Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Jill Stein for Senate!!!

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 24, 2012, 11:23 a.m. EST by zacherystaylor (243)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The corporate media is already lining up the authorized candidates for the senator from Massachusetts and as usual they only mention people that have name recognition and can be trusted to abide by the best interest of the establishment not the majority who gets nothing but propaganda.

They can be counted on to repeat their coverage of authorized candidates over and over again without covering anyone that truly represents the public.

It is up to members of the public to do more to let them know that we can begin to nominate our own candidates and Senators.

http://zacherydtaylor.blogspot.com/2012/12/jill-stein-for-senate.html

If we continue accepting the same line that only those covered by the media are "viable" then we will be voting for corporate rule not democracy.

49 Comments

49 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by Nevada1 (4759) 1 year ago

Yes.

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (21084) 1 year ago

Good post, and yes, Jill Stein would be outstanding.

[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Good post!

Also John Kerry is probably one of the worst recommendations for Secretary of State. An out of touch rich elitist that supported the war in Iraq. FUCK THAT

[-] 3 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

The Kerry choice seems to be designed to give Scott Brown another opportunity; or at least that seems to be what Rachel Maddow seems to think. They let the Republicans play them, whether this is true or not; but regardless of what they're doing or why we shouldn't continue to accept the limited choices that they offer us when they never even try to do a good job. If we don't push for our own candidates then they will continue getting away with this scam; if we keep trying then we'll succeed eventually, perhaps this time.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"The Kerry choice seems to be designed to give Scott Brown another opportunity; or at least that seems to be what Rachel Maddow seems to think."
designed by who?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There are major changes that must occur for 3rd parties to have a fair chance & better access.

These efforts can help.

https://movetoamend.org/

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

http://www.opendebates.org/

And national holidays on election day, open primaries with automatic runoffs. & mandatory voting for all eligible citizens.

Without progress on these efforts, 3rd parties will continue being frozen out. none of it is being discussed. and we have a mid term election in less than 2 years.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Says one of the people who dedicated their time to a smear campaign on 3rd party candidates and told 3rd party candidate supporters they were working for republicans.

You're part of the problem in regards to a true liberal movement. You sacrifice your ideals for the sake of playing THE GAME.

Come 2014 and 2016 will you once again disavow and slander 3rd party candidates? You use FEAR to manipulate just as THEY did. Just as they have been. You did it months ago and you will probably do it again. The democrats back in the day helped republicans take out the socialist, communist, and other far left movement pushing for better wages and workers rights in the early 1900's and it's been continuing ever since. Wars / GATT / NAFTA / Wall Street / Etc

For example, you and others spent tons of time slandering hchc on this forum even though he was dedicating his personal life to work with Rocky Anderson and help coordinate events.

Okay now I'm done talking to you for a while again.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I guess cowards like spewing lies without engaging, and allowing responses.

Well for the record:

I engaged in no smear campaign against 3rd party candidates, nor called 3rd party supporters republicans. i may have called you a repub for some of you anti Obama partisan campaigning & silence on repub guilt regarding the issues you only blamed Obama for. But that would be it. So that's you just blatantly lying.

In fact I voted 3rd party down the line.

I have not sacrificed my ideals. That's you blatantly lying again.

I just listed what I thought should be done for 3rd party access.

You never support any actions to improve 3rd party access. You have now attacked real efforts to improve 3rd party access with this lying slander so I guess you are more interested in unfounded personal attacks against me, than finding ways to improve 3rd party access.

What fear have I used to manipulate what? Just more hysterical lies. You should stick to thetruth, It is life affirming and WILL set you free.

Democrats? So you include attacks against 1 party? Blaming dems for unions problems?. I thought it has repubs (as tools of 1% corp oligarchs) who have actively sought to destroy unions and expand outsourcing/bad trade deals. Some Dems always betray progressive principles to support these conservative policies but never in the large numbers of repubs, and obviously the parties have vastly different platforms on workers.

Dems can be made to serve the 99%. They have adopted the language Occupy has created, and there is slow progress being made. Repubs/tea party have been defeated and remain the only real obstacle to progressive change that benefits the 99%.

We must get into the street and agitate all pols for insourcing, and better trade deals.

Attacking one party while staying silent on the other who has been the obvious major enemy of unions is just blind partisan.

HC (your friend). He is not my friend. Phony 3rd party supporter. Sock puppet master? Ain't seen him much. (even with his various other names) Seems he chose the immature route of ignoring the logic, reason I offer, like you.

And let me just say again, that you and I disagree on one main issue: I refuse to say the US drone strikes are war crimes, I don't agree with your one sided partisan attacks that seem to frequently provide cover for republicans but I believe on the issues it is only that I refuse to say our drone strikes are war crimes.

Good luck in all your good efforts. And please refrain from spreading unfounded personal attacks. It serves no purpose.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Read my comment again.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Why? It's just childish lies. Attacks on Dems, Silence on repub crimes against the 99%, defense of cons (hc), distractions, & desperation.

You read your comment again. And dig yourself.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

read it again. You didn't read it correctly.

You can't say I only mentioned democrats, when the only sentence with the D word also contains the R word. Democrats joined Republicans in taking out far left movements like communist movements and socialist movements that were working hard for labor rights and wage increases. It's documented historical fact.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Dishonest! Skewing of realities. Some Dems always fail when they betray progressive principles and support conservative policies & efforts.

The effort against the left was and is led by the right wing, conservative, REPUBLICANS.

The TRUTH is the only pols (of out 2 party sys) fighting for the left are Dems. Occupy has become the guide for left leaning pols to emulate, point to, and live up to.

Repubs WILL NOT. Dems may. Our efforts while not party centric has already served to increase progressive pols in office, and defeat right wing tea party conservatives.

Long hard work on the street, slow progress, setbacks, but your one sided portrayal of anti left activity minimizes repub guilt and dismisses the Dems efforts in fighting for progressive principles.

transparent partisanship.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

read it again. You didn't read it correctly.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I read it fine. it was an attempt to place inordinate blame on dems for what repubs have been and still are trying to do. Bust unions.

Only dems have fought for workers rights, and higher minimum wage. Only repubs have fought against it.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Read it just one more time, but try reading the words this time instead of just zoning out and staring at the screen.

You obviously haven't heard about NAFTA and GATT.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

free trade is conservative policy 101. I support "fairtrade" We must insist on workers rights, safety, high pay, clean... etc.

In fact trade should be our way to improve the lives of the 99% all over the planet.

It's conservatives who have gutted these important elements from these bad trade deals.

republicans are the 1st problem.

replace conservative w/ progressives, rework all trade deals

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

yep and democrats often support conservative policy with the republicans, like I said before with the mention of the union busting-labor denying trade agreements like NAFTA and GATT, and other conservative policy like the Iraq war, bombing Libya, Afghanistan imperialism, monetary policy giving trillions to wall street, etc.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We must take back our govt from the 1% corp oligarchs. We must drag one of the 2 parties (who monopolize power) back from the right.

The Dems are the better opportunity.

replace conservative pro 1% war mongers w. progressive pro 99% anti war pols

[-] 2 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

You pointed these out to me before and i appreciate that; these are worthwhile efforts to help reform the system. However that doesn't mean we can't try to do other things that will also contribute to the solution. Much more needs to be done and we can't accomplish that in the most effective way if we accept artificial obstacles that aren't necessary and would slow down real reform especially when there is so much that needs to be done.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Of course I am willing to try other actions. I have!

What are you suggesting? I will add it to my list certainly whenever the 3rd party issue comes up.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

If Jill runs supporting her any way you can.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well I don't usually include a specific candidate in my proposals and suggestion is short on specifics but cool. Go Stein!

I like her & the green party platform. Too bad they have so many obstacles against them.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Thanks, I usually focus more on the issues as well; but until we have more reliance on ballot initiatives it will help to have good representatives elected and we can't do that if we continue to allow the corporate media to screen our candidates.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There are major changes that must occur for 3rd parties to have a fair chance & better access.

These efforts can help.

https://movetoamend.org/

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

http://www.opendebates.org/

And national holidays on election day, open primaries with automatic runoffs. & mandatory voting for all eligible citizens.

Without progress on these efforts, 3rd parties will continue being frozen out. none of it is being discussed. and we have a mid term election in less than 2 years.

[-] 3 points by Renneye (3922) 1 year ago

Woohoo...yeah!! You have my support!

[-] 2 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Thanks, hopefully now she'll run if she sees enough support instead of people that may or may not be paid party operatives flooding the discussion.

[-] 3 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

clearly the leading "third party" person in America is Bernie Sanders
did he endorse Dr. Stein for president ?
How old is the Green Party?
What/who was the highest Green in government ever to win a state or federal election?
governor? senator? representative?

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Good questions and as you must know the answers aren't promising; or at least they don't seem promising. However that doesn't mean they should abandon all hope; in fact there are many signs that things may turn up for the Green Party much sooner than people expect. You can find these signs as easy as me but even if they aren't that good there is still an enormous incentive to support the Green Party and other alternative parties that aren't under the influence of the most powerful and corrupt corporations.

One of the most important ones is the fact that there is already an enormous amount of environmental damage being done and the establishment continues to bicker over details while they deny the vast majority of this damage.

If we don't have major grass roots movements that keep trying then the damage, whether it is the so-called "fiscal cliff" or the environmental damage will escalate dramatically and the problems will be much harder to solve.

Protest movements in the past didn't start and eventually win by admitting defeat before they gained many offices.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

some people may vote for people they like or candidates that make them feel good or candidates that they mot agree with
ALL are selfish approaches to voting

IF I lived in MA and I thought JS had a chance to win, I would strongly consider voting for her. I like most of her positions [ except Israel ]
But my key is electability.
Remember Nader 2000!
B= 2912790
G= 2912253
N= 0097488
without Nader, we would not have had Iraq or 911

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

As long as we continue accepting the phony "wasting your vote" argument" they will continue to present us with only candidates that they approve of and none of the grass roots candidates will have a chance.

the real way to waste votes is to vote for candidates that are committed to their funders and are guaranteed to break promises as usual.

When people stop accepting the "wasting your vote argument then it will become clear that the grass roots candidates actually do have a chance.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

If Jill runs for senate, and the day before the election,
D polls at 40% and
R polls at 40% and
Jill polls at 20% -
WHO DO YOU VOTE FOR ?

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Is the objective to create scenarios where we lose before we even try to implement real reform?

If we keep accepting these staged hypothesis' then we will never get the reform we need to change things and that isn't the way sincere reformers would go about things since it is guaranteed to fail.

It would be far better to create a real situation where she has a chance or other forms of reform can work and that can be done by trying what ever works and not \limiting ourselves to lost causes.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

"It would be far better to create a real situation where she has a chance"
SPECIFICALLY HOW???
I do not live in a dream world - I am looking for real solutions to real problems
I would rather vote for a candidate that has a CHANCE to win who I agree with 70% rather than a candidate that cannot win that I agree with 90%
I am interested in solutions - not ideologies

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

The candidates that tehy present to us are only those that they know will not represent the public more than they ahve to. In order to change this the public needs to learn how to pick their own candidates.

This may mean that we have to inform more people and shake them from their complacency but that shouldn't be something that we should decline to even try doing.

We should keep trying what ever we can come up with and keep looking for more ways to get the point across.

[-] 1 points by mideast (506) 1 year ago

disconnect capitalism from democracy

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

acknowledging the reality of real scenatios may be defeatest
or unpleasant
BUT

how many Germans died 1944-1945 because adolph colud not acknowledge that germany would lose?


no - I'm NOT comparing js to ah

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

I don't interpret that as likening her to Hitler; but ackowledging that the system is corrupt is important and admitting defeat before trying to change it is a gaurenteed way of ensuring she doesn't win and we don't get change.

How many more will ahve to die becasue we keep accepting the candidates that they present to us and use the same excuse to fall for the same scam every time?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Just to reconfirm, I absolutely did NOT compare Stein to adolph -
she & Greens have many good ideas.
I believe that everyone here believes the system is corrupt
But I do not believe we are defeated -
I believe the system is improved and can be improved.
I know I am in the minority HERE but OWS needs to understand
that the real HERE is not OWS - it is USA


FYI - if I was in MA & I thought Stein could win, I'd vote for her

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Dem

[-] 3 points by JohnFKennedyIV (11) 1 year ago

Sounds like a damn good reason to vote for Jill Stein! I don't know much about her yet, but she definitely is awake. She isn't Establishment, and that's a great start.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"She isn't Establishment, and that's a great start."
please reconsider THAT statement


david duke isn't the Establishment either dittoi Joe Werzelbacher.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

I think you'll find that when you take a closer look at her that she is much better than the establishment candidates on many issues including support of Single Payer Health care opposition to wars based on lies and many other things. In addition to the information she provides on her page I also looked up a lot of information on her when she was running for president and posted it on the related posts in the blog cited in the opening.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

As Senator , how will she create a single payer system ( which I & Bernie & many progressive want )
Advocating the impossible not only brings one to a dead end, it helps divert you from the do-able

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The fact that the entire Senate is nothing but two 100 yr old parties is all we need to know about why this corruption is out of control.

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

Agreed, this is all the more reason why we need to support alternatives that aren't earning their chances by collecting the mandatory amount of bribes thinly disguised as "campaign contribution."

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Did Bernie Sanders officialy endorse Jill Stein for President?

[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

I don't understand why people would worry so much about endorsements even from good people. Bernie Sanders might be among the best politicians that has gained political power but that doesn't mean that his endorsement should be more important than the position on the issues anyone takes. This would go for Jill Stein as well; I support her as a means to an end since I agree with her positions and she is making a sincere effort unlike those endorsed by corrupt political parties. If she were to win then I would still be more concerned with what she does than whether she starts endorsing people. I have heard about endorsements for Jill Stein but they aren't as important as issues so I won't bother mentioning them.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

"They can be counted on to repeat their coverage of authorized candidates over and over again without covering anyone that truly represents the public."


Your position is much more believeable if you tell the truth.
I have seen the "public's" - Bernie & Elizabeth & Sherrod & Jim Clyburnl, etc at least every week


being anti-establishment is not rational
sunnis are anti- shiite
shiites are anti-sunni
catholics USED TO BE snti protestant
protestants USED TO BE anti catholic
southern whites (some) are anti black


[-] 1 points by zacherystaylor (243) 1 year ago

First of all the selection of John Kerry was made even though several Republicans openly said that they would like him to be nominated and these same Republicans were also major supporters of Scott Brown. I'm not convinced that is exactly what they're doing wither but as I said Rachel went into much more details on her show and her case was compelling, actually perhaps too compelling and too perfect. But that's besides the point and I've already given it as much attention as it deserves.

As for Single Payer the more people in the ?Senate speaking out for it and the more often the more likely the public is to hear more about it and this could create a snowball effect and eventually overcome the opposition if enough people let them know they're fed up with the corruption in Washington.

As for "Bernie & Elizabeth & Sherrod & Jim Clyburn" they do cover some candidates that at least sound like they represent the public, if only to convince the public they care; but they don't follow through enough. I'm not as familiar with Sherrod & Jim Clyburn but I do know that Sanders gained his seat after a long grass roots effort unlike most candidates that are supported by the corporate media. He seems to be one of the rare exceptions where the corporate media has no choice but to provide some coverage.

Elizabeth Brown is another story. She is the result of a propaganda masterpiece by the corporate press. I've been looking at ehr since before she became a candidate and I was a little skeptical about the way she was being covered; eventually I came to the conclusion that she is phony as hell and not a consumer advocate at all but another politician that is telling the public what they want to hear. She can be counted on to do what the public demand and come up with a lot of rhetoric while she does so but I doubt if she'll do more then the public makes clear that they demand.

She has represented asbestos companies taken on gambling lobbyists, provided a phony argument against what she called the "over-consumption myth" and made a phony argument against a real "consumer advocate," Juliet Schor. Schor stood up to marketing to children with an excellent argument, while Warren remained silent.

I went into this much more in four blogs including the following; Elizabeth Warren is not a "consumer advocate," at all except for a token amount of opposition to the banks which I admit she is much better than the rest of the establishment.

http://open.salon.com/blog/zacherydtaylor/2011/09/19/how_sincere_is_elizabeth_warren

http://open.salon.com/blog/zacherydtaylor/2012/08/13/elizabeth_warren_is_not_a_consumer_advocate