Since it's "modern day presidential" to keep bringing up the election, here's a hot take: Jill Stein is a nationalist, populist, isolationist, protectionist, executive power loving, anti-science, anti-EU shill for Russia who's only ever led a protest chant. And yes, I’m still bitter about last November, when enough people who could’ve stopped Trump voted for Stein instead.
Like Trump, Stein is an anti-EU Brexit supporter. Like Trump, she is anti-science, having recklessly raised questions as to the safety of vaccines (they’re safe), effectiveness of homeopathy (it’s not), dangers of Wi-Fi (none), and safety of GMOs (they’re safe – though our patent laws and oligopolistic market structure mean there are negatives involved, just not safety issues). Instead, she’s said that scientists studying these issues should prove they aren't harmful rather than be satisfied with finding no evidence of harm. Oddly for a “scientist” (she went to Harvard Medical School, but doctors strike me as more of skilled practitioners than scientists), she doesn’t seem to realize you can’t prove a negative.
Like Trump, Stein has falsely accused the Bureau of Labor Statistics of faking unemployment data to make the economy look better than it really is. She also advocated removing the Federal Reserve’s independence, which would send markets tanking and, to take the example of governments with politicized Central Banks, would lead to a loss of monetary stability, a short-lived inflationary boom, and inevitable bust. In 2012, she advocated not increasing the federal debt ceiling, which would've caused the US to default on its debt despite having the ability to pay. Her excuse was that she supports raising taxes on the rich and reducing military spending (i.e. austerity) to keep from going over the limit. I somewhat agree in general with both of those proposals however, at the time it was literally impossible for that to be done before the debt ceiling was breached. And what was her plan for getting that through congress and what would she do if congress didn’t just go along with her wishes? She was either being disingenuous with the voters or is a fool.
Like Trump, Stein has cast doubt on the fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and suggested it is a conspiracy theory the democrats invented. She literally called allegations that the Russian plot to interfere in the 2016 election included her “fake news” and called for Hillary to be prosecuted instead. In fact the Russians did purchase ads on social media boosting her candidacy. There is presently no evidence she colluded, but she did have meetings with Russian officials at Russia Today (read Russian state media) sponsored events before the election. One such event was in Moscow when she was photographed sitting at Putin’s table along with Michael Flynn, the disgraced former national security adviser. Stein claimed there were no translators so she didn’t really talk to any Russians. This is bullshit. Putin, like many Russians, can speak English, as can his spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who sat right next to Stein. Why you lyin' Jill? Flynn got paid tens of thousands of dollars to be there; I wonder what Stein got out of it.
Stein stated “I have never said that Hillary Clinton was better or worse than Donald Trump” and “they’re not different enough to save your life, to save your job, to save the planet.” Now, I could make all the obvious arguments why Hillary was better than Trump[1], but the only one that matters is that Trump is a fascist. To say there is an equivalency between him and a status-quo democrat like Hillary insultingly devalues every genuine accusation of fascism. Like Trump, it’s clear that Stein was at least one of Putin’s useful idiots, at most she too betrayed her country for personal gain.
So, again, thanks a lot everyone who thoughtlessly voted for her. Or perhaps it wasn't thoughtless, and Stein voters have, like Stein herself, more in common with Trump than they’d like to admit. Jill Stein is Trump without the bigotry. That makes her much better than Trump (I would never say something so stupid as “Stein is no better or worse than Donald Trump”), but still an overall awful candidate with terrible policies that will set our country back. Not to mention she has zero qualifications to lead combined with no ability to enact her agenda. Hillary was unfortunately the best option in the general election, and the only viable one, to oppose what Trump stands for. If having a populist-nationalist president mattered more than having one who wasn’t a white supremacist, then Stein was your candidate. And hey, you’ve actually gotten a good bit of what you wanted anyway.
1. It does matter whether the US is committed to internationally coordinated effort against Global Warming, such as the Paris Agreement, or not. It does matter if the Justice Department acts to prevent abuse of civil rights by police and voting rights by state governments or not. It does matter whether the president, and Attorney General for that matter, is a white supremacist or not. etc. etc. etc.
That being said, there is one argument to be made that I will simply disagree with rather than conclude all it's believers are dumb. And that is that Hillary was so unpopular, and would've been a bad and/or unpopular enough president that she would hurt the Democrats long term and especially in 2020, both an election and census year, with significant consequences for legislative districts etc. While at the same time Trump is so unpopular and incompetent that he may hurt the Republicans more than losing in 2016 would. Thus, in a another cycle or two Trump would on net help the Democrats and hurt the Republicans. I think this is too big a risk to take; but I can't predict the future so maybe I'm wrong. I think it's reckless, dangerous even, but not stupid to believe per se.
Stein stated “I have never said that Hillary Clinton was better or worse than Donald Trump” and “they’re not different enough to save your life, to save your job, to save the planet.” Now, I could make all the obvious arguments why Hillary was better than Trump[1], but the only one that matters is that Trump is a fascist. To say there is an equivalency between him and a status-quo democrat like Hillary insultingly devalues every genuine accusation of fascism. Like Trump, it’s clear that Stein was at least one of Putin’s useful idiots, at most she too betrayed her country for personal gain.
So, again, thanks a lot everyone who thoughtlessly voted for her. Or perhaps it wasn't thoughtless, and Stein voters have, like Stein herself, more in common with Trump than they’d like to admit. Jill Stein is Trump without the bigotry. That makes her much better than Trump (I would never say something so stupid as “Stein is no better or worse than Donald Trump”), but still an overall awful candidate with terrible policies that will set our country back. Not to mention she has zero qualifications to lead combined with no ability to enact her agenda. Hillary was unfortunately the best option in the general election, and the only viable one, to oppose what Trump stands for. If having a populist-nationalist president mattered more than having one who wasn’t a white supremacist, then Stein was your candidate. And hey, you’ve actually gotten a good bit of what you wanted anyway.
1. It does matter whether the US is committed to internationally coordinated effort against Global Warming, such as the Paris Agreement, or not. It does matter if the Justice Department acts to prevent abuse of civil rights by police and voting rights by state governments or not. It does matter whether the president, and Attorney General for that matter, is a white supremacist or not. etc. etc. etc.
That being said, there is one argument to be made that I will simply disagree with rather than conclude all it's believers are dumb. And that is that Hillary was so unpopular, and would've been a bad and/or unpopular enough president that she would hurt the Democrats long term and especially in 2020, both an election and census year, with significant consequences for legislative districts etc. While at the same time Trump is so unpopular and incompetent that he may hurt the Republicans more than losing in 2016 would. Thus, in a another cycle or two Trump would on net help the Democrats and hurt the Republicans. I think this is too big a risk to take; but I can't predict the future so maybe I'm wrong. I think it's reckless, dangerous even, but not stupid to believe per se.
No comments:
Post a Comment