Is US Green Party’s Jill Stein the new people’s champion?

Written By: - Date published: 12:43 pm, July 28th, 2016 - 109 comments
Categories: democratic participation, feminism, Left, political alternatives, social democracy, uncategorized, us politics - Tags: , ,

Thanks to commenters on the Standard posting links I’ve been able to spend the last couple of days of the Democratic National Convention coverage instead watching videos of US Green Party leader and presidential candidate Jill Stein. She’s good, very good. There are a lot of interesting dynamics going on with the US political scene currently with Bernie Sanders having endorsed Hilary Clinton, the mass walkout of delegates from the DNC, and Sanders supporters looking around for where they can put their energy and passion now. And into that mix there is Jill Stein, who has a strong, radical voice that speaks with heart and intelligence to so many of the issues that lefties there and here are longing for. She is also a beacon for healthy politics beyond the left/right establishment divide.

So here’s a thread dedicated to looking at what is happening in the US from the margins (where all the important change comes from). I’m hoping that the Standardistas who know a lot more about US politics and what’s going on on the fringe can add to the discussion in the comments.  Links to videos of Stein speaking would be good too.

Meanwhile here’s Stein on fire being interviewed by a handful of Fox News people (you might want to prepare yourself for the Fox approach).

Please keep on topic. Discussions about Clinton and Trump should happen elsewhere unless it’s directly related to the post. 

109 comments on “Is US Green Party’s Jill Stein the new people’s champion? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. weka 1
    28 July 2016 at 12:51 pm

    Green Party National Convention is next week,

    http://www.gp.org/pnc-2016

  2. Andre 2
    28 July 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Stein’s politics are an extremely close match to mine. If there was any chance a vote for her in November would deliver her any kind position of power, she would absolutely have my vote. But the story of Nader in 2000 is a caution against voting third party when the choice is between someone you don’t really want and someone you really don’t want.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000

    • McFlock 2.1
      28 July 2016 at 1:22 pm

      Yeah.

      It’s a two-party, FPP electoral-college system.

      Stein has no hope of being elected, but might suck support from the candidate closest to her policies.

      • weka 2.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 1:31 pm

        “but might suck support from the candidate closest to her policies.”

        that would be Sanders and he’s out.

        Despite having argued for voting for Clinton as the lesser of evils, I don’t think that one could categorise Clinton as closest to Stein on policy because they’re in fact in different universes.

        • McFlock 2.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 1:40 pm

          But how many universes removed from trump or clinton would stein be?
          edit: especially with the policy concessions clinton has made to sanders

          • weka 2.1.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 1:50 pm

            I haven’t followed the policy concessions, but it’s not really about policy per se, it’s about world view and approach. Plus integrity.

            The Greens (in general) don’t fit easily into the traditional left/right spectrum so it’s not like we can just slot Stein x inches to the left of Clinton (or yards).

            And as Bill points out elsewhere, there’s the possibility that the concessions that Sanders got will be whittled down over time, which is also part of why Clinton is in another universe.

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 1:58 pm

              Better washed down over time rather than opposed actively from the start of the term.

              Anyone voting for a third party candidate in a swing state should basically just vote for the candidate they dislike the most. It’s a more honest way of achieving the same outcome.

              • weka …
                28 July 2016 at 2:04 pm

                The point of voting Stein (one of them) is to support the growing movement. Nothing to do with Clinton/Trump.

                Agree re the first para.

              • Bill …
                28 July 2016 at 5:54 pm

                Better washed down over time rather than opposed actively from the start of the term.

                If they’re washed out, then they’ve been successfully opposed – defeated.

                If a term was constantly battling to keep them at bay…well, they might well, in part at least, have ‘washed over’ instead of getting wholly ‘washed out’.

                And if some had ‘washed over’, the constant and continuous pressure that comes from a mobilised and energised citizenry….anyway, it’s all academic now.

                Sanders got stuff on the platform and none of it will become enacted policy.

                • McFlock …
                  28 July 2016 at 6:09 pm

                  No, I disagree.

                  Because it’s not a binary thing: a “washed out” policy of free education would be more affordable or accessible education. Not free, people still miss out, but better than the status quo, and MUCH better than any education system under Trump.

                  Someone’s environmental policies might be washed out by allowing mining to continue at a reduced rate, which is worse than just ending it, but it’s still a reduction, and much better than Trump’s policies.

                  This is the thing about Obamacare: it ended up not being as good as it could be after going through the political horse trading. But people are still getting medical care that they would not have received if it had never been passed at all.

                  Now, maybe Hillary won’t be inclined or able to deliver on everything she promised. But what she does deliver will still be an improvement in the lives of thousands or millions of people, whereas Trump will make their lives worse. That’s why Sanders endorsed Clinton.

                  • Bill …
                    28 July 2016 at 6:42 pm

                    Yeah. I’m not interested in Clinton versus Trump on the ‘better for the US’ stakes. And I’m not interested in whether Sanders endorses Clinton or not.

                    The comment that Weka was referring to was about how Sanders has unwittingly taken the legs out from under the very movement he’d been a poster child for. All he got was some policy on the campaign platform (that can be thrown away post election). What he lost was the momentum, and power of a movement (that could have otherwise pushed for everything Sanders bargained for and much more besides).

                    He should have let Clinton run on whatever platform she had a mind to.

                    The question raised by this post seems to be on whether Stein can pick up on that – I was going to say ‘wave’, but it’s all backwash now…

                    Bernie blew it.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2016 at 12:35 pm

                      The “movement” is pointless without policy change. That can only come about from the elected officials, from the president down.

                      Sanders will not be president.
                      Stein will not be president.
                      Clinton needs a chunk of Sanders’ supporters’ support to become president.
                      Trump will become president if Clinton does not get a chunk of Sanders’ supporters’ support.

                      So, Sanders burns the democrat house down, storms off in a huff, encourages everyone to follow him into the political wilderness, and Trump becomes president. There’s a completely unadulterated movement of purists, achieving precisely the opposite of what they want.

                      Sanders gets concessions from Clinton, encourages his supporters to not just vote for her but to also vote locally (which he did), and a slightly more realistic movement lives on and actually achieves modest change.

                      We need the activists on the margins to keep pushing the system in the best direction with tiny movements, like a ouija board, but the change is incremental. Revolutions suck, even when they “work”.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2016 at 1:11 pm

                      Chris Hedges counters your points very well.

                      You are still stuck on the idea of gaining formal positional power within the status quo power structures.

                      However, the point of the popular mass movements which finally suceeded in creating massive social change was never to gain formal power, but instead to pressure the structural status quo into concessions that they did not want to give.

                      So IMO, Bill is spot on. Sanders has cut the knees out from under his own popular movement, exactly as the professional operatives of the DNC hoped for.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2016 at 1:52 pm

                      A bit like how Sanders got policy concessions from the DNC’s preferred presidential candidate, which otherwise would not have occurred.

                      And will not occur if Trump wins.

                      The only people “cutting the knees” (more drama) out of the movement’s achievements will be those people who choose to not vote or vote against the very advances they would otherwise have achieved.

                    • Bill …
                      29 July 2016 at 2:39 pm

                      @ McFlock

                      I don’t know why you apparently find the point so hard to get.

                      Sanders can back Clinton. Sanders can advise his supporters to back Clinton. Sanders can encourage people to get other people out to vote. And so and so on.

                      And Clinton gets elected.

                      At that point, it would be kinda advantageous to bring pressure to bear on her policy roll-out. That’s where an existing and motivated movement comes in…or would, if it hadn’t been scattered in the face of deals being done and short term, possibly never going to be implemented concessions made.

                      I haven’t mentioned anything about revolution in any comments and wouldn’t in the context of the whole ‘Bern’ thing. It would be absurd to do so. When Sanders talks of revolution, he’s talking about changes happening within the narrowly defined parameters of representative democracy as it gets practiced in the USA. In other words, even with the full weight of an active movement at his back, only incremental change could have occurred. Now any incremental change is going to be substantially less than was the case a week ago. And that’s because….back to original comment.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2016 at 2:50 pm

                      What I don’t get is why you think any pressure can be brought to bear on Clinton after she gets elected. She doesn’t need any assistance then, so why would she make concessions?

                      After losing the Democrat candidacy race, what do you think Sanders should have done? How would it have achieved any change at all, let alone anything more significant than short term, possibly never going to be implemented concessions (or as I like to think of them “previously unconceived incremental changes”)?

                    • Bill …
                      29 July 2016 at 3:02 pm

                      How long before Clinton attempts to roll out something that’s deeply unpopular? And in the absence of any organised street level presence, where does the push back come from, and where’s the potential for a possible roll back to roll over scenario going to come from?

                      All change has come from below – civil rights movement etc – and succeeds when those in power have cause to be uneasy.

                      Sanders has unwittingly aided Clinton in putting all of that into a box marked “contained”.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2016 at 3:04 pm

                      Yeah, nah.

                      There’s nothing stopping protests if she announces or does something that warrants it.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      29 July 2016 at 3:10 pm

                      What I don’t get is why you think any pressure can be brought to bear on Clinton after she gets elected. She doesn’t need any assistance then, so why would she make concessions?

                      FOR FRAKS SAKE

                      Think what forced FDR to make pro-labour compromises AFTER he got elected – including massive sit down strikes, industrial action, protests and pressure from every level of society.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2016 at 3:18 pm

                      Fair call, if you think Sanders could leverage (or scatter) that level of coordinated support.

                      Of course, the alternative is that it’s just another “occupy wall street” that creates nothing much other than drum circles, in which case sanders made the best decision.

                    • Bill …
                      29 July 2016 at 3:20 pm

                      There’s nothing preventing protests. That’s true.

                      But when the people who are going to be doing the hard yards are already on the ground and organised then the protests become much, much easier to initiate and are much, much more potent.

                      That, and anyone in power who knows that people are already semi-mobilised or mobilised keeps a fucking eye in their direction and acts accordingly because they don’t want them getting all uppity, spoiling a ‘good time’ and potentially garnering even more momentum and more widespread support in the process.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 July 2016 at 3:39 pm

                      The movement that supported Sanders is, or needs to be, about more than the presidency.

                      That’s why a chunk of his speech was devoted to people voting for decent mayors and sherriffs etc. I don’t know how much coordination there is for candidates at the local level, but if there’s none then that’s a problem, because change needs to occur throughout the system and not just at the top.

                    • Bill …
                      29 July 2016 at 4:01 pm

                      At the top, throughout…and beyond. 😉

        • Andre 2.1.1.2
          28 July 2016 at 1:47 pm

          It’s surprising how close Clinton and Stein actually are. If you’re into these kinds of questionnaire things, https://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz is quite detailed (Be sure you’ve got at least 10 minutes if you do it). My results were Stein 99% Sanders 98% Clinton 94% Johnson 64% Trump 0%

          Or if you go and take a detailed look at their platform statements, there’s a lot of commonality.

          That Clinton has such a high unfavourable is partly a reflection of the 30 year smear campaign the Reps have carried out against her, and partly the unhelpful behaviours she’s developed (at least partly because of that campaign).

          • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2.1
            28 July 2016 at 2:23 pm

            Oh frak off, the utter cynical gall to try and declare Stein and Clinton as having comparable policy platforms.

            • te reo putake 2.1.1.2.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 2:37 pm

              To be fair, the US Greens don’t have a binding policy platform, so it’s hard to compare the two. But I’m sure they’d be OK with lifting the minimum wage, cutting schooling costs and getting big business out of the electoral process. And free health care, environmental reform etc.

              Actually, when you look at it, the two parties seem to have pretty much the same policy platform. Certainly, both recognise the same issues.

              http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

              https://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php

              • weka …
                28 July 2016 at 2:57 pm

                You two know better than to start something one on of my posts right? Just a gentle reminder, stay focussed on the topic and the politics.

              • AmaKiwi …
                28 July 2016 at 3:12 pm

                @ te reo putake

                “US Greens don’t have a binding policy platform”

                Forgive my cynicism but I never saw a platform that didn’t have enough gaping holes to drive an aircraft carrier through. And I never saw a party that once in power hesitated to ignore parts of its platform that no longer suited it.

                • te reo putake …
                  28 July 2016 at 3:14 pm

                  Yep! And at least the US Greens are honest enough to say on the front page that it’s not binding on any candidate in any election. You gotta admire that approach.

                  [please stay out of this thread. Ban notification is now in Open Mike. – weka]

      • AmaKiwi 2.1.2
        28 July 2016 at 3:05 pm

        McFlock

        +1

        The sad truth about FPP elections is that third parties are usually meaningless. At best they can only be spoilers for one of the two major parties.

        In 2015, UKIP got 12.6% of the votes. Under MMP they would have had 82 MPs (out of 650). Under FFP they got only 1. FFP guarantees the USA Greens will get zero electoral votes (out of 540).

        • weka 2.1.2.1
          28 July 2016 at 3:06 pm

          “The sad truth about FPP elections is that third parties are usually meaningless.”

          In NZ, under MMP third parties changed the whole electoral system.

          • AmaKiwi 2.1.2.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 3:30 pm

            @ weka

            “In NZ, under MMP third parties changed the whole electoral system.”

            It’s a bit before my time, but I think there was 1 and maybe 2 elections in which the party that got the most votes did not end up with the most seats in parliament. That is grossly unfair to both the people and the candidates for parliament. That’s a powerful incentive for everyone to ditch FFP.

            As I said, it’s a bit before my time so I can’t comment on the role of third parties in bringing about the MMP referendum. Note that I also said “usually” meaningless. The UK has a number of minor parties.

            In the USA, when the segregationist George Wallace was a serious third party presidential candidate, he got shot. How bloody convenient.

    • weka 2.2
      28 July 2016 at 1:29 pm

      Hopefully CV will be along to explain the details, but as I understand it, it comes down to where you live whether the vote will be wasted or not. If you live somewhere with a marginal win for the Republicans then it’s risky, but otherwise it’s good use of a protest vote or a vote by values/ethics.

      Myself, having seen some of Stein’s speaking and having been thinking about Clinton only as a lesser evil, I reckon I’d go Stein. Not lease because she is promoting electoral reform, which is the only way out of the mess that the US has.

      • Andre 2.2.1
        28 July 2016 at 1:39 pm

        In short, yes if you vote somewhere like California (solidly Dem) or Texas (solidly Rep), a third party protest vote is safe. Since my vote will be in California, I probably will vote Stein, despite my frothing about how it’s not a good idea. But the other two states I was previously registered in (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) are somewhat swing states, so if I was still there, there’s no way I’d vote third party no matter how sick I made myself trying to choose between the Dem and Rep.

        Any change to the system for electing the president has to be done by constitutional amendment, which is a really involved process. So there’s not really even a chance of doing away with the ludicrous Electoral College and just going to popular vote, let alone introducing any kind of proportional representation system.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

        • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster) 2.2.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 2:05 pm

          I’m sorry, but a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for an evil.

          I’d vote what I believed in (Jill Stein) and to hell with the consequences!

          • Andre 2.2.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 2:11 pm

            The problem is the world would almost certainly be a much better place right now if Gore had won in 2000. And I really fear in 2021 we’ll look back and say the same about Clinton.

            • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 2:26 pm

              Bullshit. The Democratic Party deserved to lose in 2000, and they deserve to lose again this year.

              And why do the Democrats deserve to lose to Trump this year?

              Because they deliberately schemed and cheated to select the electorally weaker candidate who was always going to have massive trouble competing with Trump.

              • weka …
                28 July 2016 at 3:02 pm

                Not everyone subscribes to the theory of punishment politics though. For instance, the Democrats definitely deserve something for what they’ve done, but the rest of the country doesn’t deserve to suffer because of it. And yes I know that you think that they will suffer less under Trump but I disagree, and that’s still a separate thing than punishing the Dems.

              • AmaKiwi …
                28 July 2016 at 3:38 pm

                @ CV

                “The Democratic Party deserved to lose in 2000”

                You are dead wrong!

                The election was clearly stolen by a corrupt vote count in Florida and the (Republican dominated) Supreme Court blocking any Florida re-count.

                No matter how much you may dislike the candidate, no one deserves to lose an election when they got the most votes and the most electoral votes.

                • rhinocrates …
                  28 July 2016 at 5:02 pm

                  I wouldn’t say that Iraq deserved to be invaded either, but that was clearly a consequence of W becoming president. It was hardly inevitable that Gore was going to do the same.

                  Democrats definitely deserve something for what they’ve done, but the rest of the country doesn’t deserve to suffer because of it.

                  Indeed.

                  And why would anyone believe that Trump would keep any of his promises when he frequently lies and contradicts himself in the same sentence or be competent to do so when he’s been bankrupt so often?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  28 July 2016 at 5:04 pm

                  It’s true that Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes.

                  The Democrats could have followed up on this extremely unfair result by seeking to reform the extremely disproportional US electoral system.

        • weka 2.2.1.2
          28 July 2016 at 2:09 pm

          Cheers Andre, I’d forgotten you can actually vote there.

        • mikesh 2.2.1.3
          28 July 2016 at 3:20 pm

          It’s difficult to see how an MMP system would work when they are voting for one person (ie the president) What proportion o the president would each party get? Would one party get a leg, another the torso, etc?

          • Andre 2.2.1.3.1
            28 July 2016 at 5:16 pm

            Maybe divvy up the Cabinet.

          • rhinocrates 2.2.1.3.2
            28 July 2016 at 5:24 pm

            With a very good transplant surgeon?

            I imagine that a PR system could be used for the Senate at least.

            BTW, this election is about more than Trump vs Clinton. Most of Congress is also up for re-election this year.

          • McFlock 2.2.1.3.3
            28 July 2016 at 5:27 pm

            Well, a start would be requiring each state’s electoral college votes to be divided according to the vote within the state, rather than winner take all.

            And redistricting to the shortest possible electorate boundaries for a given number of representatives would limit the opportunities for gerrymandering.

            • DS 2.2.1.3.3.1
              28 July 2016 at 9:05 pm

              Problem there is that New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) would always be split 2-2, and thus have no say on the presidency, whereas Vermont (3 electoral votes) would always have a say with a smaller population.

              Best solution is to abolish the EC altogether, and just have the President elected by popular vote.

              • McFlock …
                29 July 2016 at 12:22 pm

                Yes it would be split 2-2 over the last few elections, because the vote is usually 50/50 +-5%

                An alternative is to tie it to the congressional/senatorial districts so that swing “states” become swing “districts”, and everybody’s vote counts.

                As for abolishing the EC altogether, I haven’t fully turned that over in my noggin yet – I’m wondering if it would mean that smaller states always get swamped by the NY/LA vote? Whereas the EC still records where they stand, as it were.

                • Andre …
                  29 July 2016 at 1:00 pm

                  Senate elections are all statewide, so no districts. House districts are really really gerrymandered, so for instance in 2012 the Dems won 48.8% of the vote to get 201 seats, while the Reps won 47.6% of the vote to get 234 seats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012

                  At the moment the Electoral College system gives much more weight to voters in low population states, of which more tend to be Republican.
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#/media/File:State_population_per_electoral_vote.png

                  Given that any change to the Electoral college system will require a constitutional amendment requiring ratification by 3/4 of the states, I can’t see the low population states giving up their disproportionate influence.

                • DS …
                  29 July 2016 at 8:36 pm

                  Problem is that no-one’s vote currently counts outside the big swing states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania). North and South Dakota get ignored, Vermont and Delaware get ignored, New York and California get ignored.

                  Abolishing the EC means there is some point to Republicans in New York or Democrats in Texas turning out to vote. Appealing only to cities is in any case a dubious strategy, since it alienates the voters outside the cities, and with the abolition of the EC, those urban areas are no longer monolithic.

      • Andre 2.2.2
        28 July 2016 at 2:08 pm

        If you’re in the mood for a headache, here’s the wikipedia for the Electoral College system.

        In short, each state* plus D.C. holds an FPP election for all its electors as a bloc. The number of electors each state has is the number of congressional representatives it has, ie 2 for the 2 senators plus however many house of representatives members it has. So a low population state like Wyoming has 3 electors, while California has 55.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

        *Maine and Nebraska are slightly different. Read the wikipedia if you care.

        • adam 2.2.2.1
          28 July 2016 at 2:45 pm

          I remember having to write a essay at uni about the US electoral collages. I also remember laughing at the 5,000 word count limit, thinking my lecture had gone mad – when most essays to that point had been 1,500 words. 5,000 words was just not enough to this day I have shivers about.

        • dukeofurl 2.2.2.2
          28 July 2016 at 4:39 pm

          Plus in 8 states its the electors names which appear on the ballot , not the candidate.
          Its a whole story in itself how individuals are selected as electors for a particular candidate – who they are not legally obliged to vote for at the actual meeting of the EC.

    • adam 2.3
      28 July 2016 at 2:53 pm

      I don’t buy the whole Ralph lost the 2000 election anymore. Yeah it was the popular myth at the time. But if the democratic party had actually stood it’s ground, then the left would not have been fooled by this story. Mind you, that fable helped with the election of a lesser evil president last time. Now I think more people see it for what it is, a fantastic tale to scare people to vote democrat.

  3. save nz 3
    28 July 2016 at 1:12 pm

    Jill Stein would have my vote.

    Her interview should be compulsory viewing for all and media training for the opposition!

    Not only that, she clearly does not crave power, because she offered her leadership to Sanders.

    Sounds like a perfect politician.

    Note to opposition in NZ in her answers (she did not blame nor target one parts of Americans against another – she instead targeted the banks and the insurance companies etc who got bailed out and have diverted Obamacare.)

    If only USA had MMP the world would be a safer place.

    • dukeofurl 3.1
      28 July 2016 at 1:17 pm

      She offered her leadership to Sanders, because he has a huge personal following while she has none.

      • weka 3.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 1:32 pm

        Because to the neoliberal mindset, it’s the size that counts.

        • dukeofurl 3.1.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 4:30 pm

          Tell me why the Greens fail to get over 11-12%, and the last election was only 10.7% of the party votes. Thats was seen as a failure as they were expecting 15%.
          Silly them for having a neo liberal mindset was it ?

    • ALZ 3.2
      28 July 2016 at 3:01 pm

      “If only USA had MMP the world would be a safer place.” save nz.

      Perhaps, We cant get rid of Key because of MMP ( a fatal flaw) that and because the governor is in his pocket and not a check or a balance. Corrupt and post truth
      politics is just a disgraceful abuse of kind and trusting Kiwis that make this place
      great.

      Hillary looks to have been pre selected by the powers that be, the parties and the populous are being herded by Trumps as a repellent and Clinton as an attractant. ( incompetent / crazy man, reality TV agitator at one end and cunning war mongering but competent “fe-man” at the other, admired by power hungry aggressive’s of both genders). Bernie had to go, (but leave some followers for Clinton). He actually is an honest politician, who would serve the people.
      Stein makes too much sense, tells the truth and is exactly right. The Quantitative easing should go in at the bottom ( student loans or mortgage write offs) so it can percolate upwards through the whole economy instead of just going directly to the top 5% like the UK did or worse straight to the banks, 0.0001 % (non governance). First world political failures both.
      Nationalise the production of money. Get armed forces out of every where, before some one makes a stupid mistake with a nuke or a cyber war action.
      Stein and Saunders as co president . ++ Sanity restored to America = a safer world for everyone.

      • DoublePlusGood 3.2.1
        30 July 2016 at 9:18 pm

        Uh, Key would be worse with FPP as he would have had large majorities three elections in a row with carte blanche to do whatever the electorate would swallow.

  4. Galeandra 4
    28 July 2016 at 2:51 pm

    IMO If Trump wins a single term will find him out.
    Clinton will the continue “moderate” right Obama-esque approach that currently bedevils the US.
    I’d rather see the Democrats denied by honest votes for Stein. I labour under the (deluded?) belief that a Trump incumbency might shatter the comfort bubble that too many folk still reside in, whereby they are able to ignore the worst facets of the current economic & political paradigm so long as the outcomes aren’t directly affecting them and theirs.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      28 July 2016 at 3:17 pm

      Even GW was “misunderestimated” by his political enemies and lasted 2 terms.

      • Galeandra 4.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 3:28 pm

        True that. This time round the nooses of crisis are grown a lot tighter though and, counter intuitively, a clown without a clue may be less harmful to the commonweal than a seeming competent who can buttress creaking establishment timbers well enough to provide illusions of relief .

      • Galeandra 4.1.2
        28 July 2016 at 3:42 pm

        True that. This time round, though, the nooses of many crises are grown a lot tighter and an incompetent clown may, counter intuitively , be better for us all than an apparent competent who seeks merely to buttress the creaking timbers of the establishment and support the illusion of a return to normal. I guess it all depends on just how dissatisfied usual D supporters will be after the latest email imbroglio.

  5. esoteric pineapples 5
    28 July 2016 at 3:19 pm

    Jill argues what’s the point of voting for the lesser of two evils when all it has produced is the sort of policies that progressives are against anyway, plus produced Trump as the Republican candidate. Very hard to argue against this.

  6. Sigh 6
    28 July 2016 at 3:52 pm

    Anyone who ignores the threat of Trump and suggests voting for anyone other than Hilary – for all her clear and present faults – is utterly deluded and is complicit in Trump’s rise. This is unbelievable stuff, and shows how far the standard of analysis on this site has fallen.

    • adam 6.1
      28 July 2016 at 5:06 pm

      Oh look the lesser of two evil argument. Sheesh Sigh you just not interested in our arguments at all – your remarks are just a rehash of the lesser evil argument.

      Guess what, that does nothing to encourage people to vote. Indeed the exact opposite.

      How is that for shocking, what makes h.r.c loss is not policy, not style, not substance, it’s the lesser evil argument.

      One which you have just rehashed in an arrogant and condescending manner. Here the kicker, every time you utter that line, the democrats loss votes.

      So the real people who lost this election, are people like you

    • Colonial Viper 6.2
      28 July 2016 at 5:27 pm

      Anyone who ignores the threat of Trump Anyone who ignores the threat of Trump

      Particularly the threat of Trump to the neocon globalist set.

  7. Asrian 7
    28 July 2016 at 4:34 pm

    Remember Edward Moseley, he talked Hitler up before the last big shitfight, even met him, had close business dealing with AF s associates and had followers and advisors with close links.
    Wanted Britain to join with the Reich.
    Trump is this generations Moseley.
    Lets not vote for the only person who can stop him. What a good idea.

    • adam 7.1
      28 July 2016 at 5:09 pm

      See above Asrian.

      And let me add, with the Libertarians at 9-13%

      Don’t give me you take on the lesser evil argument, the right are doing a better job of keeping trump out of office than the left.

    • alwyn 7.2
      28 July 2016 at 7:01 pm

      “Remember Edward Moseley” you ask.
      The only Edward Moseley I can think of was a politician in North Carolina in the early 1700s. Quite an interesting person but hardly likely to have been a confidante of Hitler.
      Are you sure you didn’t mean Oswald Mosley?
      Simple mistake of course. Never rely on a fallible memory.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley

  8. adam 8
    28 July 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Thank you weka, it’s nice to be able to have a debate somthing more than just the usual centrist garbage we normally have to suffer through here in NZ.

    If you have time folks this is a very good interview of Jill by Abby Martin. It raises what I think is a fundamental question which politicians ignore over and over. Our health, not just as individuals, but as a society.

  9. marty mars 9
    28 July 2016 at 6:54 pm

    I enjoyed that top video thanks weka – what a great person Jill is, so strong and powerful against the foxes.

    I especially loved how she bought it back to cc – no lying or bullshit there.

  10. ianmac 10
    28 July 2016 at 7:01 pm

    An inspiring person is Jill Stein.

  11. The Lone Haranguer 11
    28 July 2016 at 7:04 pm

    Well Sigh, to say “lets back Hillary” without considering her clear and present faults is utterly deluded and is complicit in the blind adherence to the party dogma of an obviously corrupt party.

    This is unbelievable stuff and shows how far the standard of analysis on this site has fallen.

    Trump is a nationalist who dislikes giving away US sovereignty and is strongly opposed to the TPPA. I can not see him signing off on the TPPA if hes POTUS next January.

    Clinton is an internationalist who has no issues with giving away US sovereignty to the very bankers and multi nats who are big funders of her campaign. I see her signing off on the TPPA if shes POTUS next January.

    Trump 2016.

    • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster) 11.1
      28 July 2016 at 7:59 pm

      To be honest, neither Trump nor Clinton will be good for America and American democracy (such as it is!), Clinton because she will do nothing to alleviate the problems which beset sections of American society, Trump because he may try to do too much, or nothing at all.

      Voting for the lesser of two evils is still an evil. American should vote with their hearts, not their heads! Jill Stein is the obvious choice.

  12. save nz 12
    28 July 2016 at 7:27 pm

    If the Greens in NZ had someone who could articulate issues like Jill Stein and get past all the crap to the big stuff – then they would be polling much higher.

    I personally can’t imagine Jill Stein wasting time in an interview going on about insulation as being one of their major election strategies. Or mould in rental houses. Don’t get me wrong insulation etc is helpful, but when you look at Jill and look at Metiria the NZ Greens are just not far reaching enough in my view to capture voters passions and get them out there voting.

    I personally don’t wake up and worry about insulation – I lived in uninsulated houses all my life until recently and don’t feel that hard done by. Likewise NZ has a lot of single glazing with condensation forming in winter and if not cleaned creates mould. I’ve been emailed about hearing aids from the Greens (or maybe Labour) and I just feel WTF?

    People can’t access social welfare, the Natz are selling off our country as we speak, the Natz are giving our aid for cyclones to Scenic hotel for convention centers, removing democracy at a rapid pace, filling the country up with new voters, the country is a pollution mess, water is now wadeable, world war terrorism is upon us, climate change is already here, but all we hear about from Green’s is their favourite topics insulation, crashing property, and mould.

    I’m just trying to get the Greens to give up pet hates and start going for the big issues out there so they get in power. Once in power, they can clean up the mould and insulate everything they see.

    NZ Greens have great policies in general – they just waste time on issues that most Kiwis don’t even have in their top 10 worries in life and they need to try to stick to more major issues associated with the Green movement not settle for something they think is the only thing they can influence, because they don’t seem to believe they will get in power.

    And focusing on niche issues they never will get in power.

    Think bigger NZ Greens and more importantly talk about bigger issues!

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      28 July 2016 at 7:32 pm

      Greens have picked up Labour’s BS small target campaign strategy.

      Watch out for the email about saving some weird native species of spider.

      • weka 12.1.1
        28 July 2016 at 8:00 pm

        So strange for an environment party to work on species preservation especially when many of their core voters value that.

    • weka 12.2
      28 July 2016 at 7:59 pm

      People can’t access social welfare, the Natz are selling off our country as we speak, the Natz are giving our aid for cyclones to Scenic hotel for convention centers, removing democracy at a rapid pace, filling the country up with new voters, the country is a pollution mess, water is now wadeable, world war terrorism is upon us, climate change is already here, but all we hear about from Green’s is their favourite topics insulation, crashing property, and mould.

      That’s not true though, is it. I’ve asked before where you get your information from about the Greens, I’m asking again.

      Their front page currently highlights the Swimmable Rivers campaign, The Cross-Party Homelessness Inquiry, and a new policy I hadn’t seen before on a Minister for Manufacturing.

      The last one is interesting, because how boring right? But here’s how GP policy works. Climate Change is built into all policy across the board. They don’t silo it in their CC policy. They take all their policy and make sure that it fits with their objectives on CC.

      Likewise, the manufacturing thing will be looking at jobs and raising wages. You have to look at the policies interrelatedly.

      • save nz 12.2.1
        28 July 2016 at 10:27 pm

        I get my info from the Greens from emails I keep getting sent from them. Last year it was relentlessly about rental housing and warm dry houses. Go back yourself and check Weka! Labour joined in too.

        And today and yesterday the Standard is filled up with Metiria going on about crashing houses prices, in your own posts.

        I’m just saying, that there are bigger issues out there for Green voters.

        If you’re homeless and on the street, do you really wake up and hope for 40% drop in property prices so your street corner can be gentrified with more homeless people OR do you wake up and hope for social housing and you to be given a state house?

        Wouldn’t the government selling off 1000’s of state houses be more of a political concern?

        Wouldn’t the government making people pay $2000 for a hotel room be a concern?

        If you are on a benefit and you wake up about to be evicted with your kids as WINZ stopped your benefit, is accusing you of being in a relationship and you may go to jail with a kangaroo conviction. Do you think, if only my house was warmer and dryer?

        I’m just saying there Weka…. if you want a change of government the Green messaging is off, for a broad visionary message and social justice… There are way worse things happening in NZ than needing a ministry of mould and nobody can afford the power to run the heat pumps…

        My last message from the Greens was about a minister of manufacturing. Just what I was hoping for as a voter, another ministers in government!

        Greens are better than these messages, Weka.

        They need to take some lessons from Jill Stein.

        • weka 12.2.1.1
          28 July 2016 at 10:36 pm

          I think you are pretty ignorant about the GP actually do. For instance, they’ve been working on the homeless issues on a number of fronts. Go look it up.

          I don’t know if you get the supporters email or the members ones, but the last few I had were about the clean rivers campaign.

          TBH, I don’t really understand what your beef is with the Greens, mostly because the the things you say are so inaccurate.

          “My last message from the Greens was about a minister of manufacturing. Just what I was hoping for as a voter, another ministers in government!”

          Yeah and you didn’t bother reading what that actually meant did you. You seem content to remain ignorant and then complain from that ignorance.

          I suspect that if you look at what Stein was doing 15 months out from an election it would include a lot of her putting her head down and doing the hard yards. That’s what the Greens are doing. They’re not above criticism by any means, but your view of them is so off that it’s hard to take seriously.

          Try the GP website, twitter, FB, and RNZ if you want to know what they are doing. Parliament is good too.

          • Colonial Viper 12.2.1.1.1
            28 July 2016 at 10:43 pm

            I find it difficult to understand your dismissive attitude to save nz’s comments.

            save nz would be a far higher information left wing voter than the average left wing leaning NZer.

            And if he can’t figure out the big picture of what the Greens are up to even though he has been paying attention, it’s clearly not his problem. It’s the Greens.

            • Macro 12.2.1.1.1.1
              28 July 2016 at 11:32 pm

              No! it’s our hopeless media. Time and again the Green put out a press release. You can look them up on Scoop. Hardly ever are they picked up by the media and if they are it’s always at the arse end of an article which primarily features Labour or National or what Winston had to say. For local Green members to get any traction in the local papers with a visiting MP or to raise an issue of concern is practically impossible – even in a run up to an election, whereas the local Nat MP only has to stroke a puppy to get his photo on the front page.
              So its entirely understandable that many have no real idea of what Green Policy is.. However someone like Save NZ who regularly slags off the Greens here with completely incorrect and erroneous opinions of what constitutes Green policy should know better. Their comments on matters Green I usually skim past because they are so woefully ignorant, and unlike Weka I have not the time nor the patience to correct.

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 July 2016 at 11:58 pm

                You realise that the lack of quality and obvious bias of the media is not going to be changing between now and the end of next year, right?

                • Macro …
                  29 July 2016 at 12:18 am

                  I’m very well aware of that CV The local rag allows one article per week during election run up – if they are feeling generous – and then only if the Nats have the right of reply – as they choose not to – well there goes that article into the bin.

              • weka …
                28 July 2016 at 11:59 pm

                Thanks Macro. Did the media coverage use to be better? Didn’t they go through a period of time where the Greens were the go to opposition?

                btw, I’ve posted a list of examples with corrections below. I’m pretty much done now, and if it happens in my posts again, I’ll start making requests as a moderator for back up or retraction.

                • Macro …
                  29 July 2016 at 1:12 am

                  We are very poorly served by the media here in NZ and it is getting worse.
                  I’m currently in Perth visiting family and have visited regularly for the past 6 years. The ABC is lightyears better than what is now served up as public media in NZ. The indigenous channel, for instance, even features Maori TV in Te Reo! Having said that – public media is under threat (as in NZ) particularly from the Nat/Liberal Govt with constant funding cuts and restraints. The Murdoch media on the other hand is constantly promoting the neo-liberal agenda – and were primarily responsible for the fall of julia Gillard and the promotion of Tony Abbott.

            • weka 12.2.1.1.1.2
              28 July 2016 at 11:55 pm

              I don’t think they have been paying attention. They say they are getting their information primarily from the emails (not sure member or supporter). I’m guessing they are scanning them and not reading them properly or following links. I think that’s a poor source of information myself, and I’ve suggested better ways. They also don’t seem to be aware of what the GP are actually doing eg save nz says that they are focussed on house prices issues (and insulation) and not other housing issues. That is just plainly factually incorrect. See below, but I don’t expect save nz to follow those links and inform themselves. Can’t blame the Greens for that. It’s fine if they’re frustrated with the Greens, but if people want to repeatedly criticise on a political blog they need to be informed.

              Anyone who wants to have an informed political opinion about the Greens needs to at least use their website, and preferably look at actual policy. Sure, there are things to criticise about the Greens communication strategy, but that’s not the same as what save nz is saying.

              I get my info from the Greens from emails I keep getting sent from them. Last year it was relentlessly about rental housing and warm dry houses. Go back yourself and check Weka! Labour joined in too.

              You are objecting to tenancy rights?

              My emails (and I might be on a different list), starting in Jan, go –

              CC
              CC
              CC
              Hungry Kids
              Maui’s Dolphins, oill drilling, CC
              Budget
              Kiwirail considering switching from deisel to electric
              Kiwirail, CC
              TPPA
              CC (Shaw’s first email out as new co-leader)
              CC
              Water, dairying, Landcorp
              Warm homes, rental WOF
              CC
              Swamp Kauri
              Poverty and substandard housing (they did a tour of NZ and asked what the priorities were. Cold, damp, mouldy housing and not enough income were the 2 biggies)
              TPPA
              Forestry
              CC policy announcement
              Russell Norman’s farewell email
              CC, solar, divestment bill
              Solar
              Solar
              TPPA
              State of the Environment report
              People’s Climate March
              Fossil fuel divestment
              Climate march
              CC
              Public questions for PM, water, insulation
              CC/Paris
              People power re CC and child poverty

              And today and yesterday the Standard is filled up with Metiria going on about crashing houses prices, in your own posts.

              Turei isn’t talking about crashing house prices. I suspect you haven’t read the actual topic.

              The Standard authors tend to write in response to current affairs. They also have limited time. The issue was topical for multiple reasons. If you bother listening to what Turei actually says you will see that the defalting the housing market thing is part of a wider approach to solving housing issues across the board.

              I’m just saying, that there are bigger issues out there for Green voters.

              Yes, try the GP website, it’s full of the other things they are doing.

              If you’re homeless and on the street, do you really wake up and hope for 40% drop in property prices so your street corner can be gentrified with more homeless people OR do you wake up and hope for social housing and you to be given a state house?

              https://www.greens.org.nz/news/article/greens-launch-state-house-solution-housing-emergency

              Wouldn’t the government selling off 1000’s of state houses be more of a political concern?

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11673824

              Wouldn’t the government making people pay $2000 for a hotel room be a concern?

              https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/govt-should-wipe-housing-debt-minister-caught-fibbing

              If you are on a benefit and you wake up about to be evicted with your kids as WINZ stopped your benefit, is accusing you of being in a relationship and you may go to jail with a kangaroo conviction. Do you think, if only my house was warmer and dryer?

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/80163373/Auckland-mother-shares-housing-woes-as-Green-Party-pushes-for-more-state-houses

    • ianmac 12.3
      28 July 2016 at 8:41 pm

      Where would there be an opportunity for an in-depth interview on NZ Television/radio for say a Green person like Jill Stein?
      Mike Hoskings? Newshub? Prime? TV1?
      There are often good in-depth interviews on National Radio but…
      The system will deny Andrew a platform except in sound bites.

      • weka 12.3.1
        28 July 2016 at 8:55 pm

        good point.

      • save nz 12.3.2
        28 July 2016 at 10:10 pm

        Waatea 5th Estate.

        And Labour and Greens need to video their messages and interviews themselves and put it online – don’t keep expecting MSM to advertise the Labour and Green policy – they are National cheerleaders.

  13. save nz 13
    28 July 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Remember history – the first human in outer space for example Yuri Gagarin born 1934 walked to school in bare feet in the snow, he lived in a mud hut under Nazi occupation and his siblings were deported to Poland for slave labour.

    Get a historical perspective labour and Greens! People are still alive from this generation.

    Stop sweating the small stuff!

  14. DS 14
    28 July 2016 at 9:00 pm

    The Republicans typically fund Green Party candidates for a reason.

    In this case, voting Green in California, Rhode Island, Vermont, Idaho, Wyoming, or Kansas is fine. Anyone voting Green in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin deserves a Christmas card from the RNC.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      28 July 2016 at 9:03 pm

      ” The Republicans typically fund Green Party candidates for a reason.”

      Evidence please.

  15. Ad 15
    28 July 2016 at 9:17 pm

    She held her own against three different Fox commentators very well.
    Were I eligible for voting in the US I would give her serious consideration.

    I liked he tone and breadth much more than Sanders.

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      28 July 2016 at 9:25 pm

      I hope Stein and the Green Party gets thousands of able Bernie organisers from all 50 states.

  16. Guerilla Surgeon 16
    30 July 2016 at 4:33 pm

    She makes my head explode. She promotes homeopathy, and is very iffy on vaccination.