Why (or why not) to vote for Jill Stein

wrath
122

@nungesser: If President Obama - who not only has all the prior experience Jill Stein supposedly does not, but is also currently Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces - cannot close a military base, it would seem to undermine the theory that such experience is what is required to succeed in accomplishing one’s goals as President…

This is not an invitation for anyone to derail the thread into Obama apologetics. Nungesser and I were specifically discussing Dr. Stein.

@daneel: In the past the urban population of Pennsylvania has outvoted the rural population handily, so you are probably right about PA. Also worth noting, the most recent presidential election shenanigans in PA favored the Democrats (even though they weren’t even actually necessary, the Dems were going to win fairly) so Republican shenanigans are less likely there.

@caze, the anti-science canard has already been debunked in this and other threads. If you apply the scientific method you’ll realize you’ve been propagandized, as happens to all of us from time to time. Greens are not anti-science - if you believe they are, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, you should examine your premises - and also remember the Rs and Ds both explicitly endorse an ancient mysogynistic war god with a foreskin obsession, so they are pretty clearly anti-science to the max even before we discuss their fantasy-land energy policies.

@bottleimp: No offense taken! No, I’m not looking for an “I told you so” result; in fact I sincerely hope Trump is not elected, and having looked at the latest numbers Friday night I feel like his chances of election are decreasing. I still won’t rule it out, though!

As for fraud: Keep in mind that although vote fraud is pretty clearly endemic in areas where unauditable voting machines have been installed, there does not appear to be any large conspiracy. It looks like it’s all happening at the local level, and while I can confirm from my own experience that hacking the machines would be trivial (during the Obama elections I had unsupervised access to three separate locations where voting machines were being stored overnight, after setup but prior to use) it would not be trivial to create a vote-rigging conspiracy. You’d be very likely to be caught (and extremely unlikely to get caught jiggering machines by yourself).

@nemomen, all uncoerced actions are self-expression. Period. So I’m not sure what you are driving at, unless it’s to say that I should agree to be coerced? Homey don’t play that!

I enjoyed the Halle/Chomsky piece you linked, although it’s a bit dated now since the Democrats have successfully gelded Sanders. It supports my point of view rather strongly, which I think you did not intend. Perhaps you missed the fact that I’m not in a swing state? And that I’m in a state where the Green Party is being subjected to bureaucratic shenanigans aimed towards eliminating them from all ballots? So I’m pretty much exactly following the Halle/Chomsky recipe by working towards a greater goal than this single election.

1 Like
123

The President does not have the power to close a military base without Congressional approval, no matter who it is. Obama is faced with an obstructionist Congress. My worry for Ms Stein is that beyond her experience, she would have few if any strong allies in Congress, possibly none from her own party, which would make getting any legislation through extremely difficult. This is endemic to any third party candidate faced with an inherently two-party legislative and judicial branch.

2 Likes
124

Lack of support is a valid concern, certainly, but I don’t think we can smash the two-party system without taking the first steps despite these obstacles.

I strongly agree with previous statements in this thread about the desirability of getting more Green (or Green-friendly) politicians in at lower levels than the Oval Office, too. 30 Green Senators would have more impact than one Green President!

125

Absolutely, I completely agree. 30 Green Senators with a green-friendly Democratic President would be a hundred times more effective.

2 Likes
126

Sounds good. How are you going to get that?

I’ll take one Congresscritter. Hell, one state Congresscritter would be good. Seems like they’ve had a few get to that level, briefly.

3 Likes
127

Recent Rolling Stone article on Stein.

Argh, looks like she’s a truther, too.

5 Likes
128

She’s more paranoid and delusional than I thought. I have zero respect for Jill Stein.

5 Likes
129

Because I am not going to vote for the status quo.

The status quo is going to have to get along without me.

5 Likes
130

The Green Party twitter feed gets more and more amusing.

5 Likes
131

Jill Stein has said that she believes Trump’s foreign policy will be less damaging than Clinton’s.
Lunacy, that.

7 Likes
132

She wants to pull out of NATO:

NATO is a bigger issue that’s going to take some long-term thinking and discussion. For example, Andrew Bacevich, a military historian at B.U., his suggestion is that we set a deadline for approximately, I think he said 2025, and that we work with Europe to transfer NATO to being a European defense organization that doesn’t involve us.

More and more she sounds like Trump with a decent environmental and energy platform grafted on.

6 Likes
133

She doesn’t even have a decent environmental and energy platform though.

4 Likes
134

You ought to provide a cite when you post accusations. But regardless of whether she said it or not, I tend to agree. I don’t see anything loony about preferring a possible isolationist to an unrepentant global military interventionist.

For people like me, the yuuuuuge problem with Drumpf is not foreign but domestic policy - particularly the energy policy, where the Republicans and Democrats are effectively the same, but also in many other areas where the Democratic platform is significantly superior. I think Dr. Stein would agree with this assessment, but I won’t put words in her mouth.

135
4 Likes
136

Thank you!

I agree with her about the relative scariness, although I’ll also admit that the “war with Russia” thing is pandering*.

* I don’t think they other candidates have refrained from pandering to their bases, so this is not a discriminator - and while honestly I’d prefer a candidate who didn’t, I’m afraid Kucinich is not running.

137

Really?
His foreign policy doesn’t worry you?
Leaving NATO?
Leaving South Korea?
Demanding “renegotiations” with allies until they “pay their fair share” or, I suppose more accurately, “whatever Trump thinks is “fair””

Also: I didn’t post an accusation- I posted a fact. (Thank you @daneel for posting the relevant tweet)

1 Like
138

I liked Kuchinich, although when he was running he’d probably have thrown me out of the country (he wanted to abolish the visa I was living here under at the time).

If Stein is going to criticize Clinton, I’d rather see more of this:

Than this:

I think a Green party that offered progressive criticism of Clinton but recognized that she was the only sane choice of the two candidates who could win, and asked explicitly for support in non-swing states to get to 5% of the national vote to qualify for federal funding would be one I’d be happier with. I donated to Stein’s campaign when Sanders lost, and pretty much since then everything she’s said has made me regret it.

9 Likes
139

I pretty much agree with all that. You and I are pretty similar politically. You should be a Republican too :wink: !

But seriously, don’t regret the donation you made; the Green parties in other countries started out shrill and ineffective and followed much the same process that the US green party is undergoing before becoming powerful enough to influence policy.

Voting strategically means knowing when the personality of the candidate matters (example: Drumpf) and when it doesn’t (examples: Stein, Johnson). And although I’m OK with Dr. Stein personally, I’ve always acknowledged there are valid criticisms. The slander and self-evident hypocrisy that is prevalent in many of the attacks on her does annoy me, but legit criticisms are legit, eh?

Correct. I don’t see any unfunded infinite foreign wars or occupations in it, and none of the things you listed bother me significantly. I understand that you feel differently but feel no need for us to agree.

Unsupported allegations are functionally indistinguishable from accusations, but don’t sweat it - @daneel had the cite handy. :thumbsup:

140

The Green Party of England and Wales used to have David Icke as one of its principal speakers. To be fair to them, he did appear to be a sane BBC sports journalist at the time and they got rid of him around about the time he claimed to be the Son of God. It still did a lot of damage to the party though.

5 Likes
141

GPUSA has been around since the 1980s. Seems like they should have had enough time to grow out of the claptrap they’ve engaged in for the last thirty years.

In a parliamentary system it’s possible for a minority party to pick up some MPs and be a relevant, if small, voice in national politics. The Greens even have an MP in the UK since the system’s designed in a way that allows this.

The US is not a parliamentary system. Duverger’s law guarantees permanent irrelevance to third parties until such a time that they sell out enough and water down their message to have a broad enough constituency that ~50% of the electorate back them. This is unfortunate, but the US’s Constitution and electoral systems enforce that broken system. Until we reform our Constitution and electoral system, third parties are effectively parasitic scams manipulating supporters into donating and supporting an organization that fails to serve any constructive role in the US political system.

Third parties spin their inevitable losses in the winner-take-all system as some kind of ideological/propagandistic win to prolong their parasitic existence of duping those who are gullible and disaffected enough into wasting campaign donations. There’s no strategic vote for a third party that effects any measurable change except for the benefit of the con artists. In our winner-take-all system, third parties are a con that primarily exist to give false hope, to give a false sense of moral superiority, to propagate confusion and misinformation about the electoral system, and in so doing, to line the pockets of the party bosses who run the scam.

2 Likes