erlynntheemerald:

olennawhitewyne:

sheisraging:

Did I post this already? I don’t care. I’m posting it again. I’ll post it every day for every time I see someone say “You should check out Jill Stein!” or “Jill Stein is the new left!” or “I’m voting for Jill Stein because I am voting my conscience!” because I will know that that person has not actually read or understood anything about the way the world actually works and probably lives in a field somewhere surrounded by imaginary butterflies.

I suppose many people who adore Jill Stein will not bother to read through this whole thing and stick with their good ol’ reliable jpgs promising free college, student loan debt forgiveness, no more war!, and a fully green platform. The thing is, those are the people who really should step back for a minute and look at Jill Stein’s policies from an outside perspective.

Jill Stein has no idea what she’s talking about.

This is, of course, my opinion. However, this is also something that should be immediately obvious to anyone who reads her policy plans or reads/listens to an interview with her, or watches her incoherently ramble about wi-fi being dangerous for children. Her statements on politics are little more than pandering to the lowest common denominator, frequently muddling ideas so as to appease one crowd without alienating the other – hence the endless back and forth on whether or not she is pro- or anti-vaxx.

And yes, yes, I know she’s come out and said she supports vaccinations, however, there is a huge difference between definitively saying “Vaccinate your kids” and “Well, vaccines are okay, but…” The latter is what she actually said, and keeps saying. As a medical doctor. 

One of these things is having a stance based on true, scientific fact and study. The other is pandering and fanning the flame of a theory and movement that has been debunked and is also a public health hazard. Additionally, the objection she raises to vaccinations is that they’re overseen by big pharma (aka. evil), which is false. There are two committee members, out of fifteen, who are from the pharmaceutical industry. The rest are, as stated in the advisory committee info page, from various medically related fields. This is not difficult information to look up. And yet, as noted here, she’s referred to autism as an “epidemic” and “a public health calamity” but said nothing about the outbreaks of diseases that, up until the anti-vaxx movement, had been a rare occurrence for years. Here’s a good collection of the many (many) “yes, but” statements Jill Stein has made on vaccinations. 

Jill Stein’s foreign and defense policy ideas show that she has very little understanding of such policies (which is actually frightening). In the same way that Donald Trump plays on the politics of fear mongering, Jill Stein plays on the politics of peace promising. It’s a nice dream, but it’s not a realistic one. Raise your hand if you believe that just because we suddenly decide to shut down 700+ military bases, de-militarize our borders, cut defense spending by 50% [source], and oh also, maybe pull out of NATO, those that are hostile toward the U.S. will suddenly look around and go “huh… well… I guess we should go home now. Call it a day, guys.”

Look, I’m not for war and I never have been or will be… but this is stereotype-level hippie nonsense. Nothing works this way. If you think it does, please slap yourself in the face until you wake up to reality.

On top of it being unrealistic, it would likely be shot down by any Congress she would face, as would most of her proposals, as there is no Green in Congress, and she would have minimal support.

Even her understanding of world politics is minute and wavering, at best. The Brexit vote is one example, where, using her own website as a source, she was quoted as having called the vote to leave a victory, and suggesting it was time to capitalize on its momentum, only to change the message after realizing the U.S. response, especially from progressives, was much more in favor of remaining (likely due to the actual impact and motivations behind the movement see: pandering). She’s since changed the post on her own website, however, the original was captured for posterity.

Her plan to forgive student loan debt raises skepticism that she’s not addressed – there is a good call out in her Reddit AMA that discussed this, which was never followed up. Quantitative easing has been, so far, her only explanation for how she’d forgive student debt and there’s been no actual proof that such a thing is possible or would work. 

In fact, and granted, it’s due to the fact that she has no chance and nobody cares, there has been little to no fact checking at all on anything Jill Stein says, which is why I can’t help it that my eyes roll so far back into my head whenever someone sings her praises.

Jill Stein is an opportunistic hack who has never held any political office higher than Representative at a Town Hall meeting. Her political experience includes two failed runs for Governor of Massachusetts and one failed run for President — two, if you count 2016. She has been trying for years and that is as far as she has gotten. Her talking points are often muddled and indecipherable because, again, she has no idea what she’s talking about. She is about as qualified as Donald Trump.

If you would not vote for Donald Trump, you should not vote for Jill Stein. President of the United States is not a learn on the job position. You need to be qualified. You need to be extremely qualified. That means you need to have, at minimum (and that’s pushing it), a base understanding of world affairs, working with our foreign allies and adversaries, domestic affairs, and hopefully, the actionability of your proposed plans for the country’s immediate future. Nowhere in any interviews or outlines Jill Stein has presented has she demonstrated any of this.

If you truly, truly care about your progressive movement and building a formidable third party, then build it. There are one hundred seats in the Senate. There zero Green Party members. There are 435 seats in the House. There zero Green Party members. That list goes on for a while.

Get rid of this woman, who has been trying and failing for years, because she cannot be taken seriously. Work on building up local government seats. Get your numbers up. Get your visibility up. Get into the House. Get into the Senate. Get a Governor elected, man. Stop showing up every four to eight years and acting like you give a shit.

Because that is the problem people have with the Greens (and third parties in general). Where are they right up until a Presidential election, when they suddenly decide to run some spoiler that has no shot at winning, but can ruin the next four to eight years for more than half the country? If the Greens want to be taken seriously, they need to do the hard work of actually organizing and building a solid foundation. The constant attempt to take from the top down is ridiculous. 

And for the first-timers, who don’t understand that this has happened before, please, understand: This has happened before. You are not the first, but you can be the last if you try to make a positive change rather than perpetuating the spoiler cycle. You can focus your efforts on organization, lower elections, strong candidates, and growing your party to the point where you’re actually ready to take the larger step. You can make that effort. That would be progressive.

“Jill Stein is the new left” is particularly amusing to me when Jill Stein’s brand of leftism has been around for 40 years and seems to be dying with the latest wave of young progressive activists. She’s a “Remember the ‘60s” leftist.

There is a huge number of old white people whose “leftism” is all about some nostalgia for the 1960s, often a fantasy version of it that they wish they could have participated in if only they had been old or woke enough. If you were at all involved in the opposition to the Iraq War in the early 2000s, these people were everywhere: people who not only thought the Iraq War was another Vietnam, but seemed to want it to be, so they could be the “new” version of those protesters. These people continue to believe every conflict is The Next Vietnam, even horrifically complicated humanitarian crises like the civil war in Syria and the rise of ISIS. Jill Stein’s “foreign policy” reflects this same one-size-fits-all, idealistic hippie thinking.

So many of Jill Stein’s kookier beliefs are rooted in the 1960s counterculture. The naturalistic-fallacy thinking behind her ideas about GMOs and even wi-fi being “dangerous.” The reflexive distrust of any and all institutions, that leads to something like praising Brexit. She supports the anti-sex-worker and, formerly, the anti-trans feminism that was more mainstream in the Second Wave. The reason you’d buy into this specific package of stuff is nostalgia for a time when that’s what leftism was.

America of 2010s is not America of the 1960s, though. Heck, the 1960s counterculture failed because it wasn’t even responsive enough to the America of its own time, and mostly just elevated people with existing social power within its own narrow community. (The “sexual revolution” was just for straight men, for example; women were still treated like objects, just objects that could be passed around between men, and queer people were usually nonexistent.) But it’s even more irrelevant now that science, technology, culture and, yes, politics have all marched on. And within politics, that includes social justice. A 1960s conception of it is not going to include disability, for instance, as that rights movement didn’t start for a few more decades. So it’s no wonder that Stein’s obsession with the “natural” tends to result in ignoring or hurting disabled people.

There’s a lot to criticize about the modern social justice movement. But I think one big point in its favor is that it’s the first one since the 1960s that isn’t fixated on recreating that decade. We’ve watched Mad Men, we know that the decade wasn’t all our parents cracked it up to be, especially for marginalized people. So let’s continue that forward march by not electing someone who is still stuck in that outdated, privileged, ignorant mindset.

Okay, ya I was starting to get suspicious when she was asked to explain quantitative easing and said “it’s like magic, you don’t need to worry about it, trust me it works”