• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jill Stein

Would You Consider A Vote For Jill Stein?

  • Absolutely!

    Votes: 6 16.2%

  • Only If My Preferred GOP Candidate Loses The Nomination

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Only If My Preferred Dem Candidate Loses The Nomination

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Strong Maybe, Leaning Yes.

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • Meh. It Could Happen.

    Votes: 4 10.8%

  • I Like Her And Support Her Run, But No....

    Votes: 4 10.8%

  • No Way!

    Votes: 19 51.4%
  • Total voters
    37
Perotista said:
Money has so much to do with that popularity. One cannot expect a third party candidate to win when the Republican candidate spends a billion dollars, the Democratic candidate spends a billion dollars and all you have to spend is 3 million, ala Gary Johnson in 2012. When corporations, lobbyist, wall street firms, special interests, big money donors shell out millions, tens of millions of dollars to the two major parties, that just shows you which parties have been bought and paid for.
Click to expand...

But the Republican money comes from contributors, more contributors favor the Republican party than do the Green party or the Libertarian party. The only way to be successful in politics is to attract a lot of people who are willing to give you money. If you cannot, as is true of all third parties, then you don't have enough popularity to win. Make all the excuses you want, this is what it all comes down to.
 
Cephus said:
But the Republican money comes from contributors, more contributors favor the Republican party than do the Green party or the Libertarian party. The only way to be successful in politics is to attract a lot of people who are willing to give you money. If you cannot, as is true of all third parties, then you don't have enough popularity to win. Make all the excuses you want, this is what it all comes down to.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true.
Candidates solicit the Big Money from CORPORATE contributors. Campaign donations are I.O.U.s that
are repaid with gov't contracts, special legislation, or policy committments to make sure there are no
changes that might reduce CORPORATE profits. CORPORATE issues are always about profit and loss
and since they don't live and breathe, the conditions that are good for humanity are ignored. CORPORATIONS
repay their lackeys at regular intervals. the GreenParty does not accept CORPORATE contributions, ergo, they
work for humans.
 
DaveFagan said:
That's not quite true.
Candidates solicit the Big Money from CORPORATE contributors. Campaign donations are I.O.U.s that
are repaid with gov't contracts, special legislation, or policy committments to make sure there are no
changes that might reduce CORPORATE profits. CORPORATE issues are always about profit and loss
and since they don't live and breathe, the conditions that are good for humanity are ignored. CORPORATIONS
repay their lackeys at regular intervals. the GreenParty does not accept CORPORATE contributions, ergo, they
work for humans.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't change a thing. Candidates need to get money to run. If they cannot get money, they lose. They need to appeal to someone with money, be it corporate or private donors. Third parties cannot find anyone to give them money. That's why they lose. All the excuses in the world doesn't change that fact.
 
I wouldn't vote for her but I get uncomfortable walking in Earthbound Trading Company. I'm more free trade, free enterprise progressive.
 
TurtleDude said:
she wants a "Green" New Deal. she's pretty much the stereotype of a liberal Jewish Ivy league grad when it comes to policies
Click to expand...

in other words, she's REAL smart
 
justabubba said:
in other words, she's REAL smart
Click to expand...

she probably is. so was Nixon and Stalin. but she's a big government elitist who thinks she should run the lives of everyone else.
 
Cephus said:
But the Republican money comes from contributors, more contributors favor the Republican party than do the Green party or the Libertarian party. The only way to be successful in politics is to attract a lot of people who are willing to give you money. If you cannot, as is true of all third parties, then you don't have enough popularity to win. Make all the excuses you want, this is what it all comes down to.
Click to expand...

It all boils down to money. Without a Jill Stein, a Gary Johnson can't get their message out or even let the people know whom they are. The reason Perot was able to garner 20% of the vote in 1992 was he had money to get on TV and let the people know whom he was.
 
Perotista said:
It all boils down to money. Without a Jill Stein, a Gary Johnson can't get their message out or even let the people know whom they are. The reason Perot was able to garner 20% of the vote in 1992 was he had money to get on TV and let the people know whom he was.
Click to expand...

The only reason Perot got his message out was because he was funding his own campaign. He had money. He made some massive mistakes and ended up losing it all. He's had no significant effect on American politics, any more than Gary Johnson or Jill Stein will.
 
TeleKat said:
Much like Gary Johnson (L), Jill Stein (G) has put her hat in the ring for a second shot at the White House in 2016. Would you consider a vote for her?
Click to expand...
Ben's sister?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Ok, seriously, probably not. I view the Green Party as nothing more than the left version of what the Tea Party is to the right. (Yes, I know the Tea Party isn't an actual party, I'm talking ideologies.) Would be too extreme for me.
 
BrewerBob said:
I voted for her last time and could do it again but I don't know yet. I disagree with her on guns but as POTUS she couldn't effect much change there anyway. Or I might vote Libertarian. The only way I would consider voting main party is if someone like Sanders or possibly Paul won the primary.
Click to expand...
Not intending to derail the thread, but to me Sanders is nothing more than a to-the-core extreme liberal wrapped in independent clothing. Party-wise he's independent because he doesn't officially belong to the Dem party, but ideology-wise the "I" is misleading.
 
Cephus said:
The only reason Perot got his message out was because he was funding his own campaign. He had money. He made some massive mistakes and ended up losing it all. He's had no significant effect on American politics, any more than Gary Johnson or Jill Stein will.
Click to expand...

Ross perot gave us slick willy
 
I see left wing spammers have buggered up this poll

there are more actual members who voted no than the "most popular" choice
 
TurtleDude said:
Ross perot gave us slick willy
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, after Bush and Obama, I actually find myself missing ol' Slick Willy. Maybe that is just because I miss pre-9-11 America.
 
BrewerBob said:
Funny thing is, after Bush and Obama, I actually find myself missing ol' Slick Willy. Maybe that is just because I miss pre-9-11 America.
Click to expand...

according to the security details I talked to, Clinton was a decent guy. W was the most popular, with his father being the most respected. But they liked Bill (though they despised Hillary). they were sort of blah about Obama
 
Cephus said:
The only reason Perot got his message out was because he was funding his own campaign. He had money. He made some massive mistakes and ended up losing it all. He's had no significant effect on American politics, any more than Gary Johnson or Jill Stein will.
Click to expand...

True with Perot, he got his message out and received 20% of the vote although he spent less than half of what Bush or Clinton did. I mean individually. Yes, he made a grave mistake of getting out of the race and then re-entering. But up to that time, his message on the debt wasn't being heard. Both parties adopted his message and we ended up with almost a balanced budget in Clinton's last year.

What happened is a lot of his ideas were adopted by the two major parties. He lost the race, but some of his ideas lived on. But what you just said about his money is true, without money a candidate is nothing. Without money Clinton could not have won.

Politics is all about money, not messaging, ideas, solutions to problems, visions etc. Money and the negative ads to make the voter hate the other fellow more than they hate you. Then everyone wonders why they can't govern.
 
Perotista said:
Politics is all about money, not messaging, ideas, solutions to problems, visions etc. Money and the negative ads to make the voter hate the other fellow more than they hate you. Then everyone wonders why they can't govern.
Click to expand...

But in order to get into office, you have to have a message that appeals to people willing to give you money. This is not the case with third parties, they have a message that appeals to a minuscule minority of people with no money, it's no wonder they fail. Our political system is messed up to be sure, but third parties are just not doing anything to get themselves money, power or votes. They're just wasting everyone's time.
 
Perotista said:
True with Perot, he got his message out and received 20% of the vote although he spent less than half of what Bush or Clinton did. I mean individually. Yes, he made a grave mistake of getting out of the race and then re-entering. But up to that time, his message on the debt wasn't being heard. Both parties adopted his message and we ended up with almost a balanced budget in Clinton's last year.

What happened is a lot of his ideas were adopted by the two major parties. He lost the race, but some of his ideas lived on. But what you just said about his money is true, without money a candidate is nothing. Without money Clinton could not have won.

Politics is all about money, not messaging, ideas, solutions to problems, visions etc. Money and the negative ads to make the voter hate the other fellow more than they hate you. Then everyone wonders why they can't govern.
Click to expand...

That's very common in American political history. Third parties are usually parties of only one or two ideas, and if those ideas become popular and the Big 2 adopt them (in some form), the third party ceases to be relevant.
 
TeleKat said:
Well here I am, wavering. So get over yourself.
Click to expand...

"Get over myself?"

Well, that's an explanation of sorts. :roll:

It's like someone having career aspirations of working for the NRA or for the Brady Campaign. It's like someone getting up on each Sunday and spinning a roulette wheel to determine if they're going to worship God or Satan. :mrgreen:

It makes sense to someone to be for the Green as your ideal choice and a Democrat as your slightly less socialist backup / mainstream option. It makes no sense to be for the diametrically opposed extreme socialist and the extreme capitalist.

Between a free market guy and a lady that wants more government wage controls / considers phone and internet service to be a right and wants to nationalize like damn near everything... by what metric could someone agree with both of these views?
 
Last edited:
TeleKat said:
Much like Gary Johnson (L), Jill Stein (G) has put her hat in the ring for a second shot at the White House in 2016. Would you consider a vote for her?
Click to expand...

I like Jill and in general if a 3rd party had a real chance in the US she would be a strong candidate IMO. Her only issues would be to curb some of her views, they couldn't be part of her running platform, like guns and some energy stuff.
 
JayDubya said:
"Get over myself?"

Well, that's an explanation of sorts. :roll:

It's like someone having career aspirations of working for the NRA or for the Brady Campaign. It's like someone getting up on each Sunday and spinning a roulette wheel to determine if they're going to worship God or Satan. :mrgreen:

It makes sense to someone to be for the Green as your ideal choice and a Democrat as your slightly less socialist backup / mainstream option. It makes no sense to be for the diametrically opposed extreme socialist and the extreme capitalist.

Between a free market guy and a lady that wants more government wage controls / considers phone and internet service to be a right and wants to nationalize like damn near everything... by what metric could someone agree with both of these views?
Click to expand...

This may come as a shock to you, but I really don't care who you think I should and should not support. I am wavering between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Why? Because they are the same on most social issues (gay rights, pro choice, legalize drugs, etc.), civil rights (abolish ndaa/patriot act, reign in nsa, stop racial profiling, demilitarize police, etc), and foreign policy (keep our boys home and stop provoking other countries). On the same point, I am both socialist and pro-gun. I am for both helping the poor and for ending or at least shrinking most national bureaucracies. I am for both unions and homeschooling. So on and so forth. Which is where the indecision comes in.

Not everyone fits into your little black & white misconceptions about the world. Like I said: get over yourself.
 
TeleKat said:
Ok, you can read Wikipedia. That doesn't take away from my original point.
Click to expand...

Having knowledge on something means having read Wikipedia? :lamo



TeleKat said:
The concept of "economic liberty" is nothing more than a glittering generality. It has no inherent meaning...it's propaganda.
Click to expand...

Tell that to fellow libertarians who believe that the foundation of all rights lies in property rights.

To call something quantifiable like economic liberty "propaganda" is just disingenuous. Only someone with a tyrant trapped within them would deny someone the ability to enter into contracts freely and the fruits of their labor, and force them to belong to some workers' collective, which is what left-libertarianism is all about.

TeleKat said:
Again, you can read Wikipedia. How does that take away from anything I have said?
Click to expand...

It's common knowledge what the Greens advocate, nothing to do with Wikipedia. Each time you accuse me of that you're revealing insecurities. And yes, it takes everything away from what you said, because it exposes how the Greens having nothing in common with libertarians.

TeleKat said:
I don't know. I haven't taken it upon myself to travel the country and speak with every single self-described libertarian. I'll make sure to add that to the bucket list...
Click to expand...

Libertarianism in the US has always translated to fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. People with your views usually identify as socialist. Nice try...

TeleKat said:
Yeah, that's their base. That doesn't mean they can't appeal to people outside of that base. Like when Democrats appeal to moderate conservatives and Republicans appeal to moderate liberals.
Click to expand...

They'll have a hard time attracting votes from libertarians when their rhetoric is anti-gun rights, pro big government and anti property rights (and private enterprise in general). Is that hard to understand?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom