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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
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.