5 reasons not to vote for Stein?
5 things? Raise you 5, make it 10, reasons not to 'waste my vote'.
The machinations of the oligarchy are "at it again". I read with puzzled amusement of the incantations cited by Chomsky and others about my vote for Jill Stein. "Your 'wasting' your vote as protest....from Elizabeth Preza @ Alternet dot org:
1: "She's not qualified having never held more than public office" - huh, that's #1? Considering the field of four she's clearly #2 in terms of public policy competency (I'm open to hearing arguments for #3&4) and in my mind it's no protest to suggest she's untainted compared to the front-runner. It's not competency, it's content.
2: "She's a low-key anti-vaxxer" - how scary, she suggests less rather than more big pharma - it's not a component of her platform and to me suggests oppo-research dredging for comedic one liners, as opposed to the low hanging fruit of the salacious frontrunners lives.
3: "She’s pretty concerned about WiFi" - ditto #2
4: "She praised Brexit as a 'victory,' and then blamed neoliberalism for the 'anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-refugee' anger in Europe." - no she didn't, she pointed out the 'why's.
5: "She actually believes (or says she does) that Trump and Clinton are equally bad." - agreed, in the standard false-equivalency way the writer recites, as semantics. Forget the scary clown, the DNC has become what the rethuglicant party was 50 years ago; profits before ""WE".
From the libertarian republic's 5 things: (whose website btw is so filled with advertising as to be nearly unusable, the irony is that they overtly utilize the very thing that props up the counter argument, advertisers run amok.)
6: "No One Wants to Foot the Bill for Her Energy Policies" - of course 'they' don't, the medicine is hard to swallow: US$ 90 Trillion with a T $90,000,000,000,000 except we do and can and more importantly, have to, to save this spaceship earth.
7: "Her “Free” Education Proposals are as Impractical as They are Stupid" - education is stupid?
8: "The Most Vulnerable Among us Will Be Hit Hardest" - the same tired canard; they're coming for your taxes to pay for welfare queens and young buck's", instead of 800 military bases to police the world.
9: "Quality Jobs Will Fly to Greener Pastures" - the quality jobs are in the greener solutions.
10: "Federal Bureaucrats Will Bind the Country in Red Tape" - there's that pesky government regulation thing again.
So that's 10 different reasons why I'm 'wasting' my Stein vote, from a pretty wide ideological spectrum.
They aren insignificant (or pandering) compared to my perception. They are props in a play that rewards an already out of control oligarchy at the expense of the planet.
Full disclosure: I like HRC. I believe she is a truly nice person that I hope will find it in her conscience to promote (as she will clearly win) the reasons I've 'wasted' my vote for Stein.
Bengazi is a classic example of rethuglicant obstructionism mixed with the knife-twisting fact that HRC lost personal friend's in a tragedy.
The email 'scandal' demonstrates a tireless public servant at work that any sane taxpayer would be proud to employ. Read them If you don't believe that (and to be sure, she made some minor, comparatively to the rethuglicants, mistakes.)
That's the foundation that 20+% of our citizenry cite as reasons she's untrustworthy, wow! I guess if you repeat conspiracies often enough (over many years)......
______________________________
My 'protest' is not with her as a person or much in the way of trustworthiness, I trust she will do the things she's expected to do and that's the problem. My vote, along with I hope millions more, are a wake up for her to 'listen'.
Exceptionalism is leading by example, the US has to be the leader, keep it in the ground. Pres Obama couldn't and I trust he has had justifiable reasons.
The science is conclusive, we are frying our planet.
______________________________
$90tn with a 'T' - strong medicine indeed. First of all, we will spend those funds (as a planet) anyway, for sure, whether we start spending them now, later, or go extinct. We only do additional damage daily by waiting. We are already spending those funds (daily) with projects that are making the problem worse, 1500 new coal fired plants (planet wide) anyone? $550 billion with a 'B' for dirty fuel subsidies......
Long story short - there is only one candidate I trust (left) that would give this* more than lip service.
* a world war to keep it in the ground.
ps the only chance the scary clown has of winning is by it actually being rigged, that's no longer a reason not to vote a conscience.
Comments
According to Keith Olbermann, she's a simpleton.
Keith showing his true colors, those many at ESPN saw early on. But why the "simpleton" label? I find that odd. Why would he say that?
Perhaps he feels she oversimplifies complex issues when she
explains things. But I consider that a virtue. When you can take a lot of complex information and boil it down to its essence so virtually everyone can understand it, that's a mountain of mental work you've done.
Or he's just being KO, disparaging anyone with whom he "disagrees" (in quotes because in this case he may privately agree with her, but publicly disagree because the Clinton campaign or supporters now pay his salary).
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Glad you're voting for Stein, but your $90 trillion seems WAY
off!!
Per Wiki, Oklahoma alone can generate over a third of the power needed for the entire US. They say that amount (1/3) is 517,000 MW. So all the power needed in the US is less than 517,000 x 3 or 1.551 million MW. They currently have an ongoing project to be completed next year that will cost $3.5 billion that will generate 7000 MW. 1.551 million divided by 7000 is 221.57. So $3.5 billion x 221.57 should provide all the power we need. That amount of money is $775.5 billion. That is the total amount of money EVER needed to construct enough wind turbines to power the entire United States, less than $1 trillion! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Oklahoma
Now that still sounds like a lot of money, although much better than $90 trillion; but we are currently funding the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $37.5 billion PER YEAR, again just in the US, and not including indirect costs such as health, environment, etc., http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
So worst case scenario, in 775.5/37.5 = 21 years, that infrastructure investment will have paid for itself.
Of course there will be maintenance costs, but that will be paid by the price of utilities even though the price goes down. Average rates in the US are about 12 cents per kWh versus 10 cents per kWh in OK, making OK 45th in the nation, http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/oklahoma/ no doubt because it costs less to pull power out of the air than to dig it up from the ground. Presumably they are covering their operating costs with no or minimal government subsidies, since I can only find data on subsidies to construct plants or on subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
So I showed you my sources, you show me yours; where are you getting $90 trillion from? Are you just accepting the right-wing site's number?
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Scaling worldwide per capita is only $15T
Thanks for injecting actual math into the conversation!
The US has about 1/20 of the world's population, so by multiplying your figure by 20 we get the ability to give every person on the planet a US energy supply for about $15T. Even doubling that to build out the other infrastructure (which is needed anyway) we only get about a third of the cited number.
Plus, who says the US will pay for the rest of the world? Even if we chipped in, it would still be cheaper than all the wars. I've been saying this since the freaking Carter administration and we still can't just do it.
Greed and fear, that's all it is.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
$90 trillion USD
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/06/climate-change-infra...
Btw, it's not that the $# is sure to provide the distraction, it is that we cannot afford to not do it as a planet.
Detractors think food stamps are too much.
If the Dalai Lama pities you it may be time to reevaluate.
Aha. That's for the entire world, and for changes to public
transportation and buildings, not just building renewable energy facilities, and what they expect to spend over the next 15 years. I was looking at just the US because I doubt we'd volunteer to rebuild the entire world, although I agree with Hawkfish that it's a good idea and better than spending money on all the wars (the US military budget is about $600 billion per year, BTW). You're right, we can't afford not to do it, whatever the number is; but some will use inflated numbers to argue that we can't do it. Fossil fuels around the world are subsidized to the tune of about $1 trillion per year, so we still have large pots of money that can be diverted if we get serious about climate change.
In fact, the Guardian article that you link includes the below, so despite what I still think may be an inflated number, they think it's doable. They also note that the US is spending $1 trillion just to upgrade the nuclear arsenal (talk about waste!):
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
I don't like Hillary Clinton
If we are going to compare barbarians, she wins.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I'm voting for future where a gun cannot be held 2 my head again
I hate that they can scream 'where else you gonna go?!' They disdain me and my interests.
My answer to their question is 'anywhere but here.'
I cannot reward Clinton for playing dirty. If I vote for her, I own all the lying, cheating and stealing. I will not reduce myself that way.
I'm voting for there to be matching funding for Greens in future elections so that we can have a better possibility of an actual choice.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
You are so right
and that's exactly why I simply cannot vote for her - then I own the lying, cheating and stealing. I already own a piece of that from Billy Bob and Obama, I'm not signing up for any more of it.
And I do not like HRC, not anymore. I might once have agreed with that Ring Wing conspiracy crap, and Repukes will never get a pass from me on playing their part in the whole thing, but her absolute arrogance and the contempt she's shown I cannot and will not listen to or condone by voting for her. I can't even look at her anymore without sneering.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
I'm done with the establishment parties
And their incessant abuse and bullying. We need to all work together to solve our huge, freakin problems and we need an honest, non-hateful or abusive, forward thinking leader to do that. That's impossible for someone who is beholden to the profit-over-people nihilism that's killing us. We are all sentenced to doom (the establishment and us) if we keep on the path of division.
Beware the bullshit factories.
We have elected other Presidents who did not hold elective
office. For some reason, people have decided that being a military officer qualifies one to be be President. If that is so, I don't know why running a big business would not qualify one also. Others who never held elective or were high military officers held government positions, but claiming being a high-level bureaucrat qualifies you to be President seems like a stretch to me.
George Washington never held elective office, but he was, of course, a General and CIC of the Revolutionary Army. He was also President of the Continental Congress. Others who were not elected but had military experience were Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower (who was also President of Columbia University, which I will never understand). Taft was Secretary of War and Solicitor General. Hoover was Secretary of Commerce. Big whoop.
I don't know about being VP's qualifying anyone to be President,either. As Cheney famously (but not quite correctly) said, the only two duties of the VP are to preside over the Senate and inquire daily after the health of the President. Of course, presiding over the Senate includes the duty to vote in the event of a deadlock and the duty to preside over the electoral Collage and certify its official vote count. Statutes make the VP a member of both the National Security Council and the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.
John Adams was VP, but complained always that the position gave him zero power.
Truman was VP, but FDR froze him out so much Truman did not even know about the Manhattan Project until after FDR died.
President Quayle? Seriously?
More info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by...
Fabulous point
I'd been thinking about Barry's single senate term, but the Generals are an even better example.
Really, history shows that anyone who is smart and energetic can do the job. All this resume touting is kind of irrelevant.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Thank you! Obama did not have a full term as a U.S. Senator,
but he had been an Illinois state senator. Of course, there he somehow managed to avoid every controversial vote.
In 2008, when people pointed out he voted present or was absent on many controversial votes, another Illinois legislator explained that away and I fell for it. The only thing from his state senate career that came back to haunt him was a questionnaire he signed in 1994, stating he was pro-equal marriage. That, of course, would have been just fine, had he not gone to Rick Warren's church while running for POTUS and stuck "God in the mix."
In 2008, when people pointed out his experience was too weak for the Presidency, I pointed out that his record was comparable to Lincoln's. A Republican said that Lincoln had military experience. I looked it up. By his own account, Lincoln's military experience (militia, I think) had consisted solely of standing in a field for one afternoon, ready to fight, but nothing happened.
I even explained away Rezco, at least to my own satisfaction, though I no longer remember how.
I'm slightly troubled...
by the fact that Secretary Clinton's public positions don't appear to always align 100% with those she expresses in private. But perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive.
inactive account
I see what you mean.
The one on the right (screen right) does look much more sincere.
At least the picture of Hillary
Gray on the right doesn't have crossed eyes. Looks almost Hillary human.
It does, but both eyes are looking to her extreme right,
so it's less noticeable. Look again.
But, I am not going to fault her (or anyone) for something physical she cannot help when there is so much evil she has done with calculation.
The idea of pushing Hillary
Left after she "wins" office is an argument I've heard a lot of these days. And yet, I have seen no credible evidence to suggest that Hillary WANTS to to move the country left at all. In fact, just the opposite, as more and more information about policy, regulation, and trade come out of the WikiLeaks #Podesta emails.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Agreed, prior to the
Agreed, prior to the primaries there was a democrat - Bernie, a republican - HRC and a clown car. Now that the coronation is in progress they have no reason to go left (except conscience) unless pushed and only a viable green party is capable of providing it.
This is why the ten points are so lame - let's see; industrial war machine vs universal health care (remember she laughed) and livable min wage OR campaign finance reform vs private prison profiteers and NRA.
It's all so hard to choose (snark)
A mega party of the aforementioned DNC plus those picked up moving to the right vs the tattered grand old,old party is hardly a contest at all.
If the Dalai Lama pities you it may be time to reevaluate.
Remember Obama's "Make me do it," which he had the gall
to borrow from FDR? Suuuuurrrrre.
Podesta actually sounds like he's *left* of Hillary
from some things he says in those emails.
Except for the stuff about essentialist biologically-determined racial superiority, of course.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
"I like Hillary."
And I am doing a series on why she belongs in the basket of deplorables. I have done four parts so far, without even getting to (yet) her racist Presidential primary campaign against Obama.
http://caucus99percent.com/content/hillary-thy-name-part-four
Glad to hear you are going to vote for Stein but
when it comes to Hillary, I don't think you're playing with a full deck.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
"I must have a public position and a private position".
Or
"I must look like a good girl
while I act like a whore.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Hence...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-wall-street-backe...
Public position vs. private position = "I make back room and secret deals with the money people and lie to the general public, including people whom I ask to vote for me."
"So why aren't I up 50 points?" That's why, Hillary. You lie, like your husband. You both lie so much, you made America sick in so many ways.
I'm no fan of Jill.
Or the Greens. If Jill is their strongest candidate they're in trouble. But I won't vote for Hillary.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.