Brutal story about Jill Stein's Finances-Short Version: She's a Hypocrite

[MADem]

SAY ONE THING, DO ANOTHER
Jill Stein’s Ideology Says One Thing—Her Investment Portfolio Says Another
The holier-than-thou Green Party candidate rails against big carbon, big banks, big pharma—while she holds substantial investments in them.
YASHAR ALI
10.26.16 6:25 PM ET

SAY ONE THING, DO ANOTHER
Jill Stein’s Ideology Says One Thing—Her Investment Portfolio Says Another
The holier-than-thou Green Party candidate rails against big carbon, big banks, big pharma—while she holds substantial investments in them.
YASHAR ALI
10.26.16 6:25 PM ET
Green Party Presidential Nominee Jill Stein has largely based her campaign on her uncompromising positions on the environment, opposition to big banks and Wall Street, defense contractors, and the pharmaceutical industry. But an analysis of her financial disclosures, which she was required to file as a presidential candidate, show that she is heavily invested in the very industries that she maligns the most and as a result of her investments, she has built significant wealth.
According to the financial disclosure form that she filed with the United States Office of Government Ethics on March 30, 2016, Stein and her husband, Richard Roher, have investments (with the exception of real estate) worth anywhere from $3,832,050 to $8,505,000. (Stein told the Beast that she inherited “over a half-million dollars” from her parents.)We don’t know their exact net worth because filers are only required to provide a range of the value of their investments as opposed to exact values.

Stein has also voluntarily released the first two pages of her 2015 federal tax return. That return, filed jointly with her husband, shows a total income of $349,088 in 2015 and an effective tax rate of 21 percent. In a video interview, Stein told a reporter for Forbes in 2012 that she does not rely on accountants or lawyers to prepare her tax returns. In the interview she said she uses the popular do-it-yourself software Turbo Tax. An examination by The Daily Beast of her 2015 tax return confirms that no outside party was involved in preparing her returns.
Stein, a Harvard-educated physician, has run for office seven times, including two unsuccessful races for Massachusetts Governor and a run for the White House in 2012. In the 2012 presidential race, Stein received 469,501 votes.

She has made purity a central pillar of her presidential candidacy, and she has held that the Green Party reigns above all others with respect to moral and ethical supremacy. In an interview with CNN last April, she said, “I have long since thrown in the towel on the Democratic and Republican parties because they are really a front group for the 1 percent, for predatory banks, fossil fuel giants and war profiteers.”.....Stein said that she has “explored” more socially responsible funds but “found their investments in fracking and large scale biofuels not much better than the non-green funds. I have not yet found the mutual funds that represent my goals of advancing the cause of people, planet and peace.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/26/jill-stein-s-ideology-says-one-thing-her-investment-portfolio-says-another.html

MILLIONS in investments in fossil fuels, banks, big pharma, etc. Talk about "Do as I say, not as I do."

[Cha]

1. K&R!

[wysi]

2. What a surprise!

Not.

[MyNameIsKhan]

3. Really, this was least expected, wow

[Starfury]

5. Wait, what? Did she just use fracking as an example of socially responsible investing? nt

[Grey Lemercier]

7. you misread it

[MADem]

18. She railed against it while raking in the profits from it. In short, she bullshitted her easily-led

fans.

[Shoonra]

6. It would help to know some details!

Since Jill Stein is an enemy of the fossil fuel companies, the big pharma companies, etc., yes, it makes sense that she should own some shares in each of those very companies - to give her the RIGHT as a shareholder to receive the annual report and to ask questions at the annual shareholders' meetings. A detail not provided in this news item is how many shares in each company -- a few shares in each villainous company, which makes sense, or a whopping nest egg in just one company?

I might also add that a person does have a right to invest her retirement money and rainy day fund in something with a good return, even if it is not managed by a band of angels with an archangel as their CEO.

[Grey Lemercier]

8. did you actually read the article? Your positing of

her potentially owning just a few shares for report purposes is disproven.

[Demsrule86]

12. That is nonsense.

All I need to know about Stein is she has said Trump would be better than Clinton...I despise her and all of her Green buddies who gave us George Bush...and helped wreck Kerry's campaign and if that was not enough helped the GOP take back the House by demoralizing the vote in ten...many Obama haters among the Greens ...They attacked the president non-stop because he could not do everything first term...This is Democratic Underground...and I really don't get defending a woman who is supporting Trump. Greens are spoiler always and often hypocrites so it does not surprise me she has non-green type investments.

[Stuckinthebush]

14. Amen

And well said!

Stein and the Greens are not our friends. They are navel gazing, myopic ideologues who gave us Bush in 2000 and would just love to give us Trump now. Every now and then you will have a closeted Green rear his or her head to defend the party and their candidate. The best thing to do is ignore them.

Stein will get maybe 1% of the national vote and have less impact in this election than Mr Marijuana with the Libertarians.

[MADem]

23. +1,000! nt

[Demsrule86]

36. True that.

I just really dislike Jill Stein who is seriously trying to inflict Trump on this country...I suppose it is good that the Greens have such an unappealing candidate...Nader certainly hurt Democrats and all Americans by helping to elect Bush.

[MADem]

20. LOL--you're seriously trying to pretend that she takes all that profit (see the bit about her tax

returns) so she can "fight the power?"

She can do that with ONE share--not shares worth millions.

I would urge you to read the article. I would also say that your last paragraph is basically an endorsement of her hypocrisy. Sorry, I'm not onboard with that, because she is, without doubt, the 2nd biggest bullshitter (after Trump who wins the prize hands-down) in this POTUS campaign.

Stein is a lousy leader of the Green Party, not just because she is lazy, entitled and ineffective, but because she is a bullshitter--and that is probably the biggest 'sin' when you're running an (alleged) insurgency campaign.

She's a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP, in actual fact. A vote for her is a vote for Donald Trump.

[okaawhatever]

9. K & R nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. So no Dems have those kinds of investmentsor are rich?

[Demsrule86]

11. She is running for the Green Party

That is a little bit different. Jill Stein only cares about electing Trump probably because she welcomes his regressive tax policy.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Can't be mad at one Investor class progressive and not the rest of

them.

The real issue is not who belongs to what party, but that we have crappy plurality voting in most places.

[MADem]

17. Yes, you can, when one runs on being against the very practices she engages in.

She's a hypocrite, and a particularly odious one too. We're not even going into the fact that she takes money from GOP deep pockets for her campaign. She is probably the most corrosive politician to ever head up the Green Party--she is the Green's Sarah Palin. She is not worthy of any defense.

The real issue IS that she is a shitty leader, and SHE is the reason that the Green Party hasn't gotten any traction and is not regarded as a serious organization.

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Guess you are mad at a pile of Democrats, too, then. Not defending Stein. I have no interest in

her being elected. Bernie had (and still has) my heart.

My point is that a hypocritical post about hypocrisy is just ironic is all. *shrug*

[Demsrule86]

37. I have no problem with investors.

I do have problem with a woman who is running for the Green Party and has such investments. She is a fraud. Look I see you are Green Party...but I dislike the entire outfit...they have never given us anything remotely useful and never will...all this talk about multiple parties...like it is the holy grail...the truth is look at Europe, you end up with minority rule. The UK has been ruled by conservatives since before Bush...and they have done a number on that country. Iceland is about to elect the pirate party...which has less than 30% support. Thus, I consider the third parties and especially any party with a Jill Stein hypocrite who wants Trump to win a complete waste of time. They enable and support Republicans;they gave us Bush who came with really bad SCOTUS picks, two wars and economic collapse....Greens have taken money in various places to run candidates in order to help the GOP win...a more honest name would be ... fake ideology party that hates Democrats.

[GreenPartyVoter]

41. We have the same problem here, or have you not noticed what the Tea Party has done to the Repubs and

thus the entire nation.

I understand the concerns with coalition governments and the tyranny of the minority, but clinging to a 2 party model doesn't seem to be the answer.

[MADem]

16. It's a classic case of "Do as I say, not as I do" -- as the article clearly explains. nt

[Odin2005]

15. Stein is a classic "Limo Liberal".

[Demsrule86]

38. She is not liberal ..

She supports Trump.

[DemocraticWing]

19. I don't think this is a reasonable argument.

Mostly because Republicans deploy it against Democrats all the time. We could repackage this entire article and make it about Clinton or Obama and it would be the top story on Breitbart for a week.

[MADem]

21. No, we can't. Stein makes it her business to rail at her "opponents" (word used advisedly,

like a fly is Ali's "opponent" buzzing around the boxing ring) for doing EXACTLY what she does, which is the textbook definition of hypocrisy.

Stein doesn't deserve anyone's empathy, sympathy, or enthusiasm. She is a fake, a phony, a GOP - enabling place-holder who helps the Republicans pull votes from the Democrats--just like Ralph (another wealthy multi-millionaire, living in a mansion he keeps in his brother's name) Nader, who plays the Poor Boy and pretends to live in a rent-controlled apartment he rarely visits, while farting through silk.

And of course, the fans keep rah-rahing and remain deceived. They love the IDEA so much they ignore the reality.

[kcr]

22. Clinton and Obama ran as spoilers to help elect Republicans? I didn't know that n/t

[tonedevil]

25. This is really important...

when you think how close the nation is to putting Dr. Stein in the most powerful position of the most powerful country in the world. At this point Dr. Stein is only 269 to 270 Electoral College votes away from winning the Presidency. Since there are so many avowed supporters of Dr. Stein and the Green Party here on DU this is particularly timely.

[MADem]

27. I think any time a candidate is miles away from their

stated platform, and has the potential to shift votes from a viable candidate to the benefit of a tyrannical orange asshole, that it is both TIMELY and IMPORTANT.

But then, that's the Big Picture for ya...step back, it will come into view for you.

[tonedevil]

28. Now that you put...

TIMELY and IMORTANT in all caps the big picture comes into view for me. Thing is I don't see Dr. Stein in the big picture. She might be that pixel down in the lowest far left of the screen I'm not sure. The only time I hear about Dr. Stein is when someone brings her up to say how mad they are about her anemic campaign. I imagine she is grateful to you for the bump.

[MADem]

30. Well, some folks said that about Al Gore's Green nemesis, Ralph Nader, too.

Her "anemic campaign" ran a nationwide television ad paid for by GOP operatives. A not insignificant reason she's not getting any kind of 'goose' despite an infusion of wingnut money is because of mean old assholes like me ruining her fun and calling her -- and her clueless supporters --out for being the tools they are.

She's not 'grateful' to me--I call her what she is--a cadging buffoon, a liar, and a grifter. And I call her supporters what they are: Clueless and uninformed (to be kind).

As for TIMELY and IMPORTANT, I got those words from you, and I thought they deserved a bit of emphasis.

As most of us who lived through 2000 (the reason this site was formed) will say, to quote The Illegitimate Shrub, "Fool me once....won't git fooled agin!"

[tonedevil]

33. I disagree...

regarding the inflation of Mr. Nader's importance as well. He was not a Ross Perot, more democrats voted for Bush than Nader in Florida. Talking about Dr. Stein at this time seems like it is using a taser on a dead horse. The taser is the only thing giving her "campaign" the appearance of life.

[MADem]

34. Florida was a voter's clusterfuck in 2000, and Nader didn't help.

Had he not been on the ballot at all, who knows what might have been?

[tonedevil]

35. Who knows? /nt

[Demsrule86]

39. The bottom line is if Nader had not run Bush would

never have been president. I often wonder how Green voters who voted for a man that killed literally killed thousands of Americans between 9-11 and his wars can sleep at night. Then there is the economic debacle and economic disparity which still haunts us and has changed this country ...he also was a very successful free trader who shipped 11 million jobs overseas...thanks Greens.

[tonedevil]

42. No that is not...

the bottom line. More democrats voted for Bush than Nader in Florida. Nader took almost equally from registered Republican voters as Democratic voters. More plausible path to victory would be Al Gore winning his home state. Third parties are a fact in US politics no one owes a vote to anyone for anything.
I don't think the Green Party is serious or worth any consideration. If they really wanted a political party they would get city council spots and state legislature. To run a boutique candidate for president every four years puts them, and the Libertarian Party, in the same category as Pat Paulson. That said it's legal and if your favorite candidate can't convince enough voters to win it isn't the fault of the other contestants.

[VulgarPoet]

26. This is why I say there will never be a liberal enough president where I'm concerned.

Even the no-chancers are hypocritical, two-faced scumbags.

[barbtries]

29. to be fair,

people could probably say that about me. i have a 401K and no ecologically or socially sound funds were available per our plan. i asked.
having said that, i don't think she's a worthy candidate. i just wouldn't fault her for this given my own experience.

[MADem]

31. You're not running for POTUS.

She's telling people how they should live their lives, but not leading by example.

[barbtries]

32. you got me there

i guess.

[Demsrule86]

40. Ah but she lives her check your privlege life

while attempting to ruin all Americans lives by promoting and electing Republicans....she doesn't care that a GOP court would destroy the progressive movement because she is a grifter and cares nothing about what fascist Trump would do to America, and she is way to cozy with Putin.