Home / General / “I Am Not A Crank”: The Continuing Ballad of Dr. Jill Stein, MD

“I Am Not A Crank”: The Continuing Ballad of Dr. Jill Stein, MD

Comments
/
/
/
1400 Views

Shorter verbatim Jill Stein:

Yes, the ideas that Russia ratfucked the election (for which the evidence is overwhelming) and that the Trump campaign colluded with them (which they have conceded, and indeed are now boasting about) are a nutty conspiracy theory meant to cover up the obvious truth that Donna Brazile letting Hillary Clinton know that a debate held in Flint would contain a question about poisoned water was worth at least 4.1 million votes in the Democratic primaries. But while Brazile’s email clearly swung the outcome of the primaries, it is logically impossible for a spoiler candidate to ever affect an electoral outcome, but even if they did the way to stop fascism is to elect fascists. All perfectly logical!

Obviously, there’s no possible defense for consumerist wank voting at this historical moment. But if you insist on it — if you just don’t care about the countless victims of Republican governance — find a better object for your ballot booth onanism than this.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

    Harvard, take a bow!

    • Lot_49

      They still owe us for GWB, MBA, 1975.

      • MariedeGournay

        And with Kushner the dues keep piling up.

    • liberalrob

      It’s just unbelievable. This woman was interviewed by Bill Moyers in 2012; he’s not the type to invite lunatics on his show. She showed no signs at the time of being the absolutely delusional person she clearly now is. Talk about sad.

      • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

        She seems to have decided to latch onto whatever fringe beliefs might win her a handful of votes. As an internist, you’d think she’d be fully aware of the benefits of vaccinations, esp pneumococcal, flu and diphtheria

        • Jurgan

          Bernie Sanders isn’t the left-wing Trump, Jill Stein is. She’s a an inexperienced weirdo who peddles in bizarre conspiracy theories. The difference is the Democrats would never let someone so unqualified be the standard-bearer of their party.

  • Jill thinks Mueller’s looking at her financials and is worried she won’t have time to get her passport ready in time.

    • malraux

      “The Judiciary Committee wants any record of interactions before and after last year’s meeting with Russians. It also goes far broader, seeking records relating to dozens of other people including Russian President Vladimir Putin, numerous other Russians, and even Green Party candidate Jill Stein.”

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/trump-jr-manafort-called-to-testify-next-week-by-senate-panel

      Its not just her thinking that, she’s definitely part of some of the investigations.

      • Drew

        Oh man if she goes down too I think I’ll sing.

      • Wojciech

        I hope that that vegan meal she shared with Putin at the Kremlin was worth it.

        • Hogan

          Borscht without sour cream? Yikes.

          • Dennis Orphen

            It beets having nothing at all.

            • JamesWimberley

              Give me a little water. A lot of it.

            • Bitter Scribe

              It’s something to root for.

    • Dennis Orphen

      Extract them all. Putin knows his own.

      • A few days in a shipping container. Lots of water, a cot, a bucket. Anyone can survive that.

  • Thirtyish

    “Dr.” Stein just sticks to totally legit and not at all conspiracy theories like anti-vaxx and 9/11 troofism.

  • keta

    It’s a really bad time for supposed leaders and other public figures to revel in the stupidity. I’m unsure how the screwy, simple-minded trails Trump and his half-wits have been blazing look like viable pathways, but now, especially now, is a time for sober, sensible steps.

  • BubbaDave

    nutty conspiracy theory
    Ballot booth onanism

    • Dennis Orphen

      So that’s the reason we have booths instead of boxes.

  • Downpup E

    There’s no timestamp on your snip of the tweet, so I looked it up, thinking it was a golden oldie.Nope : she wrote that yesterday.

    https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/888469907855290369

    • brewmn

      I had to check that too. I thought no way is anyone who considers themselves a serious person still going about the rigged primaries at this point, are they?

      • mausium

        When was she last a do-gooder?

      • Robbert

        Hell, as stupid as that is, it’s not half as stupid as referring to the Russia investigation as ‘ludicrous conspiracy theory’ at this point.

      • BigHank53

        The “donate” function on her page is still 100% functional. So she seems to be serious about that.

        • N__B

          She may be an idiot but she’s not brain dead.

          • cpinva

            not completely anyway, the grifter part of it seems to be functioning just fine.

      • mellowjohn

        it seems a lot of people who consider themselves “serious” are still going on about both the primaries and the general election.
        whether they are or not is a matter of debate.

        • Dennis Orphen

          “I’m serious!”

          “Hi, I’m Roebuck. Nice to meet you.”

      • Lost Left Coaster

        The only other person harping on that is, well, you know, the orange guy.

      • nemdam

        Jill Stein considers herself a serious person?

    • hypersphericalcow

      When someone goes out of their way to make a preposterous, unprompted denial like this, it makes me wonder what they’re actually worried about.

  • both/box

  • Spiny

    Green Party cranks have been popping up in my local activism groups a bit more frequently lately – eager to inform us that we’re not worth their votes right now but if we listen closely and take notes maybe we can be worthy one day. Fuck em.

    • ArchTeryx

      They sure as hell did a good job fucking *us*. What was Trump’s margin of victory again in MI? WI? PA?

      • Spiny

        Principled Third Party Voters cannot be held responsible for such things. Principled Third Party Voters are only responding rationally to their abandonment by the two major parties. Principled Third Party Voters recognize that responsibility to community and solidarity with the vulnerable is important, sure, but more important is sending a message to “elites” you dislike.

        (Disclaimer: Principled Third Party Voters are also not responsible for any failings of their third party)

        • Davis X. Machina

          to community and solidarity with the vulnerable

          What’s ‘community?’
          And who are these ‘vulnerable’ I’m supposed to be in solidarity with?
          I mean, they’re not me,,,,

          • Spiny

            To a person, every one of them insists they have POC/disabled/LGBT friends who they care about very much and how dare anyone imply otherwise. It’s infuriating.

            • nemdam

              Just like Trump cultists claim they have POC/disabled/LGBT friends that they love dearly and don’t have a bigoted bone in their body.

              It never ceases to amaze me that anyone who’s defense against bigotry is to claim they have a black/gay/whatever friend is, to put it softly, highly suspicious. I’ve never said this back because it would just derail everything, but what I always want to say is have you ever talked to them in-depth about this?

              • Murc

                Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug. Also, people are, well, complicated.

                I mean… there are POC/disabled/LGBT Trump voters. I’m not really comfortable calling those people self-hating or bigoted, for example.

                And I’m sure there are Trump voters who are white dudes who genuinely do have POC/disabled/LGBT friends they love dearly and care for but who don’t see what that has to do with making ‘murica great again.

                My mother’s husband is one of those idiots. He’s lavished a lot of time, care, and effort on my sister, who is legitimately mentally ill. His best friend, who he’s been mates with forever, is super, super gay. (Said friend’s own description, not mine.)

                And he’s a hardcore Trumpist. Not only that, he regards anyone who isn’t as suspect. This makes him a bad person, but I don’t think it makes him consciously malevolent towards the people his politics have an impact on.

                People seem to have an amazing ability to rationalize politics as “nothing personal.” They build a wall between “how I treat the people in my life” and “the vision I have for the country” and don’t at all see how they’re related. My father is like this as well; he’s said to me a few times “I don’t get why you’re talking to me, or my wife, like this. We’ve never been anything but decent to you.” Like he just doesn’t realize that that’s not nothing, but it also it isn’t everything.

                • hypersphericalcow

                  “Not you, Zaxon, you’re one of the good ones.”

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NItSzag0Tw

                • Chet Murthy

                  I *had* a friend like that once (until Nov 2016). Back in 2004, he’d argued to me that “what’s a few stress positions?” and when I politely told him recently that we were no longer friends, b/c he voted for Putinfluffer, he reminded me that he’d “won” that argument in 2004, forgetting that the reason I’d given it up, was that when you get to the point of calling somebody a moral monster, you can’t still remain friends. And at the time, I still wanted to remain friends.

                  But when a moral monster shows his true colors, believe him (to paraphrase Masha Gessen). If all of us ostracized these monsters, I think it’d be good for the country.

                • stepped pyramids

                  But it’s Just Politics, dontcha see? What’s wrong with you that you’d let Politics come between you and a friend? It’s not like Politics matter that much, right?

                • liberalrob

                  Maybe not so much for the country, which is dependent on our finding some way of living with these people…but certainly good for our sanity.

                • Solar System Wolf

                  I have two Trumpist high school friends, and one high school friend who is on Medicaid. The first two dearly want the ACA repealed. I told them if it is, then I expect they will pay for our third friend’s health care needs out of their own pockets from then on. The one guy said that because he gives to his church, that would cover it. I said, no, you have to pay directly to her because the churches are not going to pick up the load. He said I should do it, and I said if ACA is repealed I’m going to be busy rounding up another $400 per month to pay for my own insurance, thanks. Of course those other two guys get theirs through their employers.

                  Taxation is theft, says the one guy. I hate welfare, says the other guy (who went to all public schools and whose parents are on Medicare). Both consider themselves good Christians.

                • If you taser them, say, 2 or 37 times, and I’m on the jury, you’ll be home for dinner.

                • Uncle_Ebeneezer

                  People seem to have an amazing ability to rationalize politics as “nothing personal.” They build a wall between “how I treat the people in my life” and “the vision I have for the country” and don’t at all see how they’re related. My father is like this as well; he’s said to me a few times “I don’t get why you’re talking to me, or my wife, like this. We’ve never been anything but decent to you.” Like he just doesn’t realize that that’s not nothing, but it also it isn’t everything.

                  These are the people that drive me bonkers. It’s such a privileged attitude (even though obviously marginalized voters can share it as well) and is completely out of touch with the reality of the amount of damage (or good) that a person’s vote can do. I’m getting increasingly tired of being asked by conservatives, the media and even fellow liberals to keep giving these people a pass on their actions and ignorance. Marginalized groups have been very clear over the past few years that: Your votes literally put people’s lives in jeopardy whether through losing healthcare, encouraging ICE/aggressive police state, etc. Anyone who is still using the “I have __ friends/wife/grandkids etc.” excuse for voting against the interests of the oppressed are simply refusing to listen and choosing to live in the fantasy that makes THEM feel good. I think this aspect of our society (the myth of the vote that hurts no one, so don’t feel bad about it) might be the biggest reason we have gotten into this mess and why it will be so hard to get out of it. I don’t know how we wake these people up. I’d like to think that teaching children about oppression (without pulling punches to coddle white feelings) would be a great way to start, but the likelihood of ever getting something like that into widespread public education curricula…snowball, meet Hell…

            • cpinva

              “To a person, every one of them insists they have POC/disabled/LGBT friends who they care about very much”

              i wish i’d been the fly on the wall, when they had to explain to these “friends” why it was necessary for them to be fucked over, so they could register their unhappiness with the powers that be, by wasting their vote on this blithering twit. how many of those “friends” cut them off from ever communicating with them again, ever, in any way/shape/form do you suppose? my bet is 99.9999999999999% of them did.

        • Sly

          “Sure, stopping a right wing revanchist movement intent on repealing the last 150 years of social progress is all well and good, but how am I supposed to look myself in the mirror after voting for Crooked Hillary?”

          • cpinva

            then don’t look in the mirror, asshole. god, i believe i despise these people even more than i despise the Trumpsters. the Trumpsters can at least claim they’re uneducated and ignorant, along with being racist/mysogynist/etc. the people that voted for stein, by and large are educated and, of all people, should have known better. and, all that notwithstanding, they voted for her anyway. truly despicable assholes.

        • cpinva

          Principled Third Party Voters are barely a step up the moron ladder, from Trump voters. the difference is their moronity. comes with a side of arugala, and a BA in English from some dinky ass college no one has ever heard of. oh, and the guys have ironic beards and moustaches.

          yes, she’s apparently this batshit crazy. i think she started reading and believing her own press releases. this has been the fatal flaw of many.

    • Heron

      I find it deeply ironic that the people who think of themselves as the leftiest pringles and throw neoliberal around like they’re the cashier at a Fujimori going out of business sell, all buy into individualist, market-based models of political behavior and have nothing but disdain for collectivist, party-based, and structuralist arguments.

      Like, the very LAST person who ought to be talking to me about their sacred duty to vote their individual conscience is a self-avowed communist. Yet here we are.

  • Brien Jackson

    Well, if you take the sum total of Stein’s crazed Tweetfest yesterday, it sure looks like she’s very worried about the prospect of investigators looking at her communications and finances. But it’s not like sitting at Putin’s table at a RT gala was suspicious or anything!

    • mausium

      She just accidentally happened to find herself next to the KGB! An honest mistake!

      • Davis X. Machina

        Mir i druzhba, while not expensive, isn’t free. You get a little help from time to time, sure….

    • Lost Left Coaster

      Furiously tweeting to try and deter an active investigation. This sounds very familiar. I feel like there is another public figure, one who may even be more famous than Stein, who does this a lot too.

    • nemdam

      Me thinks there may be a tweet in the near future about how the whole investigation is fake news.

    • hypersphericalcow

      I am continuously astonished by how otherwise smart people end up getting suckered into shady dealings with obvious con-men. Dunning-Kruger Effect, I suppose.

      • Origami Isopod

        Stein ain’t smart. She’s an anti-vaxxer. You don’t have to be all that smart to earn an M.D. Consider Ben Carson, Bill Frist, Ron Paul, and many others.

  • SatanicPanic

    How is this tweet by Dr Stein supposed to help the left? I get that she’s a fool and probably on Putin’s payroll, but clearly some people like her. If the Democrats are hopeless, what does everyone do in the decade (at least) that it takes to make a viable Green Party? Just suffer? It’s crazy

    • Jon Hendry

      “what does everyone do in the decade (at least) that it takes to make a viable Green Party?”

      Work on electing candidates at the state and local levels, rather than focusing on quixotic stunt runs for offices every four years.

      You know, the hard stuff.

      • SatanicPanic

        If we were in the middle of a liberal era, like, say, the mid 20th century, I wouldn’t object. But even if the Greens were talking about doing this stuff for real, what would they say to everyone in the meantime? Abandon hope while we get this together?

        • sigaba

          Work with Democrats on what you agree on, which is quite a bit. Caucus with Dems in state legislatures — where, guess what, Democrats have a lot of trouble getting to majorities and a third party that stands in the balance holds significant bargaining power.

          Prove that Greens can field competent politicians by effectively managing towns and county governments.

          • Hogan

            Caucus with Dems in state legislatures — where, guess what, Democrats
            have a lot of trouble getting to majorities and a third party that
            stands in the balance holds significant bargaining power.

            This would require Greens displacing Republicans, which is . . . not usually what happens.

            • sigaba

              That depends on the districts and how greens are distributed. Also depends on if greens strictly syphon of Dem votes or mobilize otherwise non-participating voters. Despite everything Greens and Dems are not in a zero-sum game, particularly the more local you get.

              • DocAmazing

                You know, there’s an immense can of worms to be opened here…

                • Hogan

                  Yes, Grandpa, tell us the Newsom/Gonzalez story again. I’ll make cocoa.

              • Hogan

                Sure. It’s theoretically possible to have a district with both a slight Republican majority, a viable Green candidate with a locally available campaign structure, and no Democrats so speak of. As I say, that’s not usually what happens. Greens tend to be concentrated in the same areas as liberal Democrats, and in my experience that’s who they end up competing with.

                • Wapiti

                  An exception can be those places with jungle primaries. Here in WA, the top two winners in the primary go on to the general election. That could be two Dems, a Dem and a Socialist or Green, or maybe even a Green vs. a Repub. In jungle primary states, there’s the possibility of competing in the primary, then supporting the Dem/Green over the Repub in the general. (What irritates me is the trend to making positions non-partisan. I want to know who self-identifies as a Repub so that I can vote against them.)

        • Micheál Keane

          Washington state has top two primaries, easy & fair ballot access laws and some of the most hardcore Bernie supporting areas in the country. On top of that, with Rep McDermott retiring, a bunch of seats opened up all over Seattle & King County. Did I mention Seattle elected a full blown legit socialist to city council and she supports Jill Stein?

          Guess how many candidates the Greens ran in 2016 in Washington State?

          Zero.

          They’re a Potemkin political party.

    • nemdam

      I say this in all sincerity, but there’s no reason to think this, or Jill Stein’s whole political career, is supposed to help the left. The only people I see being helped by her activity is the right. At some point when all of someone’s actions don’t help the party they are purportedly helping, you have to conclude they have no interest in actually doing so.

      • SatanicPanic

        Absolutely, I agree here, I’m just wondering about her fans.

  • Bub, Zombie in mourning

    Jill Stein is not a crank. A crank is useful.

    • I maintain there’s a distinct difference between “crank” and “crackpot”, in that the former is an obsessive (borderline monomaniacal, even) but not necessarily insane – i.e., cranks aren’t necessarily crackpots, but crackpots are almost required to also be cranks.

      • stepped pyramids

        After C.S. Lewis: crank, crackpot, or crook?

        • Dennis Orphen

          Great British tabloid headline, in my opinion.

      • Gregor Sansa

        but not necessarily insane

        Oh, you. That’s so sweet.

        [/me blushes]

  • Where “ludicrous conspiracy theories” = “attention to ludicrous conspiracies that distract from my own ludicrous conspiracy theories”

  • jpgray

    It’s a little weird that sowing these divisions works so well when the supposed ideological death-struggle combatants, the actual “saboteur” and “sabotaged” (however you cast those roles), show so little interest, comparatively, in blaming or accusing each other of ruining the nation and its best hopes.

    Why Bernie fans or HRC fans are so eager to “rah rah fuck her/him and all his/her supporters forever” when Bernie and HRC display almost zero interest in this behavior is a mystery to me.

    You expect HRC to be an adult, and she is, and we’re lucky there, but I think we also lucked out a bit with our lefty anti-establishment figure in that Bernie isn’t sowing these divisions or buying into them for personal cult-building as others might have done.

    I mean, retreating into a bubble of self-important do-nothing virtue and grooming acolytes to join you in pissing on everything outside of it is often the move, yeah?

    • humanoidpanda

      I’ll just point out that the Bernie is the ranking Democrat in the budget committee, which means it was his staff that convinced the Senate parliamentarian to shot a bunch of holes into the BRCA.

      • Spiny

        Interesting, I didn’t know the ranking member was responsible for that. They apparently did a stellar job.

      • catbirdman

        Just in case anyone else is like me and needs further explanation: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/21/16012950/senate-health-care-bill-byrd-rule-rulings

      • Is this true? I mean all the Vox article says is that he circulated the results:

        The findings of the Senate parliamentarian, who evaluates whether policies included in bills meant to pass through reconciliation comply with the Senate rules, were posted online late Friday afternoon and sent out by Democratic ranking member Sen. Bernie Sanders’s office.

        I mean these sorts of ruling are the parlementarian’s day job and it’s not like the particular determinations are complex or a stretch.

        I’m prepared to believe that Bernie was the interface or the driver in this instance but it’s not a heavy lift by any means nor is it different from what one would expect who never was the minority ranking member, afaict.

        • humanoidpanda

          The way the process works is that both sides make the argument in front of the parliamentarian. Since Senators themselves are not parliamentary experts, the people who do the lifting are stafffers. Sanders, as the ranking member, is the boss of the staffers on the budget committee.

      • Bernie is not a democrat. But it sure was nice of the Democratic Party (which is the worst evil) to give him a seat. I guess that’s how they’re keeping him down.

        • I imagine they did that because they thought it was in their interest to do so. I mean, political parties aren’t in the business of handing out favors, at least not without expecting some return on their investment.

    • JMP

      “Bernie fans or HRC fans”? That’s a nice bit of bothsidesdoitism to imply that it’s not just the purity trolls who are trying to destroy the Democratic party.

      • stepped pyramids

        There are absolutely numerous Clinton fans — including here at LGM — who are more interested in score-settling with Sanders than with winning back control over the government. One clue is all the garment-rending about how someone who “isn’t even a Democrat” shouldn’t be a spokesman for the congressional Democrats, despite the fact that he caucuses with the Dems and is the most popular left-leaning politician in the country.

        • nemdam

          You can’t turn the other cheek indefinitely. If Bernie wants to stop trashing the party and its legacy, then people will stop pushing back. This is not a one-way street.

        • Here’s the problem with this analysis: it almost certainly doesn’t match the internal motivation of those people. If you thought that Bernie was a net destructive force (even regardless of his intentions or efforts) in part because of his damaging Dem unity and engagement then his popularity and uses thereof are a problem esp if he’s not going to help win elections.

          One reason to be a bit hostile to his fluctuating formal membership in the Democratic Party is the comfort or excuse it gives to other third partists or people willing to prioritise internal (often nominal) ideological struggle over winning elections or strengthening the Democratic Party as an opposition.

          Now you can disagree with this analysis. I do both substantively and tactically. I don’t think it is correct and even if some aspects were they don’t mean that much. But let’s acknowledge the genuine concerns many people have.

          (You can run the flip analysis on some “score settling” Bernicrats. Of course, not all of these are symmetric. Bernie’s an active politician whereas HRC is retired and Chelsea isn’t a politician. But there’s plenty of room on the Bernie left for rational even if mistaken critiques of the Democrats and of course well taken criticisms).

          • The Lorax

            This comment section is much better when Bijan is active here.

            • Aw thanks.

              • sharculese

                We missed you and we’re glad you’re back.

                • stepped pyramids

                  Thirded

                • I’m glad to be back too. Thanks.

          • stepped pyramids

            This is all reasonable, but I am absolutely convinced that for at least some of these people, the primary motive is score-settling. And it only has to be some in order for the comment I was responding to to be false.

            Specifically:

            Why Bernie fans or HRC fans are so eager to “rah rah fuck her/him and all his/her supporters forever” when Bernie and HRC display almost zero interest in this behavior is a mystery to me.

            This is only “bothsidesdoitism” if there aren’t Clinton fans who are going “rah rah fuck him and all his supporters forever”.

            To be clear, I personally think Sanders has shown himself to be pretty egotistical and self-serving over the past couple of years, despite representing a political position closer to my own. I felt that his concession in the primaries was extraordinarily ungracious (he talked a lot about how Clinton had “won the primary process”, after months of suggesting that the “process” was flawed or fixed). I count myself among his critics. (Maybe I can manage to get attacked as both a Hillbot and a Bernie Bro in the same thread!)

            But it’s ridiculous to claim that the primary-related infighting was one-sided, and it’s clear there are good reasons for the Democrats to keep Sanders prominent, even if it’s a bit of a devil’s bargain.

            • I agree that there’s plenty of bad behavior and it’s not clearly correlated with one’s democratic primary preference (except for those O’Malley supporting bastards, natch). I don’t think concerns about Bernie’s nominal party membership is, itself, a good predictor of a preference for score settling per se. It’s straightforward to read it as an attack on the party esp as he’s associated with pretty vehement attacks on the party from the at least nominal left. It seems perfectly naturally to read his not being a formal member of the party as a kind of contempt for the party and that triggers both defensiveness and a concern that such behavior hurts the party’s electoral fortunes.

              I don’t think those latter concerns are particularly well founded, and perhaps Bernie having stayed a nominal democrat wouldn’t defang these concerns. But I at least have seen many expressions of the sentiment that someone wouldn’t vote for Bernie if he became a nominee. I’ve not head any sentiment that he should be stripped of senority (unlike for Leiberman).

              It’s a complex phenomenon but it doesn’t seem to be score settling or purification per se, but at least self conceptualized as instrumental.

              I think those concerns are a waste of time. Bernie isn’t a problem but he’s also not magically super effective against Trump and his Gang Of Praetorians. He’s about effective as a competen, popular, senior senator typically is.

              • wjts

                I’ve not head any sentiment that he should be stripped of senority (unlike for Leiberman).

                I haven’t either, but I have seen people here arguing that he should not have a prominent public role in the Democratic Party going forward.

                • Hmmm.

                  But is this unreasonable (or even analogous)? It’s not bonkers or vindictive to say “if you want a say in how the Democratic Party organisies itself you have to be a registered member”. Eg it seems reasonable that he’s not eligible foto be DNC chair.

                  I don’t see much problem in letting him have a “say” whatever exactly that means. But wanting what is, after all, the most minor of affiliation markers isn’t something I’m going to give people any trouble over.

                • wjts

                  I think it depends on the specific role we’re talking about. No, it doesn’t make sense for Sanders to be the DNC chair or DSCC chair or hold any formal position related specifically to the organization/running of the Democratic Party as an institution if he doesn’t want to join the party. But inasmuch as the Democratic Party is also interested in advancing a liberal/left policy agenda, and Sanders is a pretty popular politician who shares that interest, it seems a little foolish to try to keep him at arm’s length for things like fundraising, whipping up enthusiasm, outreach, etc. – lots of people like him. (Lots do not, I concede.) And not officially joining the party doesn’t strike me as particularly important here. As you say, it’s the most minor of affiliation markers, and the flip side of that argument is that it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to exclude a potentially valuable ally over a minor affiliation marker.

                • I think we agree…but does anyone really care if Sanders does fundraising? I mean unless there’s concern he’ll leverage it into problematic power.

                  But this seems pretty tail end.

            • cpinva

              “I count myself among his critics.”

              as do i. i was before he decided to go all in on the nutty conspiracy route: that the primaries were somehow “fixed” for HRC. once he decided to go down that path, i had zero use for him at all. i had even less use for those of his supporters who, with no tangible evidence from Sen. Sanders, immediately bought into the “fixed primaries” conspiracy.

              my initial criticism of him, was that he was fundamentally not a Democrat, had made it a point, during his entire time in office until then, to loudly proclaim he wasn’t a Democrat. fine, that’s his prerogative, but once he accepted being in the Democratic primaries, he should have made it a point to loudly proclaim his formal membership in the Democratic Party. he didn’t, which told me he was going to bail, if he didn’t win the primary. and so he did, to no one’s great surprise.

          • Ithaqua

            When I disagree with Bijan, I always spend some time thinking about what he/she wrote to make sure I understand why. Sometimes I even change my mind.

        • JMP

          Actually no, not at all, there’s just people who actually liked Hillary Clinton – shocking, I know! – reacting to the neverending bullshit from the “Bernie would have won!” and “Clinton just lost because she sucked!” brigade.

          • sigaba

            Nonsense, everybody hated Hillary and everybody who supported here was just motivated by the craven strategery and letting her have Her Turn. Everybody knows Bernie was the Better Candidate and the Better Liberal and his policies were Better.

            • JMP

              I liked when Dilan accused me of being a paid shill for Hillary Clinton, because nobody could possibly like her or want to defend her from dishonest attacks unless they were being paid to do so.

        • Sly

          Going after Sanders personally is a waste of time. Going after the dead-enders who lasso’d themselves to his campaign and think they are owed fealty is not.

          There are plenty of people in the Democratic Party who will not soon forget scenes like this.

          Nor should they

          • Pete

            I was amazed at how young so many of them seemed (the ones who got screen time, at least). Reminded me a bit of my own youthful devotion to a very different unsuccessful candidate who was going to change the world.

        • jim, some guy in iowa

          “numerous”?

        • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

          “Most popular” solely according to The Hill. More popular than Obama or Hillary? Give me a break.

          • stepped pyramids

            Obama and Clinton don’t hold office and are presumably retired from politics. And Sanders’ favorability rating is much higher than Clinton’s, anyway.

            Oh, and “according to The Hill” is a quite deceptive way of saying “according to the Harvard-Harris poll, reported by The Hill”.

            • Snowwy the Black

              The Harvard-Harris online poll? The one that’s demonstrative of almost EXACTLY the criticisms that sank Sanders’ candidacy? You sure you want to cite that?

              • stepped pyramids

                Would you mind unpacking that for me? That poll isn’t the only one that’s reported Sanders’ favorability around that level. I wasn’t even originally intending to cite it — I was responding to the claim that Sanders is popular only “solely according to The Hill”.

                I don’t have any preconceived notions of the poll itself at all, although upon investigating I notice that Mark Penn is involved, which is a bad sign. Doesn’t mean the poll is inaccurate, though.

            • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

              The Hill is the exclusive client of the Harvard-Harris polls.

              • stepped pyramids

                There’s still a difference between “according to a poll” and “according to The Hill”. Regardless, that poll’s favorability rating for Sanders is consistent with others. I wasn’t even aware of that particular poll until you brought it up.

                • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

                  The shows Bernie’s aggregated favorable rating as 57.0%, as of two months ago. Scroll down and click on the link : http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-favorable-rating
                  which shows Obama’s favorable rating as 61.3%, also as of two months ago.

                • stepped pyramids

                  Again: Obama is retired. He is not a politician anymore.

            • Horace Boothroyd III

              Wait a minute: I was under the impression that everyone here hated Harvard. Are you suggesting that Harvard might, under some circumstances, be a Good Thing?

              • stepped pyramids

                Not even remotely.

          • Horace Boothroyd III

            My understanding of this “MOST POPULAR POLITICIAN!” trophy is that it stems from a survey of popularity among Senators and Congresscritters within their own states.

            So Bernie, coming from a state with a population just a touch higher than Wyoming and smaller than Metro Springfield (in the deep deep deep deep south of what might have been Vermont had several wars gone differently) gets high popularity scores from the Republicans up in the hollers as well as the fringe lefties around Burlington.

            Locally that can not be beat. Is it a recipe for triumph on a continent wide basis?

            More to the point, would we be wise to risk the near term future of the country on the proposition that mouthing the Bernie slogans will force a harvest of leftie warriors who will surge Democratic Socialism to victory and deliver untold goodies to us all?

            • Chet Murthy

              Lolwut? Is that all that poll was? Really?

      • jpgray

        There are trolls on both “sides,” I’d say.

        I think people get a bet confused about this – let’s say the electoral strategy of a particular “side” is more practical and plausible for returning to power, and let’s say that an opposing “side” represents the road to electoral oblivion.

        Even if you grant that, it doesn’t necessarily mean that any and all shit-stirring/bombthrowing in support of the better “side” is always going to be helpful or useful behavior.

        I’d say that’s why the avatars of these supposed factions do comparatively little of it?

        • DocAmazing

          Are we going to do BernieBros vs. Obots eternally? Really, that’s all this boils down to. For Hillary-backers to excoriate the left part of the party for “destroying unity” is at least as absurd as anything the Sanders-backing crew has floated.

          • SpiderDan

            When you see nearly all of the “Democratic Party delenda est” chants coming from one side, equivocating the two factions is the height of bothsides-ism.

            • DocAmazing

              And when you see the hollowing-out of the party to accommodate Trump voters, wealthy donors, and religious fanatics by driving out the actual base, you realize who the actual problem is.

              • SpiderDan

                It is possible to accommodate the criticism of both those who think the Democratic Party should more strongly oppose corporatists and those who think the Democratic Party should not exclusively focus on economic class without simply shouting that the Democratic Party must be destroyed.

                The best way I’ve seen this worded: Berniecrats are willing to take over the party or to destroy it, but completely unwilling to work within it. That is not equivalent to the Hillarycrats.

                • DocAmazing

                  No, they’ll only turn it into The Other Republicans and lock out any reformers.

                • SpiderDan

                  I have no objection to reforming the party.
                  I do object to talk of destroying it.
                  So here we are.

                • DocAmazing

                  And Sanders has gone on about destroying the party? His weirdest followers are about as anti-party as the PUMAs.

              • brewmn61

                And, if you see the Democrats “hollowing-out of the party to accommodate Trump voters, wealthy donors, and religious fanatics by driving out the actual base,” you are part of the problem. Not to mention kind of stupid.

                The base of the Democratic Party is not Gamergaters and unrepentant hippies, no matter how much you wish it so.

                • DocAmazing

                  Oh, is it Blue Dogs and Goldman Sachs execs? Or maybe law-enforcement enthusiasts and Likud publicists? Charter-school operators and privatization profiteers? Hey, play to your audience!

                • Shantanu Saha

                  No, it’s African American women, who are decidedly NOT fans of the Bern.

                • DocAmazing

                  Symone Sanders will be crushed to find out that she’s now white.

                • Severian

                  I’m sure she’ll also be surprised to find out that she suddenly speaks for all black women.

                • DocAmazing

                  Yes, a non-monolithic group. Good thing we’ve been informed what eacha nd every one of them is a fan of.

                • Severian

                  Yes, a non monolithic group that is more than 60% against Sanders. Now do you actually have an argument or do you wish to continue being obtuse?

                • DocAmazing

                  Sure. Got any advice for guys like Jon Ossoff,who does not appear to have courted that 60%, seeing his base elsewhere?

    • nemdam

      It’s funny how Bernie has no interest in sabotaging the party when he selects Nina Turner to head his Super PAC and then she gives an interview where she says she has no interest in unity with the Democratic Party but will have no problem endorsing Republicans and Libertarians. It’s also an interesting demonstration of not sabotaging a party by using a unity tour with the party chairman to trash the party as its head of outreach. Let’s just say, Hillary’s not doing this stuff.

      • I don’t know about trashing. Is he expected to be uncritical of The Party? I don’t think this kind of defensive posture is necessarily good for any political organization to adopt unless they are certain they have already attained perfection.

        • Hogan

          Is he expected to be uncritical of The Party?

          When he’s doing party outreach events? Yeah, I would think so.

          • stepped pyramids

            It’s fine for him to have an implicit critique, along the lines of “the Democrats haven’t been moving in the right direction and now we need to work together to fix it”, but there are so many better ways to put that than he has been doing.

    • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

      “Bernie isn’t sowing these divisions or buying into them for personal cult-building”

      Bullshit.

      • jpgray

        “As others might have done” is in the sentence for a reason.

        We’re both posting in a thread concerning a “lefty” who treats evidence-backed Russian meddling in an election into some sort of sore loser conspiracy tinfoil habersdashery solely to beat on the other “side.” If you don’t think we could do worse than Bernie for preening lefties, I don’t know what to tell you….

  • ASV

    It seems like who she hangs around with and takes money from is a subject she might want to avoid just at the moment.

  • hickes01

    It took a village full of idiots to elect Donald Trump.

    • gocart mozart

      He is the Village Idiot Destruction of Society.
      God Damn Donald Trump, Clown Shoes and Sobriety.

  • dave mustaine

    “I was second-best behind Bernie Sanders this last election, just in case anyone was wondering.”

    • Hogan

      “In fact I offered him the Green Party nomination, through that well-known democratic process where I decide who the nominee is.”

      • wjts

        I know you know democracy doesn’t get more democratic than, “One (wo)man, one vote.”

        • Hogan

          The Matrician was the Woman, and she had the vote.

    • Jonathan Roth

      Funny, my “istandwith” score but me 94% with Sanders, 90% with Hillary, 40% with Stein, and 4% with Trump. Jill had a higher association with Trump on her shared score than I did.

  • Wojciech

    Sadly, she sounds exactly like the lion’s share of leftier-than-thous who continue to infest the internet. She should just do an interview with Chapo Trap House, if she hasn’t already.

  • Joe Paulson

    Sabotage? You mean by giving Clinton more votes?

    • Mart

      Bernie could not find a black primary voter in the south. Bill rigged this when he was appointed as the first black President.

      • Brian J.

        He also couldn’t find them in the East, North or West.

  • N__B

    ballot booth onanism

    Back when NY still had the booths with levers, the floor of my booth was sticky once.

    • wjts

      Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Rawr.

      • N__B

        Ma__B worked for a while in the Senate Rules Committee and had daily dealings with Jesse Helms and Moynihan. She preferred the former, in her words, because he was a disgusting bigoted ass but knew better than to be abusive to the people who worked with him and then expect loyalty.

        • DocAmazing

          That’s funny–my mom once met Strom Thurmond (a high school friend of mine worked for him) and found him to be more supportive of his staff in public than the Democratic Oregon state legislators she had worked with in the mid-1970s. Maybe he was just putting on a good show…

          • N__B

            My mother’s assessment of Moynihan is that he might have been easier to deal with if he were sober more often.

  • Professor Fate

    Note she said “Trump” not Russian.
    That is interesting in a suspicious way.

    • nemdam

      “interesting” in that they are one in the same…

  • Professor Fate

    The thing that really bothers me about this tweet is that most of people who have said things like “ludicrous Russia conspiracy theories.” have as time has gone by have been revealed to be involved in said Russian conspiracy right up to their necks. One wonders if it’s the nagging of guilt that causes one to say or write something like this when silence is the best option?

    • Dennis Orphen

      A subtle or subconscious cry for help perhaps?

      • Professor Fate

        who can tell really? Still if she was involved in the dealings that lead to Trump winning, say accepting money from Russia for her campaign say or some other dodgy exchange, and considering the dumpster fire that Trump as president has turned out to, I can see where she would try to defend herself from her own judgment by seeking to both diminish or dismiss the effects of her actions and to blame someone else. It’s not pretty but it is human.

        • randomworker

          See also: Yves at Naked Capitalism.

          • Chet Murthy

            Dayyum. Indeed, seems like, eh? I bought her book. Donated a decent chunk a few years back. But now? Lordy, I read it for the links, and have to grit my teeth too often to finish articles. She’s becom(ing) a crank.

            • randomworker

              It’s too bad. Yeah, the links are good. But the commentary? Cuckoo…

    • hypersphericalcow

      Over at TPM, Josh Marshall has suggested that their problem isn’t that they know they’re implicated, it’s that they *don’t know* if they’re implicated. So they throw out a bunch of chaff because they don’t actually know what the investigation will uncover.

      • The Lorax

        He’s been essential reading during the last year.

  • UnsaltedSinner

    I sure would like to know what the Russians did to earn Jill Stein’s undying loyalty.

  • nemdam

    I can’t remember where, but I read or heard recently that Donna Brazile also gave the Bernie campaign the paradigm shifting, world changing Flint debate question. Let’s just say, this would not surprise me.

    • DN Nation

      There was a Bernie staffer on Twitter saying “uh, yeah, we got that stuff too” when this SCANDAL first came out, but for the life of me I can’t remember who it was. Not a particularly famously obnoxious one (e.g., Mike Casca, Michael Whitney), IIRC.

      • stepped pyramids

        I thought it was the “other” Sanders, Symone “no relation” Sanders, but all I can find is her saying that Brazile was in touch with the campaign to discuss messaging:

        “I can’t speak to what she did or didn’t send to Clinton people. All I can speak to is the relationship our camp had with her,” Symone Sanders, a former Sanders campaign press secretary, wrote to Politico Monday. “During the primary, Donna regularly reached out for messaging guidance from us and was very helpful. She was even handed and we all had a great working relationship with her.”

        Of course, the Bernie dead-enders have been calling her a “Clinton plant” and “Judas”.

        • DN Nation

          Of all the criticisms to lob at HRC, “sucks at debating and needed help” and/or “sucks at debating and was too scared to debate Bernie more than she did” is the USDA grade-A, 4.5-stars-on-Yelp, snap-into-a-Slim-Jim dumbest. She’s famously a good debater. Made Obama look like an amateur in ’08, and I say that as someone who couldn’t stand her campaign. Sliced and diced Trump and never wilted from his bullshit like every Republican did. Getting him to mutter “such a nasty woman” was a masterstroke.

          In what universe would she be unprepared for a debate, or back down from a one-on-one confrontation with Sanders? I voted for Sanders, and would consider doing it again (he’s old, though, and he needs to divest himself from some real nincompoops in his inner circle), and I’ll readily admit he’s a one-trick pony when it comes to debates.

          • stepped pyramids

            I think the mistake is in thinking of the DNC’s actions related to the primaries outside the context of institutional politics. The Democratic Party, like the GOP, consists of a number of formal party organs (DNC, DCCC, DSCC, etc.), informal party organs (PACs, think tanks), identity groups (the Congressional Black Caucus, for instance), elected officials, prominent fundraisers, consultants, and aligned formally nonpartisan groups (Planned Parenthood, unions, environmental groups, etc.). And of course there’s a lot of overlap in membership, and a lot of different alliances, grudges, and so forth.

            A huge amount of the pre- and post-election struggle within the party has to be understood as not only ideological (or even primarily ideological) but factional. Sanders became the figurehead of a particular alliance inside the party, just like Obama represented a kind of insurgency within the party as well. These groups aren’t necessarily fixed over time — the “Obama faction” absorbed parts of the 2008 Clinton faction, and eventually Clinton brought some of her own people into the existing Obama faction to form her 2016 faction. Politics is about power, and it’s also about joining together to accomplish things when your party has power.

            That’s all a bit of tl;dr to say that the people who are influential in the DNC have a vested interest to keep it relevant in Democratic politics. 2008 had a lot of “unsanctioned” debates, and combined with Florida and Michigan having early primaries without approval, the DNC came out of that election with a mindset of wanting to keep complete control of the 2016 primaries. Almost everything they did in 2016 can be explained by that (and, later, by the fact that Sanders was openly accusing them of corruption).

            • One thing to remember as well as that all these bits have there own imperatives and autonomy. I recall reporting to the effect that the Clinton campaign was not happy with DWS and the DNC. Indeed, basically no one liked DWS as DNC chair. Obama didn’t want the hassle of pushing her out. And so…

              • stepped pyramids

                The piece of evidence dead-enders use to show that DWS was fixing things for Clinton was that she was given a prominent role in Clinton’s Florida campaign. This is supposed to provide evidence of some kind of deep affinity between the two women, or even that Wasserman Schultz was being “paid off” (seriously!).

                In reality, DWS is an influential figure in Florida Democratic politics (for good or bad), as well as someone who knows how to raise money and win elections there. She’s exactly the kind of person you want on your state-level campaign.

  • dstatton

    :…consumerist wank voting…” Perfect. Or as Eric Alterman said, “an exercise in vanity”.

  • patrick II

    It is not the uneducated white guy in West Virginia or the total greed heads from Wall Street, but people like Jill Stein that most make me despair for humanity. I am going to guess that, considering she graduated summa cum laude from Harvard and went on to medical school there, that she is an intelligent person: that is able to take in, organize and remember large amounts of information. Also, that she had at one time reasonable intentions — a doctor for 25 years, and then early on (from wiki) a real activist concerned with people’s health. And then… what the f*^k happened? How could she get to the place where she is now — at best — a useful idiot for Putin, and at worst … well I’m not sure, but what she is doing and saying now is remarkably harmful and she is leading and I assume influencing a group of people (the Greens) who, while probably politically impractical, seem to have good intentions. She is stridently working against the very thing, climate change, that the Greens should be most worried about. She looks like a sane woman, she is well educated, she once had good intentions for the people of this country, and yet now she works for the things that would most harm the stated goals of her party. It is scary how irrational I see her being in spite of her background and wonder is it just narcissism that can carry someone over the cliff?

    • I’m still pissed that she didn’t invite me to the party with Mike and Pootums.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/01dabe16a6d4ace7650b4533310b9aa8af1388bec91b2990800d8eaf9ecce61d.jpg

    • Damon Poeter

      Nah. Let’s be serious here. The stone racists and Dark Triad psychopaths of Wall Street are waaaay worse than deluded True Believer Jill Stein. She’s a frustrating pocket of political grit, they’re the fucking enemy.

      Or in other words, my confused Berkeley hippy mom makes you despair for humanity more than Martin Shkreli, Milo, and Richard Spencer? Go fuck the fuck right off.

      • Wojciech

        Stein is “the fucking enemy” too, based on her willingness to ratfuck the Democrats and carry water for Putin. a mosquito may not be as deadly as a viper, but its bite can still kill you under the right circumstances.

        • Damon Poeter

          Whatever. Jill Stein seems like a weird person to focus on in Month 7 of the Age of Trump. She has zero influence on anything that matters. I suspect the percentage of the statistically insignificant number of people who actually voted for her and also know any of the last 10 things she’s said that have made a newspaper is approaching 10 percent or less. She is a nobody who means nothing today, tomorrow, or in the foreseeable future. To use your analogy, she’s a mosquito with a bite that only itches if you bother scratching it.

          • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

            Trump’s victory margin smaller than total Stein votes in key swing states
            http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/308353-trump-won-by-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three

            • Damon Poeter

              So? Take Gary Johnson’s votes in those states and give them to Trump, then. People get to vote for third parties. And the Greens and Libertarians get a fairly predictable and tiny portion of the vote every presidential election. This is not a new thing that the Dems and Republicans didn’t know would happen in swing states.Jill Stein didn’t swoop in wirh a surprise attack and steal the election for Trump. I don’t much like her and I think she’s dumb but there many more ways to slice and dice the 150-200K votes that Clinton didn’t get in three key states than to put the loss all on Jill Stein. Voter suppression, for one.

              • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

                The topic is whether she was party to a hostile state’s actions to subvert the democratic process, not whether someone has a right to run as a third party candidate.

            • States which would likely have have gone to Clinton had Stein not been on the ballot:

              Michigan (16 electoral votes)

              This would have resulted in…a slightly smaller (290- 248) win for Donald Trump in the electoral college.

              To add Wisconsin, you’d have to assume that in Stein’s absence almost 100% of her voters would have voted Clinton instead, a highly dubious assumption. Let’s suppose we make it all the same. That would make it 280-258 for Trump. Even that assumption wouldn’t win Clinton Pennsylvania or Florida,

              • mds

                To add Wisconsin, you’d have to assume that in Stein’s absence almost
                100% of her voters would have voted Clinton instead, a highly dubious
                assumption.

                Indeed, such an action would have probably made the already-substantial Sanders write-in bloc even larger, led at least a few Feingold voters to leave the top line blank, and increased the number of voluntary non-voters. They aren’t using a ranked voting approach whereby they’re saying “I’m voting for Stein because she’s on the ballot, but otherwise Clinton is fine.” They’re voting for Stein because they’re already refusing to vote for Clinton.

                • Geo X

                  I really love the fact that someone is voting down all of these comments. “GRRR HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT STEIN ISN’T OUR WORST-EVER ENEMY! I HATE YOUR COMMENT! HATE HATE HATE IT!”

          • econoclast

            Dude, this blog has like 5 posts a day about Trump. Are you saying we are literally forbidden from talking about anything else? Am I in trouble because I followed the NBA finals, as well?

            • Damon Poeter

              Yeah and I apologize for coming off as ‘that guy’ who says ‘don’t focus on this thing, focus on THAT thing!’

              I just remember the bad blood over Nader and how in many ways, it took the utter depravity of the Cheney cabal to get libs and lefties past it and back on the same page to bring about the crucial 2006 electoral victory, which essentially saved Social Security from being crushed in the 2008 market crash. I am also pretty frustrated with Jill Stein and the Bernie purists but I also think they really don’t need to be shamed at every turn when their votes will be instrumental to turning this shitshow around.

              And some of their critiques of the Dem establishment – not Stein’s per se, but those of her voters and the Berners – are absolutely valid. My take is that there’s a fine line between criticizing these folks for legit reasons and mocking them out of frustration and spite.

              Consider this – the strategy of trying to win over/win back racist white Trump voters is obviously flawed on principle. Yet the Dems will need more enthusiastic voters than they’ve managed to get in the last several election cycles, at the local, state, and federal levels. We really can’t afford to punch hippies very much in this context.

              • Damon Poeter

                Correction: The social security showdown that happened in 2005, not 2006, so yeah, I’m dumb

      • patrick II

        She worries me because I can’t see how she got to where she is. Racists, Greedy wall street guys I think I can have some sense of why they are what they are. How can Stein, who ostensibly has goals that include the general good (not just I want more money or I hate minorities) and has some intelligence, be such a dupe(?) or purposeful actor for harm. It is the potential for corruption of what I imagine she should be — a decent thoughtful person — that, when generalized to a larger population, that scares me. I don’t get her at all, so I don’t know how much she shows a typical possibility for corruption of someone who could be among the best among us, or is she uniquely corruptible?

    • fishieman

      I bet this makes perfect sense in her big Harvard brain. Scraping the margins for voters is dirty work. Case in point:

      A politician that is wishy-washy on vaccination, and a doctor to boot! She knows that’s catnip to the anti-vax crowd.

    • demitallanyway

      Minor correction: magna, not summa.

      • Rob NYNY

        Magna cum laude at Harvard is cum laude at Yale.

  • The Lorax

    Wtf is up with the left and and Russia apology? Really. I don’t get it.

    • hypersphericalcow

      “America is always bad. Therefore, whoever is opposed to America must be good.” It’s not even ideological anymore, it’s just reflexive.

      • The Lorax

        That makes sense.

      • brad

        Not to mention that with some, a little money goes a long way.

      • RD

        The global lefts habit of automatically humping the leg of absolutely *anyone*, up to and including the planets most awful mass-murdering dictators and autocrats, who offers them the chance to thumb their noses at the Great Satan America is without doubt one of their very worst qualities.

        • DocAmazing

          Yeah, just ask ol’ Jeane Kirkpatrick.

          • Kirkpatrick had the right idea, she just had the sides we* should oppose switched around.”

            • Brian J.

              This is the position held by Corbyn and Melenchon, certainly two of the avatars of the global left.

              • DocAmazing

                Melenchon reperents the “left” of anything? He’s a centrist technocrat who defeated a Fascist. It’s good that the Fascist lost, but that doesn’t make Melenchon any kind of leftist.

                • BubbaDave

                  I think you’re confusing Melenchon with Macron.

                • DocAmazing

                  Ah, crap. Sorry. My bad. Brain fade. So: back to the actual French leftist, Melenchon: he’s in favor of giving North Korea and China a pass because they’re Red? Corbyn’s said anything like that? Would love a citation.

                • Brian J.

                  Google “Corbyn Press TV” for a small sample of his being literally in the pay of Iran. Venezuela’s Chavistas, Palestine’s worst jihadis, the IRA, he’ll talk to anyone who hates the UK enough.

                • DocAmazing

                  In other words, you’ve got nothing. Well-demonstrated.

                • Brian J.

                  Read again. I said Melenchon, not Macron. You know, the guy who just claimed to absolve the French of their participation in the Vel d’Hiv massacre and the sins of Vichy France.

                • Brian J.

                  http://www.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-paid-iran-press-tv-tortured-journalist-2016-6

                  There are many, many more links if you want them, But you clearly don’t want the truth. You want to wage war for Bernie Trump. I hope you’re at least well paid for your efforts.

                • DocAmazing

                  Guy appears on and gets paid by Iranian state TV. That’s, uh, shocking.

                • Brian J.

                  Guy representing the left is a client of a state that negates everything it supposedly stands for, just like George Galloway. At least the British left is consistent.

      • Damon Poeter

        The problem with saying ‘America is always bad’ isn’t that it isn’t true. It’s that nobody ever won an American election saying it.

        • BeyondTheRiversOfEthiopia

          This is a rather stupid statement if I’m reading this correctly. America the villain and America the hero are equally stupid analyses for reasons to numerous to list, but should be relatively obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the history.

          • Damon Poeter

            America has been the most powerful single nation-state since at least the 1940s, with all the unbalanced projections of force and bullying that entails. America has also probably killed more non-Americans than non-Americans have killed us in every year for the past 75 years, 1941 and 2001 included. Domestically, we’ve also had at various times including the present: Jim Crow, Operation Wetback and its various stepchildren, police targeting of blacks and other minorities, decades of deadly anti-LGBTQ policy, outsized consumption of natural resources coupled with outsized production of pollution, the lagest prison-industrial complex in the industrialized world, one of the least fair health care systems with below average outcomes in the industrialized world, etc., etc.

            Yes, America IS always the bad guy in a tangible way and has been for at least a couple generations.

      • mattmcirvin

        Together with some baffling nostalgia for the USSR, and some legit fear of a revived Cold War/nuclear holocaust that makes them worry about tensions ratcheting up.

    • gocart mozart

      FYI: I had a few drinks last night.
      https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/888612573771292673

      • stepped pyramids

        Tang or borscht?

      • Dr. Acula

        Homophobic jokes are awesome.

        • Pete

          Give him some credit. I sensed genuine curiousity.

  • gocart mozart
    • Thom

      Yikes.

    • Fiona DeLaMere

      Fake.

      • gocart mozart

        Have I been Poe’d?

        • Fiona DeLaMere

          Indeed

        • mausium

          No, too high of a reading level.

    • sigaba

      The tell is that he links an image to an abstract concept. Also he talks about “mystery.” There are no mysteries to Donald Trump.

      • The Great God Pan

        Also. would Trump ever describe something as “pretty?” That’s not very alpha. Nor, come to think of it, is admitting to taking delight in balloons, even as a child. Balloons are too fanciful for hard-nosed men of business like Donald Trump. Proper concerns for successful adult men are money, respect, pussy and big trucks that go vroom vroom. Never balloons. Unless they are shaped like titties. Tit-balloons would be OK.

      • sharculese

        Also it’s several sentences in a row on the same topic, even if that topic is balloons.

        • mausium

          Yup, way too coherent.

  • uykhvasdrvtjyku

    I really don’t understand why people who aren’t Democrats try to lecture Democrats about how the Democratic primary was conducted. If you’re not a Democrat, it’s really none of your fucking business. Go run your own primary.

    • DocAmazing

      While that assessment has much to recommend it, I wouldn’t offer it to the Mississippi Freedom Democrats:

      http://www.blackpast.org/aah/mississippi-freedom-democratic-party

      • wjts

        I’m not sure that the folks in the Chapo Clown House can be meaningfully compared to the Mississippi Freedom Democrats.

        No, now that I think about it, I’m sure they really, really can’t be.

        • Brian J.

          The Chapo folks were the Mississippi regular Democrats from that story, in that they wanted their own delegation represented even though it had already committed to voting against the candidate preferred by the Democratic Party.

          • DocAmazing

            That’s an…interesting reading of history, given the current incarnation of the procedural fun that the Mississippi Democratic Party brought to bear. Hint: “superdelegate” became an epithet for a reason.

            • Brian J.

              Superdelegates came into existence for a reason. The word became an epithet only in the minds of extremists who couldn’t convince the public and decided to try to intimidate those who knew what they were doing.

              And yes, the Chapo folks deserve to be lumped with the likes of Gov. Ross Barnett, a racist reactionary who hated those N’s enough to buck his national party.

              • DocAmazing

                Superdelegates came into existence partly to replace the appointed-by-local-bosses delegates that were a commonplace before the reforms of the early 1970s.

                And my goodness, you sure have provided plenty of evidence that Sanders supporters are the moral equivalent of Mississippi segregationists.

                • Brian J.

                  The man’s slogan for his campaign in the Magnolia State was Mississippi Berning! Just how low is your IQ? Just how many concepts need to be explained to you?

                • DocAmazing

                  You’re seriously contending that a bad pun based on the title of a crappy movie that gave the FBI way too much credit for fighting the Klan indicates that the Sanders campaign were segregationists?

                  Whatever you’re smoking, you might want to cut down.

                • Brian J.

                  The people of Mississippi weren’t as stupid as you’re pretending to be. They knew he was screaming for the racist vote, but sadly for him, Mississippi’s racists already control one major party in the state.

                • DocAmazing

                  And of course, you have some item of proof that he was angling for the racist vote.

                • Brian J.

                  Yes, I do. His own words, for starters.

                  http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters

                  Racism was the foundation of his entire campaign.

                • DocAmazing

                  Ah, yes. Maintaining that economic issues were at the root of racial ones and that the working class as a whole was getting screwed is pure white supremacy. That’s why Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor said pretty much the same thing:

                  https://jacobinmag.com/2017/07/free-speech-fox-news-racism-trump-poor-whites

                • Brian J.

                  It’s utter nonsense if you know anything about the history of Communist states. Which people like you are glad most on the left do not.

                • DocAmazing

                  Yeah, I’m going to pay a bit more attention to Professor Taylor than to some comment thread rando on the history of Communist states, thanks.

                • Brian J.

                  If “Professor Taylor” tells you anything other than that Communist states were the greatest evil mankind has ever seen, he’s telling you something that you should never tell another person, especially if you have ideas about entering electoral politics. He’s also lying to you.

                • DocAmazing

                  “She”. You might want to read her speech and familiarize yourself with her work. It’s a bit more detailed than simple Red-baiting.

                • Brian J.

                  Reds killed the better part of a hundred million people in the 20th century and started two of the three worst famines in human history (the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward). Stalin conspired with Hitler to carve up Poland and Eastern Europe, to start World War II. Any Communist apologia must deal with these atrocities and the numerous others committed in the name of their ideology. I doubt Taylor even tries.

    • golden_valley

      Considering Sanders wasn’t a Democrat until 2015 why should the organized party treat him like he was a life-long or even a long term Democrat?

      • DocAmazing

        “Cause he hauled a lot of water for them legislatively.

        • jim, some guy in iowa

          did he have a choice? I mean, really, was he going to work with the *republicans* to advance his policies other than gun control?

          • DocAmazing

            So, functionally, he’s been a Democrat the entire time. Indeed, a more effective one than most.

            • jim, some guy in iowa

              what’s the point of him re registering as an independent?

              • DocAmazing

                I don’t know about you, but there’s a whole lot about the Democratic Party I don’t support. I have no problem with a guy that works hard to advance the better parts of the Democratic Party’s philosophy and message while refusing to participate in the worst parts.

                • Hogan

                  I have no problem with a guy that works hard to advance the better parts
                  of the Democratic Party’s philosophy and message while refusing to
                  participate in try to fix the worst parts.

                • DocAmazing

                  “He has done excellent work, but he is not parteigenosse ” is not a phrase that pleases the ear.

                • jim, some guy in iowa

                  oh, you’ve always been quite clear about that and I don’t necessarily disagree, depending on the issue. Problem is- for me, anyway- once you get to the national level picking and choosing what you’ll participate in isn’t really an option

                • SpiderDan

                  So I’m guessing that pandering to rural whites on the primacy of the 2nd Amendment doesn’t qualify as one of the “worst parts”?

                • DocAmazing

                  You mean “his electorate”?

                • SpiderDan

                  If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying it is only fair and reasonable for a Senator from New York to represent the interests of Wall Street.

                • DocAmazing

                  That would certainly be Chuck Shumer’s line. Much like Biden accommodated credit card companies and Feinstein totes freight for defense contractors. Don’t remember Sanders getting big fees for giving speeches to firearms trade groups, though.

                • SpiderDan

                  But we’re not talking about Schumer’s rationale, or Feinstein’s rationale. We’re talking about yours. You just used it to defend Bernie’s record on gun rights.

                  In other words, when your position is that politicians get a pass on regressive policy positions if “A lot of my voters are in favor of it” or “They provide a lot of jobs in my state,” you lose the ability to criticize politicians who can claim the same defense.

                  However, I don’t really think you believe that Hillary and Schumer and Cory Booker actually get a pass. I think it’s more likely that you simply consider Bernie exempt from such criticism, in much the same way that people who criticize Hillary for the crime bill and NAFTA and gay marriage and Syria are perfectly happy to ignore Bernie’s record on the crime bill and CFMA and gay marriage and Gitmo closing.

                • DocAmazing

                  No, I don’t give Sanders a pass. I disagree with him on the issue. I just disagree with Hillary on more issues and note that she’s actually got donors and clients materially supporting her on the issues with which I disagree, while Sanders’ donors and clients aren’t profiting from his stands on the crime bill and CFMA and gay marriage and Gitmo closing.

                • SpiderDan

                  If you don’t give him a pass, then why did you just trot out the it’s what his electorate wants excuse to defend him?

                  It seems to me that once you justify regressive positions by claiming that’s what your voters want (i.e. I want to win elections) or that’s who provides jobs in my state (i.e. I want to win elections), you lose the ability to point fingers at other politicians – who also want to win elections – and hurl accusations of insufficient liberalism.

                  At the end of the day, the professed problem is Democratic politician supporting insufficiently progressive policies for their own personal benefit, right? So what does it matter if that personal benefit is money (for re-election) or just re-election? Bad policy is bad policy.

                • DocAmazing

                  You don’t get to make any policy if you’re not elected. Meanwhile, someone who benefits personally is far more likely to make bad policy than someone who is merely beholden to her/his voting constituents (as opposed to donors). Voters are generally motivated by self-interest, and aren’t real fond of financiers and the like.

                • SpiderDan

                  You can’t keep making these “I gotta get reelected!” arguments and then vilify other candidates for the source of their campaign donations.

                  There is no difference between “I am willing to pass bad policy if if helps me win elections” and “I am willing to pass bad policy if if helps me win elections.”

                • DocAmazing

                  So let’s compare who is responsible for the greatest amount of bad policy, shall we?

                • SpiderDan

                  Great idea! Since all politicians have some flaws and have to make some less-than-ideal choices in the course of keeping their job, let’s dispense with the “Candidate X has a bad position on issue Y and is therefore unworthy of my vote” purity contests, and instead evaluate candidates based on how they compare to realistic alternatives.

                  Oh, look, we’re in a thread discussing Jill Stein and the Green Party.

                • DocAmazing

                  And stuck in a loop about Hillary vs. Bernie. That shit never gets old, huh?

                  So would gun control be issue Y in this model?

                • SpiderDan

                  Yes, it would be. Specifically, you claimed that Bernie “refused to participate in the worst parts” of the Democratic Party, but he is also guilty of supporting bad policy when it personally helped him. It’s just that the bad policy that helps a politician from Vermont is different than the bad policy that helps a politician from New York.

                  And this is the “looking forward” part of the discussion: Hillary supporters aren’t necessarily reflexively opposed to anti-abortion candidates like Heath Mello. You take what you can get in Nebraska, which is the same strategy that resulted in Kay Hagen, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and an ACA that passed a 60-vote threshold. But what sits uneasily is when the same group of very vocal leftists who insisted that Hillary is unworthy of a vote – even if it results in a Trump victory – suddenly discover a newfound pragmatism when their issue of choice is not the one being sacrificed on the altar.

                • DocAmazing

                  How much bad policy are you willing to tolerate? A flag-burning amendment? War in Iraq? Jail time for supporting BDS? I’m all for overlooking one or two flaws, but Jesus, how far down are we suppoosed to go?

                • SpiderDan

                  We are supposed to go to the candidate that is better than the alternative. Exactly that far.

                  So I would vote for Lieberman over Dubya, and Dubya over Trump, and Trump over Hitler. And I don’t consider it a particularly difficult decision. Not once have I regretted my vote for Iraq War-supporting John Kerry in the 2004 election, because he was better than the alternative.

                  Now, if you want to discuss what steps can be taken to convince people to vote for your preferred alternative before the final two are determined, by all means. But in the context of Jill Stein and the Green Party, all they do is help the bad guys win. That’s it.

                • Pete

                  I am confused. from reading this blog I thought GOP Reps and Senators were evil, mendacious and soulless. Now I hear about “representative democracy?” How can we allow that if our opponents want bad things?

                • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

                  Fee envy! Called it before I saw the comment.

                • DocAmazing

                  Yes, who could object to a legislator (or a presidential candidate) taking payments from representatives of industries they’re supposed to pass (or enforce) laws to regulate.

                • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

                  The same people who object to Obama getting fees when he’s no longer in government?

                • DocAmazing

                  No, the ones who object to those still in government engaging in client service.

                • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

                  No, that’s different, because Goldman Sachs and globalization and free trade and neoliberalism and getting bigger campaign donations Wall Street.

                • FlipYrWhig

                  Uh, so, Leahy represents the same state and has never been known to play footsie with gun wackadoodles. It’s a Bernie Sanders thing because he enjoys thinking he’s a dangerous contrarian renegade.

                • DocAmazing

                  Leahy got a “C” form the NRA.
                  http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Patrick_Leahy_Gun_Control.htm

                  Sanders got an “F” from the NRA:
                  http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

                  Draw your own conclusions.

              • stepped pyramids

                He didn’t, really. He never changed his affiliation in the Senate and Vermont doesn’t have partisan voting registration. He was a “Democrat” in the sense that he was running for the Democratic nomination, and in the sense that he’s caucused with the Democrats. There wasn’t any official paperwork for him to change back.

                It’s not unreasonable to feel that if he was going to run for the Democratic nomination he should have also committed to run as a Democrat in his next Senate race (which will be 2018), but as far as I know he never did that.

                • jim, some guy in iowa

                  thanks, I get crossed up on the ins and outs of some of that stuff

          • SpiderDan

            You mean “gun rights.” Bernie is in favor of gun rights, not gun control.

            But don’t worry! Fortunately, gun violence is one of the issues That Doesn’t Really Matter, so candidates may be as far to the right on that as they like and never be accused of being a neoliberal shill.

        • Brian J.

          So much that he’s famously proposed three bills that have become law in his entire 27-year Congressional career, two of them renaming post offices. The man “hauls water” like a sieve.

          • DocAmazing

            And famously got more done through the amendment process than any of his peers, and has an excellent track record for blocking the Republicans. You may not like the guy, but please, don’t try to BS his record. Next you’re going to tell me that he has nowhere near the Civil Rights Movement back in the day.

            • Brian J.

              Like what? For all the claims that he’s called the Amendment King (a phrase never used to describe him before 2016), there’s no indication of what these amendments actually were or to which legislation.

              And he was nowhere near the CRM. He marched once, got a ticket, and ran to the whitest place he could find.

              • DocAmazing

                Yeah, he was only the president of the University of Chicago chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality. No activity there, if you don’t count the agitation for fair housing and the voter registration drives.

                • Brian J.

                  Just stop with the lies and justifications. Your man already succeeded in his objective of winning the election for the Republicans and poisoning the minds of America’s young adults. Unless you are getting paid for this, there’s no point in going on.

                • DocAmazing

                  Your extremely weird version of history needs some challenging, lest it become the Democratic Party version of “The Black-Robed Legion”. Stick to French translations of Twin Peaks; it’s what you’re good at.

                • Brian J.

                  Sorry, guys. I responded to a bot that is now just spitting out random words.

                • DocAmazing

                  Bonsoir, mon ami le con.

        • econoclast

          What the fuck is going on with the subthread? Does purity trolling look so good on Sanders supporters that some Clinton supporters thought they’d give it a try?

          • Brian J.

            It seems to get results in that it got a white racist to be taken seriously as The Future of American Liberalism, so someone needs to set the record straight. I recognize my petty role in this process, but better me than nobody.

            • DocAmazing

              Well, I’ll concur with the “petty” part.

        • golden_valley

          Why? Because he voted yes on things or because his persuasive abilities caused legislation to get passed?

          • DocAmazing

            Does it matter?

            • golden_valley

              Yes it matters. If he sat out of the conversation, didn’t so much as make a statement in committee or on the floor during debate and simply voted yes I don’t see why the party owes him anything more than it owes to a Republican who did the same thing.

              • DocAmazing

                You might want to actually look at the legislation he’s helped shepherd through Congress, both as a representative and as a senator. He’s been quite active. Indeed, when Matt Taibbi got started covering Congress, it was Sanders’s office he concentrated on, because he was actually getting stuff done. You could, if you wished, go over the old Rolling Stone columns he wrote at that time.

                • golden_valley

                  Naming post offices? Amendments here and there? No major pieces of legislation…

                • DocAmazing

                  Yet he has been a more consistent progressive vote than just about any other member of the Senate., and his filibusters are well-remembered. Care to check into his 100% rating from the NAACP or, contrariwise, his 0% rating from the Family Research Council?

                  I get that you don’t like the guy, but why rewrite history?

      • Why should they? Perhaps the more important question is, why have they?

      • uykhvasdrvtjyku

        To be clear, I wasn’t referring to Bernie, who at least is an elected official and caucuses with the Democrats. I was referring to Jill Stein, who belongs to a completely different political party that is adversarial to the Democrats. If she doesn’t like how Dems do business, she should join another… oh wait, she has. The only thing more ridiculous than her pearl clutching over how the Dems ran their primary is when Donald Trump gets in the act.

      • Brian J.

        It’s not just that he wasn’t a Democrat; he had spent his entire career running in general elections against Democrats, ever since his days in the Liberty Union Party in the 1970s.

    • anon1

      If your not a Democrat, it’s really none of your fucking business.
      If you’re not a prison warden, it’s really none of your fucking business.
      If you’re not a member of my religious sect, it’s really none of your fucking business.
      If you’re not a tenured faculty member, it’s really none of your fucking business.

      • Origami Isopod

        Yeah, all these comparisons are totally analogous. /s

        Oh, wait, you’re the guy who thinks a woman shouldn’t be upset when a guy breaks into her house, just ’cause he’s homeless. Nuff said.

        • anon1

          You have me confused with someone else. I’m the man who shoots an intruder in my house IF he’s threatening. If on the other-hand he’s sitting on one of my chairs in the middle of the street, I would think that something else is in play. We weren’t told the full story, were we? Did she call for a CIT team? I think not.

          There is a problem saying: “If your not a Democrat, it’s really none of your fucking business.” That attitude is why people voted for Trump OR didn’t vote at all. Sanders would never say that, and, the late Christopher Hitchens saw Clinton for what she is: an entitled self-centered egotist. Not unlike Trump. He’ll self-destruct in four years, but, that would be impossible on her watch. The center is not holding and Dick Gregory’s sage advice from nearly forty years ago is applicable to today. Ask him to write a guest column.

          • Chet Murthy

            Uh, speeek Eeeengleeesh, man.

    • JMP

      Especially since so much of the whining is against good things like closed primaries, which absolutely should be in place nationwide to guard against ratfucking and so that people who aren’t willing to register with the party don’t get to have a say in who it nominates.

      • uykhvasdrvtjyku

        I recall, I think it was in 2008, when a group of Republican ratfuckers on the wingnut welfare circuit hijacked the Green Party process to try to get a bullshit candidate on the ballot in several states, a guy who was a real weirdo (even by Green standards). And they weren’t even being sneaky about it, they flat-out admitted that they were just trying to draw votes away from the Dems. The Green Party itself did not support the guy and did not want to run a candidate against Obama. I wonder what Jill Stein was doing back then.

        • Pete

          Working on her next album?

        • Nullifidian

          The Green Party itself did not support the guy and did not want to run a candidate against Obama.

          Then they were incredibly remiss in fielding Cynthia McKinney as a presidential candidate.

    • DAS

      Greensplaining?

  • WinningerR

    No, you only hung out with Trump’s disgraced consigliere (and soon to be convicted felon) Michael Flynn. And Vladimir Putin. In Russia.

  • Terok Nor

    Even with everything I don’t like about Sanders, compared to Stein, it’s like (with apologies to Vidal’s Davy Crockett) comparing a diamond to shit.

    • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

      Everything is relative, true.

    • Shantanu Saha

      Science tells us that diamonds are basically shit that has been subjected to high heat and pressure.

  • gocart mozart
    • Hogan

      Demento
      Phibes
      J.
      Crippen

    • Dennis Orphen

      Detroit.

    • brad

      Hell, at this point…
      Strangelove
      Nick Riviera
      Zoidberg

      • sharculese

        I draw the line at Zoidberg.

        • SpiderDan

          Why not Zoidberg?

          • sharculese

            If we don’t scorn Zoidberg just for existing he’ll stop being Zoidberg.

      • Hogan

        Doom . . . oh wait, give me a minute . . .

        • liberalrob

          At least he’s had experience running a country.

          • Pete

            I’d probably vote Doom over Trump or Stein. Basic competence.

      • Nigel Tufnel

        How about “Dr.” Leo Spaceman?

    • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

      Vaginal Davis

    • sharculese

      Leo Spaceman

    • Origami Isopod
    • Octopus
      Strange
      Fate
      No
      Quinn, Medicine Woman

    • bw

      Frank N. Furter

    • liberalrob

      For some reason twitter embeds don’t show up for me. Not that I’m complaining.

      Some more Drs. to vote for ahead of Stein:

      Light (all of them)
      Phillip Schlotkin (from Spaceballs)
      Who (can’t believe he’s not listed yet)
      Bong
      Mordrid (interesting Dr. Strange ripoff movie starring Jeffrey Combs)

      Fate
      Doctor (can’t you see I’m burning burning)

      • econoclast

        Doctor Who is the name of the show. The character’s name is The Doctor.

    • reattmore

      There was a woman in Georgia, didn’t feel just right
      She had the fever all day and chills at night
      Now things got worse, yes a serious bind
      At times like this it takes a man with a style I cannot often find
      A doctor of the heart and a doctor of mind.

      If you like country with a boogie beat, he’s the man to meet
      If you like the sound of shufflin’ feet, he can’t be beat
      If you wanna feel real nice, just ask the rock and roll doctor’s advice.

      It’s just a country town but patients come
      From Mobile to Moline from miles around
      Nagodoches to New Orleans
      In beat-up old cars or in limousines
      To meet the doctor of soul, he’s got his very own thing.

      Two degrees in be-bop, a PHD in swing
      He’s the master of rhythm, he’s a rock and roll king, yeah.

      • Nanker Phledge

        Nice Feat reference

  • Jon Hendry

    OT: Dana Milbank is having a midlife crisis, I think.

    He’s on MSNBC right now and he has a goatee and mustache.

    • wjts

      Are you sure you’re not watching CBNSM?

  • Downpup E

    Can anyone fake shock?
    Third party candidate Jill Stein was a surprising addition this week to investigators casting an increasingly wide net in the congressional probe into Russian interference in the election.

    Stein’s name was included in a Senate Judiciary Committee letter requesting all communication between President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and a number of others, including Russian officials and other members of Trump’s presidential campaign.
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/343292-jill-stein-looped-into-widening-investigation-of-russia-and-trump-jr

  • PressSecretaryCaptainHowdy

    Pour expliquer ce qui va suivre, je vais vous parler d’un pays qui s’appelle le Tibet.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emEu2-_jjfk

  • Heim Yankel

    When I think of Green Party I think mildly left with great interest in enviromental issues. Is this an effort by Jill Stein to discredit and use the party for Nader-like reasons?

  • Nanker Phledge

    People who voted for her are either stupid or delusional.

    My bet is most are stupid

  • Tim Reynolds

    It’s hilarious, because this sub would scream ‘MISOGYNY!’ at anyone who used similar language against a women they supported.

    And it would be bullshit then, too, but you’d still do it because you’re dishonest people. And neoliberals love to trot out feminism to protect themselves from criticism…only to abandon it whenever a woman says or does something they disagree with.

    Because that’s what liberalism has become at this point: calvinball, a rolling set of standards that they love to apply to everyone else, but scream and shriek at the slightest indication that it may be used against them. Rules for thee, never for me.

    • Dr. Waffle

      You’re a fundamentally stupid person. How is accurately describing the views of Jill Stein misogyny? And how is LGM “neoliberal” in any way? Cite examples.

      • UnsaltedSinner

        I always feel like I should down a shot of liquor every time someone says “neoliberal”.

    • Paul Thomas

      What language?

It is main inner container footer text