Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by couchpillow
couchpillow  ·  813 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: What do you think of Dr Jill Stein and The Green Party?

You know, I never really knew anything about the green party but I was curious because when I take the isidewith.com questionarre, she somehow winds up at the top of my list. Right where Bernie used to be. But based on what ya'll are saying below, it doesn't seem I would really agree with her/her platforms policies. Makes me wonder a bit about isidewith.com now.. I thought that was fairly legit.

My biggest problem (not having really known very much about the green party platform) was that I didn't really consider her a big contender because I didn't think she really had any sufficient experience for the role. I never really bothered to look much up about her and the platform in general even after isidewith.com said she would be the best to represent my views.

I'd love to see other parties really get into the fray here, but based on what I'm learning now, I don't think the green party is really it. Not to derail you original topic, but I'm curious now - do any of you see any other parties out there that are not well known that could be considered centrist at all? A party that tries to maybe marry some of the better points of the two main parties into one? Is it possible to have smart and sensible social programs and government regulation alongside reasonable fiscal conservatism? It seems the two main parties would say that isn't possible. But I feel there are a lot of people out there like me that believe there ought to be a way to accomplish something like that.




organicAnt  ·  813 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Did you watch any of her interviews? I'd take second hand opinions with a grain of salt. There's a lot of misinformation going around, whether intentionally or not. This can be said for any political party. Always get the info from the horse's mouth so you can understand the context and reasoning.

couchpillow  ·  813 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Very true. I will take a look at these this evening. It is true though that she has never held public office before though if I'm not mistaken, which was really why I had initially disregarded her. I mean I'm all for getting more 'political outsiders' involved to a certain extent. But I don't know that putting someone in the presidential seat with zero public office experience of any sort really makes a lot of good sense.

organicAnt  ·  813 days ago  ·  link  ·  

She actually answers that criticism and many others in her interviews. She says that not being a career politician would work in her favour as she's less likely to be coerced by the political and lobbying systems. She's a medical doctor, it's not as if she lacks the brain power to learn/adapt to whatever circumstances. Something that cannot be said from all candidates in this race.

It'd be interesting to know what you think after watching some interviews. I appreciate you giving it a fair chance.

couchpillow  ·  812 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I didn't get a chance to watch the videos just yet. But I'm interested in giving my current perspective on experience and hear your (and others) potentially differing opinion.

Generally, I feel I am all for 'political outsiders' to enter into politics. This would/should bring in fresh perspectives and new ideas and what not, not to mention that often, the longer someone is IN politics and 'playing the game' they probably more often than not, become more susceptible to corruption and various agendas that wind up being more about self preservation than truly doing your job for the people.

BUT.. I would say that when it comes to the US Presidency, I'm not sure that I feel it's correct/good/better/ok to put someone in that particular position that has never held any public office before at all. Not to say that it doesn't/hasn't happened. Reagan never held office prior to becoming elected right? I'm sure there are others. But my reasoning for this is, the US President, the Commander in Chief, is arguable the most prominent and powerful position on the planet. It seems to me, that the person elected to that position ought to already have some genuine experience in somewhat similar type roles, of serving the people, of steering and coordinating something rather large and unwieldy.

Sure, an intelligent person could easily step in and start learning my job tomorrow. And in some period of time, they could be reasonable decent and effective. But, there is no way for someone to quickly acquire my 20+ years of experience doing this job. Which means that regardless of their intelligence, for a long period of time I would most like be far more effective and efficient due to the long period of time I have been doing this work and all the little details I've learned over that time.

Now, maybe public office is a bit of a different animal. But I'm certain that there is a whole lot that goes on that many lay people like myself are not aware of. The details of truly 'getting things done'. How all that behind the scenes works.

I'm not saying that I don't think she COULD do it or she isn't intelligent enough to do it. And I really don't want to find out at all if Trump could do it. But I guess I just feel that it makes a lot of sense for someone vying for the Presidency, to have a certain amount of experience and knowledge about really what that position would be like. Damn near every other job listing has at least a desired if not required experience level. And the idea of anyone being able to run and be elected president is great and all, I just don't know if that's the right place to start - at the top. Seems a little bit like something that should be worked up to, at least to a certain extent.

Anyhow, that's kind of how I view it. Curious to hear other opinions.

organicAnt  ·  812 days ago  ·  link  ·  

In the wider context of things, experience in the public sector doesn't rank as high priority in my list of must haves for a leader of a country. Being intelligent, compassionate, pro-peace and independent from industry and financial influence does. The day to day tasks are ran by civil servants anyway. The commander in chief has to have a clear and incorruptible vision that represents the people wants, that's all.