By Richard Edmondson
It was a smart move on Jill Stein’s part to do a live stream during last night’s televised debate as it underscored the willful and dogmatic intractableness exhibited by the Commission on Presidential Debates in excluding her. As Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton quibbled over such mundane matters as who founded the birther movement, Stein was giving mostly sensible answers to a host of complex issues facing us.
I watched the “center stage” event–i.e. the debate between Clinton and Trump–for something like 45 minutes to an hour, until, finally growing bored with the whole thing, I switched over to Stein’s live stream on her Facebook page. It was like a breath of fresh air.
“We need to create a new offensive in the Middle East, a peace offensive, that starts with a weapons embargo, and a freeze on the bank accounts of those countries that continue to fund terrorist jihadi enterprises,” she said. “That is how we get to peace and security overseas and peace and security here, because those wars and the anguish surrounding them are blowing back here.”
This is not to say all her observations were without flaws or inaccuracies.
“The only one benefiting from this insane foreign policy is the weapons industry,” she asserted. Wrong! If Stein doesn’t understand how Israel stands to benefit from the splintering and balkanization of countries such as Syria and Iraq, then she needs to read up on the Oded Yinon plan.
She also expressed effusive praise for the Black Lives Matter movement without mentioning that the organization has been funded by George Soros and seemingly with no understanding of how the American political left in general has been manipulated by elites (for an interesting discussion on that see here ).
As for Trump, I’m not sure how calling for tax cuts for the wealthy and an end to regulations on business while at the same time appealing for votes from the masses of people fed up with the status quo is logical, but that seems to be his campaign strategy.
Clinton of course has inconsistencies of her own–like expressing concern for financially-struggling Americans while at the same time receiving funding, including astronomical speaking fees, from Wall Street banks. And then there is the matter of her smirk. If you watch the video below, you’ll notice she does a lot of smirking throughout the debate. Why is she so gleeful? Could it be because of the endless barrage of attacks waged by the media against her opponent? Or could it be because she knows something the rest of us don’t–like maybe that the electronic voting machines have been programmed to throw the election her way? Hard to say, but the smirk is there. And it’s present a lot throughout the debate.
If we lived in a sane society, Stein, out of the current crop of candidates, would be the most logical choice for voters in the upcoming election–but of course we don’t live in a sane society and haven’t for a good while.