-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

Comment viewing options

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

Um, because she's a New World Order socialist?

.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Might as well vote for Obama

Johnson has said he would bring the troops home from Afghanistan tomorrow, and in general proudly espouses a non-interventionist foreign policy. As important as foreign policy is to me (a Marine and Iraq vet who's sick to death of seeing my brothers come back in flag draped coffins), just as important is economic philosophy. Johnson understands and articulates Austrian economics, and would balance the budget year 1. Stein has the same philosophy as Obama and Romney, and just like every other liberal/progressive/Marxist, whatever you want to call them, she believes gov. is the solution to the problems. There would be no reduction in size, scope or power of the gov. under the Green Party. They may be anti-war, but not for the same reasons Libertarians are anti-war. Obama runs as an anti-war guy too, a vote for the Green Party would send a message that you want someone further Left than O...

For Liberty!

Gary Johnson was on FIRE!!!

Jill Stein failed to recognize Virgil Goode's position on foreign policy, in a way that was ignorant to the point of she didn't even listen to him. Gary Johnson was the strongest.

The green party

represents exactly where the ptb want to go in a NWO. Total control of your money and life.

Earth justice (climate control;etc..) and social justice..(communism)

Good lord...

..."Earth justice"? That sounds like something straight of the NewSpeak dictionary. What's next, Earthcrime? ...the Earth is doubeplusgood eh comrade?

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

I'm voting Stein

I'll actually be on TV the morning of the election, I'll make sure to mention the options people have, including writing-in Ron Paul.

Jack Wagner

I think any third party is

I think any third party is valid at this point. I'd like to see a state won for every third party out there and one for Ron Paul as a write in. I think that message is equally as effective as all of us banding together behind one candidate, because let's face it. They are going to put in whomever they want anyway.

Blessings )o(

that would be great

Too bad there is so little chance of that happening. It would have a better chance if we formed an alliance/coalition? to make it happen though. For example we could all agree to vote for Goode in Virginia, Johnson in Colorado, Stein in..? Oregon maybe, write in Ron Paul in Maine!

You get the idea. Personally I'd rather vote for Johnson but I'd be willing to vote for Stein if there was a strategy. In fact any of the 3rd party people would be better than Obama or Romney.

Because the Green Party...

...represents international socialism in the guise of concern for the environment, while the Libertarian Party represents (drum-roll) libertarianism...and we're libertarians.

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

Because

vote for whoever you want

Why are there so many here who feel the entire rEVOLution needs to hold hands while voting?

Ron Paul being able to get so many different types to rally with him is RARE and johnson and the rest of the 3rd party rat pack have NEVER been able to duplicate and the only resort is to try this "lesser of 3 evils" b.s. because the candidate of their choice isn't doing ANYTHING for a large group.

Anyone see the last ron paul rallies? Now compare those with ALL of these third party candidates and the crowds they bring out. Who do you think wins and why?

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

I would rather vote for Romney...ugh

A socialist (greens) is no friend of mine. At least Romney wouldn't nationalize every American industry...

With that said, GJ 2012.

Stein, like Kucinich, is also

Stein, like Kucinich, is also strongly supportive of foreign aid and is very pro UN/globalist. Her foreign policy is not good.

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

Because anti-war and socialism don't last long together.

Neither do war and free markets.

So I'll take my bets on Johnson and his freer markets and get less war in the process.

If Stein were to win, she'd claim she was anti-war, and might even end a few, but then we'd be right back in more.

And even if not, we'd be in a war against every level of government trying to run our lives even more than they are now.

What good is it if you are at peace with Iraq and Afghanistan but you are in a shooting war with D.C.?

Seriously, you seem so open minded, your brains are falling out.

Because being anti-war in a

Because being anti-war in a vacuum is irrelevant. Taking the money saved from not building bomb craters all over the world, and instead spending it on oppressing Americans in the name of "socialism" or whatever, is not a meaningful improvement.

The whole point of being anti-war, is being anti-any-government-powerful-enough-to-wage-offensive-war. Pro-omnipotent-government-that-by-some-sort-of-magic-will-all-be-nice-and-cudly-antiwar-guys is not even a political position, it's just childish.

A good test of whether someone is "anti-war", or just talking shit, is to find out their position not on popular anti-war fads like Vietnam or Iraq; but what was their position on the War of Northern Aggression in 1860. It's not foolproof, but it does at least weed out the worst imposters.

"Provide tuition-free education...

...from kindergarten through college"

When I read that on her Issues page I thought perhaps she was just being honest about public education. I was reading "tuition" as simply "teaching". Then I realised she meant the fees paid. In that case it is merely redundant. It is only necessary to say "free education". This demonstrates the tendency of socialists i.e. bureaucrats, to use more words than necessary and is evident throughout the Issues section.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

is there a write-in campaign going on in any of these . . .

states?

Just curious--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Here's what I've been doing

Most people I know I can talk into getting on the libertarian train because most people really are libertarian but don't know it. But some (few) people I know "like" big government (huh? I don't get it but oh well, some people like being told what to do) and I can't talk them out of it. Nearly everyone I know is "anti-war" so I am telling people about Jill Stein because she is "better" than Obama.

The way I see it, any vote cast not for Obama or Romney is good at this point. We need to take down the two party structure.

There are nine candidates on the presidential ballot in my state and my Least favorite two are (8/9) Barack Obama and (9/9) Mitt Romney.

Man I Wish I Had Thought Of That With My Liberal Friends

I think I burned some bridges pushing Ron Paul on people who clearly were not receptive to the idea.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Yeah I'll give you that Jill Stien is more soild than GJ

Yeah I'll give you that, Jill Stien is more soild than GJ on foriegn policy, No matter what I'm still writing in Ron Paul! :)

You go guy!

//

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Integrity

Vote your conscience! That's what I like to see.

Because

She is a Commie

Because...

...SHE'S NOT ON THE BALLOT IN ALL 50 STATES, THAT'S WHY! (sorry for shouting)

Preparation through education is less costly than learning through tragedy

If we want...

If we want to upset the status quo, every non-Romney and every non-Obama supporter MUST support Gary Johnson - it's the only way. RP needs to throw his support behind GJ if he has a hope

Preparation through education is less costly than learning through tragedy

Nope.

Ron Paul is the only politician worth uniting around, period.

I don't play, I commission the league.

NBC Admits Ross Perot Actually Once Led George Bush by 8 Points

http://www.dailypaul.com/258613/nbc-admits-ross-perot-actual...

That means, at one time, Ross Perot polled higher against TWO major party candidates than Senator Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee in 1964.

Surely, Perot got into a presidential debate, but there was no Internet in 1992 and Johnson is running a MUCH better campaign than Ross Perot did when he took the lead.

Yes, there is voter fraud; however, if that is the reason Johnson would lose, then Ron Paul would also have lost as the GOP nominee and we might as well have traded the "ballot box" for the "cartridge box" a long time ago.

If I wanted a socialist in office

I would vote for Mitt Romney.

Technically, its national socialist.

but either way it is a good point.

Sure, let's split and

Sure, let's split and fracture the movement just a bit more. Vote for a socialist over 1 issue? Never.