Your Vote For Jill Stein Is Not A Wasted Vote

“There are differences between the two candidates and the parties. But those differences aren’t enough to save your job.”
By |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+

    Published in partnership with Shadowproof.


    hen Jill Stein ran as the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2012, media attention to her candidacy was rare. Now, with two of the most unpopular presidential candidates in history, she has received widespread attention. There seems to be record interest in third party campaigns, including Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.

    The Nation published a debate between Socialist Seattle City Council member Kshama Sawant and Nation contributor Joshua Holland.

    The editors gave Sawant’s column the negative headline—”Don’t Waste Your Vote On the Corporate Agenda—Vote for Jill Stein and the Greens”—but column does not hinge on loathing Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Rather, it makes a positive case for supporting Stein by primarily arguing the need for progressives to build an alternative to the two pro-capitalist political parties in America. It has a long-term focus on bringing about radical change.

    Contrast the vision of Sawant’s column with Holland’s column, which is completely negative. It trashes the Greens and displays a brash contempt for democracy and those who are working to give voters more choices and more voices. It wholly ignores efforts for open primaries, open debates, and the need for reforms like ranked-choice voting or instant run-off voting, in order to have a system that has proportional representation and is more democratic.

    The argument is representative of the discourse among many progressive commentators throughout previous elections, especially since Ralph Nader ran as a Green Party candidate in 2000. Instead of taking responsibility for how the Democrats failed to elect Al Gore and the role progressives perhaps played in selling out, Holland is a progressive who would rather scapegoat the Greens.

    Hundreds of thousands of Democrats in Florida voted for George W. Bush. Tens of thousands of African American voters in Florida were disenfranchised. There were terrible issues with the butterfly ballot. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia helped deliver the White House to Bush with a 5-4 decision that prevented a recount. Gore did not win his home state of Tennessee. Yet, these are facts progressive commentators like Holland would rather ignore because they force them to confront dismal realities that require intense struggle to change.

    It is much easier to bear one’s insecurity with the presence of the Green Party in a two-party system that does everything it can to silence and erase their candidates when they run for office at all levels of government.

    Holland relies on a fallacy that has become conventional wisdom among progressives—that the “Green Party’s primary pitch to voters on the left is that there still isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties.”

    A line Stein has repeated this cycle is the following, “There are differences between the two candidates and the parties. But those differences aren’t enough to save your job.” In other words, under a Democrat or a Republican, voters can expect corporate free trade deals that will offshore more jobs, privilege business interests, and ultimately lead to more poverty and hardship for the poor and working class.

    Stein also told NPR in July, “I do not say there is no difference between the parties. What I say is that there’s not enough difference to save your job, to save your life, or to save the planet. And the scary things, the horrific things that Donald Trump says, Hillary Clinton has already done. Whether it’s massively deporting immigrants, whether it’s threatening nuclear warfare.”

    In other words, Clinton was talking about deporting refugees from Central America in order to “send a message” before Bernie Sanders confronted her on this issue, and she was concerned it would cost her politically. She also once threatened to obliterate Iran if it attacked Israel, a blatant threat of nuclear annihilation.

    “Put it this way: I will feel horrible if Donald Trump is elected, I will feel horrible if Hillary Clinton is elected, and I feel most horrible about a voting system that says: Here are two deadly choices, now pick your weapon of self-destruction,” Stein contended.

    Holland denigrates progressives who would dare to support the Green Party by claiming the party “provides a forum to demonstrate ideological purity and contempt for ‘the system.’ But the Democratic Party is a center of real power in this country,” and it “offers a viable means of advancing progressive goals.”

    It is far easier to bash those attempting to build something because they recognize doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. The history of the Democratic Party is one of stamping down on candidates, like Sanders, when they attempt to change the party or absorbing uprisings, which is what seems to have happened with the Sanders campaign.

    The Democratic Party has scarcely been transformed by the Sanders campaign. His plans for organizing progressives and running progressive candidates for political office are barely different from the plans of other groups that failed to seize control of the party during an election cycle.

    So, what do Holland and other progressive commentators expect to happen when Clinton wins? Will they organize as if the Democrats are on their side and offer a “viable” option for creating change? Will they do the same thing they did after Barack Obama was elected and give her a chance but then, when it is time to act, hold tight because she is getting hammered by Republicans and does not need to be challenged by principled progressives?

    Also, what do Holland and others propose progressives do when it comes time for Clinton to repay Republicans, who supported her candidacy and refused to support Trump? She is forming a coalition that will be highly influential when she is in the White House, and it will impact domestic policies important to progressives just as much as foreign policy and national security.

    Finally, Holland contends in the opening of his column 75 to 90 percent of those claiming they will vote for Stein in November will not follow through. Why is that? Could it have something to do with progressives like Holland who actively harp and lecture any progressive, especially prominent ones, who would dare challenge the two-party system?

    Why are the number of elected Green Party representatives in all levels of government shrinking? Holland argues it is dysfunction in the party, but the system is setup to ensure the party struggles and eventually dissipates.

    While Holland says he has been to Green Party meetings and found them to be wildly disorganized and filled with mostly white people, this is mostly meaningless. He doesn’t share when he went to these meetings, and one has to wonder what Greens would say about Holland. Did he ever attempt to make any meaningful contribution at these meetings? Or did he sit in the back of the room and eavesdrop because he was afraid to stray too far from the path already blazed by countless progressive organizations, which are captives to the Democratic Party?

    This is the problem with many progressive commentators like Holland. It is easy for them to suggest Green Party organizers are not doing what they should in between elections to grow the party, but it is not like they would help if the Green Party was doing a better job. They still cling to this notion that the Democratic Party grows more receptive to them each day. Meanwhile, their politics grow more accommodating of corporate power with each election.

    Finally, isn’t it remarkable all the time progressives like Holland spend lecturing citizens on why they cannot vote their conscience? Especially when they believe Stein is unlikely to fare better than two or three percent in the polls?

    Their insecurity translates into a fear that if Stein wins four or five percent of the vote or slightly better that will be bad for Clinton because she is running against Trump and not Stein. To them, Democrats should only have to worry about candidates that can win. It’s a winner-take-all system. Yet, to win and take it all, you still have to win votes. You aren’t owed the votes going to Stein, especially when you don’t campaign for those votes.

    What if Stein wins five percent and Trump is elected president? It will be a failure of progressives.

    Nader said on “Democracy Now!”: “It is the time for Senator Sanders to mobilize, as he can, all his supporters around the country with mass rallies to put the heat on both candidates. Is anything wrong with that? He should have a mass rally in the [National] Mall and then spread it all over the country, so you have civic pressure, citizen pressure, coming in on all the candidates to further the just pathways of our society. Why doesn’t he do that?”

    Instead, what voters see most is a bunch of people like Holland fretting about Stein. This happens every election cycle, and not only are voters sick of the two-party system but they’re sick of those who use their platforms to attack dissent and push commentary to defend the status quo.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

    Be Sociable, Share!


    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    This entry was posted in Front Page: National, National, News, Top Stories and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • tapatio



      • James Wherry


        • tapatio


          For more than 3000 years, from their expulsion from Egypt and from the money changers Jesus is said to have driven from the temple steps to the predatory global Rothschild banking cartel to the lowest loan shark in NY, to the Internet propaganda shill, the IDF thug and Mossad scum and their rabbis preaching the delusion of a “chosen” master-race, this predatory cultl posing as religion and ethnicity has most closely resembled a malignant cancer metastasizing through our world, corrupting and spoiling everything it touches.

          When one or a few cultures find a particular culture toxic, it could be bigotry.
          When almost EVERY culture finds Judaism toxic, JUDAISM IS TOXIC .

          Every expulsion of Jews below was preceded by widespread and extreme crime and abuses BY JEWS. The Jews have been expelled from more than 100 countries. Listed below are ONLY expulsions that could be directly linked to RAMPANT JEWISH CRIME. They had NOTHING to do with “persecution” of Jews. However, often, innocent Jews suffered because of guilt by association with their predatory culture.

          The expulsions of Jews were acts of SELF-PRESERVATION by non-Jewish cultures.

          Expulsions of Jews
          Date Place
          0. 135: Palestine
          1. 250: Carthage
          2. 415: Alexandria
          3. 554: Diocese of Clement (France)
          4. 561: Diocese of Uzzes (France)
          5. 612: Visigoth Spain
          6. 642: Visigoth Empire
          7. 855: Italy
          8. 876: Sens
          9. 1012: Mayence
          10. 1181: France
          11. 1290: England
          12. 1306: France
          13. 1348: Switzerland
          14. 1349: Hielbronn (Germany)
          15. 1349: Hungary
          16. 1388: Strasbourg
          17. 1394: Germany
          18. 1394: France
          19. 1422: Austria
          20. 1424: Fribourg & Zurich
          21. 1426: Cologne
          22. 1432: Savory
          23. 1438: Mainz
          24. 1439: Augsburg
          25. 1446: Bavaria
          26. 1453: Franconis
          27. 1453: Breslau
          28. 1454: Wurzburg
          29. 1485: Vincenza (Italy)
          30. 1492: Spain
          31. 1495: Lithuania
          32. 1497: Portugal
          33. 1499: Germany
          34. 1514: Strasbourg
          35. 1519: Regensburg
          36. 1540: Naples
          37. 1542: Bohemia
          38. 1550: Genoa
          39. 1551: Bavaria
          40. 1555: Pesaro
          41. 1559: Austria
          42. 1561: Prague
          43. 1567: Wurzburg
          44. 1569: Papal States
          45. 1571: Brandenburg
          46. 1582: Netherlands
          47. 1593: Brandenburg, Austria
          48. 1597: Cremona, Pavia & Lodi
          49. 1614: Frankfort
          50. 1615: Worms
          51. 1619: Kiev
          52. 1649: Ukraine
          53. 1654: LittleRussia
          54. 1656: Lithuania
          55. 1669: Oran (North Africa)
          56. 1670: Vienna
          57. 1712: Sandomir
          58. 1727: Russia
          59. 1738: Wurtemburg
          60. 1740: LittleRussia
          61. 1744: Bohemia
          62. 1744: Livonia
          63. 1745: Moravia
          64. 1753: Kovad (Lithuania)
          65. 1761: Bordeaux
          66. 1772: Jews deported to the Pale of Settlement (Russia)
          67. 1775: Warsaw
          68. 1789: Alace
          69. 1804: Villages in Russia
          70. 1808: Villages & Countrysides (Russia)
          71. 1815: Lubeck & Bremen
          72. 1815: Franconia, Swabia & Bavaria
          73. 1820: Bremes
          74. 1843: Russian Border Austria & Prussia
          75. 1862: Area in the U.S. under Grant’s Jurisdiction
          76. 1866: Galatz, Romania
          77. 1919: Bavaria (foreign born Jews)
          78. 1938-45: Naz! Controlled Areas – At the end of WW I, the Rothschild (JEW) banking cartel was able to take control of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and gain control of the German economy – which they proceeded to RAPE. Hundreds of thousands of Germans starved, millions lost everything they had to the Rothschilds. This rape of Germany LED DIRECTLY to the rise of Hitler and to the Second World War.
          79. 1948: Arab Countries – According to the Jew state’s CLAIM, 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries after 1948. Most of those Jews emigrated VOLUNTARILY and many were paid to immigrate to the Jew state. The expulsions of Jews from Arab states OCCURRED ONLY AFTER THE SLAUGHTER OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PALESTINIAN CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS BY JEW TERRORISTS AND THE EXPULSION OF ALMOST A MILLION INDIGENOUS PALESTINIANS BY THE EUROPEAN, CAUCASIAN JEW INVADERS.

          • James Wherry


            So, is that the “Third Reich” or the “Turd Reich,” Li’l Hitler?

          • James Wherry

            Actually, you idiot, you claim 78 instances in which Jews were ethnically cleansed, and it was their fault. The burden’s on you, if you want to support your lies. Okay: here’s a thousand years of history. Go right ahead: provide details and references, because I can’t find any reference in history to most of these. You simply deleted from the list the ones that are easy to find and prove are you own Trinitarian cult at its worst.

            1. 250: Carthage?
            2. 415: Alexandria?
            3. 554: Diocese of Clement (France)?
            4. 561: Diocese of Uzzes (France)?
            5. 612: Visigoth Spain?
            6. 642: Visigoth Empire?
            7. 855: Italy?
            8. 876: Sens?
            9. 1012: Mayence?
            That should be a small and simple list. Go ahead.

          • James Wherry

            You claim if it happened a lot “it’s the Jews fault.” How about “it’s the bigots’ fault?”

            “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”
            Auric Goldfinger quote.

    • tapatio
    • James Wherry
    • tapatio

      This gutter maggot, whose career was helping to teach oppressive governments to commit crimes against humanity without being caught, who bought a young boy out of the slums of the Philippines for his own perverted pleasure and who now supports the DISEASE of ZIONISM is the perfect example of the scum that make up the Zionist disease.

    • James, the anti-Semitism is getting kinda old Buddy.

    • Peter Bernhardt

      The best argument yet on why progressives must vote for Jill Stein and, more importantly, work actively to support the Green Party beyond November. Thanks!

    • Jack Exton

      Clinton and Trump both suck, so what is the argument? You can only change the political landscape, by voting for a third party candidate.

    • Salim Lone

      Thanks Mint for alerting to this excellent essay by Kshama Sawant. We don’t want Trump for sure but Hillary will be no joke! She and her backers knew her safety lay in Bernie’s supporters, which was why he was under such strong pressure to support her. But she betrayed him and his supporters immediately after the Convention, for the ultra rich, as the NY Times called them..

    • James Wherry

      Wake up and smell the coffee, folks! MintPressNews’ own Official Spokesperson who Cowers behind the avatar “TAPATIO” has told us that Jill Stein is nothing but a member of a “3000 year old Criminal Cartel!” WHO COULD VOTE FOR SOMEONE SO IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL AS THAT?!?

    • TecumsehUnfaced

      A vote for Hillary or Donald is a vote for evil. Don’t do it!

    • James Wherry

      Kevin, Kevin, Kevin.

      This is drivel. Don’t you know what the commenters on this page have PLANNED for the “Useful Jew,” once she has served her purpose?!?

    • ignasi

      A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for hope.
      A vote to change too many years full of lies, torture and war.
      We are millions, we are a giant who brings solutions

      • We as Third Party Voters find our selves in the possession of a very powerful weapon.

        We Third Party Voters need to all throw our vote to re-elect and protect the jobs of the 27 Senators who voted against our subjugation to Saudi Arabia and then vote out all the other incumbent Senators in the US Senate.

        Name it the Chicken Hawk Politician Easy Eradication System or CHEEPS.

        We Third Party voters of America have great power with over 10% of the National vote. It is time to implement the Chicken Hawk Politician Easy Eradication System or C.H.E.E.P.S. for short.

        The CHEEPS system will de-feather, gut and and mechanically separate the political careers of these Criminals who have sold us out to our enemies who attacked America on 9-11-2001.

        No matter what we Third Party Voters can organize and do in this election cycle, it is now a forgone conclusion that Trump will win the swing states and electoral college and the event of a Neo-Con White House with the Neo-Cons controlling both Chambers of Congress is too dangerous a condition for the People of this Planet.

        Third Party Voters are the People of Earths only defense against the neocon.

        Reid is retiring so we need to find a way to position our selves to have Bernie Sanders as the Majority Leader in the US Senate setting the agenda over a new Green-Libertarian friendly Senate.

        The CHEEPS is the political solution that can deliver.

        We also need to diminish the neocons in the House and find a way to make Tulsi Gabbard HI Minority Leader in the US House of Representatives. United we can and must vote out the enemies of peace and freedom and cast them into the fires of unelection. How can we get Kshama Sawant in Congress?

        Lets make her the Mayor of Seattle.

    • tapatio
    • Pingback: Your Vote For Jill Stein Is Not A Wasted Vote | D!srupt()

    • FrontLine

      Why Jill can beat Hillary … and Trump

    • rosswilliams

      “There are differences between the two candidates and the parties. But those differences aren’t enough to save your job.”

      Neither will voting for Jill Stein. But for many people there will be very real consequences to the outcome of this election.

      “It has a long-term focus on bringing about radical change.”

      The notion that presidential protest votes will lead to radical change is itself a sell out. The only reason to vote for Jill Stein is as a personal statement about yourself. Its a political fashion statement.

      Of course that assumes that your goal is not to make things worse on the theory that people will respond by embracing radical change. But, even then, you would vote for the candidate you think will make things worse, not Stein.

      In short, voting for Jill Stein is choosing to throw a bunch of people under the wheels of the train on the assumption that their bloody demise will lead to a better world in the future. Frankly, that is a lousy strategy for building a movement even if it was morally defensible.

      I say that as someone who voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 and have no regrets. Bill Clinton won that election without my vote, as I knew he would. But the folks in Florida that cast their vote for Nader in 2000 need to take responsibility for the consequences of that choice. There are hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi’s who would likely be alive today if they had chosen differently.

      • Krishna E. Bera

        The political and financial and military establishment has already decided that Hillary will win, so a vote for her is indeed a wasted vote. Why not show them that there is a strong alternative, and force them to overstretch their credibility when they fix the result?

        • rosswilliams

          “Why not show them that there is a strong alternative, and force them to overstretch their credibility when they fix the result?”

          Isn’t that Donald Trump’s argument? I am not convinced that our “financial and military establishment” are competent enough to guarantee their preferred outcome. If your vote is of no practical consequence than using it to protest is perfectly appropriate.

          But remember, if Trump wins, you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of your choice. That includes every outrage he commits as president.

          • jo6pac

            If tump does wins then “financial and military establishment” win also. He might talk tough but they have the upper hand.
            I’ll be voting Green

            • tapatio


          • tapatio


            Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who disparages her online


            ESAD, HELLary troll.


            Why be forced to choose a lying criminal or a lying imbecile???

          • Jeff Burke

            What is the greater waste of a vote, voting for someone who is dishonest, lies, changes positions mid-sentence, and that will put into place econmic and military policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, or voting for someone you think may actually attempt to change
            the current system. The only way I can vote and maintain a clear conscience is to vote for Jill Stein. If enough people vote for Trump or Hillary to elect them, at least I will know I was not one of them. You will have to make your own choice, I have made mine.

            • rosswilliams

              “The only way I can vote and maintain a clear conscience is to vote for Jill Stein.”

              “It ain’t hard to get along with somebody else’s troubles, they don’t make you lose any sleep at night.” There will be real consequences to allowing Trump to win, but probably not for you. You can call that a clear conscience, I call it a lack of conscience.

              • Jeff Burke

                I do not have to live with your conscience, I do have to live with mine.

                • rosswilliams

                  Not if you don’t have one. There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s that ought to be on the conscience of the folks in Florida who voted for Nader as a political fashion statement. But I suspect many of them, like you, will easily forgive themselves.

          • Paul E. Merrell, J.D.

            @ rosswilliams: “I am not convinced that our “financial and military establishment” are competent to guarantee their preferred outcome. It seems likely to me that Trump can easily win this election. There will be some very real, very bad, consequences for some people from that outcome.”

            As a decorated and disabled combat veteran of the Viet Nam War who closely follows U.S. foreign adventures, I’d be very interested in any of your analysis (if you have any) that suggests that Hillary Clinton would cause fewer foreign casualties than Donald Trump. The woman is beyond doubt a major war criminal, with our wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Honduras, and Ukraine to her credit, as well as the “surge” in Afghanistan. Also on her watch and the State Department, the U.S. stationed Special Forces in over 130 nations. The U.S. body count in the Mideast since 9/11 now totals nearly 8 million people. Trump has said he would rein in foreign intervention and has even made some noise in the direction of finally breaking up NATO. His only warlike claim so far that I am aware of is that he wants to escalate the war against ISIL (wait until he gets into the White House and discovers that ISIL is run by the U.S. :-).

            I’d far rather risk it with Trump than with Hillary; Trump shows every sign of being far less deadly. He may be narcissistic but she is a sociopath. And nearly all of Trump’s agenda will never make it through Congress.

            Your arguments are entirely based on lesser evilism, which is a logical fallacy as I’ve shown in my article, The Lesser of Two Evils Is Still Evil: (.) The notion that we can shift the Democratic Party to Progressive values without costing the Democrats some elections is simply hogwash.

            The Democrats always run a Progressive candidate in the primaries as part of a strategy to lure Progressives into voting Democratic in the main election. See history collected by James Petras here. (.) I think it’s past time to stop allowing Democrats to steal the Progressive label; those who vote Progressive in the primaries but for Democrats in the main election are not Progressives. They are Democrats.

            A vote for a war party candidate is a vote for war. A vote for a peace candidate is a vote for peace. And peace means ending the politics of fear and downsizing the military/industrial complex to pay for what’s needed at home. It really is just that simple. The notion that we can achieve peace by voting for war party candidates is logically and morally bankrupt.

            To me war criminals and war criminal wannabes are simply ineligible for high office. Hillary Clinton belongs behind bars or in an institution for the criminally insane, not living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue again.

            • rosswilliams

              “I’d far rather risk it with Trump than with Hillary”

              That is an argument for voting for Trump isn’t it?

              • GALT

                You really do not understand that a vote for “something” is
                a vote “against” all the other possibilities?

                If one of the other possibilities wins, you did not vote
                for them…..and since you have “no clue” who is going to
                win…..your argument can be used regardless of who does win.
                Just because your choice “LOST”, doesn’t make your argument valid,
                so you need to learn what is required to construct a valid logical
                argument ( I would suggest Quine ) and learn some finite math.

                Knowing “facts” would also help….but you are clearly
                too olde to begin to learn these things. And you have no friends here.

              • Paul E. Merrell, J.D.

                Sorry for that bit of confusion. But no, it’s not an argument for voting for Trump, given my rejection of the choice of evils argument as a logical fallacy. The statement was intended as an aside, noting the circumstance likely to flow from my vote if I am joined in it by many others. But were I to vote for Trump, then I would in effect be voting against Clinton, without leaving a clue about which candidate I prefer in reality. I want to leave a message to all parties that if they want to win my vote the next time around, they’d better move in Stein’s direction.

                • rosswilliams

                  “I want to leave a message to all parties that if they want to win my vote the next time around, they’d better move in Stein’s direction.”

                  I think that makes perfect sense if you are in a state where your vote won’t have any impact on the outcome. You might as well use it to make a political fashion statement. But where it will help effect the outcome, you are responsible for the result and any consequences that flow from it. Instead of giving your vote to the lesser of two evils, you gave your support to the greater of two evils as you define them.

                  • Paul E. Merrell, J.D.

                    Your logic implies that only the next general election matters. As a war veteran, I have a threshold requirement for any presidential (or congressional) candidate who wants my vote; they must be a peace candidate. As someone who has blood on his hands, I can testify that my insistence on a peaceful government most definitely is is not a fashion statement. Governments that launch foreign wars operate outside the boundaries of morals, ethics, and law.

                    That you can personally blink past the 8 million killed by our wars in the Mideast and Northern Africa since 9/11 and root for Hillary Clinton and the further wars she has promised raises the question whether you lack the fundamental morality of a human being, that you are indifferent to the harm our nation inflicts on citizens of other nations, that you have a strong psychopathic nature. Or it implies that you simply have not thought about the moral responsibility you will bear, the blood you will have on your own hands if you vote for that criminally psychopathic person.

                    “Albert Einstein is reputed to have said that the greatest invention in human history was compound interest. I beg to differ. I think it’s the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument. It’s brilliant. Give people two options, neither of which they find appealing, convince them that a third option, a genuinely attractive one, is just not practicable and that they must thus choose between the bad and the worse, and you’ll be able to get them to choose something they would never otherwise choose.

                    “You can get people to do anything that way. You start by offering them a choice between something that is just marginally unpleasant and something that is really repellent. Once you’ve gotten them to choose the marginally unpleasant, you raise the bar (just a little mind you, you don’t want them to catch on to what you’re doing). Now you offer them a choice between something to which they have really strong objections and something that is deeply offensive. Most people, of course, will choose the former, if they think it’s either that or the latter. Now you offer people who’ve become inured to living under objectionable conditions a choice between even worse conditions and something that is truly unthinkable. It’s not mystery what they will choose.

                    “There’s been a lot of angry posturing from Americans who think of themselves as progressive about how the purported political center in this country has been moving inexorably to the right, yet it’s these very people who are directly responsible for the shift. If you vote for a candidate whose farther right than you would prefer, well, then you’re shifting the political “center” to the right. Republicans aren’t responsible for the increasingly conservative face of the democratic party. Democrats are responsible for it. Democrats keep racing to the polls like lemmings being chased by the boogeyman.”

                    M. G. Piety, On Wasting Your Vote, CounterPunch (October 12, 2012), (.) In other words, it is people like you who have fallen for the choice of evils fallacy (blatant population control propaganda) who are responsible for evil people being elected and pushing our nation into foreign wars. All while ignoring any personal moral responsibility for the resulting mayhem wrought on citizens of other lands.

                    I strongly recommend that you read my article on lesser evilism and check out some of the articles it links on the same subject. (.) Then kindly devote some thought to the possibility that you have been severely misled by that propaganda. Propaganda can kill. I know because I’ve been there and done that.

                    Paul E. Merrell, J.D., former Team-leader, Combat Loudspeaker Team 8-B5, Co. A, 8th Battalion, 4th Psychological Operations Group, U.S. Army, Republic of Vietnam.

      • tapatio

        Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who disparages her online

        ESAD, HELLary troll.


        Why be forced to choose a lying criminal or a lying imbecile???

      • Bruce Bodenhofer

        You really think Iraq would not have happened if Gore had got in…..his masters were the same as Bushies!

        • rosswilliams


          • GALT

            An impressive detailed response. ( what a joke )

      • GALT

        Interesting way to begin an analysis which ignores the premise of
        the question, making it an irrelevant pointless exercise that assures
        the evil will continue…….

        If the question is “what will save your job”…….and you have no answer,
        then you are serving the “interests” of those who will eventually “come for
        YOU.” ……while demonstrating that you have no clue why, but believing
        that “Trump” will make this happen sooner than Hillary will.

        P.S. Nader did not decide the “2000 election”…….the “corrupt” two party
        system did…..Al Gore won……not counting the votes, made him lose….
        and his “loyalty” to the fantasy of what is the UNITED STATES, prevented
        him from being “disruptive” enough to call attention to it. ( a rerun of
        history, since Nixon made the same choice in 1960….and as others
        have in the past……for whatever the reason, it is and was the “wrong”
        choice, which lacks both “character” and “principle”…..demonstrating
        that “character” and “principle” were already lacking.

        And you choose to end your pointless “exercise” with a vague allusion
        to some “subjective standard of morality”…..based on the fact of
        dead Iraqi’s. Are you suggesting that your choice of the particular
        evil here…..will result in less “dead people”?

        The “future” and “reality” you face….will demand “dead people”…..
        because the ‘conventional wisdom” is that “economic growth” is
        possible…..when all the evidence indicates that this ain’t gonna happen
        and every day this LIE persists…..means more DEAD PEOPLE.

        So your “moral choice” is between a chance of this not happening…
        or greater or lesser deaths while you wait for them to come for
        you……leaving you to be grateful, that most of the “deaths” will
        be “people” other than your countrymen…..or at least those who
        do not look like you? Yet?

        • rosswilliams

          “Nader did not decide the “2000 election”

          Who said he did. But the people in Florida who chose to vote for him most certainly did and they need to accept that their were catastrophic consequences to a lot of other people from the decision they made.

          • GALT

            Repeating a non sequitur? Failing to make a relevant
            response……go away….you have little time left until you
            die…..and don’t care much about those that follow.

            And you obviously think you are “entitled to your opinion”,
            and can actually have one “”thanks to the internet”…..which
            shows us how stupid “democracy” is……

            You look like you’re dead already…..worried about your SS check?
            No kids or grandkids?

            Just do it man… clearly don’t have anything positive to offer…
            live free and then DIE…..sooner rather than later…..

            • rosswilliams

              Uninteresting, irrational blather. I’m only entitled to be right. You apparently think you are entitled to be wrong, no matter who else gets hurt.

              • GALT

                That BS only works when you can demonstrate that…you
                actually have a point or the OTHER person doesn’t.

                I think you’re and olde, dead man walking with no interest in the future, except
                your monthly check……I understand…..but you are still one stupid jerk.

                Notice how your responses are shorter and less relevant. ( i mean
                how could you actually BE relevant? )

                C’mon say something else……

          • Jack Exton

            You are wrong dude.

            • rosswilliams

              No, I just think making a political fashion statement that allows someone to win an election is the same as voting for them. No matter how high-minded you think you are being, the practical result is the same.

          • Peter Bernhardt

            Unfortunately, too many people cling to this canard to justify their support for our failing two-party system. No matter that it has been thoroughly debunked. Rather you choose to ignore this to rationalize support for an intolerable status quo. Read the article. It’s obvious from your comments that either you have not, or that you are too ossified in you complacency to care.

            • rosswilliams

              “”scapegoat the Greens” than have the democratic party take responsibility for its own failures.”

              Lets be clear, the people playing the blame game are the ones who fail to take responsibility for their own inaction. They stood by making a fashion statement with their vote when they could have acted to help prevent a catastrophe. Then, to protect their conscience, they blame the people who did act for failing to succeed.

              What’s funny is that its fashion statement voting that is largely responsible for the status quo. Whether the fashion statement’s brand is democratic, republican, green, libertarian or flat earth doesn’t really matter. They are all largely devoid of any meaningful strategy for actually accomplishing any real change.

      • iresonancei

        Yeah and those dead Iraqi’s were sent there with 52% of the democratic Senate’s vote. They’re just as culpable.

        • rosswilliams

          Its unlikely the Senate would have ever been asked to take that vote if those Florida voters had made a different choice. Which brings us back to the actual subject of this discussion, the likely real world consequences of voting for Jill Stern.

          • iresonancei

            Sorry, but that isn’t true. An overwhelming amount of Americans did favor intervening in Iraq after 9/11, and it was illustrated in Gallop Polls during that time. However it is also important to mention that some Gallop Polls were phrased in such a biased way that they could have been used to influence the decision to invade. Additionally, every Senator that voted had access to the exact same information regarding whether or not there were new weapons of destruction. There was no new evidence pointing to those phantom weapons. They could have noted with the other half of the democratic Senate but they didn’t. Its a choice both democratic and republican senators have to live with. Additionally, if Gore had been elected, its hard to say how he would have responded if given the same polls and faced with the same scenario, and we will never know. Do you honestly think he would have caved to public pressure? Incidentally, you are familiar with “war for profit” right? Both republicans and neoliberal democrats are huge fans of war profiteering companies. in 2011 alone war profiteering companies did over 410 billion dollars in arms sales. We needed a bogeyman, and we got it in the guise of Saddam Hussein and more recently Gaddafi. Sadam was no friend of Al-Qaeda and Gaddafi provided free healthcare, education, and a direct democracy for his people. Both were totalitarians, but they each fought extremist terror groups in their respective countries and in their own ways. Now we have the next bogeyman to fill in since the collapse of the Berlin wall and the fall of communism to help drive the part of our economy that relies on war.

            • rosswilliams

              “Additionally, if Gore had been elected, its hard to say how he would have responded if given the same polls and faced with the same scenario, and we will never know.”

              No, we won’t. We can only look at the fact that the Iraq war was ginned up by people looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, complete with propaganda campaign designed to convince the American public there was some connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

              The notion that Gore would have responded to 911 by launching a war on Iraq strains credulity, but anything is possible and we will never know. Conscience eased. No harm done.

              As for the rest, I agree there are many terrible similarities among people who are seriously considered for President. But there are also some differences that have real consequences that are anything but theoretical.

              You know, theoretically motorists are supposed to stop for pedestrians at an intersection. But you don’t push someone off the curb in front of a moving car and absolve yourself of responsibility because the motorist was supposed to stop. And, of course, you don’t step out in front of a moving car yourself just to prove a point either. Why would you vote for Jill Stein for President if that meant letting Trump win?