Here’s a member of the Stein campaign saying they know they can’t win and want Harris to lose: ‘We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic. We could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan.’ This is straight from the Stein campaign. Not ‘MSM Democrat propaganda’ at all, but the Stein campaign itself acknowledging that they can’t win and that what they mean by ‘winning’ is Harris losing - which entails Trump winning.
Again, you can blame anyone you like for this, but if you vote for Stein, the consequences for Gazans will be worse. To do so is, per your own values, nonsensical.
Your assumption is that these third party voters would be inclined to vote for Kamala if they weren’t voting for Stein. There is nothing to support that claim by you. In fact, it is the opposite. They’d be inclined to vote for Kamala if she shifted her policy positions when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. Again, you can blame anyone you like for this, but if Kamala doesn’t change her position, the consequences for Americans will be worse. To do so, is per Kamala’s “own” values, nonsensical.
I’m not assuming that you are inclined to vote for Harris - you’ve made it clear that you are not!
What I’m saying is that the course of action you’re advocating (voting for Jill Stein) can only have the opposite outcome to the one you want (because it will lead to the election of Donald Trump and a still worse situation in the Middle East). This being the case, you should reconsider your course of action.
Here’s a member of the Stein campaign saying they know they can’t win and want Harris to lose: ‘We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic. We could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan.’ This is straight from the Stein campaign. Not ‘MSM Democrat propaganda’ at all, but the Stein campaign itself acknowledging that they can’t win and that what they mean by ‘winning’ is Harris losing - which entails Trump winning.
Again, you can blame anyone you like for this, but if you vote for Stein, the consequences for Gazans will be worse. To do so is, per your own values, nonsensical.
Inconvenient for that user, so they didn’t respond
In fairness to the guy, he has now responded.
Your assumption is that these third party voters would be inclined to vote for Kamala if they weren’t voting for Stein. There is nothing to support that claim by you. In fact, it is the opposite. They’d be inclined to vote for Kamala if she shifted her policy positions when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. Again, you can blame anyone you like for this, but if Kamala doesn’t change her position, the consequences for Americans will be worse. To do so, is per Kamala’s “own” values, nonsensical.
I’m not assuming that you are inclined to vote for Harris - you’ve made it clear that you are not!
What I’m saying is that the course of action you’re advocating (voting for Jill Stein) can only have the opposite outcome to the one you want (because it will lead to the election of Donald Trump and a still worse situation in the Middle East). This being the case, you should reconsider your course of action.