Alternatively, *gasp*, we could just raise taxes on the upper class and upper middle class.
I'm sure you feel empowered by your sarcasm, but it would work better if you'd read my posts fully. You know, that last sentence you quoted. I'm glad you're here to police this section, *great* contributions you're making.
I'm sorry. I figured you just meant instituting the new coins (questionably helpful), and not also getting rid of the tax cuts. My mistake. That said, despite an upper-middle-class upbringing, I would argue that even after getting rid of the tax cuts, a raise in taxes on the upper class and upper middle class would be perfectly reasonable. I would wholeheartedly pay an additional, say, 30% of my current taxes to help pull the country's economy into a better place.
Not really sure it adds too much we didn't already discuss, but the most interesting addition is he puts Stein's "Cancel Student Debt" policy in same credible realm as "Build the Wall." I hadn't thought of it that way, but the more I think about it, the more similarities I can see.
I'd post this in the Gary Johnson thread as well, but I don't think this is worth double posting at this point in the election cycle, there's absolutely nothing to add about Gary Johnson I did not already really know, so I'll just say regarding him that I want Gary Johnson to officiate my Pikachus' wedding.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I love John Oliver, but I don't really feel like he's been assessing the candidates objectively. It's really clear that he's hugely biased in favor of Hillary and continually downplays her faults while mocking the ***** out of everyone else.
Clearly he's shilling for Joe Exotic there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I love John Oliver, but I don't really feel like he's been assessing the candidates objectively. It's really clear that he's hugely biased in favor of Hillary and continually downplays her faults while mocking the ***** out of everyone else.
Clearly he's shilling for Joe Exotic there.
I'd vote for him. If, you know, I could vote in the USA.
Pretty sure John Oliver is one such person. I only brought it up here because it's relevant to Jill Stein in that Oliver is obviously going to paint 3rd parties in a mostly negative light because of his heavily biased position of supporting Clinton. Not saying Johnson or Stein are faultless (far from it), but there's pretty much no reality in which he'd consider endorsing either of them because that hurts his goal of leading his audience to vote for Clinton.
It'd be easier argue that his bias is causing him to fail to see the admirable qualities each third party candidate would bring to office if they had any.
As it stands, I agree with his conclusion. There are times when third party candidates can, and have, brought substantial issues, positions, and/or ideas to the table that neither of the two dominant parties have put forward. This is not one of those times. At least not with Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
I love John Oliver, but I don't really feel like he's been assessing the candidates objectively. It's really clear that he's hugely biased in favor of Hillary and continually downplays her faults while mocking the ***** out of everyone else.
I am not sure we watched the same segment. While John Oliver is most likely going to vote for Hillary Clinton, I feel he made an abundant case against Clinton a few weeks ago when he compared Clinton and Trump's problems to raisins. Even in this segment, he was not thrilled by the prospect of Hillary Clinton, but his terror of Trump overshadows his problems with Hillary Clinton. Ultimately though, he played this as neutral as he could. He never said "Vote Hillary," but rather played a more subtle point of, "Look, the two 3rd Party candidates have raisins as well, and they're quite a few more than people realize. If you don't feel queazy however you vote, then you're either a liar or literally f***ed the voting booth to feel better." (I may be paraphrasing, but he's on HBO, so not by that much).
As it stands, I agree with his conclusion. There are times when third party candidates can, and have, brought substantial issues, positions, and/or ideas to the table that neither of the two dominant parties have put forward. This is not one of those times. At least not with Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
To be fair, if Jill Stein could have broken through to the mainstream, I think her presence would have brought attention to the Green New Deal and environmentalism in general if only because it's the one pillar of her campaign I think is truly on the right track. Unfortunately, somewhere in almost literally everything else about her campaign, Jill Stein has managed to misstep every step of the way. I don't know how much is her fault vs. the toxic election polarizing potential support back to the major parties out of concern that splitting the vote to the worse candidate's victory.
------
There's a few additional points I'd like to make in addition the things that John Oliver mentioned either because he did not know or did not feel were as solid as what he did mention:
Jill Stein has not had to explain her Russian connections. Although this one is the biggest stretch and could easily just be red scare tactics, foreign connections need to be vetted.
Jill Stein's foreign policy is borderline isolationism and reeks of not understanding the world stage. Specifics don't come to mind at the moment... other than in a town hall she was pressed on a hypothetical world power making a power move (in this case North Korea invading South Korea), and she came across to me as genuinely uncertain as whether or not she'd hold steady to her diplomatic "peace offensive."
Somehow Gary Johnson picked up more millennial support than Jill Stein after Bernie Sanders conceded, which is why Gary Johnson was brought into the mainstream and ostracized (granted... he did quite a bit of that to himself). This is where I point to when I say that Jill somewhere failed in her campaign rather than or in addition to being pushed aside by media figures. Millennials know how to get past media blackouts; we learned with Bernie Sanders. So when the other 3rd Party gets the support when Green politics aligns a hella lot closer than Libertarianism, it's not because the millennials did not find you. I feel there's a strong possibility it's because Jill Stein couldn't hold their vote.
I am still miffed that she's in passing made points that Hillary Clinton is a worse possible outcome of this election than Donald Trump. I don't think she actually believes it, but it's clear that she's laser focused on chipping away Democrats. Fascinating thing I learned when did my research on Green Party history: Jill Stein is making the same play that Ralph Nader did in 2000. Here's the difference, in 2000, the Democrats and Republicans were actually closer than today... and people didn't find out how bad Bush was until years later (unlike now when Trump has made his incompetence abundantly clear from the get go), or that Gore would go on to bring Global Warming to the main stage permanently with An Inconvenient Truth (still waiting for the Hillary Clinton equivalent?). So when Ralph Nader was equivocating Bush and Gore at the time, that was a bipartisan play... even if it seems like it should have had a stronger appeal to Democrats, and it played out relatively bipartisan, which is why Nader will still claim he was not a spoiler to this day. (It was something like ~40% Democrat, ~40% Republican, ~20% non-voters... I think, feel free to fact check this, I'm just trying to remember this off the top of my head) Fast forward 16 years, Jill Stein saying the same thing is just an insult on Democrats. Democrats have major issues, but Clinton being worse than Trump is not one of them... see previous rant a page or two back for more details on why I feel saying otherwise is just white privilege.
While John Oliver is most likely going to vote for Hillary Clinton...
He's not an American citizen. If he votes for Hillary Clinton, then the GOP may have a point about voter ID laws.
I think he actually is. I seem to remember his citizenship cleared sometime after he started Last Week Tonight because I think he's brought it up somewhere.
Edit: I haven't been able to find a link to corroborate my claim, so I withdraw it until one shows up.
Honestly I thought Oliver was too gentle on Stein. The emphasis on the album was fake-outrage, and took up a lot of time that could have been spent making it clear that she has barely more experience than Donald Trump and considerably fewer credentials than Sarah Palin.
Honestly I thought Oliver was too gentle on Stein. The emphasis on the album was fake-outrage, and took up a lot of time that could have been spent making it clear that she has barely more experience than Donald Trump and considerably fewer credentials than Sarah Palin.
Given that Oliver is quite progressive it makes sense he would go easy on Stein and hammer Johnson.
John Oliver wasn't gentle on Stein. He hammered Stein and said she seemed to have no idea what she was talking about in her policies or how government works. He compared her core platform directly to Donald Trump's much-loathed wall. He also put her next to 9/11 truthers and anti-vaxxers. I highly doubt he left out my point because of a progressive bias.
Hillary is a war monger. Consolidated media. How wall street controls a lot of the political process. Trump is more trust worthy then hillary. Just a few off the top of my head. Not a fan of any of the people running but I do know hillary is the worst.
Trump is more trust worthy then hillary. Just a few off the top of my head. Not a fan of any of the people running but I do know hillary is the worst.
The number one reason I will not vote for Jill Stein is this line of reasoning right here. I just fail to see any merit to it. I've explained why I think so... twice in this thread (Here and Here).
An interesting point to note is that trying to establish a no fly zone =/= automatic formal war with Russia. To paint such an oversimplification is politically dangerous.
The kicker is Jill Stein should not be giving interviews to InfoWars/Alex Jones because they are not interviewing her for the Green Party's benefit. Besides I am certain that Margaret Howell was leading Jill along and bookended the interview by putting words into her mouth (i.e. Jill Stein never said in that interview, "I trust a President Trump more than a President Hillary Clinton), InfoWars will not reach an audience to expand the Green voter base. It only serves to feed a conservative base that would never vote for Jill Stein anyway more fodder to despise Hillary Clinton.
At best, Jill Stein needs to do more research on people seeking her for interviews. At worst, Jill Stein is not running a campaign to get votes but to try to smear Hillary while pretending to be to her left on the issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Hillary is a war monger. Consolidated media. How wall street controls a lot of the political process. Trump is more trust worthy then hillary. Just a few off the top of my head. Not a fan of any of the people running but I do know hillary is the worst.
These are just baseless statements. Stein doesn't even understand her own policy proposals, she has no idea what the significance of any of Clinton's geopolitical positions are. When she gives specifics, she always embarasses herself. That's why she normally doesn't. She can't even see Russia from her house. The democrats have also embraced campaign finance reform as their major party platform and pledged to make it happen as their top legislative priority. Do you know the best way to sabotage that? Not supporting them. Prove that it's smarter to stick with the corporations, because they always deliver the money.
I'd like to rip into the Trump-Clinton comparison more directly, but this is a thread about Stein. It's not about comparing the merits of one of the moste qualified candidates ever with a mad clown with no experience who can't go a week in a campaign without sticking his foot in his mouth becoming a country's chief diplomat and military commander.
Stein has built her career off of getting attention with hopeless causes. She's not a serious candidate, she just tries to position herself as the saintly alternative "they" only oppose because "they" are scared of just how wonderful she is. In reality, she doesn't have any idea what she's talking about and has no appreciable political experience. She likely never will.
I'd like to rip into the Trump-Clinton comparison more directly, but this is a thread about Stein. It's not about comparing the merits of one of the moste qualified candidates ever with a mad clown with no experience who can't go a week in a campaign without sticking his foot in his mouth becoming a country's chief diplomat and military commander.
As thread creator and someone who's teared into the comparison twice in this thread, you have my permission to rip your own hole into the comparison, and the Jill Stein thread is probably the best place to do it because she is the only candidate that I'm aware of who's taken it to the extreme and tried to paint Trump as the lesser of two evils either directly or through setting up other people to say it.
I'd like to rip into the Trump-Clinton comparison more directly, but this is a thread about Stein. It's not about comparing the merits of one of the moste qualified candidates ever with a mad clown with no experience who can't go a week in a campaign without sticking his foot in his mouth becoming a country's chief diplomat and military commander.
As thread creator and someone who's teared into the comparison twice in this thread, you have my permission to rip your own hole into the comparison, and the Jill Stein thread is probably the best place to do it because she is the only candidate that I'm aware of who's taken it to the extreme and tried to paint Trump as the lesser of two evils either directly or through setting up other people to say it.
I couldn't get past her answer to the first question. Just massively dishonest.
Question Was: "What did John Oliver get wrong about your plan to cancel student debt."
Context: John Oliver took her argument to cancel student debt through quantitative easing, and pointed out that the president has no power to do it and that she doesn't seem to even know what it is. She just keeps calling it a "magic trick". It's not. It's introduction of new money into the money supply by the central bank. Basically you say, "Hey, we can't pay for this. Let's print more money!" Obviously this has HUGE repercussions on the economy, as any econ 101 student can tell you with regard to inflation. There are gigantic historical parallels. He was right to call it as absurd as Trump's plan to stop illegal immigration by building a giant wall. It's the same kind of child logic. How do we stop people coming into our country? Build a big wall! Like really big! How do we pay for something? Print more money! Like a trillion more money!
Stein's answer:
1) We bailed out the banks, let's bail out the students! (Irrelevant response to his criticism)
2) Quantitative easing is "controversial" but it works. It's a magic trick (Don't need to explain why this is a non-response and ignorant/duplicitous).
3) There's lots of other ways to pay for it! Maybe we just don't make a bunch more nuclear weapons (irrelevant to her ignorance on quantitative easing which she's pushed hugely).
4) It's not fair. John Olvier never makes fun of Clinton (yes he does, he makes fun of her a lot more than he does Stein. Also irrelevant to his criticism).
This is absurd. It was just the FIRST question.
EDIT - The very next question was a follow-up asking for details on Stein's plan and her response: "Details aren't important, what's important is that we want to do it."
To be fair, if Jill Stein could have broken through to the mainstream,
"It would mean our country is even stupider than it already is" is the correct way to end that sentence.
Donald Trump has broken into the mainstream. Look at how many useful topics he's brought attention to: exactly none.
Well, arguably bigotry and sexual assault, but not by his intention.
You think Jill Stein harping about the environment would have been useless to the discourse? It doesn't matter how right she is, it'd force Clinton and Trump to talk about it more.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I'm sorry. I figured you just meant instituting the new coins (questionably helpful), and not also getting rid of the tax cuts. My mistake. That said, despite an upper-middle-class upbringing, I would argue that even after getting rid of the tax cuts, a raise in taxes on the upper class and upper middle class would be perfectly reasonable. I would wholeheartedly pay an additional, say, 30% of my current taxes to help pull the country's economy into a better place.
Not really sure it adds too much we didn't already discuss, but the most interesting addition is he puts Stein's "Cancel Student Debt" policy in same credible realm as "Build the Wall." I hadn't thought of it that way, but the more I think about it, the more similarities I can see.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Art is life itself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Seriously tho I'd vote for the Democrats.
Art is life itself.
As it stands, I agree with his conclusion. There are times when third party candidates can, and have, brought substantial issues, positions, and/or ideas to the table that neither of the two dominant parties have put forward. This is not one of those times. At least not with Gary Johnson or Jill Stein.
To be fair, if Jill Stein could have broken through to the mainstream, I think her presence would have brought attention to the Green New Deal and environmentalism in general if only because it's the one pillar of her campaign I think is truly on the right track. Unfortunately, somewhere in almost literally everything else about her campaign, Jill Stein has managed to misstep every step of the way. I don't know how much is her fault vs. the toxic election polarizing potential support back to the major parties out of concern that splitting the vote to the worse candidate's victory.
------
There's a few additional points I'd like to make in addition the things that John Oliver mentioned either because he did not know or did not feel were as solid as what he did mention:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Edit: I haven't been able to find a link to corroborate my claim, so I withdraw it until one shows up.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Given that Oliver is quite progressive it makes sense he would go easy on Stein and hammer Johnson.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
https://youtu.be/dFi6LJiW3W4
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Hillary is a war monger. Consolidated media. How wall street controls a lot of the political process. Trump is more trust worthy then hillary. Just a few off the top of my head. Not a fan of any of the people running but I do know hillary is the worst.
An interesting point to note is that trying to establish a no fly zone =/= automatic formal war with Russia. To paint such an oversimplification is politically dangerous.
The kicker is Jill Stein should not be giving interviews to InfoWars/Alex Jones because they are not interviewing her for the Green Party's benefit. Besides I am certain that Margaret Howell was leading Jill along and bookended the interview by putting words into her mouth (i.e. Jill Stein never said in that interview, "I trust a President Trump more than a President Hillary Clinton), InfoWars will not reach an audience to expand the Green voter base. It only serves to feed a conservative base that would never vote for Jill Stein anyway more fodder to despise Hillary Clinton.
At best, Jill Stein needs to do more research on people seeking her for interviews. At worst, Jill Stein is not running a campaign to get votes but to try to smear Hillary while pretending to be to her left on the issues.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
These are just baseless statements. Stein doesn't even understand her own policy proposals, she has no idea what the significance of any of Clinton's geopolitical positions are. When she gives specifics, she always embarasses herself. That's why she normally doesn't. She can't even see Russia from her house. The democrats have also embraced campaign finance reform as their major party platform and pledged to make it happen as their top legislative priority. Do you know the best way to sabotage that? Not supporting them. Prove that it's smarter to stick with the corporations, because they always deliver the money.
I'd like to rip into the Trump-Clinton comparison more directly, but this is a thread about Stein. It's not about comparing the merits of one of the moste qualified candidates ever with a mad clown with no experience who can't go a week in a campaign without sticking his foot in his mouth becoming a country's chief diplomat and military commander.
Stein has built her career off of getting attention with hopeless causes. She's not a serious candidate, she just tries to position herself as the saintly alternative "they" only oppose because "they" are scared of just how wonderful she is. In reality, she doesn't have any idea what she's talking about and has no appreciable political experience. She likely never will.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
As thread creator and someone who's teared into the comparison twice in this thread, you have my permission to rip your own hole into the comparison, and the Jill Stein thread is probably the best place to do it because she is the only candidate that I'm aware of who's taken it to the extreme and tried to paint Trump as the lesser of two evils either directly or through setting up other people to say it.
Let Dr. Stein have it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Use one of the Clinton or Trump threads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWnX-sVdego
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Question Was: "What did John Oliver get wrong about your plan to cancel student debt."
Context: John Oliver took her argument to cancel student debt through quantitative easing, and pointed out that the president has no power to do it and that she doesn't seem to even know what it is. She just keeps calling it a "magic trick". It's not. It's introduction of new money into the money supply by the central bank. Basically you say, "Hey, we can't pay for this. Let's print more money!" Obviously this has HUGE repercussions on the economy, as any econ 101 student can tell you with regard to inflation. There are gigantic historical parallels. He was right to call it as absurd as Trump's plan to stop illegal immigration by building a giant wall. It's the same kind of child logic. How do we stop people coming into our country? Build a big wall! Like really big! How do we pay for something? Print more money! Like a trillion more money!
Stein's answer:
1) We bailed out the banks, let's bail out the students! (Irrelevant response to his criticism)
2) Quantitative easing is "controversial" but it works. It's a magic trick (Don't need to explain why this is a non-response and ignorant/duplicitous).
3) There's lots of other ways to pay for it! Maybe we just don't make a bunch more nuclear weapons (irrelevant to her ignorance on quantitative easing which she's pushed hugely).
4) It's not fair. John Olvier never makes fun of Clinton (yes he does, he makes fun of her a lot more than he does Stein. Also irrelevant to his criticism).
This is absurd. It was just the FIRST question.
EDIT - The very next question was a follow-up asking for details on Stein's plan and her response: "Details aren't important, what's important is that we want to do it."
*facepalm* Hello Mrs. Trump.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Donald Trump has broken into the mainstream. Look at how many useful topics he's brought attention to: exactly none.
Well, arguably bigotry and sexual assault, but not by his intention.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~