Scroll to Dismiss

Jill Stein is not qualified to be president

Frustrated Sanders' supporters look to Jill Stein despite lack of experience, policies inconsistent with progressive agenda

· Sep 8, 2016 Tweet

Courtesy of Flickr user Tim Nafziger

Apparently, I’ve struck a nerve with a few Jill Stein supporters.

In my column titled ‘Bernie or Bust’ goes against everything Sanders stood for, I allude to the fact that Stein is not the progressive savior she’s painted to be, for two key reasons. First, she has policies inconsistent with Sen. Bernie Sanders’, D-Vt., philosophy, which is what I am using as a baseline for the progressive agenda. Second, her lack of policy experience wields her unfit to run a city, let alone a country.

‘Bernie or Bust’ goes against everything Sanders stood forApril 5 doesn’t seem too long ago. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., won nearly every Wisconsin county, with only Milwaukee Read…

Let’s examine my first accusation — Stein has policies inconsistent with Sanders’ philosophy. Stein seems to boast that she embodies the Sanders’ policy positions his fervent supporters fell in love with. She even has a nice chart detailing where they are the same. But, looking deep into her policies, there are glaring and worrisome inaccuracies.

Science is an area Stein should excel in, seeing as she is a Harvard trained physician. But, instead of using science as a tool in her campaign, she uses it to strike fear into her followers. Most blatant of all is her distrust of vaccines, suggesting they may cause autism. While she claims she isn’t part of the anti-vax movement, she places no trust in the FDA to do its job, which is to regulate food and drugs to make sure they’re safe for consumers. I’m sure the FDA has seen these 30 studies finding nothing wrong with vaccines, and that’s why the FDA hasn’t taken vaccines off the market.

Another stance inconsistent with reality is her anti-GMO stance. Stein, for the record, would like to get rid of all GMOs, claiming they have caused the death of over 200,000 farmers in India. What is her evidence for this claim? Nothing, aside from ramblings about how pesticide-resistant plants create pesticide-resistant weeds which cause farmers in India to commit suicide.

This is ludicrous. First, she’s lying about the farmers committing suicide. Second, while pesticides are proven to have adverse side effects, the positives of GMOs vastly outweigh the negatives. GMOs have allowed for better soil, higher yields and can create a sustainable way to feed the world. At least one million children die every year due to malnutrition. These are real people, not Stein’s fearmongering statistic. GMOs can help put an end to those deaths.

Sanders, on the other hand, has been a vocal supporter of vaccinations and is not against GMOs.

Other areas where there is inconsistency between Sanders and Stein is on the success of the 2009 Stimulus Bill (Sanders is a little more optimistic about it’s success, and even wants another, as opposed to Stein), the movement toward green energy (Sanders is delusional enough to think that the United States could move to 100 percent clean energy by 2030) and their plans to curb fossil fuels (where Stein thinks she can end fracking, removing oil from tar sands and offshore drilling and Sanders, while sympathetic, has no such plan).

Now let’s look at Jill Stein in terms of her ability to govern. She has run for the governorship of Massachusetts twiceand lost, and is now running for president for the second time. That’s it. She has no experience with the inner workings of our political system. Many people might not think that this is not a big deal, but it is.

How can Stein get anything done with other branches of government given her inherent distrust of every facet of government? Does she have to author each bill herself to ensure that it is a trustworthy bill? What if her proposals can’t or won’t get passed? Currently, Republicans control both the House and Senate. How would she be able to work with them? What ideals would she compromise on? These are things she will have to deal with every day. They are blatant red flags on presidency. And all this is ignoring foreign affairs, where she has absolutely no experience.

A president must be able to draft legislation, handle foreign affairs and work with other members of the federal government. Stein is unqualified to be president because she has none of this vital experience, leaving her as a bad choice to be the leader of the free world.

Aaron Reilly ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in social work and economics.


This article was published Sep 8, 2016 at 7:00 am and last updated Sep 8, 2016 at 9:24 am


UW-Madison's Premier Independent Student Newspaper

All Content © The Badger Herald, 1995 - 2021