Oligarchy in Action
Not many Jill Stein fans on MOL, but I have to post this because she does an excellent job of refuting the BS of these supposed election altering posts, as well as the people voting for her spoiling Hillary's party.
10 to 1 if I watch that video Jill Stein doesn't smack down squat.
But then I'd have to watch the video.
hmmmm
(he cautiously clicks on it)
never mind, it's a stealth Jimmy Dore video.
100 to 1.
drummerboy said:
10 to 1 if I watch that video Jill Stein doesn't smack down squat.
But then I'd have to watch the video.
hmmmm
(he cautiously clicks on it)
never mind, it's a stealth Jimmy Dore video.
100 to 1.
If you can't do Jimmy Dore, here is another version with someone else:
sorry, I made it to 2:10 and gave up. I kinda hate Jill Stein. She is not a constructive individual.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
10 to 1 if I watch that video Jill Stein doesn't smack down squat.
But then I'd have to watch the video.
hmmmm
(he cautiously clicks on it)
never mind, it's a stealth Jimmy Dore video.
100 to 1.
If you can't do Jimmy Dore, here is another version with someone else:
drummerboy said:
sorry, I made it to 2:10 and gave up. I kinda hate Jill Stein. She is not a constructive individual.
I agree. Listening to her I realized she's was a destructive opportunist.
Right away she start with Hillary being a most disliked and distrusted candidate in history. What she conveniently forget to say was that as US Senator and Sec of State she popular and highly rated. The far right and Republican slime and innuendo with willing enablers like Stein hurt Clinton's popularity. Yet, Clinton, a supposedly most disliked and distrusted candidate got 50 times more votes than Stein.
As for Podesta's claim that Stein could have cost the election, I don't know. Its possible. When you have states with razor thin less than 1 % margins between leaders, third party candidate votes could have affected who won.
You might not like her personality, but what she says is factually based and refutes the argument that she cost Clinton the election.
She says it's factually based. Why should we believe her that there are "studies" which show what she said. I searched for such studies and found none that supported her contention. They shouldn't be that hard to find, as it was an important question to be answered.
But nan, you believe anything that supports your opinions. Even when I showed you that Flint guy was FOS, you completely ignored me.
And it's not her personality I object to. It's her actions. She's a self-serving wannabe who could give a damn about the destructive affects of her campaign. I have no respect for her.
nan said:
You might not like her personality, but what she says is factually based and refutes the argument that she cost Clinton the election.
My predictions: John Kasich abandons the increasingly loony R party, changes to a D, and wins the 2020 primary. Jill Stein moves to Russia. Bernie Sanders makes a guest appearance on the Larry David Show and confronts Larry as a perpetuator of the oligarchy.
drummerboy said:
She says it's factually based. Why should we believe her that there are "studies" which show what she said. I searched for such studies and found none that supported her contention. They shouldn't be that hard to find, as it was an important question to be answered.
But nan, you believe anything that supports your opinions. Even when I showed you that Flint guy was FOS, you completely ignored me.
And it's not her personality I object to. It's her actions. She's a self-serving wannabe who could give a damn about the destructive affects of her campaign. I have no respect for her.
nan said:
You might not like her personality, but what she says is factually based and refutes the argument that she cost Clinton the election.
Nate Silver agrees that the Stein votets were mostly not going to vote for Clunton. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/amp/
The outstanding Jordon Chariton reporting on Flint should have received an award. You barley watched it before claiming it was bogus without any substantive knowledge of the topic. Typical.
nan said:Nate Silver agrees that the Stein votets were mostly not going to vote for Clunton. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/amp/
Nate blames Comey more than anything or anyone else and I think he makes a good case.
I have always been skeptical of the "spoiler narrative". I've argued with Republicans who this Bush Sr. lost to Clinton in 1992 because of Perot. I do not think that Nader was responsible for Gore's loss to Bush Jr.
If Perot had not gotten back into the race after he withdrew during the Summer most of his supporters would have stayed home or voted for some other third-party candidate. The rest would have split between Clinton and Bush.
Nader's voters were not going to vote for Gore. More importantly Bush was never going to lose the State where his brother was Governor.
Those who voted for Jill Stein were never going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Of course this is just my opinion which cannot be proven.
nan said:
You might not like her personality, but what she says is factually based and refutes the argument that she cost Clinton the election.
I'm afraid she refutes nothing. I do like her "if they didn't vote for me, they might have voted for Trump". I'd be interested in finding out what kind of person that is, and whether that's a person she'd really like to count as a supporter.
I do know what her argument was, to vote for her. It's on her Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/posts/134294602907891
So yes: If a Trump presidency would mean that we have to fight ignorants in the streets—I'm ready for that. I know that kind of racism. We already live in that kind of racism everyday—let's bring it to light and start calling it out. It is time you start asking yourself some tough questions: Why are you so eagerly okay staying in the status quo, when you know that that same status quo continues to leave far too many Black children fatherless and motherless because of the color of their skin? This status quo continues to desecrate the sacred burial grounds and prayer ceremonies—do you think this would ever happen to Arlington Cemetery, or churches? Can you imagine not being able to turn on your faucet since 2014 because it is poisoned? Have you heard of Flint, Michigan? We have been forced to deal with all this because the deep embedded racism that formed this country is the FOUNDATION of our system. And this is just the damage being done in our country, and please, I haven't even begun to kind-of scratch the surface here. Could you imagine what the United States would be doing if Russia suddenly started putting their troops in Canada and Mexico? That is what we are doing to them right now. How can you even begin to have a real conversation when you are already drawing your gun before they've opened their mouth. Our police execute Black bodies like this regularly—isn't it obvious who they learned that from?
Trump is a product of our society. He is not the root cause.
The racism that eerily creeps and lurks and twists and controls the oppression we've not ever escaped—and has convinced you that we are saviors—is a power that scares the sh*t out of me. And the willful ignorance of those you thought were your allies, is an excruciating pain—a pain my grandmother once told me about, but had never taken real meaning until now.
So the worst that would happen to her and her crew is "a Trump presidency would mean that we have to fight ignorants (sic) in the streets". That's the risk they were willing to take. As I keep pointing out, a lot more people are suffering a lot worse because Jill & Co. were willing to take - well, take no risk at all, to them personally.
(And yes, posted by her social media person on Dr. Stein's site, but I hope nobody thinks that's any excuse.)
If the Country is as bad as Jill Stein claims she should not be running for President. She should be up in the hills somewhere in fatigues and carrying a gun.
I could be wrong but I do not remember Fidel or Lenin mounting a third-party electoral challenge.
I watched the whole Flint video dear. And then I spent further time researching what was said to see if there was any factual basis for the claims, instead of just believing them.
Unlike you.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
She says it's factually based. Why should we believe her that there are "studies" which show what she said. I searched for such studies and found none that supported her contention. They shouldn't be that hard to find, as it was an important question to be answered.
But nan, you believe anything that supports your opinions. Even when I showed you that Flint guy was FOS, you completely ignored me.
And it's not her personality I object to. It's her actions. She's a self-serving wannabe who could give a damn about the destructive affects of her campaign. I have no respect for her.
nan said:
You might not like her personality, but what she says is factually based and refutes the argument that she cost Clinton the election.
Nate Silver agrees that the Stein votets were mostly not going to vote for Clunton. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/amp/
The outstanding Jordon Chariton reporting on Flint should have received an award. You barley watched it before claiming it was bogus without any substantive knowledge of the topic. Typical.
First time candidates are always free to use that kind of grandiose rhetoric. When you get past the melodramatic litany of all that's wrong with the world, give me the details of what you are going to do in power, including persuading/negotiating with the other party and members of your own party who have different views and/or represent interest groups who don't like your agenda. I'll start listening when the details start flowing.
drummerboy said:
I watched the whole Flint video dear. And then I spent further time researching what was said to see if there was any factual basis for the claims, instead of just believing them.
Unlike you.
There were months of videos and followups. Watching one is nothing, except to you. The resource you choose to debunk the claim is the one that months of research had proven wrong. That was the point of many of the videos. Do you ever admit you don't know something?
nohero said:
nan said:
You might not like her personality, but what she says is factually based and refutes the argument that she cost Clinton the election.
I'm afraid she refutes nothing. I do like her "if they didn't vote for me, they might have voted for Trump". I'd be interested in finding out what kind of person that is, and whether that's a person she'd really like to count as a supporter.
I do know what her argument was, to vote for her. It's on her Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/drjillstein/posts/134294602907891
So yes: If a Trump presidency would mean that we have to fight ignorants in the streets—I'm ready for that. I know that kind of racism. We already live in that kind of racism everyday—let's bring it to light and start calling it out. It is time you start asking yourself some tough questions: Why are you so eagerly okay staying in the status quo, when you know that that same status quo continues to leave far too many Black children fatherless and motherless because of the color of their skin? This status quo continues to desecrate the sacred burial grounds and prayer ceremonies—do you think this would ever happen to Arlington Cemetery, or churches? Can you imagine not being able to turn on your faucet since 2014 because it is poisoned? Have you heard of Flint, Michigan? We have been forced to deal with all this because the deep embedded racism that formed this country is the FOUNDATION of our system. And this is just the damage being done in our country, and please, I haven't even begun to kind-of scratch the surface here. Could you imagine what the United States would be doing if Russia suddenly started putting their troops in Canada and Mexico? That is what we are doing to them right now. How can you even begin to have a real conversation when you are already drawing your gun before they've opened their mouth. Our police execute Black bodies like this regularly—isn't it obvious who they learned that from?
Trump is a product of our society. He is not the root cause.
The racism that eerily creeps and lurks and twists and controls the oppression we've not ever escaped—and has convinced you that we are saviors—is a power that scares the sh*t out of me. And the willful ignorance of those you thought were your allies, is an excruciating pain—a pain my grandmother once told me about, but had never taken real meaning until now.
So the worst that would happen to her and her crew is "a Trump presidency would mean that we have to fight ignorants (sic) in the streets". That's the risk they were willing to take. As I keep pointing out, a lot more people are suffering a lot worse because Jill & Co. were willing to take - well, take no risk at all, to them personally.
(And yes, posted by her social media person on Dr. Stein's site, but I hope nobody thinks that's any excuse.)
Stein's comments are based on polling data. And what data do you have to show that Stein voters don't suffer from Trump's policies? They are not all affluent like many of the people where we live. When I was campaigning in Maplewood for Bernie, many people told me they did not care about Medicare for All or free college or a living wage or criminal justice reform. They just wanted a women president and they were upset with what the New York Times was reporting about Bernie (thanks DNC--who needs Russian bots when you have Debbie Wasserman Schultz?). You go on dangerous ground when you start vote shaming because it goes both ways.
it has nothing to do whether I know something or not. It's a simple question of checking a claim and seeing if there's any substance to it. I then present my argument for why I think the claim holds no water. That's how these discussions are supposed to work.
But then you just ignore it and file it away as just another "there goes drumemrboy again".
Meanwhile, you live in a fantasy land. That's what happens when you ignore competing facts.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
I watched the whole Flint video dear. And then I spent further time researching what was said to see if there was any factual basis for the claims, instead of just believing them.
Unlike you.
There were months of videos and followups. Watching one is nothing, except to you. The resource you choose to debunk the claim is the one that months of research had proven wrong. That was the point of many of the videos. Do you ever admit you don't know something?
Enough with the personal attacks. You should be able to do better than that.
Of course I can do better. But it doesn't seem to matter. You just ignore inconvenient facts. All.The.Time. It's maddening.
drummerboy said:
Of course I can do better. But it doesn't seem to matter. You just ignore inconvenient facts. All.The.Time. It's maddening.
More personal attacks instead of discussion. I'm getting tired.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
Of course I can do better. But it doesn't seem to matter. You just ignore inconvenient facts. All.The.Time. It's maddening.
More personal attacks instead of discussion. I'm getting tired.
1...hardly a personal attack. Trust me, when we attack (and we will), you'll know it.
2...You should be tired thinking up all these lies and mischaracterizaions. It's really hard to keep the lies straight.
nan, let me ask you something. When some right-wing whack-a-mole starts blathering about George Soros, what's your reaction?
Now you are venturing into slander. You should apologize. Really crappy that you have to be like this instead of producing a real argument.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
Of course I can do better. But it doesn't seem to matter. You just ignore inconvenient facts. All.The.Time. It's maddening.
More personal attacks instead of discussion. I'm getting tired.
1...hardly a personal attack. Trust me, when we attack (and we will), you'll know it.
2...You should be tired thinking up all these lies and mischaracterizaions. It's really hard to keep the lies straight.
drummerboy said:
nan, let me ask you something. When some right-wing whack-a-mole starts blathering about George Soros, what's your reaction?
I'm not a George Soros fan. Don't want any influential money in politics. I want politicians to run on platforms that favor people over corporations and billionaires. What do you say?
nan said:
Now you are venturing into slander. You should apologize. Really crappy that you have to be like this instead of producing a real argument.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
Of course I can do better. But it doesn't seem to matter. You just ignore inconvenient facts. All.The.Time. It's maddening.
More personal attacks instead of discussion. I'm getting tired.
1...hardly a personal attack. Trust me, when we attack (and we will), you'll know it.
2...You should be tired thinking up all these lies and mischaracterizaions. It's really hard to keep the lies straight.
Slander ???? Do you have the foggiest idea of wtf you are talking about??? I will NEVER apologize to you, or the few who lie in your vein.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Trust me, when we attack (and we will), you'll know it.
There’s a guy by this name who occasionally posts in baseball threads, spoke with me at a Facts Matter booth and addressed the TC at a Post Office development meeting I attended. He sounded reasonable. Go figure.
DaveSchmidt said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Trust me, when we attack (and we will), you'll know it.
There’s a guy by this name who occasionally posts in baseball threads, spoke with me at a Facts Matter booth and addressed the TC at a Post Office development meeting I attended. He sounded reasonable. Go figure.
Thanks Dave. 99% of the time I try to be reasonable, but the absolute claptrap being foisted upon us by nan and her lackeys makes me nuts. I'll try to dial it back.
nan said:
Stein's comments are based on polling data. And what data do you have to show that Stein voters don't suffer from Trump's policies? They are not all affluent like many of the people where we live. When I was campaigning in Maplewood for Bernie, many people told me they did not care about Medicare for All or free college or a living wage or criminal justice reform. They just wanted a women president and they were upset with what the New York Times was reporting about Bernie (thanks DNC--who needs Russian bots when you have Debbie Wasserman Schultz?). You go on dangerous ground when you start vote shaming because it goes both ways.
I won't address everything in that "Gish Gallop" of a response. Whatever her comments are "based on", that's not the same as saying her description is correct. And I'm sure that people who voted for her are suffering from Trump's policies, and if they ignored that possibility, then they were sadly deceived by her.
If you are upset that "many people told me they did not care about Medicare for All or free college or a living wage or criminal justice reform", then you should also be upset about people who didn't care that, if Trump won instead of Clinton, progress towards those goals would be halted and reversed. Which it has.
nohero said:
nan said:
Stein's comments are based on polling data. And what data do you have to show that Stein voters don't suffer from Trump's policies? They are not all affluent like many of the people where we live. When I was campaigning in Maplewood for Bernie, many people told me they did not care about Medicare for All or free college or a living wage or criminal justice reform. They just wanted a women president and they were upset with what the New York Times was reporting about Bernie (thanks DNC--who needs Russian bots when you have Debbie Wasserman Schultz?). You go on dangerous ground when you start vote shaming because it goes both ways.
I won't address everything in that "Gish Gallop" of a response. Whatever her comments are "based on", that's not the same as saying her description is correct. And I'm sure that people who voted for her are suffering from Trump's policies, and if they ignored that possibility, then they were sadly deceived by her.
If you are upset that "many people told me they did not care about Medicare for All or free college or a living wage or criminal justice reform", then you should also be upset about people who didn't care that, if Trump won instead of Clinton, progress towards those goals would be halted and reversed. Which it has.
Not necessarily. Clinton said we would never get Medicare for all and to forget about it. She was not for free college and she only wanted $12 minimum wage in some places. Yes, Trump is worse, but let's not ascribe positions to Clinton that she did not hold.
Here is an article describing the indictments as "the low-hanging fruit of Russian interference."
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/16/17020966/russia-indictments-mueller-internet-research-agency
excerpt:
" . . . While these social media posts may be objectionable and may have involved violations of federal laws, it’s highly unlikely that they actually affected the outcome of the election. When put in context with the overall amount of media Americans were exposed to about the 2016 campaign, from a plethora of sources, the Russian efforts were likely a drop in a far larger bucket."