PDA

View Full Version : Voted for Jill Stein




zade
11-06-2012, 05:45 PM
Anyone else?

LibertyEagle
11-06-2012, 05:47 PM
Puke.

BSU kid
11-06-2012, 05:48 PM
I sincerely hope you are joking.

acptulsa
11-06-2012, 05:48 PM
I could go for a Beer Stein about now. Does that count?

dannno
11-06-2012, 05:48 PM
I consider that the third and final valid option.

mport1
11-06-2012, 05:48 PM
Nope, she is the most statist of all the statists in the race.

http://www.jillstein.org/green_new_deal

Harald
11-06-2012, 05:50 PM
Gary Johnson x 4 (me, my wife and my parents)

fr33
11-06-2012, 05:50 PM
What is wrong with you? Why do you think it is ok to steal from people and destroy every market?

rich34
11-06-2012, 05:52 PM
Wow, it's your vote so no chastising from me, but did you read her platform? That's all I'm sayin.

YankeesJunkie
11-06-2012, 05:54 PM
Gary Johnson x 4 (me, my wife and my parents)


Voted for Gary Johnson as well, NE throws away write ins and Gov Johnson has shown to be the best candidate of the bunch if a person could not write in Ron Paul and get that vote counted.

LatinsforPaul
11-06-2012, 05:54 PM
Anyone else?

Well at least that's better than Obamney!

nasaal
11-06-2012, 05:55 PM
Cool. Personally I don't like her, but at least I believe that she tells the truth when she speaks. She may be wrong, but she believes what she said. Vote your conscience, don't let the people here get on you.

mport1
11-06-2012, 05:56 PM
Wow, it's your vote so no chastising from me, but did you read her platform? That's all I'm sayin.

No, it deserves chastising. He is voting for somebody who would rob from all of us on a massive scale. That deserves some chastising to say the least.

Danke
11-06-2012, 05:58 PM
Someone pinch me.

69360
11-06-2012, 05:59 PM
I watched all the 3rd party debates. She's good on civil liberties and foreign policy, everything else not so much.

dannno
11-06-2012, 06:00 PM
Nope, she is the most statist of all the statists in the race.

http://www.jillstein.org/green_new_deal

Disagree, she is far less statist than Obama and Romney.

If we ended the wars and ran the government how people in the Green Party actually want it run, it would be far smaller and less powerful. It would be far from perfect, but it wouldn't be run by the banks and corporations, either. Our civil liberties would be restored. No more war on drugs. What you would see, if they succeeded, is a government that took on projects that benefit the taxpayers rather than just the corporations.

I guess the big question is, can you have a sustainable benevolent government? It would be difficult, probably impossible. It would never reach the efficiency of the free market. But I can't agree that the goal of the Green Party is more statist than Obama and Romney who seem to be closing in on all of our rights in much bigger and more authoritarian way than you'll ever see out of The Green Party.

rich34
11-06-2012, 06:01 PM
Wow, it's your vote so no chastising from me, but did you read her platform? That's all I'm sayin.

misean
11-06-2012, 06:03 PM
Well at least that's better than Obamney!

She's actually not better than either. Her economic views are mortifying.

nasaal
11-06-2012, 06:03 PM
No, it deserves chastising. He is voting for somebody who would rob from all of us on a massive scale. That deserves some chastising to say the least.

You deserve chastising. He voted his conscience. Whether he's factually right or not isn't the point. He felt Stein represented his interests, so he voted for her. Simple as that. People like you make it impossible to win people away from the two party paradigm. Because as soon as they mention their opinions, you blast them and act like they are stupid. Never make the mistake that progressives are stupid, they aren't.

mport1
11-06-2012, 06:10 PM
You deserve chastising. He voted his conscience. Whether he's factually right or not isn't the point. He felt Stein represented his interests, so he voted for her. Simple as that. People like you make it impossible to win people away from the two party paradigm. Because as soon as they mention their opinions, you blast them and act like they are stupid. Never make the mistake that progressives are stupid, they aren't.

I'm sorry, I can't support people voting to use violence against me. Plain and simple.

PauliticsPolitics
11-06-2012, 06:10 PM
She's against the patriot act, NDAA, the expensive wars/empire building, corporate-government collusion, censorship, etc.
She aligns with maybe half of the issues I care about.
So she ranks far above Obama and Romney.
But she has socialist solutions that are pretty naive (ie. "free" everything). Though I respect that she is seemingly sincere about it.
I would rather have the Green party as the honest socialist party in the US instead of the criminal Democratic Party (which is really just an arm of the oligarchy).
Regardless, I think she is weaker than past Green party candidates. I think both Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney had more of a bad-ass anti-establishment vibe which I respected.
Nonetheless, I'm sure people here will give you some trouble about the decision; but seriously, it is still a vote against the status quo, a vote against the oligarchy, a vote against the Democrat/Republican criminal gang.

LibertyEagle
11-06-2012, 06:21 PM
She's against the patriot act, NDAA, the expensive wars/empire building, corporate-government collusion, censorship, etc.
She aligns with maybe half of the issues I care about.
So she ranks far above Obama and Romney.
But she has socialist solutions that are pretty naive (ie. "free" everything). Though I respect that she is seemingly sincere about it.
I would rather have the Green party as the honest socialist party in the US instead of the criminal Democratic Party (which is really just an arm of the oligarchy).
Regardless, I think she is weaker than past Green party candidates. I think both Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney had more of a bad-ass anti-establishment vibe which I respected.
Nonetheless, I'm sure people here will give you some trouble about the decision; but seriously, it is still a vote against the status quo, a vote against the oligarchy, a vote against the Democrat/Republican criminal gang.

Voting for a different form of evil, is still evil.

misean
11-06-2012, 06:21 PM
You deserve chastising. He voted his conscience. Whether he's factually right or not isn't the point. He felt Stein represented his interests, so he voted for her. Simple as that. People like you make it impossible to win people away from the two party paradigm. Because as soon as they mention their opinions, you blast them and act like they are stupid. Never make the mistake that progressives are stupid, they aren't.

I agree with Mport. I mean this is a Ron Paul forum. You can't really be a Ron Paul supporter and a Jill Stein supporter at the same time. Especially when there were two candidates much better in Johnson and Goode. Even though I'm not a fan of Goode I can at least see how someone whosupports Paul could vote for him. You really can't vote for Jill Stein. I watched the first debate and she was loathesome.

LibertyEagle
11-06-2012, 06:23 PM
You deserve chastising. He voted his conscience. Whether he's factually right or not isn't the point. He felt Stein represented his interests, so he voted for her. Simple as that. People like you make it impossible to win people away from the two party paradigm. Because as soon as they mention their opinions, you blast them and act like they are stupid. Never make the mistake that progressives are stupid, they aren't.

Well, to be fair, the dude came here to brag about voting for someone who would like to have FDR part 2, and it's not like he doesn't know better. He's been a member since '08. He had to know when he posted that there would be some blowback.

PauliticsPolitics
11-06-2012, 06:31 PM
Voting for a different form of evil, is still evil.
Sure. And while I am not a fan of the socialist economic policies of the Green Party, I understand that Ron Paul brought a very unique group of people together.
Some of those people hold civil liberties and anti-oligarchy principles as the most important issues and that is what brought them to Ron Paul... but some of those people are more tolerant of socialist programs regarding education, environment, etc.
I feel the big battle right now is against the fascist oligarchy, and I am willing to find common ground with Green Party types.

nasaal
11-06-2012, 06:35 PM
I agree with Mport. I mean this is a Ron Paul forum. You can't really be a Ron Paul supporter and a Jill Stein supporter at the same time. Especially when there were two candidates much better in Johnson and Goode. Even though I'm not a fan of Goode I can at least see how someone whosupports Paul could vote for him. You really can't vote for Jill Stein. I watched the first debate and she was loathesome.

Then make the argument in an intelligent mature manner. Bashing people pushes them away, then they have no desire to ever learn from people like us ever again. Whatever, clearly I'm in the minority here.

LatinsforPaul
11-06-2012, 06:47 PM
She's actually not better than either. Her economic views are mortifying.

She is antiwar and pro civil liberties (closer to a Dennis Kucinich ;)). That makes her a WHOLE lot better than Obamney.

And Obama's and Romney's economic views are much closer to Stein's economic views than you think. :eek:

LibertyEagle
11-06-2012, 06:50 PM
Sure. And while I am not a fan of the socialist economic policies of the Green Party, I understand that Ron Paul brought a very unique group of people together.
Some of those people hold civil liberties and anti-oligarchy principles as the most important issues and that is what brought them to Ron Paul... but some of those people are more tolerant of socialist programs regarding education, environment, etc.
I feel the big battle right now is against the fascist oligarchy, and I am willing to find common ground with Green Party types.

Common ground is fine. That however doesn't mean I'm going to support someone like Jill Stein. Not on a forum bearing Ron Paul's name.

cajuncocoa
11-06-2012, 06:50 PM
Puke.I'll second that!

Sola_Fide
11-06-2012, 06:52 PM
Zade searches my posts and neg reps me for anything I say in favor of Creationism.

zade
11-06-2012, 06:58 PM
Yeah I guess this demands some explanation. Basically over the past year I've definitely moved to the left. This means nothing except that my economic views have changed, which I'd be glad to discuss if anyone's interested. The hostile and radically closed-minded attitude that many within the "Liberty movement" take on, while having nothing to do with the reasons for my change of heart, certainly made it easy to walk away once I started questioning. Plus, I'm not the only person I know who has moved to the left after being "awoken" to politics by RP. As nasaal said, if you care about the effectiveness of your movement you ought to be aware of how you approach people who see things differently and what happens in cases like mine. I still respect the hell out of Ron.

To dannno and PauliticsPolitics, appreciate your responses!

To Sola_Fide, no I don't. I don't go on this forum at all actually.

PauliticsPolitics
11-06-2012, 07:17 PM
Yeah I guess this demands some explanation. Basically over the past year I've definitely moved to the left. This means nothing except that my economic views have changed, which I'd be glad to discuss if anyone's interested. The hostile and radically closed-minded attitude that many within the "Liberty movement" take on, while having nothing to do with the reasons for my change of heart, certainly made it easy to walk away once I started questioning. Plus, I'm not the only person I know who has moved to the left after being "awoken" to politics by RP. As nasaal said, if you care about the effectiveness of your movement you ought to be aware of how you approach people who see things differently and what happens in cases like mine. I still respect the hell out of Ron.

To dannno and PauliticsPolitics, appreciate your responses!

To Sola_Fide, no I don't. I don't go on this forum at all actually.
Sure, I'll play:
What economic issues have shifted for you so that you desire government intervention? And what evidence has made you trust the government (who ever might be in power) so that you are ok with giving them additional power?

acptulsa
11-06-2012, 07:20 PM
Yeah I guess this demands some explanation. Basically over the past year I've definitely moved to the left. This means nothing except that my economic views have changed, which I'd be glad to discuss if anyone's interested. The hostile and radically closed-minded attitude that many within the "Liberty movement" take on, while having nothing to do with the reasons for my change of heart, certainly made it easy to walk away once I started questioning. Plus, I'm not the only person I know who has moved to the left after being "awoken" to politics by RP. As nasaal said, if you care about the effectiveness of your movement you ought to be aware of how you approach people who see things differently and what happens in cases like mine. I still respect the hell out of Ron.

To dannno and PauliticsPolitics, appreciate your responses!

To Sola_Fide, no I don't. I don't go on this forum at all actually.

That's all fine by me. Really. I've said it many times.

But I still say Stein isn't the answer. The problem isn't that we have the wrong person in charge of the national welfare and regulation system. It's the fact that the welfare and regulation system is national. Yeah, you want to trap the rich into having to pay in, and keep them from escaping that by crossing state lines, blah blah. But running that stuff on the state level (or even more locally) is the only way to prevent the corporatism. Buying fifty state legislatures is a whole lot harder than going to Washington and doing one stop shopping.

A small federal government is our only defense against corporatism. So, what you want is Ron Paul for president and Jill Stein for governor. Anything else is a road straight back to ruin--and sooner, not later.

'I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.'--Thomas Jefferson

sailingaway
11-06-2012, 07:23 PM
Anyone else?

Her foreign policy is good, I understand. There was no way I was going to miss writing in Ron Paul, though.

zade
11-06-2012, 09:37 PM
Sure, I'll play:
What economic issues have shifted for you so that you desire government intervention? And what evidence has made you trust the government (who ever might be in power) so that you are ok with giving them additional power?

Basically what I've changed on is the issue of how resources are currently distributed and how this came to be the case and how it should be. You have to look back in time. Land and property claims in the Americas originated after a mass conquest and genocide of Native Americans on the part of Europeans. That fact alone immediately negates a "natural rights" explanation of property in America. After colonies were established, land was appropriated among a privileged class of Europeans. As Kevin Carson pointed out "The first and probably the most important subsidy of history is land theft, by which peasant majorities were deprived of their just property rights and turned into tenants forced to pay rent based on the artificial “property” titles of state-privileged elites." This reverberated through history. I think many libertarians have an "is-ought" problem. They are quick to point out that our system isn't remotely "capitalist" in the free market sense, which I completely agree with. And yet they are taken to explaining facets of actually existing economics and the untouchability of property claims in terms of markets and "natural rights."

Move forward into industrial times. Carson adds "Contrary to Mises’s rosy version of the Industrial Revolution in Human Action, factory owners were not innocent in all of this. Mises claimed that the capital investments on which the factory system was built came largely from hard-working and thrifty workmen who saved their own earnings as investment capital. In fact, however, they were junior partners of the landed elites, with much of their investment capital coming either from the Whig landed oligarchy or from the overseas fruits of mercantilism, slavery, and colonialism. In addition, factory employers depended on harsh authoritarian measures by the government to keep labor under control and reduce its bargaining power." This all continues. I'm sure I don't have to point out the myriad ways in which the government continues to tirelessly sustain corporatism. And the story is similar in European states.

I appreciate libertarian's identifaction of "force" as the big ethical problem, in fact it's for that reason that my economic views have evolved. In other words, actually-existing property distribution has nothing at all, and has never had anything at all, to do with free markets, but rather is based in government force. Now here is where the divergence is. It seems to me the libertarian solution is "so get rid of government force."

My main problem with that is that I'm skeptical of what this would actually do to reverse past injustice. If you think of one man systematically looting another for a long period of time, the solution must go beyond having the first man stop. Force is justified on the part of the second man to get his stuff back. That's basically a sacred doctrine for libertarians. Maybe the free market would be an ideal system if it had been instituted from the beginning and from the ground up. As Adam Smith said, "under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality." But in reality, all of economic history has been a lead-up to modern corporate oppression and global dominance. Getting rid of the government would be getting rid of what little democratic power we have to rein in the system. I think it would be bad for the people.

My view of government differs from that of libertarians in that I no longer see it as something that is exclusively a tool of the elite to establish their dominance, though it often does act that way. The way I see it now, "government" is a neutral concept, just as are "power" and "influence." We have to ask what kind of power it will be. Right now the government is controlled by corporate interests, that's what kind of power it wields. But we are fortunate to have some degree of input into the government's policy and make-up, though it would surely be more convenient for the elite if it wasn't so. It is a difficult process, but this means that the government can be bent. It can be used by the people instead of against them, as a tool, as a means of redressing past injustice. This is not some pipe dream, this is what happens. This is what all popular struggle has been. Take labor laws. This is where libertarians are just totally wrong. They see all laws as an extension of corporate/political oppression rather than asking what kind of power is being exercised and on whose behalf. Labor laws are not another means of corporate oppression, just the opposite. They were a hard fought victory of a defiant and dedicated Labor movement. It's an example of putting pressure on the system until it bends. Using force/power as a tool to benefit the masses, against those who rely on force to oppress the masses.

So now you can look at other issues of our day. Take health care. I favor a government run health care system, as do the majority of the American people. To the libertarian, this would be an abuse of power, and an example of theft and force on the part of those who would benefit. To me, the currently existing system is an "abuse of power and an example of theft and force on the part of those who benefit." A government run system would be a response to that and a redressment of it. If a national healthcare system was instituted, again, it would be the result of popular struggle and pressure, again at the expense of those elites whose so called "success" is the result of force past and present. If all expansion of power was a boon to the corporate state, then why don't we already have national healthcare, free higher education, etc? It's corporate funding that determines who the candidates are and who gets elected, and yet our government is filled by people for whom these policies are off the table.

So it's not that I have a new-found trust in government, not any more than I have a trust of "power." It's that I've become aware that there is an ongoing struggle, on one hand a very small minority of state-privileged elites and on the other, everyone else, for who will control that power and to what end. Unfortunately, as massive and monstrous as the corporate power structure is, it's usually the corporations who win out on that. Which gets libertarians thinking "fuck the government can't do anything good." But I believe a candidate like Jill Stein would like to use power for the latter cause. I realize this puts me at odds with the founding fathers and many here who are quite anti-democratic and have no concern for the interests of the masses. In fact Madison remarked that the government ought to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," and that's just what it's done.

Brian4Liberty
11-06-2012, 09:51 PM
http://www.dailyplunge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Boromir34_b-300x238.jpg

CTRattlesnake
11-06-2012, 11:49 PM
If the choices were Socialist Stein and Facist Obama/Romney


I would just stay home.

James Madison
11-06-2012, 11:54 PM
Her foreign policy is good, I understand. There was no way I was going to miss writing in Ron Paul, though.

She's only 'good' on foreign policy by accident. Humanitarian wars? She's there!

Uriah
11-07-2012, 12:00 AM
Disagree, she is far less statist than Obama and Romney.

If we ended the wars and ran the government how people in the Green Party actually want it run, it would be far smaller and less powerful. It would be far from perfect, but it wouldn't be run by the banks and corporations, either. Our civil liberties would be restored. No more war on drugs. What you would see, if they succeeded, is a government that took on projects that benefit the taxpayers rather than just the corporations.

I guess the big question is, can you have a sustainable benevolent government? It would be difficult, probably impossible. It would never reach the efficiency of the free market. But I can't agree that the goal of the Green Party is more statist than Obama and Romney who seem to be closing in on all of our rights in much bigger and more authoritarian way than you'll ever see out of The Green Party.

I agree. And you've stated it much better than I can at this hour.

acptulsa
11-07-2012, 12:13 AM
So it's not that I have a new-found trust in government, not any more than I have a trust of "power." It's that I've become aware that there is an ongoing struggle, on one hand a very small minority of state-privileged elites and on the other, everyone else, for who will control that power and to what end. Unfortunately, as massive and monstrous as the corporate power structure is, it's usually the corporations who win out on that. Which gets libertarians thinking "fuck the government can't do anything good." But I believe a candidate like Jill Stein would like to use power for the latter cause. I realize this puts me at odds with the founding fathers and many here who are quite anti-democratic and have no concern for the interests of the masses. In fact Madison remarked that the government ought to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," and that's just what it's done.

And why are you saying nothing about my comments above? They demonstrate a way to divide up power and spread it out. Madison, whatever--what about Jefferson's writings on how decentralization of power will prevent '...the most corrupt government on the face of the earth'?

You have something intelligent to say about that, or are you just trolling here?

zactidwell
11-07-2012, 01:10 AM
Where where the female voters, backing their up their sisters? If blacks can disgrace MLK's "content of character" and blindly vote for Obama, then I think the ladies were due some tribalist voting.

A. Havnes
11-07-2012, 07:23 AM
Jill Stein is too socialist for me, but at least the lady is honest, which is more than I can say about other candidates. Good for you for voting your conscience!

acptulsa
11-07-2012, 08:10 AM
You have something intelligent to say about that, or are you just trolling here?

Oh.

presence
11-07-2012, 08:46 AM
Green Libertarianism

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394434-Green-Libertarianism&highlight=green+libertarianism

jmdrake
11-07-2012, 08:59 AM
My 10 year old son, who knew full well that I was voting 3rd party, told me "I hope your not voting for the Green Party. That lady's awful!" Oh yeah, and he loves animals and the environment and literally doesn't like it when I kill files. Even child tree huggers can see through Jill Stein. That said, it's your vote. And if I had to choose between Stein, Obama and Romney I'd....I'd.....I'd say go ahead shoot me! :D Seriously though, with her being (supposedly) antiwar and pro civil liberties I'd take her over Obama and Romney the same way I'd have taken McKinney or Kucinich. But that's the only reason.

compromise
11-08-2012, 02:58 AM
I watched all the 3rd party debates. She's good on civil liberties and foreign policy, everything else not so much.

She's very pro foreign aid and pro-UN...her foreign policy isn't ideal either.

nasaal
11-08-2012, 08:01 AM
She's very pro foreign aid and pro-UN...her foreign policy isn't ideal either.

It's not aggressive and highly violent though either. At the end of the day the dude came and voted his conscience. That's what we've been asking people to do in regards to Ron Paul. Vote your conscience instead of just who you think will win. The argument is universal. Just because we feel Ron Paul is right about most things doesn't mean that someone else might not feel that way about someone else. And if they are wrong, try to reeducate them in a way that they will actually listen and not leave and never come back. Know what I mean?

Dick Chaney
11-08-2012, 10:31 AM
Stein is dangerous, even more then Romney or Obama.

GeorgiaAvenger
11-08-2012, 06:48 PM
She is an U.N. type internationalist. Not really a great foreign policy at all.

I'll take some wars in the Middle East over global governance any day.

Stein would basically turn this country into Greece, which is peaceful and look how they turned out.

VRod
11-08-2012, 08:59 PM
I agree with a few of her stances, but her blatant socialism and UN orientation are huge deal breakers.

Confederate
11-08-2012, 09:16 PM
She's only 'good' on foreign policy by accident. Humanitarian wars? She's there!

Where have I heard that before...

Oh right!

http://i.imgur.com/CihGS.jpg

compromise
11-10-2012, 06:13 PM
It's not aggressive and highly violent though either. At the end of the day the dude came and voted his conscience. That's what we've been asking people to do in regards to Ron Paul. Vote your conscience instead of just who you think will win. The argument is universal. Just because we feel Ron Paul is right about most things doesn't mean that someone else might not feel that way about someone else. And if they are wrong, try to reeducate them in a way that they will actually listen and not leave and never come back. Know what I mean?

Depends what you mean by highly violent. UN peacekeepers have been known to be highly violent. Brutal tyrants and warlords are propped up and wars are fought using US foreign aid money.

Victor Grey
11-10-2012, 11:24 PM
I'm skeptical of what this would actually do to reverse past injustice.

Yep you're a flaming violent liberal.

nasaal
11-11-2012, 11:30 AM
Depends what you mean by highly violent. UN peacekeepers have been known to be highly violent. Brutal tyrants and warlords are propped up and wars are fought using US foreign aid money.

I mean her foreign policy is many steps in the right direction. Her stances on civil liberties are also in the right direction. That doesn't mean that she isn't wrong on virtually everything. Doesn't make it right to attack the dude for voting for her. It makes it so hard to get people to stay in our cause when we attack everyone we don't agree with and act as if we are experts on every subject simply because we support Ron Paul. It is madness and we will not win if we continue acting this way.

Victor Grey
11-11-2012, 12:54 PM
It makes it so hard to get people to stay in our cause when we attack everyone

Isn't in it anyway.

Work where you can. Eat around the rot.

RonPaul25
11-11-2012, 03:14 PM
Why the hell would you vote for Jill Stein