Is Jill Stein Going to "Ruin It?"

[AthenaAwakened]

more honest? Jeez talk about a double standard. She has the highest honesty ratings from Politifact, even higher than Bernie's! Clinton is ten times more honest than Trump. Yet it's never enough. This is such bullshit. She's not only a great candidate, who trounced Trump one on one. She's also going to make a damn fine president, smart, tough and experienced. Her real problem is that she's a woman. And since about 4640 BC, men just haven't trusted them, no matter how honest they appear.

SLD

Dude; are you kidding me!??! She's anti science and anti vaccine. As she does well, she aides Trump.

She is not anti science or vaccine. What she is is a marginalize candidate who is nice lady in WAY over her head. She's an easy target for lies and half truths. And if Clinton loses, it will be Clinton's fault and all who sail in her.

 

[bilby]

Dude; are you kidding me!??! She's anti science and anti vaccine. As she does well, she aides Trump.

She is not anti science or vaccine. What she is is a marginalize candidate who is nice lady in WAY over her head. She's an easy target for lies and half truths. And if Clinton loses, it will be Clinton's fault and all who sail in her.

If she isn't anti-science, she certainly has an odd way of demonstrating it. Her party's platform is at odds with science on a number of key points, and as their presidential candidate, she represents those anti-science policies as her own.

"Ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides that threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators." - neonicotinoids do not threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.
"Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe." - Labelling GMOs serves no purpose (Breeding techniques are not products, and have diverse effects on things; Knowing how a crop was bred tells you nothing useful as a consumer); Proof is for whiskey and mathematics - insofar as it is possible to 'prove' GMOs safe, they have been.
"Support organic and regenerative agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry." - Organic is a marketing scheme. It is less sustainable than other forms of agriculture, and it uses more toxic pesticides than are used in conventional agriculture. It is the embodiment of the naturalistic fallacy.

Source.

And I haven't even mentioned that she opposes the single most effective technology we have for carbon neutral power generation, on emotional grounds that are unsupported by reality in any way.

She is also distinctly 'on the fence' at best with regards to vaccines; A position that is at odds with her status as a physician. She should know better - so either she is pandering to the anti-science movement on this subject, or she is anti-science herself.

 

[fast]

She's not only a great candidate, who trounced Trump one on one.

She didn't trounce Trump in any way, shape, or form. Did you not listen to CNN? Their polls said she won the debates.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Dude; are you kidding me!??! She's anti science and anti vaccine. As she does well, she aides Trump.

She is not anti science or vaccine. What she is is a marginalize candidate who is nice lady in WAY over her head. She's an easy target for lies and half truths. And if Clinton loses, it will be Clinton's fault and all who sail in her.

Of course it will be her fault. Here's the deal: I support HRC. I voted for her already, supported her campaign with donations, and worked with local supporters. But regardless, I'll go to bed Nov 7 knowing that I've done my part to try to defeat Trump. No regrets. If Trump wins by a slim margin, I think that there will be some regrets from others.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

She is not anti science or vaccine. What she is is a marginalize candidate who is nice lady in WAY over her head. She's an easy target for lies and half truths. And if Clinton loses, it will be Clinton's fault and all who sail in her.

If she isn't anti-science, she certainly has an odd way of demonstrating it. Her party's platform is at odds with science on a number of key points, and as their presidential candidate, she represents those anti-science policies as her own.

"Ban neonicotinoids and other pesticides that threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators." - neonicotinoids do not threaten the survival of bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.
"Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe." - Labelling GMOs serves no purpose (Breeding techniques are not products, and have diverse effects on things; Knowing how a crop was bred tells you nothing useful as a consumer); Proof is for whiskey and mathematics - insofar as it is possible to 'prove' GMOs safe, they have been.
"Support organic and regenerative agriculture, permaculture, and sustainable forestry." - Organic is a marketing scheme. It is less sustainable than other forms of agriculture, and it uses more toxic pesticides than are used in conventional agriculture. It is the embodiment of the naturalistic fallacy.

Source.

And I haven't even mentioned that she opposes the single most effective technology we have for carbon neutral power generation, on emotional grounds that are unsupported by reality in any way.

She is also distinctly 'on the fence' at best with regards to vaccines; A position that is at odds with her status as a physician. She should know better - so either she is pandering to the anti-science movement on this subject, or she is anti-science herself.

I have seen her in interviews explaining those positions. Sometimes she does really well and sometimes she sucks. She is also prone use weasel words if she is confronted. She wants to make everyone happy. I told you, she is in WAY OVER HER HEAD. Speaking one on one to voters, she does much better; also she has, IMO, too many people writing her policies papers. That is something I found out from one of the statewide organizers here in NC. So she looks like she is all over the place. Stein would not be good as president and the Green Party continues to prove itself to be the gang who couldn't shoot straight. BUT I do think she should be on the ballot in all fifty states, because I think third parties in general should be.

 

[SLD]

more honest? Jeez talk about a double standard. She has the highest honesty ratings from Politifact, even higher than Bernie's! Clinton is ten times more honest than Trump. Yet it's never enough. This is such bullshit. She's not only a great candidate, who trounced Trump one on one. She's also going to make a damn fine president, smart, tough and experienced. Her real problem is that she's a woman. And since about 4640 BC, men just haven't trusted them, no matter how honest they appear.

SLD

Dude; are you kidding me!??! She's anti science and anti vaccine. As she does well, she aides Trump.

I was talking about Clinton. Not Stein.

SLD

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She is not anti science or vaccine. What she is is a marginalize candidate who is nice lady in WAY over her head. She's an easy target for lies and half truths. And if Clinton loses, it will be Clinton's fault and all who sail in her.

Of course it will be her fault. Here's the deal: I support HRC. I voted for her already, supported her campaign with donations, and worked with local supporters. But regardless, I'll go to bed Nov 7 knowing that I've done my part to try to defeat Trump. No regrets. If Trump wins by a slim margin, I think that there will be some regrets from others.

I would be just as concerned with her winning by a large margin. If that happens she is going to think she has a clear mandate to do whatever hawkish thing she wants and she will ignore her liberal base. She will stop attacking Trump once she's won and instead she'll be flaunting how she won the election because people love her so much.

The best possible result here is a narrow win by Clinton. A Trump win and a Clinton landslide win are both bad news.

 

[SLD]

Reviewing the results from the 2000 election in Florida:

Federal official vote for the state of Florida (25 electoral votes)

George Walker Bush–
Richard Bruce Cheney 2,912,790 48.847% Republican

Albert Arnold Gore Jr.–
Joseph Isadore Lieberman 2,912,253 48.838% Democratic

Ralph Nader–
Winona LaDuke 97,488 1.635% Green

Patrick J. Buchanan–
Ezola B. Foster 17,484 0.293% Reform

Harry Browne–
Art Olivier 16,415 0.275% Libertarian
John Hagelin–

Nat Goldhaber 2,281 0.038% Natural Law
Monica Moorehead–

Gloria La Riva 1,804 0.030% Workers World
Howard Phillips–

Curtis Frazier 1,371 0.023% Constitution
David McReynolds–

Mary Cal Hollis 622 0.010% Socialist
James Harris–

Margaret Trowe 562 0.009% Socialist Workers
Write-ins 36 0.000%

Total 5,963,110

Had the socialist and/or Socialist Workers voted for Gore, he would've won the state. The 97K+ that Nader took was less than 2% of the Florida vote and just a few percent of those people switching to Gore would have made a huge difference - regardless of Bush v. Gore. Right now the RCP average for Clinton shows her at +1.2%, which has been fluctuating. Jill Stein is at 1 or 2% there. So to answer the OP, she could indeed ruin it once again.

For the life of me I can't understand why Stein supporters would prefer Trump over Clinton, or think that the country will even survive his presidency. I can see it with Bush, because at the time, he was talking about compassionate conservatism. He wasn't threatening to invade Iraq. But I would think that Green party candidates would at least recognize their error from the last time, and if in Florida, Colorado, or North Carolina, vote for Clinton. Remember, 4,000 Americans died uselessly in Iraq because of that vote, and the mid-east is still in flames thanks to them. Don't make that mistake twice! But I fear that unlike some of us, they don't have to live with the consequences of that decision.

SLD

 

[Tom Sawyer]

She is not anti science or vaccine. What she is is a marginalize candidate who is nice lady in WAY over her head. She's an easy target for lies and half truths. And if Clinton loses, it will be Clinton's fault and all who sail in her.

I agree with this. If Clinton loses, it's really her own damn fault. This election is an easy win for her and if she manages to fuck it up so badly that the Jill Stein percentage of the vote is what makes the difference, it's really her own damn fault ... and the fault of America as a whole.

Have you guys considered splitting up into three or four smaller countries so that your internal fuckups have less of an impact on the rest of us?

 

[Deepak]

She is not anti science or vaccine. What she is is a marginalize candidate who is nice lady in WAY over her head. She's an easy target for lies and half truths. And if Clinton loses, it will be Clinton's fault and all who sail in her.

I agree with this. If Clinton loses, it's really her own damn fault. This election is an easy win for her and if she manages to fuck it up so badly that the Jill Stein percentage of the vote is what makes the difference, it's really her own damn fault ... and the fault of America as a whole.

Have you guys considered splitting up into three or four smaller countries so that your internal fuckups have less of an impact on the rest of us?

It didn't go so well last time it was tried.

 

[Derec]

She is not anti science or vaccine. What she is is a marginalize candidate who is nice lady in WAY over her head. She's an easy target for lies and half truths. And if Clinton loses, it will be Clinton's fault and all who sail in her.

Nice lady? Try: petty criminal.

I am following this DAPL idiocy by the left, and they are very angry at Hillary for not clearly taking their side. They are pushing Jill Stein candidacy hard.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Of course it will be her fault. Here's the deal: I support HRC. I voted for her already, supported her campaign with donations, and worked with local supporters. But regardless, I'll go to bed Nov 7 knowing that I've done my part to try to defeat Trump. No regrets. If Trump wins by a slim margin, I think that there will be some regrets from others.

I would be just as concerned with her winning by a large margin. If that happens she is going to think she has a clear mandate to do whatever hawkish thing she wants and she will ignore her liberal base. She will stop attacking Trump once she's won and instead she'll be flaunting how she won the election because people love her so much.

The best possible result here is a narrow win by Clinton. A Trump win and a Clinton landslide win are both bad news.

Oh, she will ignore her liberal base regardless.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

She is not anti science or vaccine. What she is is a marginalize candidate who is nice lady in WAY over her head. She's an easy target for lies and half truths. And if Clinton loses, it will be Clinton's fault and all who sail in her.

Nice lady? Try: petty criminal.

I am following this DAPL idiocy by the left, and they are very angry at Hillary for not clearly taking their side. They are pushing Jill Stein candidacy hard.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I would be just as concerned with her winning by a large margin. If that happens she is going to think she has a clear mandate to do whatever hawkish thing she wants and she will ignore her liberal base. She will stop attacking Trump once she's won and instead she'll be flaunting how she won the election because people love her so much.

The best possible result here is a narrow win by Clinton. A Trump win and a Clinton landslide win are both bad news.

Oh, she will ignore her liberal base regardless.

I think that a big win will be the only way that she won't ignore her liberal base. If she wins big, it would mean that she has to negotiate with a Dem congress and it would mean that the liberal base came out to vote. A small win means that the GOP keeps one or both of the houses and she's talking to them to pass laws instead of talking to Democratic legislators. It would also mean that the liberal base aren't a reliable group of voters who need to be strongly considered and the electoral math works better if she caters to soft Republicans.

She doesn't care about the left anymore than she cares about the right. She'll work with whomever she ends up working with and the policies which result will reflect that.

 

[Terrell]

Oh, she will ignore her liberal base regardless.

I think that a big win will be the only way that she won't ignore her liberal base. If she wins big, it would mean that she has to negotiate with a Dem congress and it would mean that the liberal base came out to vote. A small win means that the GOP keeps one or both of the houses and she's talking to them to pass laws instead of talking to Democratic legislators. It would also mean that the liberal base aren't a reliable group of voters who need to be strongly considered and the electoral math works better if she caters to soft Republicans.

She doesn't care about the left anymore than she cares about the right. She'll work with whomever she ends up working with and the policies which result will reflect that.

Nailed it, it's simple pragmatism.

If liberals want more liberal officeholders, they need to run for office in the down ballot races as Democrats. They'll have to work for it over time, and prove they're a reliable set of voters. They also have to accept that they won't get every policy they want, and will have to make some compromises. Odds are that Democratic presidents will be fairly moderate, or moderately liberal, since they have to run in 50 state by state elections & win enough of them to win the election. Most liberal power will likely have to come in the House, Senate, and state government offices.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why is nobody asking if Gary Johnson will "ruin it" for Trump? I think that is more likely, since he still polls higher than Stein does.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why is nobody asking if Gary Johnson will "ruin it" for Trump? I think that is more likely, since he still polls higher than Stein does.

Because nobody gives a shit if somebody ruins something for Trump.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why is nobody asking if Gary Johnson will "ruin it" for Trump? I think that is more likely, since he still polls higher than Stein does.

Because nobody gives a shit if somebody ruins something for Trump.

But ruining it for Trump means a win for Hillary. That'd kinda the point, no?

 

[Angry Floof]

I'm sure she'll be a huge target of blame and abuse, yes.

She's doing her job, which is the same as Clinton's and Trump's - to run as her party's candidate and try to win the election. Even if she knows she won't win, it's her job to try. What's the point of the party without that goal? Blaming Stein if Trump wins would of course be the most stupid and irrational response, but since when is American politics not stupid and irrational?

- - - Updated - - -

Why is nobody asking if Gary Johnson will "ruin it" for Trump? I think that is more likely, since he still polls higher than Stein does.

Because nobody gives a shit if somebody ruins something for Trump.

Nobody but an ever-diminishing group of misogynist, racist white guys.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Because nobody gives a shit if somebody ruins something for Trump.

But ruining it for Trump means a win for Hillary. That'd kinda the point, no?

But Hillary's going to win on her own without anybody's help and drops in Johnson's numbers have always been reflected in an almost equal raise in the numbers for both Trump and Clinton, so he's kind of a moot factor.