Jill Stein For President

Quote:

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

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

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Geoff wrote:

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

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

Geoff wrote:

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

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

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

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

 

JohnInAlberta wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mark_alfred]</p> <p>[quote wrote:

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

It is not just about a chanceto win.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) buckets of money

 

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

And FWIW, I find the Electoral College system bizarre.

 

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

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

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

There's tons out there.

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

mark_alfred wrote:

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

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

I always appreciate Snopes.

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

It's also not at all a real quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aristotleded24 wrote:

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

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

Aristotleded24 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Is "dog whistle" really a TIL for you?

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

 

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

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

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

 

Fair question.

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

Does that qualify as a noticible difference?

What if she's OK with Muslim-Americans?

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