[Insert favorite ::facepalm:: here.]
While I wouldnât say itâs the most important criterion, isnât that more of a baseline qualification for consideration (among many other things)?
As I said, itâs a valid criticism, Iâm not going to try to spin it.
Iâm only objecting to false characterizations like the anti-science canard. Arguing that people shouldnât vote for a presidential candidate who isnât tracking British politics is solid and reasonable. I can acknowledge that.
Iâm going to vote for her anyway because I think the other candidates have tremendously worse flaws, and because Iâm more concerned with domestic than foreign policy, being something of a mild isolationist. The only reason I care about the âbrexitâ at all is because Iâm disturbed by the rising racism it seems to have engendered in the British Isles.
There arenât many minimal qualifications for a president, but among them are the executive ability/experience to broker deals with and between competing agents within government, sufficient grounding in issues so as not to look like an idiot when asked questions by the press or negotiating with other heads of state, and sound judgment when selecting advisors, cabinet members, and judges. By any of these measures - let alone all of them - Stein is flatly unqualified.
For someone who acknowledges that she would be a terrible president, but has decided to vote for he because they like her platform (or some version of it), you know who else has an excellent platform? The Democrats. Even if you have allowed decades of relentless Republican/Fox propaganda convince you that Clinton is not a good person, the platform she is running on is pretty damn good.
It isnt, but OTOH it is a litmus test and a good proxy for other matters of foreign policy.
Obviously I completely disagree but aside from that, if you are a Jew you can do something about that: make aliyah and become involved in the political process. If you arent a Jew then its just armchair quarterbacking.
I also suspect that perhaps you arent fully informed on some of the issues you mentioned in the following lines. As far as marriage goes, the State itself is merely serving a registry function. The powers of performance are assigned to the Rabbanut, Church and other functional bodies. A Jew who commits the horrible mistake of intermarriage outside the State can in fact register this act with the State.
You cant blame the Rabbanut for this one as that particular authority is acting within the strictures of halacha as it should. As for why that is, well, that comes down to the facts of history. Heterodox Jews simply werent present in the land when it came time for the formation of the State and so had no say in how powers were assigned. Reform & Conservative movements are so minuscule in the State that even today they are viewed as foreign and not representative enough of the body politic to be worth changing the laws of the State. This goes back to my comment about making aliyah. With no skin in the game as it were, American hetrodox Jews are just being typical Americans and trying to tell a foreign country to be more American.
Also in regards to the word âmulticulturalâ by the strict definition, since the population of the State consists of people from all over the Arab world, North Africa, Ethiopia, Asia (south & east) as well as those of European origin, I suspect you are using that word in a dog whistling way to really mean âmore like the secular American leftâ.
To bring this back to my original point, the litmus test I referred to at the beginning is an indicator that a potential leader wont actually respect that other countries have their own history, customs, laws and ways. Obviously I kept referring to that in a Jewish context but it matters more to me in a secular political context, especially as an American citizen living outside the US.
I dont take it personally, its just a fact of life.
As are all her opponents, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton [and Johnson - correction courtesy @d_r\ ]. But if you insist that only someone who has bathed in the waters of Washington for decades can be president, you doom yourself to the status quo. Jill Stein is smart enough to learn what she needs to do, and wonât destroy the nation with her inexperience - but all her opponents are part of the system that is literally destroying the environment that permits human life. Global climate change is real, and we have no idea where the final tipping point is. Political gaffes, while undesirable, are relatively unimportant.
I disagree. Although Iâll cheerfully agree that the relentless demonizing of her is infantile! Sheâs not a monster; sheâs merely a typical machine politician - who is in debt to the Democratic machine, and will continue all current trends, which is not acceptable to me.
The 2016 Democratic Party platform looks to me like an impossible Santa Clause wish-list of left-wing and minority hot buttons, with things like statehood for DC and pandering to anti-gun nuts being elevated to the same status as prosecuting wars abroad and weak environmental promises.
Do I believe Hillary Clinton, given her record, will stop all deep-sea oil drilling by US companies and/or in US waters? No, I donât. Do I believe she will attempt to create a sustainable carbon neutral economy, which would be easily achievable with a fraction of the money and effort the Obama/Bush regime has spent spreading war across the globe? NO - her platform says sheâll try to start things rolling by 2025 or thereabouts, and maybe get meaningful change by âmid centuryâ. Will she provide free education to everyone who shows up at school and behaves themselves? No, she isnât Bernie Sanders, youâre just as likely to get that from Trump as from Clinton.
Sure, she panders to BLM and other causes cĂŠlèbres, but so does every other machine politician; her socioeconomic positions are closer to Ronald Reagan than to Wangaari Mathaai. The Democrats give no more than lip service to sustainability and energy sanity, and we need more than Obama-style token efforts and âdrill baby drillâ.
[quote=âMedievalist, post:108, topic:79529, full:trueâ]
As are all her opponents, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton.[/quote]
This is not correct. Johnson, for example, meets all three, the problem with him is that his policy positions are not tenable. Even Trump beats Stein on executive experience. Of the 4 major candidates Stein is the the least qualified.
But if you insist that only someone who has bathed in the waters of Washington for decades can be president, you doom yourself to the status quo.
I donât insist on any such thing. I voted for Carter, for example. I do like my President to have some experience as a legislator, just as I would want my doctor to have some medical training and experience, and my general contractor to have had some building experience. The idea that you can just jump right into the most powerful political position in the world with no experience in any aspect of the job is shockingly arrogant, and is further evidence of Steinâs lack of judgment.
Jill Stein is smart enough to learn what she needs to do
No, sheâs not. This was my biggest take-away from watching her debate Johnson; Stein isnât all that bright.
The 2016 Democratic Party platform looks to me like an impossible Santa Clause wish-list of left-wing and minority hot buttons,
Platforms are aspirational. Disliking the Democratic platform because it is too ambitious and lefty, but taking the Green platform - whatever it happens to be this week - seriously just doesnât make sense.
I defended elements of the Green platform because that was appropriate to this thread - the criticisms of that platform were specifically made in order to falsely characterize Dr. Steinâs views. Please donât mistake my refutation of a smear job as a claim that the Green Partyâs platform is something youâd consider âserious.â Youâve been pretty clear that you arenât taking it seriously at all.
I also didnât like you claiming in your earlier post that Iâd âacknowledged [Jill Stein] would be a terrible presidentâ when I have done no such thing. Iâm fighting fair - read my posts - and I appreciated your comments in re: antisemitism. Letâs keep it at a little higher level of debate, please?
But the Democratic platform document is a fairy tale and you know it, thatâs why you called it âan aspirational documentâ. Everyone knows major party platforms are total snow jobs. Has Obama closed Gitmo yet? We donât know if the Green Party platform is a snow job because yâall refuse to vote for anyone but the known evils but I certainly wonât claim that it isnât, given the total lack of evidence.
I donât think it makes sense for us to debate our respective evaluations of any candidateâs intelligence. You say people shouldnât vote for her 'cause sheâs not smart, I disagree, thatâs the end of that, weâve both had our say 
. Others shall form their own opinions (perhaps influenced by their opinions of you and I respectively, but hopefully not).
Youâre absolutely right, Johnson has considerable governmental experience and I should not have forgotten him. Iâll amend my post above. I disagree totally with you concerning Trump - experience as a butcher does not quality someone to be a veterinarian.
That was meant to be for a generic âsomeoneâ, not you in particular. I agree that you continue to believe, in the face of strong argument, that Stein would not be a terrible president.
I donât think it makes sense for us to debate our respective evaluations of any candidateâs intelligence.
Sorry, but that is something you brought up first. You wrote âJill Stein is smart enough to learn what she needs to do,â and I am pretty convinced by watching her debates and interviews that that is not the case.
Has Obama closed Gitmo yet?
He did try. The problem with the presidency is that it is not the same thing as emperor; you have to be able to convince others to do what you want. Thatâs where the legislative experience comes it. Someone like LBJ, who lived and breathed politics, was able to finesse or ram through almost everything he wanted. Obama, with far less experience, missed on a couple of big ones, but had some successes as well. If Stein canât appeal to a progressive environmentalist like me, someone who speaks the same language (we went to the same high school, FFS), how could she possibly accomplish anything as president?
I wonder why the Greens arenât able to peel off former Democrats the way the Libertarians manage with Republicans? There must be some former Governors, Senators etc they could convince to switch.
I really would like to see more Green party elected officials at lower levels. I know there are some, but not enough. It needs to build from the bottom up.
He didnât just try, he formally ordered it to be closed, twice. But as you say, he needs Congress to cooperate, and they refused. And thatâs with a Congress that actually has some people from his party in it. Ms Stein would be starting absolutely from scratch unless thereâs a landslide of Green legislators.
Letâs be clear: voting for a Green with the idea that theyâll win this Presidential election is unrealistic. Sure, Iâd like it, but Iâve driven for hundreds of miles (more than 28 hours all told) through rural Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and North Carolina in the last month, and spent a little time in Missouri and Kansas too. I have seen thousands of Trump signs, and at least half of those signs were home made. In the absence of major vote rigging (which, of course, is highly likely to happen, just like the last time, and the time before that, &etc) I believe Trump will be our next President.
But there are at least three reasons to vote Green even if you think Jill Stein wonât win:
-
The point of voting Green is to make a statement that you are, in fact, a progressive environmentalist, and that a party that puts the human environment front and center (which sure doesnât describe the Democrats) will get your vote.
-
If she were elected, it would be such a nearly unimaginable upset that I think sheâd be able to accomplish phenomenal things. The entire existing political status quo would be shattered and politicians would be scrambling desperately to align with her.
-
If you accept the reality of our environmental problems and the Categorical Imperative, voting Green is ethically necessary; no other choice is moral.
Of course it describes the Democrats. It is right there in their platform. Thatâs what a platform is, a partyâs description of itself.
When has a 3rd party candidacy ever moved the country in the direction of that candidate? Because we are fundamentally a 2-party system, something unlikely to change unless we eliminate FPTP voting, the actual statement in such a vote is âI am happy to live at the margins, so feel free to ignore my opinion.â
More realistically, if you seriously believe that Trump has a good chance of winning (and please let me know if I am putting words into your mouth here) then voting for Clinton is ethically necessary.
I believe Trump has a decent chance of winning most of those states, but he could easily lose three of them. Trump win PA? Iâll believe that when I see it.
You can drive around eastern WA and see Trump signs everywhere but he isnât going to win here.
No. I consider myself an environmentalist, I donât consider most members of any green party world-wide to be environmentalists. Theyâre more like an anti-scientific religious cult as far as Iâm concerned.
But isnât @Medievalist implying that Hillary will win? He just seems to think sheâll do it using massive voter fraud, as Trump has recently implied.
There seems to be a weird⌠I guess Iâd call it fatalism joined with a desire to say âI told you soâ in a sizable chunk of Bernie supporters. (I donât recall if @Medievalist was pro Bernie in the primaries, this is just where I see it most often) It leads them to say Trump is now inevitable, or would be if not for corruption in the system. I donât know if theyâre just sure an October surprise is coming or what, but I keep seeing conversations online that boil down to:
1: "Great, they picked Clinton, now Trump is going to win."
2: "But heâs massively behind in the polls."
1: "Trump is going to win and we are all fucked."
2: "Heâs got a surprisingly high chance of losing Georgia. Heâs got historically low support in all demographics but white dudes with no college degree."
1: "I saw some people supporting him the other day. Everyone is super old school racist. America is behind him now. Itâs inevitable."
2: "He went after a military family and he keeps saying things that offend people. I know it didnât seem to change the minds of his followers during the primary, but it seems to be having a real effect now in the general."
1: "Why did they have to pick Hillary? Now weâre in for 4 years of Trump. 2 you asshole, your support for Hillary got us all in this mess, now we have Trump for president."
2: "I supported Bernie in the primary and he lost, now Iâll probably vote for Hillary."
1: âYou are what is wrong with America. You gave up the fight. I could never vote for Hilary. Weâre doomed. Itâs going to be Trump.â
I donât get it. Iâm not saying Trump winning is impossible. There could be an October surprise. Iâm not saying Bernie fans need to vote for Hillary. But Trump is not destiny and Clinton does not need voter fraud to win PA simply because there are home made Trump signs there, even in the thousands.
ETA: Medievalist, I hope Iâm not coming off as unduly harsh here. I donât post often, mostly lurk, and I like a lot of what you say. I just disagree with you on this and think implying voter fraud being key to Clinton winning PA is speculation, and fairly reckless speculation at that.
I know that it seems like voting is a form of self expression since itâs often portrayed that way, but using votes for the purpose of self-expression warps/ignores the meaning of the act and like any act engaged in without understanding its meaning, can have negative consequences (see Brexit, Bush Jr., et al).
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/
Chomskyâs a traitor, like Sanders! An old guy who is out of touch! I mean, he was my go-to guy who I thought was so smart when he agreed with me, but now that we disagree rather than decide maybe I need to re-examine my own conclusions, I think heâs caved to the oligarch-industrial complex! This is about the movement, not any individual! If I vote for Stein, the 98% who donât will suddenly realize the power of our movement and support a return to the better times, when all some a few could enjoy their 40 years on Earth free of the oppressive ravages of wi-fi, cell phones, and vaccinations!
Jill Stein/General Ludd 2016!
