US presidential candidate, Jill Stein, says because of AIPAC’s $100 million funding of the US election, it has become '‘politically toxic’ to speak out against the genocide in Gaza.

‘If we have concerns about the right to life before birth, how about a right to life after birth,’ she said in reference to Israel’s killing of innocent children and the elderly in Gaza. US President Joe Biden 'can end this war with a phone call’, she added.

    • kescusay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Oh, she isn’t a serious or viable candidate for way more than that, not least of which is the fact that she’s a Russian asset.

    • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Reagan did it with one phone call to Begin, calling the invasion of Lebanon a Holocaust. While Biden privately supported it in 1982 saying he would go further than Israel.

      Source on the Reagan phone call to Begin: https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/13/world/reagan-demands-end-to-attacks-in-a-blunt-telephone-call-to-begin.html

      Source on Biden saying to Begin he would go further: https://theintercept.com/2021/04/27/biden-israeli-invasion-lebanon/

      • CaptainKickass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Because something that happened 42 years ago is relevant today.

        Gee, I wonder of the world and politics and power dynamics are different today.

        Hmmmmm 🤔

        • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          It is relevant. It proves Biden could stop the genocide in Gaza but just like in 1982 he doesn’t want to. When Reagan angrily called Begin’s actions a Holocaust, Biden was privately saying to Begin he would go even further.

          • CaptainKickass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            It “proves” nothing.

            Things that happened 40 plus years ago have just about zero bearing on what happens today.

            Maybe you’re unfamiliar with everything that’s happening since 1982 but things are considerably more complicated and shitty than they were then and Israel obviously doesn’t give a shit what the rest of the world thinks.

            Do I think that the USA could stop sending weapons and aid to Israel? Without reservation, YES.

            Will a think that a phone call from Biden would stop Netanyahu from continuing?

            Maybe you should call too.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Hey guys, I’ve seen this several times since entering this thread so it must be true!

        Fuck off with your spam

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      4 months ago

      If she doesn’t take the AIPAC dollarydoos and sell her soul she’ll never win is what you mean?

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Pretty much, yeah. For multiple overlapping reasons (FPTP, media, campaign funding). Which is why reforming the system is critical.

        Kind of makes it weird that so many people on Lemmy are like “the system is broken therefore I’m not voting even if the outcome is Trump coming to power and making it 10 times worse.” In my type of logic, “the system is broken therefore let’s reform the system by doing X Y and Z” would be more sensible, to the point that it kinda calls into question their motivations behind saying the first thing, but what do I know.

        • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          Shes on enough ballots to get past the post. Maybe it’s time democrats did it our way since your way keeps producing brain dead geriatrics.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            I mean technically?

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election

            She’s on the ballot now in 23 states with a total of 279 Electoral College votes, so not a lot of wiggle room for a candidate who has only ever had around 1% of the vote and a party that maxxed out around 5% under Ralph Nader 24 years ago.

            This compares to:

            Democratic Party - 50 States+D.C. - 538 EC votes.
            Republican Party - 50 States+D.C. - 538 EC votes.
            Libertarian Party - 35 States - 352 EC votes.
            Green Party - 23 States - 279 EC votes.
            Kennedy - 14 States - 184 EC votes.
            Constitution Party - 11 States - 114 EC votes.
            West - 7 States - 44 EC votes.

            It would be better for everyone if the candidates who can’t win drop out, but they won’t.

            • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              If Democrats are so concerned about FPTP they have an opportunity to ensure she makes it past. They claim they don’t like Biden but will still vote for him. How about trying it a different way and voting FOR something you want in government as opposed to voting against WHO you don’t want in government.

              Voters are their own worst enemy

          • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            It doesn’t matter if she’s on the ballot when fewer than 2% will vote for her. Ballot access isn’t the problem, getting your type candidate nominated by one of the two most voted-for parties is. And that will only happen by running and voting for those candidates in the major parties primaries.

            • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s not how FPTP works, if she gets 270 she wins. It’s that simple. But democrats won’t give up their privilege to break up the dysfunction in government.

              • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                She received zero electoral votes from her 1.07% of the popular vote in 2016. In fact, she did not win a single county or district nationwide in 2016. It appears further that no third party candidate has received any electoral votes since 1968. How do plan on breaking that streak this year? Polling says you won’t. I understand that the possibility exists that out of nowhere a giant surge of third party voters could show up and do it. But reality up to now shows they probably won’t since they previously haven’t.

                You’re right that neither the Democratic nor the Republican party will give up their privilege. And the past 50+ years of results says you won’t take it from them by voting 3rd party in the general. You will have to change the parties from within by getting those new candidates to run in Dem/Rep primaries instead and then showing up to vote them onto the ballot. It will take multiple election cycles.

                • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  The party cannot be changed from within. There will be no reform from inside the party. Those old troglodytes will not allow any new politicians into positions of power and influence until they parrot the official party lines. One of them needs to fade off into obscurity, there’s only room for one right-wing party in the US, and there’s barely room for that

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          4 months ago

          In my type of logic, “the system is broken therefore let’s reform the system by doing X Y and Z” would be more sensible, to the point that it kinda calls into question their motivations behind saying the first thing, but what do I know.

          And the way to fix the system is by empowering the people that have broken it down over the years?

          When the DNC took away Bernie in 2016 they destroyed the entire argument of “changing the system from the inside”.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Rewind to the civil rights movement

            Some black activist who is 1,000% outside the political mainstream, but wildly popular within all segments of the American populace runs for the nomination of one of the major parties, gets FORTY THREE PERCENT OF THE VOTE (and only that low because the establishment cheated its ass off)

            Is the right answer:

            1. Holy shit that was almost a RADICAL change to the system, the anti abortion people took 40 years to get their radical change enacted and all it took for this one was like a popular guy and a moderate amount of internet organizing. We can fuckin win this. This is 10 times better than EITHER grimly voting for some third party who will never get more than 2% of the vote, OR grimly voting for whoever the DNC’s favorite is even though it’s horrible. Why, I bet even the establishment candidates will take notice of that and start pursuing all these worker-focused policies once they’re in office, not that the media would take any notice of it if they did
            2. Man fuck that let’s never try that again, or even vote at all

            ?

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              4 months ago

              Sorry are you saying the guy that spent his entire life claiming the system can be changed from the inside and got blocked using dirty tactics proves your point? “moderate internet organizing” is a slight understatement here.

              Let me correct you

              Holy shit that was ALMOST a radical change to the system but then the Democrats sabotaged it because they would rather let Trump win than give up their duopoly.

              • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                You sound like you think he accomplished nothing because he didn’t accomplish everything. Since he ran for the nomination in 2016 we have more progressives in federal office and higher youth voter turnout (meaning higher chance of electing more progressives). Change is happening. The primaries are where we need that pressure, by progressive candidates running and progressive voters showing up. There were 0.9 M Democratic primary ballots cast in Texas in 2024. That’s not going to cut it to get better candidates.

                • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  We have Donald Trump about to become president because the Democrat president wants to support Genocide more than be a good president.

                  Change happened indeed.

                  • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    So you’re willing to let a man who says Israel must finish the job have authority of our military because the Democratic party presumptive nominee is merely better instead of perfect?

                    Ps - I am inferring that you will not vote for the Democratic nominee unless they are not Biden, so do correct if I’m wrong on that

    • kriz@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s true. She’s speaks truth to power and is therefore kept out of political discussion.

      Israeli military is funded by the US. They are given weapons. They are given logistical and intelligence support by the US. They are given diplomatic support. They are trained by the US. In almost everything but name, they are a US force. They would not exist without US support.

      Joe Biden can tell them what to do at any time, and he chooses to ok the genocide.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Truth to power? Shes Putin’s number one fan, and has been for a decade+.

        Jill Stein is a bought and paid for russian asset. Her only role is to cause turmoil in american elections however she can, by hopefully siphoning off left leaning votes in key states. She did just that in 2016, a year after this putin meeting, where her vote totals in key swing states were higher than the total margin for Hilary’s loss. Her efforts were part of why Trump won in 2016, leading to all the chaos and turmoil we have today.

        Her trying to cause division and sow discord in the left wing during this election is the exact same thing she did in 2016 and 2020.

        • kriz@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Ah yes the infamous dinner she had with Russian notable. Having a dinner with a foreign power obviously means you are a paid spy to disrupt elections. Lots of dots to connect there!

      • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        The president can’t just unilaterally withhold Congressionally approved aid. You may recall Trump was impeached for doing exactly that.