It’s a transparently self-serving, irrational, and counterproductive decision to run again as a third party candidate. It just exposes her arrogance and lack of actual consideration for the health of the country. If she thought she could realistically win, then she should try to primary Biden on the Democratic ticket. Anything else is actively destructive. So disappointing.
Did you miss the part where every other time she's run, she was funded by Republicans for the sole purpose of being a spoiler?
Russian pawn jill stein?
The mentality of people who just hate and drag anyone who identifies dem, in this day and age, drives me crazy. Because "democrat" is just not a political identity. The only core philosophy behind being a democrat is belief in evidence-based policy, fairness and justice at least some of the time, and that government should fundamentally be allowed to do the work of governance. Any political view that fits in that framework can make it under the tent.
To be distinguished from the modern conservative wing, who think government should be butchered and sold off to the highest bidder, that fairness and justice are part of the woke mind virus, and evidence is conspiracy.
That description could fit any political party. They all believe that their policies are "evidence based" and they're fighting for fairness and justice, and that "government should fundamentally be allowed to do the work of governance". The disagreements are over what qualifies as evidence, what fairness and justice is, and what "the work of governance" should be. For example, Republicans think that the role of government should be much smaller than the Green Party does.
I see no evidence of the Republican party Brent interested in governing in good faith. They're just a bunch of thugs, terrorists and Nazis.
No one wants a more intrusive and powerful government than the modern Republicans.
They just don't want it involved in any form of governance. They want it to be used to murder trans people, enforce evangelical christian dogma, and make them rich. They want it to look like Hungary or Russia.
The Republican Party has shown in so many ways that it does not believe in evidence-based policy. When a GOP politician talks about a faith-based policy, that’s because it’s not supported by evidence. It’s like that joke: “if alternative medicine worked, it would be called ‘medicine’”.
In your example that the GOP believes the government should be small, you’re buying their bad-faith boilerplate excuse for getting rid of things they don’t like. If they didn’t use this excuse, they’d have to give specific reasons why a program should be gutted or eliminated, and probably provide evidence as well. So they just say “small government”. But when there’s something they want, they happily expand the government and run up the deficit.
I want to see someone hold her feet to the fire on her more pseudoscience remarks now that conspiracy theories like that have drifted firmly into the conservative camp. Namely:
Does she still believe there are reasons to be hesitant about vaccines? Is her response to "Do vaccines cause autism?" more than a two letter word?
Can she provide the scientific papers which show that "wifi causes cancer"?
Could she explain why she's against nuclear energy despite all of the information showing it to be safe? And if she would support new reactor designs that are inherently safer?
If she recants all of it, what's her explanation for previously saying those things? Was she just pandering? And if so, what does that say about her "support" for a Green New Deal?
As someone in STEM who works for a green energy company, she needs to adequately answer all of these questions if she wants to earn my vote. Until then, she can go fuck herself.
She's a nut job.
Anyone have that picture of her with Putin and Michael Flynn?
Context note: that picture was taken at an RT (Russian state-backed propaganda outlet) dinner in a room full of powerful Russian oligarchs. Gorbachev was there but at a different table, and yet Jill Stein was one of the guests of honor at Putin's table. Also worth keeping in mind that this dinner took place in 2015--more than a year after Putin had first invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.
she was not a guest of honor and it wasn't Putin's table. he was there only a couple minutes
Nobody bashes Hillary for being a photo where she shook Putin's hand. Jill was simply at a table where Putin dropped in, said some stuff in Russian, and then left. She didn't even speak to him.
Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State.
Jill Stain was a guest of honor at a RT state propaganda banquet.
That shit ain't the same, amigo. You need to try harder. You need to shill smarter.
she wasn't a guest of honor. she had to pay for the ticket
Yeah, I'm sure she just picked up one of these at the front desk and then proceeded to casually sit down at a random table that just happened to be where Putin and Peskov were sitting.
Let me say this as nicely as possible, you're just not sharp enough to play these kinds of games yet.
Workshop some better material and then come back and try it again, ok?
I'm not playing a game. if you are maybe you should find a different community.
impuning my intelligence and being condescending doesn't change whether I'm right.
“They did offer to pay my way and I said, No thank you.”
Was Jill Stein ever the Secretary of State? Shaking hands with people like Putin was part of her job.
if jill stein had been elected, she, too, would have been expected to shake putin's hand. which is something she didn't do at that dinner.
You conveniently ignore all the other Russian oligarchs at the table.
That should be immediately disqualifying to every leftist. If you'd be upset with her palling around with Musk and other CEOs, then you should be upset with her hanging out with even worse capitalists.
*Per MSNBC wasn't context for you? You basically believe a bullshit narrative, because nobody wants to support your piece of shit neoliberal candidates that are waging genocide and ethnic cleansing but sure VBNMW.
Never forget the company Jill Stein keeps.
Must have been taken before the Ukraine full scale invasion. The table isn't nearly long enough then for Putin.
Should we ignore Schumer and Jeffries in the company of Hagee yesterday?
Imagine if she decided to run for mayor or state senator or even congress. She might actually have a chance. Instead, it's always president or nothing.
Yep. That's one of the many things that highlights how fraudulent the Green Party is.
They aren't interested in winning elections where they might be able to, or generally making real shifts in policy. They're only interested in splintering the most naive leftists away from the Democratic presidential candidate every 4 years. I only imagine the power players in that party collect a nice fat bag of cash and then sit back with their feet up until the start of the next presidential election cycle.
It's not like the Green party has a shot at the presidency at all. If they wanted to make a difference they could caucus with Democrats and try to push them to the left.
But no it's just about brand awareness for goofy pseudoscience bullshit. And of course making it more likely that Trump will win.
Better yet, democrats could caucus with 3rd parties. That whole 'push them left' is bullshit that never happens. We heard that in 2020 and we ended up with another neolib that's condoning and funding ethnic cleansing.
We've done it the liberal way for decades and that doesn't work.
The party has moved demonstrably left in even the last decade.
And it does caucus with non Democrats. You've got Bernie and Angus King. There's a socialist in Virginia too. I think Sinema actually started out that way too, as a Green. Clearly, if a third party candidate can win in the primaries, Democrats are fine supporting them, or at least not running a spoiler.
The key part is winning a primary. If they can't get the majority of Democrat voters, they aren't going to come close to winning a general.
Being to the right of Reagan is not demonstrably to the left. Bernie is now every bit a neolib POS like the rest of them.
she has run in other elections and won, but it's inconvenient to this line of attack to acknowledge it
In 2005, Stein set her sights locally, running for the Lexington Town Meeting, a representative town meeting, the local legislative body in Lexington, Massachusetts (pop 34k). Stein was elected to one of seven seats in Precinct 2. She finished first of 16 candidates, receiving 539 votes (20.6%). Stein was reelected in 2008, finishing second of 13 vying for eight seats.
I don't find anything "inconvenient" about acknowledging both local elections she won. If anything, it bolsters their position. She should run for Mayor or perhaps state senate. The two elections she actually won demonstrate just how comically unqualified Jill Stein is for the presidency.
She's won local elections, and you don't go from local to president. Until the Greens realize this and start building from the ground up in every state, they're nothing more than a joke.
She is the 1% ;)
How much is she worth?
Dunno, but she only ever manages 1% of the vote. ;)
This site says she has a net worth of $37 million.
"In order to be in the top 1% of household wealth in the U.S., you’d need to be worth at least $10,374,030.10, according to Forbes. To be in the top 1% globally, you’d need a minimum of around $936,430, according to the 2019 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse."
Figures
Let her fight to the death with RFK Jr.
She knows what she's doing. Obvious spoiler campaign.
If you read the article, it's actually about the Green New Deal, which was the same issue she ran on in 2012 and 2016. You know, climate change. That issue that the Republicans don't think is real and the Democrats don't take seriously.
Of course - and siphoning progressive voters from practical opposition to Trump is going to help the climate a great deal.
the Democrats don't own the votes. they need to earn the votes.
Someone doesn't understand game theory.
I do. I also know that it doesn't reflect either how people should or actually do make decisions.
Except it does. That is why a two part system is inevitable is a winner-take-all election system as we have. Politicians want as few competitors as possible, which is one (exceptions being a one party totalitarian government). The two parties reinforce their dominance by passing laws that limit the ability of third parties to get on the ballot. They also constrain funding to their own parties, so third parties can't even begin to match their resources. Third parties CAN NOT win in the current political system. A third party vote is only ever taking a vote away from one of the two major party candidates.
if what you say about the inevitability of the two parties prevailing is true, then the fact that human behavior is not dictated by game theory is very easy to prove: people still vote third party despite this. I don't actually believe what you said is provable, nor do I believe people always act in rational self interest.
That people don't act in rational self interest is exactly what game theory is about. The Prisoner's Dilemma speaks precisely to this. The fact that there has been no president elected from a third party since the fall of the Whig party is proof enough that it just can't happen.
I guarantee there will not be an america, a democrat party, or a republican party in 2000 years. 500 years is likely. 5 years is possible. none of this requires game theory.
the prisoners dilemma does not speak at all about the longevity of political parties or the possibility of getting any of them elected. it also doesn't actually describe a real situation that's ever happened or will happen. it's a thought experiment that pols I majors think justifies voting for genocide.
In what way does not tolerating fascism equal genocide?
the modern GOP is a death cult. the modern democrats are a corporate theocracy
choose between psuedo-religious fascism or fascism that lets you wear a little rainbow pin on your shirt
we’re headed towards fascism either way. look at europe, already censoring protests. look at our American websites like reddit and twitter, banning and silencing pro-palestinian accounts. they’re using the techniques they learned during COVID to “fight misinformation”. You cannot stray far from The Narrative
the scope of the information you will receive will continue to get smaller and smaller and more and more people are getting filtered into echo chambers
we need to wake up before it’s too late, the noose is tightening. a modern fascist state with the surveillance technology that we have (we can even read minds now) is not going to be pretty. add in an economic crisis, another world war… it’s the 1930s all over again baby.
both parties are fascist. both parties are genocidal. the only way not to support fascism and genocide is to not support democrats and republicans.
Stein needs to earn them too. I see no reason why I should give my vote to someone who boosts pseudoscience. She's welcome to start trying at any time.
Go fuck yourself Jill.
I always thought she'd make a better VP, particularly on the same ticket as Barney Frank.
Then I could vote for Frank And Stein.
Or maybe Al Franken? Even the spelling is right!
Frank and Stein: We’re not the monster
Wish she just fuck entirely off instead.
It’s a transparently self-serving, irrational, and counterproductive decision to run again as a third party candidate. It just exposes her arrogance and lack of actual consideration for the health of the country. If she thought she could realistically win, then she should try to primary Biden on the Democratic ticket. Anything else is actively destructive. So disappointing.
Did you miss the part where every other time she's run, she was funded by Republicans for the sole purpose of being a spoiler?
Russian pawn jill stein?
The mentality of people who just hate and drag anyone who identifies dem, in this day and age, drives me crazy. Because "democrat" is just not a political identity. The only core philosophy behind being a democrat is belief in evidence-based policy, fairness and justice at least some of the time, and that government should fundamentally be allowed to do the work of governance. Any political view that fits in that framework can make it under the tent.
To be distinguished from the modern conservative wing, who think government should be butchered and sold off to the highest bidder, that fairness and justice are part of the woke mind virus, and evidence is conspiracy.
That description could fit any political party. They all believe that their policies are "evidence based" and they're fighting for fairness and justice, and that "government should fundamentally be allowed to do the work of governance". The disagreements are over what qualifies as evidence, what fairness and justice is, and what "the work of governance" should be. For example, Republicans think that the role of government should be much smaller than the Green Party does.
I see no evidence of the Republican party Brent interested in governing in good faith. They're just a bunch of thugs, terrorists and Nazis.
No one wants a more intrusive and powerful government than the modern Republicans.
They just don't want it involved in any form of governance. They want it to be used to murder trans people, enforce evangelical christian dogma, and make them rich. They want it to look like Hungary or Russia.
The Republican Party has shown in so many ways that it does not believe in evidence-based policy. When a GOP politician talks about a faith-based policy, that’s because it’s not supported by evidence. It’s like that joke: “if alternative medicine worked, it would be called ‘medicine’”.
In your example that the GOP believes the government should be small, you’re buying their bad-faith boilerplate excuse for getting rid of things they don’t like. If they didn’t use this excuse, they’d have to give specific reasons why a program should be gutted or eliminated, and probably provide evidence as well. So they just say “small government”. But when there’s something they want, they happily expand the government and run up the deficit.
I want to see someone hold her feet to the fire on her more pseudoscience remarks now that conspiracy theories like that have drifted firmly into the conservative camp. Namely:
Does she still believe there are reasons to be hesitant about vaccines? Is her response to "Do vaccines cause autism?" more than a two letter word?
Can she provide the scientific papers which show that "wifi causes cancer"?
Could she explain why she's against nuclear energy despite all of the information showing it to be safe? And if she would support new reactor designs that are inherently safer?
If she recants all of it, what's her explanation for previously saying those things? Was she just pandering? And if so, what does that say about her "support" for a Green New Deal?
As someone in STEM who works for a green energy company, she needs to adequately answer all of these questions if she wants to earn my vote. Until then, she can go fuck herself.
She's a nut job.
Anyone have that picture of her with Putin and Michael Flynn?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696
Context note: that picture was taken at an RT (Russian state-backed propaganda outlet) dinner in a room full of powerful Russian oligarchs. Gorbachev was there but at a different table, and yet Jill Stein was one of the guests of honor at Putin's table. Also worth keeping in mind that this dinner took place in 2015--more than a year after Putin had first invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.
she was not a guest of honor and it wasn't Putin's table. he was there only a couple minutes
Nobody bashes Hillary for being a photo where she shook Putin's hand. Jill was simply at a table where Putin dropped in, said some stuff in Russian, and then left. She didn't even speak to him.
Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State.
Jill Stain was a guest of honor at a RT state propaganda banquet.
That shit ain't the same, amigo. You need to try harder. You need to shill smarter.
she wasn't a guest of honor. she had to pay for the ticket
Yeah, I'm sure she just picked up one of these at the front desk and then proceeded to casually sit down at a random table that just happened to be where Putin and Peskov were sitting.
Let me say this as nicely as possible, you're just not sharp enough to play these kinds of games yet.
Workshop some better material and then come back and try it again, ok?
I'm not playing a game. if you are maybe you should find a different community.
impuning my intelligence and being condescending doesn't change whether I'm right.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/jill-stein-says-nothing-happened-at-her-dinner-with-putin/
Was Jill Stein ever the Secretary of State? Shaking hands with people like Putin was part of her job.
if jill stein had been elected, she, too, would have been expected to shake putin's hand. which is something she didn't do at that dinner.
You conveniently ignore all the other Russian oligarchs at the table.
That should be immediately disqualifying to every leftist. If you'd be upset with her palling around with Musk and other CEOs, then you should be upset with her hanging out with even worse capitalists.
it's decontextualized propaganda
Ever hear of context?
Per MSNBC
…posts screenshot without context
*Per MSNBC wasn't context for you? You basically believe a bullshit narrative, because nobody wants to support your piece of shit neoliberal candidates that are waging genocide and ethnic cleansing but sure VBNMW.
Never forget the company Jill Stein keeps.
Must have been taken before the Ukraine full scale invasion. The table isn't nearly long enough then for Putin.
Should we ignore Schumer and Jeffries in the company of Hagee yesterday?
Imagine if she decided to run for mayor or state senator or even congress. She might actually have a chance. Instead, it's always president or nothing.
Yep. That's one of the many things that highlights how fraudulent the Green Party is.
They aren't interested in winning elections where they might be able to, or generally making real shifts in policy. They're only interested in splintering the most naive leftists away from the Democratic presidential candidate every 4 years. I only imagine the power players in that party collect a nice fat bag of cash and then sit back with their feet up until the start of the next presidential election cycle.
It's not like the Green party has a shot at the presidency at all. If they wanted to make a difference they could caucus with Democrats and try to push them to the left.
But no it's just about brand awareness for goofy pseudoscience bullshit. And of course making it more likely that Trump will win.
Better yet, democrats could caucus with 3rd parties. That whole 'push them left' is bullshit that never happens. We heard that in 2020 and we ended up with another neolib that's condoning and funding ethnic cleansing.
We've done it the liberal way for decades and that doesn't work.
The party has moved demonstrably left in even the last decade.
And it does caucus with non Democrats. You've got Bernie and Angus King. There's a socialist in Virginia too. I think Sinema actually started out that way too, as a Green. Clearly, if a third party candidate can win in the primaries, Democrats are fine supporting them, or at least not running a spoiler.
The key part is winning a primary. If they can't get the majority of Democrat voters, they aren't going to come close to winning a general.
Being to the right of Reagan is not demonstrably to the left. Bernie is now every bit a neolib POS like the rest of them.
she has run in other elections and won, but it's inconvenient to this line of attack to acknowledge it
I don't find anything "inconvenient" about acknowledging both local elections she won. If anything, it bolsters their position. She should run for Mayor or perhaps state senate. The two elections she actually won demonstrate just how comically unqualified Jill Stein is for the presidency.
She's won local elections, and you don't go from local to president. Until the Greens realize this and start building from the ground up in every state, they're nothing more than a joke.
She is the 1% ;)
How much is she worth?
Dunno, but she only ever manages 1% of the vote. ;)
This site says she has a net worth of $37 million.
https://www.caclubindia.com/wealth/jill-stein-net-worth/
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/are-you-in-the-top-1-percent
"In order to be in the top 1% of household wealth in the U.S., you’d need to be worth at least $10,374,030.10, according to Forbes. To be in the top 1% globally, you’d need a minimum of around $936,430, according to the 2019 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse."
Figures
Let her fight to the death with RFK Jr.
She knows what she's doing. Obvious spoiler campaign.
If you read the article, it's actually about the Green New Deal, which was the same issue she ran on in 2012 and 2016. You know, climate change. That issue that the Republicans don't think is real and the Democrats don't take seriously.
Of course - and siphoning progressive voters from practical opposition to Trump is going to help the climate a great deal.
the Democrats don't own the votes. they need to earn the votes.
Someone doesn't understand game theory.
I do. I also know that it doesn't reflect either how people should or actually do make decisions.
Except it does. That is why a two part system is inevitable is a winner-take-all election system as we have. Politicians want as few competitors as possible, which is one (exceptions being a one party totalitarian government). The two parties reinforce their dominance by passing laws that limit the ability of third parties to get on the ballot. They also constrain funding to their own parties, so third parties can't even begin to match their resources. Third parties CAN NOT win in the current political system. A third party vote is only ever taking a vote away from one of the two major party candidates.
if what you say about the inevitability of the two parties prevailing is true, then the fact that human behavior is not dictated by game theory is very easy to prove: people still vote third party despite this. I don't actually believe what you said is provable, nor do I believe people always act in rational self interest.
That people don't act in rational self interest is exactly what game theory is about. The Prisoner's Dilemma speaks precisely to this. The fact that there has been no president elected from a third party since the fall of the Whig party is proof enough that it just can't happen.
I guarantee there will not be an america, a democrat party, or a republican party in 2000 years. 500 years is likely. 5 years is possible. none of this requires game theory.
the prisoners dilemma does not speak at all about the longevity of political parties or the possibility of getting any of them elected. it also doesn't actually describe a real situation that's ever happened or will happen. it's a thought experiment that pols I majors think justifies voting for genocide.
In what way does not tolerating fascism equal genocide?
the modern GOP is a death cult. the modern democrats are a corporate theocracy
choose between psuedo-religious fascism or fascism that lets you wear a little rainbow pin on your shirt
we’re headed towards fascism either way. look at europe, already censoring protests. look at our American websites like reddit and twitter, banning and silencing pro-palestinian accounts. they’re using the techniques they learned during COVID to “fight misinformation”. You cannot stray far from The Narrative
the scope of the information you will receive will continue to get smaller and smaller and more and more people are getting filtered into echo chambers
we need to wake up before it’s too late, the noose is tightening. a modern fascist state with the surveillance technology that we have (we can even read minds now) is not going to be pretty. add in an economic crisis, another world war… it’s the 1930s all over again baby.
both parties are fascist. both parties are genocidal. the only way not to support fascism and genocide is to not support democrats and republicans.
Stein needs to earn them too. I see no reason why I should give my vote to someone who boosts pseudoscience. She's welcome to start trying at any time.
3rd party's don't siphon votes. We wouldn't vote for your BlueMAGA pieces of shit if they were the only ones in the ballot
Ah yes, 2016
When she divided democratic votes.
How did that go again?
she didn't divide democratic votes. hilary divided green votes
And the crowd goes mild.
🤮🤮
Whoop deedoo Basil, what does it all mean???