Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: We're very fortunate to be joined this morning by the
Speaker 1: Green Party candidate for president, doctor Jill Stein. Is great
Speaker 1: to see you, Doctor Stein.
Speaker 2: Great to see you.
Speaker 3: Good to see you both.
Speaker 1: So I know you've been working to highlight an issue
Speaker 1: core to democracy about the denial of your name to
Speaker 1: be on the ballot in Nevado. You can go ahead
Speaker 1: and put up the press release that you put out,
Speaker 1: but just explain to people what exactly happened here, because
Speaker 1: you know, I know, one of the things that the
Speaker 1: Green Party's been very effective at is being able to
Speaker 1: obtain ballot access in states across the country. So how
Speaker 1: are they able to keep you off in you know,
Speaker 1: those criticals state.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so the Democrats had announced way back in the
Speaker 4: spring that they had hired an army of lawyers for
Speaker 4: the purpose of throwing their competition off the ballot, basically
Speaker 4: using law fare, misusing details of the law in order
Speaker 4: to undermine basically the spirit of the law, which is
Speaker 4: what they've been doing, and Nevada is a very good
Speaker 4: example of that. In Nevada, they challenged the forms that
Speaker 4: we had been given by the Secretary of State, forms
Speaker 4: for collecting signatures, and in fact, we had started out
Speaker 4: the petition drive using the correct forms, which happened to
Speaker 4: have a small footnote about verifying that signers actually lived
Speaker 4: in the district, making a verbal verification that they lived
Speaker 4: in the district they claimed, and that footnote was contained
Speaker 4: on the first form that in fact we were using.
Speaker 3: And then the Secretary of State.
Speaker 4: In error or who knows why, but they told us
Speaker 4: that that was the incorrect form and we should switch
Speaker 4: the forms, which we did, and we then collected three
Speaker 4: times the number of required signatures, so we were certainly fulfilling,
Speaker 4: you know, the spirit.
Speaker 3: Of the law, and we had done it correctly, and the.
Speaker 4: Secretary of State basically gave us the wrong form, and
Speaker 4: then after these signatures were all submitted, they challenged the
Speaker 4: signatures based on the form.
Speaker 3: On the incorrect form they had given us.
Speaker 4: The first court actually throughout the case and ruled in
Speaker 4: our favor. But then the Democratic Party appealed and the
Speaker 4: Court of Appeals, which was full of political appointments, ruled
Speaker 4: in their favor, and the Supreme Court, you know.
Speaker 3: Validated that.
Speaker 4: So it basically provides an incentive for any secretary of
Speaker 4: State to make a mistake and you know, and thereby
Speaker 4: throw the competition off the ballant.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's absolutely ridiculous. I want to ask you if
Speaker 2: phill sophical question as somebody who's now been experiencing this
Speaker 2: lawfare to keep you off the ballot. One of the
Speaker 2: reasons that RFK Junior gave for specifically endorsing Trump was
Speaker 2: exactly this lawfare campaign. So I guess could you talk
Speaker 2: about what it's like to be experiencing this type of
Speaker 2: lawfair but why you don't feel that that's a reason
Speaker 2: to then endorse one of the major two party candidates.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's a symbol I think of what is
Speaker 4: wrong with the two parties that the two parties, you know,
Speaker 4: they're bought and paid for, they manipulate the process, and
Speaker 4: they claim to be you know, legitimate and representing the
Speaker 4: interests of the people, but they're actually you know, doing
Speaker 4: the opposite. And as RFK Junior said that he was
Speaker 4: actually more of a threat to you know, to Republicans
Speaker 4: if you were looking at who might vote for him
Speaker 4: or who might vote you know, for which candidate if
Speaker 4: you weren't in the race, but that the Republicans were
Speaker 4: not trying to throw him off. It was the Democrats
Speaker 4: who were trying to throw him off, you know, until
Speaker 4: he you know, threw in with Trump and then they
Speaker 4: were suing to like keep him on the ballot.
Speaker 3: So it's just, you know, it's ridiculous.
Speaker 4: And as far as we're concerned, this is, you know,
Speaker 4: this is the symptom of what's wrong with this system
Speaker 4: and these parties that are basically bought and paid for
Speaker 4: and they're violating you know, not only you know, the
Speaker 4: interests of third parties, but fundamentally the right of voters.
Speaker 4: Voters are demanding you know, other choices, and you know,
Speaker 4: before this election had really started, in the most recent
Speaker 4: Gallop poll, the numbers were off the charts at an
Speaker 4: all time record high. That people were demanding other choices
Speaker 4: because the two parties had done such a poor job
Speaker 4: of serving the public interest.
Speaker 1: Doctor Sign wanted to ask you, So, I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people are very sympathetic and interested in your
Speaker 1: campaign because they see you as one of the only
Speaker 1: Canada's the only candidate with a large amount of ballot
Speaker 1: access who is opposing the genocide in Gaza. But they
Speaker 1: may not see how a vote for you is more
Speaker 1: than a protest vote at this point, given the nature
Speaker 1: of this locked in two party system that we have.
Speaker 1: So can you explain your theory of power? I mean,
Speaker 1: should people see that as just a protest vote? Is
Speaker 1: that enough to feel like I'm taking a moral stand
Speaker 1: against this genocide or against other issues that you know
Speaker 1: you represent and the two major party candidates don't, Or
Speaker 1: is there a theory of power behind this that a
Speaker 1: vote for you translates into some broader political change down
Speaker 1: the road.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly. You know, this is my third run. We
Speaker 4: wouldn't be here had we not had the two prior
Speaker 4: runs to basically build recognition, to build support for our agenda,
Speaker 4: which is essentially become the agenda that the Progressive Democrats
Speaker 4: give lip service to for the most part. That is,
Speaker 4: you know, a Green New Deal, free public higher education,
Speaker 4: ending student debt, reparations, Medicare for all, healthcare as a
Speaker 4: human right. I mean, these are all issues which were
Speaker 4: specifically launched into the national dialogue through Green candidates, beginning
Speaker 4: with Ralph Nader back in the two thousand election, launching
Speaker 4: Medicare for all. So, you know, there's a very concrete
Speaker 4: process by which you build power and in the system
Speaker 4: that we currently have, which is so steeply tilted, the
Speaker 4: playing field, so steeply tilted towards you know, big money
Speaker 4: and the power of big corporations and special interests to
Speaker 4: buy influence. You know, it's not something that one overcomes
Speaker 4: in a single run.
Speaker 3: You have to really run repeatedly.
Speaker 4: You have to build name recognition to where we are
Speaker 4: now that most people really understand that. You know that
Speaker 4: we are the party of peace, we are the party
Speaker 4: of the public interest. We are the party that would
Speaker 4: definitively deal with climate change. And in this race, especially
Speaker 4: where genocide is a huge issue, you know, I would
Speaker 4: say that it's not simply a symbolic acts that if
Speaker 4: you vote for genocide, you're basically affirming it, You're endorsing it,
Speaker 4: you're affirming genocide at a time. You know that most
Speaker 4: Americans are absolutely horrified by this genocide and in fact
Speaker 4: not only want an immediate diplomatic solution, but also want
Speaker 4: an immediate weapons of bargo to Israel. So the American
Speaker 4: people feel very strongly, and you know, every vote for
Speaker 4: our campaign is a shot across the bow of the
Speaker 4: empire telling them that we are here and we're growing.
Speaker 4: And you know, if we wind up with five, ten,
Speaker 4: even fifteen percent of the vote, you know, and that
Speaker 4: really depends on whether the word gets out. I don't
Speaker 4: know if you have read the commentary on the Breakfast
Speaker 4: Club interview, but you know we were basically being ambushed
Speaker 4: by you know, by Democratic Party attack dogs, as we
Speaker 4: often are, and it completely backfired on them, as it
Speaker 4: usually does. And to read the comments you'll see and
Speaker 4: there are you know, maybe twenty thousand comments now on
Speaker 4: the main posting people are saying I wasn't going to
Speaker 4: vote for Before, I wasn't going to vote at all
Speaker 4: because there was nothing to vote for. But now you know,
Speaker 4: I've been persuaded that I'm going to register green and
Speaker 4: vote green. So you know, our particular demographic is people
Speaker 4: who are not voting in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: That was one out of every three.
Speaker 4: Voters eligible voters, that is, who didn't vote, So don't
Speaker 4: they deserve a vote as well? And if the word
Speaker 4: were to get out and those people get out and register,
Speaker 4: you know, we could really see this election turned on
Speaker 4: its head. In a four way race, which this is
Speaker 4: because in most states RFK is still on the ballot,
Speaker 4: you basically have three pro genocide, pro war candidates and
Speaker 4: you have our one anti genocide, anti war, pro worker
Speaker 4: climate emergency campaign that could unify a lot of votes.
Speaker 4: In a four way race, an election can be won
Speaker 4: with as little as twenty six percent of the vote,
Speaker 4: So the hurdles are not out of sight. And let
Speaker 4: me just say it's a second major propaganda campaign that
Speaker 4: we the people are powerless and that resistance is futile. Well,
Speaker 4: we believe, as Frederick Douglass said, that power concedes nothing
Speaker 4: without a demand, and if you simply vote for the
Speaker 4: lesser evil, there is no record that there is a
Speaker 4: strong demand to end the genocide. So whatever the outcome
Speaker 4: of the election, recording that there is a substantial portion
Speaker 4: of the electorate that really wants an end to the genocide,
Speaker 4: that wants healthcare as a human right, that wants to
Speaker 4: end student debt and have a free public higher education
Speaker 4: and so on. To have that actually represented by a
Speaker 4: number gives those issues real traction, which they don't have
Speaker 4: if they are disappeared by this mythology of lesser evil.
Speaker 1: Let me just push you on that a little bit,
Speaker 1: because in twenty sixteen, in fact, you would know the numbers,
Speaker 1: quite a lot of people did vote for you because
Speaker 1: they felt that way. They felt, I just can't with
Speaker 1: either of these candidates, and You're someone and who more
Speaker 1: closely represents my political ideology, and I'm going to support her.
Speaker 1: And I didn't see the Democratic Party see that as like, oh,
Speaker 1: we got to take these issues more seriously. In fact,
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways, what I saw was them
Speaker 1: moving further to the right, demonizing the left, painting you
Speaker 1: and anyone who would support you as a putin puppet,
Speaker 1: and you know, completely trying to marginalize any of that
Speaker 1: legitimate criticism of the party. So why would it be
Speaker 1: different this time.
Speaker 4: Well, first, let me just you know, remind you that
Speaker 4: there was a huge smear campaign going on against me
Speaker 4: at the time, and I was I was investigated for
Speaker 4: three years by the Senate Intelligence Committee, who were trying
Speaker 4: to find some substance to this charge, you know, and
Speaker 4: had they been able to find any evidence, you can
Speaker 4: be sure that you know, I would not be walking free.
Speaker 4: You know, I would certainly have been charged with being
Speaker 4: a foreign agent, which is a fifteen year jail sentence.
Speaker 4: They could not find a darned thing, and they wound
Speaker 4: up giving me basically a full exoneration and saying there
Speaker 4: was absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever.
Speaker 3: But you know that.
Speaker 4: Required my full time, you know, energy and focus and commitment,
Speaker 4: and you really rely on having your candidate basically translate
Speaker 4: the momentum from the campaign into the growth of the party.
Speaker 4: And we wound up being basically standing still. And you know,
Speaker 4: we now have evidence that they are also you know,
Speaker 4: launching infiltration campaigns and spies and all that. So we
Speaker 4: were tied up by a number of things that you know,
Speaker 4: we're circumstantial, and I don't think will be the case
Speaker 4: this time.
Speaker 3: Also, if you've.
Speaker 4: Only had about you know, one or one and a
Speaker 4: half percent of the vote, that's entirely different from if
Speaker 4: you begin to get four or five percent, And as
Speaker 4: you well know, at five percent, you then not only
Speaker 4: do you ensure your ballot access in many of the states,
Speaker 4: so you don't have to spend your first nine months
Speaker 4: just you know, getting into the barred gates, you actually
Speaker 4: can begin the election full, full bore. But also we
Speaker 4: would then basically receive federal funding for the general election
Speaker 4: in the next next presidential race, so we would begin
Speaker 4: to have a whole lot more resources to build. And
Speaker 4: you know, the journey of one thousand miles begins with
Speaker 4: a single step. You have to build from where you
Speaker 4: are if you're ever going to proceed. And this mythology
Speaker 4: that it's a wasted vote is part of the propaganda
Speaker 4: of really silencing opposition. And if people are happy, you know,
Speaker 4: with the genocide, if they are happy with the expanding war,
Speaker 4: which you know is just on the verge of major
Speaker 4: regional and potentially even global and nuclear confrontation. Yeah, sure,
Speaker 4: you know why bother resisting. But there are many people
Speaker 4: who feel that we have crossed now many red lines
Speaker 4: our democracy. It's not we don't have to wait for
Speaker 4: Donald Trump, you know, for real threats, real fascist threats
Speaker 4: to our democracy.
Speaker 2: When I speak, so one of the things I'll put
Speaker 2: on the face of like a Democrat. Let's say I
Speaker 2: live in North Carolina or Georgia or a state like that,
Speaker 2: and I'm saying, I hear you. You know, I'm upset
Speaker 2: about Israel, but I've got this abortion referendum or whatever
Speaker 2: on the ballot. If I don't vote to make sure
Speaker 2: that Donald Trump doesn't get into the office, then I
Speaker 2: could literally have, you know, an issue I care a
Speaker 2: lot about suffer. What would you say to somebody like that.
Speaker 2: You've talked a lot about abortion, but you know they
Speaker 2: have to think that way.
Speaker 4: For one thing, Democrats could solve that problem right now,
Speaker 4: and the Biden Harris administration could set up the abortion
Speaker 4: clinics on federal land, on military basis and so on
Speaker 4: all around the country, so this problem could be solved,
Speaker 4: and shame on them for not solving it.
Speaker 3: And sure, yeah, the White House.
Speaker 4: Administration might change, but once those abortion clinics are set
Speaker 4: up on federal land, it will be very hard to
Speaker 4: take them away. Also, you know, you have the fact
Speaker 4: that these referendums are passing all over in just about
Speaker 4: every state that I'm aware of, the referendums to establish
Speaker 4: abortion rights state by state are succeeding and Furthermore, this
Speaker 4: is really on the Democrats that Roe was not already codified.
Speaker 3: They had plenty of time to do it.
Speaker 4: They had time when the Democrats could have overridden the veto,
Speaker 4: and they could have. Furthermore, they could have modified the
Speaker 4: veto to have ensured that Roe v.
Speaker 3: Wade was codified.
Speaker 4: And both Biden and Obama promised during their elections that
Speaker 4: this would be the first thing that they did, but
Speaker 4: they managed never to get to it. So, you know,
Speaker 4: there's a lot of blame to guard around here as Republicans.
Speaker 1: So, doctor Sin, I know you object to the idea
Speaker 1: of lesser evil voting, but do you, in fact think
Speaker 1: that Democrats are the lesser evil of the two parties?
Speaker 4: You know, how do you get more evil than conducting genocide?
Speaker 4: You know, how do you get more evil than hacking
Speaker 4: peaceful protesters who are simply giving voice to the values
Speaker 4: of the American people and the values of the world
Speaker 4: and having your heads cracked in? How do you get
Speaker 4: more evil than establishing the cop cities. There are some
Speaker 4: eighty of them that are being built now around the country,
Speaker 4: and many of them under democratic municipal administrations, like in Atlanta.
Speaker 4: You know, this is an assault on our basic democratic rights,
Speaker 4: on our freedom of speech, you know, on you know,
Speaker 4: on basic human rights and international law that's going on.
Speaker 1: So so to me, do you see Republicans then as
Speaker 1: a lesser evil.
Speaker 3: I don't see a lesser evil, you know.
Speaker 4: I think we have two greater evils, and our job
Speaker 4: is to basically stand up and fight for the greater good,
Speaker 4: which you know, our very lives are depending on. As
Speaker 4: we stand on the verge of you know, enlarging and
Speaker 4: extremely dangerous wars, both you know, at the border of
Speaker 4: Ukraine and Russia and as well in the Middle East,
Speaker 4: and you know where the US is jinning, uh, you know,
Speaker 4: conflict with China as well. We have an extremely aggressive
Speaker 4: foreign policy which is bought and paid for not just
Speaker 4: by a pack but also by the war contractors. Both parties,
Speaker 4: you know, UH take contributions from uh, from packs, corporate packs.
Speaker 3: They work with super packs.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: They can take.
Speaker 4: Million dollar checks a single uh you know donor with
Speaker 4: deep pockets can write a check for a million dollars
Speaker 4: and exert enormous influence. The Greens UH do not participate
Speaker 4: in these legalized polls for corruption. So you know we uh,
Speaker 4: we are you know, the one national scope party that
Speaker 4: can actually stand for what the American people desperately need.
Speaker 4: And it's not only you know, the foreign policy, which
Speaker 4: is squandering half of our congressional budget on the endless
Speaker 4: war machine, but it's also what we desperately need here
Speaker 4: at home by way of healthcare and housing, with half
Speaker 4: of all renters now paying thirty to fifty percent of
Speaker 4: their monthly income just to keep a group over their heads,
Speaker 4: and rates of evictions and homelessness or skyrocketing, so we
Speaker 4: have an emergency at home here as well. And you know,
Speaker 4: how do we ever fix this when the two parties
Speaker 4: keep marching lockstep to the right. It's not Greens that
Speaker 4: are forcing Democrats to march to the right, and it's
Speaker 4: not third parties that are basically creating Republican wins. Just
Speaker 4: look at the election, the midterms of twenty ten, where
Speaker 4: the Democrats lost a thousand seats and state legislatures and
Speaker 4: sixty four seats in Congress and twelve in the Senate
Speaker 4: and the same number of governorships. And that was after
Speaker 4: the Wall Street bailout, the two Democratic houses of Congress
Speaker 4: and the Obama White House. Throughout millions of homeowners while
Speaker 4: they bailed out the crooks on Wall Street who crash
Speaker 4: the economy. So they have been consistently punished, you know,
Speaker 4: by the by the loss of their base. So this
Speaker 4: is not something to blame on third parties. We've got too,
Speaker 4: you know, bought and paid for parties which are marching
Speaker 4: to the right. And the way to stop this march
Speaker 4: to the right is by standing up and fighting for
Speaker 4: a real left agenda that can actually or populist agenda,
Speaker 4: whatever you want to call it, but an agenda that
Speaker 4: will deliver for the very serious material needs of the
Speaker 4: American people.
Speaker 3: We are not taking small steps in the right direction.
Speaker 4: We are actually backsliding, you know, by huge, giant leaps
Speaker 4: right now, and our very survival is at stake.
Speaker 1: So one of the arguments that leftists will make in
Speaker 1: favor of voting for Kamala Harrison a Democratic ticket is
Speaker 1: basically like, listen, the electoral landscape is not ultimately at
Speaker 1: the core of what's going to drive change. We need
Speaker 1: to focus on organizing, We need to focus on labor movement,
Speaker 1: maybe focus more on down ballot races and the operative
Speaker 1: question for the top of the ticket. In a landscape
Speaker 1: where it's either going to be Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: Is which can would you rather be in opposition to?
Speaker 1: Because they're going to be an opposition whether it's either
Speaker 1: one of these, because we don't agree with them on
Speaker 1: a bunch of stuff. So who would you rather be
Speaker 1: in opposition to? And although the track record has been
Speaker 1: horrifying when it comes to Biden Harris with regard to
Speaker 1: the genocide in Gaza, on the other side, you have
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, where the interests of the Republican Party are
Speaker 1: all aligned in favor of letting Israel do whatever they
Speaker 1: want forever. Where he's taking you know, one hundred million
Speaker 1: dollars from Miriam Addilson, who says she wants them to,
Speaker 1: you know, take over the West Bank, where his language
Speaker 1: has all been critical of Biden and Harris for not
Speaker 1: being hawkish enough with regard to that. And they say, well,
Speaker 1: at least if it was the Harris administration, there's some opportunity,
Speaker 1: some possibility of more pressure. And then we focus, you know,
Speaker 1: more of our efforts on building up the labor movement
Speaker 1: and those sorts of things changing, you know, making choice
Speaker 1: voting a reality so that there's more of an opportunity
Speaker 1: to vote for Cannon to actually reflect our interests. So
Speaker 1: what is your response to that view that leftists would
Speaker 1: rather be an opposition to Kamala Harris than be an
Speaker 1: opposition to Donald Trump, who says he's going to deport
Speaker 1: you know, people who are protesting in favor of Palestine.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so let me just say that in spite of
Speaker 4: what the candidates say. You know, we've seen for example,
Speaker 4: both Joe Biden and and Barack Obama exceed all, you know,
Speaker 4: all offenses of the Republicans in many areas, including deportations,
Speaker 4: you know, and we've seen the Democratic heads in the
Speaker 4: in the White House be the deporters in chief, and
Speaker 4: you know, all bets are off between what they say
Speaker 4: and what they actually do. You know, we have a
Speaker 4: corrupt system which at the end of the day is
Speaker 4: taking its marching orders from its big donors. And in
Speaker 4: my view, you can make the exact opposite argument that
Speaker 4: in fact, under democratic administrations, you see the peace movement
Speaker 4: go to sleep, and you see actually most of the
Speaker 4: protest movements get very quiet, and it's generally under Republicans
Speaker 4: that we generally have a very invigorated set of social
Speaker 4: movements that can push you know, witness under under Richard Nixon.
Speaker 3: You know, we got Roe v.
Speaker 4: Wade, We got the e p A and the Clean
Speaker 4: Air Act and the Clean Water Act. We brought the
Speaker 4: troops home from from Vietnam. That so much has to
Speaker 4: do with what we are doing. And if we are
Speaker 4: in a mode of, you know, of taking marching orders
Speaker 4: from either political party, that doesn't bode well for really
Speaker 4: empowered and you know, hard driving movements.
Speaker 3: We need hard driving movements.
Speaker 4: And if at the end of the day, as you argue,
Speaker 4: if at the end of the day it really is
Speaker 4: the nature of our movements, why don't we you know,
Speaker 4: stand up and fight for you know, for the electoral
Speaker 4: representation that we deserve as well as having strong movements.
Speaker 1: So again that's I mean, that sounds like, are you
Speaker 1: making the argument that is actually by to be an
Speaker 1: opposition to Donald Trump, that morgets done for peace movement
Speaker 1: and other important movements under Republicans, because that actually seems
Speaker 1: like an argument in favor voting for Republicans.
Speaker 4: Well, what I'm saying is that there are many mythologies
Speaker 4: out there that disempower us. And at the end of
Speaker 4: the day, I think Frederick Douglass had it right that
Speaker 4: power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and
Speaker 4: it never will. Remember, the first spoiler parties were labeled
Speaker 4: as such before the Civil War, and the spoiler parties
Speaker 4: were those who were fighting for the abolition of slavery.
Speaker 4: So I think it's really important to reject the propaganda
Speaker 4: of powerlessness and remember the words of Alice Walker that
Speaker 4: the biggest way people give up power is by not
Speaker 4: knowing we have it to start with. If we simply
Speaker 4: got the word out to one out of every three
Speaker 4: eligible voters who tend to be lower income of color,
Speaker 4: and what's the third lower income of color? And it'll
Speaker 4: come to me in a moment, But you know, basic
Speaker 4: working people who are struggling. We have the power actually
Speaker 4: to even win a four way race or even a
Speaker 4: three way race. So I would not accept the mythology
Speaker 4: of powerlessness. We need to build our power, and we
Speaker 4: don't do that by basically canceling. You know, the evidence
Speaker 4: of our power. It needs to show, and we need
Speaker 4: to stand up strong and reject the many, many propaganda
Speaker 4: arguments that tell us we are powerless and resistance is
Speaker 4: futile and we should just roll over, you know, for
Speaker 4: whoever you think the lesser evil is and accept the
Speaker 4: direction that they've been taking us. We have not been
Speaker 4: making progress. We've been backsliding desperately under both Democrats, even
Speaker 4: with three you know, with three branches of government, we've
Speaker 4: been you know, just the evidence is very clear that
Speaker 4: we are not moving forward. We need to stand up,
Speaker 4: and no one's going to do it for us. We
Speaker 4: are the ones we've been waiting for.
Speaker 2: It's always a fascinating to talk to you. We appreciate
Speaker 2: your time. Thank you for coming on, doctor Stein.
Speaker 1: Great to see that so much.
Speaker 3: And it's Jill Stein twenty twenty four. For those who'd
Speaker 3: like to know more. Thanks very much, our pleasure