Jill Stein has some good ideas but her party needs to spend some quality time working on a very narrow set of counties/states they’re strongest in.
I think there will be some appetite in the electorate for an anti-establishment, voter-reform, anti-corruption left party. The US sorely needs a nice set of representatives that bring forward fresh ideas and criticism to the parliament.
The strategy for third parties should always be to get some seats and then hope for a hung parliament to get one or two policies adjusted and voter reform as a coalition agreement.
I don’t know any of her specific policy ideas, so I can’t comment on those, but I was under the impression that her main idea was the whole “we should all stop trashing the planet we all live on” thing, which is, generally speaking, a very good idea. I admit that doesn’t mean her plans to do something about it are any good.
Yeah, I heard some slogans at one point and I thought “That’s sounds pretty nice, let’s check her out”. I then watched a single interview with her and I was thoroughly disappointed. No plan, no knowledge about the problem, no idea about common solutions. Not even just answering with a politician segue into a prepared statement either, just a train wreck.
I think the green party might go somewhere, just not under Jill Stein.
I read her policy page. To the extent you might call some things good “ideas”, she generally doesn’t present an actual plan to get there, so they are just wishes rather than plans.
But there are some plans, but they are generally flawed. One common thread is a declaration of doing something not within the authority of the presidency, declaring policies that are state level, legislature, or even foreign governments.
Sometimes the concrete plans just logically don’t make fundamental sense. As an example, she simultaneously wants to disband the UN security council, but also have the UN security council hold Israel accountable, which is contradictory.
She also just has flat out terrible ideas. Disband NATO, let Russia just win their invasion of Ukraine in the interest of “peace”.
Then there are the ideas that sound good, but are too naive. Climate reparations to poor countries sound good, but history shows that approach ends poorly (inadvertently undermining local economy at best, to funding brutal warlords). Aid can’t just be a check, and it’s a tricky situation to navigate.
That’s good to know. Generally about what I expected based on the concerns about her I’ve read. The Greens really could use some leadership that is actually competent, because they’re not wrong about their overarching point, even if she seems to be wrong about most everything else.
If the Green Party really wanted to do something other than bolster spoiler candidates, they’d be spending their funds on lobbying, instead of trying to just grab one office at the top of the chain out of literally nowhere.
Jill Stein has some good ideas but her party needs to spend some quality time working on a very narrow set of counties/states they’re strongest in.
I think there will be some appetite in the electorate for an anti-establishment, voter-reform, anti-corruption left party. The US sorely needs a nice set of representatives that bring forward fresh ideas and criticism to the parliament.
The strategy for third parties should always be to get some seats and then hope for a hung parliament to get one or two policies adjusted and voter reform as a coalition agreement.
She does not.
I don’t know any of her specific policy ideas, so I can’t comment on those, but I was under the impression that her main idea was the whole “we should all stop trashing the planet we all live on” thing, which is, generally speaking, a very good idea. I admit that doesn’t mean her plans to do something about it are any good.
Yeah, I heard some slogans at one point and I thought “That’s sounds pretty nice, let’s check her out”. I then watched a single interview with her and I was thoroughly disappointed. No plan, no knowledge about the problem, no idea about common solutions. Not even just answering with a politician segue into a prepared statement either, just a train wreck.
I think the green party might go somewhere, just not under Jill Stein.
I read her policy page. To the extent you might call some things good “ideas”, she generally doesn’t present an actual plan to get there, so they are just wishes rather than plans.
But there are some plans, but they are generally flawed. One common thread is a declaration of doing something not within the authority of the presidency, declaring policies that are state level, legislature, or even foreign governments.
Sometimes the concrete plans just logically don’t make fundamental sense. As an example, she simultaneously wants to disband the UN security council, but also have the UN security council hold Israel accountable, which is contradictory.
She also just has flat out terrible ideas. Disband NATO, let Russia just win their invasion of Ukraine in the interest of “peace”.
Then there are the ideas that sound good, but are too naive. Climate reparations to poor countries sound good, but history shows that approach ends poorly (inadvertently undermining local economy at best, to funding brutal warlords). Aid can’t just be a check, and it’s a tricky situation to navigate.
That’s good to know. Generally about what I expected based on the concerns about her I’ve read. The Greens really could use some leadership that is actually competent, because they’re not wrong about their overarching point, even if she seems to be wrong about most everything else.
You don’t think that stopping the current genocide in Palestine is a good idea? Are you a Nazi?
If the Green Party really wanted to do something other than bolster spoiler candidates, they’d be spending their funds on lobbying, instead of trying to just grab one office at the top of the chain out of literally nowhere.