Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Jill Stein for President      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 gbntbedtyr
Joined: 5/17/2011
Msg: 1
Jill Stein for PresidentPage 1 of 1    
Jill Stein is about a Green New Deal: Puts America back to work, Gives us better houses, cleaner energy, cleaner transportation, etc. This girl doesn't just talk, she acts, she fights for you and me.

Every election I hear the same crap, why don't they give us better candidates, and your vote wont count if... Well why should they give us better candidates when they know we will vote for what ever they give us? And on votes that don't count; how far do we have to fall, how much freedom do we have to loose before we stand up and say ENOUGH! A simple vote, not in fear of, oh my vote wont count if... but a vote that says I am a human, and I will be heard. Regardless of candidate, I am a human first.

As for Jill Stein she stands strong for us, not some money grubbing, power hungry, corporate interest. We the people, each and every one of us is in her heart as she lives for us. I wish we had more candidates like her, but we have voted for the lessor of two evils too long. We won't see better candidates out of the main stream until they fear us, fear that we wont vote for someone that bad... Every vote that they don't get is one vote closer to them worrying about what WE want.
 Stray__Cat
Joined: 7/12/2006
Msg: 2
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/6/2012 3:24:03 PM
Who?

?????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/6/2012 9:11:05 PM
Must be the Green Party candidate. Not on the ballot in most states.

I expect that the only way such "alternate" candidates will ever have a real shot, is if they do things the old fashioned way, and slowly build local party power until they get control of state legislatures, wherein they can change voting regulations to the point where their party actually has a chance.

The thing is, by the time they do that, one of the two bigger parties is bound to have "adjusted" their own claimed point of view to the point where they suck away all support from the "third" party.

 gbntbedtyr
Joined: 5/17/2011
Msg: 4
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/7/2012 8:41:40 AM
Yes she is Green Party. However she is on the ballot in most states, and popular enough to have gained matching funds for her advertisements. Wish I had known about her sooner, she would be on the ballet in Nevada too. So I'm stuck with a write in.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/7/2012 6:28:40 PM
I hope she can pull some Republican votes ... would be great!!!
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 6
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/7/2012 9:06:56 PM
Read the Green Party Platform. It is 99% in line with liberal Democrat ideology. There is nothing there that will attract a Republican. There are FAR more Green Party ideoligists squatting in the Democratic Party than there are actual Green Party members. You are poisoning your own well.


Nader's candidacy in 2000 was proof of that, taking a crucial 2% of otherwise Democratic votes from Gore. Nader was a Green Independant liberal who had no homeland because the movement had been annexed by the liberals in the Democratic party, morphing the party into a greenish left-leaning establishment.


Adversarial liberals cannot fathom a moderate ideology, so instead of supporting a party that reflects their ideology, they cling to the coattails of the Democratic Party & impart their minority influence on the mainstream majority, thus forcing Moderates to flee to the GOP candidate in an election, & sometimes eventually becoming moderate Republicans, & with that taking a fair percentage of traditional Democratic voters with them. 2-term Bush is the result.


Adversarial Liberals, unlike true Green Party ideoligists, cling to the Democratic party & shoot themselves in their green liberal foot time & time again. GOP victory & chronic lopsided Green Party defeat is generally the result.

The Green Party needs your liberal vote more than ever. Support those who genuinely support you & will further your ideals.
 gbntbedtyr
Joined: 5/17/2011
Msg: 7
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/8/2012 8:45:21 AM
Ok I hear D & R (is that anything like a D & C ? Sorry couldn't resist the near pun). Are you just cheerleader squads? I mean Ideology aside, can you truly tell me a REAL world difference between the two parties. Bush tries to pass a mandatory insurance (good for corp, not people, creates another corp guaranteed income), disguises it as health care and it bombs, then here comes Obama to pick up the ball and he scores, yea yea. Bush starts a War that by no means of intent eliminates all of his oil competition and throws us into the worst financial crisis in american history. Obama, does what picks up the ball and runs with it. And as for Romney, Mr Bank Scandal himself, the very man who pushed all those unethical laws through that allowed the S & L's to loose all of our retirement money. And how many US businesses has he bought up only to put you on unemployment because he sold your job overseas. Oh I'm sorry, welfare isn't it, because there are no other jobs to be gotten, not under the republicans, not under the democrats. And what about the Middle Class, the people that bought the goods that industry needs to sell, the back bone of our tax system. The acting president wrote a little note on the wall, called it the trickle down effect, that was sealed with nafta and gatt and finished by these anti Union labor laws. Or what about that patriot act, R & D's both keep pushing it toward it's original draft. But wouldn't you be happy to ask gvt. permission to leave town just to go visit family. Well you are already content in being told what you can own or not, or even having to ask permission to paint your house or cut that dead tree before it falls.

I still don't see a difference in the parties, and I can go on like this all day long.

Oh and for the record, I am a Republican, but I'm not voting for a trader. We do need less gvt, but right now this country needs a bandage, actually it needs stitches and a transfusion. But such is not going to come from bailing out insurance co, and banks, etc. The people need a bail out, and the only one I see with a plan that has a chance is Jill Stein with her Green New Deal. And her plan is to heal, not prolong support, or just throw money at a problem and hope it goes away. Her plan is a true investment in our future.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 8
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/8/2012 11:20:28 AM

The people need a bail out, and the only one I see with a plan that has a chance is Jill Stein with her Green New Deal. And her plan is to heal, not prolong support, or just throw money at a problem and hope it goes away. Her plan is a true investment in our future.


I agree, & kudos to you.

I admire the Green Party for what it stands for & those who bravely, genuinely & honestly support it..... not those who belong to another party who totally identify with the Green Party platform by proxy, but do not support it by squatting in another party & voting for others.

You are a Republican, but dont follow what the GOP platform dictates, much like I am a Democrat, but dont exclusively follow what the D platform states. Both parties have changed - GOP becoming more conservative, & Democrats becoming more liberal.

You support the Green Party which best represents your ideals. Liberals dont do that. Rather than actually supporting a party that matches them word for word, they insist on all piling into the Democrat lifeboat & trying to change it to suit their personal style at the resistance of traditional Democrats. I dont know if its stupidity, cowardice, gall, or a combination of all. The Green Party needs their support, & vice versa
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/8/2012 11:39:50 AM
Actually, I would suggest that ever since the second Reagan victory in '84, that both parties have moved more to the right. The GOP started out medium right, and though I do think they are faking a lot of the far right crap they pretend to believe, that they really are further right than they have ever been before in my lifetime.

The Democrats realized after '84 that playing up to the far left wasn't the way to win, so they gave it up, and moved towards what for them, was the center. Though the folks on the right still like to pretend that the Democrats are all wild liberals, the GOP leadership knows that's not been true since about 1990. Clinton didn't win two terms by being left wing, he did so by being a conservative Democrat.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 10
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/8/2012 11:57:07 AM
The only thing I disagree with is branding Clinton a conservative Democrat. My view of him is that of a centrist/moderate Democrat, with New Democrat mixed in. I believe that is what the MAJORITY mainstream non-liberal Democrats identify with.

Thats probably why Clinton closed ranks & kept most of the Democratic vote, which liberals Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale couldnt do. Mainstream/moderate/centrist Democrats switched sides when the liberal stands on the Democratic stage.

Liberals didnt identify with Clinton, but still voted for him, even when their ideoligically matched Green Party fielded their perfect ideoligical candidate every election cycle. Why vote for someone who doesnt truely represent your ideals? I sure dont.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 11
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/8/2012 2:31:25 PM
Clinton had the added advantage of a third party candidate (Perot, in case anyone forgot) pulling votes away from his opponent. Clinton only received 40-something percent of the vote when he won in 1992.

That's the thing about voting for third party candidates-- your conscience feels good until you realize that you just helped the candidate win who is even further from your principles!
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 12
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/8/2012 2:47:39 PM
Yes, I was one of those Perot voters in 92 & 96. Clinton really didnt win due to Perot. Perot basically skimmed a layer from both parties, & independents alike. Independents, moderate Republicans & moderate Democrats were his biggest supporters. Clinton would have still won without the Perot factor from what I remember.

That was a perfect example of supporting a 3rd party like the Green Party that reflects your ideals. If we all did that, it would be viable, & would stop strife within the 2 parties. The 2 parties aint big enough to support everybody's views.



According to the exit poll data, 38% of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton in a two way race, 38% would have voted for Bush, 24% would not have voted. Perot won 30% of independents, 17% of Republicans, and 13% of Democrats. Put another way, of his 19% popular vote share, 8 percentage points came from independents, 6 from Republicans, and 5 from Democrats.


Fully 53% of Perot’s vote came from self-defined moderates, 27% from conservatives and 20% from liberals; so about 10 points of his 19% came from self-described moderates, with 5 points coming from conservatives and 4 points from liberals. We also know from the exit polls that the Perot voters were angrier at the political system than supporters of the other candidates. Do these Perot supporters really look like voters that would have gone heavily to incumbent Bush in a two-candidate race?



It is just possible that Perot cost Bush a state here or there where Clinton squeezed out a very narrow plurality (Colorado, Montana, Ohio and Georgia come to mind as possibilities), but there is no empirical evidence that documents this that I am aware of. Even if true for all four states (a very unlikely probability), it merely reduces Clinton’s electoral vote majority from a near landslide to very comfortable.

http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm
 gbntbedtyr
Joined: 5/17/2011
Msg: 13
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/9/2012 8:06:24 AM
Thanks for the knowledge Neopoli, makes sense if one would sit down and think of it instead of jumping to conclusions.

flyguy51, I would have to disagree even without that nice piece of knowledge Neopoli provided. You see even with Perot losing the election, we can still count a win. With so many people voting for Perot it showed the main stream candidates that we wanted an end to the out of control spending, indeed Clinton seeing it's importance to us, balanced the budget. Likewise today Paul may have suffered a defeat, but we see some of his platform coming to the table, the audit of the Fed, and interest in returning to the gild standard. the two party sadness is too indebted to the corporations, but they don't turn a total deaf ear to the people, especially when their voices are spoken in votes.

IgorFrankensteen, I agree, R's are too often slipping to the extreme, and D's are coming too close to the R platform. Again a lot of it is corporate influence, but so to is the reality of things like our broken welfare system that just can't work. You can't break people down to nothing and expect them to crawl back up out of the hole. I think it would be much better to catch them as they are falling with something like an active unemployment system instead of a reactive system. Maybe the person is a good worker, but can't sell themselves, or doesn't know they would excel better over here... But there are many things like that which we all see as a fail that needs to be fixed. And if done as an investment in people, make the people profitable, and suddenly we don't need as much government.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 14
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/9/2012 9:13:28 AM
We lived throough this in '92 when Perot mounted a 3rd party bid & got a respectable margin for a first-time candidate/party. Both parties paid attention to this rising 3rd party's power & actually courted it coalition-style.

THAT WAS & SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE MOMENTUM STARTER. Everybody took notice of this new power of this 3rd party & the resulting influence it had on the election, much like Nader's influence on the 2000 outcome.

The next election cycle('96) was basically the same candidates, except there was a somewhat weaker GOP team running against Clinton/Perot. Perot got less than half the vote in '96 than in '92. Those who gave birth to the movement selfishly killed it in the end.


That's the thing about voting for third party candidates-- your conscience feels good until you realize that you just helped the candidate win who is even further from your principles!


True, but...it can be done wisely.

This is the problem. Those who have the power to sustain the growth of these parties simply abandon them sooner or later en masse, resulting in their tailspin & ultimate death. If Perot would have garnered the same, or more votes in '96, we would have a viable & growing 3rd party today. But lesser evil voting keeps this from ever becoming reality, & the lesser evil voters are the ones who homestead in another party , then cry the most about it when that party loses.

The smartest thing liberals could do is, if they reside in a state where Obama has it locked, they should cast their vote for the Green Party. Obama will still win their state, but the 3rd party of their choice will gain power also, furthering their agenda. Otherwise, your vote is basically wasted.

If I were still voting & living in West Virginia, I would vote for Ron Paul, since Romney has the state locked.
 gbntbedtyr
Joined: 5/17/2011
Msg: 15
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 9/10/2012 2:20:42 PM
Let's take that thought to it's apex Neopoli, register in the opposite party just to vote for the weaker candidate so your party will have a better chance to win. And I know all too many people that do just that. Voting to sabotage is a fools gambit, because you only help to get someone into power that you least wanted there.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 10/15/2012 5:23:22 AM

Republicans used to oppose the very existence of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Now it's hard to find a Republican who would take such a position.


? Republicans still appear to oppose the very existence of those things. But they are also very practical, and once they learned that telling everyone that they intended to destroy those things outright would get them flushed, they switched tactics and got more obscure about it all. So yes, you are right that it is harder to find a major GOP candidate who will come out and say that he/she intends to completely do away with those things, but they DO regularly pretend that to "properly fund them," that they have to ...."privatize them," or "make them fiscally competitive," or various other things that are clearly a disguised version of removing them from the landscape.

Nowadays, the favored method of actively trying to do away with a known-to-be-popular idea or program, is to "protect it" to death. They also want to "protect" the ballot box from all the imaginary fake Democrats they think are lining up outside every polling place, and they want to "protect" union members from having their leaders do as the business leaders are allowed to do, and donate money to candidates and causes as though they are actually the same as individuals.

As for fiscal restraint, I almost agree with you, save that they currently want to rescue the budget by eliminating all Democratic proposals from it, while leaving every bit of Republican pork firmly in place.

And as I tried to say, the move to the right is mostly for show. Neither party ever moves as much in any direction as they claim to.
 gbntbedtyr
Joined: 5/17/2011
Msg: 17
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 10/15/2012 7:20:24 PM
CountIbli

If you believe that we need less government then Jill Stein is not the candidate for you. You might want to look at Gary Johnson.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

If you want more government handouts then vote for Jill Stein. I just don't see how you can reconcile the two views.


What Jill Stein is doing is not a handout, it's a rebuild of our economy in a way that we will all benefit from. Government needs to be small and as out of our lives as possible, but our economy needs to be strong, as in a economy that benefits "we the people", everyone, not just a select few. Governments job is to step in when things are wrong and fix the mess. Government today has for too long benefited those select few, and ignored "the little people". Indeed that is the one problem with a free market, the ease of dominance known as Anti Trust. Oil and Banking are currently out of control, and the corporations are becoming dominate. The Power has to rest in the People, you and me, not wealthy, not the corporations, and certainly not a ruling authoritative government. That is the reason our for fathers had the foresight to institute a servant government. The two party system has done everything in it's power to remove the power from us, and to make us believe that they are the authority, our rulers, our royalty. For instance, how many Politicians will retire on Social Security? No, their better retirement is only one benefit of their Ruling Class (above the people, instead of by the people). Or, listen to the D&R at their exclusive debate, what did the both agree on? "Corporations need a Tax Break", not the people, but corporations. They both said it, right in the beginning, they are for the corporations. The two party system has to be broken, or we the people will never see representation, just hand outs and pacifiers. Jill Stein is the only candidate with a viable plan that can and will fix government, and our country.
 gbntbedtyr
Joined: 5/17/2011
Msg: 18
Jill Stein for President
Posted: 10/16/2012 10:29:54 PM
Medicare for all, yes I agree, that is a handout. But the people have been crying for government health care for a long time. Most nations have it, we don't. And it is better then the Insurance Monopoly created by the Bush / Obama plan. However gvt will inevitably find a way to screw up health care, like Canada's waiting list... and people will cry the other way, and by then we may be able to find a better solution. Something in students taking care of the free (open to all), administered by practicing Doctors volunteer time, in something like the Bar requiring all members to take their share of the pro bono... a, rough ideals.

Free Education is an investment, not a handout. The smarter our populace, the stronger we are as a country, and the more resourceful the individual. A stronger country of more resourceful individuals makes for a profitable economy, and a stronger tax base.

Green Businesses and the GND. One example is to increase the insulation in all the homes, every home in the US. That reduces our energy demand and frees up income that can then be spent for the less important things, where most of us use to make our living from. Likewise green transportation eliminates our dependance on the monopolistic oil industry; freeing up even more money. Again this is an investment, not a handout. It certainly has no need to be permanent. Upon accomplishment the gvt can simply step aside with a better economy providing a stronger tax base.

What I call handouts are things like welfare, locking people into a system of poverty from which they may never recover. And on the other end of the handout scale, bailing out AIG, and the banks, for what, the forth time now, bailing out the auto industry, and that is to say nothing of the oil wars. Those are handouts, and they benefit we the people not in the slightest. The economy will not get better for them, people only get further in debit or dependent, and the tax base is greatly weakened.

_________________________________________________________________________

On a Side note Jill Stein was arrested today for peacefully protesting herself / her candidacy of being denied access to the debates.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Jill Stein for President