Thank you very much for this. May I ask if you sent this reply to Jill Stein's campaign? I think it is very important that they should be aware of this. If it remains only a post on substack then it reaches very very few people (as you can see) and will probably never reach her and her team. I think it should be ACTIVELY pursued to make sure they see this and are aware of the points you bring up. Again, if it remains only a post on substack then it will have very very little impact, if at all, IMHO.
In my view, it shouldn't be left to chance whether they see this or not but rather direct action should be taken to make sure they see this.
This is a very important issue and points that you bring up and in my view it shouldn't be left for the slim possibilty that they might somehow run across this post by chance (they won't). I will send their campaign this post and I suggest that others do the same, the more people bring their awareness to it, the higher the chances that they might see it.
PS. Apologies for my tendency to be repetitive in this comment :-)
John, you assert "This is because Jill Stein accepts the lie that the Israeli government in general is defending ordinary Israeli Jews." Show me where she says that! I think you are making a judgement call based on your conception of what she thinks. I think she is, like most of us, horrified at the history of oppression of Palestinians and like as as well, horrified and the enormous escalation of violence. Give her credit for that.
When someone says you should vote for them to be president of the United States even though they support violent ethnic cleansing—as my other reply shows she does—then that is not a person to whom we should “give credit” in my opinion.
I do NOT agree that Jill supports ethnic cleansing, but agree she should be asked point blank if she supports the right of return. You are making inferences and treating them as factual.
If by "support ethnic cleansing" you meant that in her secret innermost personal mind she thinks that it is a good thing that there is Zionist ethnic cleansing, then fine, maybe she does not support ethnic cleansing.
But the RELEVANT meaning of "support ethnic cleansing" in the case of a person running to be the president of the United States is this: to refrain from condemning Zionist ethnic cleansing. Jill Stein, as a presidential candidate, refrains from condemning Zionist ethnic cleansing and THIS does indeed constitute supporting ethnic cleansing, in my book, and in the book of Palestinians, and I would suggest in the book of all the rest of us who do not support Zionist ethnic cleansing.
There were slave owners in the slavery years of the United States who did not free their slaves and did not condemn slavery. You could I suppose argue that some of them didn't really support slavery because in their secret innermost personal minds they opposed slavery. But in my book, and in the book of their slaves, and in the book of the abolitionists, they did support slavery. Would you not agree?
Jill Stein doesn’t condemn Israel’s denial of the right of return of the Palestinian refugees when she gives a speech about Israel, as I illustrate in my post. She thus accepts this denial. Otherwise she would condemn it because it has been the #1 grievance of Palestinians since the existence of Israel. Accepting this denial means accepting that it is for the purpose, as the Zionists assert, of making Jews safe in a “state of their own.” Jill Stein must agree with the Zionists or else she would be shouting her disagreement from the rooftops, which she clearly does not do.
So she's guilty of the "sin of omission"? Where does she SAY EXPLICITLY that she rejects the right of return? That's ridiculous purism, but it's par for your course, John Spritzler. Note even Lincoln and Marx are good enough for you! Big Shot! Pezzonavante! Pissant!
No, John Spritzer, once again, you are being ornery for the sake of being ornery. Debate ALWAYS can have some benefit, if only to challenge those RFK supporters who have uneasy feeling about their candidates' support for genocide.
Please see my replies to Jon Olsen and re-read my post’s conclusion about how the Stein-RFK, Jr. debate would reinforce belief that Zionist violent ethnic cleansing was and is for a noble cause — to make Jews safe—and should not be opposed. Palestinians need such a debate like a hole in the head. This Zionist lie is the ONLY reason many people support the current genocide in Gaza.
According to the leading Trotskyist groups, the ONLY thing that will help the Palestinians will be port workers drydocking the weapons shipments. If you take that kind of purist attitude, and you're not a port worker, then you might as well just give it all up.
Clearly you're biased and an RFK Jr. advocate. I had been a staunch supporter of RFK until he went off the rails - the shirtless work-out video sickened me - just who was he pandering to while the entire world is currently on fire? I don't vote never did nor ever will - so for me to support him was huge. But after both his comments about Israel - he's either controlled opposition or just a spoiler. He always said prove he's wrong and he will gladly change his opinion. But when it comes to Israel, just like all the other politicians he will never ever bite the hand that feeds them. He stance for Israel is probably worse than Biden and Trump combined! You know damn well Jill Stein will seal his fate!
It was your vociferous condemnation of Jill - your points not to debate him are valid but in my personal opinion, not warranted in this case. Someone needs to toss him off the island. He started out great - his message resonated with everyone - the corruption - closing the military bases - cleaning up the FDA and so many other alphabet agencies. And then he went all pear shaped. Now he really is running on his family coat tails. He's exploiting and lying to the youth! They should only know, hear and see his stance on Israel so let Jill be the one to dethrone him! There's more than ample reason Kucinich quit his campaign. Had he stayed true to his supposed beliefs and chosen him as his running mate he really did stand a chance!
As I explained, Jill Stein will not persuade anybody who agrees with RFK, Jr. to stop agreeing with him. THAT was the point of my post. ONLY by telling the KEY truth, that Jill Stein never tells, can we change the mind of the people who wrongly agree with RFK, Jr.
Thank you very much for this. May I ask if you sent this reply to Jill Stein's campaign? I think it is very important that they should be aware of this. If it remains only a post on substack then it reaches very very few people (as you can see) and will probably never reach her and her team. I think it should be ACTIVELY pursued to make sure they see this and are aware of the points you bring up. Again, if it remains only a post on substack then it will have very very little impact, if at all, IMHO.
In my view, it shouldn't be left to chance whether they see this or not but rather direct action should be taken to make sure they see this.
This is a very important issue and points that you bring up and in my view it shouldn't be left for the slim possibilty that they might somehow run across this post by chance (they won't). I will send their campaign this post and I suggest that others do the same, the more people bring their awareness to it, the higher the chances that they might see it.
PS. Apologies for my tendency to be repetitive in this comment :-)
I will act on your good suggestion and send this post to the Jill Stein campaign.
John, you assert "This is because Jill Stein accepts the lie that the Israeli government in general is defending ordinary Israeli Jews." Show me where she says that! I think you are making a judgement call based on your conception of what she thinks. I think she is, like most of us, horrified at the history of oppression of Palestinians and like as as well, horrified and the enormous escalation of violence. Give her credit for that.
When someone says you should vote for them to be president of the United States even though they support violent ethnic cleansing—as my other reply shows she does—then that is not a person to whom we should “give credit” in my opinion.
I do NOT agree that Jill supports ethnic cleansing, but agree she should be asked point blank if she supports the right of return. You are making inferences and treating them as factual.
If by "support ethnic cleansing" you meant that in her secret innermost personal mind she thinks that it is a good thing that there is Zionist ethnic cleansing, then fine, maybe she does not support ethnic cleansing.
But the RELEVANT meaning of "support ethnic cleansing" in the case of a person running to be the president of the United States is this: to refrain from condemning Zionist ethnic cleansing. Jill Stein, as a presidential candidate, refrains from condemning Zionist ethnic cleansing and THIS does indeed constitute supporting ethnic cleansing, in my book, and in the book of Palestinians, and I would suggest in the book of all the rest of us who do not support Zionist ethnic cleansing.
There were slave owners in the slavery years of the United States who did not free their slaves and did not condemn slavery. You could I suppose argue that some of them didn't really support slavery because in their secret innermost personal minds they opposed slavery. But in my book, and in the book of their slaves, and in the book of the abolitionists, they did support slavery. Would you not agree?
Jill Stein doesn’t condemn Israel’s denial of the right of return of the Palestinian refugees when she gives a speech about Israel, as I illustrate in my post. She thus accepts this denial. Otherwise she would condemn it because it has been the #1 grievance of Palestinians since the existence of Israel. Accepting this denial means accepting that it is for the purpose, as the Zionists assert, of making Jews safe in a “state of their own.” Jill Stein must agree with the Zionists or else she would be shouting her disagreement from the rooftops, which she clearly does not do.
So she's guilty of the "sin of omission"? Where does she SAY EXPLICITLY that she rejects the right of return? That's ridiculous purism, but it's par for your course, John Spritzler. Note even Lincoln and Marx are good enough for you! Big Shot! Pezzonavante! Pissant!
No, John Spritzer, once again, you are being ornery for the sake of being ornery. Debate ALWAYS can have some benefit, if only to challenge those RFK supporters who have uneasy feeling about their candidates' support for genocide.
Please see my replies to Jon Olsen and re-read my post’s conclusion about how the Stein-RFK, Jr. debate would reinforce belief that Zionist violent ethnic cleansing was and is for a noble cause — to make Jews safe—and should not be opposed. Palestinians need such a debate like a hole in the head. This Zionist lie is the ONLY reason many people support the current genocide in Gaza.
According to the leading Trotskyist groups, the ONLY thing that will help the Palestinians will be port workers drydocking the weapons shipments. If you take that kind of purist attitude, and you're not a port worker, then you might as well just give it all up.
Clearly you're biased and an RFK Jr. advocate. I had been a staunch supporter of RFK until he went off the rails - the shirtless work-out video sickened me - just who was he pandering to while the entire world is currently on fire? I don't vote never did nor ever will - so for me to support him was huge. But after both his comments about Israel - he's either controlled opposition or just a spoiler. He always said prove he's wrong and he will gladly change his opinion. But when it comes to Israel, just like all the other politicians he will never ever bite the hand that feeds them. He stance for Israel is probably worse than Biden and Trump combined! You know damn well Jill Stein will seal his fate!
I am not an RFK, Jr. advocate and for the life of me I cannot understand why you think I am. RFK, Jr. supports Israeli violence and I condemn it.
It was your vociferous condemnation of Jill - your points not to debate him are valid but in my personal opinion, not warranted in this case. Someone needs to toss him off the island. He started out great - his message resonated with everyone - the corruption - closing the military bases - cleaning up the FDA and so many other alphabet agencies. And then he went all pear shaped. Now he really is running on his family coat tails. He's exploiting and lying to the youth! They should only know, hear and see his stance on Israel so let Jill be the one to dethrone him! There's more than ample reason Kucinich quit his campaign. Had he stayed true to his supposed beliefs and chosen him as his running mate he really did stand a chance!
As I explained, Jill Stein will not persuade anybody who agrees with RFK, Jr. to stop agreeing with him. THAT was the point of my post. ONLY by telling the KEY truth, that Jill Stein never tells, can we change the mind of the people who wrongly agree with RFK, Jr.