The All Purpose Jill Stein Thread

[carlitos]

I take it that they aren't misspelling "Kasich?"

 

[KDLarsen]

I'm sort of curious if this is the result of google bombing or if the campaign website has a backdoor of sorts

 

[Childlike Empress]

As to the petition, while Cohen writes that the current rule (that can be changed if the crooks decide to in a New York minute from now) that a candidate needs 15% in some polls [to take part in national TV debates] is arbitrary, his petition says it should be lowered to 5%, which is also arbitrary. I'd propose that the criterium should be the percentage of voters that have the candidate on their ballot - as this already requires certain amounts of public support, being far more accurate than some polling maybe rigged by the same characters. Let's say 90%, which Stein and Johnson both fulfill (I think).

Stein and Baraka wrote an open letter to Killary and Teh Donald with an even less arbitrary (and therefore better) proposal than mine - it just says there should be a theoretical chance to win:

Dear Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton:

In the spirit of democracy, we are writing to ask that you support open debates in 2016 that include all of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates who are on enough ballots to win at least 270 electoral college votes. [...]

 

[wareyin]

Stein and Baraka wrote an open letter to Killary and Teh Donald with an even less arbitrary (and therefore better) proposal than mine - it just says there should be a theoretical chance to win:

Two candidates who have virtually no support are trying to change the rules in their favor? And this is news?

 

[carlitos]

They collectively have the support of around 1 in 7 likely voters. That is not "virtually no support."

 

[wareyin]

They collectively have the support of around 1 in 7 likely voters. That is not "virtually no support."

Less than 5% of voters (Stein) and less than 10% (Johnson) is certainly virtually no support. Less than 1% chance of getting elected is similarly virtually no chance.

 

[Mader Levap]

Less than 5% of voters (Stein) and less than 10% (Johnson) is certainly virtually no support. Less than 1% chance of getting elected is similarly virtually no chance.

Elitist BS. As far I am concerned, people having literally milions of votes (in addition hopeless one, to be "wasted") deserve to be heard.

This kind of attitude is just minior example of third party suppression in "democracy" of USA (main example is of course political system itself that pretty much forces two-party system), but it is telling.

 

[wareyin]

Elitist BS. As far I am concerned, people having literally milions of votes (in addition hopeless one, to be "wasted") deserve to be heard.

This kind of attitude is just minior example of third party suppression in "democracy" of USA (main example is of course political system itself that pretty much forces two-party system), but it is telling.

Let's say that there was a proposal to create a national sales tax, and polls found it had 3.4%* support, and a proposal to ban bicycles had 8.9%** support. Would you challenge a claim that these proposals had virtually no support, and virtually no chance of passing?



*Stein's poll numbers
**Johnson's poll numbers

 

[Mader Levap]

Let's say that there was a proposal to create a national sales tax, and polls found it had 3.4%* support, and a proposal to ban bicycles had 8.9%** support.

I find your comparison disingenuous and not applicable. But I will indulge you anyway.

Would you challenge a claim that these proposals had virtually no support,

Yes. Millions of votes is not "virtually no support". Side note, "virtually" is weasel wording. Nice job!

and virtually no chance of passing?

I agree that chance of that is very low. It is not reason to refuse any discussion at all.

I still stand by "elitist BS" assessment. In fact, in this case (I mean election, not "national sales tax/bicycle ban" nonsense) this kind of tactic is one of reasons why % is so low.

In other words, you surpress voice and then argue that there is so few voices so we can surpress it anyway. Good job, you made world a little worse place!

 

[wareyin]

I find your comparison disingenuous and not applicable. But I will indulge you anyway.


Yes. Millions of votes is not "virtually no support". Side note, "virtually" is weasel wording. Nice job!


I agree that chance of that is very low. It is not reason to refuse any discussion at all.

I still stand by "elitist BS" assessment. In fact, in this case (I mean election, not "national sales tax/bicycle ban" nonsense) this kind of tactic is one of reasons why % is so low.

In other words, you surpress voice and then argue that there is so few voices so we can surpress it anyway. Good job, you made world a little worse place!

No, by pointing out that third party candidates have virtually no support, and virtually no chance of winning, rational people are not "suppressing" the vote. And the word "virtually" was used in my original statement, not a weasel word added later, so I'm not sure what point you think you scored there.

The Green Party has no national presence, no field offices, no advertising budget, no coherent platform, and is attempting to weasel their way into the debate. It is not elitist BS to not allow any random nut-job with no hope of winning to enter the debate, so it is also not elitist BS to not allow a third-party candidate with no hope of winning to enter the debate. Otherwise, we end up with a debate among 300 million people, because frankly there is as much chance that I win as that Stein wins, so I should be allowed to debate, too!

 

[Mader Levap]

No, by pointing out that third party candidates have virtually no support, and virtually no chance of winning, rational people are not "suppressing" the vote.

I am talking about you not wanting "random nut-job" letting into debate, not "pointing out" anything. Participation in debate would make them more popular, or at least more recognizable. Do you deny it?

It is not elitist BS to not allow any random nut-job with no hope of winning to enter the debate, so it is also not elitist BS to not allow a third-party candidate with no hope of winning to enter the debate. Otherwise, we end up with a debate among 300 million people,

Non-sequitur (it does NOT follow that letting Stein or Johnson into debate means that we let in every citizen of USA) and complete nonsense anyway, because it is literally impossible to end up with a debate with 300mil people where every one of them has few million votes.

For example, if we set cutoff at 3 million votes (1% of 300 mil), then at most we can get 100 people, and in practice significantly less, since people with most support will have way more votes than 3 mil, taking them away from pool of possible votes.

It is pretty obvious that for you right amount of people in debate is exactly two and rest of udeserving rabble can go and do anatomically impossible thing to themself. Elitist BS much?

 

[wareyin]

I am talking about you not wanting "random nut-job" letting into debate, not "pointing out" anything. Participation in debate would make them more popular, or at least more recognizable. Do you deny it?


Non-sequitur (it does NOT follow that letting Stein or Johnson into debate means that we let in every citizen of USA) and complete nonsense anyway, because it is literally impossible to end up with a debate with 300mil people where every one of them has few million votes.

For example, if we set cutoff at 3 million votes (1% of 300 mil), then at most we can get 100 people, and in practice significantly less, since people with most support will have way more votes than 3 mil, taking them away from pool of possible votes.

It is pretty obvious that for you right amount of people in debate is exactly two and rest of udeserving rabble can go and do anatomically impossible thing to themself. Elitist BS much?

I am glad we agree that there must be a cutoff on allowing people into the debate. You seem to think that 3 million votes, before the votes are held, is a good cuttoff. Can you explain why you picked that number, considering that the losing candidate got over 20 times that number of votes last election? 3 million sounds impressive until you realize that over 126 million voted last election.

 

[Mader Levap]

I am glad we agree that there must be a cutoff on allowing people into the debate.

Never claimed otherwise. You are one peddling nonsense strawman about 300 mil people in presidential debate.

You seem to think that 3 million votes, before the votes are held, is a good cuttoff. Can you explain why you picked that number

That was example number. It is nice, round and relatively low number. Yes, it is feature. You seem to think that we should put as high number as we can get away with. Rabble out!

considering that the losing candidate got over 20 times that number of votes last election?

For some reason I find very funny that you make big deal from trivially true fact that loser in 2nd place will have by definition more votes than loser in 3rd place.

3 million sounds impressive until you realize that over 126 million voted last election.

It interest me more what is YOUR number? Let me guess, any number that lets two top contenders in and rest of peasants out.

 

[wareyin]

Never claimed otherwise. You are one peddling nonsense strawman about 300 mil people in presidential debate.

Nope. I am the one claiming we can't just allow any random person in to the debates, which is why we have the standards we do.

That was example number. It is nice, round and relatively low number. Yes, it is feature. You seem to think that we should put as high number as we can get away with. Rabble out!

Well, Stein clearly picked it because, as such a low number, she has a chance of getting it. Unfortunately, it is such a low number that it really means nothing as far as possibility of winning. I think allowing candidates who have no chance of winning to participate in the debates is counterproductive.

For some reason I find very funny that you make big deal from trivially true fact that loser in 2nd place will have by definition more votes than loser in 3rd place.

No. I make big deal from trivially true fact that 60 million is 20 times more than 3 million, therefore 3 million in US election is trivially small number.

It interest me more what is YOUR number? Let me guess, any number that lets two top contenders in and rest of peasants out.

My number is not a certain number of votes (which is obviously a ridiculous way to go: you can't count votes before they are cast!), my number would actually be higher than the current one of 15% in the polls. Even 15% means a candidate has virtually no chance (read: less than 1%) of a victory, and that candidate would just be cluttering up the stage. I don't think that allowing random people with virtually no chance to win in the debates is a good idea, as I have a greater than zero but less than 1% chance to win as well. Since you can't prove that I will have less than 3 million write-in votes before the votes are cast and counted, you must admit me (and millions of other people) in by your logic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you can't get more than 4% of the vote in a poll, why should we have to listen to your failed ideas in a debate?

I get it some people think if people only heard Stein's ideas they would support her. Given all the Sanders supporters who went looking for an alternative after he lost to Clinton who he'd been badmouthing for months, one can safely assume a lot of people looked at Stein. Her numbers in the polls went from about 2% to about 4%. Both Stein and Johnson have had time on national TV, interviews, convention coverage. Stein has even had funds to run an anti-Clinton commercial for a while.

She still only has 4%. Her ideas are unrealistic. Disarm the police? Free everything for all? Getting face time in the national debates is just a waste of time.

There are many Libertarians among the GOP. Johnson is also getting plenty of exposure. If he polls at 15%, fine, if not, same thing, it's a waste of time to have him in the debates.

 

[carlitos]

Nope. I am the one claiming we can't just allow any random person in to the debates,

I'm not sure why you keep erecting these strawmen. No one is suggesting that" any random person" be in the debates. I would suggest that anyone on the ballot in enough states to gather 270 electoral hours should be in the debate. Up above in the thread you ridiculously said that you have the same chance of winning as Stein. She is, however, on the ballot in enough states to gather 270 electors. I gather that you are not on enough state ballots to win?


Stein has virtually no chance of winning. We all agree on this. There is no need for you to use straw man arguments and hyperbole. It's a reasonable claim that you are making.

However -- One in seven likely voters is not "virtually no support. ". Sorry, but you were wrong when you said that and I'm not going to engage in silly hypotheticals about taxes to prove it. Again, there's no need for you to make a false argument when your actual argument is just fine.

I am curious, though. Why would you not want Miss Stein in the debate?

 

[wareyin]

I'm not sure why you keep erecting these strawmen. No one is suggesting that" any random person" be in the debates. I would suggest that anyone on the ballot in enough states to gather 270 electoral hours should be in the debate. Up above in the thread you ridiculously said that you have the same chance of winning as Stein. She is, however, on the ballot in enough states to gather 270 electors. I gather that you are not on enough state ballots to win?

Why is your hurdle being on enough ballots? Why can't you accept write in candidates with virtually the same shot as Stein? (Note, I did not say I have the same, I said virtually the same, i.e. far less than 1% chance)

Stein has virtually no chance of winning. We all agree on this. There is no need for you to use straw man arguments and hyperbole. It's a reasonable claim that you are making.

However -- One in seven likely voters is not "virtually no support. ". Sorry, but you were wrong when you said that and I'm not going to engage in silly hypotheticals about taxes to prove it. Again, there's no need for you to make a false argument when your actual argument is just fine.

I am curious, though. Why would you not want Miss Stein in the debate?

Stein does not have the support of 1 in 7 voters. Why must you make your argument using such hyperbolic claims?

As for why not, why would you? She has no chance of winning.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure why you keep erecting these strawmen. No one is suggesting that" any random person" be in the debates. I would suggest that anyone on the ballot in enough states to gather 270 electoral hours should be in the debate. Up above in the thread you ridiculously said that you have the same chance of winning as Stein. She is, however, on the ballot in enough states to gather 270 electors. I gather that you are not on enough state ballots to win?


Stein has virtually no chance of winning. We all agree on this. There is no need for you to use straw man arguments and hyperbole. It's a reasonable claim that you are making.

However -- One in seven likely voters is not "virtually no support. ". Sorry, but you were wrong when you said that and I'm not going to engage in silly hypotheticals about taxes to prove it. Again, there's no need for you to make a false argument when your actual argument is just fine.

I am curious, though. Why would you not want Miss Stein in the debate?

Where is this 1 in 7 number coming from? I missed it and can't reconcile 4% which is 4 in 100 or 0.4 in 10.

I don't think she belongs in the debate because she is not a serious contender for POTUS. She would just be getting free air time for flakey ideas at the public's expense.

 

[wareyin]

Where is this 1 in 7 number coming from? I missed it and can't reconcile 4% which is 4 in 100 or 0.4 in 10.

I don't think she belongs in the debate because she is not a serious contender for POTUS. She would just be getting free air time for flakey ideas at the public's expense.

I think he is getting 1 in 7 by finding the best poll for Stein, and the best poll for Johnson, and adding them together with every single other fringe candidate. Stein's polling average is 3.4%, which I get as 1 in 29.

 

[Mader Levap]

Nope. I am the one claiming we can't just allow any random person in to the debates,

No one proposed "allowing any random person in to the debates". Nice strawman.

My number is not a certain number of votes (which is obviously a ridiculous way to go: you can't count votes before they are cast!),

Why do you think my "3 mil votes" is based on something that not yet happened? Any reasonable human would think it is more like "count of votes based on polls" or something like that - possible to determine right now. Looks like you aren't reasonable.

Even 15% means a candidate has virtually no chance (read: less than 1%) of a victory, and that candidate would just be cluttering up the stage.

Yet you deny it is elitist. Pathetic. When you will understand it is not about disallowing people that you think they have no chances?

I think Trump has no chance to win (in fact, he is hovering around 15% right now). Rabble out! What about it?

I don't think that allowing random people with virtually no chance to win in the debates is a good idea, as I have a greater than zero but less than 1% chance to win as well. Since you can't prove that I will have less than 3 million write-in votes before the votes are cast and counted, you must admit me (and millions of other people) in by your logic.

I see no point in discussion with you if you are going just to make up things.