Live stream of Green Party CNN presidential town hall

The CNN town hall featuring Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka starts at 8 PM CST- live stream below:

68 thoughts on “Live stream of Green Party CNN presidential town hall

  1. Thomas Knapp

    She just said that all countries combined other that the US have a total of about 30 military bases. My guess is that’s low by two full orders of magnitude.

  2. T Rex

    Stein’s domestic policies are insane, but damn, she and her running mate are so much more articulate and polished than Johnson-Weld. They don’t apologize for their positions or try to disassociate from their party.

  3. T Rex

    “She left out ponies for everyone in her opening statement.”

    Jill Stein-Vermin Supreme 2016, baby!

  4. Anthony Dlugos

    Actually, Johnson-Weld never apologized for their positions. That’s why the Losertarian Caucus is apoplectic.

    Nor have they tried to disassociate from the LP.

    On the other hand, I do want a couple socialist loons like Stein and Running Mate Blah Blah to be as articulate as possible.

  5. T Rex

    “Actually, Johnson-Weld never apologized for their positions. That’s why the Losertarian Caucus is apoplectic.”

    Johnson-Weld apologize every day for LP positions and prefer to not say “libertarian” in any of their advertising. They clarify that they support the War on Drugs (except pot) and self-flagellate whenever they are asked about heroin, etc. Johnson refers to LP members as “batshit crazy” to suck up to the press.

    Whatever you think of Stein, she told an Israel supporter right to her face that she wouldn’t be changing her position on Israel. I admire that far more than Johnson-Weld’s boring waffling and centrism.

  6. George Dance

    TRex: “They clarify that they support the War on Drugs (except pot)”. Sorry, but I missed that clear statement of support for the War on Drugs.

  7. T Rex

    Come on now! Don’t be shy. I’m in a mood to debate statists. Just one of those nights!

  8. Jim

    T Rex – We’ve been over this. They don’t support legalization of all drugs right now because they don’t think the country is ready for it. They want to legalize marijuana and let the country come to an understanding that the world didn’t fall apart. They can then transition to treating drugs as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. And they don’t think they can get further than that in their term of office.

    At the practical level, the binary approach to the drug war means nothing changes. If you actually want change, you have to go through a transition.

  9. Jim

    Thomas Knapp – I’m guessing Stein meant the rest of the world combined had 30 military bases *outside of their own territory.* That’s probably close to true. She just left out the qualifier.

    The one that didn’t sound right to me was when she said that blacks had 5% of the wealth that whites had. If that’s true, it’s got to to be extremely skewed by the 1%. Or maybe she was talking globally and included Africa and Europe.

  10. Just Some Random Guy

    @ T. REx

    Johnson refers to LP members as “batshit crazy” to suck up to the press.

    Context:

    Samantha Bee: What sorts of people show up at the Libertarian Convention?
    Gary Johnson: You’re gonna find really wonderful, well-meaning, well-spoken people, and then people… who are just batshit crazy.

    So not only was this in the context of a joke (trying to be a little funny when featured on a comedy news show is “sucking up to the press”?), even if it was meant completely seriously, he was referring only to some and preceded it with a compliment.

  11. George Phillies

    “she said that blacks had 5% of the wealth that whites had”

    USA. I am not sure if the number is current.

    Would you are to propose an alternative? I believe Bloomberg.com had an article on the median at some recent point.

  12. George Dance

    TRex: “Then you haven’t read their website.

    “Governors Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal.” https://www.johnsonweld.com/war_on_drugs

    That is not “clarify[ing] that they support the War on Drugs (except pot)””

    “Do not support = keep illegal = enthusiastic War on Drugs endorsement”

    That is your own spin, not a statement from anyone in the Johnson campaign.

    “Go ahead and try to explain that one away!”

    Simple explanation: you were bullshitting.

  13. Thomas Knapp

    Libertarians are not the only ones who spend lots of energy trying to convince people (including themselves) “my candidate didn’t mean what he actually said, he meant what you and I wish he had said.”

    It’s just that when Libertarian candidates do it, other Libertarians find it more annoying.

  14. George Dance

    “Libertarians are not the only ones who spend lots of energy trying to convince people (including themselves) “my candidate didn’t mean what he actually said, he meant what you and I wish he had said.”
    “It’s just that when Libertarian candidates do it, other Libertarians find it more annoying.”

    There’s a difference between a “Libertarian” saying that Johnson “really means” he supports the War on Drugs (because that “Libertarian” wishes he’d said that), and him saying that Johnson has clearly stated that he supports the War on Drugs. The first is annoying enough; the second is not only annoying, but dishonest.

  15. Thomas Knapp

    If you say you don’t want to end the war on drugs, you’re saying you want to continue the war on drugs. And if you’re saying you want to continue the war on drugs, then by definition you’re saying you support the war on drugs.

    Nobody forced Johnson and Weld to decide they wanted to run against their own party’s platform on that issue. They decided to do that themselves. How about owning it instead of obfuscating over it?

  16. George Phillies

    “Governors Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal.”

    Yes, that’s clearly and unambiguously supporting the war on drugs, no matter how much the Johnson apologists pretend otherwise.

  17. steve m

    I believe that Johnson’s position on drugs such as heroin was to move them from the criminal domain to the medical domain. Stating that he wants to continue the drug war as it is ignores that his proposal is to put dealers out of business by giving the drugs away for free and providing testing labs so that users can minimize their risk.

    That might not be a Libertarian ideal but it would be a far different method than the drug war we are in today.

  18. Tony From Long Island

    T Rex ” . . . . They don’t apologize for their positions or try to disassociate from their party. . . . ”

    Last night on CNN with Don Lemon, Gary Johnson clearly stated that he and Gov. Weld were the LIBERTARIAN candidates. This crap about them purposely avoiding saying the word “libertarian” is ridiculous. By the way, how many times does Hillary say she is the DEMOCRATIC candidate in her ads? I would think it’s close to Zero.

    The purpose of ads is to sell the candidate, not the party.

    Yes, Jill Stein is articulate and speaks well, but much of what she spoke cause me to have that look on your face when you eat a lemon slice. I have tons of student debt, but couldn’t really understand how she was going to forgive that. Apparently neither did Chris Cuomo.

  19. Thomas Knapp

    steve m.

    Medicalization is something that Johnson goes into only when pressed. Unless someone pokes at him about it, the line is “Governors Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal.”

    Weld actually likes to talk about medicalization. He has specifically commended a “civil commitment” as opposed to “criminal prosecution” approach (first CNN Town Hall, IIRC).

    What’s the difference?

    In criminal prosecution, the state theoretically actually has to get a jury to find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime.

    In civil commitment, the burden of proof is much lower.

    The victim still goes somewhere that he doesn’t want to go because Bill Weld wants him sent there. It’s just that Bill Weld doesn’t have to work as hard to make the abduction and caging According to Hoyle.

    Bill Weld doesn’t just want to continue the war on drugs, he wants to strip us of as many due process protections as possible pursuant to it. Which seems to be a more general hobbyhorse of his (see “gun rights, preferred effect of secret government enemies lists on” for more information). And which frankly doesn’t sound very libertarian to me.

  20. Tony From Long Island

    George Phillies: “. . . .Governors Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal.”

    Yes, that’s clearly and unambiguously supporting the war on drugs, no matter how much the Johnson apologists pretend otherwise.

    It’s called trying to get elected. Despite the best efforts of the LP, full legalization of recreational drugs (other than marijuana) is an extremely unpopular position. . . . . incrementalism . . . Johnson has often and loudly called for treating drug use as a medical issue rather than criminal. Doesn’t sound like a drug warrior to me.

  21. Thomas Knapp

    Tony,

    It may be, as you say, impossible to get elected while supporting an end to the war on drugs.

    But that’s not what’s at issue here.

    What’s at issue is Johnson’s supporters pretending that he DOES support an end to the war on drugs when he clearly and unambiguously and repeatedly says he DOESN’T.

    If Johnson wants to run against the platform of the party that nominated him, fine, but why do his supporters feel the need to keep telling us that he actually means the opposite of what he says and that we’d know that if we had decoder rings like they do?

  22. Steve m

    Thomas what Johnson has unambiguously stated is that “when it comes to all other drugs, I advocate harm- reduction strategies which is looking at the drug problem first as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue.”

  23. steve m

    Thomas, actually he has articulated and expanded upon that idea. He discussed the Vancouver BC model of harm reduction during one of the CNN town halls.

  24. Tony From Long Island

    Gov. Johnson: ” . . . when it comes to all other drugs, I advocate harm- reduction strategies which is looking at the drug problem first as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue.”

    Thomas: ” . . . . Yes, that’s what Johnson says if poked, pressed, etc. . . . ”

    So then, that’s what he says? Yes, it is. Whether poked, prodded or tickled. That’s what he says.

  25. steve m

    By the way the quote I used was from a GOP presidential debate in 2011. So this is not a new position for the benefit of Libertarians.

  26. George Dance

    Tom Knapp: “If you say you don’t want to end the war on drugs, you’re saying you want to continue the war on drugs. ”

    Great. Now: Can you find the statement where he “clarified” that he does not want to end the war on drugs? Or do you just wish he’d said that?

  27. Anthony Dlugos

    Where does this idea come from that J-W are “apologizing” for their positions?

    If anything, J-W are being quite clear where they deviate from the platform. Starting with Johnson on the CRA at the Saturday night debate in Orlando.

  28. George Dance

    Tony: “Gov. Johnson: ” . . . when it comes to all other drugs, I advocate harm- reduction strategies which is looking at the drug problem first as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue.”
    Thomas: ” . . . . Yes, that’s what Johnson says if poked, pressed, etc. . . . ”
    “So then, that’s what he says? Yes, it is. Whether poked, prodded or tickled. That’s what he says.”

    But it’s not what the the Johnson-bashers *wish* he’d said.

    Johnson keeps saying things like: “The root is the war on drugs, I believe. Police knocking down doors, shooting first… Shootings are occurring with black people, black people are dying… The focus on drugs needs to be as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. It can be illegal but does it need to be criminal? Do you need to go to jail for drugs?” Johnson said. “I do believe that the root of the militarization, knocking on doors, is a drug war phenomenon.”

    But if you’re a Johnson-basher, and you wish he was saying he wants to militarize the police, knock down people’s doors, and shoot them if they’re black, then you’re going to pretend that’s what he “actually said” instead.

  29. Thomas Knapp

    “Great. Now: Can you find the statement where he ‘clarified’ that he does not want to end the war on drugs?”

    It’s right there on his web site and has been pointed out to you numerous times. He also said it over and over and over on the first CNN Town Hall.

  30. Be Rational

    Actually what Johnson has said since his 2016 nomination is that he only wantts to legalize marijuana for now. He does not want to legalize other drugs right now, but he has also stated that he would if he had a magic wand to do so.

    For drug users, he wants to end the war on drugs and medicalize the issue rather than treat users as criminals.

    So, Johnson’s position is that he wants to end the war on drugs without legalizing any drugs other than marijuana, for now.

  31. George Dance

    “Great. Now: Can you find the statement where he ‘clarified’ that he does not want to end the war on drugs?”

    Tom Knapp: “It’s right there on his web site and has been pointed out to you numerous times. He also said it over and over and over on the first CNN Town Hall.”

    Funny; all I’ve read is that other statement, which “actually says” only that Johnson does not campaigning on legalizing any drugs besides marijuana.

    Since you’ve been unable to produce this alleged statement supporting the Drug War, there is absolutely no reason to believe you’ve seen it, either.

  32. George Dance

    Be Rational: “For drug users, he wants to end the war on drugs and medicalize the issue rather than treat users as criminals.

    So, Johnson’s position is that he wants to end the war on drugs without legalizing any drugs other than marijuana, for now.”

    Yes, but if you didn’t like Johnson (because he’s held elective office as a Republican), wouldn’t you want to call him a Drug Warrior?

  33. steve m

    http://www.johnsonweld.com/war_on_drugs

    I guess the English language is different in the Pacific North West than Florida because to me their web site says pretty much the same thing as the above quote.

    “The War on Drugs is an expensive failure. We spend money to police it. We spend money to incarcerate nonviolent offenders. And what do we get in return? A society that kicks our troubled mothers, fathers, and young adults while they’re down, instead of giving them the tools to be healthier and more productive members of society.

    We can save thousands of lives and billions of dollars by simply changing our approach to drug abuse. That is why Gary Johnson came out as an early proponent on the national stage in 1999 while Governor of New Mexico, and publicly stated his support of marijuana legalization.

    Governors Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal. It is, however, their belief that drug rehabilitation and harm-reduction programs result in a more productive society than incarceration and arrests for drug use. “

  34. steve m

    I am wondering just how Thomas interprets ” their belief that drug rehabilitation and harm-reduction programs result in a more productive society than incarceration and arrests for drug use. “ as being pro drug war?

  35. Thomas Knapp

    “Funny; all I’ve read is that other statement, which ‘actually says’ only that Johnson does not campaigning on legalizing any drugs besides marijuana.”

    No, I’ve never seen any statement from Johnson that says anything like “I’m only CAMPAIGNING on not ending the drug war, I don’t actually SUPPORT not ending the drug war.”

    That said, I apologize to Krzysztof Lesiak. He set up a thread to discuss the Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka, and here we’ve turned it into another back and forth about whether Johnson/Weld mean what they actually say, or what their cultists want them to mean.

    If I’m not mistaken, that digression began when someone asserted that the Green Party’s candidates aren’t simpering bullshit artists like (ahem) some other candidates. Does anyone have an opinion on that? Or on anything Stein/Baraka actually said?

    I see that Tony asks how Stein would forgive student debt. My understanding is that in recent years, at least some student loans have come direct from the federal government instead of coming from regular banks and being guaranteed by the federal government. The former category would seem pretty straightforward to forgive. Presumably the latter would be structured as some kind of bank bailout.

  36. steve m

    I understand Jill Stein’s position to be have the federal reserve buy up all the 1.3 trillion in student loan debt and then forgive the debt. In essence putting 1.3 trillion dollars into circulation. For the future make college education free. Which she could pay for with her 50% defense department budget cuts.

    Oh on Johnson let me fix that for you, no charge 😉

    “or what their detracting pundits want them to mean.”

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    “or what their detracting pundits want them to mean.”

    I’ll stipulate that that’s at least theoretically possible. I’ll have a look around and let you know if I find any instances of it 😉

  38. Tony From Long Island

    Thomas:: ” . . . . My understanding is that in recent years, at least some student loans have come direct from the federal government instead of coming from regular banks and being guaranteed by the federal government. The former category would seem pretty straightforward to forgive. Presumably the latter would be structured as some kind of bank bailout. . . . ”

    The banks at least had to pay back that free taxpayer money. With a student loan bailout, It would be POOF, I no longer owe them money. My loans were originally through New York State. When I took a “long term vacation” through the state, my balance went from 19,000 to 33,000 (through late fees and interest). I just recently got out of default and hope that my monthly payment doesn’t drown me.

    I have absolutely no probably paying what I owed when I “took a break from society.” I’m not sure how I would feel ethically about being bailed out. At the same time, I don’t really understand the logistics of Dr. Stein’s proposal without it ballooning an already large federal debt.

  39. Tony From Long Island

    Hmmm, Steve’s point about defense cuts equaling out the debt forgiveness is very intriguing to me. As some of you may know (particularly those who question my libertarian bona fides), I feel very strongly about overseas intervention and am a big fan of shrinking our military, so . . . hmm

  40. Anthony Dlugos

    Knapp,

    Being…or not being…a simpering bullshit artist has nothing to do with the difference between the way J-W talk and the way Stein-Blah Blah talks.

    It’s very easy to stand for your principles when you have absolutely nothing to lose. Not only is Stein behind Johnson in the polls, the Green ticket has zero elective office experience. As hard as it is for a third party to win the presidency, Stein winning it would be Sui generis.

    If it makes you feel any better, if Stein ever got within shouting distance of the polling numbers for the debates, you can be sure the “simpering bullshit artist” type of candidate you despise would no doubt come out.

    “Principled Libertarian candidate” is usually just a euphemism for the shitty resume of a person who wouldn’t be hired to run a pizza place with less than 10 employees.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    “the Green ticket has zero elective office experience. As hard as it is for a third party to win the presidency, Stein winning it would be Sui generis.”

    Yes, because Eisenhower never existed.

  42. Anthony Dlugos

    Eisenhower? You mean General of the Army, Governor of the American Zone of Occupied Germany, Chief of Staff of the Army, and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe? That Eisenhower?

    Yea, I think he was a tad more experienced in leadership position, lol.

  43. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    I doubt that Stein is very worried about the national debt. Her economic theory seems to rest primarily on the idea that the only reason everyone doesn’t have everything Jill Stein thinks they should have is that nobody’s ever been elected president who wished real hard for them to have those things.

    I’m not a socialist, but at least most of the various types of socialists seem to have spent some time thinking shit over even if they reached the wrong conclusions. Stein threw together a laundry list of nice things and announced that she will make them “human rights,” upon which pronouncement they will presumably fall from the sky or something. I suspect that the Green Party’s economics-oriented wing starts pulling its collective (of course) hair out every time noise starts coming out of her mouth.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    “You mean General of the Army, Governor of the American Zone of Occupied Germany, Chief of Staff of the Army, and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe? That Eisenhower?”

    Yes. Which one of those was the “elective office experience” you speak of?

    In point of fact, it wasn’t until after Eisenhower was nominated that he learned he was supposed to tell the convention who he’d like as a running mate. He just assumed that was something the delegates figured out.

  45. langa

    By the way the quote I used was from a GOP presidential debate in 2011. So this is not a new position for the benefit of Libertarians.

    That’s actually one of the things that drives me crazy about Johnson. Not only did he run a more libertarian campaign in 2012 than he is currently running, but even when he ran in the GOP primaries, he took more libertarian stances than he does now. Heck, it seems like he gets less libertarian by the day.

  46. langa

    …if you didn’t like Johnson (because he’s held elective office as a Republican)…

    Try again. Many of Johnson’s harshest critics here on IPR (such as Andy and myself) are huge fans of Ron Paul, who spent a lot longer as an elected Republican than Johnson has. Of course, Ron Paul is an actual libertarian, instead of a moderate centrist.

  47. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Many of Johnson’s harshest critics here on IPR (such as Andy and myself) are huge fans of Ron Paul”

    And others don’t like that pork-barreling authoritarian social conservative careerist hack either.

  48. langa

    I suspect that the Green Party’s economics-oriented wing starts pulling its collective (of course) hair out every time noise starts coming out of her mouth.

    That assumes that the Green Party actually has an economics-oriented wing.

  49. Thomas L. Knapp

    “That assumes that the Green Party actually has an economics-oriented wing.”

    It does. Although “wing” might be the wrong word. There are Greens who care about economics. They’re mostly Marxists of one flavor or another. Which, of course, means they’re pretty much completely wrong about pretty much everything but in a different way than Stein is. Sort of like …

  50. Andy

    Yeah, Ron Paul is such an authoritarian social conservative that he called for completely ending the War on Drugs and legalizing prostitution. Ron Paul is also “careerist hack” who refuses to collect a congressional pension. Another epic fail from Tom Knapp.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    If by completely ending the war on drugs and legalizing prostitution you mean leaving both up to the states, you’re right. Otherwise you’re wrong.

    That said, all I was pointing out was that no, not all of Johnson’s critics are Paul cultists.

  52. Jim

    George Phillies “she said that blacks had 5% of the wealth that whites had”…Would you are to propose an alternative? I believe Bloomberg.com had an article on the median at some recent point.”

    I didn’t have an alternative in mind. After doing some research, that does appear to be the case. The number I saw for 2013 was 8.2%, but that’s close enough.

    In researching this, it appears to be a relatively recent reversal of a long term trend towards closing the wealth gap. Median net worth of black households was 5.6% of whites in 1989. The ratio had increased to 16.3% by 1998 and remained around that level until 2007.

    Between 2007 and 2013 median assets of white households declined by 20% while debt declined by 17% Median net worth of white households declined by 27%. Black household median net worth peaked before the recession began, in 2004. Between 2004 and 2013 median assets of black households declined by 39% while debt declined by 8%. Median net worth of black households declined by 56%.

    Outside of the lousy economy hitting blacks harder in recent years, the explanations for the long term difference in median household net worth were varied. The disparity persists even after adjusting for income. At every income level, whites are far more likely than blacks to be able to pay a $400 emergency expense with cash. The explanation offered by the Federal Reserve is attitudes towards saving. Whites are significantly more tolerant of risk, more likely to have a long term investing horizon, and less likely to approve of borrowing to pay for vacations and luxury expenses.

    Other explanations included blaming racist red-line policies for blacks having lower home equity (and lower home ownership rates in general), to racist hiring practices for blacks earning less income (which was the explanation for college educated blacks earning less than college educated whites, not that blacks tended towards getting different degrees), to lower overall educational attainment by blacks.

  53. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Jim

    Other explanations included blaming racist red-line policies for blacks having lower home equity (and lower home ownership rates in general), to racist hiring practices for blacks earning less income (which was the explanation for college educated blacks earning less than college educated whites, not that blacks tended towards getting different degrees), to lower overall educational attainment by blacks.

    I wonder, do the people who say things like this blame racist hiring practices for the fact Asians make more money than whites on average?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *