Cenk and Jill Stein sit down at Youtube Space LA to discuss student loans debt, forfeiting fossil fuel usage, relations with Russia, and decriminalizing drugs.
Optimismpains, you must be a true optimist if you thought that bin laden would have just spilled the beans on whatever was in the works by the network of terrorists. This guy’s main purpose in life after nine eleven was to hide to remain alive.
And again, what has the guy in Brussels told people so far? Are there any cases of prevented attacks because of his talking? If there was you would have heard about it immediately. But there isn’t. You risk locking up this guy somewhere in the US, what do you think could have happened, suicide bombers, all sorts of guys trying to sabotage his capture, more people dying as a result. For God’s sake they didn’t bury him to not create a shrine. What do you think a capture could have produced? You live in a fantasy world d*h*
I love you guys, but the Stein town hall underscores the need to get a real science/medical journalist on the TYT staff. That’s what it takes to pin down science deniers like Jill Stein. Science denial is also a key part of the GOP message these days. How about meeting them with some really big guns? Cara Santa Maria would be great, but there are plenty of others if she’s not available.
Do you really believe they would have gotten intelligence from him? How, by torturing him? Then maybe you are..
I don’t think of myself as holding double standards when it comes to executions, but it is wartime and in wartime different rules of engagement apply, as someone here smartly pointed out.
No, al bagdadi osama bin laden even the guy in Brussels – has he said anything? Even if he had they won’t tell us right?
Still, if they zero in on al bagdadi go for it take him out.
I feel so let down, Cenk. After all you’ve said about other debate and town hall moderators failing to do proper follow-ups, I had high hopes for this. What happened? Where were the follow-ups?
If you were on stage with Trump or clinton and they implied NATO countries shouldn’t count on our enduring support in the face of Russian aggression, I have to imagine you would have pressed the issue further. Really? Her answer (dodge) was that we should be friendlier toward Russia and then they wouldn’t have aggressive ambitions in the area? And anyway, that we should wiggle out of our treaty and Europe should just stand on its own without us? How were her answers much different than Trump statements that have been so rightly criticized on TYT?
If Trump or Clinton ran away from the vaccine question and started talking about unrelated issues at the FDA, you really wouldn’t have directed them back to the question that had been asked?
If Trump or Clinton, as they described actions that would disrupt our leverage with the Saudis/OPEC, suggested they would increase subsidies to oil companies, I can’t believe you wouldn’t ask a follow-up about corporate welfare, let alone how that would affect our global trade relationships.
And when you asked about her drawing more votes from Clinton than Trump, her answer posited some fantasy world where everyone suddenly rose up in the next 3 weeks and voted Green party because we only have the power we think we have? And you let that stand instead of redirecting back to the real, practical question, which was asked as a softball in the first place, about tilting the election toward a Trump victory. An honest and realistic way to ask the question would have been:
“If this close election is swayed to Trump, rubber stamping a republican house and senate, within 2 years, we can expect an end to legalized abortions, the elimination of estate taxes, fewer Americans with health insurance, a regressive flat tax, dramatic losses of social programs and environmental protections, gutting financial and safety regulations, weakening of labor unions, and the privatization of social security. Which of these or other consequences do you think will have the most significant effects on our society as a whole, and in light of the backlash after Ralph Nader’s run, how will you convince supporters this painful path was the right way to start building a liberal movement?”
If it weren’t for Trump being in the race, Stein would be officially crowned the least qualified candidate in this race by a wide margin. Her rambling responses didn’t actually answer most of the questions, and when she did answer it was laughable. The best was the softball John Oliver question; you still don’t know what qualitative easing is, do you? You had six days and you didn’t bother to learn, even knowing you’d be asked. Idiot.
Cenk gave her a pass on these questions and put this whole thing together in the first place because he’s desperate to keep the far-left members of this audience from jumping ship. But to the rest of us, it was a completely waste of time and TYT’s limited budget and resources. The only thing it proved once again was that, had Stein and Johnson been allowed at the main debates, they would have humiliated themselves in front of the entire nation and we’d have been done with them.
She’s polling at or below 2% in places, and it’s not because of a vast left-wing conspiracy: in all the years she’s been involved with the Green Party, she’s done NOTHING, just like the rest of her party. They have no desire to put in the actual hard work and ground game required to be a competitive politician in this country. They just want to poke their heads out every 4 years and screech for power.
When she loses on November 8th to Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Harambe, and Deez Nuts (probably in that order), she’ll weave another cocoon and go to sleep for 4 years, and expect a better outcome in the next presidential race. Which is kinda the definition of insanity, isn’t it? Doing the same thing expecting a different result?
She definitely dodged the “would you vote for a monster or a madman” question, but what else did she dodge? I would only touch the broad strokes of quantitative easing if I was running as well. Most people don’t have the background to understand a Quantitative Easing 101 explanation without being provided a brilliant script and graphics. Only the rare few like CGP Grey have the ability to explain complex topics in a pithy manner, and that is with all the advantages a town hall doesnt provide. Stein definitely needs to worry about talking over people’s heads, and since Clinton supporters are mostly low information voters, that is a major concern.
It definitely wasn’t a waste of time for me. This event made me fill my ballot in with pen shortly afterwards. She may not have the backing of a political army funded by a major foundation, and she would definitely be unable to hit the ground running, but she hasn’t done monstrous things like surrender 1/3 of our Uranium to Russian interests in exchange for a personal bribe, and shes not a racist person with NPD.
I was really disappointed listening for an hour to Jill Stein. I think there might be some truth to how you evaluate her qualification. At least two questions were answered or finished with slogans. Her repeating ‘this is unacceptable’ was especially annoying and made me say at some point you are unacceptable…Maybe too much..but.
And I do not understand how can someone still stubbornly say they will vote for her so they remain principled.
OMG! First I wanna say this was an amazing debate. Not like the mainstream drivel debates. Actually informative, not just a joke. Secondly this kinda makes me sad knowing what we are missing out on since there is virtually no chance Dr. Stein will win. Our only hope is like she said, get out and be active. Vote for green party and at least get them funding to start building for the future.
It will be interesting to see how many votes she will take from Hillary. What is her plans after she loses? Senate? Joining Bernie with project Afterburn (holding Hillary to the progressive platform)?
Thank you, Cenk, for this wonderful interview with Jill Stein.
After listening to her, I am convinced she is the only viable, intelligent candidate capable of running our country.
As we can be assured MSM will not air even a second of this forum, I urge all viewers to share this interview until we flood the net and everyone learns that we do have a viable alternative to Hillary and Trump, the most unpopular candidates ever offered to voters.
And again, thank you Cenk and your fantastic TYT team for always reporting the truth.
I am voting for Jill. She is the only candidate you can actually trust. If you believe Trump or Clinton you are falling into a trap set for the ignorant. There is actually much evidence that Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run because he knew how Hillary couldn’t beat anyone else.
I’d like to see Hillary and Trump answer deep thought out questions regarding controversial and complicated policy suggestions… “Exactly how would you, not only TRY to do this but ACTUALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN with a stunted and corrupt congress?” At this point the US is SOOO corrupt and bought out that THIS is now a gotcha question…. Jill is the only candidate with a brain. At least talking about controversial and important topics. Military spending, Central Bank monetary policy, class inequality… Anyone who thinks she’s out to lunch should probably do some reading. She’s obviously not going to win but at least she’s still functioning in reality…
We’ll see your response when the FDIC runs out of money and tells you sorry but your bank account has evaporated because the idiot president Stein made an illegal promise.
You do realise that this happened before in 2008 but the then dumb in chief was responsible enough to do the right thing.
Meee – oowww! You may be able to say many things to describe Dr.Stein but “idiot” isn’t one of them.
Also, you do realize that Obama never intended to actually DO any of the things he promised, right?
I’m sure he may have wanted to close Gitmo, and probably liked the idea of some healthcare legislation, but being the “Progressive President” was never part of his agenda. The Banks backed him with cash, and he knew who to protect.
I wouldn’t say he was acting “responsibly”, just predictably, given who was buttering his bread.
Whether that was the “right thing” is open for debate.
The interview proves that she is an idiot if she thinks that her policies on the economy are going to be productive or that her Mombasa approach to foreign policy will work.
Checkout Venezuela for a country that applied the policies she prescribed and ask anyone from there when was the last time they used toilet paper. Checkout Argentina where the socialists declared bankruptcy and were shutout from international financial markets for 15 year only to succumb to a worse deal than what was offered before.
I was on record all the way in 2006 that Obama was going to be right of centre not a leftist because his record and the people he was associated with in the senate were right of centre. The change BS implied a different approach than Bush regarding the big issue of the day, Iraq, and everything else including HC was already a republican issue before the 2010 purge. Most people who voted in 2008 voted for the D in front on his name not his agenda and that worked well for him.
If you analyse the election results carefully you will realise that he won suburbia which is what won the 2000 and 2004 elections for the republicans and suburbia is wealthy, have good private HC (which at 2008 covered 75% of all Americans) and is not interested in paying more taxes. Obama knew that and used the magic formula of social openness and steady as she goes and won.
Venezuela did not fail because of socialism, but because it is a petro state. Because it is a petro state, the US empire will never leave it alone. Whoever controls the oil controls the world. The whole modern world runs on oil. Chavez used what the puppet regimes for the US had previously set up in Venezuela, which was a petro state designed to be controlled and exploited for US interests, and he turned it into a resource source to fund state programs instead, as they do in the social-democratic state of Norway. The US ran a coup against him, which he survived, and then funneled money into a propaganda campaign against him through private media outfits from within until his death. Every time he attempted to limit the effect of this propaganda mouthpiece, the US would scream to high heaven about silencing the press, and lapdog Europe and elsewhere would cluck their tongues in the UN.
The price of oil has plummeted over the last 3 years, which has crippled this infrastructure in Venezuela. Some say this is a deliberate act on the part of Saudi Arabia who is trying to cripple their rival Iran by flooding oil markets with cheap crude just as the US has allowed them back into the US controlled system. This also helps to hurt the petro state of Russia and Venezuela, which makes the planners in US statecraft happy, and maybe that’s why the US is helping them destroy Yemen, despite the headaches that may cause down the road.
Argentina is not a socialist country. It has some social-democratic programs and an active socialist party, but it’s not socialist, and all of the economic crashes it has experienced in recent decades is due entirely to IMF programs which tie development loans to specific economic policies like export to the US at reduced or zero tariff and the abolition of social programs to pay for these destructive policies. It’s economic colonization that has terrorized Latin America, not socialism, the US claim of “manifest destiny” where they owned the entire western hemisphere before expanding out to the rest of the globe, what Secretary of War Henry Stimson called “our little region over here, which has never bothered anyone.”
It’s obvious that Obama, elected in an oligarchic system that had nurtured him through the best schools and through all the right appointments to public office was not a true leftist. This system is designed to prevent a real leftist from taking power, and were they to do it anyway, they can be blocked from achieving leftist policy. Only a people’s revolution from below can change this. It would be helpful to have an ally in a high office, but regardless, the people need to be leading the charge and heavily involved in decision making, not just following. You’re right that Obama won mostly because of the suburbs, and suburbs are more conservative. They have something to lose, after all. They have what’s left of the American Dream, but his messaging was equally as important. More than the leftist ideas of change for a better world that includes all people, the people elected Obama, because they wanted to believe in their country.
Before the internet truly exploded, and before 9/11, the people were mostly asleep. They believed in the fairy tales about their government. They knew little of the outside world, and thought about it even less. After 9/11, and during the presidency of George W. Bush, they learned that the world is darker than they knew. They learned that they were in danger too, even here, inside the castle walls. They learned that the US can invade a nation illegally based on lies and get away with it, that there’s no good guy minding the store. Of course the US has been doing that for a long time, but they didn’t know or care about that. What they did know about was all for the greater good, must not think about it too strongly though. Now, they saw themselves as potentially the bad guy, and what they wanted in Obama was to put those thoughts out of their head. They wanted to go back to a time when a charismatic guy smiled and laughed and joked like a normal person and the US was the good guy again. It was all just like TV, and they could go back to their lives and leave the leading to other people, but the damn internet fucked it up. Too many people all over the world talking to each other freely is always bad for any ruling class. So, they liked his talk, and his talk was important. He was going to put everything right again and all you had to do was vote. Like the capitalism and consumer culture they’ve been fed their whole lives, it’s easy. You just do this, turn this, plug it in, set it and forget it, and it’s all better. But you are right that they didn’t want too much change, the vast majority of people who voted for him, the people that put him in the office. To make radical change, we still have a lot of work to do to help people see, and people still think that they just have to vote for someone and it will all be better. They are still lost in the consumer culture madness that says it’s easy, it’s all about you, it’s all about your comfort and ease, and all you have to do is sign on the dotted line.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are both petro-dollar countries with a similar population size and far less natural resources like water and agriculture yet they did not suffer the same catastrophic failure Venezuela saw when oil prices collapsed. Venezuela was failing socially and economically well before Chávez died and the state media in Venezuela is government controlled and despite that the last elections the people who were so devoted to his legacy have had enough and gave a veto floor majority to the opposition despite the socialists using the state resources illegally to drown the free media. Don’t take my word for, Dave Koller has talked about this many times and he is anything but a right wing shill. The reason neither country failed is social cohesion and a strong private free enterprise system and almost no form of welfare other than a relatively large public sector that is still smaller than the one in Venezuela.
As for Argentina, its problems have nothing to do with the IMF. The UK, Russia, Turkey, South Korea and several all followed IMF conditions to the letter and returned from their crises stronger and richer and I saw that with my own eyes in Turkey which was apathetic basket case of a country in 98 and is now the fastest growing country in Europe despite having 4 million refugees and migrants for a country of 75 million. Argentina declared bankruptcy 3 times in 30 years because it borrowed money and went on a spending spree with massive corruption and little accountability and low taxes. The IMF told them what it told the countries above, good governance, high taxes on everyone and privatising unproductive state controlled entities, they did nothjng of the sort and once they sent out of bankruptcy returned to the old modes of production and collapsed yet again. There is a reason why the leftist media in Argentina failed to convince the people to elect a socialist and mr. Macri was elected unexpectedly and that is people were fed up with socialist nonsense.
As for the rest, I am afraid that you live in an alternate reality. Please go out in the world and expose yourself to other ideas, better still ask people who went through what you criticise whether they agree with you or not. Paul Krugman the other day pointed to contradicting surveys where when people were asked individually about their fortunes during the Obama years the majority indicated that their fortunes improved significantly, but when they were asked about their feelings about the economy in general it was a partisan breakdown with majorities on both sides indicating thatnthings are worse which makes sense only when you factor the internet propaganda that the complaint industry have been spewing on both sides everyday on all sides including here at TYT.
The state of affairs have never been better in the US in all its history.
Also she says that it would make the US bully’s and shouldn’t be committing crimes. But that is bull shit! There is a difference when you are at war, the rules of engagement are clear and it would be smart and legal to kill Baghdadi.
Wow… Dr Steins answer to the question at 22mins in, of whether she would if she was president and the location of Baghdadi was known give the order to kill him with a drone strike is a really poorly thought out answer.
She is comparing it to when a Nazi war criminal that was found and they captured him, but the difference is Baghdadi is the head of ISIS and is still actively directing it and causing death and suffering, The risk of losing him and the logistical planning to go in with US forces and capture him is too high. By taking him out ISIS loses it main leader and causes disruption within it fast.
I am talking in this one instance, I do not support drone warfare overall. But if we knew his location, he should be taken out or if feasible use special forces to capture/kill mission.
So then you think it was wrong for the US to have killed Osama bin Laden, by the same logic? I personally felt great when they took him out this piece of shit execution being wrong and all.
Of fucking course it was stupid to just execute Bin Laden, when he could have given a load of intelligence on Al Qaeda and prevented innocent people dying by us finding out about other attacks, hidden cells in the US or Europe.
He could have been tried for the embassy bombings, he twin towers etc. and all those people affected and their family’s who have had loved ones ripped from them, could have got justice and closure in an international or a US military/civilian court and he would have had to answer to the world for his crimes, then he would have been sentenced to death anyway, but I’ glad you felt better…dickhead.
I still think that’s why we have spec ops for. I’d much rather a capture with the potential of gaining information as opposed to a possible miss with a drone strike. As the head I doubt he’d “hang tough” under interrogation, most likely been living comparatively soft, and I don’t mean through torture.
The thing that concerned me was the talk of quantitative easing, as I understand it, that could unintentionally result in devaluation of the dollar. But I’m not clear on that.
A soft interview with a first class nutjob/fairytale living person.
Had I been the interviewer this would have gone a different way and I would have asked different questions and fact checked her on the door to call out the nonsense she said.
A town hall is meant to be less aggressive than a debate. The point is to get to know the candidate better and importantly, hear their policy’s in full and substantive way.
You mean like how we as a nation learned what fav cocktail the candidates like & what song Ted Cruz sings to his wife? Or just how much does Hillary like hot sauce? She’s a Spicy Gal! I can’t remember …
Did Cruz love his wife “——-this much——” or “———————THIS MUCH ——————?”
Unlike the previous Oprah-esque town halls,
I think viewers actually learned something substantial about Dr. Stein here.
Stop asking her who she would vote for between Trump and Clinton. That is what the stupid MSM does too. She is too smart and sees what you are trying to do. Fear from may work on you, but a lot of us care about the human race and the planet more than politics in general – without a planet there are no humans and also no politics…
The questions to Jill about What if the Russians invade Estonia?, How to pay for School Loan Jubilee,, coal industry jobs and how do we do without Saudi blood oil channeled the MSM’s FOXification of everything. Once you go to HER the spectrum instantly is pulled to the right.
Stein said that the USA should follow its NATO obligations, even though why NATO even exists is a good question.
NATO is the most aggressive military bloc on the planet, never used defensively, responsible for invasions, bombings, regime changes. It is useful to remember UK scholar Richard Sakwa’s “fateful geographical paradox”: NATO “exists to manage the risks created by its existence”.
You are right: overall the scope and framing of the questions that Cenk selected was right-wing. But not completely as Cenk did allow Kyle’s question about the drugs was left-wing.
Comments
Optimismpains, you must be a true optimist if you thought that bin laden would have just spilled the beans on whatever was in the works by the network of terrorists. This guy’s main purpose in life after nine eleven was to hide to remain alive.
And again, what has the guy in Brussels told people so far? Are there any cases of prevented attacks because of his talking? If there was you would have heard about it immediately. But there isn’t. You risk locking up this guy somewhere in the US, what do you think could have happened, suicide bombers, all sorts of guys trying to sabotage his capture, more people dying as a result. For God’s sake they didn’t bury him to not create a shrine. What do you think a capture could have produced? You live in a fantasy world d*h*
I love you guys, but the Stein town hall underscores the need to get a real science/medical journalist on the TYT staff. That’s what it takes to pin down science deniers like Jill Stein. Science denial is also a key part of the GOP message these days. How about meeting them with some really big guns? Cara Santa Maria would be great, but there are plenty of others if she’s not available.
Heey why the insults.
Do you really believe they would have gotten intelligence from him? How, by torturing him? Then maybe you are..
I don’t think of myself as holding double standards when it comes to executions, but it is wartime and in wartime different rules of engagement apply, as someone here smartly pointed out.
No, al bagdadi osama bin laden even the guy in Brussels – has he said anything? Even if he had they won’t tell us right?
Still, if they zero in on al bagdadi go for it take him out.
I feel so let down, Cenk. After all you’ve said about other debate and town hall moderators failing to do proper follow-ups, I had high hopes for this. What happened? Where were the follow-ups?
If you were on stage with Trump or clinton and they implied NATO countries shouldn’t count on our enduring support in the face of Russian aggression, I have to imagine you would have pressed the issue further. Really? Her answer (dodge) was that we should be friendlier toward Russia and then they wouldn’t have aggressive ambitions in the area? And anyway, that we should wiggle out of our treaty and Europe should just stand on its own without us? How were her answers much different than Trump statements that have been so rightly criticized on TYT?
If Trump or Clinton ran away from the vaccine question and started talking about unrelated issues at the FDA, you really wouldn’t have directed them back to the question that had been asked?
If Trump or Clinton, as they described actions that would disrupt our leverage with the Saudis/OPEC, suggested they would increase subsidies to oil companies, I can’t believe you wouldn’t ask a follow-up about corporate welfare, let alone how that would affect our global trade relationships.
And when you asked about her drawing more votes from Clinton than Trump, her answer posited some fantasy world where everyone suddenly rose up in the next 3 weeks and voted Green party because we only have the power we think we have? And you let that stand instead of redirecting back to the real, practical question, which was asked as a softball in the first place, about tilting the election toward a Trump victory. An honest and realistic way to ask the question would have been:
“If this close election is swayed to Trump, rubber stamping a republican house and senate, within 2 years, we can expect an end to legalized abortions, the elimination of estate taxes, fewer Americans with health insurance, a regressive flat tax, dramatic losses of social programs and environmental protections, gutting financial and safety regulations, weakening of labor unions, and the privatization of social security. Which of these or other consequences do you think will have the most significant effects on our society as a whole, and in light of the backlash after Ralph Nader’s run, how will you convince supporters this painful path was the right way to start building a liberal movement?”
If it weren’t for Trump being in the race, Stein would be officially crowned the least qualified candidate in this race by a wide margin. Her rambling responses didn’t actually answer most of the questions, and when she did answer it was laughable. The best was the softball John Oliver question; you still don’t know what qualitative easing is, do you? You had six days and you didn’t bother to learn, even knowing you’d be asked. Idiot.
Cenk gave her a pass on these questions and put this whole thing together in the first place because he’s desperate to keep the far-left members of this audience from jumping ship. But to the rest of us, it was a completely waste of time and TYT’s limited budget and resources. The only thing it proved once again was that, had Stein and Johnson been allowed at the main debates, they would have humiliated themselves in front of the entire nation and we’d have been done with them.
She’s polling at or below 2% in places, and it’s not because of a vast left-wing conspiracy: in all the years she’s been involved with the Green Party, she’s done NOTHING, just like the rest of her party. They have no desire to put in the actual hard work and ground game required to be a competitive politician in this country. They just want to poke their heads out every 4 years and screech for power.
When she loses on November 8th to Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Harambe, and Deez Nuts (probably in that order), she’ll weave another cocoon and go to sleep for 4 years, and expect a better outcome in the next presidential race. Which is kinda the definition of insanity, isn’t it? Doing the same thing expecting a different result?
She definitely dodged the “would you vote for a monster or a madman” question, but what else did she dodge? I would only touch the broad strokes of quantitative easing if I was running as well. Most people don’t have the background to understand a Quantitative Easing 101 explanation without being provided a brilliant script and graphics. Only the rare few like CGP Grey have the ability to explain complex topics in a pithy manner, and that is with all the advantages a town hall doesnt provide. Stein definitely needs to worry about talking over people’s heads, and since Clinton supporters are mostly low information voters, that is a major concern.
It definitely wasn’t a waste of time for me. This event made me fill my ballot in with pen shortly afterwards. She may not have the backing of a political army funded by a major foundation, and she would definitely be unable to hit the ground running, but she hasn’t done monstrous things like surrender 1/3 of our Uranium to Russian interests in exchange for a personal bribe, and shes not a racist person with NPD.
I was really disappointed listening for an hour to Jill Stein. I think there might be some truth to how you evaluate her qualification. At least two questions were answered or finished with slogans. Her repeating ‘this is unacceptable’ was especially annoying and made me say at some point you are unacceptable…Maybe too much..but.
And I do not understand how can someone still stubbornly say they will vote for her so they remain principled.
GO GREEN 2016….. IM WITHHER
OMG! First I wanna say this was an amazing debate. Not like the mainstream drivel debates. Actually informative, not just a joke. Secondly this kinda makes me sad knowing what we are missing out on since there is virtually no chance Dr. Stein will win. Our only hope is like she said, get out and be active. Vote for green party and at least get them funding to start building for the future.
Where’s Zach Galifianakis? Between the ferns..
It will be interesting to see how many votes she will take from Hillary. What is her plans after she loses? Senate? Joining Bernie with project Afterburn (holding Hillary to the progressive platform)?
Thank you, Cenk, for this wonderful interview with Jill Stein.
After listening to her, I am convinced she is the only viable, intelligent candidate capable of running our country.
As we can be assured MSM will not air even a second of this forum, I urge all viewers to share this interview until we flood the net and everyone learns that we do have a viable alternative to Hillary and Trump, the most unpopular candidates ever offered to voters.
And again, thank you Cenk and your fantastic TYT team for always reporting the truth.
I am voting for Jill. She is the only candidate you can actually trust. If you believe Trump or Clinton you are falling into a trap set for the ignorant. There is actually much evidence that Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run because he knew how Hillary couldn’t beat anyone else.
I think making this only for members is a disservice to Dr. Stein. I would love for some of my friends, who are not member,s to see it
There’s a download video link you can use.
I’d like to see Hillary and Trump answer deep thought out questions regarding controversial and complicated policy suggestions… “Exactly how would you, not only TRY to do this but ACTUALLY MAKE IT HAPPEN with a stunted and corrupt congress?” At this point the US is SOOO corrupt and bought out that THIS is now a gotcha question…. Jill is the only candidate with a brain. At least talking about controversial and important topics. Military spending, Central Bank monetary policy, class inequality… Anyone who thinks she’s out to lunch should probably do some reading. She’s obviously not going to win but at least she’s still functioning in reality…
We’ll see your response when the FDIC runs out of money and tells you sorry but your bank account has evaporated because the idiot president Stein made an illegal promise.
You do realise that this happened before in 2008 but the then dumb in chief was responsible enough to do the right thing.
Meee – oowww! You may be able to say many things to describe Dr.Stein but “idiot” isn’t one of them.
Also, you do realize that Obama never intended to actually DO any of the things he promised, right?
I’m sure he may have wanted to close Gitmo, and probably liked the idea of some healthcare legislation, but being the “Progressive President” was never part of his agenda. The Banks backed him with cash, and he knew who to protect.
I wouldn’t say he was acting “responsibly”, just predictably, given who was buttering his bread.
Whether that was the “right thing” is open for debate.
The interview proves that she is an idiot if she thinks that her policies on the economy are going to be productive or that her Mombasa approach to foreign policy will work.
Checkout Venezuela for a country that applied the policies she prescribed and ask anyone from there when was the last time they used toilet paper. Checkout Argentina where the socialists declared bankruptcy and were shutout from international financial markets for 15 year only to succumb to a worse deal than what was offered before.
I was on record all the way in 2006 that Obama was going to be right of centre not a leftist because his record and the people he was associated with in the senate were right of centre. The change BS implied a different approach than Bush regarding the big issue of the day, Iraq, and everything else including HC was already a republican issue before the 2010 purge. Most people who voted in 2008 voted for the D in front on his name not his agenda and that worked well for him.
If you analyse the election results carefully you will realise that he won suburbia which is what won the 2000 and 2004 elections for the republicans and suburbia is wealthy, have good private HC (which at 2008 covered 75% of all Americans) and is not interested in paying more taxes. Obama knew that and used the magic formula of social openness and steady as she goes and won.
Venezuela did not fail because of socialism, but because it is a petro state. Because it is a petro state, the US empire will never leave it alone. Whoever controls the oil controls the world. The whole modern world runs on oil. Chavez used what the puppet regimes for the US had previously set up in Venezuela, which was a petro state designed to be controlled and exploited for US interests, and he turned it into a resource source to fund state programs instead, as they do in the social-democratic state of Norway. The US ran a coup against him, which he survived, and then funneled money into a propaganda campaign against him through private media outfits from within until his death. Every time he attempted to limit the effect of this propaganda mouthpiece, the US would scream to high heaven about silencing the press, and lapdog Europe and elsewhere would cluck their tongues in the UN.
The price of oil has plummeted over the last 3 years, which has crippled this infrastructure in Venezuela. Some say this is a deliberate act on the part of Saudi Arabia who is trying to cripple their rival Iran by flooding oil markets with cheap crude just as the US has allowed them back into the US controlled system. This also helps to hurt the petro state of Russia and Venezuela, which makes the planners in US statecraft happy, and maybe that’s why the US is helping them destroy Yemen, despite the headaches that may cause down the road.
Argentina is not a socialist country. It has some social-democratic programs and an active socialist party, but it’s not socialist, and all of the economic crashes it has experienced in recent decades is due entirely to IMF programs which tie development loans to specific economic policies like export to the US at reduced or zero tariff and the abolition of social programs to pay for these destructive policies. It’s economic colonization that has terrorized Latin America, not socialism, the US claim of “manifest destiny” where they owned the entire western hemisphere before expanding out to the rest of the globe, what Secretary of War Henry Stimson called “our little region over here, which has never bothered anyone.”
It’s obvious that Obama, elected in an oligarchic system that had nurtured him through the best schools and through all the right appointments to public office was not a true leftist. This system is designed to prevent a real leftist from taking power, and were they to do it anyway, they can be blocked from achieving leftist policy. Only a people’s revolution from below can change this. It would be helpful to have an ally in a high office, but regardless, the people need to be leading the charge and heavily involved in decision making, not just following. You’re right that Obama won mostly because of the suburbs, and suburbs are more conservative. They have something to lose, after all. They have what’s left of the American Dream, but his messaging was equally as important. More than the leftist ideas of change for a better world that includes all people, the people elected Obama, because they wanted to believe in their country.
Before the internet truly exploded, and before 9/11, the people were mostly asleep. They believed in the fairy tales about their government. They knew little of the outside world, and thought about it even less. After 9/11, and during the presidency of George W. Bush, they learned that the world is darker than they knew. They learned that they were in danger too, even here, inside the castle walls. They learned that the US can invade a nation illegally based on lies and get away with it, that there’s no good guy minding the store. Of course the US has been doing that for a long time, but they didn’t know or care about that. What they did know about was all for the greater good, must not think about it too strongly though. Now, they saw themselves as potentially the bad guy, and what they wanted in Obama was to put those thoughts out of their head. They wanted to go back to a time when a charismatic guy smiled and laughed and joked like a normal person and the US was the good guy again. It was all just like TV, and they could go back to their lives and leave the leading to other people, but the damn internet fucked it up. Too many people all over the world talking to each other freely is always bad for any ruling class. So, they liked his talk, and his talk was important. He was going to put everything right again and all you had to do was vote. Like the capitalism and consumer culture they’ve been fed their whole lives, it’s easy. You just do this, turn this, plug it in, set it and forget it, and it’s all better. But you are right that they didn’t want too much change, the vast majority of people who voted for him, the people that put him in the office. To make radical change, we still have a lot of work to do to help people see, and people still think that they just have to vote for someone and it will all be better. They are still lost in the consumer culture madness that says it’s easy, it’s all about you, it’s all about your comfort and ease, and all you have to do is sign on the dotted line.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are both petro-dollar countries with a similar population size and far less natural resources like water and agriculture yet they did not suffer the same catastrophic failure Venezuela saw when oil prices collapsed. Venezuela was failing socially and economically well before Chávez died and the state media in Venezuela is government controlled and despite that the last elections the people who were so devoted to his legacy have had enough and gave a veto floor majority to the opposition despite the socialists using the state resources illegally to drown the free media. Don’t take my word for, Dave Koller has talked about this many times and he is anything but a right wing shill. The reason neither country failed is social cohesion and a strong private free enterprise system and almost no form of welfare other than a relatively large public sector that is still smaller than the one in Venezuela.
As for Argentina, its problems have nothing to do with the IMF. The UK, Russia, Turkey, South Korea and several all followed IMF conditions to the letter and returned from their crises stronger and richer and I saw that with my own eyes in Turkey which was apathetic basket case of a country in 98 and is now the fastest growing country in Europe despite having 4 million refugees and migrants for a country of 75 million. Argentina declared bankruptcy 3 times in 30 years because it borrowed money and went on a spending spree with massive corruption and little accountability and low taxes. The IMF told them what it told the countries above, good governance, high taxes on everyone and privatising unproductive state controlled entities, they did nothjng of the sort and once they sent out of bankruptcy returned to the old modes of production and collapsed yet again. There is a reason why the leftist media in Argentina failed to convince the people to elect a socialist and mr. Macri was elected unexpectedly and that is people were fed up with socialist nonsense.
As for the rest, I am afraid that you live in an alternate reality. Please go out in the world and expose yourself to other ideas, better still ask people who went through what you criticise whether they agree with you or not. Paul Krugman the other day pointed to contradicting surveys where when people were asked individually about their fortunes during the Obama years the majority indicated that their fortunes improved significantly, but when they were asked about their feelings about the economy in general it was a partisan breakdown with majorities on both sides indicating thatnthings are worse which makes sense only when you factor the internet propaganda that the complaint industry have been spewing on both sides everyday on all sides including here at TYT.
The state of affairs have never been better in the US in all its history.
soooo good! Seriously, it was amazing.
Jill and Cenk 2020!! lol
No way. If Cenk decides to run for office – which i don’t think he plans, he’d find a far better mate than JS
that’s gonna take a Constitutional Amendment
fuck we should just have a damn Constituional Convention and pull that thing into the 21st century
so I guess Ms. Stein is a portion of “other”
waste of an hour, well not mine
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
No shit dude. This is still a great town hall and well worth a listen.
you’re right, can’t do it
Also, in 4 years Jill will be Hillary’s age. She can damn well run again.
You’re right, again. I fall in the Jill Stein is a kooky attention grabber camp. (but that’s just my opinion, man)
But Bernie just proved how easy it could be to take over the Democratic Party, hell fucking Bernie Sanders almost did it.
It’s easier to steer a ship than it is to a build a ship.
Also she says that it would make the US bully’s and shouldn’t be committing crimes. But that is bull shit! There is a difference when you are at war, the rules of engagement are clear and it would be smart and legal to kill Baghdadi.
When did Congress pass a war declaration against ISIS (a non-state therefore disqualifying for war).
Wow… Dr Steins answer to the question at 22mins in, of whether she would if she was president and the location of Baghdadi was known give the order to kill him with a drone strike is a really poorly thought out answer.
She is comparing it to when a Nazi war criminal that was found and they captured him, but the difference is Baghdadi is the head of ISIS and is still actively directing it and causing death and suffering, The risk of losing him and the logistical planning to go in with US forces and capture him is too high. By taking him out ISIS loses it main leader and causes disruption within it fast.
1. less than 10% of drone strikes hit the intended target
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
2. you have no evidence killing baghdadi would disrupt ISIS enough to save lives
3. execution is wrong
4. execution without trial is more wrong
5. it makes us the terrorist
I am talking in this one instance, I do not support drone warfare overall. But if we knew his location, he should be taken out or if feasible use special forces to capture/kill mission.
So then you think it was wrong for the US to have killed Osama bin Laden, by the same logic? I personally felt great when they took him out this piece of shit execution being wrong and all.
Of fucking course it was stupid to just execute Bin Laden, when he could have given a load of intelligence on Al Qaeda and prevented innocent people dying by us finding out about other attacks, hidden cells in the US or Europe.
He could have been tried for the embassy bombings, he twin towers etc. and all those people affected and their family’s who have had loved ones ripped from them, could have got justice and closure in an international or a US military/civilian court and he would have had to answer to the world for his crimes, then he would have been sentenced to death anyway, but I’ glad you felt better…dickhead.
I still think that’s why we have spec ops for. I’d much rather a capture with the potential of gaining information as opposed to a possible miss with a drone strike. As the head I doubt he’d “hang tough” under interrogation, most likely been living comparatively soft, and I don’t mean through torture.
The thing that concerned me was the talk of quantitative easing, as I understand it, that could unintentionally result in devaluation of the dollar. But I’m not clear on that.
NO MORE BAILOUTS. It shouldn’t even be a conversation.
A soft interview with a first class nutjob/fairytale living person.
Had I been the interviewer this would have gone a different way and I would have asked different questions and fact checked her on the door to call out the nonsense she said.
A town hall is meant to be less aggressive than a debate. The point is to get to know the candidate better and importantly, hear their policy’s in full and substantive way.
You mean like how we as a nation learned what fav cocktail the candidates like & what song Ted Cruz sings to his wife? Or just how much does Hillary like hot sauce? She’s a Spicy Gal! I can’t remember …
Did Cruz love his wife “——-this much——” or “———————THIS MUCH ——————?”
Unlike the previous Oprah-esque town halls,
I think viewers actually learned something substantial about Dr. Stein here.
I am no longer on the fence. This Nov I will not vote fear, aka Hillary. Jill has my vote. Go Greens.
I’ve never seen Jill better than tonight.
Stop asking her who she would vote for between Trump and Clinton. That is what the stupid MSM does too. She is too smart and sees what you are trying to do. Fear from may work on you, but a lot of us care about the human race and the planet more than politics in general – without a planet there are no humans and also no politics…
The questions to Jill about What if the Russians invade Estonia?, How to pay for School Loan Jubilee,, coal industry jobs and how do we do without Saudi blood oil channeled the MSM’s FOXification of everything. Once you go to HER the spectrum instantly is pulled to the right.
Stein said that the USA should follow its NATO obligations, even though why NATO even exists is a good question.
NATO is the most aggressive military bloc on the planet, never used defensively, responsible for invasions, bombings, regime changes. It is useful to remember UK scholar Richard Sakwa’s “fateful geographical paradox”: NATO “exists to manage the risks created by its existence”.
You are right: overall the scope and framing of the questions that Cenk selected was right-wing. But not completely as Cenk did allow Kyle’s question about the drugs was left-wing.
Yay, Jill!!!
Excellent discussion. I now know more about how she thinks. Jill was inspirational and informative.
Boy am I proud to be a member today! Well done TYT!
Well done Jill Stien!
I just know next week’s aggressive progressive is gonna be awesome.
Can’the wait!
Loved watching this….something you didn’t see on Mainstream media! thanks TYT!