Wisconsin helped swing the election for Trump in 2016. Stein got 30,000 votes and he won it by 22,000. This looks like another potential problem for Biden that’s getting little attention. They were just talking about it on Stephenopolous.
Jill Stein/ Green Party will be on ballot in Wisconsin
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
Too much cheese and beer for those Pillsbury people.
This the stupid bitch I voted for in 2012. Some of us learn from our mistakes.
I don’t like Olbermann but he’s not wrong.
Russians launched pro-Jill Stein social media blitz to help Trump, reports say
Building support for Stein was one of a “roster of themes” the Moscow-sanctioned internet trolls “turned to repeatedly,” report says.
www.nbcnews.com
This really fits. Russia has been revealed to be a major backer of European anti-nuclear Green Parties for years (helps drive business for their fossil fuel business).
Not surprised to find US Green Party likely on the take from Russia as well.
Last edited:
Fun fact Stephenoplous married one of the cast of In Living Color and also played the whore girlfriend who cheated on Peter in Office Space. This has been a useless fact.
Yep, her and Ralph Nader gave a giant assist to the GQP making this country far worse over the past quarter century. F both of them
Stein would be better than Trump or Biden. Good for her.
I had an interaction with a Green Party person where they said that even though Stein will lose voting for her will raise awareness and get them more funding in future elections.
He was 20-something.
He was 20-something.
Had a 20 something girl tell me the same thing before the 2020 elections, pretty much verbatim. Does Jill cover this during her rallies? "Yes we will surely lose but we will raise awareness and get more funding for future elections!".
The girl hated Trump with a passion and saw voting for Jill Stein as some kind of response to that. Tossing that vote in the trash definitely stuck it to Trump.
Not really. She would be as bad as Trump since she is a wholly owned subsidiary to Vladimir Putin and the Russians as well. Although I doubt there is a pee tape on her. But she's subservient to them nonetheless.
She doesn’t sound great. But perhaps more and more people voting for a Green Party will help make changes in the future. Clearly this extreme left and extreme right two party candidacy isn’t working the greatest lately.
Maybe we can get more candidates that actually care about the people living here and make decisions that help both parties and not just one.
Maybe we can get more candidates that actually care about the people living here and make decisions that help both parties and not just one.
You take available information and draw conclusions from that. She sat at a table with Putin himself and Michael Flynn. If you think they were just talking about the dinner they were served I have some beach front property in Nebraska for sale you can buy.
Thanks. I wasn't aware of all of this. I googled Jill Stein + putin and found these links on the first page. They cast a little bit of a different light.
PBS interview
Newsweek
CBS News
I probably have a different way of looking at these things than most here. First, in my personal life I'm passive aggressive. I also subscribe to the notion of keeping friends close and enemies closer. Finally, I learned early in life that loud public threats should be feared less than private words or simple actions. If I were POTUS, I wouldn't embrace Putin, but I would keep a dialogue with him to privately let him know the consequences of his actions.
I think Stein might have been naive to think she could convince Putin that peace is best, without having the ability and willpower to express what the alternative brings. Of course I'd never say it's OK to invade a NATO member, or that "a little incursion into Ukraine is OK".
I appreciate the honest dialogue.
Although she probably isn't getting as much russian support as trump, that is where the bulk of her support is coming from.
I see a vote for Trump or Biden as throwing my vote in the trash. I don’t plan on enabling this dumb shit we keep doing. Time for an intervention. Brewster Millions style.
Why does what Putin says carry any weight with you? He is lying, murdering dictator. No one should trust a single thing he says.
I find their politics to be about the most fascinating in the country. Look who they voted for.
Obama twice
Trump once
Biden once
Tony Evers
Ron Johnson
Tammy Baldwin
There can't be another state with this wide of a group of statewide selections.
Sort of a microcosm of the nation at large.
The ruralt/urban divide is stark and seemingly balanced, which probably leads to their wild pendulum swings in such a short amount of time. It tells me that Wisconsinites are either more politically passionate than their peers or just drunk.
Well, I judge actions over what a politician says. Her actions have been very much actions that will not get her elected but enable Trump to get elected. She can try to justify it all she wants, it's what she does that matters. She had zero chance of winning in 2016 and she has less than that this time. If she cared about the issues she claims are on her platform (an environmentalism focus) then she would understand that the worst thing that can happen for that is for Trump to gain the Presidency. I can't find a list of states she'll be on the ballot on but if it's just a handful of swing states it becomes even clearer what she is doing.
By the way, for the "they are both too old" crowd, Stein is 73. If you want to go younger then she isn't who you are looking for.
What would your reaction be if Putin said he prefers Trump?
Fair enough.
You really care most about Trump losing, rather than policy. Stein wouldn't be perfect to me because of her policies, but she at least appears to have far superior cognitive abilities compared to Trump and Biden, despite her age.
Dems have a younger candidate - Dean Phillips.
If I saw the two as even remotely equivalent, I would probably have a similar perspective.
I care that Trump loses because of his policies. Especially for his policies. Anyone that calls themselves an American and says they are voting for Trump is NOT voting on policy because his policies are to completely dismantle the governmental structures that have guided this country for the last 150 years, and in some cases things that have been in our Constitution since it was first signed. You can't support Trump and still be considered an American, at least not in the traditional sense.
Stein is no smarter than Biden and she's a kindergartner compared to Biden when it comes to politics and operating inside of Washington. You need to stop watching Fox News and their edited yellow journalist videos of him. You know who isn't complaining about Biden's cognitive abilities? The people who work with him. You know who is complaining about Trump's cognitive abilities? The people who worked with him. That should tell you something.
And I won't vote for Trump because he's unhinged, unpresidential, totally immoral, vindictive, and a generally horrible excuse for a human being. Wait... he has never even been truly successful as a businessman, and is only good at convincing others to lend him money.
I'd rather have Trump's general policies than Biden's. That doesn't mean I agree with all of those policies either, like Trump tax cuts or punitive tariffs, and so on. Regulation has become excessive, and that doesn't truly represent your last 150 years.
I don't watch Fox News. I get my news from the MSN news feed. It's become impossible to hide Biden's decline, no matter what you wish for. As far as the people who work with him, they know about his decline because they prepare his speeches and his notes. They enjoy a lot of power internally because Joe needs them, so they aren't going to complain.
BTW, I started out by saying Stein is better than Trump or Biden. I still think that. I think Biden is compromised by the Chinese. In the end, I won't be voting for any of the 3.
JFC. How do you not watch Fox News if you believe the Chinese have compromised Biden? I mean, he's no more compromised them than the entire American economy is since they do so much of our manufacturing. If that is what you are talking about then I am in complete agreement with you on that, but that doesn't change no matter who you put in as President.
Newsflash, Biden has always stumbled over his words. A verbal gaffe is actually what ended his campaign back when he was running for the nomination in 2008. Huh, imagine there was a time when that was possible. However, by this point if you aren't aware of Biden's struggles with speaking then that says a lot more about you and what you understand about the candidates than anything else. Just because someone loses their train of thought or flubs a phrase doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't hold it against Trump too much either if he wouldn't then double down on whatever he said and then accuse others of being wrong about what he said, despite it being recorded. Also, flubbing words is different than screaming about retribution for your enemies, mass deportation into concentration camps, and whatever other terrifying dystopian ideas Trump has screamed out at a rally. Also, I prefer Presidents who understand that they are not an expert in everything and will defer to people who know wtf they are doing when it comes to dealing with issues. I wish Republicans would do that too. Now, Stein wouldn't be that aggressive, but if Putin asked her to jump, she would do it. But she doesn't have any shot of winning. She's just there to try and keep Biden from winning.
No. It’s actually much worse. She’s hopelessly naive. She was a 65 year-old woman who thought she was going to talk Putin out of using violence.
Dude, talking to world leaders who have been dead for years isn't stuttering.
I suppose the news feed on MSN.com has a few sites that you don't look at. It's a fact that China has directly done business with Hunter and James, and that Joe has met with their Chinese business partners.
How long before you learn you were deliberately duped?
WMD, Part II: CIA "Cooked The Intelligence" To Hide That Russia Favored Clinton, Not Trump In 2016
Russia didn't fear Hillary Clinton. “It was a relationship they were comfortable with,” some CIA analysts believed, but intelligence was suppressed. On the fall of the last great Russiagate myth
|
It was all a lie.
The Trump-Russia scandal made its formal public launch on January 6th, 2017, when the office of then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper published an Intelligence Community Assessment, or ICA, dominating headlines and upending the incoming Donald Trump administration. The report declared Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an “influence campaign” in the 2016 presidential election — they never used the word “interference” — to “denigrate” Hillary Clinton and “harm her electability,” thanks to a “clear preference for President-elect [Donald] Trump.”
It was powerful stuff. And dead wrong.
“They cooked the intelligence,” says a source close to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia scandal, whose full findings have until now been blocked from release. “They made it look like Putin supported Trump,” the source added. “The evidence points the other way.”
The HPSCI investigators, who worked out of a “small office in Langley” and had broad access to classified documentation and witnesses from the CIA and other agencies, found U.S. intelligence analysts had “a lot of stuff about the Russians calling Trump ‘mercurial,’ ‘unreliable,’ and ‘not steady.’” On the other hand, the agency had information that Russians saw Hillary as “manageable and reflecting continuity. It was a relationship they were comfortable with.”
“We looked at the report and the sourcing they used to evaluate the sourcing,” we were told. “hen we dug further to look at the data available to them that they didn’t use, and it overwhelmingly contradicted their conclusions that Russia supported Trump.”
The effort to manufacture the Intelligence Community claim that Russians had a “clear preference” for Trump” was led by then-CIA Director John Brennan, whom sources also implicate in an unprecedented effort to place more than two dozen Trump aides and associates under surveillance prior to the election. U.S. intel leaders like Brennan coaxed foreign allies, particularly from so-called “Five Eyes” security partners like the United Kingdom, into “making contacts and bumping” Trump associates throughout 2016.
A crucial conclusion of the HPSCI investigators was that both the surveillance campaign and the rapidly assembled ICA were conducted for political reasons. This was not a national security investigation that turned political. It began as a political enterprise.
“They thought they could damage Trump,” the source said. “It had nothing to do with our relationship with Russia. It was just leveraging capabilities to undermine this rookie unprepared Trump campaign, because they were easy marks.”
@CarolinaHawkeye
This information squares with a report from a little-noticed interview of FBI Special Agent William Barnett, who was part of both the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe and the subsequent Special Counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller. On September 21, 2020, Barnett told investigators in a different review that the initial belief that the Trump campaign was “penetrated by Russians” was “opaque,” a case theory based on “supposition after supposition.” He described a lack of predication and a “get Trump” attitude among investigators, who were guided by what he called “astro projection,” which led them from dead end to dead end in an Ahab-like search for an elusive “quid pro quo.”
The information obtained by Public and Racket is based on information from three sources close to the HPSCI investigation, who described reports and internal documentation assiduously kept from the public for years. Though gathered by Republican-appointed investigators, the data came from the U.S. intelligence community’s own records of the Trump-Russia investigation, just like another probe conducted by the same office that has already been proven true – the FISA abuse investigation.
At the time of Trump’s inauguration, the House Intelligence Committee was chaired by California Republican Devin Nunes, who launched an inquiry into the Trump-Russia investigation in March of 2017. Within a year, this HPSCI team put out an initial “Nunes memo” describing FBI malfeasance in obtaining secret FISA surveillance on Trump figures like former aide Carter Page in the 2016 campaign. Though universally denounced by Democratic officials and media figures at the time of its publication in February 2018, the Nunes memo would be vindicated a year later by a scathing report on the same FISA abuses by Barack Obama’s appointee to Inspector General of the Justice Department, Michael Horowitz.
The Nunes memo dealt a blow to the credibility of the Trump-Russia investigation and the infamous “Steele Dossier” reports, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign firm, Perkins Coie. However, the 2018 memo only represented a share of the HPSCI team’s work, as intelligence officials in both the Trump and Biden administrations blocked release of other conclusions. In particular, results of a “3,000 hour” investigation into the creation of Brennan’s Intelligence Community Assessment have been in a “vault in the CIA” since 2018.
“We had two teams. There was the larger team back at the ranch at [HPSCI] headquarters, doing our thing with the depositions and fighting DOJ,” says former Principal Deputy to the Acting Director of National Intelligence Kash Patel, who led the overall HPSCI probe. “Then we had a couple of IC subject matter folks that were reviewing everything that happened, specific to the ICA that Brennan had authorized.”
The smaller group of “IC subject matter folks” worked out of that small office at CIA headquarters, with “ingress and egress” strictly controlled by the Agency. This unit’s work on Brennan’s Assessment resulted in a report of “about 18 pages,” written by four primary authors. The team also contributed materials that ended up in a binder that Trump tried to declassify in a frantic struggle in the waning days of his administration.
Patel two years ago told RealClearInvestigations that the release of this report describing “significant intelligence tradecraft failings” was blocked by former CIA director Gina Haspel, who played a significant part in this story. Haspel was CIA station chief in London in the summer of 2016, and the FBI could not open its “Crossfire Hurricane” probe of Trump in the U.K. without her help.
“If the FBI wants to go overseas, they have to get permission from the host nation,” says Patel. “And the way you do that is through the intelligence community.” Haspel of course became CIA Director in the summer of 2018.
Sources told Public and Racket that Brennan and the ICA authors “embellished” their conclusion by upgrading unreliable sources to reliable. Investigators found “3-4 instances” in which they couldn’t find a “credible historic reporting line” for sources in the ICA report, and found the “source rating” had been changed. Dissent, even within Brennan’s group of 24 “hand-picked” analysts — not from 17 agencies but just three — was overruled.
One former senior CIA official said such activity has to be weighed carefully. Elevating sources with little or no history could be a “mortal sin,” as it was in the WMD affair when negative information about the infamous “Curveball” source Rafid Ahmad Alwan was withheld. However, the official said it “also might not be” a sin, as the absence of a reporting line isn’t the same thing as the presence of negative information. You have to have “some flexibility… to tinker.”
However, multiple sources said Brennan’s exclusion of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research (INR) were and are red flags pointing to a manipulated conclusion.
“The real story is that Brennan and Clapper succeeded in marginalizing both the State Department and the DIA, which has primary responsibility for the GRU,” says former CIA official Ray McGovern.
Former Russian ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock in 2018 described being told by a “Senior official” that “the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it.”
“State and Defense are the two big players,” agrees another former diplomat with a connection to the case. The CIA in recent times has occasionally kept State out of the loop out of concerns about leaks, but to keep out the DIA was “crazy,” the source said.
The story of a highly influential whitewashed intelligence product whose true conclusions only became known later is, of course, not new. This also happened in the WMD affair, when a politically charged intelligence report concluded that Saddam Hussein was intent on pursuing nuclear weapons. This allowed officials like then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to maintain the U.S. had “bulletproof” evidence of Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda. Not until 2015 – a dozen years after the fact – would it become known that the report said there was “no operational tie” between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
This information squares with a report from a little-noticed interview of FBI Special Agent William Barnett, who was part of both the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe and the subsequent Special Counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller. On September 21, 2020, Barnett told investigators in a different review that the initial belief that the Trump campaign was “penetrated by Russians” was “opaque,” a case theory based on “supposition after supposition.” He described a lack of predication and a “get Trump” attitude among investigators, who were guided by what he called “astro projection,” which led them from dead end to dead end in an Ahab-like search for an elusive “quid pro quo.”
The information obtained by Public and Racket is based on information from three sources close to the HPSCI investigation, who described reports and internal documentation assiduously kept from the public for years. Though gathered by Republican-appointed investigators, the data came from the U.S. intelligence community’s own records of the Trump-Russia investigation, just like another probe conducted by the same office that has already been proven true – the FISA abuse investigation.
At the time of Trump’s inauguration, the House Intelligence Committee was chaired by California Republican Devin Nunes, who launched an inquiry into the Trump-Russia investigation in March of 2017. Within a year, this HPSCI team put out an initial “Nunes memo” describing FBI malfeasance in obtaining secret FISA surveillance on Trump figures like former aide Carter Page in the 2016 campaign. Though universally denounced by Democratic officials and media figures at the time of its publication in February 2018, the Nunes memo would be vindicated a year later by a scathing report on the same FISA abuses by Barack Obama’s appointee to Inspector General of the Justice Department, Michael Horowitz.
The Nunes memo dealt a blow to the credibility of the Trump-Russia investigation and the infamous “Steele Dossier” reports, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign firm, Perkins Coie. However, the 2018 memo only represented a share of the HPSCI team’s work, as intelligence officials in both the Trump and Biden administrations blocked release of other conclusions. In particular, results of a “3,000 hour” investigation into the creation of Brennan’s Intelligence Community Assessment have been in a “vault in the CIA” since 2018.
“We had two teams. There was the larger team back at the ranch at [HPSCI] headquarters, doing our thing with the depositions and fighting DOJ,” says former Principal Deputy to the Acting Director of National Intelligence Kash Patel, who led the overall HPSCI probe. “Then we had a couple of IC subject matter folks that were reviewing everything that happened, specific to the ICA that Brennan had authorized.”
The smaller group of “IC subject matter folks” worked out of that small office at CIA headquarters, with “ingress and egress” strictly controlled by the Agency. This unit’s work on Brennan’s Assessment resulted in a report of “about 18 pages,” written by four primary authors. The team also contributed materials that ended up in a binder that Trump tried to declassify in a frantic struggle in the waning days of his administration.
Patel two years ago told RealClearInvestigations that the release of this report describing “significant intelligence tradecraft failings” was blocked by former CIA director Gina Haspel, who played a significant part in this story. Haspel was CIA station chief in London in the summer of 2016, and the FBI could not open its “Crossfire Hurricane” probe of Trump in the U.K. without her help.
“If the FBI wants to go overseas, they have to get permission from the host nation,” says Patel. “And the way you do that is through the intelligence community.” Haspel of course became CIA Director in the summer of 2018.
Sources told Public and Racket that Brennan and the ICA authors “embellished” their conclusion by upgrading unreliable sources to reliable. Investigators found “3-4 instances” in which they couldn’t find a “credible historic reporting line” for sources in the ICA report, and found the “source rating” had been changed. Dissent, even within Brennan’s group of 24 “hand-picked” analysts — not from 17 agencies but just three — was overruled.
One former senior CIA official said such activity has to be weighed carefully. Elevating sources with little or no history could be a “mortal sin,” as it was in the WMD affair when negative information about the infamous “Curveball” source Rafid Ahmad Alwan was withheld. However, the official said it “also might not be” a sin, as the absence of a reporting line isn’t the same thing as the presence of negative information. You have to have “some flexibility… to tinker.”
However, multiple sources said Brennan’s exclusion of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research (INR) were and are red flags pointing to a manipulated conclusion.
“The real story is that Brennan and Clapper succeeded in marginalizing both the State Department and the DIA, which has primary responsibility for the GRU,” says former CIA official Ray McGovern.
Former Russian ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock in 2018 described being told by a “Senior official” that “the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it.”
“State and Defense are the two big players,” agrees another former diplomat with a connection to the case. The CIA in recent times has occasionally kept State out of the loop out of concerns about leaks, but to keep out the DIA was “crazy,” the source said.
The story of a highly influential whitewashed intelligence product whose true conclusions only became known later is, of course, not new. This also happened in the WMD affair, when a politically charged intelligence report concluded that Saddam Hussein was intent on pursuing nuclear weapons. This allowed officials like then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to maintain the U.S. had “bulletproof” evidence of Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda. Not until 2015 – a dozen years after the fact – would it become known that the report said there was “no operational tie” between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
