Home / General / Dr. Jill Stein

Dr. Jill Stein

Comments
/
/
/
655 Views
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • NoMoreAltCenter

    Wrong on DeVos, right on every other Trump nominee a Dem voted for

    • Lost Left Coaster

      The tweet was delivered in the patented Stein method, in other words — sentiment that is vaguely correct some of the time but 100% wrong on the specific case addressed.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Yes, the 48 votes that didn’t stop DeVos could have definitely stopped every other nominee.

      Say this for Jill Stein: she gets the apologists she deserves.

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        It isn’t even the question of whether or not they could have stopped most of Trump’s appointees. The fact that the thought of opposing Trump en masse never seemed to seriously cross most Dem’s minds is the dispiriting part.

        • Lost Left Coaster

          The fact that the thought of opposing Trump en masse never seemed to seriously cross most Dem’s minds is the dispiriting part.

          That is, literally, what they’re doing right now.

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            After people started shitting on them, yes.

            I am a naive weirdo who would vote against white nationalists at the highest level of power whether I got a few thousand phone calls or not.

            • dogboy

              So you voted for Clinton?

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                I always vote straight ticket Democrat. Doesn’t mean I liked it in this particular case.

                • Thom

                  Well luckily for you, you didn’t have to see how horrible a Clinton presidency would be. Phew.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  I know. Such a conflicting feeling. But at least I can rest assured that Cruz will PROBABLY never be President. He would have been infinitely worse than Trump

                • Thom

                  Looks like I should have used the irony tag.

                • q-tip

                  Looks like I should have used the irony tag.

                  Woulda been a waste of two clicks, my friend.

            • Lost Left Coaster

              After people started shitting on them, yes.

              I do not understand why politicians responding to grassroots pressure is so often presented as a bad thing.

              A unified Democratic front of resistance from Day 1 would have been great. The fact that it is coming together now after a few weeks does not mean that they’re all a bunch of neoliberal corporatist sellouts.

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                Just out of curiosity, what WOULD indicate that they are a bunch of neoliberal corporatist sellouts?

                • leftwingfox

                  Ignoring public pressure.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Interesting, but Dems also have the issue of self interest as office holders to consider. Bending to the popular will is never wholly separate from that.

                • Lost Left Coaster

                  Interesting, but Dems also have the issue of self interest as office holders to consider. Bending to the popular will is never wholly separate from that.

                  WELL NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Jesus Christ did you just wake up today and realize that we live in a world of politics?

                  It’d be lovely if we all could just vote for people of the most brilliant, shimmering moral purity who then always did the right thing (defined, of course, as what we think is the right thing) simply because it is the right thing. But that ain’t what we got or ever will get.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Normally, the idea is to vote in people who are largely sympatico with your belief systems so that you can go on living your life. That is supposed to be the benefit of a representative democracy

                • rm

                  Oh fergawdsake. I do not care one frakkin whit about what they have in their hearts. If they respond to pressure from their constituencies, that’s is good enough for me, and it’s all that anybody has ever gotten in the entire history of politics since humanity began, you annoying person. If they do not respond, that’s when I get mad at them.

                  I think you literally just argued that “vote once every four years and forget about it” is a good way to win in politics.

                • Brien Jackson

                  LOL at the “leftist” who wants to vote for snowflakes and unicorns just like him because the idea is for activists to not have to do any work when it comes to politics except for voting.

                • Just out of curiosity, what WOULD indicate that they are a bunch of neoliberal corporatist sellouts?

                  If by “liberal corporatist sellouts” you mean supporters of handing over public services and resources to corporate interests, I’d say voting for someone like Betsy DeVos would be one major indicator in that direction.

                • Lost Left Coaster

                  so that you can go on living your life.

                  If this is your view of politics, then you are no leftist.

              • FlipYrWhig

                No, you’re not following, let me explain. If they don’t do what the grassroots want, it proves that they’re a bunch of neoliberal corporatist sellouts. If they _do_ do what the grassroots want, it proves that they’re a bunch of neoliberal corporatist sellouts. It’s kind of like that witch-duck test except both drowning and floating mean “definitely a witch.”

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  You didn’t answer my question

                • Lost Left Coaster

                  Exactly. Basically, the Green Party would have no reason to exist if they didn’t believe what you said.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  If they don’t do what the grassroots want, it proves that they’re a bunch of neoliberal corporatist sellouts. If they _do_ do what the grassroots want, it proves that they’re a bunch of neoliberal corporatist sellouts. It’s kind of like that witch-duck test except both drowning and floating mean “definitely a witch.

                  Exactly.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Same question to you, SLM

                  “Just out of curiosity, what WOULD indicate that they are a bunch of neoliberal corporatist sellouts?”

                • JMP

                  “Just out of curiosity, what WOULD indicate that they are a bunch of neoliberal corporatist sellouts?”

                  Everything. Every single thing they do, for the purity ponies who have changed “neoliberal” from a word with actual meaning to a meaningless insult against any Democrats not deemed pure enough – along with a sure marker that the person using the word is an idiot without a single thing to say worth listening to – proves this, the actual elected Democrats can’t win with those morons.

              • Sly

                I do not understand why politicians responding to grassroots pressure is so often presented as a bad thing.

                When the only solution you have is a hammer, every problem looks like your forehead.

          • humanoid.panda

            They let some of Trump’s less horrible nominees pass through, and are waging fights on the most odious ones. I am not sure regarding the merits of this strategy, and there is at least one nominee that should have gotten more resistance (Pompeo), but from this to SURRENDER BETRAYAL, the distance is long.

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              BETRAYAL would require having faith to begin with. This is all more of a “Told you so” kind of moment.

              God forbid expecting anything but Go Along to Get Along from the Dems

              • Scott Lemieux

                McConnell confirmed Obama’s first cabinet much more quickly with many fewer no votes — what useless ineffectual sellouts they were. Nice goalposts moving, though!

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “McConnell confirmed Obama’s first cabinet much more quickly with many fewer no votes — what useless ineffectual sellouts they were.”

                  You seem very strongly to believe this is relevant for some reason.

                  “Nice goalposts moving, though!”

                  More laziness

                • nemdam

                  If you think McConnell is also a “Go Along to Get Along” type, I guess Scott’s argument is irrelevant.

                  But I’m not even sure Sean Spicer could tell that whopper.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  What McConnell did eight years ago isn’t relevant to what Dems should be doing now.

                • CrunchyFrog

                  Yep. Obama was extraordinarily popular during his transition – picking a center-to-right-of-center cabinet helped (anyone remember Ken Salazar in Interior? It wasn’t just the ones we remember, it was the whole kit and kaboodle, including 3 GOP selections). McConnell’s folks even voted for a lot of Dem bills, from Ledbetter on forward.

                  But they saved their ammo for the stimulus and ACA. The stimulus was immediately derided by right wing media as a give away to the blahs in the city and a huge waste of tax dollars. The Dems, being Dems, never countered that or explained it. Less than two years later the GOP has their biggest house majority in over 50 years.

                  The situation now is vastly different. Trump is not popular with either the public or the press and is flat out insane to boot. Trump’s nominees are not centrists or let alone left-of-center. They don’t include Democrats. They are all crazy and evil, both. The McConnell playbook doesn’t apply. This time 100% party of no actually is justified.

                • nemdam

                  What McConnell did eight years ago isn’t relevant to what Dems should be doing now.

                  Given that McConnell is basically the definition of an obstructionist Senator, I think Schumer being even more obstructionist is quite relevant in refuting the idea that the Dems are committing BETRAYAL.

                • Rob in CT

                  Both of these things are true:

                  In 2008, the GOP voted in Obama’s nominees.

                  In 2016, Democrats should oppose Trump, full stop.

                  The thing is, despite some Yes votes so far, the Dems have already been MUCH less accommodating to Trump than McConnell & his caucus were in 2008. This is as it should be, and I think we’ll see more.

                  There are certainly some squishes amongst the Dems, but they ARE acting differently in different circumstances.

                  This constant “oh, they’re useless and always will be” crap is neither true nor helpful in any way.

                • Brien Jackson

                  It’s also worth pointing out that, depending on your perspective, McConnell’s max-opposition strategy wasn’t clearly successful. If you think the ACA is legitimately an existential threat to the U.S., Senate Republicans refusing to take the bait from conservative Dems and pass a minimalist bi-partisan alternative and thus pushing all 60 Dems into leadership’s comprehensive reform plan was a total disaster!

                • econoclast

                  There will be literally no consequences for anyone, good or bad, because some Democrats voted for Mattis or Haley. It’s about as important as the fact that some Congresspeople accidentally honored Rev. Moon as the Messiah in 2004.

              • Lost Left Coaster

                God forbid expecting anything but Go Along to Get Along from the Dems

                Dude it’s like you’re not watching the same sportsball game as the rest of us.

              • nemdam

                I know you are not capable of making sense, but I feel the need to inform you that every single Democrat in the Senate voted against the Trump nominee that was up for a vote today. Every. Single. One. I guess the new definition of “Go Along to Get Along” is being 100% unified against your opponent?

                • humanoid.panda

                  None of them even tried to cut the bitch. Sellouts.

                • BiloSagdiyev

                  Or at least unleashed a grizzly bear on her. Or humanoid panda.

                • royko

                  Even worse, none of the Senators carved “4 real” into their arms.

                  Worst opposition party/punk band ever!

                • econoclast

                  To prove how extreme they are, they should have all worn He Hate Me jerseys.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  I want Feinstein to make the throat slitting gesture a foot from the camera and shout “ANTI TRUMP 4 LYFE”

              • efgoldman

                God forbid expecting anything but Go Along to Get Along from the Dems

                Did you run for office this cycle? How about going to local Dem meetings? Going to your congresscritter’s town meetings? Call, write, fax or email your critters and senators?
                No, because that’s “politics” – too dirty for you purity troll ponies.
                Go away while the grownups try to fix things.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  I worked for and donated to the Sanders campaign.

                • Joseph Slater

                  What did you do after the Dem convention? Just whine about Hillary, I’m guessing.

                • ColBatGuano

                  Just whine about Hillary

                  And pat themselves on the back for their purity.

                • Incontinentia Buttocks

                  Sanders also didn’t vote against every single Trump nominee. Now I happen to disagree with this strategy, but the idea that it makes him a NEOLIBERAL SELLOUT is ludicrous.

                  Of course, this is all a little beside the point, because Stein managed to choose the nominee who had the most unified Democratic opposition to make the case that this was all the Democrats’ fault. As I kept asking my Stein-supporting friends during the campaign: how is supporting someone as ludicrous as Jill Stein voting your conscience?

        • nemdam

          Nor did it cross the mind of independents who caucus with the Democrats.

    • D.N. Nation

      Leave Stein alooooooooone!

    • I agree that the Democratic Party as a whole kowtows too much to corporate interests, but this non sequitur from Stein has to be one of the worst arguments I’ve heard for it, and NoMoreAltCenter’s qualified support for Stein on this is hardly an improvement.

  • tsam

    WOW

  • AlanInSF

    I don’t mean this as a slight to autistic people, but is it possible that anti-vaxxing can cause autism?

    • NoMoreAltCenter

      You would think it would just make her more Rainmannish in counting the votes

    • altofront

      I don’t mean this as a slight to autistic people

      And yet…

    • ForkyMcSpoon

      You seem to have confused autism with stupidity.

      There does seem to be a correlation between anti-vax and stupidity though. Someone ought to do some studies.

  • dogboy

    Why would we have a tie on such an egregious nominee? Because vanity candidates split the vote and now Trump is President.

    Did I do that right?

    • NoMoreAltCenter

      Jill Stein was not the cause of Trump’s victory, no matter how much people here wish she was. The Libertarians probably hurt Trump on balance

      • Scott Lemieux

        This is actually correct: Stein tried to throw the election to Trump but was such a massively unpopular buffoon she failed. But she got what she wanted anyway, just like you.

        • NoMoreAltCenter

          “But she got what she wanted anyway, just like you.”

          Lazy

          • Anticorium

            I really want to play poker with you, because if the rest of your tells are as good as the way that “lazy” means someone’s made a good point you have to admit is correct, I’ll make a lot of money.

            • Joseph Slater

              It’s also projection that is quite nearly, dare I say it, Trump-like.

            • efgoldman

              I really want to play poker with you…. I’ll make a lot of money.

              Just don’t take a check or the phony Rolex from Hong Kong. Ca$h money only.

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              Nah, I actually said Lazy because no argument is required to counter negative assertions simply meant to defame the other side.

              • Stein’s campaign, had it been more successful, would have in fact contributed to a Trump victory. Stein was fine with that. And, apparently, so are you.

              • Anticorium

                And see, there’s another tell: when someone correctly describes one of your disingenuous habits, you claim that really it’s not just a good habit, it’s proof the other guy’s the one acting in bad faith!

                Seriously, poker. Bring your wallet, your checkbook, and the deed to your house.

        • ASV

          Stein’s vote totals weren’t enough to account for the difference in critical states, but her vote totals plus anyone she might’ve convinced to stay home (or to cast a protest vote for the more “viable” third party candidate, or write in Bernie) might’ve been.

          • Cheerfull

            There’s also an opportunity cost to consider. What difference might it have made if at some point in spring or summer she had actively campaigned against Trump and for Clinton? If you have a national stage, of a sort, you don’t get a pass to do nothing.

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              Yes, why didn’t Jill Stein personally obviate the very point of the existence of the Green Party to campaign for a candidate that was tailor made to be hated by the Left

              • Lost Left Coaster

                why didn’t Jill Stein personally obviate the very point of the existence of the Green Party

                A fella can dream…

              • Scott Lemieux

                Lake David Cobb did in 2004?

                • Jordan

                  I voted for Cobb in Texas in 2004 and don’t particularly regret it.

                • David Hunt

                  @ Jordon. I live in Texas and voted for Kerry, myself. I remember that being the year as the last time I had a productive conversation with my father about politics. He is an ardent Republican, living firmly inside the Fox/Drudge/etc. bubble. He always votes GOP because he only hears how the Democratic candidate is infinitely worse. But, back then, he we could talk.

                  Nowadays, we have an unspoken agreement that we never talk politics because we both know that the other won’t budge. We just find other things to talk about.

                • Jordan

                  Oh ya, a vote for Kerry was totally fine and (with age) what I would have done as well (that was the first presidential election I could participate in).

                  Its weird with families. Most of my family – including grandparents – are on facebook and see my protest advertising posts, or my police brutality posts, or whatever. And I actually try to call out my family on some of them. But ya, when I see them in person we usually try to avoid such things (with one or two exceptions).

                • Incontinentia Buttocks

                  Exactly. Cobb explicitly ran a safe-states candidacy. That the Green Party endorsed him over Nader (who, it should be remembered, never actually joined the party) reflected a lot of work by people who understood that 2000 ended up being terrible for the US _and_ the GP. Nader was being pushed hard in 2004 by ISO hacks (who are among the most devoted and aggravating contradiction heighteners). And a bunch of folks in Counterpunch (who were also not Greens) — predictably — declared that Cobb’s nomination was the result of the party being undermined by Democrats.

                • Jordan

                  cosign everything from IB

              • Rob in CT

                I dunno, maybe because the difference between Hillary Clinton & the contemporary Democratic Party and Donald Trump & the contemporary GOP on the biggest environmental challenge in human history (climate change) is a gaping chasm?

              • Cheerfull

                I thought the point of the Green Party was to advance progress and prevent evil to the earth and its people? How did assisting in Trump’s win help all that?

                • tsam

                  Because NOW people will JUST GET IT, see?

                • so-in-so

                  It may be, but the point of Jill Stein running on the green party ticket is to MAKE green, of another sort.

                  Why the green party rolls over for her, and allows her to campaign as their nominee BEFORE THEIR CONVENTION is another question, probably tied to the reason they rarely run candidates for lower offices.

                • nemdam

                  Because the Green Party is run by NEOLIBERAL SELLOUTS who had to clear the field for their anointed candidate.

              • Little Chak

                If by “tailor made” you mean “ran on the most progressive platform a Democrat has ever run on”, then sure…

                Oh, what’s that? The people you see as “the left” are actually authoritarian assholes to whom the concept of any kind of diplomacy or compromise is anathema, and who would rather burn everything down if they can’t get everything they want?

          • BobBobNewhartNewhartSpecial

            Hahaha. Stein didn’t get enough votes to swing the election, but if you randomly add a bunch more votes, then she definitely did. This reminds me of that clip of Rachel Maddow arguing about how all of Stein’s and a bunch of Johnson’s votes, together, could have swung the election.

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              Anything to keep the mindless hate of all enemies of Slay Queen going

              • Scott Lemieux

                Yes, the only reason one could oppose all-downside no-upside political tactics is because they have an uncritical devotion to Hillary Clinton.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Not the only reason, but certainly your reason

                • ColBatGuano

                  Lazy

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Not the only reason, but certainly your reason

                  Yes, as anyone can confirm my belief that vanity party voting is counterproductive wankery started only when Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination. I’m pretty sure I’ve never written about Ralph Nader even once.

          • ochospantalones

            Stein’s vote totals were enough to flip the critical states. It appeared the morning after the election that the margins were too big, but the final counts closed the gap just enough that if you give Clinton all of Stein’s votes Clinton wins PA, MI, and WI narrowly.

            However, the margins are tiny- Clinton + Stein beats Trump by less than four thousand votes in Wisconsin and less than six thousand in Pennsylvania.

            • BobBobNewhartNewhartSpecial

              if you give Clinton all of Stein’s votes Clinton wins PA, MI, and WI narrowly

              If someone votes for a third party, they aren’t actually voting for a president, they are making a statement. The idea that, but for Stein, all or even most of these people would have gone to the polls and pulled the lever for Clinton is absurd. A much more likely outcome is that they leave the top line blank, write in someone, or just don’t even bother with the whole thing.

              • Rob in CT

                Yet 3rd-party vote % fluctuates. In 2008, after years of GOP mis-rule, a smaller portion of the electorate fucked around with making a statement.

                So yes, there is also a (deeply foolish) core group who simply will never vote for a major party under any circumstances. There are others who will, though, under the right circumstances.

                Some of that is probably having their tummies tickled just so (candidate quality/campaign messaging) and some of it is likely situational (2008, economy in freefall, GOP brand in the toilet vs. 2016).

                • so-in-so

                  2016 – being really sure that Clinton would win (polls, etc.) so why not cast a feel-good vote for a third party. Though why you “feel good” about voting for someone who says idiotic pro-Trump pro-Putin things, and offers to overturn her own party’s decision and hand the candidacy to another party’s runner-up, then rescinds the offer next day…

              • ochospantalones

                To be clear, I don’t think it is at all reasonable to assume that 90+% of Stein voters would have voted for Clinton were Stein not on the ballot. So I do not believe and am not arguing that Stein actually threw the election to Trump.

                I was just correcting the factual assertion, which I see quite frequently, that there were not enough Stein voters to tip the key states if they all voted for Clinton. There were.

        • humanoid.panda

          Stein did not throw the election to Bernie all by herself, true. However, she was a part of the “HRC is as bad” noise machine that drove some votes to Johnson, some to Harambe, some to leave presidential line open, some to write in Bernie, etc. HRC probably squeezes in lacking that machine.

          • tsam

            Also stay home because both parties are the same…

            • malraux

              Both sides are bad but democrats are worse.

      • Jordan

        She wasn’t. She’s still very bad.

        Pro-tip: just because someone has a “brand” that is to the “left” of the democrat, doesn’t mean they are actually a good thing.

        • nemdam

          And doesn’t mean they are actually to the left!

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            Pro tip: Farther to the Left doesn’t equate to You Personally Like Them More

            • tsam

              It doesn’t equate to sane and reasonable either!

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                Well, that depends on if you think Left wing ideas are inherently more sane than the gladiator capitalist dystopia we live in. I am ambivalent on Stein personally, but her policies were good for a bourgie politician.

                • humanoid.panda

                  She is a good stand-in to the day masses gather around the banners of Chairman Bob.

                • Jordan

                  “left wing ideas” is too nebulous to be worth anything.

                  I probably support the balance of Stein’s policy agenda more than Clinton’s (but unsure).

                  But any worthwhile left also means “not being fucking stupid” about their efforts. And Stein fails miserably on that count. Seriously, nobody cares about pie-in-the-sky suggestions that will obviously never happen. What matters is what will change. And for Stein, this year, that was “nothing” at best and “terrible” at worst. It ended up closer to nothing, but that isn’t a reason to recommend her campaign.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  “Policies,” LOL.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Uphold Marxism-Leninism-Avakian thought

                  ““Policies,” LOL.”

                  I read her website talking points. Apparently that is critical before anyone ever accuses Clinton of anything, so it should be for Stein as well.

                • tsam

                  Of course I think they’re infinitely more sane than the status quo.

                  I also know that we have a whole bunch of political realities that have always been realities and will continue to be realities. One of the underpinnings of American politics is money. The courts decided that, not the politicians (though they don’t seem to complain much). This is an inescapable reality, and the idea that a radical leftist has any shot at the presidency and enough of Congress and the judiciary to make real change in a hurry is pure fantasy. I’d love it, but we don’t have a choice but to make do with the system we have and keep using it to make positive change. We’re losing pretty badly at the moment, but throwing our only source of power, the Democratic Party, out the window as traitors to leftist ideals is as effective as just giving up.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “I also know that we have a whole bunch of political realities that have always been realities and will continue to be realities.”

                  The problem is it is not that simple. There is a dialectical effect, where the failure of the Dems to achieve goals like single payer leads to a Dem caucus that ranges from skeptical of to outright hostile to Single Payer. Obama was on record as being critical of SP, while the ACA was sold to the restive Left as “He wanted single payer, but this is the best we could reasonably get.”

                  A Dem party that aims for the maximum and achieves what it can is very different than the Dem party as presently constituted, and that is what most Dem apologists cannot grasp when criticizing the Left

                • nemdam

                  Newsflash: enacting single payer still means we live in capitalist, bourgeois dystopia. Unless you think the UK is a leftist utopia?

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “Newsflash: enacting single payer still means we live in capitalist, bourgeois dystopia. Unless you think the UK is a leftist utopia?”

                  Yes it does, and no I don’t.

                • Hogan

                  Obama was on record as being critical of SP

                  Really? What was his criticism?

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “Really? What was his criticism?”

                  Bad for jobs in the Health Insurance industry. (A field I worked in and would have gladly seen nationalized)

                • Depends on the “left wing” idea in question, really.

            • Jordan

              well, for most other people, correct.

        • Joseph Slater

          It is absolutely not more “leftist” to run a vanity campaign for President that not only has literally zero chance of winning, but also demonstrably isn’t about building any kind of “left movement” — even if the vanity candidate were actually saying a lot more leftist things than the Dem candidate, which in this case wasn’t particularly true.

          Even if it were true, though, any kind of serious “leftism” that is engaged in the electoral arena has a responsibility to consider tactics, strategy, history, and likely actual results of one’s words and deeds. Stein’s inability or unwillingness to do any of that in a remotely defensible manner is one of the several reasons she cannot be considered a serious “leftist.”

          • NoMoreAltCenter

            Marx was always of the opinion that a solidly Worker based party should always advocate separately for its positions, regardless of whether or not it meant a larger number of reactionary politicians holding seats in Parliament.

            That doesn’t apply to the GP, because they are also a bourgeois party, but the idea that Leftists must always try to minimize damage to Center-Leftist legislative numbers is nonsense.

            • Cheerfull

              Is the idea that Leftists should always try to limit damage, generally, also nonsense?

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                I mean, it depends. What seems pretty obvious is that when you play defense you surrender the initiative and you ultimately lose anyway.

                • Joseph Slater

                  Trump winning is going to force the left to play a whole lot more defense than it would have had Clinton won. Stein’s official position was that there was no significant difference between Trump and Clinton. So even by your metric, Stein is an idiot.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “Trump winning is going to force the left to play a whole lot more defense than it would have had Clinton won.”

                  Nonsense. The GOP under Clinton would have been racking up more legislative seats and governorships throughout the country.

                  Trump’s presidency allows the Dems to make a comeback against his unpopularity, rather than continue to take the shellacking they constantly took under the Obama presidency.

                  Clinton’s victory would have meant Ted Cruz with the freedom to rewrite the constitution. Fuck that.

                • Joseph Slater

                  So you really are a “heighten the contradictions” guy. That explains a lot.

                  On behalf of the labor movement (the progressive constituency I know best), I will say “fuck you.”

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “So you really are a “heighten the contradictions” guy. That explains a lot.”

                  Epic misreading of what I said. Clinton’s victory and subsequent inability to accomplish anything would have been the true “heightening of the contradictions”.

                • Joseph Slater

                  You wrote: The GOP under Clinton would have been racking up more legislative seats and governorships throughout the country.

                  Trump’s presidency allows the Dems to make a comeback against his unpopularity,

                  That’s pretty much classic “heighten the contradictions” — things have to get A LOT worse before they can get better. And it suffers from the obvious flaws all such arguments make: (i) incredible insensitivity to the increased suffering of vulnerable groups during the “heightening”; (ii) ignoring the fact that progressive political constituencies will fare better under a liberal Dem than under a right-wing nut as President; and (iii) the belief that the heightening will inevitably (or very likely) lead to some form of revolutionary change that will make things a whole lot better. Of course it’s *possible* that Trump will prompt a backlash, but that’s far from certain, and much of that backlash will be dedicated to trying to undo the damage he did that would not have happened under Clinton. But it is certain you will get the suffering of other people that folks like Stein were so oblivious to. So she and you have that. . . .

                • Chetsky

                  Trump’s presidency allows the Dems to make a comeback against his unpopularity, rather than continue to take the shellacking they constantly took under the Obama presidency.

                  NMAC, you need to be a little more careful to hide your Leninism. Guess we got your number now. “Heighten the contradictions!”

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Glad you’re admitting you wanted Trump to win, at least.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “the belief that the heightening will inevitably (or very likely) lead to some form of revolutionary change that will make things a whole lot better”

                  There is no revolutionary change coming due the Trump presidency. At least not from the Left. The best we can hope for is the kind of legislative swing that happened under the later Bush years

                  This was not a “heightens the contradictions” argument because it is merely based on the observable patterns of American politics in recent years – the party with the Presidency loses ground elsewhere.

                  And what is the counter argument? What big policy goals would have been accomplished under Clinton? What was the upside other than putting off the reactionary tide for 4 to 8 years while the Right grew more rabid and more determined?

                  You’ve essentially framed it such that any stance other than “Clinton losing was the worst possible thing that has ever happened” is “heightening the contradictions.” It is lazy.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “Glad you’re admitting you wanted Trump to win, at least.”

                  Lazy.

                  And, if I had wanted Trump to win I would have voted for Trump.

                  “NMAC, you need to be a little more careful to hide your Leninism.”

                  The irony is I am a Marxist but fairly anti-Leninist

                • Joseph Slater

                  “Clinton losing was the worst possible thing that has ever happened” is “heightening the contradictions.” It is lazy.

                  Lazy misreading. My argument has clearly been this. Clinton losing the 2016 presidential election to Trump was a very bad outcome, much worse on every possible metric a leftist should care about than Trump winning. Stein denied (and apparently continues to deny) this, which makes her an idiot. Your prediction that this is a good, or at least OK, thing because Clinton’s presidency would just lead to Dems losing more offices while Trump’s presidency will lead to a backlash is, at best, a faint-hearted version of “heighten the contradictions” in which Trump’s presidency is OK because we’ll, I guess, get something like the Obama years beginning in 2020? Which I wouldn’t have thought would have been good enough for a True Leftist like you, but that’s what you said. More importantly, even buying your argument, you know, we could have had that in 2016, without all the horrible repair work we’re going to have to try and do — including a Supreme Court appointment or two that will haunt us for decades.

                  And if you don’t see the “policy goal” differences between Trump and Clinton — I mean, we can start with the Supreme Court, the NLRB, the EPA, the Department of Labor, immigration rules, LGBT rights, tax policy, etc., etc. If you’re suggesting that we wouldn’t have seen a socialist revolution/transformation, OK, sure. If you’re suggesting that because of that, hey, no big deal, Trump or Clinton, you’re a horrible human being.

                • Captain C

                  Anyone pushing a “heighten the contradictions” strategy had better volunteer to have those contradictions heightened on themselves first and foremost. Otherwise, they’re just another jerk demanding that others suffer for their own beliefs.

                • Captain C

                  Clinton’s victory would have meant Ted Cruz with the freedom to rewrite the constitution. Fuck that.

                  Who knew that a Clinton victory would alter the Constitution such that an unpopular senator from Texas could then unilaterally change the constitution?

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “More importantly, even buying your argument, you know, we could have had that in 2016, ”

                  That is so wrong the light from right would take a few millennia to reach it.

                • Brien Jackson

                  NMAC seeing politics as fundamentally a sporting contest where the idea is just to “win” explains a lot.

                • Joseph Slater

                  “More importantly, even buying your argument, you know, we could have had that in 2016, ”

                  That is so wrong the light from right would take a few millennia to reach it.

                  I’m increasingly wondering about your reading comprehension, but my point was that we could have had something like Obama’s third term in 2016, and that would have been both infinitely preferable to Trump and infinitely preferable to Trump and then your hoped-for but poorly-defined backlash based on the suffering of other people.

                  Speaking of which, your refusal to engage in the real policy differences between a Trump and Clinton presidency speaks volumes.

                  Having said that, I’m done for tonight. Enjoy your trolling.

            • Joseph Slater

              Believing that quoting Marx on what may or may not have been good strategy in 19th century European Parliamentary politics is a mic-drop moment for leftists in the 21st Century U.S. is, to use your word, “nonsense.”

              ETA: Beyond that, based on what I’ve seen of Marx, he would at least have had an argument for why his suggested strategy was a defensible one, and it may have made sense in that time and place. Stein and her defenders don’t even try to do that in the modern U.S. Or to the extent they do, it’s “but both parties are the same,” which is obvious nonsense.

              • NoMoreAltCenter

                I don’t necessarily believe it is a “mic drop” moment, but it is a good counterpoint to the view overwhelmingly expressed here that any Leftist everywhere and always should support the Democratic Party

                • Joseph Slater

                  The view expressed commonly here is that in *presidential elections* in the *modern U.S.* leftists should support the Democratic candidate, and that was especially true in the 2016 election. That view is obviously correct.

                • humanoid.panda

                  What’s funny is that Marx was an ardent supporter of civil war-era republican party, blemishes and all.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  He was very much a supporter of the ending of slavery, yes

                • Noam Chomsky supported Clinton.

                • Joseph Slater

                  So did Angela Davis — sellout!

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Noam Chomsky is not the Pope of Leftism

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Eight years of Obama and Roe Vs Wade is in its greatest danger ever

                  Because your and Stein’s preferred electoral outcome happened, of course. Had Clinton won Roe probably would have been safe for decades.

                • so-in-so

                  you have tried and failed

                  The thing is, people who are winning arguments don’t feel the need to preemptively declare they’re winning arguments.

                  “I am INVINCIBLE!”

              • nemdam

                No, no, no, a TRUE LEFTIST would try to help Donald Trump win the White House. If you think about it, Trump’s base isn’t conservatives, but leftists.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Frankly, a True Leftist understands that neither party has the slightest interest in undermining capitalism and social hierarchy.

                  At best, the Dems are the party of the reasonable bourgeois that prefers the carrot to the GOP’s stick

                • A True Leftist isn’t a fucking moron about how small differences affect real people and about the possibilities and limitations of what elections actually mean.

                • so-in-so

                  Funny, the actual Communist Party U.S.A. supported Clinton. They saw Trump as the real enemy.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “A True Leftist isn’t a fucking moron about how small differences affect real people and about the possibilities and limitations of what elections actually mean.”

                  A True Leftist understands that this line effectively amounts to moral blackmail that will never cease.

                  “Funny, the actual Communist Party U.S.A. supported Clinton. They saw Trump as the real enemy.”

                  The Communist Party U.S.A. is widely regarded as a complete joke by anyone who knows anything about it.

                • Little Chak

                  “Consider the people who will suffer much more than you due to Trump being President. Consider that many thousands of people’s lives hang in the balance. Consider that the progress women have been making toward sexual equality and towards workplace equality could be undone and strongly reversed.”

                  “Yeah, well, that’s like, Blackmail, man. Making me consider the lives of others — what am I, some kind of saint? I’m just taking the long view, wherein those people’s suffering is the necessary fodder to dismantle capitalism.”

                  No more alt center! Hip-hip, hoo-ray! I said, hip-hip, hoo-ray!

                  Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the people whose lives literally hang in the fucking balance over things like the ACA repeal or the Muslim ban might feel a little bit pissed off at the holier-than-thou purists who spent their time online trashing Clinton as an “establishment”/neoliberal/”sellout” candidate, but who wouldn’t have done so had those people voted for their preferred candidate in the primary, and then have the gall to lob accusations of “moral blackmail”?!?

                  “Vote for my candidate, or I’ll trash yours online constantly (but it’s okay because I, myself, will vote straight Democrat)” — totally not blackmail.

                • FlipYrWhig

                  How big is the True Left? Enough to fill CBGB?

                • Rob in CT

                  Funny, the actual Communist Party U.S.A. supported Clinton. They saw Trump as the real enemy.

                  Bougie sellouts, the lot of ’em!

                  The Communist Party U.S.A. is widely regarded as a complete joke by anyone who knows anything about it.

                  Ah, like the Green Party!

                • Warren Terra

                  The Communist Party U.S.A. is widely regarded as a complete joke by anyone who knows anything about it.

                  This strikes me as plausible. Certainly, if anyone should know about complete jokes it’s NoMoreAltCenter.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “This strikes me as plausible. Certainly, if anyone should know about complete jokes it’s NoMoreAltCenter.”

                  No need for this brutality

                  “Bougie sellouts, the lot of ’em!”

                  Yes

                • so-in-so

                  “The Communist Party U.S.A. is widely regarded as a complete joke by anyone who knows anything about it.”

                  Yep, and they were STILL smarter than the Greens OR the Berners. How ’bout that?

                • nemdam

                  A True Leftist understands that this line effectively amounts to moral blackmail that will never cease.

                  THE SUPREME COURT IS BLACKMAIL!

                  And there were those who were skeptical when Scott said this is an actual argument from the “left”.

                • Legal abortion just distracts people from the Revolution.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “THE SUPREME COURT IS BLACKMAIL!”

                  We were never gonna get that Justice, brah.

                  “Legal abortion just distracts people from the Revolution”

                  Eight years of Obama and Roe Vs Wade is in its greatest danger ever

                • nemdam

                  Frankly, a True Leftist understands that neither party has the slightest interest in undermining capitalism and social hierarchy.

                  I ask this sincerely. Does being a real leftist mean you want to overthrow capitalism? I respect your opinion if this is true (many others also believe this), but if you are interested in having an honest conversation on this site, it would do everyone a huge favor to clarify your position.

                  We make fun of you not if you have this belief, but because you are so obtuse about it.

                • Captain C

                  How big is the True Left? Enough to fill CBGB?

                  I’m guessing that by NoMoreNonAvakian’s definition (assuming s/he is ever willing to actually nail down said definition) we could fit them in one of the CBGB toilet stalls.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “Does being a real leftist mean you want to overthrow capitalism?”

                  This site usually translates someone being further Left or claiming to be so as purity posturing. You can be a Leftist and be a social democrat. But if True Leftist means Far Leftist, then yeah, objectively anti-capitalist positions are further to the Left than even someone like Corbyn.

                  Yes, I am anti-capitalist, but I can work with social democrats. Contrary to the rep, I am not a purity pony. Tankies are purity ponies.

                • Joseph Slater

                  THE SUPREME COURT IS BLACKMAIL!”

                  We were never gonna get that Justice, brah.

                  One thing that was absolutely certain during the election is that the next President would appoint the vote that would break the tie in Harris v. Quinn and determine whether or not the First Amendment mandated “right to work” rules for every public-sector union in the country. So we really could have gotten a Justice who wouldn’t have gutted the finances of about half the labor movement, brah. Plus a bunch of other issues beyond abortion — like LGBT rights — where things obviously did get a lot better under Obama. But pointing out this and other issues is just BLACKMAIL, right brah?

                • Brien Jackson

                  A True Leftist understands that this line effectively amounts to moral blackmail that will never cease.

                  Oh no, not the horror of moral blackmail!!!! That’s, like, so much fucking worse than the impact Trump’s winning had on those immigrants who were detained because of his Muslim ban or the existential anxiety undocumented immigrant families feel every second of the day.

                  What are the odds this guy is just soullite with a new nym?

                • Lost Left Coaster

                  Eight years of Obama and Roe Vs Wade is in its greatest danger ever

                  Wait…are you the intern who writes tweets for Stein?

                • Scott Lemieux

                  A True Leftist understands that this line effectively amounts to moral blackmail that will never cease.

                  Ah, glad we get the ol’ “considering the effects of election tactics is BLACKMAIL.” You know it’s impossible for the arguments to get stupider from that point.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “One thing that was absolutely certain during the election is that the next President would appoint the vote that would break the tie in Harris v. Quinn and determine whether or not the First Amendment mandated “right to work” rules for every public-sector union in the country.”

                  How was Clinton going to appoint a Justice to the Supreme court again?

                  “Ah, glad we get the ol’ “considering the effects of election tactics is BLACKMAIL.” You know it’s impossible for the arguments to get stupider from that point.”

                  Are you not vaguely embarrassed that you have tried and failed to attack me like 15 times in the same comment section?

                  “Wait…are you the intern who writes tweets for Stein?”

                  No, but I would probably accept the offer. I need an internship

                • Joseph Slater

                  Forgive me for thinking you understood the issue. Harris was a tie vote, which meant the union side won because it preserved the status quo. Trump will change that. Even if Hillary never could have appointed a Justice, the union side would have prevailed on that issue.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  Legal abortion just distracts people from the Revolution.

                  Once right-to-work effectively becomes a constitutional requirement, labor will become much better organized.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  you have tried and failed

                  The thing is, people who are winning arguments don’t feel the need to preemptively declare they’re winning arguments.

                • ΧΤΠΔ

                  you have tried and failed

                  Yeah, this is a textbook case of Danth’s Law.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  “The thing is, people who are winning arguments don’t feel the need to preemptively declare they’re winning arguments.”

                  But they do feel the need to constantly jump in to other conversations and make bitchy, contemptuous comments?

                • nemdam

                  This site usually translates someone being further Left or claiming to be so as purity posturing. You can be a Leftist and be a social democrat. But if True Leftist means Far Leftist, then yeah, objectively anti-capitalist positions are further to the Left than even someone like Corbyn.

                  Yes, I am anti-capitalist, but I can work with social democrats. Contrary to the rep, I am not a purity pony. Tankies are purity ponies.

                  If you are anti-capitalist, why can you work with social democrats, who support capitalism, but not Democrats? If you are anti-capitalist, neither gives you what you want.

                  And no, claiming to be further left does not automatically brand you as a purity pony. In fact, your actual politics have little to do with being branded as such. It’s based on whether or not you have arbitrary and nonsensical dealbreakers to not support the only left wing party in a two party system while claiming you are on the “left”. For example, Loomis is to my left, but he is the opposite of a purity pony which is why I enjoy and applaud his work. For another example, Glenn Greenwald is a purity pony even though almost none of his politics are commonly associated with the left.

                • ColBatGuano

                  I need an internship

                  I’m shocked you’re unemployed.

                • Incontinentia Buttocks

                  You know how to end the “blackmail”? Run candidates who actually have a chance to win. Then we can talk about them on the merits (which also means you should probably find candidates less ludicrously poorly informed than Jill Stein).

                • Abbey Bartlet

                  We were never gonna get that Justice, brah.

                  Uh, sure, unless people who supported progressive policies got their shit together and voted for a Democratic president and Senate, in which case…we would have gotten that Justice. And hopefully a couple more. But you keep tellin’ yourself that.

                  And even if we hadn’t, it would have meant bad lower court rulings standing–and good lower court rulings standing.

                  Now, not so much with the good ones.

      • Murc

        So what?

        Stein actively worked hard to try and get Trump elected. That’s worthy of a shit-ton of opprobrium.

      • dogboy

        Seriously? Does Stein bear any responsibility for the election outcome?

        • tsam

          Only to the extent that she helped perpetuate the idea that Trump and Clinton were equally dangerous, or even comparable by any measure.

        • Joseph Slater

          Arguably in Michigan.

        • Chetsky

          How about all the Rs who put party before country, and just said “NeverTrump” instead of “I’m voting for Hillary b/c I love my country” ?? We hold them responsible. So why -shouldn’t- we hold Stein responsible too?

          She had a national platform. She’s a pol. And she argued for normalizing a Fascist.

          Fuck her.

  • brodysattva

    God, she’s a brilliant troll. I have no idea what motivates her, but as a trolling performance this is grandmaster-level.

    • NoMoreAltCenter

      If she is a troll, she puts Milo to shame

  • Lost Left Coaster

    Oh my lord. My first instinct was to ask if she got hacked. But then I thought better. This fits the well-established pattern.

    Seriously, during the campaign, Stein people would try and argue that Clinton couldn’t be trusted because she was always just pandering to her audience. But they should know shameless pandering; I’m not sure Stein has any platform beyond that.

    • nemdam

      Like virtually every critique of Clinton, it’s all projection. For reasons I’m not sure I’ll ever fully understand, Clinton is a magnet for everyone to project their worst impulses onto.

      • tsam

        It’s weird. It began the day she hit national prominence in 1992 and hasn’t slowed down a bit since. I have no idea why, but my theory is that she is the American right’s Red Scare style target.

        • nemdam

          And the American left, and American center, and American media, etc. Doesn’t matter what your political beliefs are, Clinton embodies everything you hate about yourself.

        • tahfromslc

          Well, she insulted Tammy Wynette. That’s just unforgiveable.

      • liberal

        Like virtually every critique of Clinton, it’s all projection.

        LOL. How about “Hillary Clinton is a piss-poor retail politician.”

        • FlipYrWhig

          Actually that’s apparently a thing she’s damn good at: people who meet her come away impressed and feel like they’ve made a connection. Rope lines, townhalls, etc. What she’s not good, verging on piss-poor, at is electrifying a crowded room with a speech.

          • jim, some guy in iowa

            back in 2007 my mom went to see Clinton at some kind of small set-piece thing where Clinton spoke and then took some questions. Going into it, mom was kind of “meh” on her the way a lot of us still are and for the same reasons, but afterwards she came back raving about how smart and thoughtful Clinton’s answers were and how *good* she was in that setting, and since then she was sold on Hillary. When people said “nobody likes Clinton” I always thought “you never met my mom, did you”

            • q-tip

              Anecdote: During some of the darker days of the 2008 primaries, she visited my sister’s workplace and gave what my sister thought was a very rousing mini-speech. Clinton had been getting a lot of shit over “likability” issues, so my sister asked if she could give her a hug – Clinton accepted graciously.
              (My sister still voted for Obama in the primary, but she said it definitely humanized Clinton for her.)

        • nemdam

          As FlipYrWhig states, try better. She’s actually really good at this and one of the reasons she won me over.

          And there’s a reason I use the word “virtually”. She is not infallible, but 95+% of the critiques of her are bogus, and they are usually some sort of projection.

          • ΧΤΠΔ

            The most credible area of critique, which doesn’t seem to be particularly controversial among the left, is that Clinton is both atypically and significantly poorer than the average Democratic pol on foreign policy – not neoconservatism so much as being uniquely susceptibility to the kinetic fallacy. (The FTFNYT profile on this indicates this has always been a strain in her thinking, but I’ve seen it suggested that this was amplified by the genocide in Rwanda). I think the Libya fiasco further bolsters the view that military intervention, at least in the Middle East, is generally a terrible idea, but the hypothesis that the administration’s half-measures in military formed a large part in Libya’s collapse isn’t totally unreasonable (though it itself bolsters the general case against military interventionism – that the military costs needed for intervention to be truly effective are too great to ultimately be worth it).

            That said, “liberal”‘s viewson foreign policy go far beyond “general non-interventionism” into “the left response to any non-US related human rights abuses should be ‘so what?’,” so he has no credibility on the subject whatsoever, either morally or on the merits.

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              “So what” would be a refreshing break from Team America World Police

              • ΧΤΠΔ

                Consistently even pretending to give a shit about human rights (!!!) BOMB CONGO/BELARUS/AY-RABS MURICA FUCKYEAHHHHHHHHH

            • FlipYrWhig

              The thing I don’t get is how easily the left critique of intervention starts to chime with realpolitik about “vital interests,” which seems to mean that the left would only consider getting involved in a conflict that had some relation to… resource extraction, military alliances, or trade relations. That might be _prudent_ but it’s definitely not consonant with any logical meaning of “left.”

              • nemdam

                I think reasonable people can make this argument, but it is hardly a “left” critique. It is actually a right critique. A left critique would either be a more interventionist foreign policy, but done with a greater focus on promoting human rights, or a view that American intervention only leads to disaster so we should never do it.

                What’s amusing is that Bill Clinton had a whole doctrine of liberal intervention that was successfully deployed in Bosnia and kept us from getting bogged down in places like Iraq, but he’s a sellout or something and his wife is a warmonger for endorsing it so it goes unmentioned.

                • FlipYrWhig

                  I think reasonable people can make this argument, but it is hardly a “left” critique. It is actually a right critique.

                  Agreed, but in the heat of the moment people slide from one to the other.

                  Bill Clinton had a whole doctrine of liberal intervention that was successfully deployed in Bosnia

                  Exactly! Responsibility-to-protect / humanitarian intervention is part of a long line of liberal-to-left foreign policy. But the debate over the Iraq War in 2003 completely overtook it. We’re back to seeing all wars as Vietnam.

              • ΧΤΠΔ

                He’s consistently pushed “realism” as the Truest Political Philosophah on Ukraine, and his only response to the criticisms that the suggested solution is neither particularly useful or moral from a left perspective is to change the name from Mearsheimer to Walt. It is absolutely not a coincidence that he’s defended the now-utterly embarrassing Stephen Cohen in the past.

            • nemdam

              Though I find myself leaning more and more towards Clinton’s foreign policy views as time goes on, this is a fair and valid critique.

              FWIW, I have no problem with the Libya intervention as I have a hard time believing the counterfactual would be better. Turning our back on our allies and allowing a brutal dictator to stay in power hardly seem like actions that are obviously better from a left point of view (cf. Syria), but reasonable people can disagree.

  • Nobdy

    Dr. Stein apparently wishes us to take her seriously but not literally.

    I hope she’s a bit more literal with her patients. I prefer my pharmacist to take prescriptions literally (also seriously) for example.

    • ZakMcKrackenAndTheAlienMindbenders

      My pharmacist is a post-structuralist, although my GP is a logical positivist. It keeps life interesting.

      • lizzie

        “It is easy enough to say that a person should live in such a way as to avoid the perfect infinitive after the past conditional, but it is another matter to do it.” –James Thurber

  • Joe_JP

    The account is verified given she makes so many statements that sound like parodies.

  • tsam

    I thought I’d be the first comment on this one, and thought to myself “I can’t wait (LOL YES I CAN) to see the strained, fact free defenses of the subtext of Stein’s statement!”.

    Turns out it was RIGHT THERE once the comment posted.

    What DO you call the fallacy where someone takes a thing that is partially or sometimes true and makes it into a PLAINLY OBVIOUS universal fact?

    • Jordan

      hasty generalization is what you are looking for, I think.

      • tsam

        I was hoping it would be something with a Latin name.

        • Hogan
          • tsam

            OH THAT’S A COOL NAME

            • efgoldman

              OH THAT’S A COOL NAME

              Hulk! Smash! in Latin? Frange puppis? Qui sciebant?

              • Incontinentia Buttocks

                Latin-named fallacies are a symptom of bourgeois society that, come the revolution, will disappear in a cloud of unicorns, just like Karl Marx said they would!*

                * Karl Marx didn’t actually say this. But he did oppose bourgeois parties!!!

                • tsam

                  No, they just sound cool. Like quid for example. Is it a species of fish? British slang for some denomination of currency? The way you’d say crib if you’re in anaphylaxis? IS IT ALL OF THESE THINGS????

                • ForkyMcSpoon

                  Using French words like bourgeois is itself bourgeois.

  • Asteroid_Strike_Brexit

    There is no way Jill Stein can be stupid. Doctors need book learnin’. She is either mentally ill or she is actually managed opposition that Putin created. Perhaps both. Everything she did during the election was designed to hurt Clinton.

    • Brien Jackson

      Narcissist

    • tsam

      Intelligence is not a perfect insulator from crazy beliefs, unfortunately.

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        High IQs are VASTLY overrated, tbqh

        • tsam

          Maybe, but intelligence is required to do complicated reasoning, and many people who are born with the equipment to do that don’t seem to want to bother doing it.

          • Captain Oblivious

            Especially if it interferes with strongly-held belief.

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              Someone wrote a book not that long ago positing that the smarter someone is, the harder it is to convince them that their erroneous beliefs are incorrect because they are so good at rationalization.

              • Rob in CT

                Consider the possibility that this applies to you.

                • petesh

                  Niiiiice

                • Chetsky

                  Hey hey, NMAC, Rob’s givin’ you a compliment! He’s sayin’ you ARE smarter than a bag of hammers!

                • D.N. Nation
                • efgoldman

                  He’s sayin’ you ARE smarter than a bag of hammers!

                  Assumes facts not in evidence.

                • veleda_k

                  That’s ridiculous. We have absolutely no evidence he’s smart.

              • guthrie

                I am sure there was a scientific paper came otu a decade ago demonstrating this.

                As someone who is interested in very intelligent people and knows a few and studied them a bit, yes, they really are good at rationalising things with lots of plausible reasons. The point is to keep them aimed right, and occaisionally bring out into the wider world rather than focus on the one topic.

    • McAllen

      As Ben Carson shows, it’s possible to be skilled, educated, and knowledgeable in one area while still being utterly stupid.

      • Captain Oblivious

        My asshole cousin has an M.D. and a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He’s a right-wing talibangelical racist moron in every other respect.

      • tsam

        He’s the example that belongs in the textbook that defines this phenomenon.

    • Rob in CT

      INT != WIS.

      • El Guapo

        + 1 Long Sword / +5 v. Trolls

    • so-in-so

      There is no way Jill Stein can be stupid. Doctors need book learnin’.

      I present for your consideration, Ben Carson.

      • In my considerable experience neurosurgeons are not particularly insightful as physicians go.

    • Gwen

      I’m going with a little of column A and a little of column B.

      The Greens have always suffered from delusions of grandeur.

      Stein definitely has a relationship with Rusisa.

    • tahfromslc

      Same could be said of Ben Carson?

    • efgoldman

      Doctors need book learnin’.

      There’s a Doc Carson standing over there in the corner, holding a scalpel.

      ETA: And the new guy beat me.

    • Sly

      I would argue that allowing your expertise in one field (i.e. medicine) to delude you into believing you have expertise in an entirely unrelated field (i.e. partisan politics) constitutes a form of stupidity.

  • Joe_JP

    Is there a horror movie about Internet trolls?

    Not meant to be responsive to anything in particular. Just curious.

    • Downpuppy

      Lifetime has come close , but I haven’t seen anything in theaters.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      wait. is there any chance we’re *in* that movie?

      if so I must speak with my agent about the roles I’ve been taking

    • The Great God Pan

      The closest I can think of is Unfriended, which involved cyber-bullying.

      Cursory googling brings up a short film (viewable online) called Don’t Feed the Troll, apparently about an internet troll who encounters a troll troll.

    • JDM

      Yes, but went straight to video bargain bins ’cause it was incredibly boring. After clogging up the bargain bins for a while and still not selling, all copies ended up in the same landfill as all those Atari video games.

    • Warren Terra

      Cape Fear?

      It’s pre-internet (well, pre-world-wide-web, consumer-friendly internet), but the De Niro character basically trolls the fnck out of the protagonist for the first half of the movie.

      • Hogan

        Or, in the original version, the Robert Mitchum character.

        • Warren Terra

          I was aware the De Niro version was a remake, but didn’t want to comment on the original as I’ve never seen it.

      • keta

        The original, with Gregory Peck, Polly Bergen and the late, great Robert Mitchum as baddie Max Cady is well pre-internet (1962) and a better version, imho.

        • tsam

          Yeah, I’m gonna hafta go ahead and stop you there, and refer you to The Simpsons’ parody rehabilitation of the movie starring Sideshow Bob. One of the greatest episodes of television ever produced in the history of the universe.

    • Anticorium

      A movie about Zoe Quinn’s life is in development.

      She is the original GamerGate target, and though I do not remember the exact wording, she correctly observed that the ultimate fallout of her last bad breakup was Donald Trump.

    • Hob

      Not a movie, but there’s an extremely strange (even for this author) horror novel by Ramsey Campbell called The Grin of the Dark, where one of the several sanity-destroying threats is a dude (or possibly an evil spirit) who’s trolling the shit out of the handful of people on the Internet Movie Database comment boards. The troll’s writing style is so dead-on that Campbell must have done a fair amount of unpleasant research, and the repeating moment where the protagonist can’t resist replying to this asshole again just this once is surprisingly effective as a horror device.

  • LeeEsq

    Decades ago, the Far Left and the Far Right made a choice that is still effecting American politics today. Both didn’t like the Democratic or Republican Parties that much at the time. The Far Left thought the Democratic Party was insufficiently radical and the Far Right saw the Republicans as being a New Deal light party that wasn’t courageous enough to stand for rugged Protestant capitalist individualism.

    The Far Right decided to participate in the Republican Party though and take it over step by step. It took decades, there were set backs and ridicule but by 2000 they managed to completely remake the Republican Party in their image. The Far Left decided that the entire political and electoral system in the United States was corrupt beyond measure and both parties could not be trusted at all. They did not participate in politics through the Democratic Party and they still hate the Democratic Party like they always did.

    • Nobdy

      This is not incorrect but it ignores that the far right was funded with hundreds of millions of dollars it used to take over the Republican party while the far left is pretty much disaffected hippies and other poor radicals.

      The far left couldn’t do what the far right did because it lacked the overwhelming resources. George Soros is on the left but only the moderate left. Meanwhile Peter Thiel opposes the franchise for women and wants to legalize and participate in literal vampirism.

      • Rob in CT

        Yeah, that does seem like an important difference.

        • Captain Oblivious

          Well, maybe not.

          I’d argue that the Dems have/can get enough money. They just need to spend it better, get better organized, and get better motivated. We invest both money and human resources way too heavily in the presidential electons at the expense of the down-ticket races. And the result is the far right have taken over in a lot of states where they shouldn’t have governors or majority legislatures (FL, MI, WI, e.g.) and have used voter suppression and gerrymandering to entrench themselves.

          The far right squanders a huge amount of its billionaire backers’ money on wingnut welfare and preaching to the choir. They’ve wasted a lot of money trying to get unelectable candidates elected.

          I’m not saying they haven’t been effective — obviously they have — only that the far right is extremely inefficient in how it spends all this money. If the Dems could get their shit together, they could accomplish more with less, because progressive policies are way more popular.

          • Rob in CT

            I’d argue that the Dems have/can get enough money.

            Dems can.

            But we’re talking about the Far Left’s tactics and resources.

            The Far Left getting funding isn’t the same as the DNC getting donations.

            I agree with everything you said.

            • daves09

              And there are millions of rwnj’s who spend all their time in the fever swamps where the only voices they hear are right wing radio. Their outrage never rests and there is something new every day-and they don’t care if it contradicts the outrage of yesterday.
              They are constantly on the boil and lefties, let alone liberals, are not.

          • Nobdy

            That’s the Democrats, though, not the far left. I said there was money on the left, and there is, but it is the moderate left, not the extreme far left.

            In the see-saw of politics the weight (money) of the right is all the way at the edge while the left’s weight is much closer to the fulcrum in the center.

          • LeeEsq

            I think we might all might be talking past here at the moment. After World War II, the Far Left and the Far Right were in political exile and didn’t like either party. To the Far Left, the Republicans were conservative semi-fascists and the Democratic Party were insufficient squishy liberals. To the Far Right, the Democratic Party at the time were Communists in all but name and the Republicans me to Democratic light.

            The Far Right than began taking a decades long take over by the Republican Party and they were aided by lots of money from wealthy Far Right cranks to do this. Jack Welsh anybody? There might be liberal business people but there aren’t Far Left business people for the most part. What Nobdy is saying is that Far Left couldn’t do the same because they had no patron to back turning a spuishy liberal party into a Far Left Party. There were plenty of business people who pounced at the opportunity to transform the Republicans though.

            • NoMoreAltCenter

              The patron of a Left party is supposed to be the organized working class, but unions have been decimated. The Dems are not as reliably pro-worker as the Reps are reliably pro-oligarch

              • FlipYrWhig

                Also, millions of union members vote for Republicans because they like what they say. Kind of a problem there.

              • Rob in CT

                The Right has been able to exploit divisions between working people. Those working people have agency – they’re not all just duped by false consciousness.

                At this point, the idea that the working class is going to unite is obviously a fantasy.

              • LeeEsq

                The American working class was never as radical in politics as the American intellectual Far Left wanted them to be. They demonstrated much more loyalty to the Democratic Party than the American intellectual far left and the Democratic Party understood what they wanted better.

                • Woodrowfan

                  waiting for American Labor to suddenly move left as a group is like going to a hillside and waiting for Jesus to return,. anyyy day now,. just wait. any dayyyyy…

                  that doesn;t mean the Democrats should ignore them, but we can’t count on them being anything than one large piece of a larger coalition.

                • NoMoreAltCenter

                  Reformism is always and everywhere more popular than Revolution. True.

                • Joseph Slater

                  If you actually cared about real, existing American unions, you wouldn’t have demonstrated your ignorance about the Harris case above. Again, Trump being in office and appointing even one Justice means right-to-work rules nationally for all public sector unions, as a matter of constitutional law. Hillary winning, even if she never had a Supreme Court appointee, would have prevented that because of an ongoing 4-4 tie preserving the status quo. Now though, half the labor movement is going to be financially decimated. But hey, pointing that out is just blackmailing you, right?

                • so-in-so

                  Mr. Godot says he’ll come tomorrow.

      • FlipYrWhig

        Also, the far right parlayed those resources into making themselves a quarter of the population, while the far left decided to use the same strategy the Shaker elders did, because you can’t ever _really_ trust johnny-come-latelies to a cause _this_ important.

        • so-in-so

          The pro-CSA part of the population was just sitting there for the taking after the Civil Rights amendment. They are more than 25%

      • LeeEsq

        The Far Right had much better funding sources but eventually that ends up as something of an excuse to explain away a lack of discipline. Even without superior funding, I’d think that the Far Right would embark on a similar program with similar results. They simply made the better choice and had enough discipline to carry it out.

    • FlipYrWhig

      Also, the Far Left decided that it would be best if their membership were restrictive, because you can’t really trust johnny-come-latelies to the cause of revolution, while the Far Right decided that it might be a good idea to recruit more people to Far Right-ism. Time-lapse 50 years and…

      • FlipYrWhig

        Man, I deleted this comment! Now I seem like a repetitive crank! Even compared to usual!

        • jim, some guy in iowa

          eh, you’ve got a looooong way to ‘repetitive crank’

          • FlipYrWhig

            Flatterer! <3

      • LeeEsq

        Sort of, kind of. I think its more accurate to say that different generations of the Far Left have tended to be hostile to each other. From what I’ve read, the Old Left did not get along with the baby boomer Left of the Counter-Culture even in Europe. Theodore Adorno had impeccable Far Leftist anti-imperialist and fascist credentials and apparently a lot of his more Left leaning students did not like him and saw him as capitalist, imperialist stooge.

        A similar thing might be happening today but I’m not on the Far Left so I don’t know for certain.

      • petesh

        My partner R went to the women’s march in DC (you may have heard of it) and spotted someone she did not know who was carrying a sign indicating she was from our town. So R cheerfully went over to say Hi. The response was to stare up and down and up and say: “Were you at the preparation meeting?” “Uh, no.” Blank stare and head-turn-away. I guess to some people, you’re always doing it wrong.

        • FlipYrWhig

          I was never a huge fan of Amanda Marcotte’s “Insufferable Music Snob” essays but she clarified something for me: there’s a big difference between people who geek out over music that they think is better than mainstream music _and want to share it_ (her approach, Loomis’s approach) and those who geek out themselves but resent it when others find out. Huge swaths of the left have decided they don’t want to share. It’s their scene and they were into it before you ever heard of it! Feh. That’s no way to do politics.

          • Captain C

            Talk about a contradiction: “Ours is the way. Everyone must agree with us. No one who doesn’t already agree with us is trustworthy and they all must be shunned and excluded!” Fucking hipster politics.

            • FlipYrWhig

              “When I moved into this neighborhood it was totally cool, but everyone after me ruined it!”

  • alexceres

    I have to wonder if the Green Party isn’t broken by design and effectively the fringe left version of the fund raising scams we’ve seen with Carson and others. Also, how much money have they taken from GOP PACs ?

    People being this stupid usually means money is involved.

    • Despite her attacks on Big Pharma we know that Stein is heavily invested in Big Pharma stocks. Perhaps she also has investments in for-profit school corporations.

      .

  • Mutombo

    Ah, a return of the “Dems are bad, gimme money” tactic that worked so well for her before her “elections were bad, gimme money” tactic.

    • Captain Oblivious

      Or feed my ego. Soctors can make pretty good money.

      I think it’s entirely possible she has not clue what the R/D breakout of the Senate is, as she appears to have no clue about much of anything.

      However, by being the candidate of a non-trivial third party, she gets to say and do stupid things and get her mug all over the internet. and while this may translate to her skimming some money off her PACs, I think its mainly about her being an attention-whoring narcissist.

      • so-in-so

        I might differ on the triviality of the current U.S. Green party.

      • David Hunt

        I think it’s entirely possible she has not clue what the R/D breakout of the Senate is, as she appears to have no clue about much of anything.

        Based on her arguments in the campaign that a Democratic President Clinton would have an easier time getting her agenda through a GOP Congress than a Republican President Trump, I’d say you’re onto something.

  • This is one of the many tragic examples of what happens when a physician thinks Hey, I’m a doctor, I must be a genius at everything!

    • Gwen

      Even Ben Carson is smart enough to know that he shouldn’t be in charge of a government agency (even if he’s dumb enough to let Trump flatter his ego anyway).

      • After he ran for president. He IS quieter than Stein, however.

  • Gwen

    Delete your account whole useless political party, Jill.

    • Cheap Wino

      The Greens seem to have cornered the market on mostly well intentioned people who have no ability or desire to apply intellectual rigor to what goes in to actually governing. Kind of a left wing swamp that needs to be drained.

    • q-tip

      whole useless political party

      I was registered as a Green for … too many years. (In my defense, I was naive and idealistic, followed by a spell of just being lazy.)

      And yeah, “useless” is exactly the right word. You could elaborate with “waste of ballot ink and voters’ time” if you want.

      I will say: they never, ever, sent me any electioneering materials in all those years. Almost like they kind of got the joke.

  • anonymous

    Of all the professions with an outsized ego, physicians and surgeons are on top of the list. While I agree you can’t be a complete imbecile, it’s a myth that only geniuses can become doctors. It’s really not the case. A good deal of the practice of medicine is very rote and procedural.

    What I find most annoying is how the “Dr” title has become a virtual title of nobility. If you’re seeing them or referring to them in their professional capacity, okay, but the public and especially many doctors I’ve encountered insist on their “Dr” title like the “Sir” title in the UK even in nonprofessional settings.

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      the first experience I ever had with a non-MD “Dr” was a guy they brought in to be superintendent of schools here in the late 80s. He was one of those “creative destruction” types who I think was basically hired to close a couple of outlying elementary schools, take the shit from the parents, and get out with a nice parachute. Along the way he managed to stir up a lot of other things that probably *didn’t* need stirring. And yeah he insisted on being called “Doctor _____ “

      • Woodrowfan

        Were they a D.Ed.?? I’ve seen a few examples of those around locally that are embarrassingly poor writers and speakers.

    • trollhattan

      Stein and Carson and Ron Paul need a cage match to settle once and for always which is the savantiest of the idiot savants. Let’s do this!

  • Woodrowfan

    this is the same idiot that went to a RT Banquet and sat at Putin’s table. She thinks Hillary is somehow worse for the average person (and the environment) than PUTIN!!! Her judgement is as bad as Trumps…

    • Captain C

      I’ll take that judgment seriously sometime after she works as a freelance anti-Putin journalist inside Russia for a few years, preferably with an apartment downwind/stream from a Russian chemical factory.

    • nemdam

      As Glenn Greenwald has been saying, only true leftists support Putin.

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        In as much as the most blatant and consistent hard left position is uncompromising anti-Americanism, yeah, Greenwald is probably actually right

  • lizzie

    O/T but holy jesus fuck: “Trump gets laughs when he offers to ‘destroy’ a Texas state senator’s career”

    ETA: Oh, and the reason for the hatred of the state senator? He introduced legislation to require a conviction before a defendant’s assets can be seized.

    • Little Chak

      Jesus, the guy going on at the end about how refreshing it is to have a President who doesn’t talk about gun control, but instead holds a meeting in which he asks the commissioners what he can do to make their lives easier…

      Newsflash: the President’s job is to represent the people, not just the FOP. And the job of the police is to be a group of non-partisan civil servants who serve and protect their communities, not to be the armed (legally, with a badge) wing of the Republican Party.

      And the first guy…holy crap. “The cartels are going to build a monument in your honor…” (or whatever he said). Like, if you need the power to seize people’s assets without getting a conviction in order to prosecute the drug war, you’re doing it wrong. Or, maybe you just shouldn’t be doing it at all.

      I would have thought that the idea of the police needing the power to be judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to seizing civil assets would be non-starter, but here we are.

    • Hob

      I didn’t get past Trump’s first line in that video:

      “Does anybody have anything to… not even a question, a statement… as to how we can bring about law enforcement in a very good, civil, lovely way, but we have to stop crime. Right?”

      I don’t get how even a wingnut fascist asshole can hear that and not go “Why are you talking like that? Are you okay? Do you need to take a nap?”

      • I’m not sure it’s so much that they don’t notice as it is that they don’t care. He pisses off the liebruls and that’s all they care about. Most aspects of the modern Republican Party can be explained in three simple steps:

        1. Cleek’s Law
        2. It’s always projection
        3. FYIGM

        That’s pretty much it. They don’t care whether he’s competent or even in control of his mental faculties. He pisses off liberals and that’s the only thing they really care about.

      • tsam

        Still popular with Republicans. I’ve been reliably informed that they’re serious about policy and other junk.

        • Pissing off liberals is a kind of policy.

          • tsam

            Im also reliably informed that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that as an idoit libtard, I’m required to respect that.

            • But really, being intolerant of bigotry makes you the real bigot. Don’t forget that, either.

              • tsam

                I’m going to shave my head and sit in ashes.

                • jim, some guy in iowa

                  let ’em cool first

      • Hob

        I mean, yes, I get it, they don’t care. I thought it would be clear that when I say “I don’t get how…” it’s just a figure of speech meaning “If those people had been in any way raised right, they would react differently.” (Although I don’t know why I thought I could get away with using a figure of speech, given how often comments like “It’s incredible how [latest example of terrible Republican behavior” get literal-minded replies like “Why is that incredible to you? You’re so naive,” etc.)

        Anyway… I would just like to bookmark that quote for the next time someone tries to tell me that Trump’s manner of speaking really isn’t a sign of faulty thought processes at all, he’s just inarticulate like regular folks, etc… sorry, no. An inarticulate person who wanted to ask a room full of cops for advice on how to stop crime could come up with ten super awkward sentences to express this thought, and all of them would make more sense than that shit.

        • Rob in CT

          I hear ya, Hob. I hear ya.

  • Sev

    Why would we have a tie on such an egregious nominee? Because Democrats serve corporate interests.

    They couldn’t stop her, but they made her wear a tie. I think this is the logic of her argument. If they weren’t such sellouts, it would at least have been a tie-dyed tie.

    • Sev

      italics fail

  • No Longer Middle Aged Man

    I think she’s patterning herself after Lyndon LaRouche, having seen that he maintained a pretty good grift and some public attention for decades despite lacking substance. His followers were a lot like NoMoreMaltedMilk, spouting Cliff’s Notes Marxist analysis and fantasizing political scenarios where they would be “willing to work with social democrats.” Call spirits from the vasty deep, can ya now.

It is main inner container footer text