1. A defense against these issues, including Russian connections, was published... by RT (Russia Today), which while that doesn't prove the Jill Stein-Russia connection, it does not make the Stein campaign look good that their best defense is to post that article on their Facebook. For the record, I don't fully buy into that smear. At worst, she's also "unwitting" because the real relationship is that RT provides coverage for 3rd Parties that otherwise would slip into complete obscurity. Edit: Link
2. Someone in a Facebook discussion on her campaign page to the above article remarked that even if all of these Jill Stein allegations were true, she'd still be a better candidate than either two major party candidates. I didn't join the discussion, but I'd only be willing to say that if all these allegations were true, that'd only be true of one of Donald Trump. Other thoughts?
Interesting article, thanks. I would say that Stein is a third party (I hate that term) candidate for a reason. I do not think she's a better candidate that Clinton for several reasons:
1. She has no experience.
The article highlights this quite well. She, like Trump, makes statements off the cuff without really knowing what she's talking about. This can be excusable in some ways, but when you're running for the most powerful person in the world (arguably), that's not good enough. Foreign policy isn't something that you can just learn on the go.
2. Her positions are out there.
She has several ideas that go against the current scientific consensus. People always ask me why that's such a big deal to me, and the answer is simple: if she's willing to ignore the evidence on things like wifi (and dogwhistle about vaccines), where does that stop? At what point does she go full Trump and start arguing that Obama created ISIS, despite all evidence to the contrary?*
3. She's too ideologically pure.
A big reason why our government has taken a turn for the worse over the past several years is the growing partisanship among both parties and especially among the Republicans. During the Tea Party's birth, a large group of congressmen were elected who had no interest in compromise in any way, shape or form. These fans have been stoked by Trump in the past several months.
Stein is doing the same, but among the left. To her, Republicans are bad, but Democrats are also bad (what is it with the far left hating the not quite as left more than the right? I never understood that). If you're unwilling to work with those who share a good number of your policies, but don't go all the way, it shows to me that you're inflexible and unable to compromise on anything, which is usually about half the job of the president (Obama being a somewhat unique case in that his opponents are unwilling to compromise despite him being willing).
If you're a conservative, that's great. If you're a liberal like I am, then Stein is about the worst case scenario because she seems dead set on dividing the party and "purging" anyone not pure enough.
Her support for anti-vax and homeopathy automatically puts her on my "stupid and/or wacko" list.
She also just seems to have come out of nowhere and runs for the White House every four years. It's a bit presumptive (and yes, I know, Donald Trump does the same thing; I mean, strictly speaking, Johnson has more experience than Trump, but that's for another thread) to run for the White House with so little experience. I mean, even the classic 'outsider' candidate is usually just 'a congressman, governor, state legislator, or the mayor of a major city'.
In any case, "there are still questions [about vaccines]" is classic FUD.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
She also just seems to have come out of nowhere and runs for the White House every four years. It's a bit presumptive (and yes, I know, Donald Trump does the same thing; I mean, strictly speaking, Johnson has more experience than Trump, but that's for another thread) to run for the White House with so little experience. I mean, even the classic 'outsider' candidate is usually just 'a congressman, governor, state legislator, or the mayor of a major city'.
In any case, "there are still questions [about vaccines]" is classic FUD.
To be fair, this is only her second run at President. (Same with Johnson)
She is definitely extremely crazy and the Green Party needs a more pragmatic approach similar to what the Libertarian Party has done ever since they got Johnson to defect to them in 2012. This is especially true as the Democrats continue their transformation into the white-collar, cosmopolitan party. Greens have a big opportunity to pick up working class individuals.
She is definitely extremely crazy and the Green Party needs a more pragmatic approach similar to what the Libertarian Party has done ever since they got Johnson to defect to them in 2012. This is especially true as the Democrats continue their transformation into the white-collar, cosmopolitan party. Greens have a big opportunity to pick up working class individuals.
Greens have less appeal to the working class than Democrats. They're the college campus drum circle party. The party that's making real inroads on blue-collar workers is the GOP, thanks to Trump's populist noise. Pennsylvania is probably a battleground state this year.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Part of the appeal of the Green Party this year is their similar stances to Bernie Sanders on a number of issues, and assuming the demographics carry over from Bernie, the Green's primary appeal right now is young white* liberals saddled with debt. The "cancel college debt"** position is the most straight forward appeal to them.
*The appeal happening to be shown in polling to resonate mostly white people is not deliberate and most certainly something that both the Green Party and Bernie want(ed) to not be the case as they are active in spreading their influence to other demographics.
**From what I'm hearing off and on, this "Cancel Student Debt" Program Jill Stein would like to implement is not actually as feasible as advertised, and that's without taking into account that for some reason Jill Stein thinks that it's a sound strategy to burn the bridges to both the Republicans and the Democrats when if she were to actually make it to the White House by some fluke would be all she has to work with because I've been talking with people familiar with Green Politics. What I hear consistently is the party has no ground game.
Pennsylvania is probably a battleground state this year.
That may be eventually, but it's not today. According to FiveThirtyEight's forecast (on August 14th, 2016), Hillary Clinton would likely just barely eek out the majority win with just over half the vote, and then Gary Johnson makes sure that it's a more comfortable margin for Hillary by capturing around 8%, leaving Trump in the dust with not a sign of Jill Stein making an impact. That could change given DNC hack or some other catastrophic event that shakes up the election, but it looks like Hillary wins on what right now passes as a normal day.
What I hear consistently is the party has no ground game.
Because they have no real structure. There's like 130 or so Green Party officials elected to various posts (including such incidental things as school board posts) in the entire US. That's like less than 3 people per state. When you have so few elected officials it becomes really difficult to get any sort of structure or movement going for a presidential election.
In my,admittedly somewhat inexperienced, opinion, the Greens need to focus much more on local elections before trying to take on the presidency. Having a better groundwork of elected officials can inspire more local support that's sorely missing. It also gives them more legitimacy in the election instead of being "one of those third parties."
As long as they continue to make symbolic runs at the presidency while refusing to capitalize on any interest that they get at the local level, they will continue to be the least influential out of the 4 largest parties.
1. A defense against these issues, including Russian connections, was published... by RT (Russia Today), which while that doesn't prove the Jill Stein-Russia connection, it does not make the Stein campaign look good that their best defense is to post that article on their Facebook. For the record, I don't fully buy into that smear. At worst, she's also "unwitting" because the real relationship is that RT provides coverage for 3rd Parties that otherwise would slip into complete obscurity. Edit: Link
2. Someone in a Facebook discussion on her campaign page to the above article remarked that even if all of these Jill Stein allegations were true, she'd still be a better candidate than either two major party candidates. I didn't join the discussion, but I'd only be willing to say that if all these allegations were true, that'd only be true of one of Donald Trump. Other thoughts?
If those accusations are true, then I think she not much better than Trump.
...
I went to one of the links the article provides (It's the one in "Stein simply deleted and replaced her statement "), and read the comments there.
Such vitriol.
And it's always sad to see people act the same, regardless of who they're supporting.
If the Greens (and I guess the Libertarians as well) would spend some time and effort to win small, local elections to prove that they can actually govern and put their ideas into practice, they would do a lot better. Instead, they waste time and money every four years trying to make waves in presidential races they have no chance of winning. The fact is that even if by some miracle they won the presidency, they won't be able to do anything since they have no support in Congress.
Both of the men on our ticket were governors. They've got just as much political experience on the local level as anyone.
Quote from Tiax »
Voting for Jill Stein is like voting for the crazy lady at your homeowners' association who won't shut up about how the chemtrails are poisoning her children. She has the same amount of actual political experience, and believes in the same amount of pseudoscience idiocy. She's a complete joke.
Well that's a bit harsh but yeah, she definitely has a kooky anti-science bent. Incidentally, that's kind of bad considering the party is supposed to be the standard bearers for... environmental science.
I just saw she's pushing for full student loan amnesty too which is another wacky thing.
She is definitely extremely crazy and the Green Party needs a more pragmatic approach similar to what the Libertarian Party has done ever since they got Johnson to defect to them in 2012. This is especially true as the Democrats continue their transformation into the white-collar, cosmopolitan party. Greens have a big opportunity to pick up working class individuals.
Greens have less appeal to the working class than Democrats. They're the college campus drum circle party. The party that's making real inroads on blue-collar workers is the GOP, thanks to Trump's populist noise. Pennsylvania is probably a battleground state this year.
Yeah, mostly because of the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party's dominance in recent decades. (Note that the Joe Lieberman wing is also racist, but they're better at hiding it. For instance, they were in favor of Bush's guest worker program, which was opposed by the National Council of La raza. So naturally they now portray Dems who aligned with the National Council of La Raza as anti-immigrant. *sigh* Go figure.)
The GOP makes inroads among blue-collar white workers. Mostly because of the Joe Lieberman wing's dominance in the Democratic Party.
The Greens are...back in the 60s, there was a certain type of leftist the FBI never targeted because, well, they were too nuts to be relevant. You know the type, the ones with utopian dreams and "Step 3: PROFIT!" means of getting there. I always called them lotus liberals. That's the Green Party.
The only thing I'll grant the Greens is, they weren't responsible for 2000. More Florida Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. Because they were the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party, and the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party's only job is to lose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I'm seriously considering voting for Stein on the grounds that she's the candidate I dislike the least and because I want to vote without voting for Hillary or Trump. I realizethat might be a bad position to take but at the same time I don't really want to sit out this election.
I'm seriously considering voting for Stein on the grounds that she's the candidate I dislike the least and because I want to vote without voting for Hillary or Trump. I realizethat might be a bad position to take but at the same time I don't really want to sit out this election.
How much have you looked into Jill Stein?
I've been researching her fairly consistently since the DNC Money Laundering accusations broke on Politico in May, and what I've come to is that I trust Jill Stein even less than I trust Hillary Clinton (and that's a low bar.) However, I'm not actively discouraging you from voting for Stein but rather suggesting that you make certain that she is indeed the candidate that you feel like you'd like in the White House most come November. For me, Jill Stein lost me over the course of the months just because little things started adding up that detracted from my opinion of her.
Hillary Clinton has the same problem, but there's two differences.
1) That is something I am expecting and the larger progressive community is taking action as we speak under Brand New Congress and Bernie Sanders' soon to launch Our Revolution Campaign. People are not prepared for this kind of fight that might arise from a President Stein just because she's not expected to win and she's promoting herself as the only Progressive left.
2) Jill Stein could potentially damage the Liberal Progressive Movement if she botches leadership, which the little things we've been discussing seem to hint at larger issues that could arise from a Jill Stein presidency.
And lastly, if you're going to vote Green, I recommend getting involved in Green politics to make sure you want to be there. In part, if the Green Party wants to grow, it will likely need a political revolution akin to the one Bernie Sanders is trying to pull with the Democrat Party.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I'm seriously considering voting for Stein on the grounds that she's the candidate I dislike the least and because I want to vote without voting for Hillary or Trump. I realizethat might be a bad position to take but at the same time I don't really want to sit out this election.
How much have you looked into Jill Stein?
I know her positions generally but I have dug too deeply yet (and this thread has been helpful). However I also concede that she's not the best and she is extremely unlikely to make it into office. It's just I don't want to do nothing this election yet at the same time, I can't say I'm at all behind the other candidates.
It's an unfortunate sentiment being echoed. Finding the candidate that you dislike least. That isn't how the presidential race should be really, you should have a more positive opinion on who you vote for I think.
It's an unfortunate sentiment being echoed. Finding the candidate that you dislike least. That isn't how the presidential race should be really, you should have a more positive opinion on who you vote for I think.
I know but it's really difficult when all of the current candidates have one thing or another that I would majorly disagree with but there's literally no other option and, as far as I know, there's nothing in the constitution that says we can get a do-over (short of all currently nominated candidates suddenly dying).
I'm seriously considering voting for Stein on the grounds that she's the candidate I dislike the least and because I want to vote without voting for Hillary or Trump. I realizethat might be a bad position to take but at the same time I don't really want to sit out this election.
I'm seriously considering voting for Stein on the grounds that she's the candidate I dislike the least and because I want to vote without voting for Hillary or Trump. I realizethat might be a bad position to take but at the same time I don't really want to sit out this election.
Why Jill Stein and not Vermin Supreme?
Cause she at least has some ideas I agree with (even if she's got a bit of woo going on) and I'm not even sure if I can vote for Vermin Supreme.
Cause she at least has some ideas I agree with (even if she's got a bit of woo going on) and I'm not even sure if I can vote for Vermin Supreme.
Almost all states allow write-in candidates, so you can vote for whoever you want.
Why does it matter if Jill Stein has some ideas you agree with? Neither she nor Vermin Supreme are going to be president, their ideas will have an equal impact on the way the country is run.
Cause she at least has some ideas I agree with (even if she's got a bit of woo going on) and I'm not even sure if I can vote for Vermin Supreme.
Almost all states allow write-in candidates, so you can vote for whoever you want.
Why does it matter if Jill Stein has some ideas you agree with? Neither she nor Vermin Supreme are going to be president, their ideas will have an equal impact on the way the country is run.
True, I may as well right in Mr. T at that point then.
True, I may as well right in Mr. T at that point then.
Well, most states require the write-in candidate to have registered, so if you want to feel-good of your vote being counted, you have to at least write in an actual candidate.
True, I may as well right in Mr. T at that point then.
Well, most states require the write-in candidate to have registered, so if you want to feel-good of your vote being counted, you have to at least write in an actual candidate.
Yes, but that's not really related here. He got one delegate's vote at the Libertarian convention - probably some sort of protest vote by the delegate. That just means he didn't get to be the Libertarian party's nominee. But you don't have to be a party's nominee to be a write-in candidate, you just have to have filled out some paperwork ahead of time. Presumably Vermin Supreme will have done so, although that's just a guess.
Yes, but that's not really related here. He got one delegate's vote at the Libertarian convention - probably some sort of protest vote by the delegate. That just means he didn't get to be the Libertarian party's nominee. But you don't have to be a party's nominee to be a write-in candidate, you just have to have filled out some paperwork ahead of time. Presumably Vermin Supreme will have done so, although that's just a guess.
Maybe, I'll think about it, anyway to bring this back to the topic, I gleamed through the thread that Stein's been accused of promoting homeopathy, is there evidence of this or is that just a part of the whole Green Party platform?
It's an unfortunate sentiment being echoed. Finding the candidate that you dislike least. That isn't how the presidential race should be really, you should have a more positive opinion on who you vote for I think.
That's exactly how presidential races are supposed to work because to reword your statement, presidential candidates are about finding the candidate you like the most, and there is no rule how high of an opinion candidates hold has to factor into that. The fluke is that Hillary Clinton is (and I say this with no irony) more trusted than Bernie Sanders inside the Democrat Party, while the inverse appears true of the general election, which has a lot more independents.
Why does it matter if Jill Stein has some ideas you agree with? Neither she nor Vermin Supreme are going to be president, their ideas will have an equal impact on the way the country is run.
In Jill Stein's case, there is a tangible reason for voting for her. If the Green Party can manage 5% of the vote on November 8th, they will receive federal funding. That would be a huge step for the Green Party to be able to step up its game.
In Jill Stein's case, there is a tangible reason for voting for her. If the Green Party can manage 5% of the vote on November 8th, they will receive federal funding. That would be a huge step for the Green Party to be able to step up its game.
That also strikes me as wishful thinking, considering she managed 0.36% last time, despite similar poll numbers leading up to the election. But I suppose it makes more sense than voting for her political positions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Friends Don't Let Friends Vote for Jill Stein"
Two off the cuff remarks about these:
1. A defense against these issues, including Russian connections, was published... by RT (Russia Today), which while that doesn't prove the Jill Stein-Russia connection, it does not make the Stein campaign look good that their best defense is to post that article on their Facebook. For the record, I don't fully buy into that smear. At worst, she's also "unwitting" because the real relationship is that RT provides coverage for 3rd Parties that otherwise would slip into complete obscurity. Edit: Link
2. Someone in a Facebook discussion on her campaign page to the above article remarked that even if all of these Jill Stein allegations were true, she'd still be a better candidate than either two major party candidates. I didn't join the discussion, but I'd only be willing to say that if all these allegations were true, that'd only be true of one of Donald Trump. Other thoughts?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
1. She has no experience.
The article highlights this quite well. She, like Trump, makes statements off the cuff without really knowing what she's talking about. This can be excusable in some ways, but when you're running for the most powerful person in the world (arguably), that's not good enough. Foreign policy isn't something that you can just learn on the go.
2. Her positions are out there.
She has several ideas that go against the current scientific consensus. People always ask me why that's such a big deal to me, and the answer is simple: if she's willing to ignore the evidence on things like wifi (and dogwhistle about vaccines), where does that stop? At what point does she go full Trump and start arguing that Obama created ISIS, despite all evidence to the contrary?*
3. She's too ideologically pure.
A big reason why our government has taken a turn for the worse over the past several years is the growing partisanship among both parties and especially among the Republicans. During the Tea Party's birth, a large group of congressmen were elected who had no interest in compromise in any way, shape or form. These fans have been stoked by Trump in the past several months.
Stein is doing the same, but among the left. To her, Republicans are bad, but Democrats are also bad (what is it with the far left hating the not quite as left more than the right? I never understood that). If you're unwilling to work with those who share a good number of your policies, but don't go all the way, it shows to me that you're inflexible and unable to compromise on anything, which is usually about half the job of the president (Obama being a somewhat unique case in that his opponents are unwilling to compromise despite him being willing).
If you're a conservative, that's great. If you're a liberal like I am, then Stein is about the worst case scenario because she seems dead set on dividing the party and "purging" anyone not pure enough.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
She also just seems to have come out of nowhere and runs for the White House every four years. It's a bit presumptive (and yes, I know, Donald Trump does the same thing; I mean, strictly speaking, Johnson has more experience than Trump, but that's for another thread) to run for the White House with so little experience. I mean, even the classic 'outsider' candidate is usually just 'a congressman, governor, state legislator, or the mayor of a major city'.
In any case, "there are still questions [about vaccines]" is classic FUD.
On phasing:
To be fair, this is only her second run at President. (Same with Johnson)
She is definitely extremely crazy and the Green Party needs a more pragmatic approach similar to what the Libertarian Party has done ever since they got Johnson to defect to them in 2012. This is especially true as the Democrats continue their transformation into the white-collar, cosmopolitan party. Greens have a big opportunity to pick up working class individuals.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
*The appeal happening to be shown in polling to resonate mostly white people is not deliberate and most certainly something that both the Green Party and Bernie want(ed) to not be the case as they are active in spreading their influence to other demographics.
**From what I'm hearing off and on, this "Cancel Student Debt" Program Jill Stein would like to implement is not actually as feasible as advertised, and that's without taking into account that for some reason Jill Stein thinks that it's a sound strategy to burn the bridges to both the Republicans and the Democrats when if she were to actually make it to the White House by some fluke would be all she has to work with because I've been talking with people familiar with Green Politics. What I hear consistently is the party has no ground game.
That may be eventually, but it's not today. According to FiveThirtyEight's forecast (on August 14th, 2016), Hillary Clinton would likely just barely eek out the majority win with just over half the vote, and then Gary Johnson makes sure that it's a more comfortable margin for Hillary by capturing around 8%, leaving Trump in the dust with not a sign of Jill Stein making an impact. That could change given DNC hack or some other catastrophic event that shakes up the election, but it looks like Hillary wins on what right now passes as a normal day.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Because they have no real structure. There's like 130 or so Green Party officials elected to various posts (including such incidental things as school board posts) in the entire US. That's like less than 3 people per state. When you have so few elected officials it becomes really difficult to get any sort of structure or movement going for a presidential election.
In my,admittedly somewhat inexperienced, opinion, the Greens need to focus much more on local elections before trying to take on the presidency. Having a better groundwork of elected officials can inspire more local support that's sorely missing. It also gives them more legitimacy in the election instead of being "one of those third parties."
As long as they continue to make symbolic runs at the presidency while refusing to capitalize on any interest that they get at the local level, they will continue to be the least influential out of the 4 largest parties.
URW Control
WBG Abzan
GRW Burn
EDH
GR Rosheen Meanderer
If those accusations are true, then I think she not much better than Trump.
...
I went to one of the links the article provides (It's the one in "Stein simply deleted and replaced her statement "), and read the comments there.
Such vitriol.
And it's always sad to see people act the same, regardless of who they're supporting.
Both of the men on our ticket were governors. They've got just as much political experience on the local level as anyone.
Well that's a bit harsh but yeah, she definitely has a kooky anti-science bent. Incidentally, that's kind of bad considering the party is supposed to be the standard bearers for... environmental science.
I just saw she's pushing for full student loan amnesty too which is another wacky thing.
Yeah, mostly because of the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party's dominance in recent decades. (Note that the Joe Lieberman wing is also racist, but they're better at hiding it. For instance, they were in favor of Bush's guest worker program, which was opposed by the National Council of La raza. So naturally they now portray Dems who aligned with the National Council of La Raza as anti-immigrant. *sigh* Go figure.)
The GOP makes inroads among blue-collar white workers. Mostly because of the Joe Lieberman wing's dominance in the Democratic Party.
The Greens are...back in the 60s, there was a certain type of leftist the FBI never targeted because, well, they were too nuts to be relevant. You know the type, the ones with utopian dreams and "Step 3: PROFIT!" means of getting there. I always called them lotus liberals. That's the Green Party.
The only thing I'll grant the Greens is, they weren't responsible for 2000. More Florida Democrats voted for Bush than for Nader. Because they were the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party, and the Joe Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party's only job is to lose.
On phasing:
I've been researching her fairly consistently since the DNC Money Laundering accusations broke on Politico in May, and what I've come to is that I trust Jill Stein even less than I trust Hillary Clinton (and that's a low bar.) However, I'm not actively discouraging you from voting for Stein but rather suggesting that you make certain that she is indeed the candidate that you feel like you'd like in the White House most come November. For me, Jill Stein lost me over the course of the months just because little things started adding up that detracted from my opinion of her.
Hillary Clinton has the same problem, but there's two differences.
1) That is something I am expecting and the larger progressive community is taking action as we speak under Brand New Congress and Bernie Sanders' soon to launch Our Revolution Campaign. People are not prepared for this kind of fight that might arise from a President Stein just because she's not expected to win and she's promoting herself as the only Progressive left.
2) Jill Stein could potentially damage the Liberal Progressive Movement if she botches leadership, which the little things we've been discussing seem to hint at larger issues that could arise from a Jill Stein presidency.
And lastly, if you're going to vote Green, I recommend getting involved in Green politics to make sure you want to be there. In part, if the Green Party wants to grow, it will likely need a political revolution akin to the one Bernie Sanders is trying to pull with the Democrat Party.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I know her positions generally but I have dug too deeply yet (and this thread has been helpful). However I also concede that she's not the best and she is extremely unlikely to make it into office. It's just I don't want to do nothing this election yet at the same time, I can't say I'm at all behind the other candidates.
I know but it's really difficult when all of the current candidates have one thing or another that I would majorly disagree with but there's literally no other option and, as far as I know, there's nothing in the constitution that says we can get a do-over (short of all currently nominated candidates suddenly dying).
Why Jill Stein and not Vermin Supreme?
Cause she at least has some ideas I agree with (even if she's got a bit of woo going on) and I'm not even sure if I can vote for Vermin Supreme.
Almost all states allow write-in candidates, so you can vote for whoever you want.
Why does it matter if Jill Stein has some ideas you agree with? Neither she nor Vermin Supreme are going to be president, their ideas will have an equal impact on the way the country is run.
True, I may as well right in Mr. T at that point then.
Well, most states require the write-in candidate to have registered, so if you want to feel-good of your vote being counted, you have to at least write in an actual candidate.
But didn't Vermin only get like one delegate?
Yes, but that's not really related here. He got one delegate's vote at the Libertarian convention - probably some sort of protest vote by the delegate. That just means he didn't get to be the Libertarian party's nominee. But you don't have to be a party's nominee to be a write-in candidate, you just have to have filled out some paperwork ahead of time. Presumably Vermin Supreme will have done so, although that's just a guess.
Maybe, I'll think about it, anyway to bring this back to the topic, I gleamed through the thread that Stein's been accused of promoting homeopathy, is there evidence of this or is that just a part of the whole Green Party platform?
That's exactly how presidential races are supposed to work because to reword your statement, presidential candidates are about finding the candidate you like the most, and there is no rule how high of an opinion candidates hold has to factor into that. The fluke is that Hillary Clinton is (and I say this with no irony) more trusted than Bernie Sanders inside the Democrat Party, while the inverse appears true of the general election, which has a lot more independents.
In Jill Stein's case, there is a tangible reason for voting for her. If the Green Party can manage 5% of the vote on November 8th, they will receive federal funding. That would be a huge step for the Green Party to be able to step up its game.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
That also strikes me as wishful thinking, considering she managed 0.36% last time, despite similar poll numbers leading up to the election. But I suppose it makes more sense than voting for her political positions.