Stein trolls Johnson on world leaders gaffe, also fails to name world leaders

[DonViejo]

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein tried to capitalize on Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson flubbing a question on world leaders by listing three figures she liked. But none of the ones she listed are leaders of their respective countries.

A day after Johnson was unable to name a world leader he admired when asked at an MSNBC town, Stein tweeted out a list of her own.

Dr. Jill SteinVerified
?@DrJillStein

Here are a few of my favorite leaders: @ElizabethMay, João Stédile of @MST_Oficial and @jeremycorbyn. #AleppoMoment

RETWEETS 183 LIKES 395

7:29 AM - 29 Sep 2016

May, Stédile, and Corbyn, however, aren't technically world leaders, as none holds a top position in their country's government. May is a member of the Canadian House of Commons. Stédile is an economist and member of Brazil's Landless Rural Workers Movement, which he helped found. Corbyn is the leader of the Labour Party in Britain.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/jill-stein-gary-johnson-foreign-leaders-228899#ixzz4LkFo7Ki1

[Madam45for2923]

1. She tries to troll time & time again but just embarrasses herself all over again!

Woman is a joke.

[Siwsan]

2. Maybe she confused Elizabeth May with Theresa May?

Or am I being generous.

[karynnj]

5. No - Elizabeth May is an activist who is a member of the Canadian Green party

Theresa May is a conservative and no more likely to support her than her predecessor Cameron.

The biggest criticism of this is that it is ignoring that being able to list leaders you admire while at home writing a tweet is different than getting the question asked in an interview. The difficulty is that you a candidate needs to think not just who he admires but what citing someone would mean. I do not know if there is a country led by someone who is a strict libertarian who also has a great track record. The question would be easier for both Clinton (Obama and if pushed for another - someone like Merkel) or Trump (Bibi would be likely).

I also do not agree with Politico that "leader" means head of state. I think that an answer of MLK jr in 1967 would have been an excellent answer. I am not saying that any of the people she listed rise to the level of MLK jr, but I also do not know anything about the person from Brazil.

One observation, she chose Elizabeth May rather than Justin Trudeau, who would have been a great answer. What this likely shows is that she has little ability to chose good when perfect (by her estimation) is not available in a head of state. Trudeau appointed Stephane Dion as the environmental minister and he had a good relationship with May in the past. The Green party is currently in a bit of chaos. Stein's choice of May, over Trudeau, seems worse than picking Nader over Gore -- as Trudeau's positions are likely closer to Stein's than Gore's were for many who made the terrible decision to back Nader.

[Siwsan]

6. Ah, see - I was being generous!

Thanks for the information! I need to learn much more about Canadian politics, just in case I need to flee. I'm just a one hour drive away from the tunnel or bridges.

The Green Party has always seemed to be in chaos, to me. How do they expect to support people in national offices before they get a sturdy base in local/state offices?

[lame54]

8. Or Brian May - she thinks he's the Queen

[saltpoint]

3. Some year maybe a third party will

rise and run a serious, effective campaign.

No evidence that it will be this year.

[karynnj]

7. Yet, given the nominees, this year would have been a year where a very good, serious third party

candidate could have had a chance. Thankfully, neither Johnson or Stein are remotely serious, effective or competent.

In addition, the fact that the election is a really the sum of 50 elections, where someone needs a majority of the electors, a serious third party would be a disaster unless one of three parties failed to win any state. Imagine that this fictitious third party candidate wins a few states that say add up to 50 electors. If these states are essentially swing states and not from the base of one of the major parties, there is a real chance that NO ONE gets the number needed.

This throws the selection of the President to the House of Representatives, a body whose members are more Republican than the population at large due to gerrymandering. If it were this year and one of the two independents were more credible, that could mean that even if HRC gets the most popular votes and more electors than Trump, that they would pick Trump.

This is another reason that we should advocate for states to pass the type of resolution that John Anderson and Birch Bayh have advocated for that would result in the winner of the popular vote winning. http://www.fairvote.org/john-anderson-discusses-national-popular-vote-on-wamu

[saltpoint]

9. I love the Anderson-Bayh proposal. Would like to

see HRC -- after she trounces Trump in the November election -- include John Anderson and Birch Bayh in a summit to re-examine how we elect public officials.

There's room for improvement, and that's essentially a bipartisan core for a committee to get it done.

Agree -- this year might have been the year if all the variables were in place for a serious third party effort. But listening to Gary Johnson (in particular) suggests that he flat-out doesn't understand the nature of the job he's applying for. Bill Weld must be thinking, "Jesus, why did I ever get on this bus in the first place?"

[karynnj]

10. I love the proposal and think it would totally change the way the general election is done

It would also mean that it might be tougher for the election to be stolen by voter suppression. If you look at years when the election was close, it came down to a small number of states that determined who would win.

This led to how the nominees fought the election. They had to concentrate on those states. However, it also meant that anything that could deliver that state might be tried - even things that were undemocratic, unethical and borderline illegal.

In 2000, there were many things done to suppress the Democratic vote in Florida. It was not just a terribly design ballot in Palm Beach, where many retirees wanted to vote for the first Jew on a major ticket. They created a bogus "felons" list, that included people who never committed a felony, but were black. They tried to dissuade the Haitian population from voting. These actions combined to make the result in Florida murky and the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush. Gore won the popular vote and would easily have won a fair fight in Florida.

In 2004, fewer people argue the election was stolen, but it is very clear that Kerry would have won Ohio if there were no caterpillar ballots, where districts at the same polling places had the candidates listed in different orders - meaning that if people filled out the one from the other district and voted it in their district, they did not vote for who they thought they did. In addition, 4 to 10 hour lines will cause people, who came out to vote, to abandon that effort if children or jobs meant they could not stay. Ohio gave Democratic strongholds fewer voting machines in the general election than they had in the primaries. In this case, Kerry lost the popular vote by about 3 million - though some of that can be accounted for by problems in NM and other states.

However, this is looking at elections played under those rules. Imagine that the goal was winning the national election by getting more popular votes. Take 2004, there was no popular culture person more dedicated to John Kerry than Bruce Springsteen. In addition to his get registered concerts, he did some fantastic concerts with Kerry. At one in Madison, Wisconsin Springsteen not only played but gave an incredibly moving endoursement of Kerry, who he knew since the 1980s when both worked on supporting veterans. He was with Kerry the last night in Ohio. Now, imagine that starting in fall, there were HUGE concerts in Central Park or the Gardens in Boston or Navy Pier in Chicago with Springsteen, as man of the people as you can get, vouching for Kerry. There is no doubt that a campaign where every vote every where counted would allow a candiAdate to select the communities that allowed him/her to create the enthusiasm to pump up the popular vote.

Not to mention, the current method is winner take all at the state level. Someone could win by ONE vote and get all the state's electors - the same number they get if they win 90%!

I think Anderson and Bayh have a clever way to avoid needing a constitutional amendment that would never happen because many states would correctly realize that they would have less say ... also, I would hazard a guess that it benefits the Democrats because the popular election campaign is easier for those with a huge amount of support in small areas (NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago .. and even the big Texas cities.) A huge concert in NYC would not just be incredibly fun, but would happen in the center of the media world.

[saltpoint]

11. karynnj, to start with, your post should be

its own separate post, maybe building on the Anderson-Bayh plan.

They are two thoughtful souls and would not have entered the stream of such a proposal unless they felt serious reform was needed.

You appropriately reference the election difficulties in Florida. I was in Tampa a few nights before the general election. Kerry was late from Ohio (?), possibly one of the appearances with Springsteen. The Goo Goo Dolls played quite a fine concert for a very large crowd.

There as no suggestion in the media that Florida would not be close. But Republicans cheat in elections -- in Ohio and Florida both. That's putting quite a fine point on it, but that's the landscape I've observed. Gore won Florida, which means he was elected president. A strong case is made also that John Kerry carried Ohio.

The bigger the concert in New York it can be, the better. I think James Taylor would throw in to help as well -- he's been very generous to Democratic candidates over quite a long period.

Loved your post, karynnj.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

4. We know Big Vlad is Doctor Moonbat's guy n/m