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
      ·
      5 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
      5 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
        ·
        5 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
          ·
          5 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
            ·
            5 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
        ·
        5 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
      ·
      5 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
        5 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
          8
          ·
          5 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
            ·
            5 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
              3
              ·
              5 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
            ·
            5 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
              3
              ·
              5 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
                ·
                5 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
                  4
                  ·
                  5 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
          ·
          5 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
            ·
            5 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
              ·
              5 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
                ·
                5 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
                  5 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.

    • kriz@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      5 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
        5 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
          ·
          5 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
        ·
        5 months ago

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

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    No, he can’t, because Bibi doesn’t give two shits what Biden or the Americans think.

    • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Bibi relies on Biden to veto any United Nations action against Israel.

      Bibi couldn’t do what he’s doing if he didn’t know Biden is on his side.

    • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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/

      Biden doesn’t want the genocide to stop.

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

        Begin was rational though. Different times, different people. That was the whole thing with the Camp David Accord under Carter.

        • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Begin wasn’t a rational at all. He was a war criminal responsible for some of the worst massacres in 1948. Even then he was better than Biden.

          Begin said he was shocked at how passionately Biden supported Israel’s invasion when Biden “said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children.” Begin said, “I disassociated myself from these remarks,” adding: “I said to him: No, sir; attention must be paid. According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war. Sometimes there are casualties among the civilian population as well. But it is forbidden to aspire to this. This is a yardstick of human civilization, not to hurt civilians.” The comments were striking from Begin, who had been notorious as a leader of the Irgun, a militant group that carried out some of the worst acts of ethnic cleansing accompanying the creation of the state of Israel, including the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre.

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I wish there was a simulator that we could put people in. It’d be good for Lemmy argument participants, too.

    Like Jill Stein puts on the helmet, gets on the phone with simulated-Netanyahu, he laughs in her face and says okay we can wait until November, suits me fine. She cuts off weapons, congress explodes, it’s all over the news, some Israeli soldier talking about how his unit got decimated because they didn’t have the right stuff (all horseshit of course), Biden’s polling drops 5 points, Stein hits the button to switch the nominee to Kamala Harris, the polling drops even more, congress overrides Biden and sends weapons anyway, Trump wins the election with 350 electoral votes and sends Israel 20 strategic bombers and a carpet-bombing configuration of munitions with a note that says “have fun ❤️”, simulation ends. 0 points

    (I’m not trying to give Biden a free pass on support for Israel. I think regime change and support for the ICC would be a good way to go; we can defend our “ally” (for some fuckin reason) while still prosecuting the members of that ally’s government who are killing children. I’m just pointing out that, of course, Stein’s argument here is laughably naive.)

    • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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/

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      She would designate AIPAC correctly as a foreign entity and suddenly nobody really cares about israel anymore. We would never allow Russia or China to influence American voters with this kind of insane propaganda apparatus.

      Biden controlls all “leverage” israel has over him

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m gonna make a simulator and then put you in it so we can test your assertions about how it works, and give you a score at the end

        Also

        We would never allow Russia or China to influence American voters with this kind of insane propaganda apparatus.

        I’m not saying you are wrong about how it should work, but I also have bad news for you about where the GOP gets a lot of their money and priorities

        And no that is not some hyperbole

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m not saying you are wrong about how it should work, but I also have bad news for you about where the GOP gets a lot of their money and priorities

          Tell me who is that? Surely the DNC doesn’t accept money from those people right?

          And Biden isn’t president too right? He has no power to anything about AIPAC.

          Instead of running simulations try observing this thing called “reality”.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Tell me who is that?

            One, two, three. It’s pretty well documented at this point.

            Surely the DNC doesn’t accept money from those people right?

            Er… what?

            I know you’re just throwing disagreements at me which is a game that can continue more or less forever; I’m pretty much done with the conversation at this point. But yes, the DNC doesn’t accept money on any large scale from the Russians. What would be the point of the Russians funding the party that’s running against the party that they have corrupted to serve their geopolitical ends?

            A lot of things do work that way (AIPAC among them), but the Democrats are not trying to destroy America and advance Russia’s interests abroad, and don’t seem likely to start doing that anytime soon, so I would be surprised if there’s any large-scale effort by the Russians to fund the DNC. Do you know of one?

            Instead of running simulations try observing this thing called “reality”.

            Okay, sure. In reality Trump wants to finish the job in Gaza, is furious (along with his cohort in congress) at even the laughable level of resistance Biden has given to the genocide so far, and wants to have have the military seize voting machines and run the elections in the future, shoot protestors including ones for justice in Palestine with live ammunition, and fire anyone anywhere in the government who’s not loyal to him (i.e. might give resistance to any of that as they did during his last term).

            Will that lead to:

            1. Greater justice for Palestine, and better ability to fix this system in the future?
            2. Not that?

            You don’t have to answer; I do not plan to continue this interaction, I don’t think. The game that can go on forever of you just saying crazy counterfactual shit with this condescending tone as if I’m the wrong one. I just wanted to debunk a little more of the crazy shit before I continue on with my day.

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Yes we see Vladimir Putin bribing people under the table here.

              Putin is not organizing “Russia PAC” conventions where both Democrats and Republicans are speaking proudly about how hard they are going to Genocide Palesitnians.

              You don’t have Russians posting this on Twitter

              We are not inviting Vladimir Putin in Congress to speak about how he needs more 2000 pound bombs to blow up schools with.

              You know why? Because that’s illegal

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I’m gonna just relax in the middle of the field, and observe the goalposts whizzing around. Look at them go! But I don’t have to run after them any more. I just had that epiphany.

                I’m free.

                (You also didn’t answer my 1 vs 2 question, because… as Hunter Thompson said, to ask the question is to answer the question. It is ok; I am done)

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

                  Your questions have all been answered. You just don’t want to hear the answer because it destroys your world view.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    Doesn’t even have to be a phone call…

    He just has to draw a line in the sand and say Israel gets no more weapons till they’re on the right side of the line.

    Obama did it. Biden said it was dumb, but it worked.

    Now Biden isn’t doing it, and Israel went on a full on genocide.

    But Biden will never under any circumstances do it, so Israel knows as long as Biden is in office they can do whatever they want.

    trump would want money/favors/praise, and if push comes to shove, he’ll abandon them in an instant if he thought it would be better for trump or if Putin told him to.

  • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Reagan did it with Begin with one phone call. Biden is just a Zionist and it is his genocide. Just like how he did in 1982 in Lebanon while Reagan called it a Holocaust.

    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/