Jill Stein’s Platform More Viable Than Bernie’s

By David Swanson, American Herald Tribune

I asked Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein about her platform this week and came away believing it had a better chance of winning than Bernie Sanders’. I know that platforms don’t run, people do, and they do so within a two-party dominated system. But this already crazy presidential election could turn into a crazier five-way race. And, even if it doesn’t, or if it does but still nobody ever learns that Jill Stein exists, there is nonetheless much for us and for the other candidates to learn from her platform.

If you think free college is popular, you should see what young people think of free college and erasing all existing student debt.

If single-payer healthcare with raised taxes (but net savings, if you make it to that fine print) excites voters, how do you think they’d respond to single-payer healthcare with no raised taxes?

If fewer wars and asking Saudi Arabia to do more of the funding and fighting sounds promising, what would you say to no more wars, a 50 percent cut in the $1 trillion/year military spending, no more weapons sales to Saudi Arabia which is doing more than enough killing, thank you, no more free weapons for Israel either, and investment of some of the savings in a massive green energy jobs campaign producing a sustainable energy policy and a full-employment economy?

Senator Bernie Sanders’ domestic proposals have got millions excited, but the (unfair and misleading) criticism that he’ll raise taxes may be a tragic flaw, and it’s one he opens himself up to by refusing to say that he’ll cut the military. Stein would cut at least half of the single biggest item in the discretionary budget, an item that takes up at least half of that budget: military spending. She’d cut fossil fuel subsidies, as well, and expect savings to come from healthcare, including as a result of cutting pollution and improving food quality. But the big immediate item is the military. Cutting it is popular with voters, but not with Democratic or Republican presidential candidates. Sanders will be labeled the Tax Man by the corporate media, while Jill Stein will have to be attacked in a different way if she gets mentioned.

“Cutting the military budget is something that we can do right now,” Stein told me, “but we want to be clear that we are putting an end to wars for oil – period. And that is part of our core policy of a Green New Deal which creates an emergency program, establishing twenty million living wage jobs, full-time jobs, to green the economy, our energy, food, and transportation systems, building critical infrastructure, restoring ecosystems, etc. This is an emergency program that will get to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. So this is a war-time-level mobilization in order to completely detoxify our energy system, and that means both nuclear and fossil fuel. In doing that, we deprive the empire of this major justification for wars and bases all around the world. So we want to be clear that that emphasis is gone, and goading the American public into war so as to feed our fossil fuel energy system – that ends and makes all the more essential and possible the major cutting of the military budget.”

Which 50 percent of the military would Stein cut? Two places she named that she would start with (there would have to be much more) are foreign bases (she’d close them) and the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Would she unilaterally scrap U.S. nukes? I asked.

“We don’t even need to do it unilaterally,” Stein said, “because the Russians have been begging to revive the process of nuclear disarmament, which the U.S., in its wisdom, undercut. … The Russians have been persistently trying to restore those nuclear talks for the purpose of disarmament. And that would be step one – is to make major reductions between the U.S. and Russia and then to convene a world forum to put an end to nuclear weapons altogether.”

The “war on terror,” Stein pointed out, has only created more terror, while costing each U.S. household $75,000. “That’s not going to make people terribly enthusiastic for it, particularly when you point out that all this has done is create failed states, worse terrorist threat, whether you look at the Taliban, the globalization of al-Qaeda, the creation of ISIS. This has been an utter, unmitigated disaster, and the massive refugee crisis which is threatening to tear apart the European Union. This is absolutely unsustainable by any count.”

To change U.S. foreign policy, Stein proposed financial reforms unheard of in any presidential debate thus far. She suggested that military and other government contractors should face “pay to play protections” preventing them from “buying their way into policy.” Stein explained: “If you establish that anyone who contributes, who provides campaign contributions, or who lobbies is not eligible for contracting with the government, the minute you break that umbilical cord, then the industry loses its power to corral Congress and dictate foreign policy.” Stein said such protections could also block U.S. government facilitation of weapons sales to foreign buyers.

“War profiteering should not be allowed,” Stein explained, “in the same way that energy profiteering is not compatible with our survival.” Ultimately, the big profits, Stein said, are in healthcare: “We spend a trillion dollars plus on the military industrial complex every year, but we spend three trillion and counting every year on the sick care system, which doesn’t make us well. It just enables us to tread water while we cope with these disastrous health impacts of the war economy and the fossil fuel economy.”

Stein did not hesitate to highlight differences when I asked her about Bernie Sanders. She cited his “support, for example, for the F-35 weapons system which has been an incredible boondoggle.” While Sanders would keep killing with drones and “fighting terrorism,” Stein calls “fighting terrorism” an oxymoron and points to counterproductive results: “Terrorism is a response to drones that sneak up on you in the night and to night raids and this is where we recruit and we enable ISIS and al-Qaeda to continue expanding … something Bernie hasn’t quite gotten straight by saying the solution here is to turn the Saudis loose; the Saudi’s need to ‘get their hands dirty’.”

“We can actually begin to rein in the Saudis with a weapons embargo and by impounding their bank accounts,” Stein said. The same goes for Israel, she added, stressing the need to respect the law. Should the United States join the International Criminal Court, I asked. “Oh, my god, of course!” was Stein’s reply. “And the treaty on land mines?” “Of course! My god. Yes. … There are all sorts of treaties that are ready to move forward. In fact the Soviets and the Chinese have been prime movers in expansion of treaties to prohibit weapons in space and to establish the rule of law in cyberspace.”

So, what would President Jill Stein do about ISIS? She answered that question with no hesitation: “Number 1: we don’t stop ISIS by doing more of what created ISIS. This is like the elephant in the room that none of the other presidential candidates are willing to acknowledge, even Rand Paul, I might say, surprisingly. So we don’t bomb ISIS and try to shoot ISIS out. We’ve got to stop ISIS in its tracks by ending the funding of ISIS and by ending the arming of ISIS. How do we do that? We do that with a weapons embargo. And so the U.S. can unilaterally move forward on that, but we need to sit down and talk with the Russians as well, and Putin tried to do this.

“You know, Putin, our arch enemy Putin, was actually trying to create a peace process in Syria. … We need to begin talking with Russia and with other countries. We need to build on our relative détente with Iran to engage them, and we need to bring our allies into the process. Right now, the peace process, as I understand it, is held up by, guess who — Saudi Arabia, who wants to bring in known terrorist groups as the representatives of the opposition. The Saudis should not be defining the way forward here … Our ally Turkey needs to understand that their membership in NATO or their position with the U.S. and other allies around the world should not be taken for granted, and that they cannot be in the business either of funding ISIS and related groups through the purchase of their oil [or of] shipping weapons. They also need to close down their border to the movement of the militias.”

Stein was sounding an awful lot like the leader of the Labour Party in Britain, Jeremy Corbyn, and I asked her about him. “I have already met with Jeremy Corbyn,” she said, “when I was in Paris for the climate talks, … and we had a surprising amount of time to talk and we agreed completely on collaborating on this ‘peace offensive,’ which is the name we have given to our solution to the problem of ISIS. Peace is not passive. We need an active, interventionist program based on peace which means to stop the flow or arms and money, etc. So, we’ve already agreed that we see eye-to-eye on foreign policy.”

But Corbyn is in office with a shot at becoming prime minister. With the U.S. public completely sold on the hopelessness of third-party bids, at least by non-multi-billionaires, what is Stein’s plan for actually becoming president?

“First of all,” she says, “there are 43 million young people and not-so-young people who are trapped in debt, in student debt. My campaign is the only campaign that will be on the ballot that will abolish student debt. We did it for the bankers who plunged us into this economic crisis that persists in spite of what they say. And they did that by way of their waste, fraud, and abuse. Yet we bailed them out to the tune of $16 trillion and counting.

“So, isn’t it about time we bail out the victims of that waste, fraud, and abuse — the young people of this country whose leadership and whose civic engagement is essential for blazing the trail to our future? It has always required a fresh generation to re-envision, you know, what our future looks like. So, we need to bail out the young people, for their benefit and for ours. That can be done through another quantitative easing which is relatively simple, does not cost us, essentially expands the money supply in a way that works as a stimulus to the economy, unlike the bailout that they provided to Wall Street which has only created a stimulus for more reckless gambling – waste, fraud, and abuse. … I have yet to find a young person in debt who doesn’t become a missionary for our campaign the minute they learn that we will cancel their debt. … The 43 million young people – that is a plurality of the vote. In a three-way race, that’s enough to win the vote.”

Stein also pointed to 25 million Latinos who, she said, “have learned that the Democrats are the party of deportation, of night raids, and of detention, of refugees who are fleeing a crisis in their home countries that we created. How? Through NAFTA, though illegal coups and CIA-sponsored regime changes, and through the drug wars. … If people want to fix the immigration problem, the answer is, ‘Stop causing it.'”

But will Stein be in the debates for the general election? “In my experience,” she told me, “all you have to do is have a real conversation, have an open mic, a true presidential debate that actually allows presidential candidates to debate who have broad enough support that they are on the ballot for a majority of Americans and could numerically win the election. We are challenging the Commission on Presidential Debates in court and we will be challenging them soon with a direct action campaign, so stay tuned, because the American public deserves to know about the issues. The American public deserves the right to vote. And they have a right to know who they can vote for and what they are voting about.”

Here’s audio of the interview that produced this report.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • jo6pac

    Thanks DS and I’ll be voting for Jill again.

  • swinebraten

    She is obviously the ideal choice for president, in my opinion.

  • Michael Daush

    She makes a lot of great points and her voice should be heard.
    But a couple of thoughts. First, no one forced these kids to make these loans. Many of these loans are gigantic because kids took out extra money for spending, cars, vacations etc. I am a former college administrator and have seen it. Many people take out max loans while in part time school and use it for all sorts of things and the Feds set it up this way when they took loans from the banks.
    Nuclear was designed to use every last radioactive isotope but our federal government didn’t let the GE engineers do it because they wanted it that way. Nuclear can be completely safe if you’d just let the engineers use these already invented designs.
    Global warming, not convince, sorry.
    Other than that, I like almost everything else!

    • Bill Rood

      It’s now well-established that the human brain is not fully developed until the late 20s. These kids have been bombarded for years about how important a college education is. If these loans are being used to pay for cars, vacations, etc., then that’s a problem with the administration of the loans. Why isn’t the loan immediately deposited with the institution to pay for tuition, books or dormitory room and board?

      And that doesn’t even begin to touch on the for-profit targeting of young people with mental health and other problems that make them very unlikely to finish their course work. Loans should require co-signing by an adult, close reporting of progress to that responsible adult and should be discharged if the adult files bankruptcy. Most parents will not risk their savings to finance “cars and vacations.”

      • Michael Daush

        Of course you are right. but that is not how the Feds want it administered. They seem to want these kids to be enslaved by these loans. And don’t forget, alot of people taking the loans are not just out of high school but are working and going to school at night while working. May be they are hard up and need the money but they are starting to pay the piper now.
        when my buddy who was in charge of Fianancial Aid saw the new open ended loans kids could take, he knew it would come to this. It is all on the Feds and OBAMA.

        • Bill Rood

          I have no idea what “open ended” loans you’re talking about, but this isn’t all on Obama. My mentally ill son got saddled with his $10K in loans before 2008. He will never pay them off, and I did not co-sign so have no obligation. The rules on bankruptcy were changed long ago in the Bush Administration or before. At least the DoJ is now looking into these for profit schools, but the problems are not limited to them.

          Tuition at public and non-profit privates is totally unrealistic, yet tenure track positions are extremely difficult to get and adjunct salaries and benefits are pitiful. All the money is going to the high end administrators. The same is true in all sectors of the economy. A couple years ago in my state, there was legislation to freeze K-12 teacher salaries after several years when many had voluntarily taken freezes from the school districts. One of the legislators tried to introduce an amendment to the bill limiting superintendent increases so they couldn’t earn more than the Governor of the state, but the legislator was essentially shouted down.

          This is a class struggle, and it does no good to blame the victims, the naive young people who take out these loans on the promise of a better paying job that turns out not to be there in the end.

          • Michael Daush

            Bill,
            In the main,I blame the Feds!
            But there are many young people using these loans inappropriately.
            Example #1 My financial aid friend told me of a Graduate student at the school he works at who takes 3 hours a semester but the max loan eact semester way over the costs of the three hours. He says students like this take these loans for living expenses, clearly not the intent of the loans.
            Example #2 A young couple who are friends with my son took out loans for all educational expenses along with all living expenses while the man was in dental school, the girl getting a nursing degree after getting an undergraduate degree. The loans were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars including money to party on the weekend etc.
            Do these examples sound like good decisions? Or something you and I should feel guilty for?
            I blame the Feds because they did this on purpose, because someday the Dems are going to forgive some of these loans to accrue loyal voters forever.
            the two examples are not a ghetto kid raised by his Grandmother who has no other choice, they are the result of easy money that is too hard to turn down.
            A good part of the reason I posted about this is because people may not have realized the colleges saw this promblem coming, I agree with you that many have profited from it also.

          • Bill Rood

            I agree that these are very poor decisions made by people whose brains are not fully formed and don’t have the experience or upbringing to understand the dangers of debt. No, we should not feel guilty and no they should not get off scott free, assuming they were in no way mentally disabled. I agree these are examples of loans that should not be 100% forgiven by the Federal Government. If the funds were deposited directly with the college, as I suggested in my first comment, this sort of thing could not happen.

            No amount in excess of tuition or university sponsored room/board should be forgiven except in unusual circumstances. If the institutions and loan officers knew, or should have known, that a student was unlikely to succeed, then they should take the financial loss. My son should have been required to sign a release for medical records, and his history of mental health issues would have been a red flag. He should not have been admitted, let alone given any sort of loan.

            Unfortunately, we’ve gone way overboard in protecting privacy and making “reasonable accommodation” for disabilities. If a person is applying for admission or asking for a loan, it’s reasonable for the lender to require all pertinent information. Alternatively, require a co-signer. Nobody would have co-signed for my son. I had advised him to get a job and take one course, which I would pay for, and if he did well, we could increase the focus on school. Unfortunately, he never listens to me; it’s part of his mental health issues. Had the loans required me to co-sign, I’d have had more control of the situation. He might even have had some success rather than becoming overwhelmed.

            If the Feds did this “on purpose,” it was likely due to lobbying/pressure from financial institutions and colleges, who know they’re going to get their money back from Sallie Mae (or whatever it’s called now). This has actually been decades in the making and caused by both Republicans and Democrats. We said universities should not act en loco parentis and through privacy laws have prevented parents from monitoring young adults as well.

          • Michael Daush

            Bill, I am really sorry to hear that about your son. Just terrible.
            when I was in charge of enrollment for the private university I am speaking of, over fifteen years ago, the Feds came out with the privacy legislation that told the colleges that parents should not be mailed the students grades which I thought was dumb since parents paid the bill.
            When the Feds took over the loan program, they established the parameters for the loans and , according to my friend who was the Financial Aid Director, took any discretion out of his hands. Students were newly entitled to many more thousands of dollars of loans and he had no discretion, other than fatherly advice, in how much the student decided to take.
            It’s why I blame the Feds because they set all this up on purpose. With no ability to discharge the debt, even in bankruptcy!
            All the best to you and your family, my friend.

          • Bill Rood

            Thank you. I agree 100% that this crisis is largely a result of Federal legislation and administration. My only real disagreement with you is focusing on Obama. For unrelated reasons, I think Obama is one of the worst Presidents we have had, but to blame him exclusively for the student loan problem is unfair. It’s the result of decades of bipartisan decisions. As I stated, it actually started with short-sighted criticism by baby-boomers of en loco parentis. Much of what we’re talking about here was a result of HIPPA, which was passed by the Republican controlled 104th Congress and signed by Democrat Bill Clinton. It essentially bifurcated parental insurance and payment of medical bills from any right to know about medical treatment. I remember that it made my job as a parent much more difficult, as I had to get releases from my mentally ill son.

            Allowing naive young people with immature brains and little experience to take out enormous loans immune from bankruptcy should have been recognized as a recipe for debt bondage. In that sense, it is odious debt, though I agree those portions of debt not associated directly with school or minimal room and board should not be discharged. And I agree that anyone writing the check for tuition should receive transcripts.

          • arekexcelsior

            The problem, Bill, is that a college education would be a very sensible investment… if the economy were fair. Instead, a number of factors have made it so that this route hasn’t worked. Forgiving the debt is perfectly reasonable because it is a response to the total failure of the private economy, thanks to factors like criminal collusion, subsidies and other structural factors. It’s not some general principle Stein is advocating, but a specific response to a specifically broken economy.

  • cettel

    Jill Stein’s “Platform” has zero “viability” unless it can be introduced in Democratic Party primaries, and then by a Democratic Party elected official, because the Republican Party certainly won’t introduce it, and because there are only two political parties in America. The only candidate outside those parties who might even possibly be elected President would be a billionaire who can spend enough to be competitive nationally.

    In any case: a third party (or else an independent non-party candidate, such as Bloomberg might become) will draw more from one of the two parties than from the other and will only throw the election to the major-Party candidate that he or she is really campaigning for by attacking the candidate who seems to be closer to that third-party (or independent) candidate’s positions, such as Ralph Nader did by stealing Florida and New Hampshire from Gore and so ‘defeating’ Gore — not only by Republican theft but by ‘Green Party’ or Naderite theft. That’s what gave us George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq.

    Fortunately, Jill Stein won’t be as successful as Nader was in 2000. Most people never even heard of her. Nader wanted Bush to become President; he succeeded. I don’t know what Jill Stein wants; maybe she’s just stupid (which Nader definitely was not).

    If it’s Hillary versus any Republican, then Bloomberg might win. But if it’s Bernie versus any Republican, then I don’t think that Bloomberg will even go all the way, because he’d take far more voters away from Bernie than he would from any Republican.

    The only slight chance that a Republican might win would be if it’s Trump and if Trump then changes some of his positions for the general election, but that is a real possibility. If it’s to be Trump versus Sanders, then any presence of Bloomberg in the contest would throw the election to Bernie, in a landslide.

    • kimyo

      my wager: if it’s trump v sanders, trump gets a equal share of the african american vote.

      not that it matters when diebold is issuing the totals, but my observation is that the sanders campaign just doesn’t care about black people.

      i suggest that he run the rest of his campaign from a small rented house in flint. sit on the porch and have coffee with the neighbors. dedicate himself to staying there, showering in the water, wondering if the government issued water filter is removing 99.99% of the lead or maybe just 98%. trying to comprehend the depth of the epa’s failure.

      perhaps then he’d adopt/expand fiorina’s single sensible solution: fire the top 400 v.a. hospital administrators. fire the top 400 epa administrators. fire the top 400 sec officials. and on….

      it doesn’t matter if he runs his campaign from vermont or michigan, he has the floor. if he has a vision for america, it’s time for him to share it. what i hear from him is incoherent. stuff like this: Sanders: Silicon Valley crucial to defeating ISIS

      “I think domestically we have got to do everything that we can technologically to make sure that we do not allow sleeper cells to develop, or we allow communication that takes place within ISIS groups,” the Democratic 2016 contender said Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports.”

      those are the words of someone who fails to comprehend even the most basic facts about isis or technology.

    • jadan

      One needs to consider election rigging among the variables in a political contest, local, state, or national. Because it is a low-level programming task requiring no special skill and because evidence of the hack can be easily destroyed, rigging the vote count will be a big factor. If Bernie and his crew do not get out in front of the issue, it is too late once the election is lost. The “red shift” in election in recent years is computer fraud. Look at CODE RED by Jonathan Simon. I would think that you would be all over this, cettel…..

      • kimyo

        it is odd that cettel isn’t concerned about diebold. one explanation: his focus is not to get a progressive elected, but instead, to motivate red / blue people to participate in the polls.

        either way, both the red and the blue teams lose. but this way it’s much easier to maintain the fiction of electoral representation.

        • jadan

          Electoral representation is a fiction, sad to say, unless the vote count can be verified. It is CODE RED time. Jonathan Simon is a serious individual. Candidates have to stand up on this. If Bernie doesn’t get out front on this, he will be complicit in the theft of his own election.

    • Two Americas

      You are promoting “the fiction of electoral representation” as kimyo says.

      If things are as you describe them here, and I think they are, then that would be a powerful argument against maintaining the illusion of electoral representation. Yet you use it to promote the illusion.

    • truthtime

      cettel, your articles are pretty truthful on ukraine and syria and subjects in that regard (which is appreciated), but your commentary on the two-party system is pretty hilarious. Even though, right in front of your eyes you can see that the two-party system is a failure, you still fall for it, which is quite amazing. I imagine this is simply because you are stuck in your ways.

      Fuck Bernie Sanders. Fuck Hillary. Fuck Trump – and all the rest of the Democratic and Republican circus shit show.

      People want the two-party system to be broken apart? Well, Jill Stein is one such answer. It’s quite clear what Jill Stein wants, she fucking says it in the podcast above. Plain as fucking day. Any vote for the two-party system is doomed to failure for the runaway train it already is. There are already a record high number of people that abstain from voting in the United States as well. The entire system will collapse on itself.

      This has been a TruthTime Telling™.

      More TruthTellings: Bush and the like won by voter rigging.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YKpvTBmdCI

      • cettel

        What’s “hilarious” is those reader-comments here which deny that the next President will be either the Democratic Party’s nominee, or else the Republican Party’s nominee, or else Bloomberg (if he even enters the race). To call Jill Stein’s candidacy “viable” at all, is ludicrous.

  • Chris Horton

    As Cettel points out, Bernie Sanders is following the only viable route for actually *winning* the Presidency. In so doing, despite the massive wall of silence the corporate media threw up, he has already overthrown all conventional wisdom about what the American people are willing to hear and respond to.

    Jill Stein’s program does go further, and the Green Party’s achievement of ballot status in 50 states is a major accomplishment worth defending. Bernie Sanders, faults and all, is powerful because people hear in him our own voice, the voice of the people. Jill Stein, for all the power of her positions, still sounds like a voice crying in the wilderness, leading a party whose members can’t imagine actually winning.

    Sanders would do well to demand that Stein be included in all the debates this Fall, as she will give him cover on the left, making arguments he doesn’t want to touch. The American people are smart enough to know that this will be a Sanders/Trump contest.

    And Trump will have the Republican nomination, because he has the support of the white working-class Republicans, yesterday’s Reagan Democrats, who will follow him out of the party if he walks, and without whom the Republicans can’t win elections.

    It’s worth considering what role do Stein and the Green Party could play if Hillary wins the nomination by what is widely perceived to be foul play, or if (God forbid) something happens to Bernie.

    If Hillary wins the nomination, by fair means or foul, Bernie could endorse her and call on his supporters to rally to her to stop Trump, or he could run as an independent or third party candidate.

    If Bernie endorses Clinton, I think the “great mass movement to confront the billionaire class” will fracture, because millions won’t vote for her no matter what. Some will support Clinton, some will stay home and some will support Stein. With or without Bernie’s help, Trump probably beats Clinton in this scenario.

    If Clinton wins the nomination, a write-in campaign would be a long shot because of the mechanics of it, and Bernie would have to risk bearing the blame for throwing the election to Trump. If on the other hand the Green Party were to call a special convention and put Sanders on the ballot in 50 states with Stein as his running mate, I think he could win, because he will have already won in the court of public opinion. I would be surprised if Stein and the Green leadership would do that; I’d expect they would just see it as an opportunity to get their message out and win a few million more votes. But perhaps a great pressure campaign from their base might convince them otherwise.

    If something happens to Bernie between winning the nomination and Election Day, we’re in uncharted territory. What constitutional provisions are there for that? Do votes for Bernie count as votes to elect his VP candidate, who then becomes president? Any attempt by Stein and the Green Party to exploit this crisis as an opportunity to increase their own vote would at best be irrelevant.

    The worst case scenario is that something happens to Bernie after he has clearly earned the nomination but before the Democratic Convention. Then we have Clinton without a mandate, and a great mass movement suddenly without a leader. Does Stein have it in herself to step forward into that vacuum and be the leader that we would need? Would she be able to win Sanders’ movement to rallying behind her? It’s an experiment that I hope never has to be run.

    In the end, it’s about the American people. Bernie is all about the American people. is Jill?

    • jo6pac

      “In the end, it’s about the American people. Bernie is all about the American people. is Jill?”
      You are kidding right.
      1. Bernie has already said he will endorse hillabillie if he doesn’t win and he won’t.
      2. As a Green I wouldn’t want Bernie on the ticket he is pro israel, love drones and the f-35.
      3 The lesser of the evils is still evil, change has to start somewhere.
      4. Nader didn’t lose the election for the demodogs they’re very good at doing that themselves and then blaming the voters.

  • MrLiberty

    The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

    Virtually EVERY problem our nation faces, from the overseas empire and its trillions in waste, the domestic welfare problem and its generations of “entitled” individuals, to the destruction of the medical system, the massive prison population issue, the GMO problem, the declining purchasing power of the dollar, the rampant crony-capitalism that plagues nearly every industry, etc. can be directly tied back to the federal and state governments. The problem with EVERY third party candidate and EVERY republican and democratic party candidate – OTHER THAN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY CANDIDATE and to some extent Rand Paul, is that they continue to fully support virtually EVERY aspect of government power and most importantly the power to tax/steal our incomes, and the power (via the Federal Reserve) to empower massive government growth, deficit spending, and the destruction of our economy and money supply. Everyone simply cannot have FREE college. Everyone simply cannot have FREE healthcare. The government has made both cost problems as bad as they are BY THEIR intervention in the market. Every one of their solutions has only made the original problems they cause that much worse. This column isn’t long enough to discuss government intervention in the medical marketplace since the early 1900s, the role loan guarantees directly play in driving up costs/prices, or the role the Federal Reserve has played in systematically transferring tens of trillions of dollars in wealth from the productive sector to the 1% via the hidden tax of inflation and fractional reserve banking since 1913, but all this information is readily available online.

    As appealing as all the government goodies sound, you simply CANNOT have your cake and eat it too. There must be productivity and people must feel as though they are being rewarded for their work. There cannot be collustion between government and big business, and government simply cannot EVER be allowed to have the power to pick winners and losers among the races, the genders, the nations of the world, the companies of this country or any individual. Right now the government has the power over all of us and it must be taken away – not enhanced.

    • The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money

      The US has never had the pleasure of experiencing a socialist government, to date the US government has always been dedicated to the fallacious ideals of capitalism, and which has been a miserable failure considering how deep the US has drowned into the quicksand of her creditors.

      • MrLiberty

        Obviously you didn’t understand anything of what I wrote. Clearly I was not describing capitalism but crony capitalism. We are not in debt to the tune of $20 trillion dollars because of capitalism or the free market, but rather because of the Federal Reserve, fiat currency, and a clear violation of the principles of free market capitalism. Please get educated on the real and critical difference. All of our problems, including the Federal Reserve (a clear violation of the US Constitution) are the product of the republican and democratic parties and our federal government, not a free market.

        • True, I didn’t address everything that you ranted on about (mr whomever with no account), hence the Italics.

          Unfortunately, total US debt is more than 3 times than what you claim.

          http://www.usdebtclock.org/

          https://www.rt.com/usa/166352-us-total-debt-sixty-trillion/

          • MrLiberty

            I most certainly left out the $250+ Trillion in unfunded liabilities for SS, Medicare, and Medicare PartD. And how does that invalidate any of my points? That debt didn’t happen under free market capitalism conditions either. With absolutely NO savings, those trillions would NEVER have been available for debt, the monies simply would not have existed, and the government would have been forced to either tax the money from us directly, or would have been forced to live within their means. As you have yet to contest any of my points, I will confidently stand by them. The Austrian School of Economics most certainly does.

          • Since you don’t appreciate real socialism — May I ask what do you like about Jill Stein and ”The Plan”.

  • Brilliant article!

    Far more viable than any other candidate, yet most of the so called ”Alternative media” and independent side of the web are acting as if they’re acutely blind to anything that does not compliment the proverbial Duopoly.