politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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?
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.
This is the second time today this argument has happened. They aren't even trying anymore. You can quote anything and they will tell you that isn't what it means
The interviewer agreed with her twice about Netanyahu, yet they kept screaming he was defending Netanyahu
Yeah, they were arguing with FlyingSquid about it and even when faced with direct evidence blazera kept lying and lying. Obviously bad faith.
I was there, also with direct evidence. It was a trip
Youve got it backwards
Scroll down for the inverse
It’s not working blazera. You’re not getting anywhere. Keep at it though so that you can keep yourself convinced.
This just lets me know yall dont have a leg to stand on anymore.