Official #JillNotHill Jill Stein 2016 General Election "HEADQUARTERS"!
- Thread starter SirReginald
- Start date
Split the Hilltron vote
If you think about it that is smart. I just wished we lived in a system where we had more than two parties.
Eight guests?
I'll add more info later
Bill Clinton Gets Into 30-Minute Debate With A 24-Year-Old Bernie Fan
SANTA FE, N.M. — Five different times, aides tried to drag him away from the booth where Josh Brody, a 24-year-old supporter of Bernie Sanders, was holding forth about all that had gone wrong in the 1990s: welfare, NAFTA, Wall Street.
“Other people are waiting,” one staffer said, stepping forward.
“I think we’re gonna agree to disagree here, guys,” he tried again.
“All right, Mr. President. These folks are waiting,” a second aide said.
But for more than 30 minutes, Bill Clinton stayed to argue every point, turning a routine retail stop at Tia Sophia’s, a Mexican restaurant here in Santa Fe, into a one-on-one debate with Brody, a recent graduate of New York’s New School, who said he supported Hillary Clinton’s Democratic challenger. “For the next few weeks — then I’ll be a Stein supporter,” he added of Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
The encounter on Wednesday was emblematic of a presidential election driven by questions about the politics of the 1990s — and the legacy of the Clinton years. On the campaign trail, when confronted with a voter on the rope line or a heckler in the crowd, Clinton is often unwilling to let his record go undefended.
But the protracted back-and-forth was also a testament to Clinton’s view — one he repeats often on the trail — that politicians and their opponents don’t spend enough time listening to one another anymore. This spring, after an encounter with activists from the Black Lives Matter movement, Clinton vowed to try to close that gap. “I realized finally I was talking past [the protester] the way she was talking past me,” he said. “We gotta stop that in this country. We gotta listen to each other.”
The conversation here began when Clinton approached Brody’s booth. The young Sanders supporter, a Santa Fe native, appeared to decline a handshake with the former president, instead posing a question about “aid to families with dependent children.”
It didn’t take long for Clinton and Brody to dive deep into the 1990s, sparring about welfare reform and education spending, New Democrats and New Deal Democrats, and the former president’s Wall Street legislation, which Brody likened to “a golden parachute straight from the Treasury Department.”
“It’s a nice little narrative,” Clinton shot back.
Beside Brody, three friends ate their egg dishes in silence.
Ruby Cramer / BuzzFeed News
The Sanders voter told Clinton that his administration had drawn down investments in “basically” every agency, naming the Department of Education in particular.
“I doubled education,” Clinton replied.
“If you go from the beginning to the end of your term, each of these departments have shrunk,” Brody said.
“That’s just wrong. I doubled education,” Clinton said. (Reached by email later on Wednesday, a spokesman said Clinton had been referring to federal spending and dollars allocated to college aid.)
“You have cherry-picked facts, which contradict the truth,” he added.
Clinton stood over the booth, looking directly at Brody. Aides hovered nearby, still hoping to nudge the former president on to other voters in the restaurant.
“If you never have to make a decision, then you can go back to the past and cherry-pick everything [for a] narrative that is blatantly false,” Clinton continued. “What you’re saying is false.”
“Seems like your narrative,” Brody responded, his voice louder than Clinton’s, “is that you did the best job that you could have possibly done from the most progressive standpoint that you possibly could have had.”
“No,” said Clinton.
“When the reality is you campaigned as a New Democrat,” Brody said, referencing the former Arkansas governor’s centrist platform in 1992. “And you said, we’re gonna basically move away from away from the old Democrats, the New Deal–style Democrat. So that’s what a lot of us want. So this is a philosophical difference.”
“No,” said Clinton. “It’s a rhetorical difference, too.”
He seemed to make one last attempt to win over Brody.
“If you really want what you say you want, the one thing you gotta do — and I’m pulling for you — the one thing you’ve got to do is to get everybody who votes for president to vote in the midterms,” Clinton said, going on to praise the Dodd-Frank finance bill and remind Brody that Donald Trump “wants to repeal it.”
“I’m on your side,” Clinton said.
“You have a limited number of choices, and you do what you can to help the largest number of people. It is very hard,” he added, starting to step away from the table. “If the best thing to do is just say no and lob bombs, you don’t get anything done.”
Brody wasn’t satisfied. “That’s like Margaret Thatcher. There’s no alternative. I mean, you make choices, you have no other options…”
Clinton was almost to the next booth. “You always have a choice,” he said, turning back to get in one last point — this one about Brody’s candidate, Bernie Sanders.
The 2007 immigration bill, he said. “Hillary said yes. Her opponent said no… You always have a choice.”
Bill Clinton Gets Into 30-Minute Debate With A 24-Year-Old Bernie Fan
SANTA FE, N.M. — Five different times, aides tried to drag him away from the booth where Josh Brody, a 24-year-old supporter of Bernie Sanders, was holding forth about all that had gone wrong in the 1990s: welfare, NAFTA, Wall Street.
“Other people are waiting,” one staffer said, stepping forward.
“I think we’re gonna agree to disagree here, guys,” he tried again.
“All right, Mr. President. These folks are waiting,” a second aide said.
But for more than 30 minutes, Bill Clinton stayed to argue every point, turning a routine retail stop at Tia Sophia’s, a Mexican restaurant here in Santa Fe, into a one-on-one debate with Brody, a recent graduate of New York’s New School, who said he supported Hillary Clinton’s Democratic challenger. “For the next few weeks — then I’ll be a Stein supporter,” he added of Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
The encounter on Wednesday was emblematic of a presidential election driven by questions about the politics of the 1990s — and the legacy of the Clinton years. On the campaign trail, when confronted with a voter on the rope line or a heckler in the crowd, Clinton is often unwilling to let his record go undefended.
But the protracted back-and-forth was also a testament to Clinton’s view — one he repeats often on the trail — that politicians and their opponents don’t spend enough time listening to one another anymore. This spring, after an encounter with activists from the Black Lives Matter movement, Clinton vowed to try to close that gap. “I realized finally I was talking past [the protester] the way she was talking past me,” he said. “We gotta stop that in this country. We gotta listen to each other.”
The conversation here began when Clinton approached Brody’s booth. The young Sanders supporter, a Santa Fe native, appeared to decline a handshake with the former president, instead posing a question about “aid to families with dependent children.”
It didn’t take long for Clinton and Brody to dive deep into the 1990s, sparring about welfare reform and education spending, New Democrats and New Deal Democrats, and the former president’s Wall Street legislation, which Brody likened to “a golden parachute straight from the Treasury Department.”
“It’s a nice little narrative,” Clinton shot back.
Beside Brody, three friends ate their egg dishes in silence.
Ruby Cramer / BuzzFeed News
The Sanders voter told Clinton that his administration had drawn down investments in “basically” every agency, naming the Department of Education in particular.
“I doubled education,” Clinton replied.
“If you go from the beginning to the end of your term, each of these departments have shrunk,” Brody said.
“That’s just wrong. I doubled education,” Clinton said. (Reached by email later on Wednesday, a spokesman said Clinton had been referring to federal spending and dollars allocated to college aid.)
“You have cherry-picked facts, which contradict the truth,” he added.
Clinton stood over the booth, looking directly at Brody. Aides hovered nearby, still hoping to nudge the former president on to other voters in the restaurant.
“If you never have to make a decision, then you can go back to the past and cherry-pick everything [for a] narrative that is blatantly false,” Clinton continued. “What you’re saying is false.”
“Seems like your narrative,” Brody responded, his voice louder than Clinton’s, “is that you did the best job that you could have possibly done from the most progressive standpoint that you possibly could have had.”
“No,” said Clinton.
“When the reality is you campaigned as a New Democrat,” Brody said, referencing the former Arkansas governor’s centrist platform in 1992. “And you said, we’re gonna basically move away from away from the old Democrats, the New Deal–style Democrat. So that’s what a lot of us want. So this is a philosophical difference.”
“No,” said Clinton. “It’s a rhetorical difference, too.”
He seemed to make one last attempt to win over Brody.
“If you really want what you say you want, the one thing you gotta do — and I’m pulling for you — the one thing you’ve got to do is to get everybody who votes for president to vote in the midterms,” Clinton said, going on to praise the Dodd-Frank finance bill and remind Brody that Donald Trump “wants to repeal it.”
“I’m on your side,” Clinton said.
“You have a limited number of choices, and you do what you can to help the largest number of people. It is very hard,” he added, starting to step away from the table. “If the best thing to do is just say no and lob bombs, you don’t get anything done.”
Brody wasn’t satisfied. “That’s like Margaret Thatcher. There’s no alternative. I mean, you make choices, you have no other options…”
Clinton was almost to the next booth. “You always have a choice,” he said, turning back to get in one last point — this one about Brody’s candidate, Bernie Sanders.
The 2007 immigration bill, he said. “Hillary said yes. Her opponent said no… You always have a choice.”
Bill Clinton Gets Into 30-Minute Debate With A 24-Year-Old Bernie Fan
at cacs out here disrespecting a former prez in hipster Denny's like that 
Bill ain't got no swag with Millennials 
Got damn Bill
Smug Hipster needs to be an smiley asap
dennis roadman
nuclear war in my bag
Bill was right though, whether or not you agree with many of his policies. that dude has never had to make executive decisions in a system stacked against progressivism
bringing up campaign talking points from 1992 is not a sturdy counterpoint. and notice he had no response to the mid-term election point. too many people think a 3rd party will emerge in a presidential election year, which is the most dangerous and stupidest idea to ever coalesce among people fed up with a two party system. it starts with state senates and chambers, and then mid-terms.
bringing up campaign talking points from 1992 is not a sturdy counterpoint. and notice he had no response to the mid-term election point. too many people think a 3rd party will emerge in a presidential election year, which is the most dangerous and stupidest idea to ever coalesce among people fed up with a two party system. it starts with state senates and chambers, and then mid-terms.
@3Rivers
Smug Hipster needs to be an smiley asap
Look at this garbage article 
This is WHY we need a MAJOR 3rd party that's progressive. Also, the Libertarians can be that 4th party.
This is WHY we need a MAJOR 3rd party that's progressive. Also, the Libertarians can be that 4th party. Green Party could be election spoiler
Getty Images
By Niall Stanage - 05/25/16 06:00 AM EDT
The Green Party suddenly has a chance to make an impact in the presidential election, with polls showing that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are set to be the most unpopular nominees in modern times.
The possibility of disaffected liberals going to a third-party candidate sends a shiver through Democrats — especially those with memories of the 2000 presidential election — even as it delights the Greens and their likely nominee, Jill Stein.
In 2000, votes cast for Green Party nominee Ralph Nader may have swung the outcome of the election to George W. Bush over Al Gore, the Democratic nominee.
Stein, who was the Green Party nominee in 2012 and is the near-certain standard-bearer this time as well, told The Hill that the likelihood of Trump and Clinton being the major-party nominees “creates a very propitious situation for the American people to actually have some choices.”
She insisted that the majority of people backing Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, are doing so in order to keep Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, out, rather than out of any real love for the former secretary of State and her policies.
“How about we allow the public to view the legitimate alternative to that?”
Stein, a Massachusetts-based doctor, won about 470,000 votes nationwide in 2012, giving her only about three-tenths of 1 percent of the total votes cast. Back in 2000, Nader received more than 2.8 million votes for a vote-share of about 2.7 percent.
Nader had assets Stein does not, including a higher level of name recognition among the progressive grassroots. But Stein also has advantages.
In particular, the scars left by the Democratic primary could play to her benefit given that many voters supporting Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are resistant to backing Clinton in November.
Additionally, the widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the nation, which has fueled Sanders’s rise on the left and Trump’s on the right, makes it plausible that many voters could rebel against the status quo by voting for a third-party candidate.
Stein is making a play for Sanders supporters. In an interview with The Hill, she praised him for “really putting forward great policies.”
She added that there is “an incredible love affair between our supporters and Bernie supporters. You can’t distinguish them; they are already comingled.”
Whether the Green Party can harvest those votes, however, remains an open question.
“The simple reality is that there is no proof that the Green Party can win a national election, especially one with the Electoral College as it is,” said Neil Sroka, communications director for the progressive group Democracy for America (DFA).
“In order to make any sort of argument, you would have to explain how a vote for the Green Party isn’t just a way that Donald Trump wins the White House. Even more importantly, it would potentially throw away the power that has been built over the course of this campaign for progressives within the Democratic Party,” Sroka added.
The DFA endorsed Sanders but has always pledged to back the eventual Democratic nominee. Sanders himself has made the same promise.
Stein, on the other hand, said she would “feel horrible” if either Trump or Clinton were elected in November.
Her argument is not only that Clinton is “the lesser of two evils” — a phrase that Sanders has used. She also contends that Clinton is a proponent of the same kind of centrist economic policies put forth by her husband. The policies of former President Bill Clinton, Stein said, have led to the wage stagnation and economic malaise that she believes made Trump’s rise possible.
Asked what she would say to a voter who was sympathetic to Green Party policies but feared gifting the White House to Trump, Stein replied: “The first thing I would say is that Trump was created by the politics of the Clintons. Putting the Clintons in power will only fan the flames. Hillary is not a solution to Trump; the Clintons are the cause of Trump.”
She added, “The second thing I would say is, ‘Don’t be talked out of your own power.’… We need a policy of courage, not cowardice. We need to bring that courage into the voting booth. To adopt a position of cowardice in the voting booth is to surrender to a predatory political system on all fronts.”
But that is the kind of claim that brings a combination of bemusement and horror from Democrats who were on the front lines during the 2000 election.
“Is it theoretically a cause for concern? You bet,” said Michael Feldman, a Democratic strategist who was Gore’s traveling chief of staff during the 2000 campaign. But he added, “I think people learned the hard way in 2000 that a protest vote can swing things in ways that are damaging and dangerous.”
Chris Lehane, who was press secretary for Gore’s 2000 bid, said, “2000 made clear that a presidential vote is not an academic exercise, but the ultimate right every voter has to affirmatively shape the kind of country they desire. … The importance of using that vote responsibly is something that 2000 speaks to.”
Independent experts also suggest the mere presence of Trump on the ballot could prompt liberals to come out to back Clinton, even if they are unenthusiastic about her.
Lawrence Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota and an expert on third-party politics, recalled that during the 2000 campaign Bush presented himself as the smiling face of “compassionate conservatism.”
This year, Jacobs said, “the conditions are there” for a strong Green Party performance. “But by the time November rolls around, the Democratic Party campaign machine will have framed this election as an end-of-all-life choice between Trump and Clinton.”
Still, Stein is defiant.
“You have got to fix the rigged political system,” she said. “If you only have choices that are funded by the big banks, fossil fuels and the war profiteers, that’s what you’re going to get.”
Green Party could be election spoiler
dennis roadman
nuclear war in my bag
man as someone who's lived in a country with a gang of political parties, it's really not that great
nothing gets done because agendas get compromised the day after elections when majorities are formed
nothing gets done because agendas get compromised the day after elections when majorities are formed
I hate to sound like a geezer but man these kids are just disrespectful now. Its a former president, you disagree with some policies ok, still shake the mans hand. You will never get that opportunity again.