“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.”
deleted by creator
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.”"
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).
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
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
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
Agreed! Good post, friend.
You are pro genocide if you are supporting those funding and providing weapons for genocide
deleted by creator
Liberals love infantilizing everyone they disagree with. And is a sign of narcissistic personality disorder
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.
I don’t exude hatred, I point out Nazis when I see them
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
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.
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.
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
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.
There are other third parties you can vote for
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Knowing that propaganda exists, and being able to interpret through media literacy, are two different things.
Jill Stein needs to go, condemning Putin should be the easiest thing in the world to do for any non-Russian.
she has done that
They’re not wrong, but they could stand to recognize that some of their own policy shortcomings opened the door to her challenge.
Well, that’s a good point, but Stein and the Green party are going about it the wrong way. Even Stein’s predecessor, Ralph Nader, has stated that they need to spend more time at the grassroots and building up local support, including getting folks elected to local school boards, state legislatures, and the like.
deleted by creator
The DNC screwed themselves forcing a drug Baron on their public. Jill Stein isn’t a traitor to the Republic like The Entire Democrat Party is, so she has a very cromulent chance, and a valid campaign unlike the Traitors to the Republic Democrats. Their scared ff Jill Stein because they made a shitty decision and it’s haunting them that they forced it on us. Eat a bag of cheetos dicks, Traitors to the Republic garbage. I look forward to your trial.
deleted by creator
No, not a threat, the winner will be either Harris or Trump, but they could keep Harris from winning in key swing states.
Not our problem, we are not democrats. If Democrats lose it’s their own doing for continuing to shift their party to the right.
If the Democrats lose, everything you want and love will be destroyed. Those are the stakes.
That’s hyperbole
Have you read Project 2025? Or at least a summary?
I was aware of it and aware of its contents way before it started getting talked about on social media. It has existed for decades under various names, and it’s policies have often been bipartisan when they come for a vote. NAFTA was never presented as killing our jobs, shopping them overseas to increase profits. It was sold to us as the greatest thing ever to make the country stronger.
Like NAFTA and other proposals by the Heritage Foundation they are always presented by a republican to get public opposition out of the way. So when it’s resented again by a Democrat it’s embraced as progress.
Not our problem, we are not democrats. If Democrats lose it’s their own doing for continuing to shift their party to the right.
All these articles attacking Stein my make people not vote for her, but they aren’t going to convince anyone to vote for Harris.
They arent going to convince anyone to vote for Trump either, so what’s your point, comrade?
My point, comrade, is that all this desperate energy spent tearing down Jill Stein would be better spent changing the policies that are turning off potential dem voters.
If you don’t want Trump, you only have one choice.
I don’t want any cheerleader for genocide.
But she’s working night and day on a ceasefire deal…😂
In what world has Trump done anything to suggest he’d support or push a ceasefire?
Harris has both said and done more to push for a ceasefire than literally every other candidate on the ballot.
There is no third party candidate that has a hope of winning right now, thus every vote for third party is the same as not voting.
And not voting is effectively the same as voting Republican, so you’re either voting for Harris, or you’re supporting Trump.
Where the hell did you see me say I would ever vote for Trump? Harris has not done a fucking thing to “push for a ceasefire”. The strongest thing she has said, as far as I know, is that she " wouldn’t be silent about what is going on in Gaza". The very next day, she published a letter condemning the people who protested Netanyahu’s visit. The dem party is full of outright and de facto Zionists, who preferred to have conservatives speak at their convention rather than Palestinian Americans. I’m not voting for, or supporting either Trump or Harris. Harris does still have time to win the votes of people like me. I hope you’re calling your dem reps and demanding it.
Are you people allergic to good faith arguments?
No, but it seems like you people are.
then stop removeding and unfuck your electoral system
Oh, it can be done, but that means amending the Constitution.
To do that you need 290 votes in the House, the people who needed 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to pick their own leader.
Then you need 67 votes in the Senate, a body that’s incapactitated by needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Then you need ratification from 38 states, when 25 went to Biden in 2020 and 25 went to Trump.
There may be a way around it, but that doesn’t kick in until enough states with 270 Electoral College votes agree to it, and that hasn’t happened yet either:
Man, it’s incredibly hard to change anything.
Yup! And intentionally so!
Thomas Jefferson’s preference was to throw out the whole thing and re-do it every 20 years. Can you imagine?
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/jefferson-memorial-education-each-new-generation.htm
“It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.”
Can you imagine? The Constitution was ratified in 1788, took effect in 1789.
So, by Jefferson’s standard, we should be on our 11th Constitution by now? Ratified in 2008? Next one due in 2028.
Jill Stein wouldn’t say that Putin is a war criminal. You should really listen to how she dances stupid the interview with Medhi Hassan.
The fallout/optics from that blatant fear to speak clearly about Putin was bad enough it seems that she’s now made a follow-up statement to lightly say the phrase, with qualification (after checking with daddy) and associating it only with Syria and refusing to mention Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
in that interview she immediately says “yes”. framing it as though she isn’t saying it is just lying.
“Say it” means a specific thing. She’s given multiple opportunities to do so directly in that interview and she’s terrified of a sound bite of her acknowledging it directly. She readily says it (appropriately) about Netanyahu, she will not say or about Putin. You’re either an apologist yourself or you’re undereducated on the subject matter - either way, do better.
making a woman perform like that is one of the most misogynist things I think anybody’s ever proposed me.
We’re not discussing a woman, we’re discussing a person and one that wants to be president. It’s far past time you stop reducing the candidate to sex and engage on the level they are asking to be engaged with. Words matter. Unequivocal statements that can’t be re-justified after the fact, matter.
A presidential election is a 24/7 performance as rehearsal for a 24/7 performance job. Your words literally immediately become historical record in this position.
You don’t seem like a serious person.
she was unequivocal
Any of the Stein shills want to explain to everyone why Trump (among many other awful people/companies/etc) attorney Jay Sekulow was representing The Green Party in their case against the State of Nevada?
Anyone?
Trump and his team believe the same thing Democrats do: so-called third parties “steal” votes from the dominant parties. just because they believe it doesn’t make it true
Oh ok… So everyone who literally does this for a living and has done it for decades believes this. All evidence from previous elections indicates this. Evidence we have about this current candidate in this sham “party” clearly supports this…
You’re really not helping yourself here.
All evidence from previous elections indicates this.
that’s not true
Russia is bad and all, but she’s much more directly a useful idiot for Republicans who are not only more directly focused on directly harming the people Stein’s campaign is targeting, but have a significantly greater ability to actually accomplish it. No one needs to trust the US establishment that Russia is bad, they know Republicans and how they’re bad.
Also, DNC, why are you making this news on The Bulwark? Way to undercut your message.
Bulwark has been on a good article blitz recently.
They’re fine, but they were explicitly founded as Never Trump conservatives, which is not the outfit you want to go to when trying to discredit challenges that are nominally based on the Democrats being too conservative.
Well that’s the whole point, Putin’s goal is to destabilize the West, that’s why he backed Trump and Stein in 2016 and 2020, it’s why he backed Brexit in 2016.
Now, for the DNC and Bulwark, there’s a more strongly worded article on democrats.org which is straight from the DNC, unfortunately the DNC doesn’t meet our credibility guidelines for posts. LOL.
https://democrats.org/news/icymi-jill-stein-to-campaign-today-with-alleged-russian-assets/
"Engaging with foreign assets is a pattern for Stein. Previously, the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated links between Stein’s 2016 campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election, while an indictment brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found that the Kremlin’s Internet Research Agency had used social media to promote her candidacy. In 2015, Stein attended a gala in support of Russian propaganda television network, RT, where she sat at the head table alongside Vladimir Putin and Michael Flynn. Stein has repeatedly parroted Kremlin views and posted a campaign video from Moscow’s Red Square with language “ripped from Putin’s talking points.”
Despite her ties to the Kremlin and Putin, the GOP has still embraced Jill Stein as a spoiler candidate. Donald Trump praised Jill Stein, saying he likes her “very much.” Additionally, the GOP has been helping Stein with ballot access in an attempt to prop up her spoiler candidacy. "
Putin isn’t all that powerful a force in our society. He has limited influence and capability to disrupt operations. The GOP on the other hand has the ability and intention to drastically curtail our freedoms while sacrificing our well-being so rich people can get marginally richer. They’re the ones who can spend billions of dollars running sham efforts to get Stein on the ballot, they’re the ones who can give money to her campaign, and they’re the ones who have the cultural knowledge to run truly dangerous influence operations.
I’m much more worried and angered by a “left” voice allying with the GOP than I am with some idea of foreign influence. The foreigners aren’t the problem. There are plenty of fascists right here at home and no remote ideological excuse for working with them in any fashion regardless of how angry you are with the DNC.
If all you have is “Russia” lol
Her platform literally calls for the disbanding of NATO
Sure, but what leftist wouldn’t call for the disbanding of NATO?
Yes, a good leftist must only parrot what dear leader Putin tells them to. Nice no true Scotsman argument btw
Do you understand why leftists have opposed NATO since its inception?
It’s because you support genocide as long as it’s done by Russia or China
Cool insult! Do you know any of NATO’s history?
Insult? I’m just anti genocide and wondering why you’re pro genocide
I doubt anyone dumb enough to vote for Stein are Harris voters anyway. So now than likely a vote for Stein will be one taken for Trump. So Trump and Putin can waste all the money they want on her campaign.
You don’t have to be “smart” to vote for a good candidate.
Stein is the nominally “more liberal than the Democrats are willing to be” candidate. So most likely if they were forced to vote and could only vote for Trump or Harris, then I’d wager they’d mostly go Harris.
A relative weakness is that on the left there are currently more people ready to discard strategic thinking and stand on what they consider their absolute principles. The right is currently a bit more unified, as they are more willing to yield on their differences to vote closest to their overall goal with a decent chance to win.
Or the left is fairly unified in practice but Internet manipulations present the illusion otherwise, I have no idea
Or you could just reserve your opinion for who you are going to vote for, and respect the fact everyone is free to come to their own conclusion.
I’m voting for Harris, but it wouldnt offend me If someone said they were voting third party. The same as I wouldnt expect it to offend them I’m voting for Harris.
Y’all need to get off this good and evil Netflix drama.
What they ultimately do with their vote is their business, but I’m just responding to the premise that would-be Stein voters would not vote for Harris anyway, because they are “too dumb” to vote for Harris, which is incorrect.
As to discussing the strategic situation, I think that is important to reiterate the consequence of their vote. Stein will not win, it’s very obvious, so a vote thrown that way is merely a message to try to break the self fulfilling prophecy of third parties being hopeless. If you truly feel either candidate is roughly equal, this is a fine and strategic move. I could understand that perspective in most presidential races I have seen. Given the happenings associated with Trump’s first term, I personally can not understand that perspective, but ultimately it is their business.
To be quiet on this would be to let what seems to be forces looking to weaken the Harris prospect prevail in swaying people to vote for Stein, despite those forces not actually wanting Stein, but just wanting a spoiler candidate to take some votes the way they want.
First of all, blown way out of proportion. People voting for the green party are a very small number. What the democrat party doesnt want is any valid criticism of their party. That is detrimental because it could cause people to pull away from the democrats.
So instead of just acknowledging any good points the green party has, or at least arguing them in good faith, they throw mud on the party calling them a Russian controlled political party, which is hypocritical at best when AIPAC runs the democratic party.
Personally, I think the democrats would be better off acting in good faith rather than avoiding the topic and slandering the speakers.
If out of proportion in scale, back in 2000, Nader voters going for Gore would have decided the nation for everyone. Ultimately the choices of a few hundred people overcame over half a million votes going the other way. The very small number of Stein voters in a certain place can decide the output. I don’t fault them for 2000, even if I disagree with them, because I don’t think folks could have reasonably foreseen the warmongering that was to come.
If out of proportion in severity, between November 2020 and January 2021, you had several attempts to undermine the election, and that was with very little planning/prep work. You had trying to get the states to “find enough votes”, you had fake electors, trying to get the VP to unilaterally refuse the election, inciting a crowd to storm the proceedings. In the aftermath you have certain people planning their whole political careers on promising to guarantee the elections for GOP, speculation that Vance was picked carefully as someone willing to do what Pence wouldn’t, and a whole carefully constructed plan to start getting things ready for 2028 election the moment 2025 starts, if they can. You have a supreme court that ruled that a president may be considered immune for crimes, unless of course the supreme court decides it’s not an “official act”, reserving the ability to selectively enforce law on the president themselves.
With respect to Russian influence, this is specifically a Stein situation and plenty of evidence to support that Stein is being supported by and manipulated by Russia. It makes sense too, as Trump has shown himself to be awfully susceptible to Putin’s manipulation, so taking advantage of a naive Stein to foil the votes of naive voters in favor of Trump is a plain strategic path for them.
Yes, we can talk about her platform, particularly about her wish to dissolve NATO and stop support of Ukraine, but other parts of her platform are difficult to explain the nuance of the problems. Like “dump money on third world nations”, which sounds the decent thing to do, but historically trashes any semblance of local economy and frequently reinforces warlords instead of the people.
If your logic is that the green party is big enough to cover the difference between candidates votes, then I have bad news for you because so is my neighborhood, and yours, and the group of people at your local church, and the next one over, and so on. Thats the reason why I say its impact is overblown. If the democrats lose by a hundred thousand votes, its not the green parties fault even if they get a million votes.
The democrats need to appeal to voters, not throw shit. Apparently the democrat base right now likes when the campaign dives into the mud though, saying things like “its refreshing to hear” despite that being the exact same reason people were drawn to trump.
No news about third parties when they were not threat for red and blue
That’s because third parties only show up every 4 years to play useful idiot.
We’d hear about them more if they’d run in smaller elections - elections they might actually have a fighting chance at winning. Having some political foothold might be helpful if they’re going to participate in larger elections where the two-party dichotomy is hardest to overcome.
But that’s not how it works. They exist, fundamentally, to be a threat to one party or the other. That’s what their donors pay them to do. Nobody is paying them to be a threat to both parties, because nobody legitimately believes that the American Green Party actually has a platform. People usually vote for them out of spite because they think the Democratic nominee is too weak. Likewise the Libertarian Party caters to right-wingers who think the Republican nominee is too government-y for them.
They exist, fundamentally, to be a threat to one party or the other.
Sounds like that’s the idea you got of third party from the propaganda, because they talk about them exactly when they become a threat and not the rest of the time. Government and a bunch of rich guys own all mass media.
a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump
It’s also… not a vote for Trump.
If Stein has 50% of Trump’s votes, Harris still wins, by a knockout.
Again. This is not how this works.
Stein isn’t taking Trump voters. She’s a Left-Wing distraction candidate. In some systems, like RCV or Proportional Representation, her candidacy wouldn’t hurt the Dem as long as voters were thoughtful with their votes. But in FPTP, which we have here, she’s definitely a threat. We’re bitterly divided here, to the tune of close to 51% wanting lefties and 49% wanting righties. All she needs to do to throw this election to the Right is poach 3% plus whatever Right-Wing third party candidates there are. Since the Right is unifying behind the Shitgibbon, it’s real easy for her to spoil the election and get all 51% who want progressive and/or liberal policies to get conservative policies instead. This is even worse when you realise Conservatives have gone Fascist.
