Enough with the scolding please.

[DanTex]

Seems whenever someone here on DU criticizes certain Trump enablers like Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon, etc., suddenly Green Party apologists show up en masse and start scolding people for being "divisive".

It's a little strange, because when people criticize other Trump backers, like say Ann Coulter or Alex Jones, nobody starts scolding "I'm sick of hearing about Alex Jones! Stop being divisive!" Which is good. There's no point in being wishy-washy about it, Ann Coulter and Alex Jones are not our friends, they are part of a destructive political force in this country.

As is the Green Party and the media voices supporting it.

So here's a little advice. If you have a soft spot for someone who is part of the Trump coalition, be it Jill Stein or Alex Jones or anyone else, feel free to simply sit out of the threads about that person. If you're bored of reading about either of those people (or of any other topic like say tax policy), then just don't read threads about them, there's plenty of other things to read here. No need to chime in to express your disapproval of other people who aren't as bored as you.

But the rest of us, being Democrats, and caring about the future of our nation and of the world, are not going to stop talking about Jill Stein or Alex Jones or anyone else who has actively worked to enable Trump. We're also not going to "forget" about the things they have said and done, any more than we are going to forget about "grab em by the pussy" or "Mexicans are rapists" and so on.

Remembering is important -- if more people clearly remembered what the Greens brought us in 2000, then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess right now. So to anyone who thinks they're going to scold us Democrats into complacency about what the Green Party is about, sorry, we're not playing that game.

[MrsCoffee]

1. K&R

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. It makes you wonder what is in their heads.

How can any sane person still not see the benefit in voting for any democrat, no matter what, in any election, no matter what?

[George II]

6. Or what isn't in their heads.

[NurseJackie]

10. Actually, I don't wonder at all. I know for a fact...

... what is in their heads and what they're all about. There's no mystery.

How can any sane person still not see the benefit in voting for any democrat, no matter what, in any election, no matter what?

Indeed. "Sane person" ... exactly.

[ismnotwasm]

3. I am the opposite if anything.

Trump is a horror, but he was a predictable horror. People who pretend they didn’t participate in getting him elected, like say oh, the JPR-type assholes, the “I just don’t like Hillary” crowd, the “I’m not a racist but” or “I can’t be racist because my xyz is black folks, the whatabout argument people, all the MRA’s—including, in fact especially the MRA-lites that infest left-leaning message boards, may need the comfort of delusion, but I don’t have to participate in allowing it.

[BainsBane]

15. Seriously

If someone's judgement is that bad, why on earth should they be revered or listened to?

[betsuni]

50. +1

[yardwork]

64. Well said.

[sheshe2]

95. Oh My....THIS

Thank you ism.

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. + A gazillion!

[mcar]

4. K&R

[NBachers]

5. Rec for the etc.

[George II]

7. Thank you. This makes more sense than the other one.

[R B Garr]

8. Excellent! I've seen transparent attempts lately to falsely

turn the tables about the divisiveness over splitting the party that had been rampant into a dishonest narrative that not worshiping one Senator from a small state is the cause of everything. No. That needs to be called out, too.

My Senators get plenty of criticism -- just because they are Democrats! Republicans are the enemy. Start attacking them.

Great response thread.

[samnsara]

9. well said....

[sheshe2]

11. Thank you Dan!

[louis c]

12. K&R

I have less sympathy for the Jill Stein, Write In, Sit Out people who now pretend that somebody, other than them, is responsible for Trump, than I do for the actual Trump voters. after all, the former group is supposed to know better. The only way morons can win an election in the country, is for the non-morons to do nothing. Not voting for the Democrat in a binary choice, is doing nothing.

They elected Trump by not voting for the binary choice, Hilary Clinton.

[peggysue2]

13. Well said, sir.

This line in particular:

Remembering is important . . .

Otherwise we repeat the same mistakes, claim amnesia and continue the wreckage while bearing no responsibility for bad judgment.

Democrats vote for Democrats. Period, full stop.

[brush]

47. "Otherwise we repeat the same mistakes.." This line in your post just triggered this memory:

Sarandon also supported Nader in 2000.

[BainsBane]

14. Trash thread enables people to avoid reading something

but it doesn't serve the goal of controlling speech and thought.

[GoneOffShore]

16. Very seldom finding myself agreeing with your posts, but this one is spot on.

Stein has proven herself to be no friend to the Democratic party or the progressive movement in general. And Sarandon has shown that politically, she's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[radical noodle]

17. Excellent! n/t

[KPN]

18. Absent the scolding

I might have been inclined to agree. Your OP sounds to me like "we can do it but you can't".

It really seems counterproductive and frankly idiotic to engage in these exchanges, but it seems more idiotic to be silent when there's real need for change and many seem oblivious to that. It isn't about Sarandon or Stein, it's about the party.

[LiberalLovinLug]

20. Its probably because you defeat your defense by using a non sequitur argument. It looks disengenuous

Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon's are completely different, completely 180 from Alex Jones and Donald Trump. So when you lump them all together as enemies in the same basket you come off looking quite uninformed.

Looking at just the politicians of the two groups, Stein and Trump.
I shouldn't have to list what is on the Green Party platform. You can look it up. They stand for most every Democrat party policy. The only difference is they go further. They are much more militant about tackling climate change for example. And for getting dirty big money out of campaigns. I would dare anyone on DU to find something they really disagree with on their policy page.

Trump...well we all know that Trump stands for everything the Democrats do not. He is in the process of pissing on Obama's bed and dismantling every good thing he started. And would not be caught dead endorsing anything Stein put out there or Sarandon advocated for.


The other group, the advocates. Sarandon and Jones:

Sarandon has been one of the most vocal progressively political activists in her acting career. She has marched with women's groups, supported Cindy Sheehan. She has advocated monitoring US elections for fairness. She was very vocal during the Iraq War under W Bush. Occupy. Code Pink. And more. But she is more radically left than the slow moving establishment Democratic party and out of frustration she supports the Green party because her belief is that the Democrats, by moving too slowly on progressive issues IHO, is more of a facilitator of the status quo and believes that one should vote their conscience and personal principles above over-all strategic voting...no matter what the consequence.

Alex Jones on the other hand is a piece of shit liar that has his own CT "performance art" show. He is fully imbedded in Trump's cabal and has zero empathy for any liberal concern that Sarandon, Stein, or Democrats would champion.


So by listing them all together in one pot of soup, you lose your audience because, out of emotion and anger, you muddle your argument with a laziness of sorts. When in fact they are completely different adversaries, and must be fought off in completely different ways.

Trump and Jones are destructive enemies and must be wiped from the earth. They will never change and are only in it for themselves, and want to destroy, smear, and lie about any idea that encourages a more egalitarian society.

The way to fight off or at least dampen the messages from Stein and Sarandon is to pull the table cloth out from under them. A good start is advocating for the $15 min wage. Free college tuition. Maternity leave. Public financing of elections. Working for single payer universal healthcare. You cannot fight these two with a hammer, but with a blanket.

But overall, what is distasteful, illogical, and disingenuous to some is that you equate those who's only difference in being TOO progressive for your likes, with two who are fascist scum. Kind of like the right calling Obama a communist and a fascist in one sentence. Does not compute.

[Madam45for2923]

21. Anyone who says that the 2 parties are the same is lying & has an agenda.

Susan Sarandon lost me when she said the above.

Thanks but no thanks.

[LiberalLovinLug]

28. Everyone who is an engaged voter has an "agenda"

I'm not here to defend Sarandon, other than to defend her right to her own opinion, and who she votes for. She never said "the 2 parties are the same" in a general sense. But that IHO one is not progressive enough, and one is bat shit crazy. But that the former, because it drags its feet on these issues for too long in her opinion, (like the Dakota pipeline for instance) does more damage than good, and more times than naught, ends up siding with the same corporate class that Republicans feed from and that already gets away with too much.

While I disagree with her not voting Democrat, because its just too important, and that it is dangerously naive to assume some glorious revolution will spring up from the Trump nightmare, by risking years probably decades, to recover from it. I think this is not the time for that. Maybe a third party would be viable some day, but not now.

But I see no problem with pressure from the left. It keeps the Dems on their toes. Keeps them focused on the issues that affect average people. We have an obscene media monopoly on the right, with their far far right influence. I see a need even, for those like Stein and Sarandon to push from the left. A healthy democracy needs that....IMO

[radical noodle]

82. She actually said Hillary was worse than trump

which is even worse. As did Stein. They do not speak to or for Democrats; certainly not for this Democrat. Sure, they have a right to their opinion, but they don't have a right to act holier-than-thou after giving us trump.

The pressure from the left might have worked out if Hillary had been elected and they had worked to help that happen. Instead, they voted out of pure spite so that she would lose and we'd get Trump. I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't consider them Democrats and never will.

[LiberalLovinLug]

107. We see it differently

You may not consider them Democrats, but we still need their votes. These may be people that, if you attended a protest rally on say, climate change inaction, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, any number of more liberal concerns...they may just be the person next to you in that march. These are people that have many if not all of the same concerns as you do politically, they just gave in to their frustrations at their own perceived views that Democrats are too much controlled by big money interests. To the point that they couldn't even hold their nose and vote D. That the party needed a full rebuild.

These folks can be won back. At least enough of them, if the party shows it is listening and moving in the right....or rather the correct...direction.Which I am please to see them do, as they are finally allowing the left wing of the party, the wing that is usually always right in hindsight, a bigger voice, including Bernie Sanders. For too many years, decades even, the Democrats have been the party of defensiveness. Its time that we are the ones that knock. With bold ideas. And show the American public what could be theirs.

On your point about the pressure may have worked if Hillary had gotten elected. I believe that many who voted third party, or even chose to stay home, probably did so believing the MSM that there was simply no way that she would lose. I know that is not an excuse for them, and they should all be ashamed, but it is a likely reason. That many of those that voted Green did so as a 'shot across the bow' as a way to remind Hillary that she'd better pay attention to those that have been frustrated with the direction of the party in the last couple of decades or so. I believe that many would not have engaged in a protest vote if they had known how close it was going to be.

Now we can hate on these people that made this mistake. If they come to us and say "I'm sorry, I just wanted to send a message to the Democrats", to react to that by saying "Sorry, you will never be a Democrat in may eyes, go vote Green again, we don't want you", well, I think that is a mistake.

[radical noodle]

112. They will never vote for Democrats

If they couldn't be bothered to vote in 2016 against the maniac trump, they cannot be counted on for anything. Maybe they voted Green as a shot across the bow, but that doesn't seem very likely considering they continue to beat up on Hillary daily and still swear trump is better than she would have been. What they did was vote against Hillary because they were angry that their favorite candidate didn't win. People that stupid and spiteful did not earn a place in this party. It's those who work and vote and volunteer for Democrats who have a right to a voice in the party. Those who vote to soothe their own egos over the good of the nation aren't people who belong in this party. None of them are saying they're sorry, they've been gloating for nearly a year now. It will never change and now they think they want to run the party they wouldn't vote for. Please.

I can see your point but I don't see anyone saying they're sorry yet. Until then, I won't change my opinion of them.

[Demsrule86]

114. Yeah...the problem is it turns voters off and we lose.

I hate losing and those who cause us to lose.

[R B Garr]

22. Back to reality. This entirely misses the point. Every single thing about it.

Madam in post #21 said it in one sentence. Anyone who says the two parties are alike is a liar and a useful idiot for the GOP.

Quit attacking Democrats. That is where the divisiveness is. The divisiveness is not from people who don't worship one man from a small state.

[lunamagica]

24. I will admit that I laughed out loud when I read this about Sarandon

"believes that one should vote their conscience and personal principles above over-all strategic voting...no matter what the consequence." No matter what the consequence? Like what? Really, what are the consequences for her?

Now, if I misread and you meant to write "no matter what the consequence are for others. If they suffer and even die for her cause it is worth to sacrifice them with her purity vote" I agree she believes that.

[R B Garr]

31. I laughed too. Their own propaganda encourages

Third parties, and we're all supposed to pretend it's to benefit Democrats. LOL, that scam is thoroughly exposed by now.

[LiberalLovinLug]

32. The consequence for the nation. Which she is a citizen of.

But I think you knew that. Its not that difficult to understand.

I fail to see how you can paint her as a self-serving, when she has been a part of many social activist and civil rights protests for decades. And yeah, what are the consequences for her? Surely a GOP administration would be better for her pocket book as someone with wealth. So her actions do not even support your interpretation of her reasoning.

Yes I agree, that she does believe in a kind of purity. Of course many of those "pure" policies are just normal law in most every other western democracy. But I agree that she puts those goals, those social advancements, above entrenched party loyalty. And does so in a radical way, where she thinks even if Armagedon is brought down because of her vote, it just means that Armegedon will be over sooner. I think there are all kinds of flaws to this strategy which i've already talked about.

But that threat is a completely different front than the Trump/Jones one. And conflating them as ONE singular foe, confuses and ultimately deflates our battle.

[lunamagica]

41. GMAB. Sarandon is a hypocrite. She is a model/spoke person for L'oreal. She's taking millions from

a company which is guilty of using child labor, polluting the oceans, and a many other issues. Career moves such as this have allowed her to have more money than she can spend. It's easy to be so self-righteous when you are nor risking anything. But what about those who will suffer and die in the name of her (and others like her) purity vote? What about them?

She pulled the same stunt back in 2000 when she supported Nader. Where did Nader supporters take us? An absurd war, hundreds of thousands of deaths, the country moving further to the right. And Sarandon? Fine, thank you. She was safe in her cocoon and came out unscratched. So what does she do? She doubles down in trying to defeat the Democratic candidate. She said that Hillary was more dangerous than trump. Do you agree with that?

Obama did a good job. Hillary would have continued moving us forward. If she was POTUS now, our health coverage would be improving, not being dismantled. We would not be in the verge of WWIII. And you can be sure Puerto Rico would be getting the help it needs.

Sarandon an her ilk, the Green Party, etc. have never done anything to move America forward, quite the opposite. They show up every four years to disrupt the election and fight Democrats, which only helps the GOP. Sarandon's (and the others) "contributions" have only deterred Progress and moved us further to the right.

Again, do you agree with Sarandon that Hillary is more dangerous than trump?

[LiberalLovinLug]

45. No I do not. That is why I supported Hillary in the election

But I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can see a lot of the points Sarandon makes, without agreeing with her to vote third party. Just as I can also see a lot of virtue in the Green Party platform, without voting for them.

I just find this "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" line of thinking simplistic, short sighted and lazy.

[lunamagica]

51. No, it is not. It is not simplistic, short sighted or lazy to take into account those people

who will suffer the most and die when you vote.

It is not simplistic, shortsighted or lazy to think strategically and vote for the best and most realistic way to make progress.

I just find this "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" line of thinking simplistic, short sighted and lazy." That's funny, considering that IS Sarandon's position. For her is my way or the highway. Hillary had a great, progressive platform. Everything would be so different with her at the helm. But it didn't include everything Sarandon wanted. My way or the highway

You know what is simplistic and shortsighted? To support a party that has no chance of winning. To want things RIGHT NOW without analyzing the the possibilities.

The Green Party is all talk. In reality they have moved the country backward with their actions.

Saying you can walk and chew gum at the same time about a matter like this is shortsighted and simplistic

[LiberalLovinLug]

61. "you are either with us, or with the terrorists"

I'd not interpret Susan's way of thinking as black and white like that. I thought her argument was one party was pure evil. One party was too wishy washy, and one party was juuuuuuuuust right (for her).

I meant that in response to the OP. That when W Bush said that he was lumping all the protesters to the Iraq war as being the same as the actual terrorists. In the same way, the OP tries to lump allies of progressive ideals, even if from a third party, as being the same as the fascists that are in power now and working to destroy anything progressive. I find that intellectually lazy and ultimately self-defeating.

I agree also that it was/is time to think "strategically and vote for the best and most realistic way to make progress". The stakes were just too high to want everything RIGHT NOW.

But to then go on from that that everyone else, that may even share much the same social values as yourself, but ultimately did not vote as you did but chose another progressive party to represent them, are all deplorables is wrong headed.

We have to glean voters from not only disappointed moderate small r Republican voters, and non-voters but also those disillusioned voters from the left. They may be frustrating you to no end, but they are not the enemy, or some of them at least don't have to be.

[ProfessorGAC]

104. And Therein Lies The Disconnect

See, I find Sarandon's conscience and principal over consequence approach to be two dimensional nonsense.
You, apparently, see that as a deep, strategic vision.
I concur with others earlier. It's easy to be a purist when the consequences don't affect in the short term. To me, there's nothing strategic about that sort of thinking.

[LiberalLovinLug]

108. I think you may have mistook what I was saying

You said,

"You, apparently, see that as a deep, strategic vision."

If you were replying to my line,

"I agree also that it was/is time to think "strategically and vote for the best and most realistic way to make progress". The stakes were just too high to want everything RIGHT NOW. "

I was simply finding a point of agreement with lunamagica where they said,

"It is not simplistic, shortsighted or lazy to think strategically and vote for the best and most realistic way to make progress. "

and

"You know what is simplistic and shortsighted? .... To want things RIGHT NOW"

I was agreeing that now (last Nov.) is not the time for a protest vote.


But moving on, I don't think Sarandon was working on any real strategy either. She like everyone else, thought that Hillary was going to win. She voted Green partly because she thought she had the luxury to vote her conscience and then get ready to battle the status quo elements in the ruling Democrats in power after the election. I'm sure she was thinking that her Green vote could be a feather in her hat as well on the lines of "if you want my vote back you'll have to earn it"....But a part of her also was radical enough to accept the consequences and find whatever silver lining, or from another point of view an opportunist excuse, in her post election vocalizations about how the country is so much more politically engaged now. And that would not have happened without a madman in office.

But really, why are we giving so much weight to one Hollywood actor's influence. I'm so sick of talking about Sarandon as if she was some huge force. Or even Stein who got only 1% of the vote. Heck Johnson and the Libertarians did 3x that!.

[Trumpocalypse]

113. The real problem is that

too many think voting is a privileged way to express their own moral purity instead of a civic duty.

[Arazi]

26. Thoughtful respectful post. Well done

Unfortunately too many here are ideologically blinded and would rather piss on potential allies than work towards getting their vote

[LiberalLovinLug]

33. Thankyou. I agree.

[R B Garr]

36. "Work towards getting their vote". As opposed to working

against Democrats. Allowing endless lies and smears against Democrats is not going to get votes. That's what is being called out by pointing out Sarandon's lies. Anyone who thinks Trump was okay to make a point is a liar and a useful idiot for the GOP. She also did this with Nader. So we didn't get Gore. Enough of this nonsense.

[LiberalLovinLug]

39. Oh Garr

There's a difference between lying and holding a strong political opinion. The GOP and Trump lie, blatantly, provably, all the time. The more left wing progressives, of which Sarandon is one of, holds and publicly discusses strong opinions. Yes even those that you may consider radical, those that make some Democrats uncomfortable; like being criticized of being too cozy with the likes of Goldman Sachs and the .1%. And that in some areas, like that one, the top establishment in the Democratic party could be seen, at times, as serving the same masters as the Republican party. At least that is her opinion, and frankly a lot of others. Just because she has been public with this opinion, does in no way put her in the same basket as a Trump or Alex Jones.

Yes, we must work towards getting those that might be swayed by the tempting notion of "fuck it, lets just burn it all to the ground"...to vote for Democrats. I agree. But making enemies of them, calling activists who have worked on the front lines of liberal social causes for decades the ultimate insult as supporters of Trump, will not sway them to come back. Only actual policy proposals that they see will work for them, at least for a lot of them, for enough of them, will do that. That is my opinion.

[R B Garr]

42. Back to reality. When your "opinions" are lies, they

are still lies. She gives herself a platform because of her privileged celebrity, so she is not accountable. She is worth $50 million, and she obviously enjoys her money, but anyone else is corrupt. It's not progressive to say that burning things down with a con man like Trump is okay so she can get her jollies having a microphone while everyday people without her monetary resources are being hurt. That's not progressive. She's a self/important liar, just like Stein.

[LiberalLovinLug]

44. Sorry but opinions based on what you see in front of you are not lies

An opinion like Democrats have become too cosy with corporate America because of seeing in front of you, closed door $200,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs, or that the TPP is the 'gold standard', or supporting the Dakota pipeline's corporate backers over its native inhabitants right to clean water. Based on seeing all this, she has an opinion that in some ways Democrats, at least the top establishment, have some things in common with Republicans. Even though you may vehemently object to that opinion, one can see how she got there.

That is much different than a bold face lie out of the blue, like an inauguration crowd was the biggest in history for example. Without any logical path to that reasoning.

[R B Garr]

46. These are GOP lies or the ethos of a failed

campaign. He was asked to prove what policies were influenced, and he couldn't. They are smears intended to elevate one man's campaign. Anyone can see that Gore was nothing like Bush. It's a lie to say both parties are the same. Quit attacking Democrats. Attack Republicans instead.

[LiberalLovinLug]

49. I do not agree with your definition of "attacking"

To me, my OPINION is that defending another person's right to speak out, no matter their celebrity status, or defending a person for running for office in a democracy, both of whom hold more left of center views than the last Democratic running candidate for President, is not "attacking" the Democratic party.

Your OPINION is that it is. (you woudn't lie to me would you?)

You see how OPINIONS work?

anyways, I've made all my points in this thread. Go ahead, have the last word.

[R B Garr]

65. It was Trump's OPINION that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

He spoke of it often, even though it wasn't true. That makes it a LIE. He was allowed to continue LYING about Obama being born in Kenya because he was given a microphone because of his privileged celebrity status. See how that works?

Birthers and Tea Partiers have OPINIONS about Barack Obama, but when the facts and evidence to the contrary is glaringly against your opinion, to keep repeating it is a LIE. She already pulled this with Nader. The two parties are NOT the same. That is a LIE. What makes her worse is that her LIES are actually hurting everyday people now who need healthcare or the DACA people who face deportation because she wanted to have a revolution and be part of some popularity movement that was not centered in reality.

Jill Stein is also a liar and a fraud. She actively demonizes Democrats for anything under the sun, then pals around with Russian oligarchs. WTF.

FUCK Susan Sarandon, and FUCK Jill Stein.

[lunamagica]

52. The more left wing progressives, of which Sarandon is one of, holds and publicly discusses strong op

opinions. Yes even those that you may consider radical, those that make some Democrats uncomfortable; like being criticized of being too cozy with the likes of Goldman Sachs and the .1%"

Sarandon is cozy with the .1 percent. Case in point, Alvaro Noboa

[ismnotwasm]

27. You are defending Sarandon and Stein?

They are at best, useful tools. They sit from a safe perch and mouth about “progressives” with their influences. Stein, in particular, is an asshole. Sarandon stated that Hillary was more dangerous than Trump, making her a moron. I have no respect for that. Quite the opposite.

[LiberalLovinLug]

35. Yes, I am defending their right to be heard in a democracy

Even if I would not vote the same way.
I'm not going to repeat my thoughts why, as I did it quite extensively already.

And I agree that they are useful tools. As I stated, I think its important to have pressure from the left on the Democratic party. For too many years now its all been from the right.

[lapucelle]

67. The OP does not deny their right to be heard.

The OP addresses the bewildering defense on a Democratic board of two non-Democrats who actively worked against party in last year's GE.

The Good Doctor and SS are neither Democrats nor the left. They are the morons.

[guillaumeb]

29. Well said. It would make an excellent stand alone post. eom

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. thanks

[DanTex]

38. Your post illustrates why it's important to keep reminding people about the Green Party.

It's surprising that, after 2000 and now 2016, people still believe the things you are saying. But, alas, some do.

Sure, the Green Party platform, on paper, is progressive. But the Greens have no hope of, no plans for, and no intention of ever implementing any of it. All they do here in the real world is help Republicans get elected. Sarandon's political activities, same deal. Yeah, she protested the Iraq War, but that was only after actually helping the Iraq War happen by endorsing Nader in 2000.

In the way that actually matters, they are in the same box as Jones and Trump: they work to get Republicans elected. Progressives who have been around the block once or twice understand this, but the problem is, the Greens go for impressionable and naive political newcomers.

[LiberalLovinLug]

43. Yes, people, especially Democrats, should be always reminded of the Green Party

It is good to be aware of the competition. But as it stands, even though the Green Party is a world wide party, that sprang up firstly as a party to create awareness of our ecological destruction and man made climate change, they have embraced a lot of other progressive causes....now is not the time for them to steal votes away from the Democrats. Where I live now, they were voted in in as part of a coalition with a more liberal party to barely defeat a con party. I don't know how anyone with any liberal tendencies can objectively look at them and their platform and have a problem with it.

You agree that their platform on paper is progressive. So you don't have a problem with that, only that they are so damn tiny of a party? I though the US was a democracy. Where a person could run for government if they passed certain requirements. I just find all this hatred because an individual exercised those democratic rights and ran for office disturbing. The way you defeat someone like that in a democracy is to convince the population that you can reach those same goals, or close to those goals, better than the other progressive party.

Calling a fellow progressive, even though she or he may not be a member of your particular group, even though they may be misguided, may be too small to make a difference, may be too radical for you,.... as being the same as a misogynistic, racist, sexist, greedy, self serving, putrid shell of a man (which goes for Trump and Jones)...is simply not helping anyone. They are two very different animals.

[DanTex]

48. You misunderstand the Green Party.

They aren't "competition." They've never won an electoral vote, a house seat, or a senate seat. They aren't running to win, they are running to help Republicans win. Their platform is not a list of policies they are working to get enacted. Its purpose is to suck naive voters away from Democrats.

Let's be very clear: the Green Party wants Republicans to win elections against Democrats. That is their essential characteristic. Sure, Susan Sarandon may have different reasons for wanting Trump to beat Hillary, or Bush to beat Gore, than someone like Steve Bannon. But, the fact that Greens have delusional fantasies about a socialist utopia rising from the destruction that Trump leaves in his wake, that doesn't change the fundamental reality that the Greens are allies of the GOP.

Yes, the US is a Democracy, and the Greens have every right to run spoiler campaigns in order to intentionally elect Republicans. I never said that what they were doing is illegal. The Republicans also have the right to run their campaigns, that doesn't stop me from criticizing Trump, and it won't stop me from criticizing Stein and co either. Dems should be under no illusions that Greens are anything but opponents of progressive causes.

[George Eliot]

55. Evidence please that your opinion is factually based.

[LiberalLovinLug]

57. "the fundamental reality that the Greens are allies of the GOP" is dellusional

Or "the Greens have every right to run spoiler campaigns in order to intentionally elect Republicans" is even more delusional.

That is some far fetched conspiracy material there. But you have every right to believe it, as is anyone's right to believe all the CT of Alex Jones. Its a free country.

The Green Party is worldwide. They are a part of coalitions in various countries that stave off far right parties. Its actually long overdue for them to have a voice in America. It is laughable to suggest that they are in cahoots in any way with Trump and the GOP.

It seems more like you are against the democratic right for a party to run for office simply because they are too small to likely be elected. That you refuse to believe that they run because they believe they can do things better than Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or other parties. How dare they!

Do you also have a CT about the Libertarians are actually in cahoots with the Democrats to defeat Republicans?

[DanTex]

68. It's a plain fact, no conspiracy.

First off, obviously, the only possible effect that a Green Party run can have is to help Republicans. Everyone knows this, it's not a conspiracy, it's simple logic. And unless Jill Stein is too dumb to understand that (which I don't believe for a second), this means she purposely wants to help Republicans win.

And in case there's any doubt about it, she actually said that Hillary Clinton would be a more dangerous president than Trump. Susan Sarandon said Trump would bring the revolution. Nader, during his run, also said that it would be better for Bush to win than Gore. So it's not even like the Greens are trying to hide the fact that they are trying to help Republicans win.

Also I'm not sure why you keep accusing me of wanting to deny the Green Party the right to run. Of course they have the right to run. It's a fact that the Green Party consistently fights against progressive causes. But that doesn't mean what they are doing is illegal. They have just as much right to aid Trump as any other Trump supporters do.

[Squinch]

71. Two elections that were lost by the margin of the Green vote. You do it once and create an

unintended consequence of electing your enemy, then you are careful not to do that again going forward.

Not the green party. They appear to glory in being the spoiler. In every sense of the word.

So that's two elections where the green party barked like a dog. I'll take that to mean it's a dog.

[JHan]

69. And that is the crux of it +++++++++++

[George Eliot]

54. Thank you.

[Demsrule86]

115. Fuck the Green party...they elected George Bush and Donald Trump...thanks

to them we have United, two fucking endless wars, Katrina, economic failure in 2008, Gorsuch, Puerto Rico, a nuclear holocaust on the horizon, the death of the ACA with Trump exec order, more tax cuts and no doubt economic failure worse than 2018...when will you all learn that the Greens collude and favor Republicans and enable their right wing policies. Who benefits if these asshats destroy the Democratic Party? Republicans. A double fuck to Greens and any who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the general period. You have blood on your hands.

[Squinch]

40. Nope. All of them are part of Trump Inc. It's shocking that you can't see that, but I guess

there's no sense in trying to get you to.

[Lazy Daisy]

90. well said

Unfortunately I think the message fell on deaf ears. I'm hoping sometime soon people will stop being so stubborn and just listen, truly listen. One can hope.

[Bucky]

23. ahh, we always scold each other

[lunamagica]

25. K&R. Excellent post, DanTex

[Bleacher Creature]

30. K&R. This place is called DEMOCRATIC Underground for a reason. NT

[k8conant]

59. UNDERGROUND for a reason?

[betsuni]

62. DU was established when G.W. Bush became president and Dems felt they had to go underground.

If you think "underground" means somehow undermining Democrats you're mistaken.

[Bleacher Creature]

84. Thank you.

I was about to type the same thing. I don't understand why people with such disdain of the Democratic Party spend so much time on a site devoted to supporting Democrats.

[betsuni]

88. It's a mystery to me, too.

And why the name Democratic Underground is hard to understand.

[Bleacher Creature]

94. I still remember those years quite well.

Bush's approval ratings were sky high, and the vast majority of people bought the Administration's justification for invading Iraq. This place was truly a refuge for Democrats who never bought into any of that nonsense - not even for a second.

For people to take that concept and turn it into a weapon against elected Democrats is shameful.

[Tarheel_Dem]

99. It's no mystery to me. I know exactly why they're here.

[tonedevil]

34. I've observed...

when Ms. Sarandon or Dr. Stein start getting more frequently mentioned on blogs like DU or Kos they show up on political talk shows. Neither one of them should get a national forum for their political ideas as they don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about.
That is the basis for my plea to stop mentioning them it only gives them unearned legitimacy. Neither one has a position they are getting power through active opposition. In the infinitesimal wisdom of political opinion shows if people are talking it doesn't matter good or bad.

[George Eliot]

53. Stein a member of Trump coalition? That is a divisive statement. Evidence?

[still_one]

60. Really? And Stein's statement how Hillary is "worse than Trump", is not only divisive, but a lie

whose words and actions by proxy, did make Stein's part of the Trump coalition

Stein deserves every bit of scorn and ridicule that is thrown her direction

[yardwork]

63. +1

[George Eliot]

70. "by proxy"? Such careful wording to a false allegation. That is what I expect of the right.

http://www.snopes.com/jill-stein-endorsed-donald-trump/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Fact Check
Green Party candidate Jill Stein has not endorsed Donald Trump, and she has expressed wariness of either Trump's or Clinton's winning the presidency.


Jill Stein endorsed Donald Trump for President.
RATING - FALSE

[Squinch]

73. George, your slip is showing.

[George Eliot]

79. ???

[Lazy Daisy]

92. It's a snotty way of saying you're not one of "us"

[George Eliot]

110. Lazy Daisy, what are you that is different from me? And what do "slips" have to do with anything?

I'm actually curious. How are you different?

[still_one]

91. I never said she endorsed Trump. I said Stein said Hillary was worse than Trump and more dangerous

than Trump, and that is a lie

[George Eliot]

109. In fact, Stein in no way endorsed Donald Trump or opined that Donald Trump is better rather, she

In fact, Stein in no way endorsed Donald Trump or opined that “Donald Trump is better” — rather, she said she wouldn’t “sleep well at night” if either Trump or Clinton were elected, (same link)

Truth is what sets the left apart from the right. We should honor it.

[still_one]

111. bullshit. She said Hillary was more dangerous than trump, and other false statements regarding

Hillary and the Democrats

Stein is a liar and a fraud, and I find it curious the great pains you are taking to defend her going as far to attribute things I said which I did NOT, including implying that I said "Stein endorsed trump"

Gee, your word parsing is laughable in defending someone who who spewed similar false equivalencies like her predecessor in 2000

How convenient some ignore that it was an establishment Democrat who pushed Medicare and the Civil rights act. How convenient that some ignore that it was moderate Democrats who appointed Justice Ginsberg, pushed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, gay rights, environmental protections, the Iran nuclear deal, etc, etc, etc

These purveyors of deceit such as Jill Stein, are intellectually dishonest, and I hope those who were foolish enough to lbelieve her purist misrepresentation and falsehoods will have learned the lesson they should have learned about false prophets in 2000

[George Eliot]

117. Emotional? You know, without uniting people on the left, the Democrats may have a very hard time

regaining power. Histrionics and misplaced blame will not unite. You don't know if the Democrats you call "establishment" did those things. There may have been many who would regard themselves as progressives in that group. All I hear in your words is more hate. Hate and division is what I expect from the right, not the left.

[Squinch]

72. LOL! All these poor outraged low post count Stein supporters!

[Metatron]

83. Exactly!

It's so obvious.

[Maven]

74. Kindly shove your entitled demand for evidence to prove what we all see

With our own eyes.

Thanks.

[George Eliot]

81. I must have hit a nerve.

[Squinch]

86. You think because you missed something that was obvious to the rest of us that you hit a nerve?

That's interesting. But it doesn't make much sense.

Are you trying to hit a nerve?

[George Eliot]

87. Given your other assumptions - what do you think?

[Squinch]

105. Why hedge on the answer? Why not just say whether you are or not?

[Tarheel_Dem]

100. Really? Putin pusher; Trump coalition. They're one and the same.

[Demsrule86]

116. Stein is a slime bucket. Check out the weasel words. She is a Trump supporter and there is evidence

"Stein says that to her knowledge, neither she, her campaign nor the Green Party have taken money from Russian entities: “I am certainly not aware of any ties whatsoever, financial or otherwise, to the Russian government.”

[A debate on RT of course! She also met with Russians...my dream she goes to jail for her action with the Russians]


she took money and colluded with the Russians.


"The only network to consistently cover her candidacy and invite her on air was RT.

"The network also hosted a primary debate for the Green Party, noting in its accompanying coverage, “Many Americans feel disenfranchised by the 2016 election’s options from both party”


[And read this and tell me the Green Party isn't supporting Trump...]

"Stein is not losing any sleep over what might have been—in her telling, Clinton wouldn’t have been much better. “There are differences between Clinton and Trump, no doubt, but they’re not different enough to save your life, to save your job, to save the planet,” she says.

“We deserve more than two lethal choices.”

I thought I might be able to find some daylight between Stein and other Green Party leaders, who I expected might be troubled at any role they might have played in helping elect a man who once claimed climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.

I was wrong.

“In some ways, Trump is one of the best things to happen to this country because look at how many people are getting off their posteriors,” says Sherry Wells, the Green Party’s Michigan chairwoman. “So part of me is giggling.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/20/jill-stein-green-party-no-regrets-2016-215281

[betsuni]

56. K&R

[still_one]

58. Bravo Dan. Well said

[Progressive dog]

66. Thank you for that.

The Trump enablers on the the left, the right, and the just plain crazies all are working for team chaos.

[JHan]

78. "Team Chaos" - that's exactly what they want.

[radical noodle]

75. K&R

[applegrove]

76. GOP trolls keeping Democratic party divisions alive for the elections to come.

[sharedvalues]

77. 2000 election was stolen: GOP suppression in FL

GOP voter suppression in Florida,
And SCOTUS,
Stole the 2000 election.

Gore won the popular vote and probably won Florida too. He deserved to be president. The GOP used dirty tricks to win that election.

[Raastan]

80. K + R

[Eko]

85. In simplistic terms it boils down to the stupid people vs the not stupid people.

The stupid people heard "corporate whore" and "wall street speeches", "emails" and "fond of killing brown children", "trade deals", "Doesnt think Hillary Clinton can lead a political revolution…" and believed that without doing any research to see if it was correct. Then they voted or did not vote accordingly.
The not stupid people actually knew what was really going on and voted for Clinton.
Some people are more responsible for this than others.
And now we pay for their bombastic rhetoric, their stirring speeches. Their populist movement.
Forgive me, no, dont, at all. If this offends you I am not sorry, not one bit.
My mom on the ACA, with cancer, I dont give a shit if this offends.
Eko.

[betsuni]

89. It's true! Animals and small children can tell the difference between Hillary and Trump

just by seeing them on TV. That some adult humans couldn't with all the information available to them is ... beyond stupid. Need a new word -- it's not natural stupidity, it's learned.

[SunSeeker]

93. K & R

[Honeycombe8]

96. I agree. How is it divisive to point out 1 reason Trump won? To be fair, tho, it wasn't all of them.

It wasn't all Green Party members and supporters. Some probably voted for Clinton. That's not unusual at all. So I wouldn't blame the entire party.

Having independent third parties is healthy. But when the stakes are high and the election close, it's time to choose between the two runaway candidates, if you truly care for your issues.

[Tarheel_Dem]

97. In addition to Stein & Sarandon, you can add Nina Turner & Cornel West to that list. "Enablers" all.

I don't care what they call themselves, they are Trump enabling imbeciles AFAIC.

[democratisphere]

101. GREEN IS RED.

Lost cause!

[BlueMTexpat]

102. Thank you, DanTex!

K&R!

[stonecutter357]

103. K&R

[Gothmog]

106. A vote for Stein was a vote for Trump