Like I've said, it's not a matter of owing her votes. I just think that you shouldn't use your vote in a way that will make things worse.

I've not ascribed any views to you beyind what you've said here, and I'd appreciate if you didn't do the same to me. I don't think you support Trump, but it is a fact that your current plans make a Trump win more likely. It's precisely because I don't believe you support Trump (and in particular what he'd do in Gaza) that I think you should reconsider that plan.

Anyway, we're going round in circles here. Unless you can show to me that voting for Stein will have something other than a wholly negative outcome for Gaza or anywhere else, I'm not going to change my view that it's a mistake for you to do so.

And if she doesn't, you'll use your vote to make things worse? As I say, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

In fairness to the guy, he has now responded.

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.

And just to add to your point: it's not hypothetical that Trump would destabilise the Middle East, because he actually did so in his first term by giving de facto recognition to Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and by unilaterally tanking the Iran deal in exchange for nothing. The current situation is already partially Trump's fault and, as you say, he will only make it worse if he wins.

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.

Jill Stein's platform is, explicitly, not to win but to cause Harris to lose. Harris losing means Trump winning. Trump winning will be even worse for Gaza (and Ukraine, the US, and the rest of the world).

If your red line is Gaza, but your refusal to cross that line will make things in Gaza worse, it is straightforwardly the case that your tactics are wrong. 'I cannot condone X, so I'm going to do something that can only make X even worse' is not a position you can hold.

Jill Stein's party is explicitly fighting to help Trump win. Stein is a pro-Trump spoiler. Voting for her is about the most self-defeating thing anyone who believes in democracy could do, short only of voting for Trump.

I put an archive link in the post! Here it is again.

If you'd like to keep voting at all, I'd suggest voting for the Democrats this time!

Yes, even America's allies.

If everyone in America's prices go up, that's bad for the economy. That's what Trump is promising.

I don't need to explain to you the difference between someone staying where they are after their visa expires and an armed invasion of another country. The differences are manifest and anyone who says they don't see them is lying.

Only people who are being tariffed

Per Trump's plan, that's everyone.

The point of economic policy is to improve the economy (not the people)

This is completely backwards. There's no abstraction called the economy which doesn't involve people.

Cos some people would classify illegal immigrants as such so whats the difference?

Those people are wrong.

Just a little bit, as a treat.

If people can't trade with Americe, due to Trump's trade wars, they will become more reliant on the world's other major industrial exporter, which is China. It will do nothing to improve manfacturing elsewhere, including in the US. The point of economic policy is to make people wealthier. If it makes them poorer, which you seem to acknowledge it will, it's a bad policy.

Fighting an invading force is not ethnic cleansing. I don't know why you think it is.

Stock markets do better under Democratic presidents, as a matter of fact, so if your main motivation is your stocks, you're better off with Harris.

Trump isn't promising a trade war with China, he's planning a trade war with the entire rest of the world. This will make many people poorer, but especially Americans, because the taxes he's proposing will be paid by Americans who rely on imported goods (which is pratically all of them, but especially the poorest). It will also make the rest of the world more reliant on China, so if that's your issue, you should be opposed to his plans in this area.

The ethnic cleansing is his plan for mass deportations, which themselves would constitute ethnic cleansing. Combined with his assertions that it doesn't matter if you're a legal immigrant, it's clear his plans would involve ethnic cleansing.

Hamas was democratically elected originally, but it never allowed another election, which is why Palestine is not a democracy any more.

There is in fact strong evidence that the Israelis are not happy with their government or its policies and do not support what it's doing. There is, in any case, more to democracy than just voting, and certainly more than having had a vote at some point in the past. 'Democracy', however defined, does not justify human rights atrocities.

He had his flaws, no doubt, and being an enslaver was the biggest one. The article does cover this, however.

He is promising a programme of economic recession, trade war, an end to the free press and ethnic cleansing. That's not how democracy works, it how it ends.

it’s like you will look everywhere for the lies except for where the lies are actually coming from

This is the worst thing about conspiracy theorists. Like the car industry, for example, really is responsible for killing millions of people, more or less deliberately, and lying about it. But all the conspiracy theorists think more or less the opposite is the case: that there's this great big anti-car conspiracy out there somewhere.

What puzzles me is not so much the stuff they refuse to believe as the stuff they acknowledge he said and did, but then try to pretend doesn't matter.