Is Jill Stein raising all this money and going to all of this effort to have recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania because she doesn't want Trump to be President?
If so -- is she really so dumb that she doesn't realize that Hillary might very well have been elected if she, Stein, had dropped out of the election and endorsed Hillary?
What about all of the people donating money to Stein's recount campaign -- how many of them have noticed things such as that the number of votes Stein got in Michigan is several times as large as the difference in votes between Trump and Hillary?
How many of these people, if I were face-to-face with them and saying such things, would honestly have no idea what I'm talking about?
Maybe Stein's recount crusade actually has nothing at all to do with preferring one candidate over another. Maybe she really believes that Hillary would make just as bad a President as Trump, and for her this is just all about correctly counting every single vote, and she could give a flying squirrel about the end result of the election.
All I know for sure is that I think that Jill Stein is a huge moron. There's no possible explanation for her current behavior which doesn't leave her looking like an idiot in my eyes: 1) If she really believes that Hillary would not be a better President than Trump, she's an idiot. 2) If she wants the recount because she sees that Trump will be a terrible President, but she's only grasped that since the election, she's an idiot.
3) If she's thought all along that Hillary would be a much better President than Trump, and honestly can't understand how her candidacy helped Trump, then she's an incredible idiot.
There's no doubt at all that there are many idiots in all of those three categories among Stein's voters.
I hope that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania all flip and that Hillary is elected President. If that happens because of Jill Stein, I'm still going to think she's an incredible idiot. But I'll still take it, very happily.
Having Hillary take office rather than Trump would be a huge big deal for me. It would be much, much more significant than anything to do with Jill Stein.
Nevertheless, I'm very curious, and very puzzled, about Jill Stein's behavior.
And also, I'm puzzled as to why I'm not seeing a great number of news stories expressing the very same puzzlement.
Is this our old friend, "objective journalism," once again? Is my reaction to Jill Stein very much the same as the personal reaction of nearly every political journalist on Earth, but they're avoiding saying it publicly because that would violate this imaginary "objectivity" which they prize above all other things?
Showing posts with label jill stein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jill stein. Show all posts
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Thursday, November 24, 2016
The Time Between November 8 and January 20
People have been calling on Obama to go ahead and appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, without the Senate's confirmation. A couple of points:
* He would need to wait until the Senate was in year-end recess (they're not yet), and they would have to be in recess for 10 days before re-convening on Jan 3.
* Garland was a compromise appointment on Obama's behalf. Garland is a moderate. Like so much else that Obama has done, the Garland appointment was a conciliatory gesture toward the GOP, and that's a lot of the reason it was seen as so unreasonable on behalf of Senate Republicans that they refused to even consider Garland's appointment. I assumed that Hillary would be elected, and I wasn't upset by the Republicans screwing Garland over, because I hoped that Hillary would appoint someone more progressive. No offense to Judge Garland, but if Obama is able to make an appointment while the Senate is in year-end recess, and if he takes advantage of that opportunity, I'd like to see him appoint a 30-year-old black lesbian Communist in great physical shape, all 8 of whose great-grandparents are over 100 years old, all still alive and at least 6 of them not senile yet.
* Whether Obama will have the chance to make a recess appointment, and, if he has that chance, whether he will take advantage of it, and whether he will appoint Garland or someone to the Left of Garland, I can't say. I have not been good at all at predicting what Obama will do.
Well, look at Jill Stein go, raising money for a recount of the Presidential election in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. And look at Hillary's vote lead grow. Will enough more votes be counted for Hillary to win Michigan? I don't know, I don't know how many more votes are expected to come in, I can't find anybody even willing to guess. However, people seem to agree that the more votes come in, the more Hillary gains on Trump, but they also seem to agree that Michigan is the only state where Trump's ahead that could possibly flip to Hillary. That would give 248 electoral votes, still 22 shy of victory. If Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all flip, Hillary wins. 2 out those 3 won't do it.
I do know this: the latest tally in Michigan is 2,279,210 votes for Trump and 2,267,373 for Hillary, a lead of 11,837 -- and shrinking, it seems -- for Trump. And I also know that Jill Stein has gotten 51,420 votes so far in Michigan. And I know what irony is, but I don't know whether Jill Stein does.
But you know what? Bygones. Not because I don't consider Jill Stein to be a colossal fool and screw-up -- I do consider her to be exactly that -- but because as far as I know, no time machines have been invented which would allow us to go back in time and somehow cause Jill to drop out, endorse Hillary and thus ensure Hillary's election. In the lack of such time machines, we can only face toward the future, and deal with it.
And in that future, I can't see any good reason to believe that Jill Stein or anybody else can put Hillary in the White House at this point with a recount. Especially since it was the Democrats who did such an intensive, exhaustive and convincing job of explaining to us why this election couldn't be rigged.
But you know what? Who knows. One thing this Presidential campaign has been is unpredictable. And if there is a possibility of re-counting, an Obama appointment to the Supreme Court could be a big help to the forces of sanity and humanity.
I can't predict how much more scandal will come out, tarnishing Trump's already heavily-tarnished brand, before Dec 19 when the Electors vote. I can easily imagine that enough more scandal will emerge that it will convince Trump's electors not to vote for him.
I don't think it's likely that Trump won't take office on Jan 20 (although who knows?), but Hillary's huge and growing lead in the popular vote will weigh heavily on a Trump Presidency. Steve Bannon will weigh heavily, unless Bannon suddenly decides that, Hey, you know what? He wants to spend more time with his family. Jill Stein's campaign for a recall may make no sense and be doomed to failure, but it could still cause Trump a lot of grief -- the same way that Stein's campaign for President made absolutely no sense and was doomed to failure, but still caused Hillary a lot of grief.
The way that Trump constantly lies and is abysmally ignorant -- more and more people will notice that. More and more people will see how little interested he is in working with anybody, or in helping anybody.
All of that will weigh on him.
* He would need to wait until the Senate was in year-end recess (they're not yet), and they would have to be in recess for 10 days before re-convening on Jan 3.
* Garland was a compromise appointment on Obama's behalf. Garland is a moderate. Like so much else that Obama has done, the Garland appointment was a conciliatory gesture toward the GOP, and that's a lot of the reason it was seen as so unreasonable on behalf of Senate Republicans that they refused to even consider Garland's appointment. I assumed that Hillary would be elected, and I wasn't upset by the Republicans screwing Garland over, because I hoped that Hillary would appoint someone more progressive. No offense to Judge Garland, but if Obama is able to make an appointment while the Senate is in year-end recess, and if he takes advantage of that opportunity, I'd like to see him appoint a 30-year-old black lesbian Communist in great physical shape, all 8 of whose great-grandparents are over 100 years old, all still alive and at least 6 of them not senile yet.
* Whether Obama will have the chance to make a recess appointment, and, if he has that chance, whether he will take advantage of it, and whether he will appoint Garland or someone to the Left of Garland, I can't say. I have not been good at all at predicting what Obama will do.
Well, look at Jill Stein go, raising money for a recount of the Presidential election in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. And look at Hillary's vote lead grow. Will enough more votes be counted for Hillary to win Michigan? I don't know, I don't know how many more votes are expected to come in, I can't find anybody even willing to guess. However, people seem to agree that the more votes come in, the more Hillary gains on Trump, but they also seem to agree that Michigan is the only state where Trump's ahead that could possibly flip to Hillary. That would give 248 electoral votes, still 22 shy of victory. If Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all flip, Hillary wins. 2 out those 3 won't do it.
I do know this: the latest tally in Michigan is 2,279,210 votes for Trump and 2,267,373 for Hillary, a lead of 11,837 -- and shrinking, it seems -- for Trump. And I also know that Jill Stein has gotten 51,420 votes so far in Michigan. And I know what irony is, but I don't know whether Jill Stein does.
But you know what? Bygones. Not because I don't consider Jill Stein to be a colossal fool and screw-up -- I do consider her to be exactly that -- but because as far as I know, no time machines have been invented which would allow us to go back in time and somehow cause Jill to drop out, endorse Hillary and thus ensure Hillary's election. In the lack of such time machines, we can only face toward the future, and deal with it.
And in that future, I can't see any good reason to believe that Jill Stein or anybody else can put Hillary in the White House at this point with a recount. Especially since it was the Democrats who did such an intensive, exhaustive and convincing job of explaining to us why this election couldn't be rigged.
But you know what? Who knows. One thing this Presidential campaign has been is unpredictable. And if there is a possibility of re-counting, an Obama appointment to the Supreme Court could be a big help to the forces of sanity and humanity.
I can't predict how much more scandal will come out, tarnishing Trump's already heavily-tarnished brand, before Dec 19 when the Electors vote. I can easily imagine that enough more scandal will emerge that it will convince Trump's electors not to vote for him.
I don't think it's likely that Trump won't take office on Jan 20 (although who knows?), but Hillary's huge and growing lead in the popular vote will weigh heavily on a Trump Presidency. Steve Bannon will weigh heavily, unless Bannon suddenly decides that, Hey, you know what? He wants to spend more time with his family. Jill Stein's campaign for a recall may make no sense and be doomed to failure, but it could still cause Trump a lot of grief -- the same way that Stein's campaign for President made absolutely no sense and was doomed to failure, but still caused Hillary a lot of grief.
The way that Trump constantly lies and is abysmally ignorant -- more and more people will notice that. More and more people will see how little interested he is in working with anybody, or in helping anybody.
All of that will weigh on him.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Really Sick Of People Equating Hillary And Trump
Recently glimpsed:
"[...]neither candidate advanced their interests, but[...]"
No. No. No. If you voted for Trump, you're a -- I was going to write a very offensive synonym for "dummy," but I'll just say: if you voted for him, you're a dummy.. If you voted for Jill Stein, you're a very special and precious dummy. And if you're trying to tell me that Trump and Hillary are basically the same, you're a complete dummy.
The part about Trump not representing the interests of his voters, that part is accurate. Apart from his plans to massively embezzle from the US, apart from his exploitation of people's self-destructive hatred and stupidity -- what does this guy who's spent his whole life in big cities, most in the biggest city on the US, have to do with the rural Heartland again?
Hillary planned to expand and strengthen Social Security and other parts of the social safety net, increase funding for education, raise the minimum wage, massively expand solar and wind and other forms of clean energy, especially solar, and all of that advances not only my interests, but everybody's interests. You can't have a clearer example of advancing the interests of the entire human race than literally making it easier for everyone to breathe.
Recently I read a comment by someone who had voted for Jill Stein, addressing those of us who had voted for Hillary, showing not one bit of remorse for having supported Stein, refusing to acknowledge that Hillary was one bit less bad than Trump, and referring to
"your Saudi overlords."
The Saudi overlords of those of us who had voted for Hillary. How exactly were diabolical Saudi oil merchants supposed to have been overjoyed at the prospect of Hillary backing huge expansion of solar, wind and other non-oil forms of energy?
An Italian Leftist published an article after the election about how Italy had managed to survive Berlusconi. He advised people to focus less on Trump's personality and more on his policies. I don't know how anyone even vaguely familiar with the political platforms of both Trump and Hillary can claim that they were remotely similar. Maybe this Italian guy is right. Maybe Hillary's campaign took for granted too much that people new the difference between her plans and Trump's, and didn't talk about those differences enough. Maybe they ran too many commercials saying things like: everyone on this long list of generals doesn't want Trump anywhere near the nuclear button, and not enough commercials saying things like: Hillary wants there to be enough solar panels in the US to power every single home.
Obviously, I'm not referring to people who only think that they were familiar with Hillary's platform, but still refer to her as being a tool of the Saudis. Oh, by the way, here's her platform. I don't see anything in there that's similar to the crazy stuff Trump has in mind. Does this sound like Trump to you?
"We must continue to expand opportunities for people with disabilities."
"America's long struggle with race is far from finished."
"As president, Hillary will: Overturn Citizens United. End secret, unaccountable money in politics. Expand background checks to more gun sales. Take on the gun lobby. Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Restore collective bargaining rights for unions and defend against partisan attacks on workers’ rights. Strengthen overtime rules."
"[...]neither candidate advanced their interests, but[...]"
No. No. No. If you voted for Trump, you're a -- I was going to write a very offensive synonym for "dummy," but I'll just say: if you voted for him, you're a dummy.. If you voted for Jill Stein, you're a very special and precious dummy. And if you're trying to tell me that Trump and Hillary are basically the same, you're a complete dummy.
The part about Trump not representing the interests of his voters, that part is accurate. Apart from his plans to massively embezzle from the US, apart from his exploitation of people's self-destructive hatred and stupidity -- what does this guy who's spent his whole life in big cities, most in the biggest city on the US, have to do with the rural Heartland again?
Hillary planned to expand and strengthen Social Security and other parts of the social safety net, increase funding for education, raise the minimum wage, massively expand solar and wind and other forms of clean energy, especially solar, and all of that advances not only my interests, but everybody's interests. You can't have a clearer example of advancing the interests of the entire human race than literally making it easier for everyone to breathe.
Recently I read a comment by someone who had voted for Jill Stein, addressing those of us who had voted for Hillary, showing not one bit of remorse for having supported Stein, refusing to acknowledge that Hillary was one bit less bad than Trump, and referring to
"your Saudi overlords."
The Saudi overlords of those of us who had voted for Hillary. How exactly were diabolical Saudi oil merchants supposed to have been overjoyed at the prospect of Hillary backing huge expansion of solar, wind and other non-oil forms of energy?
An Italian Leftist published an article after the election about how Italy had managed to survive Berlusconi. He advised people to focus less on Trump's personality and more on his policies. I don't know how anyone even vaguely familiar with the political platforms of both Trump and Hillary can claim that they were remotely similar. Maybe this Italian guy is right. Maybe Hillary's campaign took for granted too much that people new the difference between her plans and Trump's, and didn't talk about those differences enough. Maybe they ran too many commercials saying things like: everyone on this long list of generals doesn't want Trump anywhere near the nuclear button, and not enough commercials saying things like: Hillary wants there to be enough solar panels in the US to power every single home.
Obviously, I'm not referring to people who only think that they were familiar with Hillary's platform, but still refer to her as being a tool of the Saudis. Oh, by the way, here's her platform. I don't see anything in there that's similar to the crazy stuff Trump has in mind. Does this sound like Trump to you?
"We must continue to expand opportunities for people with disabilities."
"America's long struggle with race is far from finished."
"As president, Hillary will: Overturn Citizens United. End secret, unaccountable money in politics. Expand background checks to more gun sales. Take on the gun lobby. Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Restore collective bargaining rights for unions and defend against partisan attacks on workers’ rights. Strengthen overtime rules."
Saturday, July 9, 2016
Bernie Running For Prez As A Green! (No, Not Really. Only In Jill Stein's Dreams)
My previous post was just a teeny bit facetious about my reaction to hearing about Bernie planning to endorsing Hillary. Just a teeny bit. The aggravation with Bernie, the wishing he would just go away, the estimation that he has much less power now than if he had endorsed Hillary a month ago, and that the longer he puts it off the more his power shrinks and the less it matters what he does -- those were all sincere. Saying that Cornel West is the only person left who cares what he says or does: that was a slight exaggeration. Of course I want Bernie to endorse Hillary. I just don't care about it nearly as much as I did a month ago, and I believe the same holds true for many other people.
I was serious when I said that I pitied anyone who made plans based on expecting Bernie to say a certain something at a certain time. But I exaggerated how uncertain it seems to me now that Bernie will endorse Hillary, and when. But that still leaves a huge amount of uncertainty about how enthusiastic, memorable, and effective his endorsement will be. I'll be very surprised if Bernie is half as enthusiastic in his support as Barack and Elizabeth and Joe and the Big Dog have been.
In all seriousness: looking over the headlines from the Google News search: bernie endorse hillary, a lot of reporters who presumably have more access to the players than I do are saying that the endorsement will happen on Tuesday, period. So, I guess we'll see about that on Tuesday.
Mixed in will all of those headlines are a few about how Jill Stein has announced that she will step aside as the Green Party Presidential candidate if Bernie wants to take her place. That seems to be latest Last Hope of the Bernie or Bust morons, and the latest additional evidence -- as if more were needed -- that Jill Stein is a moron, who either actually doesn't care whether Hillary or Donald is elected, or would actually prefer Donald.
I'm sure there will be more Last Hopes. Who knows what Last Hope the Busters will dream up next. Who knows if they will ever stop -- I mean literally ever. They might still be dreaming up ways that Bernie could would win the 2016 Presidential election after that election is over. After Hillary has served for 8 years and Michelle has been elected. The Bernie or Busters could still be dreaming up ways that Bernie will win the 2016 election after Bernie is dead, and up until the moment they die themselves.
I'm fairly sure -- fairly sure -- that Bernie will not actually run against Hillary after he's already announced that he'll vote for her. He's inconsistent as Hell, but not quite that inconsistent, not quite that divorced from reality. As I've said for quite some time, the only person who can get Donald elected is Bernie. Bernie running for President as a Green would definitely get Donald elected. But, as much as Bernie despises the party for whose Presidential nomination he competed, it doesn't look as if he actually would run Green and hand the election to Donald out of that spite. Jill could get Donald elected if she had more power. Bernie has that much power but he probably will actually give Hillary some sort of half-assed endorsement, and that, or actually anything else short of him running as a Green, should be enough.
I was serious when I said that I pitied anyone who made plans based on expecting Bernie to say a certain something at a certain time. But I exaggerated how uncertain it seems to me now that Bernie will endorse Hillary, and when. But that still leaves a huge amount of uncertainty about how enthusiastic, memorable, and effective his endorsement will be. I'll be very surprised if Bernie is half as enthusiastic in his support as Barack and Elizabeth and Joe and the Big Dog have been.
In all seriousness: looking over the headlines from the Google News search: bernie endorse hillary, a lot of reporters who presumably have more access to the players than I do are saying that the endorsement will happen on Tuesday, period. So, I guess we'll see about that on Tuesday.
Mixed in will all of those headlines are a few about how Jill Stein has announced that she will step aside as the Green Party Presidential candidate if Bernie wants to take her place. That seems to be latest Last Hope of the Bernie or Bust morons, and the latest additional evidence -- as if more were needed -- that Jill Stein is a moron, who either actually doesn't care whether Hillary or Donald is elected, or would actually prefer Donald.
I'm sure there will be more Last Hopes. Who knows what Last Hope the Busters will dream up next. Who knows if they will ever stop -- I mean literally ever. They might still be dreaming up ways that Bernie could would win the 2016 Presidential election after that election is over. After Hillary has served for 8 years and Michelle has been elected. The Bernie or Busters could still be dreaming up ways that Bernie will win the 2016 election after Bernie is dead, and up until the moment they die themselves.
I'm fairly sure -- fairly sure -- that Bernie will not actually run against Hillary after he's already announced that he'll vote for her. He's inconsistent as Hell, but not quite that inconsistent, not quite that divorced from reality. As I've said for quite some time, the only person who can get Donald elected is Bernie. Bernie running for President as a Green would definitely get Donald elected. But, as much as Bernie despises the party for whose Presidential nomination he competed, it doesn't look as if he actually would run Green and hand the election to Donald out of that spite. Jill could get Donald elected if she had more power. Bernie has that much power but he probably will actually give Hillary some sort of half-assed endorsement, and that, or actually anything else short of him running as a Green, should be enough.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)