Jill Stein in Rolling Stone. Shocking!
Submitted by Writerinres on Sat, 05/28/2016 - 8:32am
Shocker! There's a rather good article on Jill Stein and the Greens in this issue of Rolling Stone. The owner endorsed Hillary, so that's why this article is surprising. Tessa Stuart presents Stein as "the feminist case against Hillary Clinton" and gives Jill space to present her platform (renewable fuels, $15 minimum wage, equal pay, LGTB rights, free tuition, medical care for all), which aligns perfectly with Bernie. When was the last time you saw an interview of Jill Stein anywhere? Check it out.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/green-partys-jill-stein-on-the...
Comments
Thanks. Good to see this here.
I've been clear that I very likely will vote for the Dem nominee against Trump, but if I chose a different direction, I would vote Green. I think those who cannot vote for Clinton, assuming she is the nominee, should seriously consider the Greens because it builds a left alternative to Democrats.
I agree that Jill Stein is the sane anti-Clinton vote...
I have no idea what kind of movement Bernie is considering, but I would hope he would repair the fractures in the what's left of the real left so they can join and become more of a force. I think Sawant is right when she says we can't do inside the party, and we need a political party to go with any movement. I hope it is the Green Party. If they need to rebrand, then do it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Definitely voting for Stein
if Bernie is not an option. I've been a Green for many years. They never seem to get much traction, but when I vote for a non-Green I'm disappointed. More visibility for Stein should help other Greens on the ballot.
One thing I would like to see is polling in the relevant (19 + DC) states that will deliver 270+ electoral votes for the non-Republican. The choice of questions sets the narrative, and without polling nobody listens to you. There will be plenty of Clinton vs. Trump polling. What I want to see is Clinton vs. Trump vs. Bernie and Clinton vs. Trump vs. Stein. Once it becomes clear that Clinton will lose vs. Trump, there is absolutely no reason to vote for her. The real question will be if a third party (Bernie or Stein with Bernie's support) would be enough to take those electoral votes away from Clinton and deliver a victory. Nationwide polling is useless - Clinton's national numbers are inflated by her support in the South which will deliver exactly zero electoral votes for the Democrats.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
This is encouraging
Anything that sharpens the argument that Clinton uses feminism in a completely self serving and non-altruistic way is a very good thing. Stein's take does just that.
also good on RS for publishing this.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire
Hillary might actually accomplish something
She might get the Greens matching funds.
In 2000 the MSM looked at Nader polling at 12% and shit their pants, because the Greens were gong to use matching funds to party build - and they were already winning local elections without it. So the Media started pumping out stories about how "Gore might win unless the hippies vote for Nader!" The campaign was so effective a couple million people who would have stayed home rather than vote for Tipper's Wooden Indian actually voted and Gore won. That's why Kathleen Harris had to steal the election. After that the Media could yell. "Fascist Coup!" but then they might be forced to pay for their culpability, so they stuck with the "Hippies!" lie, and the Democrats made it stick.
Won't happen this time. By late August no one will believe that Hillary has a chance, and the Media will be so busy with indictments and racist violence that Stein might just sneak in under the radar.
On to Biden since 1973
Fund raising emails I've
Fund raising emails I've received from the Stein campaign indicate that she's already qualified for matching funds. Is there a difference between a Presidential candidate receiving matching funds and the Green Party receiving matching funds?
Sorry it took so long to reply
There's an effectively complex (though it doesn't look that complex) formula. (see Wikipedia, "Matching_funds".) In practice Perot got 18% in 92 and didn't qualify for some reason, while Buchanan got only .04% in 2000 and did, but Nader got 4% in the same election as Buchanan and didn't.
In any event matching funds was the reason Nader ran in the first place, and I believe that the real issue in the 2000 election was matching funds. No one but Molly Ivans realized how bad GWB was - both parties and the MSM thought that the Greens were the real "threat".
As I read the Wikipedia article the Greens could have already qualified, so the more money they get the better.
On to Biden since 1973
A Glorious Vision
The National Convention
Bernie Sanders' Concession Speech
I am here to indorse a candidate of superiour integrity.
[blah] [blah] [blah] [blah]
[blah] [blah] [blah] [blah]
[all cameras push to close up of HRC]
I give you ! . . . Jill Stein!!!
[crowd loses its mind as . . . ]
I see the US Greens as the academic Party
but I was an academic, so it fits. So much anti-academic training has gone one. Discount those Ivory Tower folk who think.
I would be comfortable there, except they have not yet achieved relevance. Not our style, to the sad bad.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Divide and Conquer
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?