Individuals' perceptions and behaviors can be influenced by the implicit stereotypes they hold, even if they are sometimes unaware they hold such stereotypes.
Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation.
How do you know what she has to lose? If Russia funds her campaign, that would be something to lose. It’s still a double standard to criticize Stein and not Harris for the same actions.
We don’t know what her motivations are, we can only speculate. She may not want to anger Russia, because they fund her campaign. Much like Harris doesn’t want to anger AIPAC because they fund her campaign. Regardless, it’s still a double-standard.
I don’t think it would help Harris to call Netanyahu a war criminal. I understand the reasoning. But, to attack Stein for inconsistencies in an interview, which she has since corrected by releasing a statement, is hypocritical. If Harris isn’t willing to call Netanyahu a war criminal, because of the election, then how can it be possible to hold Stein to a different standard?
People just make shit 💩 up because it makes them feel good, then others follow along like lemmings, and everyone wonders why we can never get shit done. Think for yourselves people.
I thought Trump was still the president, why are they debating, he can’t serve a third term.