There isn’t, in short. Even the followers of Islam who are backing Stein seem to acknowledge this, as per the article,
“We know Jill Stein is not going to make it to the White House, but if she gets 20,000 or 30,000 votes in Wisconsin and Democrats lose, this will be a lesson for them to learn that next time they can’t ignore this vibrant and growing community.”
So it’s not so much about backing the GOP candidate because they think things will be better off with him - but about showing that they have enough power as a voting block to swing the election, so Dems better treat them seriously and listen to and address their concerns.
The article mentions, perhaps somewhat overoptimistically, that Harris’s Jewish support is much stronger. The implication I take away from that is that Harris should agree to the requests of this bloc and hope that the Jewish voters continue to turn out for Harris as well even if her ultimate position ends up being less friendly to them.
I though have some concerns here. The GOP candidate has a Jewish son in law, and also is very much in line with Netanyahu’s policy, more so than Biden or Harris. So I would worry that too strong a shift in position could deliver actual votes to the GOP, and hence sympathize with Harris’s very delicate balancing act here.
But that entire idea is foolish. If this is now turning into a race-based election, and you’re not voting for Harris against the obvious worst possible candidate just because she has a Jewish husband, then WTF.
You’re trying to make the case there is some racism here against Palestinians or Muslims, but it’s only okay if it works in reverse against Harris. That’s some extra fucked up logic right there.
Not only that, if this particular group would rather vote for the guy who has consistently denigrated them, threatened them, called them terrorists, said he’s going to “send them back to where they came from”, and THEN turn around and say it’s valid they do so because they’re trying to make the case that it’s simply about illustrating a point (a threatening one at that)…WOW. That’s is some A+ bullshit and mental gymnastics.
“Nice little country you got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it, unless you do exactly as I say.”
On principle I think it a MUST that if you’re suggesting this is the message, straight up tell those people to go fuck themselves, because they are not only harming themselves, they’re harming millions of others.
But that entire idea is foolish. If this is now turning into a race-based election, and you’re not voting for Harris against the obvious worst possible candidate just because she has a Jewish husband, then WTF.
I would agree, but I don’t think anyone is saying that. Mostly it seems like the message is meant to be “do better on Gaza and (the State of) Palestine and you’ll have our votes”. This is a much more reasonable stance to take - “you’ll have my vote if you fulfill X”.
You’re trying to make the case there is some racism here against Palestinians or Muslims,
I make no such case. (I’m not necessarily denying that racism exists, mind, just that this wasn’t the case I was trying to make in this thread.)
but it’s only okay if it works in reverse against Harris.
I DEFINITELY do not make this case. If anything, I want to figure out how to bridge the gap so they vote Harris.
Not only that, if this particular group would rather vote for the guy who has consistently denigrated them
Have you read the article? It’s Stein vs Harris. The guy is trailing at some pathetic 9%. (I figure those are probably the folks who need new eyeglasses and checked the wrong box on the poll tbh.)
“Nice little country you got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it, unless you do exactly as I say.”
On principle I think it a MUST that if you’re suggesting this is the message,
Read the article. I didn’t suggest this message, this is the one that they are giving (or trying to give) to Harris.
straight up tell those people to go fuck themselves, because they are not only harming themselves, they’re harming millions of others.
Normally a protest vote of this nature is not such a big deal. With the stakes of the current election being seen as a threat to democracy itself, suddenly protest votes are not acceptable.
This is exactly why Uncommitted essentially said, in their refusal to endorse Harris, that a) people should still go out and vote, b) not vote for the GOP, but also, and importantly: c) not vote for third parties or independent.
That said, if I or you give these folks this message, you think they’d be happy to hear it? After all, Uncommitted already said this to them, in a much more polite way (probably the most possible under the circumstances.) Give them this rude message, and most likely they’d double down.
If we’re really serious about getting these votes, we’d have to meet them halfway somehow.
Of course, Harris has stated that she supports a two-state solution and that a ceasefire is needed. It’s not like she’s not trying to meet them - it’s just she’s caught between a rock and a hard place here.
That’s some extra fucked up logic right there.
WOW. That’s is some A+ bullshit and mental gymnastics.
Yes, I would agree - your misinterpreted view of the logic is very much that.
There isn’t, in short. Even the followers of Islam who are backing Stein seem to acknowledge this, as per the article,
So it’s not so much about backing the GOP candidate because they think things will be better off with him - but about showing that they have enough power as a voting block to swing the election, so Dems better treat them seriously and listen to and address their concerns.
The article mentions, perhaps somewhat overoptimistically, that Harris’s Jewish support is much stronger. The implication I take away from that is that Harris should agree to the requests of this bloc and hope that the Jewish voters continue to turn out for Harris as well even if her ultimate position ends up being less friendly to them.
I though have some concerns here. The GOP candidate has a Jewish son in law, and also is very much in line with Netanyahu’s policy, more so than Biden or Harris. So I would worry that too strong a shift in position could deliver actual votes to the GOP, and hence sympathize with Harris’s very delicate balancing act here.
But that entire idea is foolish. If this is now turning into a race-based election, and you’re not voting for Harris against the obvious worst possible candidate just because she has a Jewish husband, then WTF.
You’re trying to make the case there is some racism here against Palestinians or Muslims, but it’s only okay if it works in reverse against Harris. That’s some extra fucked up logic right there.
Not only that, if this particular group would rather vote for the guy who has consistently denigrated them, threatened them, called them terrorists, said he’s going to “send them back to where they came from”, and THEN turn around and say it’s valid they do so because they’re trying to make the case that it’s simply about illustrating a point (a threatening one at that)…WOW. That’s is some A+ bullshit and mental gymnastics.
“Nice little country you got here. Would be a shame if something happened to it, unless you do exactly as I say.”
On principle I think it a MUST that if you’re suggesting this is the message, straight up tell those people to go fuck themselves, because they are not only harming themselves, they’re harming millions of others.
I would agree, but I don’t think anyone is saying that. Mostly it seems like the message is meant to be “do better on Gaza and (the State of) Palestine and you’ll have our votes”. This is a much more reasonable stance to take - “you’ll have my vote if you fulfill X”.
I make no such case. (I’m not necessarily denying that racism exists, mind, just that this wasn’t the case I was trying to make in this thread.)
I DEFINITELY do not make this case. If anything, I want to figure out how to bridge the gap so they vote Harris.
Have you read the article? It’s Stein vs Harris. The guy is trailing at some pathetic 9%. (I figure those are probably the folks who need new eyeglasses and checked the wrong box on the poll tbh.)
Read the article. I didn’t suggest this message, this is the one that they are giving (or trying to give) to Harris.
Normally a protest vote of this nature is not such a big deal. With the stakes of the current election being seen as a threat to democracy itself, suddenly protest votes are not acceptable.
This is exactly why Uncommitted essentially said, in their refusal to endorse Harris, that a) people should still go out and vote, b) not vote for the GOP, but also, and importantly: c) not vote for third parties or independent.
That said, if I or you give these folks this message, you think they’d be happy to hear it? After all, Uncommitted already said this to them, in a much more polite way (probably the most possible under the circumstances.) Give them this rude message, and most likely they’d double down.
If we’re really serious about getting these votes, we’d have to meet them halfway somehow.
Of course, Harris has stated that she supports a two-state solution and that a ceasefire is needed. It’s not like she’s not trying to meet them - it’s just she’s caught between a rock and a hard place here.
Yes, I would agree - your misinterpreted view of the logic is very much that.