Jill Stein: The Grifter Who May Hand Trump the White House Again
Not only is she helping Trump win—she’s destroying a once-noble party that could be doing good in this country.
You're viewing a single thread.
Kamala Harris can win over all of those Jill Stein voters with a single sentence.
Stupid Jill Stein's entire campaign is based on the premise that Democrats would keep a genocide going for an entire year into election season.
Let’s completely forget everything but the election for this hypothetical. Do you think Harris coming out and saying “I will immediately stop supporting Israel” she will automatically win? Or do you think it’s more likely the Jewish community would condemn her words and move over to the rubber stamp in chief who would give Israel even more support with fewer conditions? (Ignoring the personal favors he asks for of course.)
Yall act like this is a simple black and white issue, when it’s obviously not. Even when you boil it down to “just” the election.
Yes an arms embargo net her an easy win.
The Jewish community does not care about sending infinite weapons to Netanyahu.
Ah yes, in a world where simply protesting the murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians is branded “antisemitism,” directly preventing military aid to Israel will somehow be perfectly fine.
Please, tell me more about this magical fairytale land you live in, it certainly seems a hell of a lot more likable than reality.
Netanyahu is campaigning for Trump. Coming out against a foreign pm because that pm is helping your election competitor shouldn't be that difficult to pull off.
Dumbest shit I've ever read
Genocide is not a core tenant in the Jewish faith. To say all Jews are Zionists is incredibly antisemitic.
Oooh, so Kamala is playing 5D chess and will do an about-face on Biden's genocide policy when she enters office? Because her past record is so stellar on this issue? Like that time she had wine from an illegal settlement served at the White House? She and her boss wipe their ass with the rule of all and all pretensions of even basic human morality on an international level, but she's not Trump!
Strawman much? Or are you arguing with voices I can’t hear?
Edit: Y’know what? I’m curious. How do you envision her coming out against Israel going? Let’s hear your version of how things would go, because I can’t hear these arguments as anything other than “I support Trump.”
So please, enlighten me as to how this would go down without Trump being elected and making the situation worse.
Do you think you're on The West Wing or something? You'll have your curiosity sated when you learn to step out of the Blue MAGA bubble and engage with reality.
I can’t hear these arguments as anything other than “I support Trump.”
Strawman much?
🤦♂️ That isn’t a strawman.
It is. The Biden administration does not have a policy to, nor are they, committing genocide. No one is arguing that they should.
That clearly fits the definition:
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument
… what?
No, of course not, it's just saying their argument is something that it isn't. I swear there is a term for that.
To be fair, I get it. Because I can't hear your arguments as anything other than "I support genocide".
Stating what I take the arguments as, is absolutely not a strawman. At no point did I say “you are stating that you want Trump to win, why would you say that?”
If you need me to define strawman arguments, I can. But it might be better if you just googled it instead.
Of course you could always shove your head deeper in that hole if you like. Perhaps going “lalalalala” while doing so.
Of course you could always shove your head deeper in that hole if you like. Perhaps going “lalalalala” while doing so.
Pot calling the kettle black a bit aren't ya?
And no, you didn't commit a classical literal strawman, but then again neither was the argument you threw the same accusations at. More accurately, they were begging the question, with the assumed conclusion being we all agree genocide is bad and therefore should be stopped. And that if Kamala does not commit to stopping (or at least mitigating) the genocide before the election, she is very unlikely to do it after. A point you are constantly avoiding to maintain your false dichotomy that the only two options are full support for the genocide, or Trump in the Whitehouse.
And since you were misusing the strawman fallacy, I didn't think you would be a stickler for its definition.
Regardless, it was just so unbelievably hypocritical of you to (incorrectly) accuse them of strawmanning your argument and in the same comment attempt to reduced the value of their argument to "supporting Trump" just to strengthen your unsupported conclusion. I just couldn't resist pointing it out. Next time I'll be sure to assume you can't read between the lines and spell everything out for you.
Now, you are free to go back to shoving your head up your hole and going "lalalala" when ever anyone mentions the United State's role in the ongoing genocide. Just remember to have a big frown on your face when it's brought up so everyone knows it wasn't your fault.
“genocide policy”? The talking points are so transparent at this point.
Republicans hate this one simple trick!
They really do, oddly enough, for multiple reasons.
Israel is the party at war with Hamas, not the Democrats.
Yeah remember when they were all clamoring for Biden to drop out? And he did? They just fucking moved the goalposts.
They do not give a fuck about Gaza. It's just a tool to hurt Democrats.
If you took half that energy and redirected it towards getting your candidate to stop funding genocide, you might convince actual humans to vote for your genocidal cop.