Jill Stein Presidential Town Hall FULL VIDEO

[Islam Imamate]

It is the point. You're playing guru on the mountain because you know how weak your position is. If other voters are taking their vote seriously enough, you can vote for a shitty candidate to "send a message" without risking a bad outcome.

Why are you assuming those who are voting third party aren't taking their vote seriously? Maybe sending that message to the two major parties is something they think is important.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why are you assuming those who are voting third party aren't taking their vote seriously? Maybe sending that message to the two major parties is something they think is important.

By definition, people like Blade are framing their choice as an abdication of responsibility. Enough other people are going to vote for the superior candidate that I can afford to use my vote to send a message.

If you're like Anung--completely indifferent to policy and unconcerned with the well-being of other humans--it would make sense to vote to send a message (because you genuinely don't care about the result). Or if you're like Nader and you actually want the worse candidate to win because you think so many people will suffer that it will cause a backlash, it makes sense to send a message or simply vote for the candidate you disagree with more. But if you actually believe that one candidate is superior but have confidence that other people in your state will ensure that candidate gets more support so you can afford to do something else, that is not a serious position.

 

[Islam Imamate]

By definition, people like Blade are framing their choice as an abdication of responsibility. Enough other people are going to vote for the superior candidate that I can afford to use my vote to send a message.

If you're like Anung--completely indifferent to policy and unconcerned with the well-being of other humans--it would make sense to vote to send a message (because you genuinely don't care about the result). Or if you're like Nader and you actually want the worse candidate to win because you think so many people will suffer that it will cause a backlash, it makes sense to send a message or simply vote for the candidate you disagree with more. But if you actually believe that one candidate is superior but have confidence that other people in your state will ensure that candidate gets more support so you can afford to do something else, that is not a serious position.

First, you're assuming that these voters believe Clinton is the superior candidate but are voting for third parties instead. They could very well believe the third party candidates are the superior candidates.

Second, there's the possibility that they're voting more for the party than the specific candidate. That is, they might be voting for the Green Party because they legitimately want it to become a more relevant party or want the Democrats to recognize the appeal of some of their positions so as to adjust their own platform to incorporate some of those ideas.

 

[Jack V Savage]

First, you're assuming that these voters believe Clinton is the superior candidate but are voting for third parties instead. They could very well believe the third party candidates are the superior candidates.

What assuming? We're talking about people who say that they are voting third party because they live in a "safe" state. That is, they accept the reality that it's a two-person race, and they believe Clinton to be superior to Trump, but they believe that other people will take the vote more seriously and save them.

Second, there's the possibility that they're voting more for the party than the specific candidate. That is, they might be voting for the Green Party because they legitimately want it to become a more relevant party or want the Democrats to recognize the appeal of some of their positions so as to adjust their own platform to incorporate some of those ideas.

This is off the subject. I know that people are voting to "send a message" rather than to elect the superior candidate.

And anyway, the Green Party trying to play spoiler in presidential elections makes them an adjunct of the conservative movement (jointly fighting, for different reasons, to increase the political power of the right), it doesn't make them become more relevant or cause Democrats to change anything. Sanders showed how one can effectively cause a party to change its positions. His method worked. Most of his supporters are satisfied, but the ones who aren't are not satisfiable. Note that one of the main attacks on Clinton from ignorant lefties has been that she wasn't always 100% on board with the agenda of the current loony left. That is a clear signal that they're not trying to change anything. Change is unacceptable, even if it's in the direction that these clowns like. They don't want to convince anyone they're right and their agenda is good for America, they want someone to have always stridently and ineffectively pushed for what they currently want.

 

[electricfuneral]

I see the young turks and many lefties are going hard against clinton lately. Jordan Charitan has been destroying her and Donna Brazille on twitter. Jimmy Dore and his group have been destroying her too. I see Jimmy Dore recently went after John Oliver and Bill Maher too.

I think the progessives are concerned that there is no way to vote in this election against the concepts they are worried about;

• Taking Money out of Politics
• Goldman Sachs/Croneyism
• Big Pharma
• Military Industrial Complex/endless war
• Socialist type programs.
• Single Payer health care
• TPP

I see many people saying this will usher in some sort of political realignment. I guess it all depends on who wins and what they decide to do.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I see the young turks and many lefties are going hard against clinton lately. Jordan Charitan has been destroying her and Donna Brazille on twitter. Jimmy Dore and his group have been destroying her too. I see Jimmy Dore recently went after John Oliver and Bill Maher too.

I think the progessives are concerned that there is no way to vote in this election against the concepts they are worried about;

• Taking Money out of Politics
• Goldman Sachs/Croneyism
• Big Pharma
• Military Industrial Complex/endless war
• Socialist type programs.
• Single Payer health care
• TPP

Clinton is on their side on most of those issues (not single payer that I'm aware of, and some are too vague for one to have a side on).

 

[electricfuneral]

Clinton is on their side on most of those issues (not single payer that I'm aware of, and some are too vague for one to have a side on).

I think TPP still gets pushed through regardless of who is elected and is either nominee interested in real campaign finance reform?

I personally am not on board with the far left agenda but I understand the want for having more parties.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think TPP still gets pushed through regardless of who is elected and is either nominee interested in real campaign finance reform?

I personally am not on board with the far left agenda but I understand the want for having more parties.

I don't know if the TPP will pass or not. Clinton is committed to blocking it if she gets a chance. Even if you buy the claim that Clinton actually thinks it's best for the country deep down in her heart, a public commitment is much stronger than an unstated conviction. Politics simply doesn't work the way lunatics in the WR think (for example, presidents--shitty ones and good ones alike--almost always make a strong effort to fulfill their promises, and they're mostly successful).

And Clinton is similarly committed to repealing CU and other forms of campaign finance reform.

And I'm with you in that I personally think that both her opposition to the TPP and her support of repealing CU are stupid. But the die is cast on both of those issues. The left won (though I wouldn't consider Anung or Ultra to actually be on the left); they just don't know how to accept victory.

 

[electricfuneral]

I don't know if the TPP will pass or not. Clinton is committed to blocking it if she gets a chance. Even if you buy the claim that Clinton actually thinks it's best for the country deep down in her heart, a public commitment is much stronger than an unstated conviction. Politics simply doesn't work the way lunatics in the WR think (for example, presidents--shitty ones and good ones alike--almost always make a strong effort to fulfill their promises, and they're mostly successful).

And Clinton is similarly committed to repealing CU and other forms of campaign finance reform.

And I'm with you in that I personally think that both her opposition to the TPP and her support of repealing CU are stupid. But the die is cast on both of those issues. The left won (though I wouldn't consider Anung or Ultra to actually be on the left); they just don't know how to accept victory.

I think despite Clinton's campaign problems, the GOP will increase obstructionism and stop citizens united being over turned. I just don't fully understand how such a politically popular bill like TPP got torched in the court of public opinion. Obama seems to be the only person defending it.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Jeez, you're dishonest. Her top economic adviser is Heather Boushey, which right there invalidates your whole stupid argument. The claim that she herself "acts to benefit Wall Street over Main Street" is absurd. How? Clinton "considered privatizing SS"? WTF? You're saying that Hillary's entire life, voting record, platform, and advisory team should be ignored because you read that Bill Clinton once listened to ideas about privatizing Social Security a couple of decades ago? Really?

I'm not going to go line by line on your constant stream of dishonest propaganda, but what you lead with says a lot. You're just showing that you'll say anything to back up your "team." And note that in the last election you actually did support a candidate who actually did support all the policies that you dishonestly claim that Clinton does! You've never repudiated that support so you're showing that you don't even care about that stuff, you lying sleaze.

Your whole object is to avoid a serious discussion of issues. If you think climate change is a hoax or it's not worth the cost to try to reduce emissions, make the argument for it. If you support rolling back financial reform or oppose new regulations, make the argument for it. If you think that one of the biggest problems with America is that rich people aren't rich enough and poor people have it to easy, make the argument. But you don't do that because you have unpopular, indefensible views on those subjects so you'd rather just divert to claiming that Clinton is actually a Ron Paul clone.

Hillary Clinton Says Bill Clinton Would Be in Charge of the Economy After Election

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4336918/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-economy/?source=dam?client=safari

Bill Clinton supports lower corporate tax rate, says reasoning for TPP clear

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/21/bill...te-tax-rate-says-reasoning-for-tpp-clear.html

So rather than own up to mischaracterize get my position, you're just going to repeat them? Hoping somebody will believe read them and believe them?

Hillary Clinton Privately Pitched Corporations on “Really Low” Tax Rate for Money Stashed Abroad
Jon Schwarz

October 10 2016, 3:17 p.m.
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/10...really-low-tax-rate-for-money-stashed-abroad/
Yiu still haven't acknowledges that Inton is a war hawk?

And it's ironic that all you do is post DNC talking points, lies, and insults. You're not talking about the issues. You can't even acknowledge simple truths.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think despite Clinton's campaign problems, the GOP will increase obstructionism and stop citizens united being over turned. I just don't fully understand how such a politically popular bill like TPP got torched in the court of public opinion. Obama seems to be the only person defending it.

Last I saw, TPP still had plurality support from the public. But what we saw was propaganda going out against it before we even had a chance to learn about it so opponents were far more passionate about it. The deal itself wouldn't seem to be something that inspires passion from either supporters or opponents, but it became a kind of symbol.

If the GOP loses the Senate, which they appear likely to, they won't be able to stop Clinton from appointing justices who disagree with the CU decision. Again, seems like a silly and wrong hill to die on (campaign finance just isn't a significant issue), but whatever. Environmental and economic policy are what really matter to me.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

And I think Jill Stein is the superior candidate.


And lol @ pretending Clinton will block TPP. The delusion and dishonesty is over the top.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hillary Clinton Says Bill Clinton Would Be in Charge of the Economy After Election

You didn't actually read your own link, did you?

Here is a story about an actual position of influence in economic policy:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cl...r-transition-teams-chief-economist-2016-08-16

So rather than own up to mischaracterize get my position, you're just going to repeat them? Hoping somebody will believe read them and believe them?

What position of yours are you claiming I mischaracterized now, liar?

Yiu still haven't acknowledges that Inton is a war hawk?

Clinton is not a "war hawk." Trying to make that label stick on someone is not a way to conduct a serious foreign-policy discussion.

And it's ironic that all you do is post DNC talking points, lies, and insults. You're not talking about the issues. You can't even acknowledge simple truths.

You will not be able to provide a single example of me posting a lie or DNC talking point. I am happy to insult you, as I think you're a pretty lousy human being. And I talk about the issues all the time. It's hard to do it with you because your approach is to make up positions and attribute them to people do you don't like so a discussion with you inevitably circles to having to correct the record.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Last I saw, TPP still had plurality support from the public. But what we saw was propaganda going out against it before we even had a chance to learn about it so opponents were far more passionate about it. The deal itself wouldn't seem to be something that inspires passion from either supporters or opponents, but it became a kind of symbol.

If the GOP loses the Senate, which they appear likely to, they won't be able to stop Clinton from appointing justices who disagree with the CU decision. Again, seems like a silly and wrong hill to die on (campaign finance just isn't a significant issue), but whatever. Environmental and economic policy are what really matter to me.

if it was propaganda then why is "Clinton committed to blocking it if she gets a chance"?

 

[Jack V Savage]

if it was propaganda then why is "Clinton committed to blocking it if she gets a chance"?

I don't get the question. Are you under the impression that Clinton is infallible? She has made that commitment, and I think she was wrong to do so. Maybe she got conned by the same people who conned you. Maybe it's a political move, which wouldn't reduce the strength of the commitment.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

You didn't actually read your own link, did you?

Here is a story about an actual position of influence in economic policy:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cl...r-transition-teams-chief-economist-2016-08-16



What position of yours are you claiming I mischaracterized now, liar?

My position on climate change and taxes.

Clinton is not a "war hawk." Trying to make that label stick on someone is not a way to conduct a serious foreign-policy discussion.

Pathetic.

You will not be able to provide a single example of me posting a lie or DNC talking point. I am happy to insult you, as I think you're a pretty lousy human being. And I talk about the issues all the time. It's hard to do it with you because your approach is to make up positions and attribute them to people do you don't like so a discussion with you inevitably circles to having to correct the record.

Oh, here we go Jack is rustled. He just lies and calls people names.

Anyhow those talking points:
1. Hillary is antiestablishment
2. Hillary is not a war hawk
3. TPP is victim of left wing propaganda and/or Hillary is against TPP.
4. Third Party = Bad

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I don't get the question. Are you under the impression that Clinton is infallible? She has made that commitment, and I think she was wrong to do so. Maybe she got conned by the same people who conned you.

LMAO!

So we'll just throw this in the poor judgement pile?

 

[Jack V Savage]

My position on climate change and taxes.

Quote me saying something knowingly untrue about your position on climate change and taxes or admit that you're lying.

Oh, here we go Jack is rustled. He just lies and calls people names.

Anyhow those talking points:
1. Hillary is antiestablishment
2. Hillary is not a war hawk
3. TPP is victim of left wing propaganda and/or Hillary is against TPP.
4. Third Party = Bad

None of those are DNC talking points, moron. You're just revealing that you'll call anything you don't agree with a "DNC talking point." By that definition, sure. I say things you don't agree with all the time (to my credit).

LMAO!

So we'll just throw this in the poor judgement pile?

Sure. And you throw it in the good judgment pile?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

And of course you got the question, you're just too slimy to own up to your own bullshit.

The TPP is either a victim of left wing propaganda


Or


It doesn't meet her standards and she'll block it if she can.


She claims to have reviewed it and changed her mind, after advocating for it 33 times, when the finished product didn't meet her standards. Her flip has nothing to do with external propaganda.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Quote me saying something knowingly untrue about your position on climate change and taxes or admit that you're lying.



None of those are DNC talking points, moron. You're just revealing that you'll call anything you don't agree with a "DNC talking point." By that definition, sure. I say things you don't agree with all the time (to my credit).



Sure. And you throw it in the good judgment pile?

They're talking points when they fly in the face of the facts just to make people feel better about their candidate.


No, I throw it on the bullshit like, because I know she's lying on TPP.

You are saying she got conned. Again! So you're saying she has exhibited poor judgment .