Saturday, March 21, 2015

A closer look at Jill Stein

A closer look at Jill Stein is long overdue; and the traditional media has made it clear that they won’t provide this, presumably because she isn’t going along with the political agenda of the relatively few owners of the Mass Media.

Many of us have been extremely frustrated at the traditional candidates that we’ve been given to chose from by the Mass Media; they attempt to tell us that these are the only ones that we should consider and they give them an enormous amount of coverage while attempting to shut alternatives by simply ignoring them or on rare cases by saying that they have no support or are fringe candidates.

This is an enormous effort to use propaganda to tell the majority who is a “viable” candidate or not.
The first requirement for viability is name recognition and this can be obtained either by an enormous amount of media coverage or an enormous amount of money collected, in most cases, by the multi-national corporations.

This process puts the virtual decisions about who the candidates are for both major parties in the hands of a small number of people who have an agenda that has little or nothing to do with the best interests of the vast majority of the public.

Several recent decisions by the US Congress and many more throughout the past several decades if not much longer has clearly indicated that those in power have little if any regard for the will of the people. They have refused to pass the Buffet rule; refused to allow serious consideration for a public option or single payer; and refused to cut subsidies for the oil companies even when there was overwhelming support for these ideas in polls. In these cases Barack Obama or other politicians have provided some support for them but it has often been done in a manner that has been ineffective even when there have been other options; for example it was reported in January that they had the option of voting to change the filibuster rule with a 51 vote majority in the senate if it was done at the beginning of a new session after an election but the Democrats chose not to do so and therefore they gave the Republicans an easy option to shut down progress while the Democrats can pretend that they supported a lot of legislation; furthermore it was clear at the time that the Republicans intended to use this tactic. I could go into a much longer list of examples; but for starters it should be clear that the public should stop accepting the stated, or implied, lie given to us by the corporate media that we have to choose from the candidates that they agree to give attention to.
To continue accepting this would be to continue giving tacit approval to a system that continues to rob the vast majority of the public blind for the benefit of a few people that have political power and donate an enormous amount of money to the campaigns of corrupt officials.

There are many more Presidential candidates listed at Project Vote Smart and one of the ones that clearly deserves a closer look is Jill Stein who was willing to fill out her Vote Smart questionnaire unlike the so-called viable candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama who have both taken many controversial positions on many issues and they have both betrayed the trust of the public often and overwhelmingly indicated that they both put the best interest of their campaign donors ahead of the public on many issues. In fact in a sincere democracy no candidate should be eligible to be on the ballot if they refuse to answer to the public as I have indicated in several posts including the one about Election Reform and the Semi-secret fundamentals of democracy. 
If a job applicant for any job at a traditional corporation refused to fill out the application that was given to them by their potential employer there is no way they would be given serious consideration for the job; and yet that is exactly what the political establishment and the Mass Media is indicating that the vast majority of the public should do when they choose their elected officials.

Jill Stein has also done what I would a much better job presenting her views on her website which doesn’t rely on nearly as much hype at first glance and provides an enormous amount of positions on the issues in the news section. There is additional information about her on her page at “on the Issues” and as well. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have provided as much if not much more information on these website as well as many other news organizations and debates but they’re full of contradictions and it is difficult if not impossible to know what they’ll do; both of them also have a long history of disregarding their promises once they obtained power.

This shouldn’t be the way we elect any sincere democratic representative; on one issue after another it seems that Jill Stein has a better position and more credibility than either of the two major “viable candidates.”
On health care she has taken the following position:

I will replace ACA with improved Medicare for All, which provides quality care while saving money. (See "Budget".) ACA makes a profit-driven system even more expensive by adding complexity ("exchanges") to an already massive bureaucracy. Crafted by insurers, it provides $400 billion in taxpayer subsidies for stripped-down policies that enrich insurers while forcing consumers to buy the inadequate plans through a mandate. Costs continue to skyrocket, as seen with the Massachusetts plan (on which ACA is based), impoverishing consumers, businesses and government while draining resources from safety-net hospitals and threatening care for tens of millions who?ll remain uninsured.

(Additional information is found under the budget spending and taxes)

I will cut health care costs - a major, growing driver of the budget deficit - by cutting the wasteful, expensive administrative overhead of private insurance through a cost-saving Medicare for all system. I will also save money through bulk purchasing of pharmaceuticals, preventive care, community-based health infrastructure (including sound nutrition, safe bikepaths and sidewalks, and prevention of harmful pollution) and by drastically reducing medical inflation. Vote Smart

Jill Stein has also provided more information on “Health care ruling won’t deliver reform Americans need, says Stein;” where she mentions, among other things the fact that she has campaigned on a single payer system. Neither Mitt Romney or Barack Obama have supported this although when Barack Obama was a candidate he did say that he would support a public option which was quickly forgotten for political reasons and the fact that the campaign contributors from the health care industry would never go for it. Even Jimmy Carter has said that they’ve been blocking reform when they “bribed” or “legally bribed” congress with an enormous amount of campaign contributions. The money that the health care industry spends on campaign contributions and lobbying is a business expense which they have to pass on to the consumers but they don’t pass on any of the influence that goes along with it. The same goes for advertising dollars and other administration costs which also have to be passed on in order for them to be profitable and they’re not required to provide much if any honesty; on top of that the health care premiums have to provide their enormous profits as well.

The official justification for this is that they can cut costs with competition; this sounds good if you shut down the thought process before going any farther. The truth of the matter is that they don’t compete by providing better health care, just by providing more deceptive advertising and cutting costs, often at the expense of quality. For more information see Single-Payer National Health Insurance at Physicians for a National Health Program. 
Jill Stein is the only one of these three that seems to sincerely want to reign in the excessive costs and she is the only one that hasn’t accepted excessive amount of campaign contributions from the health care industry.
On education she wrote:

The Federal government should stop pushing corporatization of education in the guise of "reform". Competition for funding is being used to mask overall budget cuts that harm students. Let's help our kids' schools, rather than penalizing them when they are struggling. We will educate the whole child for lifelong learning and independence - not simply do job-training for the short-term benefit of corporations. We will stop attacking teachers and focus on the real obstacles to learning, including poverty, nutrition, and health. Vote Smart

Additional information is available at Jill Stein at where she makes it clear that she wants to fund schools properly without pushing corporatization in the form of charter schools and presumably also Channel One which provides free TVs in return for the right to advertise the children which has had devastating effects according to Roy fox’s review in “Harvesting Minds.” Both Mitt Romney have indicated that they want to rely more on charter schools despite the fact that a close look at the history of this experiment and a look at the basic principles indicates that it isn’t designed to improve schools instead it gives more control over them to the corporations who’re more interested in making a profit out of them than teaching children.

The participation of corporations in schools has increasingly had am impact on the quality and reliability of the educational material given to students about many issues including the environment as indicated in the following excerpt from Susan Linns book “Consuming Kids”:

In-school advertising began escalating in earnest in 1990. It now includes (but isn’t limited to) corporate-sponsored newscasts, field trips, classroom materials, vending machines, gymnasiums, walls, and whole buildings. Have you visited your child’s school lately? Perhaps she’s learning about energy production and consumption through the lens of companies like Exxon Mobil or professional associations like the American Coal Foundation (“Unlocking Coal’s Potential through Education”). Her inspiration for reading may be coming from Pizza Hut-complete with coupons to be redeemed at your local franchise. She may be attending mandatory assemblies where she can learn about job interviewing from McDonalds. If she lives in Washington, D.C., and wants to go into the hotel business, she might be attending the Marriot Hospitality Charter School. If she’s a kid in trouble, she could attend a Burger King Academy.

If she’s on a school athletic team, her shoes may come from Nike or Adidas. Her school’s scoreboard could owe its presence to the countless bottles of Coke or Pepsi she’s bought from school vending machines and a sport company logo. Access to her opinions and ideas may have been sold to a market research company. Her only exposure to current events might be brought to her courtesy of the aforementioned Ed Winter. He’s the guy who thought of Channel One, the twelve-minute news program that includes two minutes of commercials that her school is obligated to show daily for 90 percent of the school days each year. (Susan Linn "Consuming Kids" 2004 p.75-6)

Corporations are already attempting to indoctrinate children for their purposes in many cases especially those in poorer areas and it is clearly against the will of the people in many cases including a recent on at The Brian Piccolo Specialty School in Humboldt Park, Chicago which is currently being protested by parents; this is one of many charter schools that’re being supported by the Obama administration and his ally Rahm Emanuel. Mitt Romney has also made it clear that he wants to increase the corporate influence in schools
Jill Stein writes the following about Foreign Policy:

U.S. interests can be best served by a demilitarized foreign policy, guided by human rights and international law. The Bush/Obama policies of unending war and military bases in over 100 countries costs us not only blood and treasure, but sacrifices America's higher calling as a beacon for peace and democracy in the world. We should go after criminals but in doing so, should maintain, not violate the law. Assassination without trial denies rule by law, and for this reason, undermines the values that we seek to protect. Vote Smart

The assumption that the USA is and should be based on their military dominance is based on an enormous amount of lies and propaganda that has been drilled into the heads of many members of the public and it rarely if ever stands up to scrutiny, when scrutiny is actually applied, which the Mass Media doesn’t do. Most of the wars we have fought have been based on lies as indicated by the academic review in many places but nopt the propaganda that is presented in the media, although they do occasionally mention certain facts briefly without much emphasis so that people quickly forget them if they rely solely on the media. This includes Vietnam which was exposed by the Pentagon Papers and both North Korea and Iran as well as many other examples. In both the hot sports now in the news that may involve imminent war or at least threats of war for the purpose of scaring people the US has had opportunities to make an enormous amount of progress but instead they have done the opposite. In 1999 Jimmy Carter came to an agreement to ease tensions with North Korea and this appeared quite good until the Bush administration came into office and decided it simply didn’t like it for no rational reason. Iran has just as long a history including the CIA coup in 1953; the supplying of weapons to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war; the accepting of help with information about Al-Qaeda after 9/11 followed by an arbitrary inclusion in the “Axis of Evil” during a speech for political reason and much more.

If the US wasn’t antagonizing other countries around the world they wouldn’t have nearly as much problems with them. Jill Stein has made this clear in ‘Obama’s own Iran statements are “loose talk of war,” says Stein;’ where she indicates that she recognizes other methods to solve foreign policy problems without maintaining a constant state of perpetual war. The corporate media is constantly coming up with new stories about how there is a great threat to us but on closer examination they aren’t nearly as much of a threat as they ‘re made up to be; and if they were many of these stories shouldn’t be reported and forgotten so quickly. The latest is the testing of a missile in North Korea which failed but there will be many more. If North Korea, Iran and others didn’t feel threatened by the USA then they mi9gyht not be doing all this posturing in the first place. Furthermore, many of thes stories that are being told about threats of war simply don’t make sense at all; one of the most notable is the hikers that have obtained an enormous amount of attention. There has never been any explanation about why any rational person would go to a potential war zone and approach a border with a hostile nation which is how this began in the first place. Clearly they shouldn’t have been detained but this seems to be used for propaganda purposes that don’t add up to any rational agenda.

The constant state of war is being used as an excuse to continue to deprive the public of the most important information that they need to make important decisions about how they vote on foreign policy issues. The version of the truth that is presented to the majority of the pubic isn’t the same as the version of truth that is available to many other parts of the world and a smaller number of people within the USA that take the trouble to check the facts about foreign policy and the lies that are constantly being told to the public by the government.

They can be expected to keep trying to scare us until we stop believing them without credible evidence and scrutiny.

Click on cartoon, made available by Scott Stantis, to see his blog and more of Kevin.

After the war in Iraq about weapons of mass destruction which were never there; and well informed people knew it before the war; it should be clear that the government and the Mass Media hasn’t been honest with the public about foreign affairs.

Jill Stein has also indicated that she is opposed to the use of copyright laws to suppress free speech as indicated in the following article:

SOPA is more corporate takeover of democracy, says Stein 
Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president, said today she opposes the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, H.R. 3261) for giving the government and corporations too much power to restrict speech on the internet.

"Democracy can only succeed when free speech is a reality, not merely a promissory note. SOPA would impose censorship on the internet and threatens whistle-blowers and others whose speech is vital to a healthy society. SOPA is part of the escalating assault by global media corporations and many governments on the openness of the internet," said Stein.

Under SOPA, the U.S. Attorney General would be able to block websites by creating a blacklist and requiring service providers (including search engines) to block sites on that list. While the powers granted to the Attorney General would present major obstacles to regular users, it would be easy for the tech-savy individuals responsible for actual "online piracy" to circumvent. For this reason, Stein called SOPA, "an attempt to protect the profits of certain well-connected media corporations by undermining a communications medium that is essential to modern democracy."
SOPA also gives individuals and corporations the power to silence speech online. Individuals and corporations would be able to send a notice to a website’s payment partners requiring them to disconnect the alleged infiringing site, even if that site could not legally be held liable for infringement.
In solidarity with First Amendment advocates such as Wikipedia, Stein has today dedicated the opening splash page of her website ( her own page to an alert asking individuals to take action to oppose SOPA. original article
Additional information on this subject and many others would be helpful but on one issue after another she is much closer to the views of many of the members of the public than either of the “viable” candidates that have been presented to the public by the corporate media.

A close look at the issues should clearly indicate that if there is a more credible candidate than Jill Stein that can be trusted to be elected president it isn’t the establishment candidates being presented by the corporate media; instead it may be one of the other candidates that have taken the time to fill out the questionnaires from Project Vote Smart. Refusing to fill out these questionnaires shouldn’t be an option unless there was a more sincere system of interviewing the public. Unfortunately a close look at Project Vote Smart may indicate that it has scaled back on its questions and the quality of the material that they attempt to obtain from potential candidates; however the information that they do ask for is still better than what the Mass Media presents to the public. Furthermore the fact that they’re asking fewer questions should indicate that they’re asking even less from the candidates and they’re meeting them half way.

I don’t personally agree with this if it is what the people at Project Vote Smart are doing but it isn’t adequate as an excuse on the behalf of the candidates. If the candidates think the questionnaires that they used to ask twelve years ago are too long they could come up with an abbreviated preliminary that could be flowed up by the longer version. This would make it easier for the candidates to provide answers for the most important issues sooner rather than later and it would make it easier for the voters that want to start out by checking the abbreviated applications. Vote Smart should probably also keep all their old information available in archives that are easier to find by the public. This should indicate that any organization that is entrusted to request answers from the candidates should also be accountable to the public and the contributors to Vote Smart might want to ask them to restore the quality of their questions or a new organization can be formed that is as good if not better with direct control from citizens groups over the interview process. Either way the candidates should be required to answer questions from the public.

There is still a common belief by many people that third part candidates don’t have a chance but I suspect that a closer look at a lot of the information available on the internet may refute that; while searching for information on Jill Stein I found much more support her than the majority of the public is aware of. The corporate press probably prefers not to report on this but there is a much greater grass roots movement supporting non-traditional candidates than there has been previously including Occupy Wall Street and many other protest organizations that are fed up with the lack of concern with the will of the public. Combined with the increasingly bad positions being taken by the corporate candidates I suspect she might have a much better chance than most people realize. Furthermore, it will be a much bigger waste of a vote to support a candidate that the public knows is going to sell them out than it is to at least try to elect a sincere candidate.

Jill Stein doesn’t claim to have unified support from the Occupy Wall Street movement nor should she since this is a diverse group and they may not be unified behind any one groupd but she does support many of the most important issues that the majority and large segments of the Occupy Wall Street movement have been championing and I suspect that she will get a lot of support from these segments. Furthermore I suspect she might be receiving a lot more attention at the grass roots level than candidates have in the past. This has been indicated in several articles about her about the Occupy Wall Street movement including Occupy the White House By Kris Kitto; Occupy Napa Valley College launches protest; Solidarity with Indiana workers; Stein Condemns Police Assaults on Occupy Movement; Stein Condemns Police Attacks on Oakland, DC, Miami; and much more that can be found when Googling Jill Stein Occupy Wall Street or similar phrases.
This is on top of the support that she has with the Green Party and I suspect there are many other grass roots organizations like those opposing the commercialization of schools; those that oppose the permanent state of war; those that support human rights in war zones as well as sweat shops that may also support her.
If both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama continue the mud slinging match that they’re conducting without doing more to address the best interest of the majority of the public then they may both be down for the count when November comes around and a third party candidate like Jill Stein can win.

This isn’t the first time Jill Stein has run against Mitt Romney for office; she also ran against him in 2002 so this will be a rematch. And if she wins it wouldn’t be the first time a third party candidate that lost at the state level to a major candidate for president beat the same candidate for president; in fact that is what happened the first time the Republicans won the presidency in 1860. Mitt Romney apparently admits that he’s “still embarrassed that Dr. Stein bested me the last time we debated. I'm hoping she'll give me a rematch so that the voters can see that I have some substance too. Really, I do." This was in reference to the Massachusetts gubernatorial debate on April first and Stein accepted Romney’s invite to a debate rematch; there is no further response from the Romney campaign on whether he takes this offer or democracy seriously.
Now that the Republican party has turned into a bad joke it would only be fitting if it goes out of power with a rematch like it came in to power; the time to end the corporate lock on a two party system is long overdue.
Jill Stein isn’t the only third party candidate that might raise some attention but she is doing it at the Grass roots level and there is at least one that is doing so with the help of the corporate media and may also be seeking the help of American’s Elect which is also getting more media attention than Jill Stein.

The reason for this may be that there is additional money behind this movement and it may also be behind Buddy Roehmer’s campaign as well who might be attempting to portray himself as the reform candidate that everyone is calling for while still maintaining connections with the traditional establishment. He is also running for the nomination of the Reform Party which may be worth checking out; however caution would be advised. At times the reform party has had some good candidates as well as bad and there was a rift of some sort a few years ago. I haven’t looked to closely myself but I think it moved sharply to the right at some point and may not be as rational as it was at one time. Also Buddy Roehmer has declined to fill out his issue positions questionnaire at Vote Smart, which as previously indicated should raise some doubts about his candidacy. I’m not ruling out the possibility that he or some other candidates could be positioning themselves as an apparent grass roots candidate while still supporting as much of the corporate agenda as they can get away with; I don’t get the impression that Jill Stein is doing this.

(For more information on Blog see Blog description and table of context for most older posts.)

The following are the original replies when this was first posted on Open Salon.

Those of you who would like to be kept up to date about Jill Stein might want to check her web site on a regular basis or if you want to have semi=regular updates it might be worth watching Libby’s blog; she hasn’t made a firm commitment, that I know of, to provide updates on Stein but she has been doing so anyway. She also increased my interest in Stein; although I intended to look at other candidates anyway.

zacherydtaylor April 18, 2012 11:56 AM

Zachd, EXCELLENT!!! I was so excited to see your headline, and glad you with your always awesome thoroughness and insightfulness are covering Stein's candidacy. Many young people of OWS and outside it (college kids or wanted to be in college kids) along with Greens and independents are falling in love with Stein and the kids especially have great bullshit detectors. As I once wrote, having met Stein I was dazzled, and I was already expecting a lot. I gave an exhalation of relief in that her in person presence was as impressive as her writing voice and positions. When she debated Romney and others for governor of MA she was the one one paper anointed "the only adult in the room." Thanks for your h/t to me. I lift my Stein quotes and framing from the excellent updates on her site a lot of the time. Her main assistant is a great guy named Ben. One must realize that unlike the Obama and Romney machines they are operating on an integrity shoe-string budget. Anyone wishing to donate a few desperately needed bucks can access her website. I am hoping to do Stein blogs as much as I can. Her website is very rich in Stein material updates on all positions as you say. No talking out of both sides of her mouth, and she gets out to demonstrations with the people. She is literally all over the map and she LISTENS not just expresses her beliefs and thoughts. I have been hounding Young Turks to give her coverage. Cenk blogs at os I noticed. Stein has the smarts and the heart and the presence to be a wonderful president! I am proud of her as a fellow woman and a Green! I pray the momentum catches more and more, which it is, and the craven media are not so craven to ultimately ignore it. Shame on MSNBC for cronying up with Obama and not a REAL progressive/liberal. We need more and more people getting exposed to her. She gives me hope. best, libby

libbyliberalnyc April 18, 2012 04:42 PM

Sorry ZacheryTaylor, I am sure you do not want to hear this, but Jill Stein is a physician who is running for the presidency on the Green Party ticket.

After the election, she will be a physician who once ran for the presidency on the Green Party ticket.

Most of the people who love her and are in awe of her and who think her election would change the face and direction of American politics are the same people who loved and were in awe of Barack Obama—who expected his election to change the face of American politics—and who now are in a hissy fit working against their own best interests because they are disappointed their unrealistic expectations were not met.

Even if a miracle occurred and Jill Stein got elected…business would go on as usual and the cadre of people now in love with her would be lamenting the status quo with the same ferocity they are bringing to excoriating Barck Obama.

Aside from the huge amount of naiveté, however, good essay.

Frank Apisa April 18, 2012 04:58 PM

Excellent post. It strikes me that Stein is the only candidate with a genuine platform - i.e. who takes a clear position on the important issues.

Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall April 19, 2012 03:08 AM

Libby, I read about the "the only adult in the room" comment and tried to find the original source; apparently it was in a Boston Globe editorial according to a comment I found while Googling it. I tried to find the editorial and found others that didn’t include that; if you know the source please let me know; it would be worth citing and looking at the rest of the editorial. The editorials that I did find may be worth some following up on and I’ll probably get back to that. There is further evidence in those of the typical methods that are used to shut out non-corporate candidates and make them seem like “fringe” candidates that don’t have a chance. If they don’t have a chance it is only because the corporate media uses propaganda to convince the public that they can’t win and they have to accept the system and submit without question. If the public doesn’t accept this lie then it will no longer work and we will either have reform or they will have to think of more complicated scams.

Judging by the editorials, part of the reason that Romney won the governors office in the first place is because the Democratic candidate was behaving more like a Republican and the only candidate that represented the public was portrayed as “fringe” by the corporate propaganda machine.

Thanks for the heads up about Cenk’s blog; I’ll take a look when I get the chance but I suspect that although he is more rational than most of the corporate media he still won’t go as far as he could and should; if he isn’t covering Stein, or someone as good, that might be an indication of this.

Frank, thanks for the input although I disagree with you. Jill Steain is the only one of those three that represents positions that benefit the vast majority of the public; if there is a nother one that deserves a chance it isn’t the two that have accepted and enormous amount of bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions. If the majority of the public accept your logic then the corporations will never have to worry about being held accountable until there is a total collapse which may not be long; fortunately the number of people waking up and recognizing this fact is growing.

To accept your belief would be a self-fulfilling prophecy with devastating results.

Stuart, agreed; the two leading candidate often take clear positions on both sides of any given issue and act in favor of the corporations when they can get away with it.

zacherydtaylor April 19, 2012 09:47 AM

Thank you, ZacheryTaylor. I appreciate the tone of your response.

Jill Steain is the only one of those three that represents positions that benefit the vast majority of the public; if there is a nother one that deserves a chance it isn’t the two that have accepted and enormous amount of bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions. If the majority of the public accept your logic then the corporations will never have to worry about being held accountable until there is a total collapse which may not be long; fortunately the number of people waking up and recognizing this fact is growing.

To accept your belief would be a self-fulfilling prophecy with devastating results.

Well, like you, I want to see our country become a better place in which to live…and for the nonce, I would even be willing to accept slowing the acceleration into the “screw the 99%, all power to the corporations” mindset that seems to be permeating our society.

Where we differ significantly, Zachery, is that I see the Democrats as far the better choice than the Republicans in slowing the descent. I do not see it stopping…but I think a Democratic victory will slow things more than will a Republican victory.

I prefer, by the way, to consider that realism rather than pessimism.

I do not see the problems with government being significantly mitigated by having another party enter the picture. Not sure why so many of you Greens think the Green party will not quickly become corrupted by the money corporations can bring to the fore, but I honestly (and respectfully) think you are being naïve. The path to change does not involve third or more parties…it involves something much more fundamental.

In any case, the most deleterious political action right now (in my opinion) would be to allow the Republicans to win this next election. If that happens…I predict the social and economic disparity will widen at an accelerated pace…and may well prove to be unstoppable in that direction short of another Civil War.

I understand you and the others think the same thing will happen if the Democrats win, but I disagree strongly and without reservation.

YES…the corporations and the 1% will continue to exert an obscene impact on government whether Democrat or Republican wins…but it will be worse if the Republican wins. YES…the social and economic disparity will continue to increase, but under a Republican it will increase much, much, much more than under a Democrat…and at a quicker pace.

It is my considered opinion that the Green Party CANNOT even come close to a win…probably not as close to a win as Ross Perot did when he ran…who, if I am correct, garnered zero electoral votes in two elections.

The November election will put either a Democrat or a Republican into the Oval Office. We absolutely need to keep the Republican out. Backing the Green candidate will take many, many more votes away from the Democrat than from the Republican…and in my opinion is reason for everyone to refuse to vote that way.

I thank you for allowing me to have my say.

Frank Apisa April 19, 2012 04:12 PM

ZacharyD, Libby: Thank you for support of my candidate! You have done the American public a service by bringing Dr. Stein to their attention.

Frank: I find it very significant that you don't offer a shred of evidence as to how or why the Democrats would slow the acceleration of the victory of the 1%. I must conclude that you don't have any such evidence. I certainly have tons of evidence to the contrary. Barack Obama has advocated for unclean and unsafe nuclear power, whereas Republican Ronald Reagan stopped the construction of new plants. Would you vote for Reagan as "the lesser evil"? Obama has deported many more illegal immigrants and prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers as George W. Bush. Would you vote for Dubya as "the lesser evil"? Obama has ratified and expanded the constitution-raping policies of his criminal predecessor and, not coincidentally, gone out of way to exempt Bush and Cheney from prosecution. Economically, environmentally and in the realm of civil liberties and social justice, Obama has been an absolute disaster! You are arguing from fear not from reason.

As for the Greens' integrity, our party is barred by its own rules from taking corporate money: if we started to do the bidding of the corporations, it would represent political suicide for us. We thus have a practical incentive to remain honest. - A New York-based Green

dylanexpert April 19, 2012 11:52 PM

Dylan, thank you for your comments. I disagree with you, but truly appreciate them.

Frank: I find it very significant that you don't offer a shred of evidence as to how or why the Democrats would slow the acceleration of the victory of the 1%. I must conclude that you don't have any such evidence. I certainly have tons of evidence to the contrary.

If you say so. I do not think there is any substantive evidence in either direction, I merely feel that the Democrats are a better bet to slow the increasing acceleration than the Republicans...particularly because of the power to impact on the judiciary. But I am willing to listen to what you have to offer in the other direction.

Barack Obama has advocated for unclean and unsafe nuclear power, whereas Republican Ronald Reagan stopped the construction of new plants. Would you vote for Reagan as "the lesser evil"?

I voted for Reagan the first time he ran…a decision I came to sorely regret. In any case, I do not consider choosing one of the candidates as choosing the lesser of two evils. They are both people doing incredibly difficult jobs...and probably doing the best job they can. I doubt most of their detractors would do better.

Obama has deported many more illegal immigrants and prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers as George W. Bush. Would you vote for Dubya as "the lesser evil"? Obama has ratified and expanded the constitution-raping policies of his criminal predecessor and, not coincidentally, gone out of way to exempt Bush and Cheney from prosecution. Economically, environmentally and in the realm of civil liberties and social justice, Obama has been an absolute disaster! You are arguing from fear not from reason.

A president…EVERY president…does things that will disappoint. Obama is no exception.

Presidents do unpopular things. I understand that...and I hope for the best.

I do not argue from fear…and I always argue from reason. Making an unnecessarily insulting remark like that about someone with whom you disagree reflects poorly on your own powers of reasoning, Dylan. You ought not to do it.

As for the Greens' integrity, our party is barred by its own rules from taking corporate money…

Really! And I am sure it is also barred by its own rules from becoming corrupted by money at any point in its future.

C’mon. Whatever goes on in the minds of Greens that causes them to think their party and the politicians who enter it will remain free of the corruption power has brought to every ruling faction and individual is beyond comprehension. I suspect it is a product of naiveté.

Under any circumstances, the first rule of any political party is to get their politicians elected. You are describing a formula for total, utter failure at that prime objective.

…if we started to do the bidding of the corporations, it would represent political suicide for us. We thus have a practical incentive to remain honest.

Actually, your naiveté has a certain refreshing appeal. Do keep it. But if you decide to do that, I would suggest learning how to accept defeat as gracefully as possible, because "defeat" is going to be a constant.

We will see in November.

Frank Apisa April 20, 2012 06:18 AM

Frank, first of all in a sincere democracy anyone can have their say so there is no need to thank me for it, but you’re welcome anyway. As far as the possibility that the greens might be corrupted once they obtain power, I have considered that which is why I think that the public should continue participating and stay informed. This would involve an improved education system. The first priority of a good reform part should be to express their views ahead of time and inform the public then once getting in power continue the relationship with the public. The Republicans and Democrats give the public propaganda; the greens discuss the issues rationally.

As for your belief that the Republicans will be worse that might be partially true but the Democrats don’t seem to be much better and they have demonstrated that on numerous occasions. Obama has made it clear that he is willing to compromise as much as he has to and has often waited until there was an uproar from the public before taking a strong opposition on an issue and even then after a closer look it doesn’t look so good even than. This goes for ongoing war efforts, environmental protection, copyrights and many other incidences.

He has broken numerous promises; the “comfortable shoes” is the most memorable but there is plenty more where that comes from; and he doesn’t appear to be betraying the best interest of his contributors any more than he has to in the face of loud public outrage.

Naiveté sounds like the right word.

Dylan, actually the end of the construction of the nuclear plans began during the Carter administration and mainly due to the massive protest over them in the seventies; in fact if not for those protests then some of the recent disasters might have been worse. They led to tougher regulations which drove up the costs as well but they improved safety. Unfortunately the public has become complacent which is why the threat is increasing again. There is no rational reason for this. That issue is minor what is more important is that we need to do more to educate the public and if your part of the Green party doing that with limited resources, thanks for that. Clearly we need a totally different way of finding ways to finance sincere education so that propaganda and fraud doesn’t receive overwhelming protection under the first amendment while the sincere people can only get their views across to a small number of people and they have to do it in the face of overwhelming control of the corporate media by the oil companies and other corporations that use it as a propaganda machine.

Frank is right we’ll see in November but either way it won’t be over.

zacherydtaylor April 20, 2012 09:41 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment