The Federal Election Commission has sent Jill Stein $379,983 in primary season matching funds this year, and more is likely to follow. She is the only presidential candidate who received primary season matching funds this year, except for Mike Pence, who has received $1,128,977.
Candidates qualify for primary season matching funds if they raise at least $5,000 from each of twenty states. It doesn’t matter which party they are in. However, they can only match money that they raised during primary season, which ended in August. Independent presidential candidates can’t qualify for primary season matching funds.
The first minor party presidential candidate who ever received primary season matching funds was Sonia Johnson in 1984, while she was seeking the Citizens Party nomination.
How long before they demand money back with interest and penalties again, after it gets spent?
Such a SCAM that they gave it to her like a week before the election instead of earlier, the corrupt establishment shouldn’t be allowed to delay the funds that long š¤”
NOOO GOVT CASH FOR ANY CANDIDATES.
===== MORE STATIST RIGGING OF ELECTIONS
ANY HACK WHO GETS ELECTED LOVES MORE STATIST SPENDING
The scam is falling for the trap of taking that money. She should have learned her lesson on that with what happened when she did it before. But, she’s taking it again, because then she can fundraise for the lawsuits when they claw it back again. Pure recidivism.
“However, they can only match money that they raised during primary season, which ended in Augusst.”
Then Jill Stein should have received this money in Sseptember. š
Says who?
Just raise and spend money from your supporters and quit going to the government with your hand out.
I’m sure you said that to everyone who got their PPP loans forgiven and everyone who got corporate bailouts (like the crooks on Wall Street in 2008) too, Aprril /s
As a taxpayer, I would rather fund Dr. Stein than corrupt assholes with PPP loans, corrupt Wall Street, Genocidal Israel, and Nazi Ukraine.
As a matter of fact I say that to everyone who goes to the government with a hand out. The crooks on wall street most especially. I’m most forgiving to those who are genuinely in a crisis like a natural disaster and least towards those who can easily survive without ill gotten extorted government money.
You have one set of preferences for where your money goes. I have another . Every person has their own. That’s why government should not take money from everyone and then ham handedly make decisions on where it goes that individuals can freely make for themselves.
I would about as soon give my money to Doctor Stein as I would Doctor Mengele, Nazi Ukraine, corrupt assholes with PPP loans, or corrupt Wall Street, but I am for your right to give any of them as much as you want.
As for “genocidal Israel” you have offered zero proof regardless of how many people asked you how many times, because that’s a knowing, ignorant, blood libel lie. Shame on you.
Even Gary Johnson accepted primary season matching funds in 2012, although he had been running in the Republican race, not the Libertarian race, early in that campaign.
He regretted it and told me he wished he hadn’t.
Gary Johnson is a communist.
Is he also Robert K. Stock?
Trump is the only candidate I care about.
No money for child abuse supporter Chase Oliver? Is it because he is getting dark money from Kommiela?
I heard that about Chase Oliver too!
“Progressive Leftist” has been confirmed to be Robert K Stock.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ooOELrGMn14&pp=ygUPd2h5IGFyZSB5b3UgZ2F5
This is who needs to interview Chase Oliver
He should have moderated the lame debate Oliver was in.
If Chasing Oliver is getting money from cumala, why was he reportedly at the gay club Saturday nite trying to sell his pee for $5?
Possibly due to rules about comingling personal and campaign expenditures.
How many of the 3rds / indees will be hack agents in the h or t regimes ???
Aprril said: “Says who?”
Says me.
Progressive Leftist said: “As a taxpayer, I would rather fund Dr. Stein than corrupt assholes with PPP loans, corrupt Wall Street, Genocidal Israel, and Nazi Ukraine.”
Good news! You get to fund all of the above.
Aprril Mae said: “As for āgenocidal Israelā you have offered zero proof regardless of how many people asked you how many times, because thatās a knowing, ignorant, blood libel lie. Shame on you.”
Get back to me after you have watched the episode of Last Week Tonight With John Oliver about the West Bank from earlier this year.
Trump is our only hope said: “Trump is the only candidate I care about.”
Yet you still came here, to an article about Jill Stein.
Tom said: “Is it because he is getting dark money from Kommiela?”
That’s racist.
Is Pat Kiser actually Robert K Stock?
Pat Kiser,
Why should government fund political campaigns? Just raise and spend money from your supporters and quit going to the government with your hand out.
Presumably you were sarcastic when you said good news? The only way to stop government from funding everything you’re against is to stop asking it to fund everything you are for.
Let’s say I don’t have time to watch John Oliver, don’t consider a tv comedian to be some great authority, and or don’t have an hbo subscription. Use your words, define genocide, and explain how it applies to current events in Gaza and Israel.
Genocide has a specific meaning that goes beyond collateral damage in war, which incidentally is happening to the extent it is because Hamas intentionally uses the civilian population of Gaza as human shields for propaganda value (now you can see John Oliver for illustration).
If saying dark money in a negative way is racist (unless of course you think racist is a good thing – but then would you be for Stein? (Maybe…David Duke and John Taylor Bowles are)), doesn’t that pretty much cut out your argument for government funding of political campaigns? Or is it racist to say Kamala is a commie?
Question,
Why should we care who he/she/they is/are?
John Oliver is a communist.
That should certainly go without saying.
Who is Robert K Stock? That certainly seems to be an Unsolved Mystery around here. “Maybe you can help solve a mystery…”
All of John Oliver’s episodes (or at least the relevant portions) are available for free on YouTube.
Saying “That’s racist” is a CinemaSins reference. It was a running gag in their older videos. At least once per video, they would say “That’s racist” about something that is not actually racist. In this case, I was saying the term “dark money” is racist. Sorry you didn’t get the joke.
I don’t know or care what cinemasins is, and equally don’t know or care who you and/or Robert K Stock are.
Eliminating the possibility that I may not have an hbo subscription:
Why should government fund political campaigns? Just raise and spend money from your supporters and quit going to the government with your hand out.
Presumably you were sarcastic when you said good news? The only way to stop government from funding everything youāre against is to stop asking it to fund everything you are for.
Letās say I donāt have time to watch John Oliver and or donāt consider a tv comedian to be some great authority. Use your words, define genocide, and explain how it applies to current events in Gaza and Israel.
Genocide has a specific meaning that goes beyond collateral damage in war, which incidentally is happening to the extent it is because Hamas intentionally uses the civilian population of Gaza as human shields for propaganda value (now you can see John Oliver for illustration).
“Just raise and spend money from your supporters and quit going to the government with your hand out.”
You mean just like televangelists do? Got it!
“The only way to stop government from funding everything youāre against is to stop asking it to fund everything you are for.”
That’s not the way this works. If you stop asking the government to fund the things you like (and the government actually listens to you) that only ensures that everything the government does fund is something that you don’t like. If you want me to be 100 percent against the government, then you are even more radical than I am.
“…Hamas intentionally uses the civilian population of Gaza as human shields for propaganda value…”
Which do you perceive to be more morally reprehensible? Using human shields in the first place? Or seeing a human shield, and going ahead and firing anyway? That’s like saying, “I just killed all of your hostages for you, so now you have no leverage.” Imagine if the police did that every time bank robbers took people hostage.
“You mean just like televangelists do? Got it!”
Like the united way, tunnel to towers foundation and lots of folks do, including most political campaigns. Get it.
“If you want me to be 100 percent against the government, then you are even more radical than I am.”
Who says 100? That may or may not work, and may or may not ever happen. I’d be happy with a nightwatchman state, federal government (if it continues to exist – not my preference) tasked with protecting the country and its borders from foreign invasions, local government with maintaining a baseline of law and order.
There’s really nothing else markets, families, churches, charities etc can’t handle better. I’m open minded on the first two things, but that’s so far down the line it’s not even worth discussing in the context of electoral politics, if at all.
Short of that I’d be happy with the original constitutional design. And short of that, within any foreseeable range of real life possibility, as little government as possible.
If that’s more radical than you, I can live with that.
“Thatās not the way this works.”
It’s exactly the way it works. The people who get the lion’s share of government redistribution will always be those with the most advantage already, no matter what. Only when everyone else starts to realize that big government always invariably causes more problems than it solves can we start actually addressing our problems.
“Which do you perceive to be more morally reprehensible? Using human shields in the first place? Or seeing a human shield, and going ahead and firing anyway?”
Using human shields. Hamas started the war and took Israelis (and Americans) hostage. It’s still holding them. The fact that they’re additionally using the civilian population of Gaza as human shields is not Israel’s fault.
Again, collateral damage always happens in war. It’s happened in every war the US ever fought and every war every other country ever fought. War is horrible.
Hamas started this war and has promised actual genocide – ten thousand more October 7s and ethnic cleansing from the river to the sea. They will carry it out to the best of their ability. Allowing them to maintain and build that ability is not an option.
The collateral damage in the Gaza war started by Hamas is not on any unusual scale. Far more people have died in many other wars. More people are dying in other wars going on now.
You still have not defined genocide or explained how it applies to what’s going on in Israel and Gaza. Can you do it or not? Give it a try, at least. Start with the definition.
You originally asked Progressive Leftist, not me, and Progressive Leftist has not returned to the conversation. I’ll defer to Progressive Leftist to explain what Progressive Leftist meant by the original comment.
Your first mistake was taking anything that I say here seriously. As you so elegantly put it, who the heck cares who I am? (paraphrasing) I’m here to crack jokes and give out sage advice, and I’m all out of sage advice. So, wake up Aprril, I think I’ve got something to say to you:
My first comment was simply a joke about the misspelling of August in the original article, just like the very first commenter here pointed out. That typo has long-since been corrected, yet the misspelling the names of other months continues as a running gag here. You decided to take issue with my joke comment, so I decided to troll you. Have a nice day!
One more thing: You claim that you don’t have time to watch a half-hour episode of a TV show, yet you have time to repeatedly come here and make comments? Okay.
I asked anyone who is throwing around the blood libel “genocide” to refer to Israel’s actions in Gaza. If you’re going to use that term without showing any understanding of what it actually means then I’ll call you out on it and ask you to define it.
No, I don’t care who you are. Or how many of you there are. It’s complete BS, and intentionally thrown at Jews by Judeophobes and self hating Jews precisely because of the history of the Nazi holocaust, and as projection because the islamofascist Hamas nazis actually do in all seriousness fully intend to carry out genocide – they say it openly, and back it up with actions whenever given the chance.
That’s why they can’t be allowed to hide behind human shields and plan and prepare for 10,000 more October 7s like they openly and repeatedly call for in their propaganda. Their other propaganda is the schlock John Oliver puts out and you parrot second hand. You may or may not realize what you are glibly endorsing and amplifying, so I’m trying to get you to think and have a rational conversation.
But that you is generic – if Pat Kiser isn’t up to it, maybe Progressive leftist is. Or maybe other people are. We’ll see. So far, the challenge has been posed in multiple threads and forums and the responses have been extremely underwhelming.
I’m wide awake. Thanks.
You may have noticed that I spelled my “name” Aprril Mae. I’m also Augusst, Joon, and Jullie. But you can have Sseptember – I didn’t catch that one.
Don’t worry, I’m not taking you seriously.
One more thing: I made no such claim. I presented several possible options – it was not meant to be an exclusive list – why referring me to Oliver is not an adequate answer, for anyone reading who might actually take you seriously.
One was that I might have no access to hbo. But since it’s on YouTube that would have solved that problem. Unless I’m boycotting YouTube or my job had it blocked or I don’t want to mess up my YouTube cued up and suggested videos lists or any number of possible reasons I wouldn’t watch it there, but I didn’t actually say that I don’t have hbo.
Another one was that I may be too busy. And I might be, despite having time to post comments here. The comments are in a text format. My audiovisuals can be simultaneously in other uses. Thus, I might have time to post comments here but not to watch half hour or hour long videos.
A third possible reason was that I don’t find tv comedians cum schlock propagandists to be authoritative. Someone who was serious might have detected that this would be the real answer.
As it so happened I enjoy Oliver’s shows, but don’t take his propaganda seriously. Any war anywhere can be given the same sort of treatment he gave Gaza. That doesn’t make it genocide, and it’s not genocide. But it would be, against Jews, if Israel didn’t conduct the Gaza operation.
I’m having an awesome day, a completely superlative octoober, and look forward to a nonovember to remember. I sincerely hope you are as well.
One more thing: how’s trolling a troll working out for you?
It’s working out fine for me. I’ve got nothing better to do.
I’ll refer you back to what you said earlier:
“Hamas started this war and has promised actual genocide ā ten thousand more October 7s and ethnic cleansing from the river to the sea. They will carry it out to the best of their ability. Allowing them to maintain and build that ability is not an option.”
So, if Israel’s goal is not to completely wipe Hamas off the face of the earth, then to what level of weakness does Israel need to reduce them, to make the risk acceptable? Or, to quote from an episode of Justice League Unlimited season 3, titled Patriot Act: “How many of us do you have to kill, to keep us safe?” If no level of risk from Hamas is acceptable, then it is genocide on both sides of the conflict.
Wiping Hamas off the face of the earth is in fact the goal. Hamas hides behind the people of Gaza, but they’re not all of the people of Gaza. Wiping Hamas out is mostly accomplished, I think. There are over 2 million people in Gaza, and over 2 million people in Judea and Samaria. There’s also over 2 million Arabs in Israel. Worldwide, there are estimated to be over 400 million Arabs.
There’s no genocide or attempt genocide of Arabs in Israel, Gaza, or anywhere else. Hamas isn’t shy about its plan to genocide Jews though. Wiping out Hamas is not genocide, it’s self defense.
New recommended video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHrxF9Xa52s
This time, I even provided a link, so you don’t have any excuse.
Videos don’t meet the terms of my challenge. Use your words or remain disqualified. Start with a verbal, general definition of genocide if you want to qualify.
Start with stating exactly what Israel’s goal actually is, short of genocide. How do you wipe out Hamas when every day Israel’s actions in the region create more “martyrs,” galvanizing even more people to hate Israel? You “eliminate” the immediate threat, but just kick the can further down the road when the next generation of Palestinians grows up remembering Israel’s actions, and vowing revenge. That is, assuming that the next generation gets a chance to grow up in the first place, since Israeli snipers are shooting babies in the head. What threat does a baby pose, other than perhaps a future threat?
When does Israel end the occupation? When does Palestine get its own independent state? If those are not the end goals, then how is Israel doing anything other than perpetuating an endless cycle of war that will ultimately result in genocide, one way or the other?
In order to discuss the topic, start with definitions. You’re starting from the wrong end. What is genocide? What is Palestine? Who are Palestinians?
As you pointed out, I started by asking progressive leftist. I don’t know or care who’s who, so you’re welcome to participate, but not to redefine the challenge.
Iām not going to watch any videos. My challenge to progressive leftist or āJust Meā or anyone else, including you if you want to participate, is to provide a verbal, general definition of genocide and then explain how it applies to current events in Gaza.
Why is your challenge the only one worth discussing here? I challenge you to explain how Israel can possibly peacefully achieve a solution to the Palestinian issue. You keep asking for definitions, while failing to provide definitions yourself. How can I understand what you’re talking about, if you don’t provide the perspective from which you’re looking at the terms that we’re discussing. That goes both ways, not just one way. My recommended videos provide the context from which I’m viewing the issue. If you don’t want to watch them, fine. But then there’s no need to keep discussing the issue any further.
I didn’t say my challenge is the only one worth discussing. But it’s the only starting point for a discussion if you want to have one with me. If you want to start there, you can ask me whatever questions afterwards. Unless and until you do, I’m not answering any of your questions.
You didn’t ask me to define anything, but even if you did, I asked you first. You is generic. If you don’t feel like answering, let someone else answer.
If you want to talk to me, start by answering my initial question. If you want to ask general questions of whoever wants to answer them, you can of course do that, but if you want my answer and my perspective, there is only one starting point.
I’m not going to watch any videos. I have not asked you to watch any videos. There are any number of reasons someone may not be interested in watching videos: multitasking with audiovisuals taken up with other uses, no speakers or headphones, background noise, data usage, etc. I don’t need to explain why I’m not going to watch any videos, but I’m not going to watch any videos.
If I ever ask you to watch videos, it would be fair to ask me to watch videos. I have not done so.
There’s no need to discuss anything further. I asked a question of someone who as far as I know is not you, although I neither know not care if you’re the same person or not.
If you do want to discuss, I’ve made it completely clear what the starting point is. If you refuse to start at that starting point, discuss with whoever else you want and or let someone else answer if and when someone wants to have a discussion with the starting point I asked for.