| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's because we're picking a leader, someone who's not only going to be looking out for our own interests but representing us on a global stage. Sure Alan from accounting might be the sensible choice, but Steve from advertising can sell himself better so everyone votes for Steve.To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her.I've never understood why people need to be inspired to make a rational decision. Selecting the person who leads the country should be the textbook definition of a decision which should not be made on the basis of emotion, but somehow it always is for far too many people.
And Trump from...wherever the hell Trump crawled out of...is one of the most inspiring people ever to a lot of people.
Voting based on "feels" is how we have a racist lunatic running to be arguably the most powerful man in the world.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances.
Well, frankly, I don't want a leader that will "take progressive stances." I want a leader that will actually be able to effect progressive change, and I'm happy with incremental progressive change if the alternative is no effective change at all (or worse, regressive changes).
I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the press conference where the mayor or governor says something like "[i]<Something> is a serious, serious problem, and we need to do something to address it. I am therefore requesting <small number> in funding to establish a blue ribbon committee to report on possible ways forward." That's a progressive stance that will accomplish absolutely nothing. It's also totally ineffective when the mayor says that something will be done, and then city council or the local police union totally shuts it down. If the mayor wants something done, he needs to find a way to get the actual decision makers -- for example, the people who would authorize a budget -- to support the proposal.
And that's where Mr. Sanders falls down (IMHO). Sure, he can take stances, but can he actually wheel-and-deal legislation through a hostile Congress? Can he make this-for-that bargains to get an actual legislative agenda accomplished? Can he, in fact, achieve Bismark's "second best"? I don't think so. And I've got even less faith in Mr. Johnson's ability (or desire) to get a progressive agenda through, and still less faith in Ms. Stein's.
So if I want to get something done -- and I do -- the ability to "take progressive stances" is about as useful as a chocolate tea kettle. And I really don't want a pseudo-leader that will make a lot of noise, take a lot of stances, promise the earth -- and then melt as soon as he/she/they face any political heat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clinton is an incrementalist, and, to my knowledge, always has been. It defines her strategies. I personally feel that Democrats need to fight harder on issues that they've allowed the right to redefine.
Except that one of the big issues the Democrats have allowed the right to redefine is the role of government. As in "government isn't the solution, government is the problem." "Every time the government gets involved in an issue, it makes things worse." "Government can't actually accomplish anything."
Obama actually has a quite respectable record of accomplishment if you look it up. I'd like more people to know what "the government" can actually accomplish. But in order for that particular meme to catch on (especially in the teeth of Republican lies and calumny), the government needs actually to accomplish something.
And the way to accomplish things.... well, how many times do I need to reference Bismark?
The thing is, it's all well and good to talk about how it's all well and good to want progressive stances, but if the leader doesn't have a progressive stance, do you really expect them to fight for major progressive change?
We've been working with moderates for a while, now. In this polarized environment, I'm not convinced they can get anything done. Because for all the talk about how Hillary can "get things done", I really, really doubt a single Republican is going to willingly be seen voting for anything with her fingerprints on it. It's not her fault, but it's the reality. She's the only person they might hate more than Obama, and they sure didn't like his compromises.
We don't need a "realistic compromiser". We need someone who can mobilize Democrats and force the Democratic Party to take a stand for a change. After eight years with Obama, who I do retain plenty of respect for, I have lost virtually all faith in the old incrementalist policies that have taken us so decidedly nowhere. All they've done is give blue dogs a hole to hide in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said neither of those things. She says s!$%ty things about autism, and she panders to anti-vaxxers. Two separate failings.
To be precise, she she has a tendency to waffle and avoid outright standing behind mandatory vaccines. As for autism:
I got involved as a mother and a medical doctor. I had been, for a while, very alarmed about the public health calamities that I was witnessing as a new doctor and a mother of young kids. There were these new epidemics of asthma and cancer and autism and diabetes and obesity. And I said to myself, 'Hey, our genes didn't change overnight.' You know, my generation didn't grow up with this.
Autism is not a public health calamity. It is not an epidemic. And I don't appreciate being listed right next to cancer, thanks, can I please have a different seat?
People will call this "taking out of context", but it's not. She chose to put autism in this context—she wanted to list the illnesses that she entered the Green Party to treat, and autism is one of them. She made a choice, and she gets to deal with the consequences.* It's the exact same attitude Autism Speaks takes towards us. Lump us right in with asthma. Find a cure. Blame pollution, or vaccines, or bad food. Find a cure. It is with a heavy heart that I must announce the neurotypicals are at it again.
*Or she would, if she was a real candidate to begin with. As-is, she's just a good reminder that "pro-environment" doesn't always equal "pro-science".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stein isn't anti-vax; she's anti-"FDA is run by corporate pharma lobbysists."
Longer description, with quotes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.. and it was basically people are questioning because our FDA is being run by monsanto and the drug corporations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edited my post. Jill Stein knows what she said and who she's pandering to.
Jill Stein isn't anti-vax, but she loves to take their votes and feed their paranoia. I live in Oregon. We have the lowest rates of vaccinations in the country. She's feeding a real problem with this attitude—a problem that leads to outbreaks and dead kids and greater and greater paranoia—so I say thank god she's locked in fourth place. Thank god.
Pity Gary Johnson and Trump actually are anti-vax, and they're in second and third.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going into a bargaining table and have two choices on who's going to represent you, tell me who you want: someone who's going to demand as much as they can get or someone who's going to ask for incremental change? Sanders says you should get $24 an hour and Clinton says $10 an hour is more reasonable. Maybe with Clinton you'll get $9 but with Sanders you could get $14.
... or I could get $0, because they're simply going to say "no" to Mr. Sanders' unreasonable demands.
You can't win negotiations in the initial demand, but you can certainly lose them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the Dems can and should take much more progressive stances on issues and resolving them.
But... the time to argue about whether the Dems should have backed a more progressive nominee than Clinton is past for this election. All we are left with now is a choice between Clinton or Trump. That's it. The primaries are when we argue about what restaurant out of all the available options we're going to eat at. Post-primaries, we're down to only two realistic dining options... and in one of them, there's good odds the waiter will shiv at least one of you, the owner will sh!t on your table mid-appetizers, the busboy will steal your cash & credit cards, and your car will be set on fire in the parking lot.
If you want to see someone more progressive than Clinton, start preparing now to begin looking for a viable candidate on November 9th. If she doesn't make the right decisions, drops the ball, or goes back on the DNC 2016 platform, vocally and repeatedly hold her administration accountable. If you want to increase the chance she can enact meaningful progressive changes, make sure you vote for downticket candidates who can wrest back control of Federal & State legislatures from the Alt-Reicher's. If you have the time and means, get out and volunteer for get Get Out the Vote efforts and to help disadvantaged get to the polls on Nov. 8th. Contact Sander's Our Revolution org and/or other grassroots orgs and find out how you can help shift government policy & the Overton Window back from the Right. Be ready for the 2018 election and work hard to get out voters.
she panders to anti-vaxxers. she has a tendency to waffle.
Yeah, she's a politician. Pandering and waffling is what they do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...waffle....waffling...
{rumbles hungrily}
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I really dislike Jill Stein. She does not strike me as an especially scientific candidate (she panders to anti-vaxxers and has said some really s#!%ty things about autism). Moreover, she will not win. Not even Johnson has a chance, and he's at least being acknowledged. Stein is an un-candidate.please show me where she claims vaccines cause autism. This feels like something the Clinton spin doctors made up, much like lie of Obama not being born in America.
A quick Google search has told me the following:
As far as I can tell, she has not said anything definite about vaccines and autism. I won't give you points for guessing which presidential candidate has said things about vaccines and autism.
But if you read between the lines...
She has an incredibly vague position with vaccination. She basically says that yeah vaccines are great and all but American regulation is filled with corperate shills so we can't trust vaccines. There have also been concerns by doctors in the past about all that toxic mercury and other crap that is in vaccines.
BTW, that toxic mercury was used in a non-toxic preservative that was in a handful of vaccines but has since been removed because of fears about, you guessed it, Autism.
Funnily enough, vaccines are an area where corperate shilldom is not the case from what I can tell - most of the people involved in regulating them don't have significant corperate ties. Only two of the thirteen people on the vaccine regulating body have corperate ties.
There is also a separate quote that refers to. Given that a lot of this was part of a reddit AMA, and many different people point blank asked her what she though about autism and vaccines, and she gave no response whatsoever, the concern about her is absolutely legitimate.
Interviewers from the Washington Post also asked her point blank, and she evaded the question. She has also likewise done so on twitter.
So that's my info - no hard evidence, just a vague and badly founded anti-vaccination-ish stance, and a hell of a lot of extremely suspicious evasions when asked directly about her position on the topic of vaccines and autism. Frankly, I don't think she thinks vaccines cause autism, but she wants to get votes from people that do, and if the truth needs to die on that altar then so be it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The primaries are over. We need to stop fighting the primary wars and win the general election.
And start working to get more progressive candidates for the next cycle. Start thinking about 2018 primaries. Nobody votes in midterm primaries. That's where you can make changes.
.... and look to the local elections. That's where changes start. That's how the religious right took over the Republicans, and (more recently), how the tea party did. If you want to see a Green Party president, start by electing a Green Party mayor. You probably still won't get a Green Party president, but you will probably get the Democrats to move to co-opt an actual popular Green Party position.
Aaargh!
I was writing my tale, and it was awesome, and then I hit the wrong button and it was all erased.
:(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not crazy about Jill Stein, but I think, after her marching with my comrades against armed racists a couple months ago, and her actions in North Dakota, and how much liberals and Democrats talk shiznit about her, I'm going to break down and register to vote.
Anyway, I don't get the whole vaccine thing. Everybody's bending over backwards to excuse Hillary's lifelong dealing with union-busters, public education raiders, militarists, Wall Street, etc., etc. but Jill Stein's so despicable because she pandered a couple of times to hippies.
Citizen Snowblind, since the "Jill Stein is anti-vaxx" smear was released and been so widely disseminated, Citizen Stein has made repeated "I am pro-vaccination" statements. I don't really want to go looking for them, but I remember one of them was on The Young Turks, if that helps.
... but Jill Stein's so despicable because she pandered a couple of times to hippies.
So I'm glad you are looking to vote, and Stein is certainly not the worse of the lot, but it's not simply pandering to a couple of hippies, it's pandering to people that are directly responsible for diseases we had killed making a comeback. This sort of pandering literally causes direct suffering for children when they catch small pox and other such diseases.
It actually plays right into terrorist hands (not an exaggeration) when they claim that the vaccines we are trying to give in remote parts of the world are not acceptable in the USA and that we won't give them to our kids.
With that said I of course don't think that's Steins intention or purpose, and the terrorists would find something else if not these sorts of things.
Anyway, my story centered around a Surly Italian Teamster talking about a video of Gary Johnson yelling at an interviewer for saying "illegal immigrants."
I only saw it this morning myself, and thought it was pretty f!@*ing cool, so I am surprised to discover that it's a couple of weeks old.
Gary Johnson Loses It! Goes Full PC Over Term 'Illegal Immigrant'
First minute and a half, is how I saw it this morning.
Anyway, my story centered around a Surly Italian Teamster talking about a video of Gary Johnson yelling at an interviewer for saying "illegal immigrants."
I only saw it this morning myself, and thought it was pretty f#%*ing cool, so I am surprised to discover that it's a couple of weeks old.
Gary Johnson Loses It! Goes Full PC Over Term 'Illegal Immigrant'
First minute and a half, is how I saw it this morning.
Got to say Johnson has been really playing the statesman well. If the Republicans hadn't thrown him to the curb he could have had this election I think.
Of course that's alternate universe sort of material so who knows but again he's been playing really well to the cameras.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah...and then you look at overall views of libertarians on social programs or environmental regulation, and any interest that momentarily emerges gets flushed down the toilet again.
Well, she is polling higher than any Green's percentage of the vote since Nader in 2000. [Braces for deluge of "Nader caused Bush!" comments]Why is a city council member from the town of Lexington, MA (population 31,000) even being considered for president? Seriously... how the f@%+ is that a thing?Don't worry. It's not really a thing. No more than it was 4 years ago.
Or than whatever qualifications any of the other protest candidates have.
Speaking of Nader, his 2000 running mate on Democracy Now! from North Dakota:
Native American Activist Winona LaDuke at Standing Rock: It's Time to Move On from Fossil Fuels
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not crazy about Jill Stein, but I think, after her marching with my comrades against armed racists a couple months ago, and her actions in North Dakota, and how much liberals and Democrats talk shiznit about her, I'm going to break down and register to vote.
Anyway, I don't get the whole vaccine thing. Everybody's bending over backwards to excuse Hillary's lifelong dealing with union-busters, public education raiders, militarists, Wall Street, etc., etc. but Jill Stein's so despicable because she pandered a couple of times to hippies.
Citizen Snowblind, since the "Jill Stein is anti-vaxx" smear was released and been so widely disseminated, Citizen Stein has made repeated "I am pro-vaccination" statements. I don't really want to go looking for them, but I remember one of them was on The Young Turks, if that helps.
I'm calling it a win, Doodles. :)
It pains me to spread more Gary Johnson propaganda, but this video featuring Abraham Lincoln made me laugh more than a couple of times:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comrade,
There's no way Gary Johnson is Batman.
I've decided at most, Gary Johnson is more like Snapper Carr than Batman. If that. Maybe Bibbo Bibbowski?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going into a bargaining table and have two choices on who's going to represent you, tell me who you want: someone who's going to demand as much as they can get or someone who's going to ask for incremental change? Sanders says you should get $24 an hour and Clinton says $10 an hour is more reasonable. Maybe with Clinton you'll get $9 but with Sanders you could get $14.... or I could get $0, because they're simply going to say "no" to Mr. Sanders' unreasonable demands.
You can't win negotiations in the initial demand, but you can certainly lose them.
This stance is precisely the reason that the GOP has been able to use the golden mean fallacy to drag national politics to the right for 3 decades. They start off in guano crazy right field, you start off with a reasonable and moderate position; then you "compromise" on some policy that would make Nixon and Reagan blush.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm trying to stress to you is that I have no excitement for Hilary, I might have dread for Trump, but if he gets elected that's Hilary's fault not mine.
I hope you give some serious thought to what you've just said, here. You have a choice. You don't control the candidates, and you don't control the outcome, but you control your vote. And your vote counts for something. If Trump gets elected and you didn't vote for Clinton, it's partly your fault. I don't want to hear "But I'm not in a swing state!" or "But it wasn't a close election!" or "But she wasn't inspiring enough!" None of those things have anything to do with your responsibility as a citizen of the country. You have one job - to make a rational voting decision. You have three options - vote Clinton, vote Trump, or cast no meaningful vote. None of the rest of us are going to accept your excuses.
IT's because of this false narrative that the news media has where they pretend both sides are equally valid position.
I don't understand how you can spend two pages of a thread arguing from a position of false equivocation, only to turn around and criticize the media for engaging in it, too.
I hope you give some serious thought to what you've just said, here. You have a choice. You don't control the candidates, and you don't control the outcome, but you control your vote. And your vote counts for something. If Trump gets elected and you didn't vote for Clinton, it's partly your fault. I don't want to hear "But I'm not in a swing state!" or "But it wasn't a close election!" or "But she wasn't inspiring enough!" None of those things have anything to do with your responsibility as a citizen of the country. You have one job - to make a rational voting decision. You have three options - vote Clinton, vote Trump, or cast no meaningful vote. None of the rest of us are going to accept your excuses.
He's a Canadian troll. He's just poking you to see you spit and squirm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IT's because of this false narrative that the news media has where they pretend both sides are equally valid position. It would be like if New York Yankees and the Toronto Blue Jays played a baseball game but then later both sides claimed that they won the baseball game. The news media thinks that's a valid debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None of those things have anything to do with your responsibility as a citizen of the country. You have one job - to make a rational voting decision.
But Scott, I thought you said
Your vote on election day is actually the least significant political tool you possess as a citizen.
I remember, because I marked my calendar.
Seriously,
If Gary Johnson was a DC Comic character (doesn't have to be a hero folks!) who would you choose?
Cause for me I'd pick Hillary Clinton as more like Nu-52 Vic Sage.
Donald is more Glorious Godfred.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why democrats get blamed for republican obstructionism or how voting for someone with no chance to win is going to convince them to stop.IT's because of this false narrative that the news media has where they pretend both sides are equally valid position. It would be like if New York Yankees and the Toronto Blue Jays played a baseball game but then later both sides claimed that they won the baseball game. The news media thinks that's a valid debate.
I read a recent example elsewhere, but I can't find it to quote it. Basically it's like asking Trump and Clinton for a weather forecast in North Dakota in December. Clinton will tell you it'll very likely be freezing and give detailed recommendations & precautions. Trump will tell the audience what he thinks they want to hear: that it'll be a mild day in the comfy 70s and perfect day to go to the beach where there's ample free parking and no one will get sunburned. The media will report it as "Clinton, Trump offer conflicting views on weather", treating Trump's answer as equally possible and valid. Clinton's answers will be described as too wonky but highly negative, and that they can find no proof she's ever traveled to North Dakota.
But Scott, I thought you said
Your vote on election day is actually the least significant political tool you possess as a citizen.
I remember, because I marked my calendar.
I took what he said to be "you have one job [as a voter]." Because, well, that makes sense. Unless you think he was literally suggesting that we all expire -- our one job complete -- the moment we've cast a vote?
See what I did there?
Comrade,
There's no way Gary Johnson is Batman.
well have YOU seen them in the same place together?
No, I don't.
well have YOU seen them in the same place together?Comrade,
There's no way Gary Johnson is Batman.
Actually I have. It's just not on this Earth.