• 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: Democrats Govern by Fear—That Alone Should Cost Them Your Vote

Henrin said:
What are the major differences between your party for liberals like yourself in Canada and the democratic party in the US? I'm sure they are more policy differences than ideological differences, but I'm curious none the less.
Click to expand...

Biggest difference, in my best guess, is that there's nowhere in the US for far-left types, progressives, socialists, etc. so they live in the Democratic Party alongside liberals.
If those people had the Democratic Party to themselves, the liberals in the party could all form a Liberal Party and they would attract liberals from the Republican Party who didn't want to associate with the far left.
There's lots of people in the US, and quite a few here (DP), who identify as conservative but express liberal values, just because they don't want to be confused with the left.
 
Henrin said:
What are the major differences between your party for liberals like yourself in Canada and the democratic party in the US? I'm sure they are more policy differences than ideological differences, but I'm curious none the less.
Click to expand...

As a dual citizen, and per policy comparisons, in general I've noticed that the Overton window and the entire political center is shifted further left in Canada vs the States: Canadian centrists are roughly among the US left wing/left of centre. Canadian conservatives are equivalent to American moderates or its right of center politicians. There is no real equivalent of the US right wing in Canada; those that exist here are pretty much on the lunatic fringe of Canadian politics. Interestingly Canadian socialists/progressives are about equivalent to American ones; Bernie has a great deal of common ground with the NDP, particularly after Thomas Mulclair's (former NDP leader) summary ouster after he tried to drag the NDP off to the right. That said, I would hesitate to classify the NDP as unadulterated socialists; it's really more of a blend between leftists, unionists, left libertarians, progressives and socialists, rather than being domineered by the latter two. The Liberal party runs the gamut from progressives to centrists of various leans and left and right libertarians; in general though, it is pretty much the definitive centrist party of the country, with a various left or right lean depending on the contemporary zeitgeist.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Schism said:
If the US is so concerned over some third-world island rum factory being a threat, it's strange how we left Beirut so abruptly following the bombing.
Add in the Russians, Cubans, and DPRK and you have a cold-war thriller. But you're free to believe it was over conch shells.
Click to expand...

Hm......your source seems rather.......lacking in terms of objectivity, for something that claims to provide "substantive news".

For example, you have the usual attempts to rationalize a coup---which, by nature, go against the best interests of the people yet always seem to be defended by the far left---

"Not quite as bad as other countries in the hemisphere at this time" and "not to the degree of subservience as Eastern European countries" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, sorry.

Guarantees from communists can be trusted about as far as you can throw said communist. As I recall, Stalin promised there would be free elections in Eastern Europe after World War Two. I would have been concerned about the safety of the students as well.

Cuban military personnel often did double duty in "civillian" construction projects and vice versus, so the "100 out of 750" number is a bit misconstrued.

The Black Panthers were violent scumbags who did more to hurt the Civil Rights movement than any other African American group. Good ****ing riddance.
 
Schism said:
A desire for integrity, honesty, transparency in gov't, peace, jobs, single payer, end of cannabis prohibition, end war on drugs,...need I go on?

Surely you know this by now.
Click to expand...

Jill Stein won't offer any of this. All she'll do is be gridlocked out of doing anything. (Same as Clinton)
 
Henrin said:
They have however joined in conflicts that were not our own more than a few times. Hillary for example did just that while SOS.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's different from starting a war, though.
 
Gaea said:
Jill Stein is as crazy as Ben Carson. Anyone voting for her is throwing away their vote.

If you want to support the Green Party, vote for more GP state legislators so that in the future, the Green Party has experienced/competent people to run in national elections.
Click to expand...

I have been saying this for years. The Greens and Libertarians have a few token local elected officials, but that's all. It seems rather absurd to me that a party that can't even get a state insurance commissioner elected, much less a mayor in any decent sized city, could all of a sudden field a candidate capable of being an effective president even if they got the votes somehow.

As it is, all either of those parties do is show up every 4 years with either a total clown at best for a candidate and often some nutjob (like Stein) and then they disappear.
 
Schism said:
Wait. you're trolling, right?
Click to expand...

His statement is all about the wording. We haven't been in a full scale war since Vietnam. Now if I'm not mistaken we have been involved in military conflicts non stop forever of one level or another.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
America is a disaster, though finally we are starting to get some good conversation about the problem:

Government is incompetent and corrupt

Medical system is super expensive and delivers way too much crap

Justice system is abusive not even bothering to pretend that it has much interest in justice

Primary education system has been turned into an indoctrination system

The university is an indoctrination, babysitting and job training center now, education no longer makes the grade

The military has been completely mismanaged.

The economy has moved to being an oligarchy system, one which does not work for the nation.

We are in massive debt

The infrastructure of the nation is the most decrepit is has been in at least 100 years.

We have a third world passenger rail system.

and so on.
Click to expand...

Molly Ball gets it:

But the larger sense — and liberals hate comparing Trump supporters to Sanders supporters — but what I found talking to voters for both of these candidates, voters who were angry and wanted to not just enact new policies but tear down the whole system, there’s a sense of crisis. There’s a sense that things are so bad that extreme times require extreme solutions. And there’s a hunger for radicalism in the face of what people see as a corrupt and unsustainable status quo.
Click to expand...
 
azgreg said:
She's politically illiterate.
Click to expand...

And morally bankrupt. The thing about Jill Stein is that she touts herself as a more faithful and principled alternative to democrats, yet she doesn't shy away from the political intrigue for which she maligns them. Her stridency and vindictiveness towards democrats are contrasted with silence and oblivion when it comes to republicans. What reconciles this perverse image is the realization that Stein views the Democratic Party as the political enemy, the mainstream progressive party that is standing in the way of her far-left Green Party. She benefits from the erosion of the Democratic Party, as defecting liberals and progressives would intuitively switch to the alternative that best matches their ideology. I don't fundamentally object to such political posturing; just don't pretend to be any different than the people you're antagonizing.

To get back to her political illiteracy, her views on Russia and how to handle it are horrendous. She actually manages to outdo Trump in that respect. I now understand why she's pulling at about 2%; I can't believe there are morons out there that believe her to be a viable alternative (I'm talking about you Bernie or Bust Butthurts).
 
Gaztopian said:
And morally bankrupt. The thing about Jill Stein is that she touts herself as a more faithful and principled alternative to democrats, yet she doesn't shy away from the political intrigue for which she maligns them. Her stridency and vindictiveness towards democrats are contrasted with silence and oblivion when it comes to republicans. What reconciles this perverse image is the realization that Stein views the Democratic Party as the political enemy, the mainstream progressive party that is standing in the way of her far-left Green Party. She benefits from the erosion of the Democratic Party, as defecting liberals and progressives would intuitively switch to the alternative that best matches their ideology. I don't fundamentally object to such political posturing; just don't pretend to be any different than the people you're antagonizing.

To get back to her political illiteracy, her views on Russia and how to handle it are horrendous. She actually manages to outdo Trump in that respect. I now understand why she's pulling at about 2%; I can't believe there are morons out there that believe her to be a viable alternative (I'm talking about you Bernie or Bust Butthurts).
Click to expand...

She should view them as the enemy. Democrats are the most likely to steal from her platform and they are the most likely to take her voters. Republicans are not a danger to her nor can she hope to win over their voters. She is also better than democrats as she actually believes in what she says, while they don't.
 
Henrin said:
She should view them as the enemy. Democrats are the most likely to steal from her platform and they are the most likely to take her voters. Republicans are not a danger to her nor can she hope to win over their voters. She is also better than democrats as she actually believes in what she says, while they don't.
Click to expand...

Genuinely believing awful things doesn't make you better.
 
Deuce said:
Genuinely believing awful things doesn't make you better.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. It means you stand for something even if you haven't the sense to stand for something better. I have far more respect for someone that fights for what they believe in than someone that fights for something just to be popular.
 
Simpleχity;1066455926 said:
Stein is a whacko ... maybe worse than Johnson.
Click to expand...

What exactly is "whacko" about Johnson?
 
Henrin said:
Sure it does. It means you stand for something even if you haven't the sense to stand for something better. I have far more respect for someone that fights for what they believe in than someone that fights for something just to be popular.
Click to expand...

ISIS fits this description but have zero respect for them.

I'd have negative respect for them, but I think that's like having negative mass or negative speed.
 
Caine said:
Okay... so he stuck his tongue out......

He needs to be put in an asylum immediately.
Click to expand...

Well, his policies are whacko too. Many of his supporters only know the weed thing.
 
Deuce said:
Well, his policies are whacko too. Many of his supporters only know the weed thing.
Click to expand...

He has indeed proven himself to be a less than ideal candidate as far as policy is concerned.

I think this year he has been trying to steal votes from Hillary...... don't think it will work.
 
Henrin said:
She should view them as the enemy. Democrats are the most likely to steal from her platform and they are the most likely to take her voters. Republicans are not a danger to her nor can she hope to win over their voters. She is also better than democrats as she actually believes in what she says, while they don't.
Click to expand...

As I already mentioned, I don't fundamentally object to such politicking, but you can't be up to your knees in political intrigue and claim the moral high-ground.

Bernie Sanders is a paragon of the kind of principled person for which you mistake Stein. He created a political movement in accordance with his political philosophy and what he believes to be the country's sole recourse. In the service of that movement, and despite his unwavering conviction in its righteousness, he didn't subscribe to the Machiavellian doctrine of "the end justifies the means"; instead he sought to contrast himself with a corrupt status quo, realizing that if he and the movement he created were indeed who and what they claim to be, they must be the antithesis of the nefarious status quo and its agents. Not only that, but his ideological fervor and his resolution didn't stop him from speaking the truth and realizing what's at stake.

Jill Stein, on the other hand, has nothing but pretension of loftiness and rectitude, a pretension that is further compounded by her political illiteracy and her overall clumsy personality. Jill Stein exists for one purpose and one purpose only: political masturbation for disillusioned idealists and self-affirmation of political hipsters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom