The All Purpose Jill Stein Thread

Donations to Jill Stein Explode Nearly 1000% Since Sanders’ Endorsement of Clinton

Since Tuesday morning, the Green Party has received over $80,000 in contributions, over half of which comes from first-time donors, and half of which comes in the form of contributions under $50. Tellingly, about 615 of those contributions totaled $27, the exact number commonly trumpeted and solicited by the Sanders campaign during his revolutionary grassroots funding movement.

“There’s been an explosion of Berners coming in through every portal of the campaign, and it’s really exciting,” Stein told US Uncut in a phone interview. “There is so much courage out there to stand up to the marching orders handed down by the usual suspects.”

Stein’s social media accounts have also seen tremendous growth and engagement in the past 24 hours. A recent livestream posted to the Stein campaign’s Facebook page has been viewed over 300,000 times in less than a day.

Read more:
http://usuncut.com/politics/jill-stein-campaign-surge/ (July 13, 2016)
Click to expand...


"Give Jill Stein a look, and give her platform serious consideration. Around half of Bernie voters according to Bloomberg in late June will never vote for Hillary; a far more accurate assessment in my view than recent claims of the majority flocking to Clinton. Thus, a great many people are looking for options, now that the Clinton campaign forced Bernie’s endorsement.

"If Clinton faces perjury charges before November, I’ll back Bernie Sanders, without hesitation. However, Jill Stein is not only a great alternative to status quo politics, but gives America hope for the future."

Reference:
Bernie Sanders Just Made Jill Stein The Most Powerful Woman In American Politics (July 13, 2016)

Facebook: Jill Stein

Twitter: @DrJillStein
 
Could someone direct me to this bizzaro universe where Jill Stein and the Green Party amount to something more than a footnote?

The time for idealism is over (for now). It's time to be pragmatic.
 
Last edited:
Maya22 said:
She is not an anti-vaxer.
Click to expand...

OH, I thought she was. That was the extent of my knowledge. I am now more informed.

ETA: for context https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comme...n_green_party_candidate_for/d31ydoe?context=3

I don't know if we have an "official" stance, but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex.

Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them. In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don't trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice. A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. Create public funding of elections to stop the buying of elections by corporations and the super-rich.

For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe. By the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic. There's a lot of snake-oil in this system. We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural" or not.
 
Last edited:
Johnson is getting a lot more air time and polling a lot stronger then Stein is. Johnson could pull enough votes away from Trump to cost him the swing states. Stein will be a non factor.
 
Jill Stein said:
For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe. By the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic. There's a lot of snake-oil in this system. We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural" or not.
Click to expand...

She had a chance to explain that homeopathy is the process of marketing placebos to sick people, but she chose instead to indict the FDA's drug approval process. Harvard Medical School must be so proud.
 
d4m10n said:
She had a chance to explain that homeopathy is the process of marketing placebos to sick people, but she chose instead to indict the FDA's drug approval process. Harvard Medical School must be so proud.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
Her vaccine statements were fine, but even I admit her pathetic response on homeopathy is maddening. I'm fairly sure she's just pandering there. She's still better than Clinton or Trump, in my book.
 
Her statements on vaccinations and homeopathy were weak, but I see no evidence that she's anti-vaccination.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Why don't you ad "argument by smilie" to your signature list. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not all of us always have the time for quality responses like yours above.

You might also have noticed that I don't post much in general compared to most on here and very rarely respond with just a smiley. Maybe I didn't feel like or have the time to fully explain what I consider to be misinterpretations of what she said or misunderstandings about the topic in general and so choose a snarly eyeroll instead.

Anyway, thanks for your great example of a quality post, and keep that post count climbing!
 
The_Animus said:
Not all of us always have the time for quality responses like yours above.
Click to expand...

That was evident from your post.

The_Animus said:
You might also have noticed that I don't post much in general compared to most on here and very rarely respond with just a smiley.
Click to expand...

nope, sorry

The_Animus said:
Maybe I didn't feel like or have the time to fully explain what I consider to be misinterpretations of what she said or misunderstandings about the topic in general and so choose a snarly eyeroll instead.
Click to expand...

I did notice you didn't do that in this post, either.

The_Animus said:
Anyway, thanks for your great example of a quality post, and keep that post count climbing!
Click to expand...

Also think about adding tu quoque to your sig ... :thumbsup:
 
shemp said:
Could someone direct me to this bizzaro universe where Jill Stein and the Green Party amount to something more than a footnote?

The time for idealism is over (for now). It's time to be pragmatic.
Click to expand...

The two parties are running two of the most unpopular candidates in US history. A lot of people are looking for a third option. This is a great time for an alternative party like the Greens to get some traction. We'd be incredibly foolish to miss this opportunity.
 
Last edited:
I guess some fools wish to see a repeat of the 2000 election. You know the one that Gore would have won if not for Nader.
 
Tony Stark said:
I guess some fools wish to see a repeat of the 2000 election. You know the one that Gore would have won if not for Nader.
Click to expand...

Ugh. I'm glad Gore lost.

The tragedy of 2000 was that we abandoned Nader.

("We" meaning the US left, in general. I still campaigned for Nader in 2004 and 2008.)
 
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade said:
Ugh. I'm glad Gore lost.

The tragedy of 2000 was that we abandoned Nader.

("We" meaning the US left, in general. I still campaigned for Nader in 2004 and 2008.)
Click to expand...

Folks, an alleged progressive that is glad that Dubya was President.

Actually glad you're not a Democrat. We don't need highly irrational fanatics.
 
Last edited:
Cornel West endorses Jill Stein, jabs Clinton

In a sharply worded op-ed article in the Guardian, Cornel West, an influential scholar and civil rights activist who was a staunch supporter of Sanders in the Democratic presidential primaries, endorsed Green Party candidate Jill Stein, calling her the "only progressive woman in the race."

"This November, we need change," wrote West. "That’s why I am supporting Jill Stein. I am with her – the only progressive woman in the race.”

"I have a deep love for my brother Bernie Sanders, but I disagree with him on Hillary Clinton," West wrote. "I don’t think she would be an ‘outstanding president.’"

Read more:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-1468606689-htmlstory.html (July 15, 2016)
Click to expand...



"If you want a woman then vote for Jill Stein,” actor Viggo Mortensen said in an interview on Saturday. “If you really want a woman president — if that’s what you want — vote for Jill Stein.”

“I think Clinton’s dishonest, and I don’t think she has the interests of working people at heart, and I think she’s shown that time and again. All the things that Bernie Sanders said about her I agree with," he said.

“And I know the argument is, ‘Yes, if you vote for Jill Stein you’re giving Trump a chance.’ The Nader argument," he said Saturday. "But you know, at some point it’s got to change.”

Reference:
Actor Viggo Mortensen backs Green Party candidate Jill Stein (July 16, 2016)
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
"If you want a woman then vote for Jill Stein,” actor Viggo Mortensen said in an interview on Saturday. “If you really want a woman president — if that’s what you want — vote for Jill Stein.”

“I think Clinton’s dishonest, and I don’t think she has the interests of working people at heart, and I think she’s shown that time and again. All the things that Bernie Sanders said about her I agree with," he said.

“And I know the argument is, ‘Yes, if you vote for Jill Stein you’re giving Trump a chance.’ The Nader argument," he said Saturday. "But you know, at some point it’s got to change.”

Reference:
Actor Viggo Mortensen backs Green Party candidate Jill Stein (July 16, 2016)
Click to expand...
It is a fact that the only thing Jill Stein voters could conceivably "accomplish" is to put Donald Trump in the White House which is not doubt the reason for your concern trolling.

Good thing Bernie Sanders isn't a total moron like Cornel West.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"If you want a woman then vote for Jill Stein,” actor Viggo Mortensen said in an interview on Saturday. “If you really want a woman president — if that’s what you want — vote for Jill Stein.”
Click to expand...

Ouch. It's better to have no endorsements from actors at all if the best you can get is Viggo Mortenstein.
 
Cornel West: Why I Endorse Green Party's Jill Stein Over "Neoliberal Disaster" Hillary Clinton

"A neoliberal disaster is one who generates a mass incarceration regime, who deregulates banks and markets, who promotes chaos of regime change in Libya, supports military coups in Honduras, undermines some of the magnificent efforts in Haiti of working people, and so forth. That’s the record of Hillary Clinton.

"So there was no way—when my dear brother, who I love very deeply, Bernie Sanders said she will make an outstanding president, I said, 'Oh, I disagree with my brother. I don’t think she’ll make an outstanding president at all.'

"She’s a militarist. She’s a hawk. She could take us into war with Russia. She could take us into war with Iran. So, I mean, I think she’s dangerous in terms of her neoliberal ideology—not as a woman, because I’m supporting, of course, my dear sister Jill Stein."

Read more:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/18/why_a_member_of_the_democratic (July 18, 2016)
Click to expand...



"I had to laugh when Hillary said, as if being appointed secretary of state somehow vindicated her bad decision about Iraq, because she just then went on to make all kinds of other really horrific decisions," Jill Stein said in a recent Democracy Now interview.

Stein added, "And she also tried to justify, her regime change in Libya, creating the failed state that it is, and her position was just defenseless. And it felt like we need to acknowledge what an incredible series of catastrophes Iraq initiated. They’re not over yet. And Senator Clinton and, actually, all of the Democrats on the stage continue to support basically the same failed policy."

Reference:
Dr. Jill Stein Would Make A Better Commander-In-Chief Than Hillary Clinton (July 18, 2016)


Now that Bernie Sanders has sold out by endorsing a warmongering Wall Street shill, Jill Stein becomes the obvious heir apparent to keep Bernie's revolution alive.
 
Last edited:
Guess I can as well carry over those two interviews that didn't really fit the only other (non all-purpose) Jill Stein thread where I posted them originally.

Childlike Empress said:
Jill Stein interview on TeleSur, the several-progressive-countries TV station started by Chavez' (pbuh) Venezuela and just now left by Argentina under that new creep installed with the usual stinking "backroom" School of the Americas methods, who was caught in that "Panama Pages" bruhaha the other day. Worth watching.

Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
Another in-depth interview with Jill Stein, this time on counterpunch's radio podcast hosted by the extremely competent Eric Draitser.
Click to expand...
 
d4m10n said:
She had a chance to explain that homeopathy is the process of marketing placebos to sick people, but she chose instead to indict the FDA's drug approval process. Harvard Medical School must be so proud.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:

Myron Proudfoot said:
lovely, she's anti-vax and homo-pathetic curious. pathetic
Click to expand...
:sdl:

Axiom_Blade said:
The two parties are running two of the most unpopular candidates in US history. A lot of people are looking for a third option. This is a great time for an alternative party like the Greens to get some traction. We'd be incredibly foolish to miss this opportunity.
Click to expand...
This is the news narrative. The fact Clinton won the nomination suggests something is wrong with that narrative.

They base it on polls but the Gallup poll has shown Clinton to the the most admired woman in the world more than 20 years running. The belief she's dishonest is based on 4 decades of the right wing's accusations, none of which, that's N-O-N-E have amounted to more than the wrist slap offense of not being in compliance at work along with half of her co-workers.

Even if she did it to avoid FOIA (hard to blame her given the relentless stalking by the right wing) and fumbled covering that motive up, it's hardly the outrageous crime of the century.



https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comme...n_green_party_candidate_for/d31ydoe?context=3

I don't know if we have an "official" stance, but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn't allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of.
Click to expand...
It is unheard of in this country as well. Strike one for knowing crap.
In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs
Click to expand...
More paranoia crap. There is a reason vaccine manufacturers are involved in CDC's vaccine planning.

The accusation that there are not independent dedicated public health officials in charge of final determinations on recommendations is based on pure ignorance of the process.

So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn't be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex.
Click to expand...
With people like Stein stoking the ignorance, :rolleyes:

Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure--each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them.
Click to expand...
In the US, they are.

In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don't trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice.
Click to expand...
Good thing the FDA only approves of drug manufacturing and not vaccine recommendations.

A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. Create public funding of elections to stop the buying of elections by corporations and the super-rich.
Click to expand...
Typical exaggeration of the issues, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe. By the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic. There's a lot of snake-oil in this system. We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural" or not.
Click to expand...
So well informed. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom