The latest news and live updates on the 2024 election. Follow the Trump-Vance and Harris-Walz campaigns ahead of the presidential election in November.
Stein’s campaign seems to exists solely to harm the democratic nominee. This is pretty well known by many at this point. She doesn’t denounce Putin’s war crimes, uses Trumps lawyers….
And now, a long-time Trump supporter is backing her, and you’re suggesting that it’s for the strategic purpose of hurting Jill’s chances? She never had a chance to begin with! She only exists to take votes like yours away from the only person capable of beating Trump.
The Olympic-contending mental gymnast required to avoid the obvious here are impressive!
So you claim Steins goal is to siphon votes away from Harris in order to help Trump.
So the target audience of Stein under that premise are center/progressive voters. The target audience clearly is not Trump voters.
So even if Steins goal is solely to siphon votes from the Dems, any vote that goes to her is a “win” for her. And the opposite, any voter deciding to go back to Harris is a “loss” for her.
Him endorsing Stein is clearly aimed at achieving the latter. You said it yourself,
Stein’s campaign exists solely to harm the democratic nominee
So her target audience are solely potential dem voters. And these are alienated by that endorsement, as is also very clear in this thread.
So there is two options:
A - the guy is a total moron
B - he is achieving exactly what he wants
A seems unlikely to me, as nazi leaders are despicable and evil, but smart and scheming.
So you agree that the nazi guy is helping Harris by him alienating progressive voters from Stein.
Then you have to conclude that he is just very very dumb, or you have to agree with my statement, that he wants to harm Stein and help Harris. Which brings the important question, what does the nazi guy gain from helping Harris?
As the guy was leading a large organization, him being dumb is unlikely. Him being good at scheming and manipulating on the other hand is very much on brand.
I never said any of those things. And therefore your conclusion is without an ounce of merit. What I am saying, is that he genuinely is in support of her because she aligns with his belief.
I’m not doing this thing with you where you put me on a defensive so as to not have to debate in good faith.
Everthing you say starts off with “so what you’re saying is…” or “so your argument is….”
…. and then entirely misrepresenting the statement made, which gives one to leave the wheelhouse of the discussion to defend themselves. It’s such a blatantly obvious tactic to use, I’m surprised it even still works.
Wel, either way- it’s not happening here. I said exactly what I said- and I was very clear about what I said. Misrepresenting my statements and those of others is by definition- arguing in bad faith and is against the rules of the community.
Wow. You didn’t even read the article, did you?
Stein’s campaign seems to exists solely to harm the democratic nominee. This is pretty well known by many at this point. She doesn’t denounce Putin’s war crimes, uses Trumps lawyers….
And now, a long-time Trump supporter is backing her, and you’re suggesting that it’s for the strategic purpose of hurting Jill’s chances? She never had a chance to begin with! She only exists to take votes like yours away from the only person capable of beating Trump.
The Olympic-contending mental gymnast required to avoid the obvious here are impressive!
So you claim Steins goal is to siphon votes away from Harris in order to help Trump.
So the target audience of Stein under that premise are center/progressive voters. The target audience clearly is not Trump voters.
So even if Steins goal is solely to siphon votes from the Dems, any vote that goes to her is a “win” for her. And the opposite, any voter deciding to go back to Harris is a “loss” for her.
Him endorsing Stein is clearly aimed at achieving the latter. You said it yourself,
So her target audience are solely potential dem voters. And these are alienated by that endorsement, as is also very clear in this thread.
So there is two options:
A - the guy is a total moron
B - he is achieving exactly what he wants
A seems unlikely to me, as nazi leaders are despicable and evil, but smart and scheming.
Yes.
So you agree that the nazi guy is helping Harris by him alienating progressive voters from Stein.
Then you have to conclude that he is just very very dumb, or you have to agree with my statement, that he wants to harm Stein and help Harris. Which brings the important question, what does the nazi guy gain from helping Harris?
As the guy was leading a large organization, him being dumb is unlikely. Him being good at scheming and manipulating on the other hand is very much on brand.
Do not build a strawman here bud.
I never said any of those things. And therefore your conclusion is without an ounce of merit. What I am saying, is that he genuinely is in support of her because she aligns with his belief.
Shills of a feather…
So you think that he beliefs his target audience to be Democrat voters?
Or do you think he wants to siphon off votes of Trump?
Because that would also help Harris, but contradict your statement regarding Stein being there to damage Harris and help Trump.
Stop building strawmen.
So your argument is that any basic logic is a strawman, because you dont want to face the logical contradictions in your statements?
Lets go back to the start:
What do you think he wants to achieve?
Who do you think is his target audience for the endorsement?
What do you think are the goals of Steins campaign?
I’m not doing this thing with you where you put me on a defensive so as to not have to debate in good faith.
Everthing you say starts off with “so what you’re saying is…” or “so your argument is….”
…. and then entirely misrepresenting the statement made, which gives one to leave the wheelhouse of the discussion to defend themselves. It’s such a blatantly obvious tactic to use, I’m surprised it even still works.
Wel, either way- it’s not happening here. I said exactly what I said- and I was very clear about what I said. Misrepresenting my statements and those of others is by definition- arguing in bad faith and is against the rules of the community.
Keep pushing this and I will shut it down.