Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   Jill Stein says she's open for a bid to run for President again in 2020. Apparently dissatisfaction with Trump could bring her double the votes she got in 2016 ... about 14   ( washingtonexaminer.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, waking moment, world, flames, fingers, debt, tubes, climate, generation  
•       •       •

275 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2017 at 8:54 AM (43 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-03-19 07:25:21 AM  
Maybe talk it over with friends at the dinner table.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-03-19 07:29:17 AM  
Go away.
 
2017-03-19 07:32:25 AM  
Howaboutnobear.jpg
 
2017-03-19 08:36:12 AM  
This knucklehead again? The one who cashed Kremin/RT paychecks and insisted over and over again to liberals that Clinton was "much scarier" than Trump?

The Greens ain't nothing but right-wing divide-and-conquer tools. Have been since back in 2000, when Nader handed Dubya Florida by about 20 times the vote total that the Supreme Court did.
 
2017-03-19 08:56:47 AM  
Whatever her Buddy Vlad wants to help keep the American left divided in winner take all elections
 
2017-03-19 09:00:41 AM  
I would prefer that NONE of the "major" candidates that ran in the general election run again for 2020.

/this means you, Hillary
//and you too, Trump
 
2017-03-19 09:01:20 AM  
Didn't know Jill Stein was such a threatening power broker to the Dems until just now.
 
2017-03-19 09:02:10 AM  
No1curr
 
2017-03-19 09:02:33 AM  
I wonder how much she got paid to run as a spoiler.
 
2017-03-19 09:02:50 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Didn't know Jill Stein was such a threatening power broker to the Dems until just now.


The Greens are always a threat to shoot liberals in the back again.
 
2017-03-19 09:06:23 AM  
To actually even begin to stand a chance of getting enough support to get in the debates, let alone win the farking Presidency, the Greens (and every other third party out there) need to do a HELL of a lot more groundwork at the local and state levels.

As it is, they have no real base of support, so the best they can do is siphon off votes from one of the two big parties.
 
2017-03-19 09:06:32 AM  
maybe we can run a crossover promotion with publishers clearing house and they pick 10 names from their database and we force them at gunpoint to run for office.

anything has to be better than the current system.

/literally run
//like a marathon
//winner becomes president
 
2017-03-19 09:07:23 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Didn't know Jill Stein was such a threatening power broker to the Dems until just now.



Or that she was a Russian agent.

But it's Fark.  Of course she is.  Otherwise she'd be a Democrat.
 
2017-03-19 09:08:23 AM  
She only wants to run if she can't win. She's a professional candidate.
 
2017-03-19 09:12:04 AM  

LordJiro: To actually even begin to stand a chance of getting enough support to get in the debates, let alone win the farking Presidency, the Greens (and every other third party out there) need to do a HELL of a lot more groundwork at the local and state levels.

As it is, they have no real base of support, so the best they can do is siphon off votes from one of the two big parties.


But that's HARD! No one really cares about state legislatures or Congressional positions. Running for President and assuming the glorious revolution will just happen is way more fun.
 
2017-03-19 09:14:31 AM  

pkjun: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Didn't know Jill Stein was such a threatening power broker to the Dems until just now.

The Greens are always a threat to shoot liberals in the back again.


They've been around obtaining a few votes on the margins for quite a while. Only recently have they become a cult of dark sorcery posing a serious threat to the universe.

Greens get derided for being too embarrassingly small to field a candidate for President, when they're not being blamed for tanking the efforts of the Dems. I get the impression that if they took Dem advice to run in smaller races before running for President, they'd just get biatched at in all of those races too. Dems have issues with the conduct of their own campaigns that are orders of magnitude larger than the influence of the Greens. Scapegoats are easy and satisfying, but almost never of practical value.
 
2017-03-19 09:20:03 AM  

LarryDan43: She only wants to run if she can't win. She's a professional candidate.



There's no way Stein believes she'll EVER win the Presidency.  They're looking to get legitimate 3rd party status (federal funding, debate invites, etc).  To bust the two-party mess.

If she happens to peel away Democratic voters, well hey that's the Democrats' problem.

In 99% of other democracies, it's called "politics".  To the current Democratic party floggers it's bordering on treason.  Babies...
 
2017-03-19 09:20:30 AM  
I have no problem with the Green Party. This candidate specifically, however, is a nut job anti-vaxxer who is allergic to WiFi.
 
2017-03-19 09:24:56 AM  
Please go away. We didn't take you seriously in 2016 and we definitely won't in 2020. Some might even argue that you helped Trump win the election, so I'm sure that won't go over well with a decent percentage of Americans.
K, thanks, bye
 
2017-03-19 09:24:57 AM  

Garza and the Supermutants: Maybe talk it over with friends at the dinner table.

[img.fark.net image 850x566]


Jill Stein is an idiot, an embarrassment and damaging to anything genuinely Progressive.
 
2017-03-19 09:25:46 AM  

Dictatorial_Flair: I wonder how much she got paid to run as a spoiler.


I wonder how much Mickey Mouse got paid for being a spoiler.  He's been the most popular write-in candidate since the 30's.
 
2017-03-19 09:26:30 AM  

jethroe: LarryDan43: She only wants to run if she can't win. She's a professional candidate.


There's no way Stein believes she'll EVER win the Presidency.  They're looking to get legitimate 3rd party status (federal funding, debate invites, etc).  To bust the two-party mess.

If she happens to peel away Democratic voters, well hey that's the Democrats' problem.

In 99% of other democracies, it's called "politics".  To the current Democratic party floggers it's bordering on treason.  Babies...


come on, man, what is it with you? time and time and time again you misread what russia is up to. is it that you are you still an rt fanboi?
 
2017-03-19 09:28:16 AM  

jethroe: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Didn't know Jill Stein was such a threatening power broker to the Dems until just now.


Or that she was a Russian agent.

But it's Fark.  Of course she is.  Otherwise she'd be a Democrat.


Not a Russian agent. Just a useful divide-and-conquer tool, which is why Vlad likes her enough to make her a guest of honour at his formal dinners.
 
2017-03-19 09:29:03 AM  
Oh, so if people are still willing to give her completely undeserved attention, she's up for it? Shocking.
 
2017-03-19 09:29:04 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: But that's HARD! No one really cares about state legislatures or Congressional positions. Running for President and assuming the glorious revolution will just happen is way more fun.


People always toss this accusation out there, but the reality is that the Greens and the Libertarians both run hundreds of candidates for state legislatures, Congress, and other state/local offices. It's an ignorant complaint.
 
2017-03-19 09:29:26 AM  

jethroe: LarryDan43: She only wants to run if she can't win. She's a professional candidate.


There's no way Stein believes she'll EVER win the Presidency.  They're looking to get legitimate 3rd party status (federal funding, debate invites, etc).  To bust the two-party mess.

If she happens to peel away Democratic voters, well hey that's the Democrats' problem.

In 99% of other democracies, it's called "politics".  To the current Democratic party floggers it's bordering on treason.  Babies...


Most other democracies aren't built, from the ground up, around a two party system, that makes it nigh-impossible for a third party to do anything but fark with one of the major parties.
 
2017-03-19 09:30:52 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: They've been around obtaining a few votes on the margins for quite a while. Only recently have they become a cult of dark sorcery posing a serious threat to the universe.


Neither of Stein's campaigns reached the mark set by Nader in 2000. Didn't even really come close. 

Johnson can at least say he set a new record for the Libertarians, by a lot.
 
2017-03-19 09:31:20 AM  
Seems like this is the thing with Green Party candidates. They just keep doing the same thing over and over again. They did it with Nader for a bunch of years, now they're going to do it with Stein. Sorry Green Party... my days of not taking  you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
 
2017-03-19 09:31:20 AM  

LordJiro: To actually even begin to stand a chance of getting enough support to get in the debates, let alone win the farking Presidency, the Greens (and every other third party out there) need to do a HELL of a lot more groundwork at the local and state levels.

As it is, they have no real base of support, so the best they can do is siphon off votes from one of the two big parties.


I've been told that expecting the third party wannabes to actually do something  productive beyond whining about being president means that you (and I) are part of the oppressive political paradigm. It's bafflingly really. Do we need more representative parties of the public? Absolutely. Will that ever be achieved by people like Jill Stein or RON PAUL running for president over and over again? fark no. These people don't even run a farking county but expect to be given charge of the nation. Then again, the Orange farktard failed his way into the white house. Maybe one of these idiots will get lucky too.
 
2017-03-19 09:32:51 AM  

JohnnyC: Seems like this is the thing with Green Party candidates. They just keep doing the same thing over and over again. They did it with Nader for a bunch of years, now they're going to do it with Stein. Sorry Green Party... my days of not taking  you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.


They only did Nader twice, in 1996 and 2000. His 2004 and 2008 campaigns, he did on his own while they ran somebody else (Cobb and McKinney).
 
2017-03-19 09:33:07 AM  

Churchill2004: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: But that's HARD! No one really cares about state legislatures or Congressional positions. Running for President and assuming the glorious revolution will just happen is way more fun.

People always toss this accusation out there, but the reality is that the Greens and the Libertarians both run hundreds of candidates for state legislatures, Congress, and other state/local offices. It's an ignorant complaint.


There are over 500,000 elected offices in the United States. To run several hundred candidates per year -- and mostly in the big-ticket races where you need a million bucks just to be noticed -- is nothing but a vanity project.
 
2017-03-19 09:34:28 AM  

Horizon: Do we need more representative parties of the public? Absolutely. Will that ever be achieved by people like Jill Stein or RON PAUL running for president over and over again? fark no.


You mean the RON PAUL that got elected to Congress and ran twice for President as a Republican? 

It's not like the major parties have any shortage of loonies, or any better at not running them for President.
 
2017-03-19 09:36:39 AM  
Here's your 2020 Presidential Election

img.fark.netView Full Size
          vs         
img.fark.netView Full Size


I'm okay with either one.  America, we're going to be great, again.


" . . .and idea whose time has come, a woman will serve in the highest level of the executive. Simple as that."


                  
Final speech from the movie The Contender
Youtube HlioUeIUuts
 
2017-03-19 09:36:39 AM  

pkjun: There are over 500,000 elected offices in the United States


That number is wildly misleading by counting all the nonpartisan local races. In reality around a quarter to a third of partisan races feature at least one third-party candidate. 

pkjun: To run several hundred candidates per year -- and mostly in the big-ticket races where you need a million bucks just to be noticed -- is nothing but a vanity project.


As opposed to the noble motives and selfless work ethic that characterize the major parties?
 
2017-03-19 09:37:36 AM  

Churchill2004: LouDobbsAwaaaay: They've been around obtaining a few votes on the margins for quite a while. Only recently have they become a cult of dark sorcery posing a serious threat to the universe.

Neither of Stein's campaigns reached the mark set by Nader in 2000. Didn't even really come close.
Johnson can at least say he set a new record for the Libertarians, by a lot.


Maybe by 2020 someone can tell him what A Leppo is. Or tell him who other world leaders are.

/Better than Trump in that regard, I guess.
 
2017-03-19 09:40:00 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Didn't know Jill Stein was such a threatening power broker to the Dems until just now.


The Democratic mindset : Stein's a joke and only got a handful of votes, but she's totally responsible for Hillary's loss.
 
2017-03-19 09:40:21 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Here's your 2020 Presidential Election

[img.fark.net image 421x458]          vs         [img.fark.net image 425x449]

I'm okay with either one.  America, we're going to be great, again.


" . . .and idea whose time has come, a woman will serve in the highest level of the executive. Simple as that."

                  [YouTube video]


Yeah, not the first one, please. We don't need an Assad apologist in the White House. I'm for Duckworth/Harris 2020.
 
2017-03-19 09:40:30 AM  
you were a paultard, weren't you, churchill2004?
 
2017-03-19 09:41:33 AM  

JerseyTim: I have no problem with the Green Party. This candidate specifically, however, is a nut job anti-vaxxer who is allergic to WiFi.


Those concerns aren't uncommon in the Green Party.  A lot of people seem to think the Greens are the Dems but more hard core.  They aren't.  They actually have different policy stances that are sometimes in direct opposition to the Dems.

Democrats are never going to adopt eco-socialism nor the Green's anti-technology stances, so trying to fold them into the Democrat's coalition is probably never going to work.
 
2017-03-19 09:43:00 AM  

iron de havilland: Maybe by 2020 someone can tell him what A Leppo is. Or tell him who other world leaders are.

/Better than Trump in that regard, I guess.


If the media wants to play one clip out of context and build a totally-fake narrative around it, it's very easy. Just ask Howard Dean. Taking a couple of seconds to recognize "Aleppo" without any context at all relating to Syria or foreign policy, and ditto on having a brain-fart on recalling Vicente Fox's name while making clear he had in mind "the former President of Mexico." Anybody running as the Republican or Democratic nominee would have had that instantly papered over and ignored. It probably wouldn't have even been noticed.  

But, hey, who cares about endless wars and civil liberties or criminal justice reform or any of that boring stuff, when you can mock a guy ad nauseum by replaying the clip of the time it took him a couple of seconds to answer a question (after he which he still provided a more coherent and sensible answer about Syria than was on offer from either Trump or Clinton).
 
2017-03-19 09:43:05 AM  

Churchill2004: Horizon: Do we need more representative parties of the public? Absolutely. Will that ever be achieved by people like Jill Stein or RON PAUL running for president over and over again? fark no.

You mean the RON PAUL that got elected to Congress and ran twice for President as a Republican? 

It's not like the major parties have any shortage of loonies, or any better at not running them for President.


RON PAUL is a pretty good example of how little impact charismatic vanity runs have, though. The GOP didn't move one inch towards greater libertarianism as a result of Paul's insurgent "success," his kid didn't even get off the ground promising to carry on his dad's legacy, and the next (successful!) GOP insurgent campaign cheerfully disregarded libertarianism, promising over and over again to use the might of the Federal Government to crush the enemies of the Volk no matter the cost to the taxpayer.

All that Paulist enthusiasm didn't do a thing to further Paul's political goals, and (by relying on charisma and sloganeering that backgrounded Paul's actual policy goals) in fact may have helped pave the way for the Trumpist movement that made Paulism obsolete.
 
2017-03-19 09:45:28 AM  

21-7-b: jethroe: LarryDan43: She only wants to run if she can't win. She's a professional candidate.


There's no way Stein believes she'll EVER win the Presidency.  They're looking to get legitimate 3rd party status (federal funding, debate invites, etc).  To bust the two-party mess.

If she happens to peel away Democratic voters, well hey that's the Democrats' problem.

In 99% of other democracies, it's called "politics".  To the current Democratic party floggers it's bordering on treason.  Babies...

come on, man, what is it with you? time and time and time again you misread what russia is up to. is it that you are you still an rt fanboi?



Hardly.  You see Russia as a dangerous enemy bent on world domination, I see a failing former empire that hasn't posed a legitimate threat to America since maybe the 50's.   I still remember the ridiculous USSR "missile gap" we got sold in the 80's.  The only solution was spend spend spend on more missiles and more nukes, and it ended up being a complete fabrication.    Worked out spectacularly well for the military contractors.  The latest Russia scare is just an extension.


LordJiro: jethroe: LarryDan43: She only wants to run if she can't win. She's a professional candidate.


There's no way Stein believes she'll EVER win the Presidency.  They're looking to get legitimate 3rd party status (federal funding, debate invites, etc).  To bust the two-party mess.

If she happens to peel away Democratic voters, well hey that's the Democrats' problem.

In 99% of other democracies, it's called "politics".  To the current Democratic party floggers it's bordering on treason.  Babies...

Most other democracies aren't built, from the ground up, around a two party system, that makes it nigh-impossible for a third party to do anything but fark with one of the major parties.



Agreed.  And the 2 parties do everything they can to maintain the duopoly.
 
2017-03-19 09:48:03 AM  

JerseyTim: I have no problem with the Green Party. This candidate specifically, however, is a nut job anti-vaxxer who is allergic to WiFi.


She's not an anti-vaxxer. She is concerned about the safety of drugs when the government body that's supposed to regulate them is being run by lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry.
 
2017-03-19 09:48:37 AM  

Churchill2004: pkjun: There are over 500,000 elected offices in the United States

That number is wildly misleading by counting all the nonpartisan local races. In reality around a quarter to a third of partisan races feature at least one third-party candidate. 

pkjun: To run several hundred candidates per year -- and mostly in the big-ticket races where you need a million bucks just to be noticed -- is nothing but a vanity project.

As opposed to the noble motives and selfless work ethic that characterize the major parties?


1. The Greens and Libertarians always include nonpartisan local candidate races in their self-reported figures. Always. Look at their candidate lists some time -- chock full of school board seats and assistant parks and recreation commissioners. If you want to credit the third parties for their candidates in nonpartisan races, then you need to be willing to use nonpartisan races as a measuring stick.

2. Didn't say it was noble or selfless of well-funded candidates to run. But it's not pointless vanity; they at least have a chance of winning. Some guy who fancies giving some speeches to mild applause at high schools and county fairs, runs with no organisation and no funding, and then pulls 0.8% of the vote (mostly from "both sides are bad" protesters who couldn't pick him out of a lineup) is not advancing any sort of agenda. He's just enjoying a summer at Fantasy Politician Camp.
 
2017-03-19 09:48:39 AM  

pkjun: RON PAUL is a pretty good example of how little impact charismatic vanity runs have, though


You could give that spiel about any candidate who ran and lost. Paul hardly took over the GOP (and it was always hopeless to try), but such as he had any influence on the party's future, it was probably more than most of the other also-rans from those primaries (Huckabee? Santorum?). In any event, those weren't third-party campaigns. 

For what it's worth, I think his influence on the GOP was mostly negative, not because of his libertarianism, but because the only parts of his message any Republicans cared about were when he junked libertarianism--- on abortion, on gay marriage, on immigration, etc.; plus the Alex Jones style conspiracy-mongering and racial dog-whistling that Trump later latched onto. These are negative influences from my perspective, but a decent chunk of Trump's base in the primaries came out of people who'd backed Paul.
 
2017-03-19 09:48:49 AM  

jethroe: Hardly.  You see Russia as a dangerous enemy bent on world domination, I see a failing former empire that hasn't posed a legitimate threat to America since maybe the 50's.   I still remember the ridiculous USSR "missile gap" we got sold in the 80's.  The only solution was spend spend spend on more missiles and more nukes, and it ended up being a complete fabrication.    Worked out spectacularly well for the military contractors.  The latest Russia scare is just an extension.


we can return to what, if any, threat russia is today, but you say, 'hardly' to whether you are still an rt fanboi. however, in the past couple of years we have had a conversation where you have been recommending russiatoday, haven't we?
 
2017-03-19 09:49:18 AM  

Xythero: JerseyTim: I have no problem with the Green Party. This candidate specifically, however, is a nut job anti-vaxxer who is allergic to WiFi.

Those concerns aren't uncommon in the Green Party.  A lot of people seem to think the Greens are the Dems but more hard core.  They aren't.  They actually have different policy stances that are sometimes in direct opposition to the Dems.

Democrats are never going to adopt eco-socialism nor the Green's anti-technology stances, so trying to fold them into the Democrat's coalition is probably never going to work.


Of course, but I'm ok with the Green Party acting like a pole, pulling the Dems left on certain issues. It's a necessary check for a mainstream party.
 
2017-03-19 09:51:14 AM  

Churchill2004: You could give that spiel about any candidate who ran and lost. Paul hardly took over the GOP (and it was always hopeless to try), but such as he had any influence on the party's future, it was probably more than most of the other also-rans from those primaries (Huckabee? Santorum?). In any event, those weren't third-party campaigns. 

For what it's worth, I think his influence on the GOP was mostly negative, not because of his libertarianism, but because the only parts of his message any Republicans cared about were when he junked libertarianism--- on abortion, on gay marriage, on immigration, etc.; plus the Alex Jones style conspiracy-mongering and racial dog-whistling that Trump later latched onto. These are negative influences from my perspective, but a decent chunk of Trump's base in the primaries came out of people who'd backed Paul.


interesting, but weren't you one of fark's resident paultards back in the day?
 
2017-03-19 09:52:53 AM  

Churchill2004: If the media wants to play one clip out of context and build a totally-fake narrative around it, it's very easy. Just ask Howard Dean. Taking a couple of seconds to recognize "Aleppo" without any context at all relating to Syria or foreign policy, and ditto on having a brain-fart on recalling Vicente Fox's name while making clear he had in mind "the former President of Mexico." Anybody running as the Republican or Democratic nominee would have had that instantly papered over and ignored. It probably wouldn't have even been noticed.


57 States is a brain fart.

Having no idea of one of the most important topics in international news, to the point that you have to ask the person interviewing you about it, shows a complete lack of preparedness and unawareness of current affairs.

Oh, and you played yourself, within a single comment, too:

Churchill2004: If the media wants to play one clip out of context and build a totally-fake narrative around it, it's very easy. Just ask Howard Dean. [...] Anybody running as the Republican or Democratic nominee would have had that instantly papered over and ignored. It probably wouldn't have even been noticed.

 
2017-03-19 09:54:39 AM  

Fart_Machine: Dictatorial_Flair: I wonder how much she got paid to run as a spoiler.

I wonder how much Mickey Mouse got paid for being a spoiler.  He's been the most popular write-in candidate since the 30's.


You know who else was a very popular politician in the 1930s?

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report