Green politicians from across Europe on Friday called on U.S. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein to withdraw from the race for the White House and endorse Democrat Kamala Harris instead.

“We are clear that Kamala Harris is the only candidate who can block Donald Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian policies from the White House,” Green parties from countries including Germany, France, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ukraine said in a statement, which was shared with POLITICO ahead of publication

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Jill Stein is funded by Russia. Every multicellular organism knows this by now.

  • SarcasticMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    168
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Haha they must be new to this, Jill Stein isn’t running for president, she is running to split the vote like they paid her to.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    47
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    People really need to stop assuming every Stein voter is a stolen Harris vote. I’d rather stay home than vote for Harris.

    I suspect the actual pushback is to prevent the Greens from reaching the 5% voter threshold, and making them a more viable party.

    • ChillCapybara@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Everyone gets downvoted from time to time. In this case the reason is that you’re pro Trump. Perhaps not in philosophy but certainly in action. Which is all that matters.

    • kinther@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Tell me you don’t understand a first past the post voting system without telling me.

      For real though, you sound like an idealist, a perfectionist, who lets good be the enemy of perfect. I don’t think you actually want a conversation - you want others to hear your voice and opinion.

    • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Yep.

      But you’re in lemmy.world, and the commenters here are just looking to pick fights with rational thoughts like yours.

      They are scared and are lashing out; I get it. But it’s still not okay. Randos telling you you’re supporting Trump is disingenuous garbage. They won’t care that you still voted in congressional races and local issues.

      I appreciate comments such as yours. Please don’t be dissuaded from making them in the future.

  • Aa!@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Isn’t it too late for it to matter? At this point, she’s on the ballots that she’s on, isn’t she?

    Especially for states like Oregon that are primarily vote by mail. I already have my ballot, and Stein withdrawing won’t keep people from voting for her

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Yes, her name is already on the ballots, like RFK Jr is still on the ballots in many states, but the hope is her supporters will listen to her endorsement. Just because a person’s name is on the ballot doesn’t force people to vote for that person. Some people have voted already, some will continue to vote for her out of protest, some will continue to vote for her because they didn’t hear she dropped out or didn’t care. But the hope is enough people will hear that she dropped out and endorsed Harris that their votes will come through for Harris.

      • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        You’re assuming we voted for jill because shes jill. Which is not the case for everyone. She got my vote because of Harris’ absolutely abysmal treatment of arabs and gaza, her lack of pro labor policies, etc etc etc.

        Jill dropping out would just meant the vote went to a different non-trump candidate or left blank.

        The only way harris would have gotten my vote was if she modified her position on gaza, or a could other issues like ensuring kahn was kept.

        She declined to do so, so i declined to vote for her. 🤷 But harris will be fine my state is 20+ dem.

        • Railing5132@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          52 minutes ago

          That’ll teach her! Way to go - you really stuck it to that horrible excuse of a candidate.

          It’s not like she had better labor policies (or practices) than that other guy (or did she?)

          It’s not like that other guy was (allegedly) working with an (alleged) war criminal to rebuff US efforts to make a ceasefire deal (or was he?)

          And finally, it’s not like AIPAC can literally thumbs up or down damn near any politician in the US like Julius H. Fucking, Ceasar and an almost universal bloc of voters will carry out their direction. Oh, wait, they will.

          The thing that pisses me off is that yeah, maybe she’s fine in Cali or Hawaii or wherever. But there’s gonna be a fuck of a lot more death and misery in the world if fascists get control of the United States in the form of Donald Trump, and in those few states that matter (because of the fucked up electoral college) that attitude , which I perceive as smug self-righteousness, could be the deciding factor.

          That simple worldview, unburdened with the whole idea of “you can’t make change if you’re not elected” must really be comfortable.

          But you sure showed Harris.

          I’d love to expound on this thought, but I have a fussy infant daughter that needs attending. BTW, it would be really cool if she FUCKING DIDN’T have to grow up in some goddamned Handmaid’s Tale dystopia.

  • Intergalactic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Good. I was apart of the Green Party, I left when I learned they were planning of running a candidate this year, when internally, we were floating around the idea of NOT running a candidate.

    • edric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      That’s interesting insider info. Was the reason for not fielding a candidate because of this particular issue (splitting the vote)?

      • Intergalactic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Can’t say exactly, it was just floated around, I’m guessing it was for that specific reason, but that was around the time I was thinking of leaving for other reasons, they are VERY unorganized as a party and it really, really bothered me. The way smaller Transhumanist Party seems more organized than the Green Party.

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Probably because running a presidential candidate is a waste of money unless your intent is to split the vote.

          Start local, gain influence, work your way up.

          Edit - to those downvoting, the Green Party literally has zero representation, even at the State level. And you want to jump straight to POTUS. Riiight.

          Get one state senate seat. Get one House of Representatives seat. Get some kind of representation. Then you have a bargaining chip.

  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Why does she need to do this before the election? They can just form a coalition after the election if Kamala doesn’t win

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      This is to elect the President. In a presidential system, as in the US, you choose the leader of the executive portion of government separately from the legislative leader. In a parliamentary system, as many countries in Europe use, the public doesn’t choose the leader of the executive portion of government. Instead, they just vote for representatives in the legislative portion, and then those legislators form a coalition (if necessary) and choose a leader of the executive (the prime minister). The closest analog to coalition forming in the presidential election is doing exactly what the Greens are proposing above – having a candidate drop out and endorse another, with the hopes that they can sway their supporters. It’s basically what JFK Jr did, for example, with Trump.

      While hypothetically the US could form legislative coalitions, in practice, due to the way the US electoral system works, US parties are essentially equivalent to electoral coalitions in parliamentary systems already – we already form “big tent” parties necessary to control a house. In the US, the closest analog to this sort of thing actually happening after the elections is when you hear about something like “an independent legislator who caucuses with the Democrats”. The US also has weak party discipline compared to many countries in Europe, so legislators are much less constrained to vote along party lines anyway.

      Different systems, function kinda differently.

      • Lojcs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        But I keep hearing how the American system isn’t democratic since you don’t directly vote for the president, you vote for some middle person who promises to vote for your president? Those people might not be members of the parliment but they can still form coalitions after the fact by voting for who has a chance to win

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          you don’t directly vote for the president,

          Well, okay, so, the US does have the electoral college, and strictly-speaking, you’re choosing electors that choose the President, but the election is and has for a long time functionally been a direct one. That is, you know the person that you are voting for in voting for the elector. Some states don’t even constitutionally let electors vote for anyone other than the person they have pledged to vote for, and in any case, the electors are chosen by the parties, who have no incentive to choose someone likely to vote for anyone other than the candidate that they’ve pledged to vote for, so it’s not really an aspect of the electoral system in the normal case. While false electors exist, normally as a protest vote if they know that their candidate can’t win, they’re rare and have never altered the outcome of an election.

          This came up this year in some discussion in the context of what happens if a President drops out after being placed on the ballot but prior to becoming President, which I assume is what you’re thinking about, so that the electors cannot vote for the person on the ballot, and in that situation, yeah, they’d have to find some kind of fallback.

          But that’s a pretty limited corner case. That is, they don’t just have a blank check to go out and build coalitions and select someone.