Jill Stein For President

191 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECH9xwzN1Mw

Great video of Jill Stein taking on Fox News.

brookmere

Cody87 wrote:
Honest question, what evidence is there that Hillary has ever indicated any willingness to "learn" with respect to foreign policy?

Well she has said that her support of the Iraq War was a mistake. While Trump, who also supported it, claims he opposed it.

Quote:
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.

Vulnerability against Trump? Among these kind of people I suppose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9YPYRaeTW0

mark_alfred

Jill Stein Selects Human Rights Activist Ajamu Baraka as Vice-Presidential Running Mate. 

http://www.jill2016.com/jill_stein_selects_ajamu_baraka_as_vp

NorthReport
cco

mark_alfred wrote:

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.

The two states in the US with the highest vaccination rates, not coincidentally, are the two that allow no religious/philosophical exemption for vaccination. So which states would you guess they are?

Vermont? California? Nope. Mississippi and West Virginia, those well-known cruel oppressors of Christianity.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

I'm just glad it's only wi-fi that's giving us all cancer of the critical thinking process.

Because nobody wants to give up their smartphone.  Or FM radio.  Or the nifty key-fob that lets you start your car from the kitchen.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
Jill Stein is also off-the-wall nuts on wifi

I'm just glad it's only wi-fi that's giving us all cancer of the critical thinking process.

Because nobody wants to give up their smartphone.  Or FM radio.  Or the nifty key-fob that lets you start your car from the kitchen.

Is that really such a crazy thing to believe anyways? Suppose this belief is acted upon, then Wi-Fi is removed from schools. I went to school without Wi-Fi and I don't remember there being any negatives associated with that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Did you have a smartphone when you were young?

Nobody did, when I was a kid, and we liked it just fine!

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

neither did I, A24, but the world is different now, those kids live in a world where being tech savvy is a benefit. That wi FI has deleterious health effects might not seem a "crazy thing to believe", but the facts don't back the claim. It's demonstrably not true. Hanging on to a claim that has been demonstrated to be untrue is where the crazy sets in.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yup there is crazy and then there is acceptable pathologies like murder. Here is Killary''s mentor being acceptable. Then a nice clip of her take on foreign policy and due process.

Some people with low intellects like me would think this makes her bat shit crazy but we would be wrong. Being a unabashed warmongering imperialist is nothing compared to believing that WIFI might be dangerous. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
Some people with low intellects like me would think this makes her bat shit crazy but we would be wrong. Being a unabashed warmongering imperialist is nothing compared to believing that WIFI might be dangerous.

Jill Stein might not be a warmongering imperialist.   But she is still nuts on wifi.

Thabo Mbeki was a hero of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa.   Unfortunately as president, and much more serious, he was absolutely nuts on HIV/AIDS.   Thousands died as a result of him being nuts on that issue.

People who do some great things are not above criticism.

Quote:
Is that really such a crazy thing to believe anyways?

Yes it is because it distracts from real issues of worker safety.

For instance, the NIMBY folks go nuts every time a cellphone tower goes up.   The real safety issue?   Poorly trained and harnessed workers falling off of those towers.

Or, workers who do work on high powered radio and TV transmitting towers.   These folks are working in close proximity to transmitter towers that are putting out tens of thousands of watts.   There are real cancer issues doing that kind of work.

The typical wifi router puts out about 100 milliwatts of RF power.   And you're not usually even in the same room as the wifi router.

The devices you use that are more likely to be a problem are your mobile phone, or a cordless phone connected to a landline, or a handheld walkie talkie that's operating at UHF or higher frequencies.

 

 

 

mark_alfred

I wonder how old the video of Stein speaking in the classroom is.  I didn't hear Stein actually condemn wifi in her response.  Rather, she said that regulation of new technologies should be more stringent.  David Suzuki often says the same thing (I recall years ago when he was talking about genetically modified food that he stated the population was being treated as guinea pigs).  Best to be cautious with new technologies.  See http://davidsuzuki.org/issues/health/science/enviro-health-policy/electr...

Quote:
The full picture of chronic health risks associated with long-term exposure to EMR at present levels is not yet fully known — in part because the proliferation of wireless technologies is relatively recent.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I wonder how old the video of Stein speaking in the classroom is.

Seems to be from a few months ago, in March.

Quote:
Best to be cautious with new technologies.

How new are radio frequencies?

sherpa-finn

Is it safe to turn on the micro-wave yet? 

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

How new are radio frequencies?

Radio signals are as old as the universe.   Jupiter's big red spot has been transmitting in the 20-21 MHz. range as long as the big red spot on Jupiter has existed...I'm assuming several billion years.

What's new is generation of radio signals by human beings since the late 19th century.

We started out using low and medium wave frequencies, and gradually moved up to higher frequencies as technology changed and humans figured out that different radio frequencies have different characteristics.    Largely, it was the radio hackers of the day (amateur ham radio operators) who discovered that radio frequencies above 2 Megahertz weren't "useless" as was thought by industry.

Use of microwave radio frequencies has probably been since about the 1970's.    Most microwave radio transmitters are quite low powered.   Some cellphone transmitters might range between 10 and 50 watts on the extreme high end.

A typical cordless or mobile phone might transmit in the 1 watt range.

The typical wifi router?   About 100 milliwatts.

 

 

 

 

 

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
Is it safe to turn on the micro-wave yet?

Yes.  The microwave radio waves are locked inside of a Faraday cage.  

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

True, but the sneaky little buggers have learned to hide under your burrito and escape when you open the door.

Aristotleded24

Timebandit wrote:

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.

No not directly. However many progressive publications have published hit pieces on Sanders during the primaries to try and discredit him for whatever reason. That same pattern is continuing.

Timebandit wrote:
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.

No the FDA and the CDC aren't out to hurt people. However in the case of the FDA at least they are influenced by the drug companies, and some of the decisions have resulted in people dying. The idea that corporate influence doesn't cause damage and that people shouldn't at least be skeptical of the FDA is quite naieve at best.

Timebandit wrote:
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.

It's not at all clear that she is pandering to them. Some people think she is, some people think she isn't. Which of those perceptions is right and which of those is wrong?

Timebandit wrote:
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?

I did. Proves my contention upthread that formal education doesn't necessarily solve problems.

Timebandit wrote:
Make vaccination mandatory, charge them with parental neglect if they refuse.

Fair enough. Let's challenge anti-vaxxers and their silliness. But is the anti-vax movement even in the top 20 of threats faced by children in the US today? There are so many problems with access to health care coverage, poverty, environmental contamination and violence and neglect, plus the fact that the US is about to elect a President who is prepared to bomb other countries, possibly even escalating things to a nuclear confrontation with Russia. It's important to keep things in perspective.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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.

Certainly not giving oxygen to the silliness is appropraite in many cases. Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks makes the argument that [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGixhNsjViQ]protesting right-wing speakers is counterproductive.[/url] But there are other ways to address the issue without giving credibility to nonsense. Take Sanders [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7px3zMGKD4]response[/url] when he is asked about Donald Trump. He addresses the fear and anger that the public feels in a compassionate and empathetic way, and he calls out the demagoguery without giving it any credence.

brookmere wrote:
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.

What about the Lybians who died under Obama's bombing raid, or people in the former Yugoslavia who died under the bombing from Bill Clinton.

Cody87 wrote:
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.

Even more basic is that Clinton did not make a mistake on that issue, she made a bad decision. Many Senators voted against going to Iraq and they had access to the same information that Clinton did?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

There are so many problems with access to health care coverage, poverty, environmental contamination and violence and neglect, plus the fact that the US is about to elect a President who is prepared to bomb other countries, possibly even escalating things to a nuclear confrontation with Russia. It's important to keep things in perspective.

One of Clinton's self proclaimed mentors believes that killing 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it."  This election it is important that the US elects someone who is extremely pro vaccinations and WIFI.  Those are the important issues especially since we know that the kids killed in Iraq were not likely American so they don't matter.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
This election it is important that the US elects someone who is extremely pro vaccinations and WIFI.

If they're not important, Stein could have said "why are you asking me about silly things that aren't important?  I'm here to talk foreign policy, not wi-fi."

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
This election it is important that the US elects someone who is extremely pro vaccinations and WIFI.

If they're not important, Stein could have said "why are you asking me about silly things that aren't important?  I'm here to talk foreign policy, not wi-fi."

So you agree with my statement that you quoted. Somehow I am not surprised. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, my point was that vaccinations and wi-fi must be important to Stein, or else why flap her gums about it?  When, as you say, there are so many more important things?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, my point was that vaccinations and wi-fi must be important to Stein, or else why flap her gums about it?  When, as you say, there are so many more important things?

New headlines,  "Stein refuses to discuss issues." The MSM will attack her no matter what she says or talks about.  

But that is a point that you appear to be willfully blind to. One can assume from your posting history that attacking leftist leaders is your main reason for being here.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The MSM will attack her no matter what she says or talks about.

That would be just so much more visible if she weren't talking the K00ky talk.

Quote:
One can assume from your posting history that attacking leftist leaders is your main reason for being here.

u mad about the Venezuela thread, bro?

Rev Pesky

kropotkin1951 wrote:
...One of Clinton's self proclaimed mentors believes that killing 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it."  ...

I'll just point out that it wasn't only Clinton supporters who thought killing Iraqi children was worth it. Two Republican presidents made war against Iraq, consequences be damned.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The MSM will attack her no matter what she says or talks about.

That would be just so much more visible if she weren't talking the K00ky talk.

Quote:
One can assume from your posting history that attacking leftist leaders is your main reason for being here.

u mad about the Venezuela thread, bro?

Not mad about anything just making comments about posts and posters as I have been for nearly a decade and a half. What's the matter with that? You like to diss it and then you flounce when someone sends a barb your way? I would have thought you had a thicker hide than that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You like to diss it and then you flounce when someone sends a barb your way? I would have thought you had a thicker hide than that.

Who flounced?

I just wondered about how apparently my goal in life is to attack "leftist leaders".  And/or Jill Stein.

Anyhoo, keep calm and carry on.

brookmere

kropotkin1951 wrote:
New headlines,  "Stein refuses to discuss issues." The MSM will attack her no matter what she says or talks about. 

Shouldn't that be "ignore" rather than "attack"? Stein herself complains that the MSM ignores her.

https://twitter.com/drjillstein/status/653705779430555648

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

brookmere wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
New headlines,  "Stein refuses to discuss issues." The MSM will attack her no matter what she says or talks about. 

Shouldn't that be "ignore" rather than "attack"? Stein herself complains that the MSM ignores her.

https://twitter.com/drjillstein/status/653705779430555648

Just like Sanders they will ignore her until she gains support and then they will come with the attacks. She is picking up a bit of steam in her run so the attacks on the internet have started.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

1. First they ignore you

2. Then they laugh at you

3. Then they fight you

4. Then you win

I believe the first three steps have been completed.  So assuming Gandhi was right, that's good news for Stein, and America!

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

1. First they ignore you

2. Then they laugh at you

3. Then they fight you

4. Then you win

I believe the first three steps have been completed.  So assuming Gandhi was right, that's good news for Stein, and America!

Is Stein the only candidate this could be applied to? Wink

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

That's a very good point.

I guess I was hoping that in the case of The Donald, step #2 would be stretched out all the way to November.

Aristotleded24

radiorahim wrote:
For instance, the NIMBY folks go nuts every time a cellphone tower goes up.   The real safety issue?   Poorly trained and harnessed workers falling off of those towers.

Or, workers who do work on high powered radio and TV transmitting towers.   These folks are working in close proximity to transmitter towers that are putting out tens of thousands of watts.   There are real cancer issues doing that kind of work.

That's a fair criticsm. From [url=http://www.jill2016.com/plan]Stein's plan for labour issues:[/url]

Quote:
Create living-wage jobs for every American who needs work, replacing unemployment offices with employment offices. Advance workers rights to form unions, achieve workplace democracy, and keep a fair share of the wealth they create.

...

Set a $15/hour federal minimum wage. Break up “too-big-to-fail” banks and democratize the Federal Reserve. Reject gentrification as a model of economic development. Support development of worker and community cooperatives and small businesses. Make Wall Street, big corporations, and the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Create democratically run public banks and utilities. Replace corporate trade agreements with fair trade agreements.

radiorahim wrote:
Quote:
Some people with low intellects like me would think this makes her bat shit crazy but we would be wrong. Being a unabashed warmongering imperialist is nothing compared to believing that WIFI might be dangerous.

Jill Stein might not be a warmongering imperialist.   But she is still nuts on wifi.

Thabo Mbeki was a hero of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa.   Unfortunately as president, and much more serious, he was absolutely nuts on HIV/AIDS.   Thousands died as a result of him being nuts on that issue.

People who do some great things are not above criticism.

I don't take issue with criticsm of Stein for being wrong on wifi. I take issue with things not being taken in proper perspective. Some wrong beliefs, like vaccines cause autism or that HIV is not the cause of AIDS are dangerous, and have serious consequences if they are acted on. Would the consequences of acting on the belief that wifi causes cancer really be that harmful?

The real issue is this idea that being wrong on wifi is such a big deal that it should disqualify her from being President when we have 2 candidates who are prepared to start wars with any country they don't like.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Some wrong beliefs, like vaccines cause autism or that HIV is not the cause of AIDS are dangerous, and have serious consequences if they are acted on. Would the consequences of acting on the belief that wifi causes cancer really be that harmful?

Would banning microwave ovens "because of the radiation and the cancer" be that harmful?

I remember a world before microwave ovens.  We heated stuff on the stove and we liked it.  But we can't just slap a moratorium on things we use because "why not?".

What about cell phones?  Don't they emit this "radiation" that we fear?

Quote:
The real issue is this idea that being wrong on wifi is such a big deal that it should disqualify her from being President when we have 2 candidates who are prepared to start wars with any country they don't like.

1) she's not "disqualified".  The simpleminded folk who fear wifi will probably make a special point of voting for her.

2) if a basic, scientific understanding of how radio waves work is the biggest obstacle to her becoming President then she's always welcome to say "whoops, I misspoke" -- as I noted above, if it's "important" for us to discuss, it's only because it was evidently important for her to discuss.  Nobody's asking Trump how he feels about wi-fi in homes and classrooms because nobody who's considering voting for Trump has a bee in their bonnet about wi-fi.  But potential Stein supporters want to know she's got their back on wi-fi and vaccines, and probably microwave ovens and chemtrails too.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

I'm not saying that Stein's stupid position on wifi is the most important thing in the world.   I'm just saying that it is stupid.

Does that make her as evil as neo-liberal war mongering Clinton or neo-fascist Trump?   Not at all.  

Just that Stein isn't by any means perfect.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

Does that make her as evil as neo-liberal war mongering Clinton or neo-fascist Trump?   Not at all.  

Just that Stein isn't by any means perfect.

I agree.

But I would add:  if wi-fi is "just a distraction" from the real and important things, why doesn't Stein just walk it back?  And devote all her microphone time to the important things?

I know that kropotkin took a run at this in #125, but Stein "refusing to discuss issues" can't be an issue if those issues aren't really issues.

swallow swallow's picture

She's wrong on wifi, but far and away the best candidate for president, on balance. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So she can solve Fermat's last theorem, but the ratio of the square of the hypoteneuse to the sum of the squares of the other two sides is a mystery.

Glad to hear she's got the real truth about everything but.

swallow swallow's picture

No idea what any of that means, sorry. Can you be more direct and use fewer math references? 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Sure.

It's a shame that she can get all the difficult-to-impossible stuff right, but can't seem to wrap her head around the easy stuff.

swallow swallow's picture

Yes, that is a shame. Thank you for the translation!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Evidently my metaphors are a piece of coal on a horse's back.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

To have woken up to a President Sanders would be to have woken up with a mentally sane and competent America. They're too far gone.

Clinton will win providing there are no 'terror' attacks betwen now and November 9 (or 8?)

And that would be because of so-called 'moderates' and the neocons agreeing on someone guaranteed to play by their rules. That's Clinton. Even the neocons think Trump is crazy but he's a product of 35 years of propaganda causing a wave of cognitive dissonace to control the USSA.

When Clinton is your 'liberal' choice,you know your system and society is completely fucked.

I see Gary Johnson doing better. It's a shame about his economics,I could never vote for him but I do agree with him on a few issues. And the fact that he's a former Republican Governor,he gets some pretty decent press.

All I hear when it comes to the MSM about Stein is she's an anti-vaxer,she thinks wi-fi is hazardous to children's health...all these things that would make mainstream Americans roll their eyes at and sigh.I've read NOTHING about policy.

But that's Amerikkka. It's a very Conservative country and most Americans can't give you a coherent reason why. They've all been conditioned and conned into believing certain buzzwords equal death and Satan and whatever...They are not politically savvy and are blissfully fact free.

Prediction ; Clinton wins. Trump has a temper tantrum. Some Trump supporter will threaten Clinton's life,the Republicans wiill excuse her of receiving bj's  in the Oral Office...It's all so predictable.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Green Party's Jill Stein: U.S. Should Stop Funding Israel & Saudi Arabia

quote:

AMY GOODMAN: How has your message, Dr. Jill Stein, on Israel-Palestine and what you’re demanding, the planks in the Green Party platform, been covered and received?

DR. JILL STEIN: Well, really, none of our planks have been covered and received, not only our position on Israel-Palestine, our position on foreign policy, our position on jobs and climate and student debt. We’ve basically been disappeared from the mainstream conversation. But I have to say, you know, in terms of our own outreach and our—you know, the reach of our social media and our campaign and the independent media, like yourself, that actually does its job responsibly, the reception has been incredible.

And we’ve been able to put Israel-Palestine into a much broader human rights framework, actually, because one of the big criticisms that’s always been leveled against, for example, the BDS campaign, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against this occupying force, this military force—one of the criticisms is that, "Oh, you’re singling out Israel." So, we’ve made it a point to say we’re not singling out anybody; this is a general standard of international law and human rights that our administration, our Green administration, would apply to all countries. So, we are saying, if countries are in violation of international law and humaquote:n rights, as Israel is for its occupations, its home demolitions, its assassinations and so on, that we will not support you. And right now we’re supporting Israel to the tune of $8 million a day. But we’ll say the same thing to the Saudis. We should not be selling weapons or otherwise supporting the Saudis—and, as you pointed out on this show, $110 billion in the last decade, and rising, despite the human rights abuses and the war crimes being committed by the Saudis, with U.S. assistance, in fact. You know, this is one of many issues that I think people are really clamoring to hear more about....

Cody87

alan smithee wrote:

But that's Amerikkka. It's a very Conservative country and most Americans can't give you a coherent reason why. They've all been conditioned and conned into believing certain buzzwords equal death and Satan and whatever...They are not politically savvy and are blissfully fact free.

Genuine question. Are a plurality of Americans conservative?

I'm not asking about American politicians, or political establishments, which are certainly right leaning. By Canadian standards, the U.S. is like if you had a vote but only between the P.C.'s and Reform.

But my question is, if in a parallel universe in 2020 they suddenly had the options of Reform, P.C.'s, Liberals, and N.D.P., with no pre-existing party biases or baggage and no influence from the media or old establishment, would P.C.'s still win?

I mean, nobody would say Canadians are conservative even though we "chose" to enjoy the rule of Stephen Harper for a decade. Americans don't really have a choice, and if it wasn't clear before, this election should make it painfully clear that the establishment will force it's agenda on the populace.

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

But that's Amerikkka. It's a very Conservative country and most Americans can't give you a coherent reason why. They've all been conditioned and conned into believing certain buzzwords equal death and Satan and whatever...They are not politically savvy and are blissfully fact free.

Genuine question. Are a plurality of Americans conservative?

I'm not asking about American politicians, or political establishments, which are certainly right leaning. By Canadian standards, the U.S. is like if you had a vote but only between the P.C.'s and Reform.

But my question is, if in a parallel universe in 2020 they suddenly had the options of Reform, P.C.'s, Liberals, and N.D.P., with no pre-existing party biases or baggage and no influence from the media or old establishment, would P.C.'s still win?

I mean, nobody would say Canadians are conservative even though we "chose" to enjoy the rule of Stephen Harper for a decade. Americans don't really have a choice, and if it wasn't clear before, this election should make it painfully clear that the establishment will force it's agenda on the populace.

Plurality is an odd question. This would depend on how many you place in the centre and what you define as centre, conservative and left. If you define the left widely then it may be a close third with the middle as the second and the right the plurality.

Or if you define the centre widely then it may be the plurality.

Naturally if you define the right widely then it is the plurality.

This is a continuum and as such you cannot establish any agreement on what group has a plurality without defining the edges of each group -- something I think is impossible and not valuable. And you can move the boundaries to get any answer you like.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'd consider Americans dim-witted self-denying Liberals that can be talked into and out of anything,victims of a steady diet of far right radio,television and newspapers (now blogs and satellite radio) for 35 years.

They love to call people who speak truths or point to the elephant in the room 'libtards' and believe Jesus Christ was Rambo with a corporate portfolio.

They are programmed and believe the most insane lies that are sold as truth on Faux News or Breitbart and such,by radio hosts like Glen Beck and Michael Weiner.

And Trump has exposed the real face of America and it's ugly.Almost as ugly as Trump himself.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Wrong thread?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I was making a point that Americans always vote against their own self interests.(Canadians too but I'm talking about Amerikkka)

How Donald Trump has become a 'populist' and Jill Stein is not even in the media's vocabulary.

Pages