• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The All Purpose Jill Stein Thread

Axiom_Blade said:
I remember seeing opinion polls a while back, where people were asked to choose on a Likert scale what they thought of each candidate. One of the options was "don't have enough information".

So, IIRC Clinton and Trump got favorable ratings in the 50%-60% area, with Clinton having a slight lead over Trump. When you asked people about Jill and Gary Johnson, though, the vast majority "didn't have enough information". This was somewhere in the 90%-98% area.

It's clear to me that the reason why these candidates are "non-viable" is because people don't know about them. They're stuck in a catch-22: They can't get into the debates because they're "non-viable", and they're "non-viable" because they can't get into the debates.

In a democracy, the voters have the right to vote for whomever they want, and they have the right to know about who they're voting for. If the Debate Commission wants to serve the public interest, they should allow all candidates who are capable of winning (i.e., they are on enough ballots to win if they get a plurality of votes).

That would be a debate between 4 people. It would make the debate more interesting, the voters would be better informed, and society as a whole would benefit from it.
Click to expand...
Did you know that we haven't had the debates yet, but somehow people have had enough information to format an opinion about Trump and Clinton? It's almost like people cam get that information without the debates.
 
Among the four way polls I could find for 2012:

Stein averaged 2.25% and Johnson 3.75%. In the election Stein received 0.36% and Johnson failed to break 1%.

It will be interesting to see how much of their vote share will fall from poll to election this time around. Stein is sitting around 3%, so I doubt she will break 0.5%. Johnson is sitting at about 9%, but I think that he is going blow past Libertarian party results away by achieving a solid 2 - 2.5%...almost achieving Nader 2000.
 
Letting Stein into the debates is like letting the Loose Change people give a talk at an engineering conference on the WTC collapse, they have nothing legitimate to add. Johnson, OTOH, at least as some credibility as he and his Veep at have both been elected and served as governors.
 
wareyin said:
Did you know that we haven't had the debates yet, but somehow people have had enough information to format an opinion about Trump and Clinton? It's almost like people cam get that information without the debates.
Click to expand...
Enough people can. That's why the 15% threshold is reasonable. But there are still people who haven't been paying attention like we political junkies in this thread. They do need the debates and a whole lot more information between now and Nov.
 
Like all big democracies with no fixed roles for parties, the US will always tend towards a two-party system: in a first -past -the -post system, only your party's numbers matter, coalitions make no sense. If your opponent can devide you, you have already lost.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Letting Stein into the debates is like letting the Loose Change people give a talk at an engineering conference on the WTC collapse, they have nothing legitimate to add. Johnson, OTOH, at least as some credibility as he and his Veep at have both been elected and served as governors.
Click to expand...

My sentiments also. Stein is coo coo for cocoa puffs and is not only anti GMO, but has stated that GMOs may change the DNA of those who consume them. She is an economic nationalist like Trump/Sanders. She has said that Mercury has been in vaccines. She says stupid things about wifi and computers. She was pro Brexit but then changed her mind after a backlash.
The vote in Britain to exit the European Union (EU) is a victory for those who believe in the right of self-determination and who reject the pro-corporate, austerity policies of the political elites in EU.

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/...busted-cover-up-praise-bigotry-driven-brexit/
Click to expand...
--Jill Stein
And if that isn't bad enough, her running mate Ajamu Baraka is a monster on par with George Galloway. The Green Party is the party for truthers. She is a Luddite and not progressive.
 
wareyin said:
Apparently, you can't read your own source. Trump has a 16.9% chance of winning but is projected to get 41.6% of the vote. Trump's current polling is 38.6%.
Click to expand...

Oh lolz. Indeed I **** up and mistook chance of winning with poll ratings. I take back that accustation.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Letting Stein into the debates is like letting the Loose Change people give a talk at an engineering conference on the WTC collapse, they have nothing legitimate to add. Johnson, OTOH, at least as some credibility as he and his Veep at have both been elected and served as governors.
Click to expand...

Nothing legitimate? Like

  • Ending student debt
  • Free college education
  • Ending wars in the Middle East
  • Ending the Drug War
  • Green New Deal to save the environment and create millions of jobs
  • Establishing health care as a right
  • Demilitarization of police and ending no-knock raids
Oh, right, I forgot. You're sooooo progressive, and yet for some reason, none of these things matter? :rolleyes:

portlandatheist said:
Stein is coo coo for cocoa puffs and is not only anti GMO, but has stated that GMOs may change the DNA of those who consume them.
Click to expand...

[[citation needed]]

She says stupid things about wifi and computers. She was pro Brexit but then changed her mind after a backlash.
Click to expand...

Good point. Politicians never say stupid things. We should never vote for anybody who has ever said something stupid.
 
Last edited:
portlandatheist said:
--The Green Party
Click to expand...

First, a vote for Jill is a vote for her platform, not the Green Party platform. Her platform can be read here.

Secondly, that quote is from an old version of the GPUS platform. The current version of the GPUS platform reads

The Green Party supports a wide range of health care services, including conventional medicine, as well as the teaching, funding and practice of complementary, integrative and licensed alternative health care approaches.
Click to expand...

Do I think that we should be funding and supporting "alternative" medicines? No, I don't.
But you know what? There is no party that I agree with 100%, and politics is about compromise. I agree with 95% of the platform. Should I focus on that 5% and demand it be changed or else I'll throw in the towel? That's silly. We already removed the call-outs to homeopathy and Chinese medicine, so we've made a step in the right direction.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Nothing legitimate? Like

  • Ending student debt
  • Free college education
  • Ending wars in the Middle East
  • Ending the Drug War
  • Green New Deal to save the environment and create millions of jobs
  • Establishing health care as a right
  • Demilitarization of police and ending no-knock raids
Click to expand...
Yes, maybe you get a free pony too. :rolleyes:

It's not enough to simply list all the things you'd like to see in your magical world. You also have to be skilled, competent, and experienced to have any chance in hell of moving the country closer to these goals.

In the case of the debates, again, spouting off a list of dreams falls flat in a debate if you have completely unrealistic ideas on how to get there.

Axiom_Blade said:
Oh, right, I forgot. You're sooooo progressive, and yet for some reason, none of these things matter? :rolleyes:...
Click to expand...
Why is it always this same straw?

Maybe in your mind the candidate need not be able to actually accomplish these goals. But just because I don't find Stein to be a credible candidate doesn't mean I'm unclean.
 
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade said:
First, a vote for Jill is a vote for her platform, not the Green Party platform. Her platform can be read here.

Secondly, that quote is from an old version of the GPUS platform. The current version of the GPUS platform reads

Do I think that we should be funding and supporting "alternative" medicines? No, I don't.
But you know what? There is no party that I agree with 100%, and politics is about compromise. I agree with 95% of the platform. Should I focus on that 5% and demand it be changed or else I'll throw in the towel? That's silly. We already removed the call-outs to homeopathy and Chinese medicine, so we've made a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
The position reflects on a lack of science grounding. Global warming denial or an inability to understand evidence based medicine are based on the same underlying problem, bad science.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, maybe you get a free pony too. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hillary threw this at Bernie during one of their debates, too. She accused him of offering "free stuff". The Young Turks did a great analysis of this. It's a Republican talking point. In previous elections, Republicans would be slamming Democrats for offering "free stuff"; in this election, that debate took place within the Democrat Party.

Why is it always this same straw?

Maybe in your mind the candidate need not be able to actually accomplish these goals. But just because I don't find Stein to be a credible candidate doesn't mean I'm unclean.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of being clean or unclean. Do words have meanings or don't they? If anybody can call themselves a "progressive" legitimately, doesn't the word lose its meaning?

I meet Hillary supporters who think that "Blue Lives Matter", war is inevitable, free education is a pipe dream, health care as a right is silly, and so on. Not only that, but they look down on people who are anti-war, pro-BLM, and so on as kooks and radicals. These Hillary-ites could be either right-wing Democrats or left-wing Republicans, but what about them makes them "progressive"?

This is a serious question. I'm not being an "ideological purist" or any of the other straw men that've been thrown at me on this forum. My question is: What makes somebody a progressive? What are their beliefs and so forth? How can you tell when somebody is not a progressive?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The position reflects on a lack of science grounding. Global warming denial or an inability to understand evidence based medicine are based on the same underlying problem, bad science.
Click to expand...

Again, Jill's platform is separate from the Greens' platform.

And again, if I was that picky, I wouldn't belong to any party. For every one thing wrong I find in the Green platform, I could find 100 I disagree with in the Democrat platform. I can't even look at Hillary's platform without huge deal-breakers leaping out at me. Her commitment to expanding wars against ISIS is a huge one.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
portlandatheist said:
Stein is coo coo for cocoa puffs and is not only anti GMO, but has stated that GMOs may change the DNA of those who consume them.
Click to expand...

[[citation needed]]
Click to expand...
Jill Stein fundraising email said:
In addition to climate change and creating an economy that works for the 99%, one of the most important is putting a moratorium on GMO foods and pesticides. Why? Because evidence is now showing that once these foods reach our digestive tract, they can affect our very DNA.…
And built-in pesticides are just one of the repulsive aspects of GMO “franken foods” that corporate giant Monsanto has created.

- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...n-lost-my-vote-for-good/#sthash.HTaXWMiC.dpuf
Click to expand...

Jill Stein Twitter feed said:
I am going further, calling a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe:
Click to expand...
http://huff.to/1TtSifu
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Might she be referring to the probable carcinogenic effects of glyphosate?
Click to expand...

No, what she parroted was one of the dumbest conspiracy theorist, anti-science tropes. Jill Stein undoubtedly has the capability of understanding basic science, but her ideology makes it impossible for her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom