Go fuck yourself Jill.
I always thought she'd make a better VP, particularly on the same ticket as Barney Frank.
Then I could vote for Frank And Stein.
Or maybe Al Franken? Even the spelling is right!
Frank and Stein: We’re not the monster
Badum Ching!
No, he'll end up being the Attorney General
Wish she just fuck entirely off instead.
It’s a transparently self-serving, irrational, and counterproductive decision to run again as a third party candidate. It just exposes her arrogance and lack of actual consideration for the health of the country. If she thought she could realistically win, then she should try to primary Biden on the Democratic ticket. Anything else is actively destructive. So disappointing.
Did you miss the part where every other time she's run, she was funded by Republicans for the sole purpose of being a spoiler?
Russian pawn jill stein?
The mentality of people who just hate and drag anyone who identifies dem, in this day and age, drives me crazy. Because "democrat" is just not a political identity. The only core philosophy behind being a democrat is belief in evidence-based policy, fairness and justice at least some of the time, and that government should fundamentally be allowed to do the work of governance. Any political view that fits in that framework can make it under the tent.
To be distinguished from the modern conservative wing, who think government should be butchered and sold off to the highest bidder, that fairness and justice are part of the woke mind virus, and evidence is conspiracy.
I want to see someone hold her feet to the fire on her more pseudoscience remarks now that conspiracy theories like that have drifted firmly into the conservative camp. Namely:
-
Does she still believe there are reasons to be hesitant about vaccines? Is her response to "Do vaccines cause autism?" more than a two letter word?
-
Can she provide the scientific papers which show that "wifi causes cancer"?
-
Could she explain why she's against nuclear energy despite all of the information showing it to be safe? And if she would support new reactor designs that are inherently safer?
-
If she recants all of it, what's her explanation for previously saying those things? Was she just pandering? And if so, what does that say about her "support" for a Green New Deal?
As someone in STEM who works for a green energy company, she needs to adequately answer all of these questions if she wants to earn my vote. Until then, she can go fuck herself.
She's a nut job.
Anyone have that picture of her with Putin and Michael Flynn?
Context note: that picture was taken at an RT (Russian state-backed propaganda outlet) dinner in a room full of powerful Russian oligarchs. Gorbachev was there but at a different table, and yet Jill Stein was one of the guests of honor at Putin's table. Also worth keeping in mind that this dinner took place in 2015--more than a year after Putin had first invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.
Imagine if she decided to run for mayor or state senator or even congress. She might actually have a chance. Instead, it's always president or nothing.
Yep. That's one of the many things that highlights how fraudulent the Green Party is.
They aren't interested in winning elections where they might be able to, or generally making real shifts in policy. They're only interested in splintering the most naive leftists away from the Democratic presidential candidate every 4 years. I only imagine the power players in that party collect a nice fat bag of cash and then sit back with their feet up until the start of the next presidential election cycle.
It's not like the Green party has a shot at the presidency at all. If they wanted to make a difference they could caucus with Democrats and try to push them to the left.
But no it's just about brand awareness for goofy pseudoscience bullshit. And of course making it more likely that Trump will win.
She is the 1% ;)
How much is she worth?
Dunno, but she only ever manages 1% of the vote. ;)
This site says she has a net worth of $37 million.
https://www.caclubindia.com/wealth/jill-stein-net-worth/
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/are-you-in-the-top-1-percent
"In order to be in the top 1% of household wealth in the U.S., you’d need to be worth at least $10,374,030.10, according to Forbes. To be in the top 1% globally, you’d need a minimum of around $936,430, according to the 2019 Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse."
Figures
Let her fight to the death with RFK Jr.
And the crowd goes mild.
🤮🤮
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News