Jill Stein fires back at Liz Warren

[molova]

Source: Boston Herald

Presidential candidate Jill Stein fired back at Bay State U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren for claiming that a vote for the Green Party nominee could only help Donald Trump.

Stein, a Lexington physician lagging far behind in the polls — pulling only single digits — said votes still need to be “earned.”

“Politicians are not ‘entitled’ to our votes simply because they represent the establishment political parties,” she said in an email to the Herald.

“With a majority of Americans rejecting (Hillary) Clinton and Trump with record high levels of dislike and distrust, neither of them has earned our votes. I say: Don’t waste your vote on politics as usual that’s throwing us under the bus. Invest your vote in a movement for real change,” Stein said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/08/jill_stein_fires_back_at_liz_warren

---

She's picking fights with Warren now.

[bluestateguy]

1. Well, Jill is a crackpot communist who marvels at Soviet-style collectivism and central planning

Green on the outside, red on the inside.

G'night.

[NNadir]

2. I don't know if she's a communist, but she is a crackpot. Anyone who votes...

...for this mindless loser is beyond, at this point, hope.

[alain2112]

66. Bad enough that Jill Stein is an Antivaxxer

She lies about it in public, of course, because that is how these crackpots operate.

The fun begins when she goes around lecturing audiences that wifi radiation melts your brain. Soon enough she will learn to be cagey on this issue as well.

The question is, how much damage can she and her Green Party cronies inflict this time around. I am betting that the Clinton margin of victory will be so great that the fringe true believers will be irrelevant in practice - but that does not excuse them from their habit of playing stupid and dangerous games, for when they blow things up they blow up big.

[NNadir]

81. It goes with the Green party label. Nader was also a crackpot.

He was a regular "Jack T. Ripper" on issues like fluoridated water and a whole host of other issues about which he carried on loudly and actually knew nothing about.

I was really at a loss how anyone could have voted for him; and I have no use for some of his supporters in 2000, including Michael Moore, and similar supporters.

They did tremendous damage to the country and the world.

[Odin2005]

131. The upper-middle class loony "latte liberal" technophobes are the Green Party's base.

The Green Party was FOUNDED by hypocrites who use modern technology while at the same time denouncing it as the source of all evil.

[FarPoint]

8. Jill Stein is not fodder.

She does attract the delusional, un- informed votes from our fringe left.. I take it as maybe there is hope for these lost souls..

[Starry Messenger]

32. I've never seen a Green take a real whack at capitalism.

They are a boutique party.

[guillaumeb]

71. Green on the outside and red on the inside?

A watermelon?

[Odin2005]

130. LOL!

[Arazi]

9. +1

[Duval]

68. +2

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

11. And how exactly has she herself earned anyone's vote?

That's one thing she herself never addresses.

[Demonaut]

15. I know what you meant..and I meant what I posted

Jill is the fly in the ointment, if she wants my vote she needs to work for it

[AgadorSparticus]

39. But you give Stein a free pass. What has she done to earn your vote?

What has stein done to earn ANYONE'S vote?

[OrwellwasRight]

77. No one gave her a free pass

Or for that matter promised to vote for her. What was said was that she is right that politicians should have to earn the votes of voters. Period. That is not the same as saying Stein has earned anyone's vote. No need to infer meanings that aren't there from a general statement about now democracy should work.

[Spazito]

107. So, in essence, she is doing the old 'do as I say not as I do'....

same old, same old from her.

[OrwellwasRight]

108. Whatever that means.

Again, why do you oppose a general statement about how democracy should work?

Are you under the impression that the new DU rules require you to disagree with any and every statement ever uttered by a non-Democrat? Because they don't.

It's very easy, watch: "It's true that politicians should have to earn our votes, but it doesn't mean I will vote for Jill Stein." No need for panic or derision. None at all.

Here's another example: "I agree with Donald Trump that the TPP is a bad deal, but that doesn't mean I will vote for that creepshow."

Or another: "The first George Bush was correct that broccoli is disgusting, but that doesn't make me sad that I voted for Dukakis instead."

See, it's pretty easy.

[Spazito]

109. I think she should walk her talk...

instead of saying what others need to do while doing nothing herself. Is that clearer for you?

[OrwellwasRight]

113. I'm not sure she is looking for campaign advice from DU.

But sure. Whatever.

[Spazito]

115. LOL, and I'm sure Hillary Clinton can say the same...

as it relates to the nutcase Stein.

[OrwellwasRight]

116. I would hope Hillary is not looking for advice here either.

I'm not convinced the advice she would get here would help her win.

[Spazito]

117. I am quite sure Hillary Clinton or her campaign do not come here looking for advice...

She and her campaign are doing a stellar job, no advice needed from here or anywhere, certainly not from Stein. Whereas Stein, on the other hand, one look at her campaign and her single digit poll numbers and it begs the question where is she getting her advice from, JPR possibly.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

17. Her statement is nothing but rhetoric

First off, Hillary Clinton has earned my vote. Doctor Moonbat doesn't get to declare who has or hasn't earned anyone's vote when she herself is a massive joke who has failed to make even a mediocre case for herself.

She's never been a mayor, a Senator, a rep, a cabinet member.....she couldn't get elected dog catcher. She's so full of herself she doesn't even realize it. I'd like someone to ask her how she earned anyone's vote, but I suspect Doctor Smug would sneer at them and go back to kissing Assanges ass.

[AgadorSparticus]

40. Exactly! Stein is so FOS. She has never been anything.

She has never been elected, made hard decisions, or been held accountable. She just talks out of her ass.

[CreekDog]

98. you're just pointing out that in her ridiculous candidacy she said one thing right

there isn't a candidate out there who hasn't said at least *one* thing right.

i think you need to stop overstating the importance of the bland statement she made.

[CreekDog]

128. saying one thing right, especially when it's a truism, is not as impressive

as you're suggesting.

[Demonaut]

12. true...she has not earned squat

stein, that is

[emulatorloo]

45. Your job as a voter is to do what's best for your fellow citizens.

Voting for a crackpot anti-vaxer who thinks wifi is frying students brains does not help your fellow citizens.

Voting for an "I've got mine, fuck you" libertarian screws the most vulnerable people in our society.

Voting for a racist predatory capitalist who admires dictators does exactly the same thing.

Voting for the Democrat with progressive policy positions backed up with one of the best platforms we've had in a long time does help your fellow citizens.

You should do whatever you'd like, just pointing out you have a responsibility to others when you cast your vote. This is not all about you.

[Sherman A1]

52. I did not say for whom I am voting

I said it's up to the candidate for any position to give me reasons as to why I should vote for them and those reasons need to be better than "The other guy is really, really bad."

I have voted many times in the past and I've got this pretty much figured out...... and I might add that name calling of any of the candidates really doesn't improve your arguments one bit.

[emulatorloo]

56. I don't care who you vote for, that is for you to decide.

I understood exactly what you said about a candidate needing to give you reasons to vote for them.

Just pointing out you have a responsibility as well, to do the right thing for your fellow citizens.

Don't pretend my post was just "that guy is really really bad". I gave positive reasons for voting for the Dem: liberal policies that lift up people and a solid progressive platform.

None of the other candidates offer anything close to that,

You need a candidate to give you a reason to vote for them? Then take your fingers out your ears and actually listen to what the Dem nominee is saying.

As to the 'name calling' I call them like I see them. Trump is not a predatory capitalist? Johnson's not promoting selfish libertarian policy? Stein has not flirted w anti-vaxxers? Give me a break. You're an intelligent person, and I'm not stupid.

Have a great day.

[Sherman A1]

57. Welcome to

Ignore......

[emulatorloo]

58. That's right, run away from uncomfortable truths.

Take good care of yourself.

[Maru Kitteh]

137. Someone reminds you that this is not all about you.

Someone reminds you that your vote affects other people - vulnerable people. Someone points out that you have a responsibility to your fellow human beings and the greater human community.

And your response? "Welcome to ignore."

What a perfect example you provide.

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. In a parliamentarian style government, she is right

I wish we had that system of coalition governance as I think it keeps representatives more accountable, but we don't. We have 2 parties to pick from.

[Alkene]

41. +1 n/t

[William Seger]

63. Either Clinton or Trump will be the next President. If you don't care which it is ...

... then go ahead and vote third party or don't vote -- same difference.

[geek tragedy]

65. Nader without the accomplishments. Getting Republicans Elected Every November. nt

[LongtimeAZDem]

80. Rubbish

If you have the good fortune to live in a democracy, you have the responsibility to your fellow citizens to use your vote in a way that steers the country in the best direction.

Sometimes, that choice may mean between steering into the lake to avoid driving off of the cliff; choosing to let the car go over the cliff just because you don't want your feet to get muddy is juvenile, selfish, and stupid.

[CreekDog]

97. She uttered a truism, big deal

Candidate who is not qualified, whose running mate is not qualified, who takes all kinds of ridiculous positions and has no chance of winning, has no chance of getting 10%, utters a truism that nobody can argue with.

Big deal.

[CreekDog]

129. please get over yourself

nobody is impressed.

and learn the difference between qualifications to do the job vs. eligibility.

and when you figure it out, please don't post as if none of us are aware of what you just learned.

[maddiemom]

4. And Stein is not entitled to our votes just because she's a Green party candidate.

The Green party has some worthwhile ideas, but should be spending more effort at the grass roots level and building on that base. Just throwing unqualified candidates (sorry Ralph, you too) into the presidential ring is not the way to go (and yes, I know Stein has run for many offices). The Greens have lost years of ground with this strategy and have been in too much of a hurry. Also: I only recently began checking out Stein. My first impression of her: SMUG. As an educator (advanced degrees), I do favor free college tuition, but Jill had some very unrealistic ideas as to what that would accomplish: almost as if she were clueless about the job market today.

[Siwsan]

5. Jill Stein is another example of how someone can be intelligent, but still not be very smart

That is a condition that seems to be spreading, notably in the political arena.

[emulatorloo]

46. Anti Vaxxer crackpots are not intelligent

[Siwsan]

47. I base the intelligence remark on the fact she did make it through medical school and training

That takes intelligence, but not necessarily smarts. I don't know if she has always been anti-vax, or not. It could be something that evolved, along with the stupid.

[emulatorloo]

50. Understood. But then again there's that whole healing crystals thing.

Thank goodness my own doc is more sensible, lol

I find it laughable that our BOB's find her a credible alternative to an amazingly smart, tough, experienced and dedicated man like Bernie.

She has almost no political experience and is a vanity candidate who shows up once every four years. It is just crazy seeing the Bob's twisting themselves in knots.

[Siwsan]

51. Next you will tell me that my garlic wreaths aren't keeping the vampires away!!!!

And, yea, she is a text book vanity candidate.

[Blasphemer]

53. From what I see at universities these days, it takes pretty minimal intelligence

To make it through med school. Critical thinking skills not required so someone like Stein is not remotely surprising.

[Siwsan]

55. Yea, but she is not a recent graduate - she graduated from Harvard Medical school in 1979

And in 1973 she studied anthropology, psychology and sociology and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. So I have no doubt she is very intelligent. Just not real smart.

[madaboutharry]

6. Jill Stein is misguided.

She holds fringe left and fringe holistic ideas and believes that in some way that makes her smarter and superior. Her enabling the anti vaxxer movement is unforgivable.

[megahertz]

7. What does Stein think she herself has done to actually earn a vote?

I mean, she can explain why she thinks she's the best candidate until she's blue, but hey, I could explain why I think *I* am the best candidate, as can anyone who can string sentences together. What has she actually done that has earned a vote, as she says, or warrants anyone giving her the Presidential office? I'm baffled as to why she considers herself knowledgeable and experienced enough to do the job.

[milestogo]

33. Maybe she has the best words.

Oh wait, that's the Donald.

[Renew Deal]

10. "Real change" will happen if you vote for Stein just as it did for those that voted for Nader

This is the kind of real change Stein is talking about.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

18. Fuck Jill Stein

Let her run against Liz and watch what happens. Of course we know Dr Moonbat is only a Presidential vanity candidate.

[Stuckinthebush]

24. My thoughts exactly

And her supporters. The Greens gave us W and we are still cleaning up after that mess. That "party" and it's supporters can go to hell.

[milestogo]

34. The Supreme Court gave us W in 2000

and Karl Rove gave us W in 2004.

[Stuckinthebush]

49. Never would have had a chance to do that

But for the Greens

They set the stage. Screw them.

[Duval]

69. Do you have charts/links to back up your accusations?

If so, please provide. Thanks.

[Stuckinthebush]

83. Go support the Greens elsewhere

This is Democratic Underground.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/31/nader_elected_bush_why_we_shouldnt_forget_130715.html

[OrwellwasRight]

78. Actually this is not true.

Had Gore won his home state, as virtually ever presidential candidate in history has, Bush would not have been President.
If Buchanan had not had so many Florida votes from the butterfly ballot, Bush would not have been president.
If the Supreme Court weren't so tucked up, Bush would not have been president.
Had Katherine Harris not purged the FL voters rolls of minority voters, Bush would not have been president.

I could go on and on and on. There is no "but for" causation linking the Greens to Bush's presidency. Clearly the Republicans had much more to do with it.

I am concerned that you seem to oppose democracy, which means people have the freedom to vote for anyone they choose. And that's disturbing.

Just because the rules of DU require all members to advocate voting for Clinton does not mean the rules require all members to deny the right to other people in our democracy to have a free choice.

[Stuckinthebush]

82. Wrong

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/31/nader_elected_bush_why_we_shouldnt_forget_130715.html

Nader made it close enough to steal. Any justification of the Green Party is ridiculous. Naders quixotic candidacy cost the Dems the White House that year.

Don't bring that justification of the Greens to DU. He can stay in the hole he climbed into after that race.

[OrwellwasRight]

92. this is an opinion piece

Get over yourself.

Try recognizing facts that don't lead to your preferred conclusion, like the fact that if so many retired Jews had not voted for the anti-Semitic Buchanan due to the Butterfly ballot, Gore would have won. But yeah blame Nadler so you don't have to review your own flaws.

[Stuckinthebush]

95. My own flaws?

Lord. This is ridiculous

George W. Bush 2,912,790
Albert Gore Jr. 2,912,253
Ralph Nader 97,488

537 votes between W and Gore.

I'm sure those principled 97488 Nader voters would have just sat out the election.

Don't peddle this revisionist crap here. It's against the TOS.

[OrwellwasRight]

106. Actually your post is revisionist.

And I have never seen where telling the truth is against the TOS. Buchanan had more than 537 votes in FL. Why don't your totals include that figure?

Trying to shade the truth a bit?

[Old and In the Way]

110. Forget Florida, see NH.

Had Nader not run in NH, amajority of Nader voters would probBly voted for Gore. Those EVs would have been enough to make Florida's results meaningless.

[sherlocksistah]

84. here's another article on how Nader "was indispensable to the Republican party"

in the previous poster's link on Real Clear Politics, there's a pretty clear reason why Gore lost his home state of Tennessee:

"Anything can be blamed, like Gore’s failure to win Tennessee (a cheap shot, since Gore had shed much of his Southern conservatism by 2000, making Tennessee a reach)"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/31/nader_elected_bush_why_we_shouldnt_forget_130715.html

Also, another pretty good article about how the Republicans, mostly Karl Rove, ran ads for Nader in swing states in both 2000 and 2004!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Also, if you really want to delve deeply into the whole mess that was the 2000 election, a very detailed statistical study proves the point that Ralph Nader was the spoiler in that election.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

[Stuckinthebush]

90. Great articles

Thanks.

I'm amazed we still have to debate this foolishness. Nader gave us W and all the ills that came with him such as Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. imagine an alternative history where Gore was president. What a different world we would have today!

[OrwellwasRight]

91. yeah, ok, opinion pieces prove

Something that is factually untrue, which is that People who voted for Nadler were not a but for causation of the Bush presidency. Not. But sure, I'm convinced.

Typical response from someone who can't admit the flaws of his/her own preferred candidate. Like why didn't the Gore people object to the butterfly ballot? Flaw. Why didn't Gore win his own home state? Flaw. Why didn't Gore use a different legal strategy (his focus on recounting just a few votes is what allowed the Supreme Court to make their bogus decision)? Flaw. But sure, everything is only Ralph Nader's fault. Such thinking is what prevents the Democratic party from advancing. Are Obama and the Clintons perfect too in your eyes?

We refuse to improve and just blame others.

[BzaDem]

101. Do you understand what "but-for causation" means? n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

105. I do. Do you?

Because if so I can't tell.

[BzaDem]

118. The problem is

If you correctly understood what "but-for causation" meant, you wouldn't be talking about things like Gore losing his home state, the Supreme Court, or any other event that is wholly irrelevant to whether Nader was a but-for cause of Bush's inauguration.

In other words, you are acting as if you are under the impression that the existence of multiple "but-for causes" means that none of them are individually "but-for causes." That isn't just wrong as a factual matter -- it is wrong by definition. Hence my question about whether you understand the definition.

[OrwellwasRight]

123. Not irrelevant unless you don't know the figures.

If Gore had won his home state, he could have freely lost FL and still been elected President. So, given your interpretation, his loss in him home state was the but-for cause. So in that case Nader's few votes ae actually irrelevant. Thanks for making my point.

[BzaDem]

124. What you say is true, and completely irrelevant to whether Nader was a "but-for" cause.

You keep bringing up facts that are completely irrelevant to the actual question of whether Nader was a "but-for cause." This is precisely why I asked whether you understood the definition. Yes, if Gore won Tennessee, or Texas, or any other state, he would have been inaugurated. No, that is still not relevant to whether Nader himself was a but-for cause, no matter how often it is repeated.

Do you acknowledge that by definition, an event can have multiple but-for causes?

[HereSince1628]

19. Why doesn't voting for a Green impact Trump and Clinton the same?

It's not a vote for either. So why is it always supposed to help Trump and hurt Clinton?

It seems to hinge on the notion that it's for Trump because it -could- have been a vote for Clinton. But, how does that work? Coulda votes aren't counted at all. And it -coulda- been a vote for Trump...which actually would definitively be better for Trump than Clinton.

But it could have been a vote for no one at all. It could have been a vote not cast. For much of my life roughly half of eligible voters haven't voted in presidential elections, and in the famous "Nader got Bush elected" election turnout, iirc, was in the mid 40%.

If -all- these non-votes for the dem are actually helping the republicans, Bush wouldn't have needed SCOTUS to select him. And by the way why didn't Romney and McCain beat Obama? There were way more than enough non-votes not cast to have defeated Obama.



What seems to be the case is that in the calculus of campaigning, campaigners apply partisan fudge factors to add, at minimum, emotional weightiness to votes. So that the voters casting or not casting votes can be shamed in the perspective of partisans.

Consequently, I think those weights should be called political traitor-factors, because they are intended to generate clear, though partisan, interpretations of the treacherousness-to-others' causes to be placed upon those votes. Because in mainstream politics, people should never vote their conscious if it involves voting, or not voting, in a manner that doesn't support 'my candidate'.

I'm not a supporter of Greens, but I am disappointed to see a person as smart as Warren fall into the use of this sort of reasoning.

[karynnj]

26. Warren's comments are as smart as she is.

A vote from a liberal, socially aware person for Jill Stein is really a vote that Clinton did not get. The reason it is not equally true that Trump lost the vote is that it is almost certainly true that if the choice was constrained to Clinton vs Trump, they would prefer Clinton. I realize that there actually are some Stein supporters who really do reject both Clinton and Trump in equal measures. I suspect there are fewer of these than there are people, who if forced to chose prefer Clinton. Note that Warren's comments make sense only directed towards those people who - even if they prefer Stein - prefer Clinton over Trump.

There are more complicated voting systems where votes are rolled up to "second choices" for minor candidates. In such a system, if you genuinely preferred Stein, you could vote for her indicating Clinton as a second choice. When Stein - predictably got her less than 5% - votes would then flow up to be counted for their second choice. In our system, that does not happen.

You might also note that the primaries did signal where many in the party prefer to stand. That is when you can and should vote your conscience or ideology. The fact that Sanders, a real outsider and a 74 year old Democratic socialist, with his own flaws, got about 46% of the primary pledged delegates shows that there is a desire to move to the left. That was an incredible showing against someone the party's powerful people all aligned with -- almost as if she were the incumbent. (To see how strong this was, compare to the Gore/Bradley results, where Bradley was more mainstream. )

In the general election, there will be only one winner. It will not matter if Stein gets 1%, 5%, or 10% nationally. It WILL matter who wins 271 delegates. Imagine the results are closer than they now look and it comes down to one swing state. Imagine that the results are Trump 40, HRC 39.999, Stein 5.001% and Johnson 5%. Tell me now why it was a good idea for someone who far prefers Clinton to Trump to have voted for Stein? Those are the people Warren is referring to.

[christx30]

35. If I hold left wing ideals, but I don't

like Hillary, I'll probably vote for Jill. If I hold right wing ideals, but I don't like Donald, I'll vote for Gary.
It's a protest vote against whichever candidate.

[Fla Dem]

44. Just to clarify, you're speaking hypothetically as an explanation for why someone on the left

or right might vote for one of these actors, hence a liberal/progressive voter, voting for Stein, hurts HRC more than the Trumpster. Correct?

[christx30]

62. Right. I wouldn't vote for Jill.

I'm voting for Hillary.
It's just a general alignment thing.

[HereSince1628]

70. No I think not correct, it presumes a protest vote is the only reason to vote for other

than a democrat or a republican.

And it really seems to be just another endorsement of shaming alternate votes by creating a 'treachery factor'.

[OrwellwasRight]

79. +1

Well stated.

[Sherman A1]

138. Well Said

It seems to work that way, because any argument against your position, does not fit into the previously accepted narrative that many seem to hold.

[Lucky Luciano]

20. I agree with her that votes have to be earned.

This is absolutely correct. Stein has not earned my vote. I am not uber-excited about Clinton, but she has earned my vote. Clinton has the experience and definitely has the competence times 10 - if she prioritizes things the way she says she will, then she will be great (that is not an attack on clinton's honesty as much as it is an attack on mainstream politicians who say a lot of things...).

Main reason for me to vote for Clinton is still anti-drumpf - that chucklehead will use a nuclear bomb if elected - that would be a given.

[book_worm]

21. Stein is dragging the Green Party down and will come in fourth

way behind Johnson and the Libertarians. We should just ignore her.

[no_hypocrisy]

22. Stein is begging the question.

She has to explain why a vote for her isn't going to help the election of Donald Trump.

[Tempest]

23. What has she done to earn our vote?

Being a doctor who is an anti-vaxxer and believes, wrongly, that wi-fi signals harms children's brain development?

Not hardly.

[oberliner]

25. Interestingly, she did not dispute Warren's point

Which remains valid.

[FLPanhandle]

27. Jill, you need the earn the right for me to respect your opinion

And since you are a bat shit crazy anti-vax loon, I don't listen to a word you say.

[DinahMoeHum]

28. Did you mean Jill?

n/t

[FLPanhandle]

29. Crap, yes.

Updated. Thanks!

[Rustyeye77]

36. Suddenly... I'm missing Ralph.

[longship]

37. How do those bus tires feel, Jill? nt

[Gman]

38. Stein is a fucked up opportunistic fraud

She's got nothing. The Green Party is a fraud. They fucked up the 2000 election with their drop dead stupid bullshit with Nader, and thousands died. And they would fuck up this election given an iota of a chance all the while smirking with a grin that betrays their nihilistic attitude about everyone and everything that is not as smart or as good as they think they are.

[marble falls]

42. “Politicians are not ‘entitled’ to our votes simply because they represent the establishment ....

political parties,” she said in an email to the Herald.

Which is just one reason I will not be voting Jill Stein.

[AgadorSparticus]

43. Jil Stein is taking a page out of Trump's talking-out-of-your-ass book

Did Jill Stein just tweet to Elizabeth Warren, the liberal lioness, to walkthewalk??!?!! From the same person who has never held an elected position? From the same person who has passed ZERO laws, ZERO participation in...anything to affect change?
OOOOHHHHH the irony.

Jill Stein, how have YOU walked the walk? Jill Stein has ZERO credibility to be questioning Elizabeth Warren. And this is the problem with people who portends to support leftist ideals and support the green party. That is an oxymoron. You can't do both---not at the same time.

[MBS]

135. " " " " n/t

[Coolest Ranger]

48. She's not a democratic

candidate we got better things to talk about

[PSPS]

54. A good example of why her support is so low and she's a crackpot.

She's the same type of crackpot as Trump, Perot, Forbes, Nader and the rest who think they can just be "elected president" without any political experience in another elected office.

[MurrayDelph]

59. Stein is setting the stage

for her Senate run against Warren.

[emulatorloo]

60. Warren will eat Stein for lunch.

[Mass]

73. She has run several times statewide and has lost every single time.

She can run, but she would lose badly.

[Old and In the Way]

114. She is a professional poltical loser.

I dont get why an MD in Mass . would waste their career chasing unicorns.

[Maru Kitteh]

134. Stein's Senate run against Elizabeth Warren

[NHDEMFORLIFE]

61. Third-party movements

Count Stein among the folks who have failed to grasp something that would make their candidacies worth more than sending a well-intentioned election day message.
Political parties cannot be built from the top down. Someone has to invest the time and money to do the grunt work of laying the foundation at the precinct level. Citizens must be convinced that they are working towards a goal by competing for local offices, by staying committed in the months and years between election days.
Ross Perot got 18.9 percent in 1992 and 8.4 percent in 1996. From there, what he considered his great crusade fizzled out of sight.
The reality is that voting for Stein, or anyone else but Hillary, may help a befuddled sociopath win the White House. There is an intellectual argument to be made that maybe Trump's election would be good for our political system over time. For the millions of people who would be harmed by Trump's policies, that hypothetical argument would not put any food on their tables.

[Buzz Clik]

64. She's Nader but devoid of all substance.

[LenaBaby61]

67. Jill Stein .....

IS a whack-a-doodle whose JEALOUS of Hillary Clinton, and her VP Ajamu Baraka made an anti-Semitic remark about Bernie Sanders and if that wasn't enough, he called Pres. Obama an Uncle Tom. Plus, IF she's that much in love with Putin and Russia, Assange why not seek citizenship in Russia

[Mass]

72. True, but neither has Jill Stein

She states that we need to vote for real change. Real change starts by being elected and Jill Stein is not going to be elected. So she is not a vector of real change. That is as real as that.

Also real change can be good or bad. I have no doubt Trump will bring change. This is a change we do not want. Now, if Jill Stein wants to create change without hurting people, she can try to run for Congress in her district (I still would not support her, but she could try) for State Congress in Lexington MA.

As for the rest, no surprise that the Herald would try to attack Warren using Stein as a vehicle.

[brooklynite]

74. If anyone tells you they're voting for Jill Stein, just say "Paul LePage".

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. Fuck Jill Stein and her defenders. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

76. Perhaps she could have used her time giving her position but just as with Trump

No position and their only position is to speak poorly of Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton, again nothing to see in her corner.

[Fred Drum]

88. to bad there's only 2 parties

coulda been something

[marble falls]

89. Worse still is a two party election system. Thrird parties are made irrelevant by the system.

[lucasjkr]

96. That's taking the easy way out.

The Republicans lost two elections (1992, 1996) thanks to third party, and then the dems lost 2000 arguably because of that too.

The Tea Party wised up and became a part of the GOP, got congressmen and senators in place rapidly and then were able to field candidates of their own. Bernie went the same route, shifting from being an independent to under the Dem banner for his run. Yet the Greens aren't seeing that that's the route that they should be taking.

We can complain about two party system forever, but there are still a myriad of ways to change things.

[lucasjkr]

93. To build something lasting, you need to have a strong base first.

Part of me faults Bernie for not being as vocal as he could have to his supporters. Like, when he'd talk about the changes he would have liked to enact if he won, he always said "if i win its because my voters show up en mass, and vote not only to elect me, but all down the ballot too". I don't think that resonated enough, unfortunately, and gets manifested in the Bernie or Bust crowd, and now, in the Jill/Green crowd. And the thing is, I love the green party, but can't for the life of me understand why they're trying a proven bad strategy of running under their own umbrella, rather than doing what the Tea Party AND Bernie did, and take shelter under a larger umbrella.

You need allies in government to effect change. And if Jill thinks that even if she (somehow) became president, she would have even a slightly easier time than Hillary is looking to have, she's mistaken.

Republicans learned from the past. In both 1992 and 1996, Ross Perot was their spoiler. 2000 saw Nader probably accomplish the same for the democrats. The republicans took notice, the tea party formed and got elected into Republican seats on Congress, and they transformed that party from the inside out. That's what the Greens, etc ought to be doing, not attempting a strategy that's worked awfully for everyone who tried it in 1992, 1996 and 2000.

Oh, and first post here, by the way. Hi guys!

[Fla Dem]

132. So you think Jill Stein would have done better if she ran as a Democrat like Bernie did?

I just don't see that happening. She and her party are non entities. The Tea Party was the advent of Trump; anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-government. They had a solid message for the RW of the Republican party. Jill Stein does not have a message that resonates with a large segment of the Democratic party.

BTW, welcome to DU

[ismnotwasm]

94. Who the fuck is she talking about "us" and "our"??

All three thousand of her supporters? Reminds me of Trump trying to speak for "The American people"

[HereSince1628]

100. But most of those places have power-sharing in their administrations

Last edited Mon Aug 29, 2016, 07:40 AM - Edit history (1)

The system here is pretty much winner-take-all. The new president/governor basically gets to organize his own government

The parties that have strong showings but don't take the plurality to win the presidency don't typically get to be part of the government here.

That puts huge importance on winning executive-ships in the US. It penalizes everything except a win. There's nothing much guaranteed about coming in second, third or later.

Consequently, it's exceedingly difficult to convince voters they can 'grow' a small party into something larger.

If you don't get born into being at least a competitive second your new movement is very much handicapped, and can only be approached from -inside- another party.

And we see that from-the-inside thing has happened to the tea-party movement and it's the path Sanders has chosen rather than trying to build something from scratch

[LiberalLovinLug]

103. Thanks for the good response

You are right in your reasoning about the near impossibility of a third party in the US ever gaining a foothold. The only way they have done it in other countries is with a voting system change to some form of proportional representation. But whose to say that will not one day come to the USA? It is gaining ground all over the democratized world. And Jill is simply one of the pioneers of the Green party of the US. They have to start somewhere.

But even without PR, here in Canada, the Greens had enough votes to be able to participate in our national debates. (Even though there is only one member of Parliament elected, the leader Elizabeth May) But our new PM, Justin Trudeau, has promised to move to a PR system for the next election. So we should see a few more Greens in our parliament soon.

I think it will be a good thing. The more voices, parties, that advocate for more liberal, fair, environmental, issues the better. We should all be applauding that. Unfortunately, the old archaic first past the post, electoral college style the US has now forces, or at least some feel they are forced, to demonize our allies in the global fight against corporatism and anti-labour and anti-environmental practices and trade deals.

I applaud her bravery, as a woman and leader in this environment where she is vilified by both left and right simply for running for election. And I'm just sick of this juvenile name-calling and verbal abuse at someone that does not deserve it.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

102. But Jill. It's YOU who has to earn our vote too - you can't just say stuff and think people are

gonna follow you wherever. She seems to have an entitlement thing going herself - like just because we voted for Bernie does she really think we should now abandon him and the work he's done and will still do to advance the progressive agenda and how the Dem party establishment does business?

No Jill, I made a well reasoned and well informed choice to support who I did in the primary and who I will in the general.

Im sure shes a good physician - maybe she could be Surgeon General or something like that. But President? Nope, not gonna happen dear.

[trueblue2007]

104. i think JILL STEIN is a horrible person

just my opinion.

[orpupilofnature57]

111. I love Elizabeth Warren, But she was a hold-out .

Jill Stein is the only candidate who speaks to the issues Bernie tried to include in the conversation.

[CreekDog]

112. As Stein says, she's not entitled to the votes of liberals, Hillary has done more to earn the votes

Hillary has done more to earn the votes of liberals than Stein has.

Running a barely half-hearted campaign every four years and saying that Obama is "Bush on steroids" is not doing anything to earn anyone's votes.

[Kathy M]

125. Agree

[Bradical79]

119. I agree with both statements

Votes need to be earned, but it doesn't mean Warren is wrong. Between Clinton, Stein, and Trump Clinton is the only one with any real policy proposals that make sense, and the only one with any kind of resume for the position. Votes for Stein are reactionary protest voters, or single issue voters. She's "earned" nothing.

[Kathy M]

126. Agree

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

133. Putin's Princess needs to shut the fuck up

She so progressive, she accepted a FOX Business Channel hosts invite to go to NYC and disrupt the Democratic Convention on the floor, yet she didn't go to Cleveland for the RNC at all.

[BobbyDrake]

136. "Invest" implies a return. A vote for Stein will return nothing but a sense of smug superiority...

...by the smug progressive smug enough to cast it.