Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 56 of 56

Thread: Voted for Jill Stein

  1. #31
    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.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by zade View Post
    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?



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by zade View Post
    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
    Last edited by acptulsa; 11-06-2012 at 07:24 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by zade View Post
    Anyone else?
    Her foreign policy is good, I understand. There was no way I was going to miss writing in Ron Paul, though.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by PauliticsPolitics View Post
    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 "$#@! 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.
    Last edited by zade; 11-06-2012 at 09:41 PM.

  8. #36
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  9. #37
    If the choices were Socialist Stein and Facist Obama/Romney


    I would just stay home.
    "Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul with a heart, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul"

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    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!
    Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. -James Madison

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    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.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by zade View Post
    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 "$#@! 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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    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.

  15. #42
    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!

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You have something intelligent to say about that, or are you just trolling here?
    Oh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  17. #44

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  18. #45
    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! 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.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    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.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by compromise View Post
    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?

  21. #48
    Stein is dangerous, even more then Romney or Obama.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    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.

  24. #50
    I agree with a few of her stances, but her blatant socialism and UN orientation are huge deal breakers.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison View Post
    She's only 'good' on foreign policy by accident. Humanitarian wars? She's there!
    Where have I heard that before...

    Oh right!


  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by nasaal View Post
    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.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by zade View Post
    I'm skeptical of what this would actually do to reverse past injustice.
    Yep you're a flaming violent liberal.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by compromise View Post
    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.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by nasaal View Post
    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.

  30. #56
    Why the hell would you vote for Jill Stein



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. IVN presidential debate: Gov. Gary Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein.
    By phill4paul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-21-2012, 09:39 AM
  2. Jill Stein arrested outside of debate
    By dillo in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 10-17-2012, 03:58 PM
  3. Gary Johnson Johnson and Jill Stein debate live online (Oct 18)
    By farreri in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-16-2012, 01:05 AM
  4. Gary Johnson Let Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates!
    By cdc482 in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 09-16-2012, 03:52 PM
  5. Let Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates!
    By cdc482 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 09-16-2012, 03:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •