Jill Stein For President

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cody87

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I remember telling people on this board that Obama was a warmonger and he has since become the President that has delivered the most death and destruction of any of his predecessors. Killary thinks he is too soft and is always urging a tougher stance.  Voting for her is a guarantee that you are voting for perpetual war. Of course if you live in Canada you have the luxury of knowing that the odds of us getting bombed by the US are really low but that is the case whether Trump or Clinton get elected.

I remember when I'd just started paying attention to this election (around the end of March, back when Bernie was still a mathematical possiblity to be Dem nominee), and I had a similar thought. The only danger to Canadian residents is if Hillary starts a war with Russia and we get bombed by Russia, which overall is probably not too likely. But many other places in the world have great reason to fear a Clinton presidency. This is quite easy to see when comparing Clinton and Bernie. It's quite painful when comparing Clinton and Trump.

This has evolved into a peculiar perception that most Hillary supporters would probably prefer the outcome of a Trump presidency, and most Trump suppoters would prefer the outcome of a Hillary presidency.

After all, why do all the supposedly hateful racist Islamophobes (Trump suppoters) claim to have an issue with Hillary's crimes against Middle Eastern countries? You'd think if they really hated Muslims that much, they'd support the candidate with a proven track record of destroying even the decent (Libya) Middle Eastern countries resulting in millions of Muslim deaths.

And why do all of Hillary's supporters, supposedly the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, the working class...why do they support the establishment candidate who is the pro-TPP and is basically owned by big business? You'd think they would support the anti-establishment candidate who is against the TPP and wants to promote American jobs.

It seems totally backwards to me.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Green Party's Jill Stein Names Activist Ajamu Baraka as Her VP

Presumptive Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein announced Monday that Ajamu Baraka will be her vice presidential running mate....

....

5 Ways Jill Stein's VP Pick Will Shake US Politics Beyond 2016

For those skeptics on the left whose reaction to the 2016 U.S. presidential race has ranged from a frenzied urge to #DemExit to an apathetic “meh,” Jill Stein's choice Monday of the human rights activist, organizer and writer, Ajamu Baraka as the Green Party's vice-presidential candidate carries the potential to electrify U.S. politics at its grassroots.

The central issue is the unresponsive politics of the neoliberal Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and the demagogic GOP nominee, Donald Trump. By choosing Baraka, whose progressive bonafides are unassailable, Stein and the Green Party have signaled their intentions to build a viable third-party alternative that actually represents the interests of the oppressed in what is ostensibly a multicultural democracy – the United States.

TeleSUR takes a look at the ways in which the Stein-Baraka ticket could lay the foundations for a robust working class political movement beyond November....

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If they see that big a difference, why is voter turnout among these demographics much lower than that for white people?

Are you basing that on turnout in previous elections which did not feature Donald Trump?

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If they see that big a difference, why is voter turnout among these demographics much lower than that for white people?

Are you basing that on turnout in previous elections which did not feature Donald Trump?

Voter turnout is not just a factor of satisfaction. That is a very simplistic suggestion.

In many cases you have vote suppression where it is harder for people to vote for a variety of reasons.

In other cases there may be social reasons to do with awareness.

And, most significantly, voter turnout is more related to the feeling that a difference can be made through voting than it is satisfaction with a current result. Just because you see a difference does not mean that you believe that you can make that difference by voting.

Also some may see a difference while others are not paying attention -- for any number of factors including different daily survival priorities.

Geoff

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Geoff wrote:
For now, the question is, are Americans okay with Trump as president of the US; if not, splitting the anti-Trump vote won't keep him out of office. On the other hand, if the verdict is that Trump is no different from Clinton, then I guess it doesn't matter what Americans do.

What if Americans are simply not okay with Clinton as President?

Geoff wrote:
However, I have a feeling that American Muslims, Latino-Americans and African Americans can see a difference. And you can bet the farm that David Duke and his KKK supporters see a difference, too.

If they see that big a difference, why is voter turnout among these demographics much lower than that for white people?

I think if Clinton wins, it won't be because Americans are "okay" with her but because Trump successfully scared them into believing that she was the least worse option.

As for voter turnout, it will be interesting to see what the numbers are like in November. If nothing else, this campaign has generated a lot of emotion and a lot of interest. I'm not sure that voter turnout in previous elections can be a reliable predictor of how things will go this time around. If it turns out to be low, good for you, and another armchair theory bites the dust. C'est la guerre.

 

Aristotleded24

Geoff wrote:
If nothing else, this campaign has generated a lot of emotion and a lot of interest. I'm not sure that voter turnout in previous elections can be a reliable predictor of how things will go this time around. If it turns out to be low, good for you, and another armchair theory bites the dust. C'est la guerre.

Is that interest genuine or is it manufactured by the media? Both candidates have record unfavourability ratings. I don't pay close attention to the news, and yet when I pass by a TV and hear about the US election, even I want to scream "enough of Trump and Clinton already!" Of course, what we hear is a fraction of the bombardment that American viewers are hearing right now, and we still have a month to go before Labour Day.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

JohnInAlberta wrote:

The more I read about Jill Stein the more I'd prefer to support <shudder> Ms. Clinton.  Stein is a physician who cannot seem to understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation:

http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-might-be-hurting-kids-178...

By that logic we should also ban AM & FM radios.  There seems to be some question on her stance on vaccinations as well (the whole "vaccinations cause Autism" idiocy).  She comes across as a little more "Alex Jones" than intellectual.  


Yup, she's as immune to facts as Trump is.

mark_alfred

Quote:
Quote:

The more I read about Jill Stein the more I'd prefer to support <shudder> Ms. Clinton.  Stein is a physician who cannot seem to understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation:

http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-might-be-hurting-kids-178...

By that logic we should also ban AM & FM radios.  There seems to be some question on her stance on vaccinations as well (the whole "vaccinations cause Autism" idiocy).  She comes across as a little more "Alex Jones" than intellectual.  

Yup, she's as immune to facts as Trump is.

I dunno.  I watched the video in question, and she wasn't really taking a strong stance for or against wifi.  Rather, it was a more general statement that often regulation of newer technologies favours the interests of business rather than the interests of public welfare.  And the assertion that she might be supportive of the "vaccines cause autism" idiocy is clearly not present.  I mean, making a big deal out of her initially tweeting "There's no evidence that autism is caused by vaccines" and then changing the tweet to "I'm not aware of evidence linking autism with vaccines", as evidence of her possibly buying into the anti-vaccine stuff is silly, in my opinion.  Clearly she's not bought into it.

This just comes across as baseless smears, in my opinion.  I don't see a need to do this.  I agree that Americans should vote Democrat and not Green, since the Greens have absolutely no chance at winning and since Trump is clearly not fit for the job.  That should be sufficient on its own, I feel, without requiring the need for baseless smears on Stein.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

The equivocation of "not sure" all the information is in on vaccines is bullshit. It's been studied to death, the result is not even debateable. As a doctor she should know this. Same goes with ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation. She's pandering to the fact free fringe.

So what else is she going to equivocate? Maybe not all the information is in on unicorns?

She's either deeply cynical or a cherry-picking fruit loop.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I heard Romney and the Kochs are going to support Gary Johnson. If that's true,that's an interesting turn of events.

I see a 2 party system until everyone is invited to the debates and get the same exposure from the media. It would definitely change current political realities.

Aristotleded24

Timebandit wrote:
JohnInAlberta wrote:

The more I read about Jill Stein the more I'd prefer to support <shudder> Ms. Clinton.  Stein is a physician who cannot seem to understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation:

http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-might-be-hurting-kids-178...

By that logic we should also ban AM & FM radios.  There seems to be some question on her stance on vaccinations as well (the whole "vaccinations cause Autism" idiocy).  She comes across as a little more "Alex Jones" than intellectual.  

Yup, she's as immune to facts as Trump is.

Stein may have some uninformed views about vaccines, but in the first place, how far can the public policy go with them? In the second place, she has spoken about the rigged economy, dealing with climate change, and cutting back the military industrial complex (although she can use some speaking training, as she says "um," too much, but that's beside the point). Trump, on the other hand, has said racist things and that climate change doesn't exist. One of these people is a decent (if on some issues, misinformed) human being, the other is a total demagogue. To compare the two is ridiculous. It's the same false equivalency that the media made between Trump and Sanders because both opposed free trade and were taping in to the legitimate anger people feel about being left behind.

Is this a new way for the Clinton team to smear Stein because they can't accuse her supporters of supporting her for sexist reasons?

Aristotleded24

mark_alfred wrote:
I agree that Americans should vote Democrat and not Green, since the Greens have absolutely no chance at winning and since Trump is clearly not fit for the job.  That should be sufficient on its own, I feel, without requiring the need for baseless smears on Stein.

Be afraid. Be very afraid! If you vote Republican, the sun will stop shining, the moon will turn to blood, and the stars will fall out of the sky and scorch everything on impact!

Seriously, these are the same baseless fear tactics we hear every time a right-winger comes to office. People said the same thing with Bush Junior and Stephen Harper, but both regimes are past and we are all still here. Resorting to those tactics shows that the Clinton team cannot honestly defend their candidate. If she's really that great, they should be able to make a case for her without the need to fearmonger about Trump, but they can't. And no, Trump may be unfit for President, but so is Hillary Clinton, it does not matter who her opponent is.

mark_alfred

Re:  post #60.  I agree she may well be pandering.  She is leading the Greens, after all.  We hear similar stuff from E. May.  Politicians from all parties pander a bit.  Still, regarding changing the vaccine statement from a definitive "there is no evidence that.." to the less definitive "I'm not aware of evidence linking..", I see the phrasing a bit more charitably than you do, likely because it's a style of writing I often employ.  I often prefer to couch my statements as being within what I know rather than portray them as unquestionable truths, even if I feel my statements are statements of unquestionable truths.  And in Stein's tweets, neither of them was supporting the anti-vaccine idiocy.  And regarding unicorns and fairies, well, I'll just say I'm unaware of any evidence that supports the existence of both unicorns and fairies together.

mark_alfred

Quote:
Seriously, these are the same baseless fear tactics we hear every time a right-winger comes to office. People said the same thing with Bush Junior and Stephen Harper, but both regimes are past and we are all still here.

That's an excellent point, and one I wrestled with.  This is the first time I've sort of followed an American election, so I still don't really get their voting system.  It just seems that currently within their system, a third party really does not have a chance -- I mean look at Ross Perot's campaign.  Almost 20% of the vote and zero States won.

And Trump really does strike me as a breed unto his own.  Not just right-leaning unpleasant like Harper, but actually a bit fucked in the head.  That wasn't my initial impression, but encouraging violence at rallies, and now the recent judgemental statements about the Khans.  I just think this guy is nuts, and even though I generally oppose strategic voting, in this case I think Trump merits it.  Plus too unless they change their voting system in some way, it seems a two party system really is entrenched down there, unlike up here, where there's at least some chance for a third party.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:
...it seems a two party system really is entrenched down there, unlike up here, where there's at least some chance for a third party.

It is not just about a chanceto win.

The larger issue for third parties, in my view, is that in Canada there is a role of influence of a third party.

Third parties are not listened to much but in the US they are not listened to at all by the media except during an election and then only barely. The formation of critic roles is part of this.

Our parliamentary system alow much more of a role and opportunity as well as real potential for balances in power (not just over a government but with respect to individual issues).

A political party remains part of the conversation and has significant influence even if it is much smaller than the others in Canada in a way that is just not true in the United States. In Canada we may yet seek to further improve this through more proportional voting but the US is way behind Canada with almost complete control of each branch of government to the winner. Only when a party has control of the Presidency, the Congress or the Senate do they have a significant voice. In recent years no party has swept all three so at least two parties have a voice between elections. If a third party does not have a viable shot at one of these, they really have little ability to influence or even be heard. Barrier to entry is clear: if they do not have a shot they do not get one. Such is the inertia of the US political system. In Canada a party can be born and be influential almost instantly.

For third parties to be viable in the US they need four things:

1) a runoff system for Presidential elections if they want to contest there

2) a role for third parties between elections where they can be heard and have influence

3) a legitimate shot at the Congress, Senate or Presidency -- and, since this is pretty much impossible as a prerequisite, we can see why nothing changes.

4) buckets of money

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It just seems that currently within their system, a third party really does not have a chance

A party, probably not so much (unlike in Canada where a third party can rise to at least the level of Official Opposition, evidently).

On the flip side, though, an independent President isn't impossible, whereas here in Canada an independent PM pretty much is.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It just seems that currently within their system, a third party really does not have a chance

A party, probably not so much (unlike in Canada where a third party can rise to at least the level of Official Opposition, evidently).

On the flip side, though, an independent President isn't impossible, whereas here in Canada an independent PM pretty much is.

The point here is that the campaign is either viable for the win or it is without purpose. There is no place or stage for second place. In our system there is a place.

As far as the possibility of an independent president winning, this has yet to be proven. The kind of support and funding required to mount a presidential campaign with a real possibility of winning cannot be found outside a major party.

The last US president to be an independent was not in the modern era. It was 1841 -- 175 years ago. But even then he did not get there as an independent as he was elected on the ticket of one of the major parties (Whig at the time). He was not ever elected as president but came to power as a result of the death of Harrison.

To find a president who got there as an independent well there is one that is debatable. That person was George Washington who was also a little while back. He of course got there as the general central to the creation of the country so I would not really call him independent either.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The point here is that the campaign is either viable for the win or it is without purpose. There is no place or stage for second place. In our system there is a place.

That's certainly true of the race for the Presidency, seeing as there's just the one job (well, two if you count the VP). 

But in Senate and Congress elections, I'd say there's plenty of room for third parties to start to gain influence.  Those races are much more similar to our own general elections.

Quote:
As far as the possibility of an independent president winning, this has yet to be proven.

Well, it's yet to happen.  But structurally, it's possible, whereas structurally in Canada it's basically impossible (barring the GG doing something entirely unprecedented and illogical, and appointing one MP to form government).

And it's kind of the same with Green or Libertarian (or any other party) Presidents as well.  Theoretically, if a candidate had enough charisma and support, they could be elected President without their party needing to elect a single Senator or Congressperson.

And FWIW, I find the Electoral College system bizarre.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The point here is that the campaign is either viable for the win or it is without purpose. There is no place or stage for second place. In our system there is a place.

That's certainly true of the race for the Presidency, seeing as there's just the one job (well, two if you count the VP). 

But in Senate and Congress elections, I'd say there's plenty of room for third parties to start to gain influence.  Those races are much more similar to our own general elections.

Quote:
As far as the possibility of an independent president winning, this has yet to be proven.

Well, it's yet to happen.  But structurally, it's possible, whereas structurally in Canada it's basically impossible (barring the GG doing something entirely unprecedented and illogical, and appointing one MP to form government).

And it's kind of the same with Green or Libertarian (or any other party) Presidents as well.  Theoretically, if a candidate had enough charisma and support, they could be elected President without their party needing to elect a single Senator or Congressperson.

And FWIW, I find the Electoral College system bizarre.

 

I think the chance of an independent getting the support and finance to make a viable run for the job of president is worse than the chances of an independent becoming PM. At least I can write a scenario for that.

Two parties deadlocked to govern; coalition not possible due to the personalities. An agreement to pick an independent MP who did not have so much bad blood and who was not of either party. A proposal to the GG by both parties sayign they would agree.

Certainly it is a long shot but just as possible, if not more than an independent president. The US system is designed to be closed. You have to play with one of the parties -like it or not - to have any real chance. Just ask Trump.

mark_alfred

Quote:
Stein may have some uninformed views about vaccines

 

I'm not aware of evidence linking Stein with uninformed views about vaccines. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

There's tons out there.

ed'd to add:  strictly speaking though, she doesn't have any "uninformed" views about vaccines.  She's a doctor.  She's been informed.

mark_alfred

Quote:

There's tons out there.

ed'd to add:  strictly speaking though, she doesn't have any "uninformed" views about vaccines.  She's a doctor.  She's been informed.

I was just sticking to the quote.  Anyway, the main "evidence" that the Salon article points to is an altered tweet, which I talked about in posts 59 and 64 (her tweet, coincidentally, was structured identical to my post #71).  I just don't feel the tweet is that big a deal -- it's certainly not evidence of her being anti-vaccine.  There's another article on the subject here:  http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/

Anyway, I don't care.  It's a foreign election to me that's of minor interest.  I do feel that the best choice the Americans have in their election this time around is Clinton, all things considered.

JohnInAlberta JohnInAlberta's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

I do feel that the best choice the Americans have in their election this time around is Clinton, all things considered.

Given the selection this time around, the best choice an American could make is emigration.

wage zombie

mark_alfred wrote:

I was just sticking to the quote.  Anyway, the main "evidence" that the Salon article points to is an altered tweet, which I talked about in posts 59 and 64 (her tweet, coincidentally, was structured identical to my post #71).  I just don't feel the tweet is that big a deal -- it's certainly not evidence of her being anti-vaccine.  There's another article on the subject here:  http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/

Yep, that Snopes article pretty much clears it up for me.  I ee nothing to criticize her on wrt vaccines.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I always appreciate Snopes.

So for the record, it's the "vaccination INDUSTRY" she opposes.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I always appreciate Snopes.

So for the record, it's the "vaccination INDUSTRY" she opposes.

And that's not at all a dog whistle to the anti-vaxxers.

wage zombie

It's also not at all a real quote.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Here's the real one.

Quote:
In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don’t trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice.

And that's not at all a dog whistle to the anti-vaxxers.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Can Jill Stein Carry Sanders’ Baton? A Look at the Green Candidate’s Radical Funding Solution

Bernie Sanders supporters are flocking to Jill Stein, the presumptive Green Party presidential candidate, with donations to her campaign exploding nearly 1000% after he endorsed Hillary Clinton. Stein salutes Sanders for the progressive populist movement he began and says it is up to her to carry the baton. Can she do it? Critics say her radical policies will not hold up to scrutiny. But supporters say they are just the medicine the economy needs.

Stein goes even further than Sanders on several key issues, and one of them is her economic platform. She has proposed a “Power to the People Plan” that guarantees basic economic human rights, including access to food, water, housing, and utilities; living-wage jobs for every American who needs to work; an improved “Medicare for All” single-payer public health insurance program; tuition-free public education through university level; and the abolition of student debt. She also supports the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall,  separating depository banking from speculative investment banking; the breakup of megabanks into smaller banks; federal postal banks to service the unbanked and under-banked; and the formation of publicly-owned banks at the state and local level.

As with Sanders’ economic proposals, her plan has been challenged as unrealistic. Where will Congress find the money?

But Stein argues that the funds can be found. Going beyond Bernie, she calls for large cuts to the bloated military budget, which makes up 55% of federal discretionary spending; and progressive taxation, ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share. Most controversial, however, is her plan to tap up the Federal Reserve. Pointing to the massive sums the Fed produced out of the blue to bail out Wall Street, she says the same resources used to save the perpetrators of the crisis could be made available to its Main Street victims, beginning with the students robbed of their futures by massive student debt....

mark_alfred

Quote:
Other Sanders supporters seem to be preparing a mass exodus from the Democratic Party to help Stein reach her goal of 15 percent in national polls, which would secure a spot for her on the general election debate stage with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the presumptive nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties.

That would be exciting.

http://usuncut.com/politics/jill-stein-campaign-surge/

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Here's the real one.

Quote:
In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don’t trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice.

And that's not at all a dog whistle to the anti-vaxxers.

The problem is that government agencies like the FDA have failed so often that people mistrust them, and then you have people like the anti-vaxxers capitalizing on that mistrust for the benefit of their movement.

It's the same thing with Donald Trump. Yes, he probably is exaggerating about things like "the election is rigged for Hillary," but there is a vast undercurrent of mistrust of government and public institutions that allows Trump to make these claims. "Debunking" these "conspiracy theories" with "facts" in this climate is counter-productive, you need to get at the root of why so many people are mistrustful in the first place.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

A good explanation why her pandering is a bigger problem than some here think.

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/jill_steins_anti_vax_game_how_and_why_th...

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

A24 - Sometimes antipathies are reasonable, but that one isn't. Understanding irrationality doesn't make it easier to overcome.

Aristotleded24

Timebandit wrote:
A24 - Sometimes antipathies are reasonable, but that one isn't. Understanding irrationality doesn't make it easier to overcome.

So what is your solution to overcome this issue? Do we just dismiss these people as being conspiracy theories, then get angry with them when they vote for someone we don't like because they're stupid and we know better than them?

Lately, I've come to the perception that when liberals talk about "educating" people, what they really mean is "indoctrinating people into our worldview," because we are formally educated, we know better than people who aren't. It's no wonder that the right-wing is able to capitalize in this sentiment. That's what the right does very well is making it seem as though they are listening to people, and given how alienated people are from politics and institutions, it's not a hard con for them to pull off.

Aristotleded24

Timebandit wrote:
A good explanation why her pandering is a bigger problem than some here think.
">http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/jill_steins_anti_vax_game_how_and_why_th...

That article is nonsense, particularly the dismissive fashion in which it treats anyone who would question whether the FDA or the CDC are really looking out for people.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Stein's positions about vaccinations. The Clinton camp is worried that Bernie's voters will look for other options like voting for Jill Stein, so they will use anything at their disposal to try and discredit Stein rather than ask themselves why people won't vote for Clinton. If Stein wasn't pandering to anti-vaxxers they would find something else.

Is the anti-vax movement that strong that a Presidential candidate with single-digit popular support can really make a breakthrough by taking up its platform?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So what is your solution to overcome this issue? Do we just dismiss these people as being conspiracy theories, then get angry with them when they vote for someone we don't like because they're stupid and we know better than them?

No need to get angry with them, but no need to give any oxygen to their silliness either.

Remember when lots and lots of Americans said they believed that Obama -- nearly always referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama" for this purpose -- was actually a Kenyan Muslim?  Remember that?  What did we do then?

Did we dismiss that as silliness, full stop?  Yes, we did. 

Did we say "we'll all solemnly and respectfully consider your opinions on this"?  No, we didn't.

Did we try to meet them halfway, or agree to disagree, or launch an inquiry to get to the bottom of it once and for all?  No.

And did dismissing the silliness as silliness cause believers to dig their heels in even harder?  Did we make them even MORE angry?  Oh, probably.

But the answer is definitely not to be found in giving credibility to nonsense.  If people insist on believing it then there's nothing we can do.

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
People said the same thing with Bush Junior and Stephen Harper, but both regimes are past and we are all still here.

Hundred of thousands of Iraqis aren't. Now Hillary isn't exactly pristine on this issue, but she does seem willing to learn. And Trump has kindly informed us in advance that he's willing to be a war criminal.

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
It's the same thing with Donald Trump. Yes, he probably is exaggerating about things like "the election is rigged for Hillary"

Trump is flat-out lying. It's the state governments that conduct the elections, and surely you've heard of the efforts of Republican controlled state houses to exclude minorities from voting. The attempts at rigging the election (which thankfully the courts are resisting in many cases) are in favour of Trump.

I'm astonished to hear this kind of Trump apologism on this forum.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

That article is nonsense, particularly the dismissive fashion in which it treats anyone who would question whether the FDA or the CDC are really looking out for people.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Stein's positions about vaccinations. The Clinton camp is worried that Bernie's voters will look for other options like voting for Jill Stein, so they will use anything at their disposal to try and discredit Stein rather than ask themselves why people won't vote for Clinton. If Stein wasn't pandering to anti-vaxxers they would find something else.

Is the anti-vax movement that strong that a Presidential candidate with single-digit popular support can really make a breakthrough by taking up its platform?

Your argument might hold water if the article quoted anyone from the Clinton camp. It doesn't. It quotes Paul Offet, MD - one of the most respected physicians in his field, and David Gorski, MD, who has written extensively on medical quackery and the anitvaccination movement. It's got little or nothing to do with Clinton - she and Obama are mentioned as a footnote.

Yes, the article is dismissive of the idea that the FDA and CDC are out to damage people. It's a daft idea, and richly deserves to be dismissed.

The article looks at Stein and her statements and breaks down the pandering and dogwhistles for us. It's not nonsensical, it's pragmatic and makes its point quite well, IMV.

The antivax movement is toxic. Its proponents regularly send death threats to people who suggest that we might want to prevent diseases that hurt children. That Stein is willing to pander to them says a lot about her ethics, especially when you factor in that she's an actual medical practitioner. I don't care what level of support she has or doesn't have, this is a really good reason why she shouldn't have any.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Timebandit wrote:
A24 - Sometimes antipathies are reasonable, but that one isn't. Understanding irrationality doesn't make it easier to overcome.

So what is your solution to overcome this issue? Do we just dismiss these people as being conspiracy theories, then get angry with them when they vote for someone we don't like because they're stupid and we know better than them?

Lately, I've come to the perception that when liberals talk about "educating" people, what they really mean is "indoctrinating people into our worldview," because we are formally educated, we know better than people who aren't. It's no wonder that the right-wing is able to capitalize in this sentiment. That's what the right does very well is making it seem as though they are listening to people, and given how alienated people are from politics and institutions, it's not a hard con for them to pull off.

Yes, we dismiss their unfounded paranoia and yes, we get irritated with them when they vote for antiscience ingnoramuses.

I don't know what the solution is, but frankly, respecting a position that holds uninformed and just plain wrong opinions as equivalent to fact doesn't seem to be working, so perhaps we should just stop doing that. Getting people to understand the difference isn't indoctrination. Maybe it's time to stop cutting people with a non-fact-based "worldview" slack anymore.

And while we're talking about the antivax crowd, you do know that these people have a higher than average level of formal education and income, right? This isn't about elites talking down to the great unwashed - this is about getting the yummy mummies and daddies to look past their darlings' widdle nosies at the big picture and not be so fucking willfully ignorant. And it's about asshats like Stein who encourage their narcissism and privilege rather than be honest about what she would have to, as a physician, know.

Fuck educating them. Make vaccination mandatory, charge them with parental neglect if they refuse.

(Thanks, Magoo, well said.)

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..today leaders like stein, like saunders, like corbyn is less about them as people than about the movements that are propelling them to center stage. miss this and you've missed a lot.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Oh, please. Stein isn't in Sanders' or Corbyn's league. And neither of them campaign by pandering to pseudoscience or irrational paranoia.

iyraste1313

..today leaders like stein, like saunders, like corbyn is less about them as people than about the movements that are propelling them to center stage....

....yes it would be intriguing to understand a bit more on her ideas of building movement....

pandering to pseudoscience or irrational paranoia.....??!!

Oh Please! can you elaborate or is this just more irrational paranoia?

mark_alfred

Quote:

Fuck educating them. Make vaccination mandatory, charge them with parental neglect if they refuse.

That's something I personally could support.  I don't think any candidate is proposing this, though.  My understanding is that requirements for vaccinations for school children vary from state to state, with probably the sternest regulation being something like vaccinations must be given unless parents give a valid reason for declining, the reasons being either medical, religious, or philosophical.  So, not mandatory like having a licence to drive, but strongly encouraged.

If Stein had been saying she wants to make it easier for parents to opt out, then I could see writing her off.  But I've seen nothing like this.  What I've seen is that she says she supports vaccinations and she supports greater regulations of the FDA, with the goal being to increase public trust and have less parents opt out.  Increasing regulation and efficiency of government services causes more people to trust and access them.  It's a good argument.  It certainly isn't anti-vax.  Quite the opposite.

Now, I've read all the Salon stuff and its links (Salon being the go-to site of the week for anti-Stein types, apparently).  It's been good to learn the new term "dog-whistle".  "Dog whistle", apparently, is when there's nothing wrong on the surface of what a politician is saying, but underneath is a coded inaudible message (the "dog whistle") that only evil people can pick up on (allegedly in this case the dogs are anti-vaxers -- and also apparently pro-vaxers who are anti-Stein).  This dog whistle lets them know that even though there's no audible promise of treats whatsoever in the message, that deep down, within the "whistle", are treats galore.

I was told this on one of the linked sites from the Salon site.  "Dog whistles".  So, now you can attack politicians for what they haven't said.  Jill Stein is evil and lying.  Pandering.  Equivocating.  I know this from the inaudible dog whistle.  Salon told me so.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Now, I've read all the Salon stuff and its links (Salon being the go-to site of the week for anti-Stein types, apparently).  It's been good to learn the new term "dog-whistle".  "Dog whistle", apparently, is when there's nothing wrong on the surface of what a politician is saying, but underneath is a coded inaudible message (the "dog whistle") that only evil people can pick up on (allegedly in this case the dogs are anti-vaxers -- and also apparently pro-vaxers who are anti-Stein).  This dog whistle lets them know that even though there's no audible promise of treats whatsoever in the message, that deep down, within the "whistle", are treats galore.

I was told this on one of the linked sites from the Salon site.  "Dog whistles".  So, now you can attack politicians for what they haven't said.  Jill Stein is evil and lying.  Pandering.  Equivocating.  I know this from the inaudible dog whistle.  Salon told me so.

Is "dog whistle" really a TIL for you?

It's been a term in the political discourse for a long time, applied to things like a politician saying "Maybe some people just aren't ready to be U.S. citizens" (dog whistle: Muslims) or "Who really knows when life begins?" (dog whistle: anti-choicers).  Are you really saying it's all just partisan bunk to point these out?

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Timebandit wrote:

Oh, please. Stein isn't in Sanders' or Corbyn's league. And neither of them campaign by pandering to pseudoscience or irrational paranoia.

..sanders and corbyn weren't doing much at all until the movements got involved. in fact i never heard of corbyn until he was being propelled to leader. maybe now is stein's time. and i don't think they will care about the other stuff your talking about just as long as stein carries the bulk of their issues which includes ditching the dems and reps. can that happen? who knows but they are giving it a go.

mark_alfred

That is the first time I've heard the expression, I confess.  Paying attention to what politicians say, and the context, is important.  Assuming something that isn't there is not how I make my decisions. 

Often people seek to attack politicians less on what they've said but rather on how it's said, and create a character assassination from that. For example, when the NDP in the last election promised to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, the same sort of attack lines that I see being thrown Stein's way were thrown the NDP's way.  Misleading, equivocate, dishonest, etc.  I recall posting that the NDP were going to raise the minimum wage, at which point someone blared, "Oh yeah?!  For how many?  They're lying and saying it's more!!"  To which I answered, "How many?  For all of them.  All 100% of the employees under their jurisdication."  The subsequent responses from this poster were strong enough that spittle started spurting from my laptop screen.  The NDP promising to raise the minimum wage became not a debate about minimum wage, but simply a character assassination on some perceived deficiency in how they communicated it.

Again, all I see from Stein is that she supports vaccinations, and supports more regulations on the FDA, hoping this will increase trust and cause greater use of vaccines.  She edited a tweet (again, using the same structure of wording I used in post # 71 -- did you see a "dog whistle" in my post there? -- no you didn't) and she's public enemy number one.  Ridiculous.

 

Cody87

brookmere wrote:

Hundred of thousands of Iraqis aren't. Now Hillary isn't exactly pristine on this issue, but she does seem willing to learn. And Trump has kindly informed us in advance that he's willing to be a war criminal.

Honest question, what evidence is there that Hillary has ever indicated any willingness to "learn" with respect to foreign policy? Foreign policy is, in my view, her biggest vulnerability in large part because (from what I've seen) she hasn't seemed to learn anything.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Fair question.

But what if she doesn't propose building a wall on the Mexican border?

Does that qualify as a noticible difference?

What if she's OK with Muslim-Americans?

What does she need to do to finally shake this silliness that she's no different??

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Jill Stein is also off-the-wall nuts on wifi

http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-might-be-hurting-kids-1784664503

If anyone is interested in the science, this article from The Guardian is not bad

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2012/sep/27/wi-fi-health-risks

 

 

 

Pages