What are
/r/jillstein's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/jillstein:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/jillstein:
WikiLeaks
Minds
Alexa
ResearchGate
Scribd
Open Culture
Weather Underground
Ghost
Hooktube
vgy.me
RiteTag
Ghostery
Project Gutenberg
Down For Everyone Or Just Me?
The most popular reviews in /r/jillstein:
Collusion with Time Magazine to neutralize Sanders:
>Subject: philadelphia
>Hi both,
>We're working on a story about the convention. The angle for now is that Sanders will have limited leverage in Philadelphia because the committees will be made up of state delegates allocated based on each state's votes in the primary.
>Also, the platform committee chair-appointed by DWS, according to the rules-appoints the platform drafters. So Sanders will have little direct influence over the platform.
>Questions for you: Have all the committee chairs been approved? >Is the take-that Sanders is already losing convention battle-fair? >What preparations are taking place in the coming months?
>Would be great to get ahead of this, and I'm sure much of it is going on now. Would be great to get thoughts.
>Also a beer or two.
>Thanks both-
>-- >Sam Frizell >Writer, TIME
Thing is, a recent poll said that Jill has more support among Hispanics than Whites. Add Black support, which doesn't lag that far behind, and the Greens are supported mostly by minorities who would actually be affected by Trump. The that privilege thing is silly and dilutes it's power in proper usage.
Edit: Important to mention, but I forgot, that's in percentages, not actual numbers. It's still rather surprising.
- White: 6%
- African American: 3%
- Latino: 9%
A recent ABC/Washington Post poll also has 3% of Whites and 6% Non-Whites.
Another Jill Stein voter in the making writes a love letter to DWS:
>Subject: RE: Join me in Knoxville June 3rd!
>DWS, you’re almost as corrupt as $hillary Clinton. I’ve already left the Democratic party—after 32 years. Lots of us have. And you and your direction for the Democratic party are a large reason why. HRC is the other reason.
>It’s coming—the shock you will feel when MILLIONS of us won’t vote for Shillary--PERIOD.
>Fuck you.
Pulling rank and having the president of MSNBC contain Mika Brzezinski after she was criticized on air:
> Fwd: MSNBC’s Brzezinski: Wasserman Schultz ‘Should Step Down,’ Dem Primary ‘Has Been Unfair’ To Sanders
> This is the LAST straw. Please call Phil a Griffin. This is outrageous. She needs to apologize. DWS
Here's a chain talking about how they didn't want to look like hypocrites when suppressing the vote in RI: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4925 and https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5289
Clinton campaign money laundering Walmart "contributions" through a PAC:
>Here's how the scheme works for the Clinton campaign:
>Rich people like Alice Walton of Walmart who have already contributed the maximum amount allowable to the Clinton campaign can contribute an additional $350,000-plus to the Victory Fund. The first $33,400 of her contribution is supposed to go the DNC, and the rest divided up between participating state parties.
>But that's not what's been happening. The Victory Fund has mostly been doing one of two things with Ms. Walton's money:
>1. Taking that money and spending it on advertisements and small-dollar fundraising solicitations. Then they take all the small-dollar contributions and data reaped from Alice Walton's contribution and transfer it directly to the Clinton campaign. This tactic is basically a way for them to benefit from a contribution much larger than the legal limit from Alice Walton.
>2. They take Alice Walton's money and transfer it to state parties, who then immediately transfer it to the DNC. Often times they do it without the state party even knowing because the Clinton campaign controls many of the bank accounts involved.
>So at the end of the day, most of the state parties have received exactly $0 from their Victory Fund arrangement. So, now that we know the Clinton campaign is taking advantage of state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign, it's time for her to do the right thing and let the state parties keep their fair share of the cash
Manipulation of MSNBC's Chuck Todd on the same issue
>Chuck, this must stop
> Chuck, see below. I would like to discuss this with you today.
> Can you reach out to Luis to schedule a call? Thanks.
> DWS
DWS no longer trusts Mika :(
>Subject: Re: MSNBC story
>She's already served as a judge and jury without even bothering to talk to me. Not sure why I should trust having a conversation with her would make any difference. Or that she even matters, to be frank.
> DWS
> The Israel stuff is disturbing.
DWS in response to Sanders' representatives at the platform meetings proposing "a more “even-handed” U.S. approach to Israeli occupation"
Not only that, the DNC wanted to use the issue to marginalize Sanders, as if an illegal occupation is a political game in the US.
> The Israel plank, that they see it as an ideal issue to marginalize Bernie on.
Joke's on him, I honestly thought it was awesome. I had no idea she was in a band. Even if it's bad, like Sander's 1987 folk album, it's still hugely endearing.
>GMOs, it's not a major issue. Most voters don't care. And the ones who do are on our side.
Not true... There are some HEAVY-DUTY Monsanto-backed Pro-GMO folks on Reddit, and they will fight you tooth and nail on whatever you present to them. They will waste whatever time you have trying to get you to provide them with multiple peer-reviewed studies that "prove" that GMOs are harmful. And they won't stop until you either stop talking to them or you present them with concrete photographic proof that GMOs are harmful.
And that group of people are growing. We need something to counter their arguments, but I haven't been able to find any peer-reviewed studies from reputable journals that prove that GMOs are harmful. Right now, all we have is speculation, because the studies that DO exist (which are funded by the corporations that produce the products and donate to the universities that are doing the studies) all conclude that they're NOT harmful.
What do we have, specifically, that we can point to, that proves that GMOs are harmful?
For instance, this analysis seems pretty convincing that GMOs are generally considered not-harmful by the "scientific community" and kind of throws the studies that do find them harmful out the window by applying the samy kinds of conflict-of-interest arguments that we apply to the studies that say that GMOs aren't harmful.
What legs do we have to stand on in this argument?
I mean, you can't really argue against our assertion that corporate influence is too high in both science and government. But that's pretty much all we've got. Right?
Which book was that? Brave New World or 1984. I have to re-read them both. Ah, found it. I did't realize the two men were connected.
Needs burning so we can have a direct democracy. Republics are just another excuse to elevate bureaucrats into positions that invite tyranny. Equality is what we need, and the liberty to make our own decisions. As Kropotkin said in The Conquest of Bread:
> Now all history, all the experience of the human race, and all social psychology, unite in showing that the best and fairest way is to trust the decision to those whom it concerns most nearly. It is they alone who can consider and allow for the hundred and one details which must necessarily be overlooked in any merely official redistribution.
That is democracy.
What does "ICYMI" stand for?
I'm looking at this email specifically: FW: ICYMI: Bernie Sanders would be Donald Trump's worst nightmare; Hillary, not so much
You can save this link if you want it a computer generated hashtag chart at the bottom of the page that shows a map of all of the most popular hashtags associated with #jillstein https://ritetag.com/best-hashtags-for/jillstein
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
I would recommend your strategy in the ideal world where people research candidates and vote based on their policies and track records. We need to be realistic. I would suggest reading Dan Ariely's excellent book "Predictably Irrational". There are evolutionary reasons for why most of us make decisions (in every sphere of life, not just politics) the way we do. (My take, in the language of optimization problems in CS, is that we employ heuristics since the objective function is unknown or vague and the search space is huge).