PDA

View Full Version : tPF Jill Stein's Tactical Errors



IMPress Polly
10-15-2016, 07:55 AM
(Although this is for public discussion, I would be particularly interested in getting the thoughts of my fellow Jill Stein supporters @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565), @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715), @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297), and I think @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) on this subject.)

At this point something must be said: Jill Stein has lost most of the support she once enjoyed around the time of the Democratic National Convention for a reason and it's not simply being excluded from the debates. Historically speaking, exclusion from the debates doesn't tend to actually reduce a third party or independent candidate's level of popular support, but rather just stops that support level from increasing. There is a reason why Stein's popularity peaked at 5% right after the Democratic National Convention and is now down to 2% and it has to do with a poor choice of tactics on her part that found particularly pronounced concentration in an especially preposterous tweet she sent out yesterday:


Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump's, who does not want to go to war with Russia. #PeaceOffensive

No one even knows what Donald Trump's foreign policy is, including the candidate himself! We are therefore left to judge how 'peaceful' four years living under a man who says things like "I love war!" and "Take the oil!" and "I'm the most militaristic person " and who has openly proposed to use nuclear weapons on multiple occasions would be by the tone and tenor of his words; by his temperament. And "Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier" than [I]that?! Really? And perhaps more pointedly, look at the timing! What is she implicitly defending right now by defending Trump at this particular moment? Her suggestion has not gone over well. That is a stark concentration of the larger problem that Stein's campaign has had since the DNC.

Stein was the most popular right after the DNC, when she was able to win over many of us who had supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries with her similar (if a little further left (which is a good thing in my view!)) progressive message and vision. She's gradually lost most of that support though by focusing her criticisms on Hillary Clinton rather than on the Republican nominee who clearly represents the greater danger. She's done so probably in order to draw in more Donald Trump supporters so that she can't be branded a spoiler for the Republicans like left wing third party candidates always are. It hasn't worked. Trump supporters aren't switching their votes to Jill Stein.

What progressive third party candidates need to understand is that their natural base of support is...well, other progressive-minded voters, and that those voters one-sidedly orbit the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party! Hence if a campaign like Stein's was/is ever to get anywhere, it needed/needs to be willing to embrace that fact and try and eat as much of Hillary Clinton's voter base as possible! Let me spell that out for you: besides putting out your positive vision, it means proving yourself better than the Democratic nominee at taking on and discrediting the Republican nominee. It means competing directly with Hillary Clinton in going after Trump. If Stein continues down her current trajectory of arguing that Trump may be an insane, authoritarian bigot but at least he's a tool of Russian foreign policy, she won't get nearly as many votes as she could.

Try drawing from the Clinton base rather than from Trump's. It's a lot easier. Especially in light of the last week's developments, one shouldn't be afraid of serving as a spoiler for Trump. He's not gonna win! Just saying.

FindersKeepers
10-15-2016, 08:46 AM
No one even knows what Donald Trump's foreign policy is, including the candidate himself! We are therefore left to judge how 'peaceful' four years living under a man who says things like "I love war!" and "Take the oil!" and "I'm the most militaristic person " and who has openly proposed to use nuclear weapons on multiple occasions would be by the tone and tenor of his words; by his temperament. And "Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier" than [I]that?! Really? The suggestion has not gone over well. That is a stark concentration of the larger problem that Stein's campaign has had since the DNC.

This is the only part of your post I am able to respond to because, not having been a Stein follower, I don't really relate to the numbers and polls.

This part however is easy -- Stein nailed it.

Granted, we cannot know about ANYONE 100% until they are in office -- so we just have to make educated guesses.

Here's Trump's official foreign policy if you're interested:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/foreign-policy-and-defeating-isis/

Would he vary from that? Perhaps, none of us have crystal balls.

We do, however, have a history we can look at for Hillary and we also have her current statements.

Hillary, like Kerry, supports a no-fly zone in Syria. Pentagon officials have come right out and stated that a no-fly zone there would mean we'd be entering a war against Russia. That warning is from the Pentagon -- not from some right-wing-rag.

Add Hillary's more-recent comments of military aggression toward China -- if China will not reign in North Korea -- and a clearer image begins to appear.

Then, we have her history. In the past, she said she could "obliterate" Iran should Iran make any move against Israel. Now, I'm a supporter of Israel, but, under no circumstances would I condone obliteration of another nation. Can you imagine the death toll?

Then, of course we have her involvement (pushing) the runup to Gaddafi's overthrow and her verbal chest-beating when Gaddafi was tortured and killed.

Obama has come out and said that the Libya action was the worst mistake of his presidency. Not Hillary, though. She stands by it.

So, yeah, Stein got this one right.

About Stein's other positions -- I really can't say. She's a bit too much on the socialist side for my tastes.

Peter1469
10-15-2016, 08:59 AM
Johnson has the third party clout to make a difference. All Stein voters should join him. Break the Establishment.

IMPress Polly
10-15-2016, 09:03 AM
While I'm too fundamentally opposed to Gary Johnson's free market fundamentalism to vote for him (he wouldn't even be my second choice, frankly), one thing I do like about him is that he is focusing his criticisms primarily on Trump. He's smarter than Jill Stein that way! It's getting him results! I mean if you look at the demographic breakdown of his voter base, it's mostly a section of Bernie Sanders voters from the primaries. HE's figured it out! He's actively eating at the Clinton base of support rather than futilely trying for Trump's! That's why his poll numbers are both better and more stable than Jill Stein's.

Peter1469
10-15-2016, 11:36 AM
While I'm too fundamentally opposed to Gary Johnson's free market fundamentalism to vote for him (he wouldn't even be my second choice, frankly), one thing I do like about him is that he is focusing his criticisms primarily on Trump. He's smarter than Jill Stein that way! It's getting him results! I mean if you look at the demographic breakdown of his voter base, it's mostly a section of Bernie Sanders voters from the primaries. HE's figured it out! He's actively eating at the Clinton base of support rather than futilely trying for Trump's! That's why his poll numbers are both better and more stable than Jill Stein's.

His free market policies and his ability to not jump into a war makes me trust him over the clowns.

Chris
10-15-2016, 12:02 PM
While I'm too fundamentally opposed to Gary Johnson's free market fundamentalism to vote for him (he wouldn't even be my second choice, frankly), one thing I do like about him is that he is focusing his criticisms primarily on Trump. He's smarter than Jill Stein that way! It's getting him results! I mean if you look at the demographic breakdown of his voter base, it's mostly a section of Bernie Sanders voters from the primaries. HE's figured it out! He's actively eating at the Clinton base of support rather than futilely trying for Trump's! That's why his poll numbers are both better and more stable than Jill Stein's.


What do you mean by the pejorative "free market fundamentalism"? What Soros coined in his 1998 The Crisis of Global Capitalism, what Stiglitz meant by it in his "Biographical" (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2001/stiglitz-bio.html), or something else?

Johnson has been soft on Clinton, to suade voters away, and she's spend millions again him.

Stein the other day disagreed with Trump's and Clinton's foreign policies but saw Clinton as the worst of all evils.

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 01:41 PM
Give me about ten minutes to get home and I'll give this the response it deserves.

Mark III
10-15-2016, 01:46 PM
I saw a couple interviews with Jill Stein, and concluded that she is not competent to be president of the United States. If we are not going to require competency, we might as well pick the president out of the phone book.

Chris
10-15-2016, 01:48 PM
I saw a couple interviews with Jill Stein, and concluded that she is not competent to be president of the United States. If we are not going to require competency, we might as well pick the president out of the phone book.

Sort of a meaningless response unless you specify what you mean by competency as it relates to the President.

Note that William F Buckley thought the phone book a good source of electing people.

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 02:17 PM
Okay, here's my take on this.

Dr. Jill Stein is being soft on Trump and hard on Clinton because she believes the best way to cut into Clinton's base of support and earn the votes of disaffected progressives is to show those disaffected progressives exactly why Clinton shouldn't be their choice for president. In a normal election it would be a valid and tactically significant strategy. The problem is, this isn't a normal election.

You are right that it's a tactical error. She needs to course-correct quickly and follow Johnson's strategy: Critiquing Clinton is great, but destroy Donald Trump. The assumption a lot of progressives like Dr. Stein are making is that Johnson is destroying Trump because Trump occupies his end of the spectrum, and he's succeeding in getting Trump's voters. The problem is he's succeeding more in getting Clinton
s voters than he is in getting Trump's, the only Trump voters he's really getting is disaffected establishment Republicans.

She needs at least 5% in this election to be set up well for 2020 (or to set up the Green Party well for 2020, anyway). There's still time to get there but not if she keeps up the way she's going. At this rate she'd be better off forming a fusionist ticket with Johnson.

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 02:41 PM
Sort of a meaningless response unless you specify what you mean by competency as it relates to the President.

Note that William F Buckley thought the phone book a good source of electing people.

No offense, but who cares what Buckley thought about electing people? Why is his opinion on electing people any more legitimate or worth being followed than, say, mine?

Chris
10-15-2016, 02:57 PM
No offense, but who cares what Buckley thought about electing people? Why is his opinion on electing people any more legitimate or worth being followed than, say, mine?

Did I say it was? No. Mark said "...we might as well pick the president out of the phone book." And I replied about Buckley to give it some legitimacy as a political point. You don't like it...tough.

donttread
10-15-2016, 03:00 PM
(Although this is for public discussion, I would be particularly interested in getting the thoughts of my fellow Jill Stein supporters @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565), @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715), @Bo-4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1297), and I think @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) on this subject.)

At this point something must be said: Jill Stein has lost most of the support she once enjoyed around the time of the Democratic National Convention for a reason and it's not simply being excluded from the debates. Historically speaking, exclusion from the debates doesn't tend to actually reduce a third party or independent candidate's level of popular support, but rather just stops that support level from increasing. There is a reason why Stein's popularity peaked at 5% right after the Democratic National Convention and is now down to 2% and it has to do with a poor choice of tactics on her part that found particularly pronounced concentration in an especially preposterous tweet she sent out yesterday:



No one even knows what Donald Trump's foreign policy is, including the candidate himself! We are therefore left to judge how 'peaceful' four years living under a man who says things like "I love war!" and "Take the oil!" and "I'm the most militaristic person " and who has openly proposed to use nuclear weapons on multiple occasions would be by the tone and tenor of his words; by his temperament. And "Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier" than [I]that?! Really? And perhaps more pointedly, look at the timing! What is she implicitly defending right now by defending Trump at this particular moment? Her suggestion has not gone over well. That is a stark concentration of the larger problem that Stein's campaign has had since the DNC.

Stein was the most popular right after the DNC, when she was able to win over many of us who had supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries with her similar (if a little further left (which is a good thing in my view!)) progressive message and vision. She's gradually lost most of that support though by focusing her criticisms on Hillary Clinton rather than on the Republican nominee who clearly represents the greater danger. She's done so probably in order to draw in more Donald Trump supporters so that she can't be branded a spoiler for the Republicans like left wing third party candidates always are. It hasn't worked. Trump supporters aren't switching their votes to Jill Stein.

What progressive third party candidates need to understand is that their natural base of support is...well, other progressive-minded voters, and that those voters one-sidedly orbit the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party! Hence if a campaign like Stein's was/is ever to get anywhere, it needed/needs to be willing to embrace that fact and try and eat as much of Hillary Clinton's voter base as possible! Let me spell that out for you: besides putting out your positive vision, it means proving yourself better than the Democratic nominee at taking on and discrediting the Republican nominee. It means competing directly with Hillary Clinton in going after Trump. If Stein continues down her current trajectory of arguing that Trump may be an insane, authoritarian bigot but at least he's a tool of Russian foreign policy, she won't get nearly as many votes as she could.

Try drawing from the Clinton base rather than from Trump's. It's a lot easier. Especially in light of the last week's developments, one shouldn't be afraid of serving as a spoiler for Trump. He's not gonna win! Just saying.


When you consider all the election fraud the repubs and dems accuse each other of , inclding rigged voting machine: Is it not possible that the donkephant can control polls to some extent? Let's hypothetically say that Johnson has 8 % and Stein has 4%. Do you think the donkephant is above tampering to ensure they get far less than their due in the election? Numbers like 8 and 6 might have a strong carry over and a mounting challenge to the donkephant regime over time. Numbers like 3 and 2 would be far less likely to help them build mommentum. My cynical brain has thought this way ever since Perot.

Tahuyaman
10-15-2016, 03:29 PM
Here's the view from the left on Jill Stein.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/27/jill_stein_is_not_the_savior_the_left_is_looking_f or.html

Let's begin with Stein's platform (http://www.jill2016.com/platform). Some of the ideas, like a $15 minimum wage and free college tuition, are mainstream these days, thanks to the work of progressive activists and Sanders himself. Others, like moving to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030 (while ditching nuclear), are deeply unrealistic, if admirable in spirit. And more than a few sound like they were hatched in an old Bay Area commune. Cut defense spending in half and close more than 700 foreign military bases.....

Chris
10-15-2016, 03:31 PM
Here's the view from the left on Jill Stein.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/27/jill_stein_is_not_the_savior_the_left_is_looking_f or.html

Of course, the Hillary left, which is not all that left, with her being bought and paid for by corporate America, and a warmonger to boot.

Tahuyaman
10-15-2016, 03:35 PM
Note that William F Buckley thought the phone book a good source of electing people.

Actually, I think Buckley said that he'd rather be governed by names randomly selected from a Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard. Or words to that effect.

Chris
10-15-2016, 03:40 PM
Actually, I think Buckley said that he'd rather be governed by names randomly selected from a Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard. Or words to that effect.

Yes. That was more his point. But I think it generalizes to whether you would trust the people over some elite intellectuals who think they know better what you value.

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 04:01 PM
Did I say it was? No. Mark said "...we might as well pick the president out of the phone book." And I replied about Buckley to give it some legitimacy as a political point. You don't like it...tough.

Right...so...why does Buckley give it legitimacy as a political point more than my neighbor across the street saying it?

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 04:09 PM
When you consider all the election fraud the repubs and dems accuse each other of , inclding rigged voting machine: Is it not possible that the donkephant can control polls to some extent? Let's hypothetically say that Johnson has 8 % and Stein has 4%. Do you think the donkephant is above tampering to ensure they get far less than their due in the election? Numbers like 8 and 6 might have a strong carry over and a mounting challenge to the donkephant regime over time. Numbers like 3 and 2 would be far less likely to help them build mommentum. My cynical brain has thought this way ever since Perot.

Your cynical brain has little evidence to base this conspiracy theory on. In multiple state polls they have Johnson in particular polling very high. In Utah, for example, RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ut/utah_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein_vs_mcmul lin-6154.html) has Trump ahead at 33.3%, Clinton in second at 25.8%, McMullin in third at 15.8%, Johnson in fourth at 12.3%, and Stein in last at 0.7%. And that's just the average of all the polls done (the most accurate statistic). Monmouth's Utah poll has McMullin at 20, Y2 Analytics has McMullin at 22 and Johnson at 14, Salt Lake Tribune has McMullin at 12 and Johnson at 13.

If there really was a conspiracy to fudge the polls none of them would dare put an independent candidate at 20%, let alone above. Then you've got New Mexico where Johnson polls at 19 in the RCP average, 14 in KOB-TV/SurveyUSA, and 24 in Albuquerque Journal.

Chris
10-15-2016, 04:09 PM
Right...so...why does Buckley give it legitimacy as a political point more than my neighbor across the street saying it?

The legitimacy is in what's said, not who said it.

Question to you, does your neighbor engage in ad hom like you?

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 04:10 PM
The legitimacy is in what's said, not who said it.

What makes what he said legitimate?


Question to you, does your neighbor engage in ad hom like you?

So, now any time I question something you say, I'm engaging in ad hom? Is that how that works now?

Chris
10-15-2016, 04:11 PM
What makes what he said legitimate?



So, now any time I question something you say, I'm engaging in ad hom? Is that how that works now?


IOW, you don't know what he said.

Ad hom against Buckley, not me.

Don't take things so personal, Green.

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 04:28 PM
IOW, you don't know what he said.

Yes, Chris, that's exactly what I said. :rollseyes: Nice strawman. Why don't you address what I said, and not what you wish I said.


Ad hom against Buckley, not me.

Yeah, no, not even close. This is the definition of "ad hom" according to nizkor.org (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html):

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

I rejected no claims on the basis of some irrelevant fact about Buckley or about you. I simply asked a question: What makes Buckley's opinions any more legitimate than any random person who gives a similar or opposing opinion?

Right now, you're really going a long way to prove the charge that you pull these fallacies out of nowhere to shut down arguments without having to actually address them and provide counters. It's a very knee-jerk reaction with you and frankly transparent.


Don't take things so personal, Green.

This from the guy who immediately got defensive when I dared to question a point made.

TrueBlue
10-15-2016, 04:31 PM
Johnson has the third party clout to make a difference. All Stein voters should join him. Break the Establishment.
Ah yes, Peter's favorite guy. Gotta luv it! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NXhR41lsEJY

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 04:34 PM
Ah yes, Peter's favorite guy. Gotta luv it! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NXhR41lsEJY

Ah, yes, TrueBlue's favorite girl. Gotta luv it! :wink:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20/SunShinesfussfuss/leftwing/ZV1cxn_zpsghd5jkhw.gif

http://i.amz.mshcdn.com/DPBiYMoZFeDcOT9W30cvx8Km7g0=/fit-in/1200x9600/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fima ge%2F160588%2FJul-28-2016_23-39-26.gif

Chris
10-15-2016, 04:42 PM
Yes, Chris, that's exactly what I said. :rollseyes: Nice strawman. Why don't you address what I said, and not what you wish I said.



Yeah, no, not even close. This is the definition of "ad hom" according to nizkor.org (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html):

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

I rejected no claims on the basis of some irrelevant fact about Buckley or about you. I simply asked a question: What makes Buckley's opinions any more legitimate than any random person who gives a similar or opposing opinion?

Right now, you're really going a long way to prove the charge that you pull these fallacies out of nowhere to shut down arguments without having to actually address them and provide counters. It's a very knee-jerk reaction with you and frankly transparent.



This from the guy who immediately got defensive when I dared to question a point made.


You attacked the messenger, Green, own it. You failed, and still fail, to address the message.


I'm not upset you attacked Buckley. That's your problem.

And now you attack me as if I care. Seriously, don't take and make it personal, Green. Doing so--DOING SO--is boorish.

IMPress Polly
10-15-2016, 05:19 PM
Green Arrow wrote:
Okay, here's my take on this.

Dr. Jill Stein is being soft on Trump and hard on Clinton because she believes the best way to cut into Clinton's base of support and earn the votes of disaffected progressives is to show those disaffected progressives exactly why Clinton shouldn't be their choice for president. In a normal election it would be a valid and tactically significant strategy. The problem is, this isn't a normal election.

You are right that it's a tactical error. She needs to course-correct quickly and follow Johnson's strategy: Critiquing Clinton is great, but destroy Donald Trump. The assumption a lot of progressives like Dr. Stein are making is that Johnson is destroying Trump because Trump occupies his end of the spectrum, and he's succeeding in getting Trump's voters. The problem is he's succeeding more in getting Clinton's voters than he is in getting Trump's, the only Trump voters he's really getting is disaffected establishment Republicans.

She needs at least 5% in this election to be set up well for 2020 (or to set up the Green Party well for 2020, anyway). There's still time to get there but not if she keeps up the way she's going. At this rate she'd be better off forming a fusionist ticket with Johnson.

I agree overwhelmingly with this, with one caveat: While I agree that this is not a normal election, I wouldn't say that the rules about this one you've posited here are actually exceptional. They apply to all elections. You almost never win supporters by criticizing or attacking the candidate they're supporting. That's how you win enemies, not allies. The main political reason for attacking a rival candidate isn't to persuade voters to switch camps, but to change the balance of energy within the camps as they already exist. The aim, specifically, is to energize your camp such as to maximize its turnout while and demoralizing your rival's such as to minimize their's. Think: Why didn't Bernie Sanders go after Hillary Clinton on the email issue until the primary contest was almost over? Because he knew that this was going to be a two-way contest and hence that there would be only one pool of voters to draw more supporters from! But by the end of the campaign, the camps were already set and locked in place and the only remaining question was turnout. You see what I mean? He may not have won, but he did know what he was doing! He's won a lot of elections before.

But within this, when you're facing more than one rival, it's important to know from which rival's camp you have the best chance of drawing support and from which rival's camp you have the least chance. The smart candidate appeals to the former group in part by attacking the latter. Jill Stein's mistake up to now has been to fundamentally misjudge which camp she could draw supporters from and you're right: that needs to be corrected very quickly.

In other words, the principle we're discussing here isn't something to be applied in this cycle and then forgotten in 2020. It's something that will need to be strategically applied then as well.

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 05:27 PM
You attacked the messenger, Green, own it. You failed, and still fail, to address the message.


I'm not upset you attacked Buckley. That's your problem.

And now you attack me as if I care. Seriously, don't take and make it personal, Green. Doing so--DOING SO--is boorish.

You are a real piece of work, Chris.

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 05:29 PM
I agree overwhelmingly with this, with one caveat: While I agree that this is not a normal election, I wouldn't say that the rules about this one you've posited here are actually exceptional. They apply to all elections. You almost never win supporters by criticizing or attacking the candidate they're supporting. That's how you win enemies, not allies. The main political reason for attacking a rival candidate isn't to persuade voters to switch camps, but to change the balance of energy within the camps as they already exist. The aim, specifically, is to energize your camp such as to maximize its turnout while and demoralizing your rival's such as to minimize their's. Think: Why didn't Bernie Sanders go after Hillary Clinton on the email issue until the primary contest was almost over? Because he knew that this was going to be a two-way contest and hence that there would be only one pool of voters to draw more supporters from! But by the end of the campaign, the camps were already set and locked in place and the only remaining question was turnout. You see what I mean? He may not have won, but he did know what he was doing! He's won a lot of elections before.

But within this, when you're facing more than one rival, it's important to know from which rival's camp you have the best chance of drawing support and from which rival's camp you have the least chance. The smart candidate appeals to the former group in part by attacking the latter. Jill Stein's mistake up to now has been to fundamentally misjudge which camp she could draw supporters from.

In other words, the principle we're discussing here isn't something to be applied in this cycle and then forgotten in 2020. It's something that will need to be strategically applied then as well.

I agree with you here.

AZ Jim
10-15-2016, 05:49 PM
Johnson, Stein a waste of the precious right to vote.

Mister D
10-15-2016, 05:54 PM
Johnson, Stein a waste of the precious right to vote.

Your vote is meaningless, Jim.

Chris
10-15-2016, 05:54 PM
You are a real piece of work, Chris.

Oh, stop flailing.

Chris
10-15-2016, 05:55 PM
Johnson, Stein a waste of the precious right to vote.

And what if one thinks one of them is the best candidate?

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 05:59 PM
Johnson, Stein a waste of the precious right to vote.
AZ Jim, the president is not elected on Nov. 8 by the popular vote, the president is elected on Dec. 19 by the electoral college. The result is all but decided before a single vote is cast.

Any vote is a waste by the criteria you've given.

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 06:02 PM
Oh, stop flailing.

There's a great place out here in the country by a little lake where you can see a lot of ducks, we have a name for it.

Duck View.

Chris
10-15-2016, 06:03 PM
There's a great place out here in the country by a little lake where you can see a lot of ducks, we have a name for it.

Duck View.

That's nice, green. Meaningless, off topic, but nice.

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 06:11 PM
That's nice, green. Meaningless, off topic, but nice.

Luckily this isn't your thread and you have no ability to control anything.

AZ Jim
10-15-2016, 06:12 PM
Your vote is meaningless, Jim.Maybe in the Presidential race depending on how AZ goes but even then it counts in the popular vote. It may just be a "blue" year in AZ in which case I contribute to our 11 Electoral votes. Otherwise my vote counts in the McCain and Arpaio races as well as many other races including the marijuana initiative. So, you are wrong as usual, my vote does count.

Chris
10-15-2016, 06:25 PM
Luckily this isn't your thread and you have no ability to control anything.

Nor obviously, despite all your hurlyburly flailing, do you.

Mister D
10-15-2016, 06:27 PM
Maybe in the Presidential race depending on how AZ goes but even then it counts in the popular vote. It may just be a "blue" year in AZ in which case I contribute to our 11 Electoral votes. Otherwise my vote counts in the McCain and Arpaio races as well as many other races including the marijuana initiative. So, you are wrong as usual, my vote does count.


We're talking about the Presidential election, Jim. Stein isn't running for an office in Arizona. No worries. You're like a thousand or something, right?

You're vote is meaningless for several reasons. That you live in AZ is just one of them.

Green Arrow
10-15-2016, 06:28 PM
Nor obviously, despite all your hurlyburly flailing, do you.

Unlike you, I don't have a pressing need to control and obstruct every discussion I'm in to ensure I win every time regardless of my argument.

But, whatever. You do you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWTnmYUPpU

Ethereal
10-15-2016, 06:33 PM
This is the only part of your post I am able to respond to because, not having been a Stein follower, I don't really relate to the numbers and polls.

This part however is easy -- Stein nailed it.

Granted, we cannot know about ANYONE 100% until they are in office -- so we just have to make educated guesses.

Here's Trump's official foreign policy if you're interested:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/foreign-policy-and-defeating-isis/

Would he vary from that? Perhaps, none of us have crystal balls.

We do, however, have a history we can look at for Hillary and we also have her current statements.

Hillary, like Kerry, supports a no-fly zone in Syria. Pentagon officials have come right out and stated that a no-fly zone there would mean we'd be entering a war against Russia. That warning is from the Pentagon -- not from some right-wing-rag.

Add Hillary's more-recent comments of military aggression toward China -- if China will not reign in North Korea -- and a clearer image begins to appear.

Then, we have her history. In the past, she said she could "obliterate" Iran should Iran make any move against Israel. Now, I'm a supporter of Israel, but, under no circumstances would I condone obliteration of another nation. Can you imagine the death toll?

Then, of course we have her involvement (pushing) the runup to Gaddafi's overthrow and her verbal chest-beating when Gaddafi was tortured and killed.

Obama has come out and said that the Libya action was the worst mistake of his presidency. Not Hillary, though. She stands by it.

So, yeah, Stein got this one right.

About Stein's other positions -- I really can't say. She's a bit too much on the socialist side for my tastes.

Don't forget Hillary's support for the Iraq war and her arms transfers to Saudi Arabia for their aggressive war in Yemen.

Chris
10-15-2016, 06:41 PM
Unlike you, I don't have a pressing need to control and obstruct every discussion I'm in to ensure I win every time regardless of my argument.

But, whatever. You do you.

...


Strawman.

And I see you're still butthurt over getting TBed from a tPF months ago. https://s22.postimg.org/dp560lwpd/ththere.gif

Chris has been TBed at the request of the OP. Please direct any questions to Polly.

PolWatch
10-15-2016, 11:57 PM
This election resembles a pig sty. I lost all respect for Clinton when she changed her vote to invade Iraq due to political expediency. Trump practices Twitter-plomacy If president, someday he will be offended by a world leader & start name calling. The war resulting from either of them will make people just as dead, no matter the reason. That is why I will vote for Stein.

The Xl
10-16-2016, 12:09 AM
She probably said it because it's pretty evident truth. Hillary has considerably worse foreign policy, potentially the most dangerous in our country's history.

The Xl
10-16-2016, 12:14 AM
For what it's worth, although I ideologically support Gary Johnson the most, I consider Jill Stein the most honest and intelligent person in the race.

Peter1469
10-16-2016, 01:29 AM
Ah yes, Peter's favorite guy. Gotta luv it! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NXhR41lsEJY

I believe that is McPherson Square in DC.

Peter1469
10-16-2016, 01:31 AM
Johnson, Stein a waste of the precious right to vote.

Can you articulate a reason why that doesn't support the corrupt two party system?

Chloe
10-16-2016, 08:59 PM
Clinton sucks, Trump sucks, I'm voting for Stein even though I know she isn't going to realistically win. I'm not voting for her to beat someone else or as a protest vote, I'm voting for her because her platform most closely represents my ideals, my likes, and my politics. The other candidates simply don't come close. I'm not going to vote for Johnson just to try to break up anything or to protest. I'm not voting for him because I believe that when you vote for someone you are voting for them because you agree with their ideals and platform and not for some grand scheme or for spite. If you don't see it that way then fine, vote however you want. Write in Mickey Mouse for all I care, it's your single individual vote.

And for all of you that think I'm wasting my vote or that I'm going to allow the candidate that YOU don't like to win because I didn't vote for your choice I only have two words for you...shut up. You vote for who you want to vote for and then go about your day and I'll do the same. My vote is MY vote, it doesn't belong to you. If your confidence in your candidate is dependent on guilting or scaring others to vote like you then you suck too.

Stein isn't perfect but it's where my vote is going because I agree with her ideas the most. Tough shit.

Ethereal
10-16-2016, 09:14 PM
Clinton sucks, Trump sucks, I'm voting for Stein even though I know she isn't going to realistically win. I'm not voting for her to beat someone else or as a protest vote, I'm voting for her because her platform most closely represents my ideals, my likes, and my politics. The other candidates simply don't come close. I'm not going to vote for Johnson just to try to break up anything or to protest. I'm not voting for him because I believe that when you vote for someone you are voting for them because you agree with their ideals and platform and not for some grand scheme or for spite. If you don't see it that way then fine, vote however you want. Write in Mickey Mouse for all I care, it's your single individual vote.

And for all of you that think I'm wasting my vote or that I'm going to allow the candidate that YOU don't like to win because I didn't vote for your choice I only have two words for you...shut up. You vote for who you want to vote for and then go about your day and I'll do the same. My vote is MY vote, it doesn't belong to you. If your confidence in your candidate is dependent on guilting or scaring others to vote like you then you suck too.

Stein isn't perfect but it's where my vote is going because I agree with her ideas the most. Tough $#@!.

I'm always astonished when someone tries to guilt-trip me for being principled, as if that is something to be ashamed of.

If anyone should be ashamed, it's the unscrupulous people who lend their support to someone they don't believe in.

Moreover, their practical arguments ring completely hollow because people have been voting for the "lesser of two evils" for decades. When is that strategy supposed to yield some actual results? How long can a strategy fail before it is abandoned?

Cletus
10-16-2016, 09:49 PM
Stein lost support because she was a lousy candidate. The more she talked, the more apparent it became.

It is no more complicated than that.

Green Arrow
10-16-2016, 11:42 PM
Stein lost support because she was a lousy candidate. The more she talked, the more apparent it became.

It is no more complicated than that.

If that were true Trump and Clinton would poll even lower. They are the lousiest of the bunch.

Cletus
10-17-2016, 04:24 AM
If that were true Trump and Clinton would poll even lower. They are the lousiest of the bunch.

The Green Party will never have a seat at the table.

IMPress Polly
10-17-2016, 05:24 AM
Chloe wrote:
Clinton sucks, Trump sucks, I'm voting for Stein even though I know she isn't going to realistically win. I'm not voting for her to beat someone else or as a protest vote, I'm voting for her because her platform most closely represents my ideals, my likes, and my politics. The other candidates simply don't come close. I'm not going to vote for Johnson just to try to break up anything or to protest. I'm not voting for him because I believe that when you vote for someone you are voting for them because you agree with their ideals and platform and not for some grand scheme or for spite. If you don't see it that way then fine, vote however you want. Write in Mickey Mouse for all I care, it's your single individual vote.

And for all of you that think I'm wasting my vote or that I'm going to allow the candidate that YOU don't like to win because I didn't vote for your choice I only have two words for you...shut up. You vote for who you want to vote for and then go about your day and I'll do the same. My vote is MY vote, it doesn't belong to you. If your confidence in your candidate is dependent on guilting or scaring others to vote like you then you suck too.

Stein isn't perfect but it's where my vote is going because I agree with her ideas the most. Tough $#@!.

While this is all good and well, and while we can agree that Jill Stein is the best candidate, do you not also want her to perform as well in this election as she can?

The way I like to approach politics is through a lens of critical support for those candidates I can get behind. Critical support meaning support for their candidacies, but with allowance for criticizing what I see as flaws and mistakes. What you call a "grand scheme" I call movement-building and strategy!

Green Arrow
10-17-2016, 07:55 AM
The Green Party will never have a seat at the table.

How much did you pay for your crystal ball?

Bethere
10-17-2016, 08:02 AM
The Green Party will never have a seat at the table.

They have a powerful seat at the table now: during the democratic party primary.

When the gop self immolates in November, most policy deliberation will start to happen in house.

That's what happens in one party systems. That isn't the Democrat's fault.

Chris
10-17-2016, 09:39 AM
The Green Party will never have a seat at the table.

Ah but they do have a seat as does the Libertarian party. In two respects. One, they cost Trump and clinton campaigns millions to advertise against them and, two, they move in the Green party/Libertarian Party direction to woe voters. They may not get elected but change the election.

PolWatch
10-17-2016, 09:51 AM
Stein or Johnson votes are not wasted. If we don't tell the major parties that we are fed up with them, they have no reason to change. Our votes are the only way we have to signal the dems/repubs that enough is enough. Lasting change is a long term problem....you can't change 'em overnight. People laughed at Nader and the Green Party and said it would never last....its still here.

Cletus
10-17-2016, 10:16 AM
Stein or Johnson votes are not wasted. If we don't tell the major parties that we are fed up with them, they have no reason to change. Our votes are the only way we have to signal the dems/repubs that enough is enough. Lasting change is a long term problem....you can't change 'em overnight. People laughed at Nader and the Green Party and said it would never last....its still here.

Yeah, it is still there and it is still completely insignificant.

People are STILL laughing at Nader.

Chris
10-17-2016, 10:46 AM
Stein or Johnson votes are not wasted. If we don't tell the major parties that we are fed up with them, they have no reason to change. Our votes are the only way we have to signal the dems/repubs that enough is enough. Lasting change is a long term problem....you can't change 'em overnight. People laughed at Nader and the Green Party and said it would never last....its still here.


There's a problem, I think, with voting for anti-establishment populists like Trump, or even Sanders in primary, and that's that they don't really seek to change what people are fed up with. Stein and Johnso do, Stein with even more government, Johnson less. Security, in a broad sense, versus liberty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgz5Ob3iFB4

PolWatch
10-17-2016, 10:52 AM
Yeah, it is still there and it is still completely insignificant.

People are STILL laughing at Nader.
.
People laughed at Orville & Wilbur too. I wonder how many lives the Consumer Protection laws have saved.

Cletus
10-17-2016, 11:00 AM
.
People laughed at Orville & Wilbur too. I wonder how many lives the Consumer Protection laws have saved.

That is not really relevant. The point is that the Green Party will never have any real influence.

IMPress Polly
10-17-2016, 12:43 PM
Technically the Populist Party is still around too, but that doesn't mean it's relevant. The thing is that this is an exceptional moment of mass dissatisfaction with both of the major party candidates wherein a candidate like Jill Stein can step in and potentially resurrect the Green Party as a relevant political force. That's what I want to see happen!

Cletus
10-17-2016, 04:27 PM
Technically the Populist Party is still around too, but that doesn't mean it's relevant. The thing is that this is an exceptional moment of mass dissatisfaction with both of the major party candidates wherein a candidate like Jill Stein can step in and potentially resurrect the Green Party as a relevant political force. That's what I want to see happen!

I am not saying that would be a bad thing, because it wouldn't. It is however, an unrealistic expectation.

Ethereal
10-17-2016, 04:28 PM
Yeah, it is still there and it is still completely insignificant.

People are STILL laughing at Nader.

The Greens and Libertarians are making progress. Bernie Sanders supporters are basically ideological Greens and they almost derailed Hillary Clinton's coronation this year. It's only a matter of time before ideological progressives and libertarians become the major forces in politics. And while they disagree on some economic issues, they generally agree on social issues and foreign policy issues. If they can create reform in those areas, it will alleviate many of the economic pressures and conditions that intensify their economic disagreements over things like welfare.

Ethereal
10-17-2016, 04:29 PM
There's a problem, I think, with voting for anti-establishment populists like Trump, or even Sanders in primary, and that's that they don't really seek to change what people are fed up with. Stein and Johnso do, Stein with even more government, Johnson less. Security, in a broad sense, versus liberty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgz5Ob3iFB4

Well, Stein may want "more government" in terms of welfare, but she wants less government in terms of personal liberties and foreign policy, which could result in a net decrease in government.

Green Arrow
10-17-2016, 04:31 PM
That is not really relevant. The point is that the Green Party will never have any real influence.

What are tomorrow's winning lottery numbers?

Bethere
10-17-2016, 04:34 PM
.
People laughed at Orville & Wilbur too. I wonder how many lives the Consumer Protection laws have saved.

No one here in Dayton laughed at the Wright brothers.

Docthehun
10-17-2016, 06:23 PM
No one here in Dayton laughed at the Wright brothers.

I'm back aboard, reason unknown. Let's not mention WPAFB has 26,000 civilian employees.

Bethere
10-17-2016, 08:01 PM
I'm back aboard, reason unknown. Let's not mention WPAFB has 26,000 civilian employees.

Good times!

Cletus
10-17-2016, 11:06 PM
What are tomorrow's winning lottery numbers?

"Go away kid, you bother me." - William Claude Dukenfield

Green Arrow
10-18-2016, 12:12 AM
"Go away kid, you bother me." - William Claude Dukenfield

Why won't you share your gift of foretelling?

IMPress Polly
10-18-2016, 05:19 AM
Do I need to start requesting threadbans, boys? :wink:

(I think this thread's pretty much exhausted anyway, really.)