I Wouldn’t Vote for Jill Stein Either

Jill_SteinFollowing the libertarian party when Gary Johnson entered the Presidential race, Green candidate Jill Stein threw her hat into the ring too and the Greenies likewise started to dance around, although in significantly smaller numbers than the Libertarians.  I thought it would be interesting to take a look at her platform too in order to see where I agreed and where I disagreed.  Spoilers:  she doesn’t fare very well.

Again, to keep this consistent, I’m using the platform laid out on OnTheIssues.

Abortion:  While I’m a bit unhappy with the whole “free birth control” thing, I don’t think that we ought to be paying for anything for everyone, I do agree with the rest of the views. Abortion is a necessary part of life and it needs to be openly available to any woman who wants to get one for whatever reason she might want to have one.  I also agree with funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Budget & Economy:  There is very little here that I agree with at all.  I don’t think we should have had any stimulus at all, the government is throwing way too much money into the economy as it is, we don’t need any more.  She says it’s un-American for the 1% to control the majority of the wealth, no that’s the whole point of the American system, people need to make their own way and be as successful as they can!

Civil Rights:  It all depends on how she defines “pay equity”. All people should get the same general money for the same general work.  I’ve talked before that men tend to work harder and longer and take less time off than women, this is an established fact.  I think that people ought to get the same pay for the same work and that includes time put in.  Other than that, I’m on  board with what she has to say.

Corporations:  Sorry, the 1776 revolution did not throw off corporate rule because there was no such thing as corporations back then.  Get a grip.  I do agree that corporations have too much power today, I think we need to stop pretending that corporations are people, but she’s really too far over the “1% is evil” line for me.  The purpose of corporations, indeed any company, is to make a profit.  Corporations exist to make the biggest profit for their owners, the stockholders.  That many corporations are good at it is not a bad thing, sorry.

Crime:  The death penalty is neither ineffective, nor is it barbaric, Stein, like most liberals, has no clue what she’s talking about. You want to know what’s barbaric?  Animals walking the streets, free to take life, property and prosperity from the common man.  It is the responsibility of the court system to remove these animals from the streets and keep the public safe. Putting them to death absolutely guarantees that they will never do it again.  To my knowledge, nobody who has ever been put to death has ever come back to kill again.  The death penalty is not now, nor has it ever been meant to be a deterrent.  Stein is just  being another liberal idiot here.

Drugs:  Yeah, no legalized drugs.  I said the same thing in my post for Gary Johnson.  Not just no, hell no.

Education:  There’s a lot of good stuff there, but also a ton of bad.  Now while I will agree that there are lots of bad things going on educationally in this country, throwing out the good because of the bad simply doesn’t fly with me.  You want to know why higher education costs so much?  Because the government got into the educational loan industry and the colleges realized that they could charge any amount and the government would cough up the funds.  Put a limit on how much the government would give any student and costs would come down dramatically.  Simply giving away a free education is absurd, people need to earn things that will improve their lives.  Where is this money supposed to come from?  Stein has no clue.

Energy & Oil:  Just a bunch of liberal twaddle, no surprise for a candidate from the Green Party.  There doesn’t seem to be a form of energy that she isn’t against and that’s just ridiculous.  No gas, no oil, no natural gas, no coal, no nuclear, what’s left? Living in caves?  What an idiot.

Environment:  First she wants to put us in caves, then she says the environment and economy are interdependent?  What a moron.  I suspect that like most liberals, she has this grand vision, but no clue whatsoever how to get there.  It’s all rainbows and puppy dogs, she wants something to happen, she just has no idea how to make it happen.  We need leaders, not ideologues.

Families & Children:  Yes, I am very much in favor of family planning as a basis for civilized society, the idea of people breeding like rabbits, like they can’t figure out what causes it, because some imaginary friend in the sky told them to, is idiotic, especially if they have no way of paying for it on their own.  And for “at-risk” children, I only welcome programs that actually stop them from being at-risk and prevent future generations from being at-risk.  I didn’t delve too far into what she wants specifically, but it comes off as liberal feel-good nonsense.

Foreign Policy:  This was very close, I agree that the U.S. should be a member of the world community and not a de facto leader and that we need to get the hell out of Israel, but the rest of it comes off as just more liberal crap.  No, we do not all need to hold hands and sing kumbayah.

Free Trade:  Likewise, I will agree here, NAFTA has not been good for America, it has taken our strong financial market and made it weaker.  That’s not to say that I wouldn’t favor bringing the standards in other nations up to those we have here but that’s not how it’s operated in practice, it’s just tried to lower our standards.

Government Reform:  Surprisingly, I agree with most things here, we really need to clean up the government, but we all know it will never happen because the people we send to Washington to do our bidding benefit from keeping it corrupt.  I do support fully taxpayer supported elections, we need to get private investment and vote-buying out of the government.

Gun Control:  Yeah, no surprise I’d disagree here.  While I’m not opposed to rational regulations of firearms, she just wants to get rid of them, she considers people who have them to be mentally ill and falls for the typical liberal “culture of violence” nonsense.  Total crap.

Health Care:  While, to her credit, she opposes Obamacare, she seems to want to throw even more tax money into the pot without having a clue where it all comes from.  I don’t get liberals, they seem to think there’s an endless money tree somewhere and they can simply impose their absurdly expensive social experiments and the money will just come from somewhere because they want it to.  I’m willing to bet that if they didn’t have the option of raising taxes or borrowing money, if they had to cut other programs before putting another one in place, if they couldn’t run at a deficit, their heads would explode.

Homeland Security:  Here she just starts talking liberal crazy.  Sure, she can just eliminate nukes everywhere!  It’s like that old Coke commercial, wish for it and it will happen.  I’m fine with getting rid of the Patriot Act and all of the crap that has come along with it, but her policy seems to be “if we all close our eyes and wish really, really hard”.  That’s not a viable method of change.

Immigration:  About as opposed here as I can get, I hate the DREAM Act, I want all illegals tossed out on their asses, I don’t want a path to citizenship, I want these criminals punished for violating our most central laws.  I don’t mean jail time unless they’ve broken other laws, but they should be booted out of the country and have their names put on the bottom of the list to come back.  There is no war on immigrants, there is a well-deserved war on ILLEGAL immigrants.  Liberals and libertarians don’t seem to have that word in their vocabulary.

Jobs:  Once again, she’s just throwing money she doesn’t have around for things she can’t show are worthwhile.  Screw her and her green jobs.  While I agree that the stimulus was a pointless waste of time, the economy works through the free market, not through government intervention, which is about all liberals know how to do.  I’ve also talked about the uselessness of having a so-called “living wage”, it just drives the prices up for everyone and makes the economy fail even faster.

Principles & Values:  While there are some things here to like, such as the admission that the government is messed up, her desire to pay any attention to the short-lived Occupy Movement is absurd.  A bunch of entitled kids whining about how unfair life is and they just want things handed to them on a silver platter because they bothered to wake up this morning is not impressive.  But that’s liberal values for you right there.

Social Security:  The rich are paying their fair share into social security, like everyone else.  The system is only solvent when the government stops sticking their hand into the cookie jar.  I think we should only give people as much money back as they put in, plus interest, and require that they have their own retirement program in place.  It isn’t the job of the American taxpayer to pay for people to retire.  If you can’t afford it, don’t do it.  You had your chance.  Don’t fuck it up.

Tax Reform:  I’m really only agreeing here because I think we ought to close all tax loopholes and exemptions.  Sure, if you’re an actual registered charitable organization, don’t pay taxes.  Tax the churches.  Tax everyone at a reasonable rate.  If you take tax money, you should give back.  Otherwise, her liberal idea of “soak the rich” is standard fare.

Technology:  Just as I said with Gary Johnson, anyone who votes to keep the government’s hand off the Internet is fine with me.

War & Peace:  As soon as she said “immoral war policy”, it was clear she had nothing rational to say.    Absolutely, we’ve made a mess of the Middle East, but we’re also seeing a worldwide disaster that someone has to step up and take care of.  The brunt of it ought to be borne by nations in the region, nations which actually have something to lose in the short-run, but there’s no way we can hide and pretend the outside world doesn’t exist.  The time is coming very soon, just as in WWII, that everyone on the planet, without exception, has to take a stand against radical Islam and we can’t be playing stupid word games like Obama because he fears making his constituents uncomfortable.

Welfare & Poverty:  More “throw money at the problem and hope it goes away” liberal nonsense.  The solution to affordable housing is to earn more money, not look to the government for handouts.

So there you have it, someone who has even less chance of earning my vote in 2016 than the Libertarians.  There are certainly candidates who would fare even worse as you descend the third party rabbit hole, especially the religious Dominionist candidates who ought to be figuratively fired out of a cannon into a brick wall, but given choices like this, I’d rather not vote at all, if the nation is going to be this fucked, I don’t want my name associated remotely with getting them put into office.

2 thoughts on “I Wouldn’t Vote for Jill Stein Either

  1. "While I’m a bit unhappy with the whole “free birth control” thing, I don’t think that we ought to be paying for anything for everyone,…"

    I suspect you did not read Stein's remarks carefully enough. She did not advocate that the government pay for abortions. She said that the government should require insurance companies to fully pay for abortion, thus making it free to the woman in the sense that she has no out-of-pocket expenses for the procedure. Thus under her scheme you would not be paying for anyone's abortion. Tax dollars would not be used.

  2. “You want to know why higher education costs so much? Because the government got into the educational loan industry and the colleges realized that they could charge any amount and the government would cough up the funds. Put a limit on how much the government would give any student and costs would come down dramatically.”

    While it is true that government loan guarantees have contributed to rising tuition and thus the increased cost of a college education for the consumer, this is not the whole story as you imply. First, the problem is not, as your remark seems to suggest, that the government gives out loans. It actually does very little of this. But it does guarantee loans offered by private lending institutions. This revenue stream has caused an artificial inflation in demand. But removing these loan guarantees would not entirely solve the cost problem. Another significant contributor is the decline in state government subsidies to colleges and universities over the past decade or so. Universities and colleges have been forced to make up for these lost funds. They have done this largely through tuition increases. I suggest you examine the following sources to give you a much fuller understanding this issue.

    http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2009/01/

    “The main reason tuition has been rising faster than college costs is that colleges had to make up for reductions in the per-student subsidy state taxpayers sent colleges. In 2006, the last year for which Wellman had data, state taxpayers sent $7,078 per student to the big public research universities. That's $1,270 less (after accounting for inflation) than they sent in 2002.”
    http://www.npr.org/2014/03/18/290868013/how-the-c

    “"So it's not that colleges are spending more money to educate students," (Sandy) Baum says. "It's that they have to get that money from someplace to replace their lost state funding — and that's from tuition and fees from students and families."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2

    “The problem at these schools is not out of control spending. The issue is that the schools’ are getting money they used to get from the government from students, which makes the product more expensive to families even though overall costs are unchanged — or, in the case of community colleges, lower.”

    I also suggest that before you pontificate any further at any length on this issue you read the Trends In College Spending 2001 – 2011 report (http://www.deltacostproject.org/sites/default/files/products/Delta%20Cost_Trends%20College%20Spending%202001-2011_071414_rev.pdf) at the Delta Cost Project website.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)