this thread, where many people disagree with you on points more directly related to the actual situation in hand, so I can understand if you've mixed me up with some other context you have elsewhere, but I really don't care about your country's election or your candidates or who wins (I care a little, but I am not directly involved or affected), I'm just disagreeing with the evidently false statement you've made above. Hopefully this has cleared up the conversation.