Jill Stein For President

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
ghoris

Temporarily unlurking to post these interesting thought pieces following someone's comments about the Americans' lack of political choices:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/31/1416318/-What-if-the-US-had-a-pa...

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/18/what-would-this-years-election-loo...

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Yes. What if?

I don't believe anyone would dare think of putting money on something like that ever happeing in the US. It would take a real revolution. So the question will always be what if?

But one thing I could see is a proportional representation by changing "Each state, regardless of population or size, has two senators. Currently, there are 100 senators representing the 50 states"

Why should a state like California have the same amount of senators in office as Wyoming or Mississippi?  Therein lies the hillbilly redneck backward knuckle draggers who control Congress.

Maybe the US (and Canada) should become independent states. You want to live in a 'blue' state or you want to live in a 'red' state take your pick and enjoy your Utopias.

We have some seriously conflicted clash of ideologies. Where some rely on science and facts and the rest cover their ears and hum and pretend reality doesn't exist only the voices in their narrow feeble and dull minds.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Why should a state like California have the same amount of senators in office as Wyoming or Mississippi?

Why should Texas have the same number of Senators as Vermont?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Why should a state like California have the same amount of senators in office as Wyoming or Mississippi?

Why should Texas have the same number of Senators as Vermont?

I don't know,what do you think? I guess the poulation of the state should represent the number of Senators of each state.

But the question. I don't know,sorry.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I don't know,what do you think? I guess the poulation of the state should represent the number of Senators of each state.

I made a similar suggestion the other day with regard to Canadian ridings.  But I guess we can't.

Anyway, my only point was that I don't think the "two per state" rule necessarily advantages the Republicans.  California -- a "liberal" state -is the most populous, and they get the same number of senators that much smaller Republican states do.  But Texas -- the second most populous state -- gets the same number of senators that Vermont -- the second least populous state -- does.  So maybe the fix isn't in.

And I'm not disagreeing with (senatorial) representation by population, in the abstract.

Aristotleded24

So it appears Tim Canova and Alan Grayson both lost their primaries tonight. Do we need any more evidence that the left cannot advance its agenda from within the Democratic Party?

Aristotleded24

[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/29/jill-ste... is what Stein actually said about vaccinations:[/url]

Quote:
"I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication," Stein said. "Like any medication, they also should be — what shall we say? -- approved by a regulatory board that people can trust. And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence."

...

"As a medical doctor, there was a time where I looked very closely at those issues, and not all those issues were completely resolved," Stein said. "There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed."

The point, she said, was that the voters who doubted that government could be trusted to make clear decisions, without meddling by lobbyists, needed to be heard. Even when it came to vaccines.

"We have a real compelling need for vaccinations," Stein said. "It requires an agency that we can trust to sort through all of those concerns. To assure the American public, whether it’s vaccinations, whether it’s administering estrogen to, you know, treat symptoms of menopause, or at one point it was the solution to prevent Alzheimer's and then it was discovered — oh, my goodness — it may actually contribute to Alzheimer's — it's really important that the American public have confidence in our regulatory boards so that all of our medical treatments and medications actually are approved by people who do not have a vested interest in their promotion. In my experience, this is not a radical idea. This is basic common sense."

Here it is. Why Timebandit would choose to repeat a smear line and make a negative attribution without taking the context into consideration confuses me.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

It's unfortunate that Stein will not be in the debates. The US must change that rule. Cut it down to 8% or 10%. More alterbatives on the stage,the better.

Stein is trailing Gary Johnson by a relatively wide margin. I think he's almost at the 15% level.

Too bad about Johnson. I agree with him on many issues but economically we're on 2 seperate planets.

Americans are too stupid and gullible to vote for Jill Stein. Instead,they will play it 'safe' and vote for Shillary in November.

Congress needs to be reformed. Americans would be better served with a Parliamentary system. But that's as likely as finding a million dollars in cash on the sidewalk.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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?

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody suggested such things.

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?

When you run for public office and meet with people, they ask you about all kinds of things, so she was probably in a setting where they asked her specifically about that question. Of course she's going to speak to that issue.

By the way, on the issue of WiFi, there is a growing body of evidence that large amounts of screen time are detrimental to children, and that they need more time to just play with each other spontaneously. Stein also mentioned that issue in that context. Funny that her critics don't address that issue.

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.

We accept that there is a divide between "conservative" and "liberal," but is that even how people see themselves? Sanders called himself a democratic socialist and is considered "ultra-liberal." But did you know that Sanders' biggest fans in Vermont actually live in the state's most conservative region? Did you know that in West Virginia voters who considered themselves "not liberal" went for Sanders over Clinton?

Aristotleded24

alan smithee wrote:

It's unfortunate that Stein will not be in the debates. The US must change that rule. Cut it down to 8% or 10%. More alterbatives on the stage,the better.

Stein is trailing Gary Johnson by a relatively wide margin.

She is trailing Johnson right now. Yes, it's a very steep hill to climb, but I hope her supporters keep trying to climb that hill to get her there. There is still some time left.

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/07/19/24362128/dan-savage-on-jill-s...

Quote:

If you're interested in building a third party, a viable third party, you don’t start with president. You don't start by running someone for fucking president.

Where are the Green Party candidates for city councils? For county councils? For state legislatures? For state assessor? For state insurance commissioner? For governor? For fucking dogcatcher? I would be SO willing to vote for Green Party candidates who are starting at the bottom, grassroots, bottom up, building a third party, a viable third party.

Don't entirely agree with his thesis; I have no problem with her running for president, or people who honestly support voting for her. But given some of the mindless reaction around this (where some are freaking out that even Bernie is betraying Bernie) it is a message that some might want to consider.

I think a key aspect of this means trying to convince people like Nina Turner, Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Canova, and Alan Greyson to outright ditch the Democratic Party and work on building up something else.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Here it is.

And here it is in graphical format.

[IMG]http://i68.tinypic.com/x5bhp4.jpg[/IMG]

NorthReport

Sounds like the Greens in the USA have their act together just about as much as they do in Canada

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/02/jill-stein-wrong-ohio-ci...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The Green party presidential nominee Jill Stein ran late for a Columbus campaign event on Friday because she accidentally flew to Cincinnati

This would never have happened if she'd received her Flat Earth globe from Craigslist when she was supposed to.  But what's up with this "curvature of the Earth" bullshit??

Aristotleded24

[url=https://shadowproof.com/2016/09/23/jill-stein-like-cool-hippie-grandma-t... Stein is like your cool hipipe grandmother[/url]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

[url=https://shadowproof.com/2016/09/23/jill-stein-like-cool-hippie-grandma-t... Stein is like your cool hipipe grandmother[/url]

Great tongue in cheek article. It occurred to me that the description of Jill fits almost all the Council of Canadian activists that I know.

Aristotleded24

With Trump now apparently blowing up his own campaign to the point of putting Texas and Utah in play for Clinton, it seems like now is the time for progressives to vote for Stein across the board and for down-ballot Green candidates in large enough numbers to send a clear message that the status quo is not acceptable.

Cody87

"The status quo is safe....so we can vote to protest the status quo!"

sherpa-finn

John Oliver did a bit of a job on Stein - and Johnson - on his rant last week on Third Parties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

 

Aristotleded24

With the 2016 election done, it is time for Stein's next move. Hopefully her next move involves running for Senate in her home state in 2 years and beating that traitor Elizabeth Warren.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

That might be the funniest thing I've heard all day!

NDPP

'Failed Two-Party System is Throwing US People Under the Bus' - Jill Stein to RT

https://youtu.be/VhyjuuRCciI

"Loose cannon' Trump and 'War Drums' Clinton..."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Ah, let her rant a little.  For after tonight she must begin the long hibernation of the Greens... hidden away in her den, unseen, only to awaken again in late 2020 and emerge to say "Vote for me!"

Aristotleded24

Stein's big total at the end of the day? Just shy of one percent. Seems strange that so many progressive would throw vitriol, blame, and smears against someone who proved to not be a threat at all.

Aristotleded24
Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

That would be good.  Those are the kinds of races(also state legislative races and local contests)that the U.S. Greens should focus on.  That, and working for local and state iniative measures establishing proportional representation for local government, state legislative, and congressional seats).  Build rather than destroy.

Aristotleded24

One of the arguments for the left trying to take over the Democratic Party was how hard it would be to start a third party. In this context, I am very angry with progressive media outlets that made this argument yet did nothing to promote these candidates or their ideas. I remember when Ocasio Cortez won her upset primary that progressive media was all over it, and she became a household name pretty quickly. Well, the Greens made history in California by advancing to the final ballot in 3 districts. How many people know these districts or can name the Green Party candidates? And I'm sorry to say, but the historical aspect of the Ocasio Cortez victory was overstated. Once she won her primary, it was clear that she was going to win that district, as it is reliably safe for the Democrats. Nanci Pelosi was right when she said that it was more a reflection of what was happening in her district than across the country.

What would be historic is electing a group of representatives who can caucus independent of both the Democrat and Republican parties. They can set their own rules for things like electing the speaker, committee assignments, etc. And if none of the big parties wins an outright majority, then the smaller party will gain even more attention and exposure. And it's not as insurmountable an obstacle as you would think. Bernie Sanders became an independent congressman, then a Senator of a small state with an independent streak, where his community networks were strong enough to withstand the corporate influence. Why not start by pushing Greens or other progressives in small states with independent streaks like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Hawaii, and Alaska, or congressional districts in areas like Minnesota, Seattle, Portland, and California? Build up enough of a force to keep these areas out of reach for the Republicans or Democrats, and eventually neither party will be able to win a majority.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

That is a very effective strategy.  The Populist Party used it in the 19th Century and I believe the Socialist Part did the same thing in the early 20th.  

One of the arguments for the left trying to take over the Democratic Party was how hard it would be to start a third party. In this context, I am very angry with progressive media outlets that made this argument yet did nothing to promote these candidates or their ideas. I remember when Ocasio Cortez won her upset primary that progressive media was all over it, and she became a household name pretty quickly. Well, the Greens made history in California by advancing to the final ballot in 3 districts. How many people know these districts or can name the Green Party candidates? And I'm sorry to say, but the historical aspect of the Ocasio Cortez victory was overstated. Once she won her primary, it was clear that she was going to win that district, as it is reliably safe for the Democrats. Nanci Pelosi was right when she said that it was more a reflection of what was happening in her district than across the country.

What would be historic is electing a group of representatives who can caucus independent of both the Democrat and Republican parties. They can set their own rules for things like electing the speaker, committee assignments, etc. And if none of the big parties wins an outright majority, then the smaller party will gain even more attention and exposure. And it's not as insurmountable an obstacle as you would think. Bernie Sanders became an independent congressman, then a Senator of a small state with an independent streak, where his community networks were strong enough to withstand the corporate influence. Why not start by pushing Greens or other progressives in small states with independent streaks like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Hawaii, and Alaska, or congressional districts in areas like Minnesota, Seattle, Portland, and California? Build up enough of a force to keep these areas out of reach for the Republicans or Democrats, and eventually neither party will be able to win a majority.

It's not insurmountable at all-EXCEPT on the level of presidential politics.  The way to do it is to work on the levels of local government, state legislative, congressional and even Senatorial politics, while working for electoral reform.  The ONLY thing that's a waste of time for minor parties is presidential campaigns-those are nothing but money down a rat hole.  The Green Party fixation on presidential politics is a major reason there are no more Green Party officeholders in the States now than there were in the Nineties.  

What's so terrible about focusing solely on winnable races?  Why keep running for president when all that does is alienate people who could be open to the message if working with you if only voting for you didn't have to mean helping people like Bush the Second and Trump become president?

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
Why keep running for president when all that does is alienate people who could be open to the message if working with you if only voting for you didn't have to mean helping people like Bush the Second and Trump become president?

This is complete and utter bullshit. It is absolutely not the case that the Greens helped to elect Bush or Trump. 2 key reasons:

1) How do you know that in the absence of a Green candidate in both elections, that all the Green voters would have supported the Democrats?

2) In both elections, more Democrats flipped and voted for the Republicans than there were Green voters. Why is there no discussion about why these voters flipped?

As for why run in Presidential elections? It helps put a face to the policies that the party advocates. I'll also note that Stein ran in 2012, but nobody seemed to be angry at her for that run.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

1) How do you know that in the absence of a Green candidate in both elections, that all the Green voters would have supported the Democrats?

What if only a tiny portion of the Green vote was needed to change who won the election?

cco

Then an even tinier percentage of the Republican vote was necessary. The framing of these counterfactuals is always with the conceit that Democratic and Republican votes are set in stone and unalterable, whereas those frivolous third-party votes are up for hypothetical grabs when assigning blame. (The percentage of people who wouldn't turn out unless they were voting Green/NDP/Communist/whatever is ignored.) Framing the story that way -- you didn't lose by failing to appeal to voters, that dastardly other party stole your votes away -- is demonstrative of contempt for democracy. It's bullshit when the Liberals do it to the NDP, it's bullshit when the NDP does it to the Greens, and it's bullshit when the American Democrats do it to everyone but the Republicans.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well, the Greens made history in California by advancing to the final ballot in 3 districts.

Wow.  First a black President, then this!

Quote:
How many people know these districts or can name the Green Party candidates?

Wikipedia should provide population estimates for those districts.  Tally them up, add 1 for yourself, there's the number.

People don't generally do a double take when someone, even surprisingly, loses by less than usual.

 

Aristotleded24

cco wrote:
Then an even tinier percentage of the Republican vote was necessary. The framing of these counterfactuals is always with the conceit that Democratic and Republican votes are set in stone and unalterable, whereas those frivolous third-party votes are up for hypothetical grabs when assigning blame. (The percentage of people who wouldn't turn out unless they were voting Green/NDP/Communist/whatever is ignored.) Framing the story that way -- you didn't lose by failing to appeal to voters, that dastardly other party stole your votes away -- is demonstrative of contempt for democracy. It's bullshit when the Liberals do it to the NDP, it's bullshit when the NDP does it to the Greens, and it's bullshit when the American Democrats do it to everyone but the Republicans.

And somehow when exit polling data shows Democrat voters going Republican in 2000 or 2016, that's okay in Democrat land?

JKR

I think most people who vote for the Greens in the US prefer the Democrats over the Republicans. Unfortunately under FPTP a vote for the Greens can turn into a vote for the Republicans.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
Why keep running for president when all that does is alienate people who could be open to the message if working with you if only voting for you didn't have to mean helping people like Bush the Second and Trump become president?

 

This is complete and utter bullshit. It is absolutely not the case that the Greens helped to elect Bush or Trump. 2 key reasons:

1) How do you know that in the absence of a Green candidate in both elections, that all the Green voters would have supported the Democrats?

2) In both elections, more Democrats flipped and voted for the Republicans than there were Green voters. Why is there no discussion about why these voters flipped?

As for why run in Presidential elections? It helps put a face to the policies that the party advocates. I'll also note that Stein ran in 2012, but nobody seemed to be angry at her for that run.

I believe that there is a place for any party that wishes to run.  But we cannot pretend that they don't affect the outcome. Indeed they should if they want to be heard. If enough people change their votes from Democrat to Green then it Makes the Democrats move to their policies to win these voters back. To pretend that the Green Party is only taking equal amounts of support from both parties or bringing out new voters no one else attracts only says that they are not a political force.

In the next election there is a large progressive group within  the Democratic Party that is seperating itself from the establishment.  If their policies are discarded by the presidential candidate then the Democrats risk losing these voters to the Green Party (though anti-Trump anger is going to make most voters take more water with their wine than usual).

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I believe that there is a place for any party that wishes to run.  But we cannot pretend that they don't affect the outcome.

Indeed.  If someone were to launch the ENMDP (Even Newer More Democratic Party) then even before their first policy announcement people would already be indulging in the 'conceit' that cco mentions, and assuming that the ENMDP would "steal" votes from the NDP.  There seems to be some inconsistencies with regard to whether another party will provide better electoral choice and reinforce democracy, or whether that party will uselessly "split the vote".

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pogo wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
Why keep running for president when all that does is alienate people who could be open to the message if working with you if only voting for you didn't have to mean helping people like Bush the Second and Trump become president?

 

This is complete and utter bullshit. It is absolutely not the case that the Greens helped to elect Bush or Trump. 2 key reasons:

1) How do you know that in the absence of a Green candidate in both elections, that all the Green voters would have supported the Democrats?

2) In both elections, more Democrats flipped and voted for the Republicans than there were Green voters. Why is there no discussion about why these voters flipped?

As for why run in Presidential elections? It helps put a face to the policies that the party advocates. I'll also note that Stein ran in 2012, but nobody seemed to be angry at her for that run.

I believe that there is a place for any party that wishes to run.  But we cannot pretend that they don't affect the outcome. Indeed they should if they want to be heard. If enough people change their votes from Democrat to Green then it Makes the Democrats move to their policies to win these voters back. To pretend that the Green Party is only taking equal amounts of support from both parties or bringing out new voters no one else attracts only says that they are not a political force.

In the next election there is a large progressive group within  the Democratic Party that is seperating itself from the establishment.  If their policies are discarded by the presidential candidate then the Democrats risk losing these voters to the Green Party (though anti-Trump anger is going to make most voters take more water with their wine than usual).

1) I didn't claim ALL of them would have-it does look, though as though enough of them would have switched in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to save us from Trump.  I acknowledge that there were other major issues, such as the decision of four million Democratic voters from 2008 and 2012 NOT to vote in 2016.

2) I agree that there should be more discussion as to why those Dems who flipped to Trump did so.  The main reason the Democratic establishment so relentlessly pushed the "It was Comey/The Russians/Voter suppression, dammit!" narrative was to discredit and if possible block any critique of the Clinton-Kaine campaign and the numerous mistakes it made-its refusal to work in partnership with the Sanders movement or to promise that that movement would have a major say in policy in a second Clinton administration; the campaign's arrogance in refusing to put HILLARY's primary "No TPP" position into the platform, followed by the repression of dissent on that subject at the convention-the Hillary people running the convention confiscated the "No TPP" signs the Sanders delegates originally planned to silently hold up, leaving those delegates with no way to be true to their convictions besides shouting "No TPP!" during her acceptance speech, the stupidity of running in the fall as though the Sanders phenomenon had never happened and no longer mattered-the whole point of the Comey/The Russians/voter suppression narrative was to prevent ANY of that from being discussed, and even to maintain the smear from the primaries that, by pointing out that the defeat was significantly the Clinton-Kaine campaign's own fault, Sanders supporters were showing indifference to racism, sexism, the need to defend choice,  and even anti-LGBTQ prejudice.  

There's a LOT to critique in Hillary's campaign, and now that we're past the midterms, that critique finally needs to be allowed to happen.  

As to putting a face on the party and the issues...what good does that do if it mainly diverts resources that the Greens and other minor parties could use to build their strength in winnable races?  If Bernie had started out by running for president on a third-party ticked back in the Eighties, his message would have reached no one anywhere.  Had he accepted Stein's offer of the Green ballot line, he was doomed by the Electoral College to go down to a Henry Wallace in 1948-style shellacking.  Nothing of value comes of a campaign that wins 2 million votes or less nationally and nothing is left behind by such a campaign.  

Why NOT focus on races you can actually win, as Bernie did?  Or, if you're going to insist on running a presidential campaign, why not make a serious effort at electoral reform work BETWEEN presidential elections?  It's possible to change electoral vote distribution by referendum or initiative in many states, and working for that would actually make third-party presidential politics worthwhile, as it would finally be possible for such candidates to make a showing that could influence the future in a meaningful way.

 

 

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
I think most people who vote for the Greens in the US prefer the Democrats over the Republicans. Unfortunately under FPTP a vote for the Greens can turn into a vote for the Republicans.

People who vote for the Greens in the US prefer the Greens over the Democrats and the Republicans. That's why they vote for the Greens. If they preferred the Republican or Democratic parties, they would vote Republican or Democrat.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JKR wrote:
I think most people who vote for the Greens in the US prefer the Democrats over the Republicans. Unfortunately under FPTP a vote for the Greens can turn into a vote for the Republicans.

People who vote for the Greens in the US prefer the Greens over the Democrats and the Republicans. That's why they vote for the Greens. If they preferred the Republican or Democratic parties, they would vote Republican or Democrat.

I think their preference in general is 1. Green, 2. Democrat, and lastly 3. Republican. Unfortunately FPTP does not allow them to express that preference. I think they generally prefer someone like Obama over someone like Trump.

Pages