The war on the LEFT Jill Stein Vs Liz Warren..

Bill

Malarkeyville

Presidential candidate Jill Stein fired back at Bay State U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren for claiming that a vote for the Green Party nominee could only help Donald Trump.

Stein, a Lexington physician lagging far behind in the polls — pulling only single digits — said votes still need to be “earned.”
Related Articles
Rare opportunity for Libertarians Johnson, Weld
Ex-wife says Trump campaign CEO made anti-Semitic remarks
The Latest: Trump says society can't tolerate violence

“Politicians are not ‘entitled’ to our votes simply because they represent the establishment political parties,
” she said in an email to the Herald.

“With a majority of Americans rejecting (Hillary) Clinton and Trump with record high levels of dislike and distrust, neither of them has earned our votes. I say: Don’t waste your vote on politics as usual that’s throwing us under the bus. Invest your vote in a movement for real change,” Stein said in a statement.

After a speech Thursday at Roxbury Community College, Warren said a vote for Stein — instead of Democratic presidential nominee Clinton — effectively would be one for Trump, whom she called a “racist bully.”

“Anything you do that helps Donald Trump get one inch closer to the White House is a danger to all of us,” Warren said, adding that a vote for Stein “moves Donald Trump closer to the White House.”

By yesterday afternoon, Stein, who also was the Green Party nominee in 2012, shot back on Twitter, saying: “Sad to see @elizabethforma attacking real progressives on behalf of a Wall Street-financed campaign. #WalkTheWalk”

That prompted one woman to tweet: “Hey @elizabethforma recall what it means to be an actual progressive with integrity? #WalkTheWalk #JillNotHill”

Nationally, Stein is polling at 3.4 percent, trailing Clinton’s 42 percent, Trump’s 37 percent and Libertarian Gary Johnson’s 9 percent, according to a Real Clear Politics average of polls.

Earlier this month, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that only candidates receiving 15 percent support nationwide according to five polls that will be averaged together will qualify for the presidential debates, which will begin in late September.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean that neither Stein nor Johnson could receive enough votes to sway the results of the election.

In 2000, for example, Green Party nominee Ralph Nader won more than 97,000 votes in the swing state of Florida, costing Democrat Al Gore the state and, ultimately, the presidency.

In an interview Tuesday, however, Stein dismissed the idea that she could turn out to be a spoiler.

“We’re in a very different moment now historically than we were in 2000 because the majority of American voters have rejected both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump,” she told PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff. “They’re the most disliked and untrusted candidates for president in our history.”
 
It's clearly a tactic of people on both the left and right and it's not new. However when the option presented is two of the least popular choices in recent times it's good to see many presenting a middle finger.
 
Meh it's always been that way in our first past the post system. Candidates in the major parties are compromise candidates and rarely popular across the board. With our system being as it is third party candidates are not very viable.

Stein should take some encouragement that at least she isn't as ineffective as a libertarian.
 
Politicians are not ‘entitled’ to our votes simply because they represent the establishment political parties,” she said in an email to the Herald.

“With a majority of Americans rejecting (Hillary) Clinton and Trump with record high levels of dislike and distrust, neither of them has earned our votes. I say: Don’t waste your vote on politics as usual that’s throwing us under the bus. Invest your vote in a movement for real change,” Stein said in a statement.
can't argue with that.
 
warren has been one of the greatest surprises this election. You would expect her to be on the sanders wing but is campaigning hard for hillary and even witheld her nomination from sanders when he needed it most.
 
warren has been one of the greatest surprises this election. You would expect her to be on the sanders wing but is campaigning hard for hillary and even witheld her nomination from sanders when he needed it most.
very true.
She's part of the the girls club/Emily's List -those fruitcakes who think gender is the most important quality.

But with warren it's especially egregious -backing a Wall St .whore, and globalist/corporatist
 
warren has been one of the greatest surprises this election. You would expect her to be on the sanders wing but is campaigning hard for hillary and even witheld her nomination from sanders when he needed it most.

Maybe she knew the fix was in & she didn't want that to happen to her??
 
very true.
She's part of the the girls club/Emily's List -those fruitcakes who think gender is the most important quality.

But with warren it's especially egregious -backing a Wall St .whore, and globalist/corporatist

Lots of ppl are backing the wallstreeter, including many republicans............
 
Idon't disagree. but Waren backed her even in the primary with Bernie. Which is pretty astounding -no?

HHhhmmm I would think ideologically she would be somewhere between them??

I dunno why she choose one over the other but I would guess she figured Bernie didn't stand much of a chance in the beginning.. As did most...
 
Presidential candidate Jill Stein fired back at Bay State U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren for claiming that a vote for the Green Party nominee could only help Donald Trump

I'm probably going to hold my nose and vote for Hillary, but I agree with Jill Stein. People should vote for who they want to. It's their vote
 
I'm probably going to hold my nose and vote for Hillary, but I agree with Jill Stein. People should vote for who they want to. It's their vote
why not go 3rd party? Living in Maryland means it's a Democratic lock
 
HHhhmmm I would think ideologically she would be somewhere between them??

I dunno why she choose one over the other but I would guess she figured Bernie didn't stand much of a chance in the beginning.. As did most...
She's much closer to Bernie - even with Clinton's new shape shifting.
I suppose though like most establishment Dem's all that matters is the Clinton Machine
 
She's much closer to Bernie - even with Clinton's new shape shifting.
I suppose though like most establishment Dem's all that matters is the Clinton Machine

STOPPING TRUMPF!!!

If it was a McCain, a Romney, Kaisch or someone of that cloth it probably wouldn't be all that, but contrary to what some of you may believe/hope/trust/been promised in your own minds etc.. The man is simply inappropriate for the job................

As bad as she is, he is worse, & w/ the potential to be much, much worse............
 
STOPPING TRUMPF!!!

If it was a McCain, a Romney, Kaisch or someone of that cloth it probably wouldn't be all that, but contrary to what some of you may believe/hope/trust/been promised in your own minds etc.. The man is simply inappropriate for the job................

As bad as she is, he is worse, & w/ the potential to be much, much worse............
we completely disagree on the "worser evil"
( for many reasons of process/ executive-overreach /separation of powers as well as her bein a serial liar/plutocrat)
I think Clinton is far more dangerous to the country.

But I was speaking about why she never endorsed sanders to begin with..many Dem's endorsed him and then backed Clinton
Why do you think that was?
 
Back
Top