-41 votes

As Long as No Third Party Can Win, Why Not Jill Stein, Whose Anti-War Message is More Solid Than Johnson's

That's in the states where a combination of factors make it worthwhile to write-in Ron Paul: CA, WI, VT, NH, PA, RI, AL, IA, MO, ME, WV, ID, MT.

http://www.dailypaul.com/258475/looks-like-we-can-add-wv-id-...

Stein's a socialist, but if we are going to choose one message to send with crystal clarity why not the most important anti-war one? It's not as if any of them can win anyway.

War is life and death, hideou needless death. War is the parent of all other forms of tyranny.

Jill Stein is against any foreign intervention anywhere with the same consistency as Ron Paul. Not so Gary Johnson. In addition she wants to cut the Pentagon budget by 50%. http://www.jillstein.org/issues

Stein has also already qualified for federal matching funds. Building on that will hasten the end of the two party system. Johnson cannot get 5% and so he'll never qualify. Better to have one third party which keeps its qualification.

http://www.jillstein.org/funding



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Socialism is the Antithesis of Liberty

Why do you think she presents a mixed message?

Does the answer lie here: http://www.dailypaul.com/260270/agenda-grinding-america-down... ?

tasmlab's picture

Eliminating unemployment

I found her solution to eliminating unemployment in the New Green deal worth thinking about for a second.

She would use the government to simply just hire everybody so that we'd have full employment. Probably to build roads or plant trees or assemble windmills or something.

Now, Henry Hazlitt and his broken window can barf all over this in about half a second, because it is plainly wholesale dumb and destructive economics. Hiring people to make stuff we don't need is a terrible allocation of resources.

But, you balance this with the military which is essentially hiring a bunch of people to do stuff we don't need is even more economically destructive, because not only are not getting the extra roads and windmills that would make us wastefully-yet-incrementally wealthier, but we are also misallocating resources in order to commit evil!

So, if we balance the bad economic idea of govt eliminating employment while canceling the bad and evil economic idea of war, we, in aggregate, are probably net wealthier and more moral with this trade-off than we are with the R's or D's.

This might be an enticing way to discuss the issue with a green or somebody leaning green, because you can introduce some pretty big themes (violence, economics) with somebody who is probably very emotive in their political stance.

I digress though. To the OP's point, I see no value whatsoever in a Daily Paul person voting Stein unless somebody promises to buy you an icecream if you do or something like that. Or maybe if you can impress a pretty girl.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

The main problem with having

The main problem with having the government employ all of the unemployed regardless of qualifications is that they then overpay these people, to do a poor job (in most cases), using OUR money. It's a black hole of economic waste. Moreover, the majority of government jobs are bureaucratic positions that may actually slow real progress down.

Because The Green Party Platform is Terrible

She makes a few good points, but she's basically a communist.

She's not a communist, at

She's not a communist, at all. Not even close. She's just a progressive environmentalist with some Henry George influences on tax policy. Intellectual honesty is important. Just sayin.

A bigger statement would be...

...look how many votes Ron Paul gets even when he's not a candidate.

That will send a 1000% larger message than voting for a 3rd party candidate who will not win anyway.

The EU is full of people who

The EU is full of people who hold very similar political views to Stein - Martin Schulz, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Catherine Ashton, Joaquín Almunia, Elio Di Rupo and Francois Hollande to name a few.

Now look at how bad the EU is doing economically right now. These people are among those leading the charge towards European federalism and destroying the nation-state and democracy in order to gain more power. They keep thinking of more and more "New Deals" that are taking European nations back to the third world.

Once they seize power, they can be even worse than the status-quo.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

Like all 3rd party candidates Jill is correct on several issues

...but she's woefully wrong on others.

In that debate she suggested free college education for everyone.

Either she wants teachers to be slaves and work for free, or she would grow the Dept of Education to about triple the size it is now.

Free stuff doesn't come free and Gary Johnson addressed that very issue.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

They ought to start with

They ought to start with educating themselves on (Austrian) economics. Free and mandatory economics courses for everyone, lol! (then the 'free' mentality should stop pretty quickly ;)

"Free and mandatory economics courses for everyone"

...that's one welfare program I could almost get behind. : )

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Jill Stein is a true Liberal

Jill Stein is the absolute polar opposite of Paul on monetary policy.

The New Deal caused the great depression. It turned a recession into a depression. She wants to do a "New Green Deal". She is all for big government deficit spending on the economy.

She has some common sense, she is a much better choice than Obamney, I'm sure she would end the war and that is the most important thing. But I think it would be disastrous for our economy.

But hey so will Obamney.

Yes

You have it exactly right.. she is just the opposite and would be another failed FDR.

Mark this post UP for brains.

You people who go off on one issue tangents really scare me.

Like Kelly Clarkson, stupid woman, voting for Obama because of the gay issue.

For that matter, Romney broke the law JUST SO gays could get married.

(Not that she should vote for him either but just sayin)

She is uninformed on that!

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

She is far-left, she would

She is far-left, she would probably be worse than Obamney.
She's not really a "true liberal" either. More a social democrat.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

Idk why I got downvoted and

Idk why I got downvoted and you got upvoted....

When I said she was a true liberal... that's exactly what I meant. Far left. If you're separating out "liberal" "left" and "democrat" as separate meaning words, that's fine I guess, after all I do think that Republicans are far from "conservative".... but people generally take them to be the same thing.

On economic policy you're right, she could be worse, but not really by a whole lot because that's essentially the same plan that Obama and Romney are talking about, just less blatant.

On civil liberty and peace, there's absolutely no question she'd be lightyears better than Obamney.

Social liberalism was meant

Social liberalism was meant to be a center to center-left stance. Like that of the Liberal Party in Canada or the Liberal Democrats in the UK and some factions within the US Democratic Party. Modern Greens are generally to the left of the social liberals and normally identify with social progressivism or social democracy, which are moderate forms of socialism. I think what you're talking about is a true socialist.

Her plan is in many aspects, well to the left of Obama's or Romney's. Neither of them were talking about paying for everyone to go to college. That is one of the worst ideas ever, as it essentially means people who shouldn't be going to college and should be working straight away instead end up going to college and wasting their time, paid for taxpayers.

On civil liberties, yes, if you ignore the 2nd amendment. Peace is relative - she would support UN and other supranational organisations as well as an increase in foreign aid to poorer nations - potentially supporting dictators in the process.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

I think it's just a mix-up of

I think it's just a mix-up of terms. I like the way the political compass grades things. There is conservative vs liberal but it also measures authoritarian vs libertarian.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both, for all intents and purposes, according to their record rather than their rhetoric, extremely conservative authoritarians, nearly identical to each other and by far the most similar two candidates among the bunch that ran.

Virgil Goode is even more conservative and, some may argue, more authoritarian as well. Jill is most definitely too far 'left' on this scale -- further than Obama (who's actually center-right with Romney on most issues) or Romney. But she is also far more libertarian than authoritarian, which in my mind is something that gives her a fairly significant lead over Obamney.

Meanwhile, Rocky Anderson and Gary Johnson are both very similar candidates who are just where I like them -- fiscally conservative libertarians.

At any rate, I feel we both agree Jill Stein is a very poor choice for President of the United States. Nevertheless, I would rather have a voice such as hers in the discussion than the closed and meaningless things that are talked about more commonly.

The political compass isn't

The political compass isn't great. They say that Ron Paul is at the authoritarian side and the model suggests a positive correlation between fiscal conservatism and authoritarianism that doesn't exist. I think there are more than two axes - there should be fiscal issues, social issues, civil liberties and foreign policy - possibly even more since views on issues like gun control (technically a civil liberty) and foreign aid (technically part of foreign policy) vary so much. Judging political candidates based on overly simplistic models is wrong, especially when they have a left wing bias like the PC. OnTheIssues Nolan chart is a lot less biased, but still too simple. The Constitution Party may be very right wing on seperation of church and state and gay marriage, but it's still strong on civil liberties and foreign policy. Also, "socially libertarian" social democrats (also known as progressives) advocate higher taxes - that's a fiscal issue - but how do they get it if someone doesn't want to pay? Through force. Hence fiscally left wing libertarianism is in most cases totally un-libertarian.

Rocky Anderson is not at all conservative. He is clearly fiscally left wing with his calls for things like free college. His accusations that Ron Paul is a racist make him the worst third party candidate.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

I'd like to note: Jill Stein

I'd like to note: Jill Stein is not a socialist. She's an environmentalist with a little Georgist influence... A far cry from Leon Trotsky or Naambodiripad.

Yes she is a socialist. She

Yes she is a socialist. She wants to take money from taxpayers at gunpoint to pay for education with no strings attached, and wants to also have us pay for millions of new useless bureaucratic jobs.

you're right about the things

you're right about the things she wants to do, but wrong in defining socialist. socialism refers to the means of production. pierre proudhon and mikhail bakunin were socialists but believed in absolutely no taxation or the existence of states at all. we need to be intellectually honest, and avoid using terms interchangeably.

She is a socialist, just a

She is a socialist, just a very moderate one, like those known in Europe as "social democrats".

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

Jill Stein is not a

Jill Stein is not a socialist, not even a European-esque one. She doesn't say anything about the means of production, whatsoever. She's just an environmentalist and believes in land value taxation, a Georgist staple.

Because Jill Stein may have this one issue more finely tuned

than Gary Johnson... but I am MUCH more behind Gary Johnson in general than Jill Stein.

The libertarian party is the

The libertarian party is the next party to be able to get matched federal funds.... with Ron Paul waking people up by the droves, its only a matter of time. Johnson is a much more suitable candidate than any of the other 3rd party contenders, and Romney & Obama. With help of the Paul community, 5% is very easily do able for Johnson. Thats a 3rd of simply Ron Paul supporters casting their support for Johnson, let alone the 2% he was polling before Paul dropped out.

We need to build up anti- statist 3rd partys, not more extreme statist 3rd parties. Stein might have some very good ideas, but most are downright dangerous and would make Obama look a conservative. Having said that, we need more anti war voices

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

as soon as the libertarian

as soon as the libertarian party becomes mainstream, the same oligarchs will make sure their guys infiltrate it, lobby those who have been elected and take over every aspect of it just as they did the other two parties. EVERY political party is a statist party. it's absurd to think of one as more statist than the other. we need a HUGE cultural change in order to change anything about the system, including consumer habits, the way we operate our businesses, the obsessive focus on employment rather than innovation or pooling resources. you are not governed by those who are elected, but the power behind those who are elected. pushing papers around and trying to manipulate the political process in your favor, including trying to empower third parties is not going to change much of anything.

2million people voted for the

2million people voted for the doc in the primary. Lets be generous and double that to 4 million assuming there are just as many dem/Indy supporters AND that they will ALL actually vote for him. That is still barely 3% of the 131000000 people that voted last time around. Just trying to set realistic expectations here. 5% would indicate that the revolution is at the tipping point.

Wikipedia says the 2012

Wikipedia says the 2012 registered libertarian party members is 282,000.

Cyril's picture

Thank you for this interesting bit of info.

Thank you for this interesting bit of info.

With this number in mind, I wish this could get more traction :

http://www.dailypaul.com/259965/restoring-liberty-in-north-a...

(yes, I'm a naive dreamer sometimes. meh.)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Because shes a Socialist,

Because shes a Socialist, Keynesian, and pro baby killing.