‘Useful Idiot for Russia’: DNC Decides to Go Off on Jill Stein
‘Useful Idiot for Russia’: DNC Decides to Go Off on Jill Stein
The committee has largely kept quiet about the Green party nominee. But that’s now changing.
“Jill Stein is a useful idiot for Russia. After parroting Kremlin talking points and being propped up by bad actors in 2016 she’s at it again,” DNC spokesman Matt Corridoni said in a statement to The Bulwark. “Jill Stein won’t become president, but her spoiler candidacy—that both the GOP and Putin have previously shown interest in—can help decide who wins. A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.”
You're viewing a single thread.
i'm glad the "you're pro-genocide if you vote anything but 3rd party" morons finally shut the fuck up around here
edit: LOL
have you had ANYONE turn around and say " you know what, you're right!" on lemmy? or ANYWHERE?
gtfo russian cumfarts
Probably doesn't help that Stein refuses to call Putin a war criminal.
https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-vladimir-putin-war-criminal-1954965
"Hasan later asked Stein why she had labeled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal, but not Putin.
"Well, as John F. Kennedy said, we must not negotiate out of fear and we must not fear to negotiate," she replied. "So, if you want to be an effective world leader, you don't start by name-calling and hurling epithets."
"So, how will President Stein negotiate with Israel then if you've called Netanyahu a war criminal?" Hasan asked in response.
"Well, because he very clearly is a war criminal," Stein said, prompting Hasan to ask: "So Putin clearly isn't a war criminal?"
"Well, we don't have a decision—put it this way—by the International Criminal Court," Stein said.
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin, alleging that he is responsible for war crimes. No such warrant has been issued for Netanyahu, whose war on Gaza has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians. However, the chief prosecutor of the ICC has applied for an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister.
"There's an arrest warrant for Putin and there isn't an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, so why is Putin not a war criminal, but Netanyahu is?" Hasan asked.
"Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu," Stein responded. "He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.""
Fwiw after that whole thing made news she released a press statement that did call him a war criminal
EDIT: citation - https://www.jillstein2024.com/war_criminals_and_diplomacy
"Hey, Vladimir? I need to actually call you a war criminal now, yeah, I almost got found out. Thanks! I knew you'd understand!"
LOL! That makes it sound like she's a Russian plant or Russian asset rather than a useful idiot - the latter wouldn't need to report back like that.
And anyone paying attention realizes she only put out the statement after she got called on it and had time to think about what it meant that she was actively avoiding doing so. This is 100% optics and nothing more.
Her statement is about as believable as a kid with crumbs on their face saying they didn't eat all the cookies....
Unfortunately, third party candidates are made exactly for people not paying attention
Way too little, way too late. Medhi cut her up so surgically I don't even know if she's gonna have the stones to resurface four years from now. Hopefully being a Russian asset pays well, Shill is done
Aha, you fool! You think she feels shame?
LMAO no
Makes sense, but citation requested.
That being said, she's so ill informed that she didn't know how many House Reps there are. Of course she wouldn't have known about the ICC arrest warrant for Putin until a reporter told her so she could look it up.
Citation as requested: https://www.jillstein2024.com/war_criminals_and_diplomacy
If anything, if he's "our dog" as she says, doesn't that mean he's just a tool rather than a war criminal?
Why is this interesting? Here's another point of view, one that's a bit more consistent. Israel, while not being a member of NATO, has a special relationship with it and is basically a major defacto ally.
If you are pro-(Putin's) Russia and believe NATO's actions are war crimes, then it's no leap at all to consider Israel in the same group. In fact, hurting Israel (the country) then benefits Russia as it weakens NATO (by weakening a close ally of theirs).
LOL, that just proves his point. I read the transcript, and Stein had every opportunity to clearly and definitively repudiate Putin. Not only did she refuse to do so, she continues to refuse, dishonestly misrepresents being called out on her bad faith as a "misunderstanding," and doubles down with bullshit "both sides"ism.
In fact, that press release has sealed the deal on convincing me that she's a deeply unserious piece of shit and a Russian asset.
So congratulations troll farm vatniks, you've played yourselves.
She had to get the fax from Putin. Puppets don't talk for themselves
I like how everyone who is aware of the terror America has caused all over the world is immediately a Russian asset.
I like that she has the balls to rightfully call our living current and past presidents war criminals. Not every american is so brainwashed.
And before you ask I'm voting Democrat. I like that Jill Stein is putting pressure on the Democrats, and I can't say I disagree with anything in the statement they released.
Clearly she has no problem with calling world leaders war criminals, so why did she stop so short with Putin?
Probably because she was trying to make one point and the interviewer was trying to make another one.
The interviewer won rhetorically. I think it takes self awareness and humility for the green party to realize this mistake and immediately issue a clarification in plain words.
You actually cannot truthfully say that she has not called Putin a war criminal anymore, but that hasnt changed how people here are talking.
People need to ask themselves why the democrats would throw mud rather than debate policy with the green party. In my opinion, its shameful and makes me feel worse about likely voting democrat this November.
Look at me wishing for clean politics though.
Agreed! Good post, friend.
I must’ve missed when Kamala Harris called Netanyahu a war criminal.
Just out of curiosity, do you think it would help her win the election if she did? She boycotted his speech in congress. She is treading a really thin line, and the only winning gambit seems to be keeping her messaging neutral until after the election. Rocking that boat right now gives the Republicans further ammunition to use against her, and will embolden Netanyahu to militarily escalate.
At the moment she can hide behind the veil of the current policy being driven exclusively by Biden rather than inserting herself in the middle of things, and therefore presenting additional leverage to her enemies. I don't like the situation, but I don't see how it was possible to play things any differently while still preserving a serious chance to win the election.
We normally see eye to eye on a lot of things, but in this case I think it is disengenuous to conflate the motivations of Jill Stein & Kamala Harris.
In addition, people act like she isn't also the acting VP during this campaign. It would be extraordinarily problematic for the VP to actively undermine the policy of the president with whom they are serving even if their own presidential policy would be significantly different.
I don’t think it would help Harris to call Netanyahu a war criminal. I understand the reasoning. But, to attack Stein for inconsistencies in an interview, which she has since corrected by releasing a statement, is hypocritical. If Harris isn’t willing to call Netanyahu a war criminal, because of the election, then how can it be possible to hold Stein to a different standard?
Because Stein has notthing to lose. She could easily take a stand on something like Netanyahu but it was pulling teeth to condemn Putin. When the stakes are so low she can make any statement she wants.
How do you know what she has to lose? If Russia funds her campaign, that would be something to lose. It’s still a double standard to criticize Stein and not Harris for the same actions.
Well we know for fact that she has a 0% path to the white house. At best she can influence the outcome of either Harris or Trump. So she can go around making loaded statements like calling Joe a war criminal because it doesn't matter now many votes she loses or gains. If Harris went around spewing nonsense out of her mouth like Stein her campaign would be over.
Well, I think for one thing because Jill Stein seemingly had nothing to lose in that interview with Mehdi. The whole thing just came off as weird to me, and clearly that sentiment was pretty widely shared. I just don't understand it I guess. If she had provided more context around her initial hesitancy perhaps I would feel differently.
I am also totally willing to admit that it is an intellectual double standard, but it isn't a strategic one because the outcome of Kamala Harris' speech has the ability to affect the outcome of this election in a huge way. I guess you could argue that Jill Stein's does too since she is potentially peeling votes from the Democrats, but if she was actually serious about affecting change she could be lobbying Kamala Harris for policy concessions behind the scenes instead of just virtue signaling.
Jill Stein in that Mehdi interview really gave off the same energy as Kim Iversen in her debate with Destiny yesterday. Neither one of them did much to counter the narrative that they were at best highly sympathetic to Russia, or at worst closeted Russian assets. It was all just really bizarre and extremely suspect....
Dude that debate was brutal. Now I'm certain Kim is also in the pocket of Russia. Same identical talking points. It's crazy.
We don’t know what her motivations are, we can only speculate. She may not want to anger Russia, because they fund her campaign. Much like Harris doesn’t want to anger AIPAC because they fund her campaign. Regardless, it’s still a double-standard.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout whatabout though?
Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation.
Just pointing out the double standard being used.
You forgot this part from the beginning
"Mehdi Hasan: Vladimir Putin is a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Yes, we did condemn —"
She called him a war criminal several times in the interview
Not directly though, that's why she got roasted. It was a lot of dissembly.
Yes, directly and specifically about Putin. The quote is right there.
"Yes we did condemn..." is not the same as "Yes, Putin is a war criminal."
The passive accusations run all through it.
"So, what we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is criminal. It's a criminal and murderous war,"
"Well, by implication, by implication," Stein said.
"In so many words, yes he is," Stein said. "If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don't begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal."
It...is when the question is literally "is putin a war criminal?"
No, it's not. "In so many words" does not have a direct meaning.
Just FYI, somebody else already tried explaining all this to blazera and blazera was completely unreasonable about it. You're not going to get anything through their thick skull.
"Yes he is" does. Im sorry but the headlines youve been given are an outright lie this time
"Yes he is" is a subordinate to "in so many words".
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/in-so-many-words
"If you say that someone has said something, but not in so many words, you mean that they said it or expressed it, but in a very indirect way."
Is he a war criminal?
"In so many words, yes he is."
"I'm not going to say he is, but he is."
Not the same thing as:
"Well, because he very clearly is a war criminal,"
(What she said about Netanyahu).
The comparison between what she's willing to say about Netanyahu and unwilling to say about Putin, in the same interview, to the same journalist, is striking.
Youve got it backwards
“If you say that someone has said something, but not in so many words, you mean that they said it or expressed it, but in a very indirect way.”
Scroll down for the inverse
in so many words in American English in unequivocal terms; explicitly She told them in so many words to get out
Ahahaha oh no the "office workers" are still all over here, their content usually just gets downvoted into being permanently hidden and they've stopped picking fights outside of their own posts.
Don't forget there was also a bunch of government-backed troll farms shut down recently
And yet I’m still here. Weird
Someone can be carrying water for Putin while not actually being on the payroll, because they're dumb enough to fall for all the propaganda.
Only the United States of America is allowed to spread propaganda. Good luck with your epiphany.
Are you really trying to act like this is some big reveal? Dude, we know. We're the #1 target of the pro-US propaganda. We see it all the time. It's why we're pretty good at spotting other country's propaganda when we see it.
Knowing that propaganda exists, and being able to interpret through media literacy, are two different things.
... Correct. What is your point.
Individuals' perceptions and behaviors can be influenced by the implicit stereotypes they hold, even if they are sometimes unaware they hold such stereotypes.
Implicit bias isn’t a nationalist.
their content usually just gets downvoted into being permanently hidden
At first I read this as something that existed at the post level, too. Man, I sometimes wish something like that existed - posts below a certain rating could just be hidden (like Slashdot, for instance).
Well, on lemmy you can probably brigade quite easily so that would give the propagandists a weapon too.
It does kinda, if you browse using the Hot sorting stuff with 0 or less net score typically won't show up unless you go quite a few pages back.
Those MAGAs cosplaying as lefties will have an even harder time now that the Uncommitted group have said they cannot support Harris but Donald will be worse. The same as we have all be saying.
Not just Trump will be worse as some sort of abstract moral statement. Their statement is that Uncommitted voters should actively vote against Donald Trump no matter how inadequate Harris's statements and commitments have been.
Of course it's exactly who I expected to show up and say that lmao. They're so fucking predictable. It's hilarious.
There are other third parties you can vote for
thanks, i'll not be throwing my vote away this time. or any time
How does it feel when you rationalize ethnic cleansing? Did you ever imagine you'd be this person?
You're pro genocide if you vote for anyone that has explicitly voted to arm and fund the genocide
Are you saying "the US is a fully functioning democracy whose actions represent the will of the people"?
I just want to make sure I'm hearing you right, that America is a functioning democracy...
Where are you getting that from?
You are pro genocide if you are supporting those funding and providing weapons for genocide
LOL it took a whole hour
you kids are slacking
and no. voting for harris does NOT make me "pro-genocide," no matter how much you wish it did.
have fun watching jill stein get a single digit percentage of the vote. if that. but don't feel like you accomplished something by throwing your vote away, because you didn't
and no. voting for harris does NOT make me “pro-genocide,” no matter how much you wish it did.
Of course not. You being pro-genocide means that you have two candidates to choose from.
Yes it does, but you have to weigh the pros and cons of your vote just like e everyone else.
Its not crazy to acknowledge that the current choices are genocide or genocide light. You can even still vote for Kamala and feel slightly bad about her stance on Israel. Wheres the problem with allowing some nuance here? Turning this into all or nothing, live or die, good or evil, is not very convincing in my opinion.
Yea well buddy, I’m sorry but I’m not going to just sit here and allow genocide or genocide light without calling you a jackass on the internet.
But I will walk up to the store right now and get another beer.
Brb
I actually don't know if you are with me or against me, but I really like the energy of your post, made me feel like I was walking to the corner store with you.
If Harris promised to stop sending weapons to Netanyahu, how many centrists do you think would become trumpers?
Far less than all of those who would just opt to stay home and not vote.
You mean to tell me that centrists would rather throw a tantrum and withhold their votes just because they didn't get 100% of everything they wanted, even when that would mean guaranteeing a Trump victory?
The exact same shit they've been accusing progressives of doing? The same rationale they use to blame progressives for Clinton's loss in 2016?
Why does Vote Blue No Matter Who only ever work one way?
Zero intelligent ones, because everyone knows we just need someone to say it at this point.
But you know what?
Harris can’t even say out loud that she will stop the genocide.
Liberals love infantilizing everyone they disagree with. And is a sign of narcissistic personality disorder
infantilizing everyone they disagree with
I love the smell of projection in the morning.
Conservatives love showing everyone their persecution complex.
Quite binary to assume that a critique of a liberal implies that I am a conservative. Socialists. Can't stand either one of you
And yet the hatred you constantly exude evokes conservatism and the voting you push helps conservatives. Putin would salivate at your post history.
Such an odd thing about these “i’m so communist bro!” people.
I don't exude hatred, I point out Nazis when I see them
And yet any objective observer would conclude you hate "liberals" as much as any Nazi hates minorities. Also nice job inappropriately using the word Nazi.
The way you write begs for all of your ideas to be discarded wholesale. You obviously aren't looking to convince anyone, only to feel superior, which you aren't. To anyone.
Nazis didn't think they were the bad guys either
The analogue here being you thinking spewing your vitriol is fine because, you see, anyone who doesn't share whatever reality-divorced views you hold are vermin.
They don't infantilize the right. Then again, you did say everyone they disagree with.
From the looks of it lately the line between red and blue are becoming very blurry. Harris uses right wing dog whistles with every statement.
Not even gonna try to rationalize it huh.
Tell us which non-genocide candidate has any sort of chance to win the election.
Man, things have gotten that bad huh. What a sentence.
The problem is that "support genocide" is being used overly broadly.
The stated policy of the Biden/Harris administration is that Israel has a right to defend itself.
Surprise! They do. Every sovereign nation has that right.
As a result of that stated policy, Biden and Harris both support providing weapons and funding for the continual defense of Israel.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/23/g-s1-19232/kamala-harris-israel-gaza-dnc
So follow me here:
- Israel has a right to defend itself.
- The US will support that defense.
Where it breaks down is Bibi and Likud taking that defensive support and directing it into the Genocide.
That's on THEM. The United States is making a good faith effort to provide support for the defense of Israel. Israel is intentionally misapplying that support.
Trump's stated policy is that Israel needs to kill everyone quicker.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-israel-pr-hugh-hewitt-21faee332d95fec99652c112fbdcd35d
“They’re losing the PR war. They’re losing it big. But they’ve got to finish what they started, and they’ve got to finish it fast, and we have to get on with life.”
Only one of these two policies is pro-genocide, Trumps.
Biden/Harris is pro-defense which is illegitimately being used for genocide, not at all the same as being pro-genocide.
That’s on THEM. The United States is making a good faith effort to provide support for the defense of Israel. Israel is intentionally misapplying that support.
This is not a good argument. They're not infants, they have agency and the ability to perceive the impacts of their actions.
Biden/Harris is pro-defense which is illegitimately being used for genocide, not at all the same as being pro-genocide.
Eh, it certainly means they're not proactively anti-genocide.
But more importantly it's not going to move someone uncomfortable with the Democratic material support for the genocide a single iota closer to accepting that there is still a better candidate both for Palestine and for all the aspects where they're actually good, not just not as a bad.
They do have the ability to percieve the results of their actions, and they know if they cut Israel loose, they lose the election.
Israeli vs. Palestinian support isn't nearly so overwhelming that there is simply one side that guarantees loss. This is an excuse by you for them, not a truth of politics.
It actually is when the AIPAC machine is against you:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/progressives-lose-oregon-primaries
https://apnews.com/article/cori-bush-aipac-house-race-missouri-568c1a84974b8ba176a8d27a8375de42
So is your argument that the Biden/Harris administration is blind, or stupid?
If I give my kid an AR-15 and they shoot up a school, I may or may not be culpable.
But if I hand them another AR after the first shooting, they kill again, and then I give them another, and another, and keep handing them weapons for months, and theres a pile of 15,000 dead children, then I am definitely culpable.
It doesn't matter how many times I tell the kid "this AR is for defense only".
Oh, not at all, they know very well what they're doing.
The unwavering support of Israel is due to two factors:
- The undue and oversized influence the Pro-Israel lobby has on American politics:
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=Q05
- The Evangelical opinion that we need to support Israel so Jeebus can come back:
As with all good politics, it has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong", it's all about "money" and "power". That's it.
Oh, not at all, they know very well what they’re doing.
Then they know it's a genocide, they know what the weapons are used for, and they're sending the weapons anyway.
That's. Supporting. Genocide.
It isn't though.
Look at our humanitarian support that often gets hijacked by corrupt governments.
People are starving.
We send support.
Support gets hijacked.
People keep starving."WhY Do yOu sUpPoRt sTaRvAtIoN??!?!?!"
We aren't going to stop sending support just because bad actors are misusing it.
Every sovereign nation has that right.
Per the UN and international law and occupying country can NOT claim self defense
Biden/Harris providing unlimited weapons and money is allowing Israel to finish the job before January 2025.
Turning a blind eye and genocide denial because it's team blue committing it is weird and inhumane
-
It's not going to be finished by January.
-
Israel doesn't need our help to shoot little kids in the chest and head. Bullets are cheap.
Israel doesn’t need our help to shoot little kids in the chest and head. Bullets are cheap.
Then they can do it without our help. We don't need to be complicit.
It will be a little more difficult if their supply of bullets was cut off, and their bunker buster bombs were cut off.
Israel is the #8 arms dealer in the world. You can't cut off someone who is producing their own weapons.
https://www.statista.com/chart/17316/share-of-global-arms-exports-by-country/
They don't need our support which is why they're completely ignoring our demands.
-
This shit is so disjointed. Its not a genocide, its only a genocide because the countrys leaders want it to be, Biden is only arming a genocide because those leaders want to use the weapons for genocide. You're stuck, man, you cant get past any of the uncomfortable truths. You cant make an argument that its not a genocide. You cant make an argument that our government is not arming and funding that genocide. You cant make an argument that youre not supporting a candidate that is likely to continue to arm and fund that genocide.
Yeah they have gotten that bad. I'm glad that you've finally decided to accept that. That's the first step.
Nah im not gonna accept genocide as a given
LOL ok, you're cool with throwing your vote away
that doesn't mean anyone else is obliged to waste time "rationalizing" NOT throwing their vote away to you
do what you want. just know that your third party vote did NOTHING for palestine. and NOTHING for anyone else either.
I wish it meant we did nothing for palestine. Instead of it meaning bombs and funding continues to pour into the arms of the country thats killing them.
so throw your fucking vote away
Nah im voting for a candidate that has not voted to arm and fund an ongoing genocide.
And helping Trump who wants to accelerate that same genocide while starting another one here at home.
Genocide is an absolute non starter. If one party supports it and one supports it harder, you need to burn down the whole political field and start over.
And here you are, doing your part as a keyboard warrior.
LOL aka throwing your fucking vote away
i'm not telling anyone how to vote. i'm just saying that a vote for third party is a vote that goes straight in the fucking trash
A lot better than a vote that goes into bombs dropped on gaza.
Did you know you're allowed to shut the fuck up?
You don't have to make your vote seem like it's any more important than any other.
You don't have to make your choice on who to vote for you entire personality.
It's a sign of your narcissistic personality disorder.
It's cute and funny to watch you squirm from where I'm sitting.
Keep up the good work, little narcissist!
Telling someone they are throwing away their vote because they won't support your team is right wing authoritarian voter suppression.
"Teams" don't enter into it.
One candidate poses an existential threat to our country and way of life.
One other candidate can defeat them.
Taking a vote away from the 2nd candidate has the same net effect as voting for the first one.
You either help beat Trump or you help elect him. A 3rd party will not win, so voting 3rd party doesn't help beat Trump.
Both pose a threat to the country, but right now one dragged themselves out of the sewer like they do every four years to talk progressive and proactive, then proceed to legislate like their Republican counterparts after the election.
My goal is to defeat both threats to the country and our quality of life, not slowly extend everyone's pain.
Then you elect Trump and put a 2028 tombstone on America.
Liberals refusing to challenge the system that allowed a demagogue like Trump to be elected will be the demise of the country. Saying war is bad but I'm gonna vote for you regardless is not challenging the system, that's rewarding them for bad behavior. Electing the people complicit in propping up that system only prolongs the suffering of people.
They will cling to fascism to protect the few table crumbs that get tossed at them.
Nice straw man. You're throwing your vote away because you are voting for a candidate that has zero chance of winning, while one of the two actual options is a literal fascist who will give Netanyahu carte blanche in Palestine and the other realizes she has to walk a narrow tightrope before November if she wants to get elected and have any influence over Israel whatsoever.
But I know you know this already.
If the Green Party was a serious political party, then why do they never care about down ballot elections? Why don't they ever care about local elections? Why do they disappear, only to crawl out from their hole every four years to sow division among American voters?
Netanyahu has Carte Blanche right now. The US has completed over 500 weapons deliveries to Israel. And Harris has already said she's continuing the shit we have going on right now.
There are plenty of greens holding local offices right now, but you would know that if you looked instead of relying on someone to feed you propaganda that's designed for their purposes.
Why is it every 4 years Democrats rise from the sewers and talk progressive and populous then go right back to legislating like their Republican counterparts after the election?
Telling someone their vote is wasted or meaningless is right-wing authoritarian voter suppression.
Why do you love Trump so much you're trying so hard to get him into power?
Democrats supporting a genocide is whats gonna do it.
Are you saying "the US is a fully functioning democracy whose actions represent the will of the people"?
I just want to make sure I'm hearing you right, that America is a functioning democracy...
No, it's not a fully functioning democracy that does not represent the will of the people. The will of the people are saying they want a ceasefire, they want an end to war. Which falls on deaf ears to politicians. The only thing Democrats or Republicans ever respond to is the threat of money stopping, which was the only thing that kept Biden from running.