2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI don't like Jill Stein or support the Green "spoiler strategy" but let's be honest about it.
Personally I agree with the post-primary Bernie Sanders....It is wrongheaded not to support Clinton and other Democrats to defeat Trump and the GOP in this election. There's too much at stake.
But let's not mischaracterize and demonize Greens and others on "the left" who perceive it otherwise and can't see their way to doing that. Aside from some GOP plants and right-wing dirty tricksters, the supporters of the Green Party are not Trump allies or right-wingers.
They are sincere and honest progressives (and not necessarily "privileged"
who are extremely frustrated and angry with a government and political system that has been bought and paid for by the Corporate Elites, and which has been intractable and resistant to real reform for far too long.
I have a couple of friends who are in that category. I've had heated discussions with them about the self-defeating foolishness of contributing to the possibility of a Trump/GOP win. But I also understand (and share) their frustration and anger with the system.
I'm also not crazy about Jill Stein. She is annoying. But she is not a Trump supporter, nor a right-winger.
......Throughout her speech, Stein channeled Sanders' message, including creating a "radical progressive agenda."
"Donald Trump does not stand alone. Donald Trump is about the rise of right wing extremism, not only in this country, but in Europe," Stein said. "As Bernie Sanders himself so often said, the only solution to the likes of Donald Trump is a truly radical progressive agenda that restores our needs and ends the economic misery that promotes the kinds of demagogues we are seeing in Donald Trump."
I don't care if people criticize the "spoiler" strategy and those who are following it.
But I'd also hate to see the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. The Greens and Stein should not be used as an excuse to close the doors to the liberal/progresive analysis and reform that Bernie and his supporters advocated and still believe in.
Nor should it become another excuse for "left bashing" or to narrow the "acceptable" Democratic spectrum.....Taken to an extreme, that sort of behavior is, to be frank, very Trumplike itself in tone.
Obviously the Greens are not gong away, and there will always be an actual purist "fringe" that has written off the current system....But that is just the reality of a multi-faceted democracy in a complex society.
But the real enemy is Trump. The real opposition is the GOP.
IMO the best way for the Democratic Party to marginalize the Green Party is to listen and be more honestly open and receptive to the valid aspects of their message and goals, which many "mainstream" Democrats actually share and agree with.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)If the Greens want to ever be viable, they need to stay away from fruitcakes like Stein.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
Me.
(35,454 posts)“PS And for any of you feeling the Bern, Stein’s VP thinks Bernie Sanders is a white supremacist capitalist imperialist.”
http://americablog.com/2016/08/jill-stein-moscow-criticized-us-human-rights-said-nothing-russian-human-rights.html
We do not need to be more open and receptive to jack. We already posess their better qualities ourselves without all the baggage. If they want to enter into competition with us they better bring their A game. They need to join us and vote democratic.
Green party is cray with Jill Stein.
We should call it out for what it is instead of patronizing.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They have no sense
Hopefully the Green Party will be able to recover from Stien--but right now--fuck them. I am NOT receptive to a damn thing they say as long as she is leading and is supported. Anyway, if I was going to toss away my vote I'd vote Socialist party--like I did until the year 2000.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)They need to stop running kooks and get it together
ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)The party has the potential to be a true change agent--potential--to be true change agents only, but right now they are attracting every politically inclined wing nut left of center. And that's sad to watch.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We actually do listen and incorporate their best stuff in our party platform and leave all the nuttyness alone.
There is no need to be nice to someone who is trying to help Trump win
Tarheel_Dem
(31,236 posts)especially Jill Stein, are just as much the opposition as the Republicans, and most are just as 
. The whole anti-vax CT, and her recently disclosed connection to Putin should make all of us run away in horror.
skylucy
(3,740 posts)
Gothmog
(145,475 posts)I have no use for Stein or the Green party
Spazito
(50,408 posts)xocet
(3,871 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Gothmog
(145,475 posts)The SCOTUS could not even rule in this case if Nader had not screwed Gore. Here are some facts on this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
The SCOTUS would never had a chance if Nader had not been stupid
intersectionality
(106 posts)The SCOTUS would have never had a chance if poor people, people of color and the formerly incarcerated had not been disenfranchised from their vote.
The SCOTUS would have never had a chance if Bush's brother wasn't the governor.
The SCOTUS would have never had a chance if Katherine Harris wasn't Secretary of State.
The SCOTUS would have never had a chance if voting ballots were standardized across the 50 states to reduce confusion on what constitutes a vote.
The SCOTUS would have never had a chance if pollworkers had been more competent.
The SCOTUS would have never had a chance if Gore had won more swing states.
The SCOTUS would have never had a chance had Gore campaigned better in Florida.
The SCOTUS would have never had a chance if they went by popular vote.
There's a lot of steps to get through before Nader, but by all means please continue to blame an individual for all of our woes. Certainly, feel free to avoid talking about the need to reform a totally fucked up and disenfranchising system we use to determine who will represent American citizens.
Gothmog
(145,475 posts)You can ignore Nader's stupidity if you want but Nader and the Green Party are responsible for Bush and his failures as a president. Stein is attempting to duplicate Nader's feat and people who support Stein and the Green Party have better be prepared to be treated the same way that Nader is still being treated by this board and other Democrats.
intersectionality
(106 posts)Blame is a one way street that absolves you of accountability, so keep parading around like Nader caused W's presidency and not that Dems didn't run a stronger campaign. Very 2012-Rovian analysis of how elections work, imo. Hope your analysis leads to more realistic predictions than turd blossom because otherwise it's just qq all the time about a decade and a half ago. Not "we should not let this happen," not "we can do better next time," but a continual gnashing of teeth. Do something or stop whining, but screaming Nader at the top of your lungs every time this is mentioned makes it look like you have a limited understanding of elections. We all know what the end was, but if you continuously refuse to examine the means then you probably should butt out of the conversation.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)and apologists won't change that fact.
sherlocksistah
(51 posts)from an article in Politicususa when the polls were much tighter than they are now.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/29/repeat-me-vote-jill-stein-vote-donald-trump.html
Greens have been denying the fact that Nader threw the race to Bush for 16 years. Nader assured his greens that it didn't matter if Gore or Bush were elected, both were equally unfit in his opinion. Same nonsense Stein uses now. Nader wasn't stupid, he was evil and decided to campaign vigorously in swing states "Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."
Jill Stein is picking up right where Nader left so Democrats should not hesitate to fight the Greens on all fronts. They are so anti Hillary it's sickening!!
George II
(67,782 posts)....would have gone to Gore (certainly more than 538!). Nader cost Gore the election and thousands of Americans their lives and trillions of dollars frittered away in bush's wars.
The original World Trade Center might still be standing if Gore had won the election.
That is not a "meme", it's a fact.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)That certainly wasn't Nader's fault, was it?
George II
(67,782 posts)6,000,000 people voted in Florida in 2000.
So let's get back to the point. Since 97,488 people voted for Nader, if he wasn't on the ballot and 49,014 of them voted for Gore (most likely MANY more) then Gore would have won in Florida and the Presidency.
You can slice it and dice and rationalize it any way you want, it won't change the fact that the presence of Nader on the ballot accomplished only one thing - it gave bush the Presidency.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Gore didn't get enough Democrats in Florida to win, never mind the independents and Greens.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,208 posts)Candidates are expected to carry their home state. If Al had won Tennessee, Florida and Nader wouldn't have been an issue. Considering how far right the Democratic Party has moved from the party of FDR, I have no problem with the Green Party reminding us. But Jill Stein is not a good representative.
Gothmog
(145,475 posts)Nader and Stein are both operating on the theory that a trump victory will help their cause. That theory is simply false. Nader got W elected and as result we got the Iraq war, the gutting of the voting rights act and Citizens United. Bush's failed presidency did help get Obama elected but did not advance the crazy goals of the nader/stein people
Gothmog
(145,475 posts)For some funny reason, Karl Rove funded Nader in 2000 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
This is from the GOP bag of dirty tricks that worked once before. I wonder who is financing Stein
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)became a right wing hell hole. It would not have been even close if those Green Trolls had not spent a year saying Gore=Bush...what was a lie...the Green traitors (fuck them) and Nader (same for him ) gave Bush the white House and inflicted United and all the other misery of those years on us...and they helped Kerry lose too. I despise them. But this year is worse than any of that...because those traitors want to elect Trump...think about that ...RoeVwade gone, Civil rights gone and way worse stuff too...we would be lucky to avoid a nuclear war. And you want me to believe these fucking Green idiots are progressive...no they are not.
I have no need for Nader or Stein and her followers either. But blaming 2000 on Nader is a tired, lazy argument.
There are a number of factors that skewed the 2000 election (purged voters, the horribly designed butterfly ballot, the S.C. Nader, etc.). The most glaring is that nationally 11 % of Democrats voted for George W Bush. In Florida it was 12%; while Gore only received 8% of Republican votes.
But I suppose it's easier to blame Nader and his treehuggers than the hundreds of thousands of Democrats that jumped the fence to actually vote for Bush.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Gore owns his own shitty campaign completely
Gothmog
(145,475 posts)I find it to be very sad that so many people are excusing or ignoring Nader's role in the Bush win. Bush would not be POTUS but for the arrogance of Nader and we will be dumb to ignore history.
Stein and the greenies are campaigning on the theory that they want Trump to win. They have not learned from history. The bush 43 years were horrible but such years did not lead to the greenie's promised revolution. A Trump victory would be worse than the W and there is no upside to hoping for such a victory
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)The Democratic Party has been the biggest machine of progressive change in America. Progressives are welcome and have a voice in the Democratic party. Non progressives dont have a voice in the Green party, which makes them regressive.
Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)
still_one
(92,320 posts)and that is garbage.
Stein deserves the slurs being slung at her
sarge43
(28,942 posts)Talks a great game, doesn't step up. Until she holds an elective office and reality crashes through the door, meh.
Say what you will about Senator Sanders; he's been in the tranches most of his adult life and proved his abilities.
glennward
(989 posts)really stand for? And then explain why the snuggle up to Russia and Putin the same way Trump does.
still_one
(92,320 posts)to in relation to the Green party "snuggling up to Russia and Putin. Do you have a link?
My understanding is that people who belong to the Green party are mostly liberal. It does not mean I agree with everything the Greens propose, but I would suspect on some issues such as the environment, social security, healthcare, etc. they would pretty much align with most Democrats.
I have no doubt there will be Greens voting for Hillary in the general election, so why would I dis all greens? However, I will critisise individual Green Party members such as Jill Stein who try to undercut Hillary and Democrats
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,839 posts)I can consider these questions/concerns then.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Trump is the awful uniquely unAmerican enemy in this election...and the GOP are their usual butthead opponents to Democrats.
That is priority 1. It should not be bashing progressives, either those within the party or outside of it.
If the tone of the election is the demand for lockstep agreement with the powers that be, and bashing "the left" yet again, it will not bode well for reform or constructive engagement after the election or in the long run.
JustAnotherGen
(31,839 posts)She has the exact same low opinion of HRC as Trump does. As a matter of fact she holds him up as the better person.
Yet - you want us to tiptoe around her feelings and those of her supporters? They aren't Democratics. And they are bashing our candidate.
Maybe we won't want THEM or HER (Stein) come November? If we win without them (we will) then we don't need them at all. They can try again in 2020.
In that time - Stein perhaps can run for a state level position and serve in that role to gain some actual legislative experience.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)Why do Green "candidates," such as Stein and Nader, who've never held elective office, insist in starting with the very highest elective position? If the Green party is building itself up by seriously seeking (not just as a protest) local and state elective offices, I'm not seeing it in my part of the country. These "campaigns" seem to be only attention-seeking devices which, as in Nader's case, can have serious effects.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)privileged, although many would be loathe to admit it. The vast majority are white. Most are educated and can be criticized for essential hypocrisy or naïveté or both on a wide range of views, from vaccines to foreign policy to mindless consumption.
Their candidates are a pair of wackadoodles who embrace Putin.
Their platform such as it is is regressive and dangerous.
I am happy to demonize them although I think ignoring them as usual is the best tactic. If only we hadn't amplified them by letting their infiltrators into our nominating process and convention this year. (And from this I exempt the vast majority of Sanders supporters -- I mean the mouth-taping hero-heckling babies at the DNC).
By October they will be irrelevant and back down to low single digits. And the perpetually angry and dissatisfied people who are looking for heroes to worship can move on to some other impossible dream.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Jill Stein's actions are making it more likely that Trump will be elected. Anyone who doesn't understand that is an idiot. And anyone who does understand that but supports her anyway is a Trump enabler.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Thanks for your courageous post.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Depressing if it is.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)From the responses you got, I don't think anyone understood you. Guess there's still hard feelings on both sides of this pissing match.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)This has to do with Green trolls trying to throw the election to Trump. Green trolls have nothing to do with Bernie Sanders; he does not support them by the way. The Greens and Stein are the enemy as they want to elect Trump and are running ads in swing states against Hillary in order to accomplish this. Why do we have a thousand posts defending Stein and the Greens? If someone is not over the past unpleasantness, it is not us.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Re-read the OP and think about it in the context of calling people you do not know "the enemy". Does the OP use that kind of language or were they trying to get you to consider them in a different light?
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)They want to elect Trump...give him control over the nuke codes...so they are the enemy and must be defeated as much as Trump...in 2000 we didn't see the threat...and we lost so much because of fucking Greens and Nader...never again. In reality, by trying to elect Trump, they are trying to enact tax cuts for the rich, kill Roe V Wade, starve babies , end health care and possibly cause nuclear war...nope they are the enemy and have been for years.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Again, read the OP and see the specific references to specific people who did not express the point of view you are describing. Their point of view were represented quite differently from what you describe.
xocet
(3,871 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)They are indeed to be stopped, but "the enemy" is not the right term to use.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)I will never give the Greens or Stein a break. They want to elect Trump. 1 or 2% could make a difference in a swing state too. And I don't understand those who defend them.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)Anyone who wants to help Trump become president is the enemy. Anyone who inflicted Bush on us is the enemy...they take money from the GOP to act as spoilers as well...Texas and Pennsylvania come to mind. We would lose any chance of progressive policy should Trump get in and get the courts. We would lose RoeVWade and civil rights as well. So no I am not 'palinesque'...(which is an insult by the way)because Palin would love those outcomes...the question is why does a supposedly progressive party like Greens or their loser candidate Jill Stein want this?
PatSeg
(47,556 posts)his very rational and coherent post. A few see "Stein" and go into reactive mode.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)PatSeg
(47,556 posts)on these threads. A couple weeks ago the name Jill Stein meant nothing to me and now looking through the threads on GD2016, one would think she was a bigger threat than the republican nominee. Yes, it is getting annoying and unproductive, not to mention a little suspicious.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)
Squinch
(50,989 posts)Those "sincere progressives" you talk about are full of shit.
At this point they know what the stakes are. If they are still pouting that their participation medal wasn't shiny enough, they can drop dead.
Jill stein is the opposition. Those who are with her are the opposition. In a year where Donald Trump is running. And they are using the party which gave us W.
They can all drop dead.
Just fucking no.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Anyone who siphons votes from Hillary is not my friend. Nor living in the real world.
Absolutely true.....
cprise
(8,445 posts)Seriously, get a grip! You do realize there is also a Libertarian Party on the right? But I guess you're OK with that?
Squinch
(50,989 posts)you to guess that.
Get your own grip.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Squinch
(50,989 posts)cprise
(8,445 posts)And aren't you proving the OP's point by behaving this way?
Squinch
(50,989 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,621 posts)
emulatorloo
(44,164 posts)forever. Many Greens share our goals of electing more Democrats. We've had many great members who identify as Greens.
So I really don't like seeing some folks conflate all Green Party members with Jill Stein. I am trying to push back on that
On the otherhand I don't really see the point in treating Stein as a sacred cow. I think you and I might be on the same page there.
If a public figure like Stein is spending the majority of her time smearing the Dem nominee, then DU'ers will push back.
I will again go on the record that I don't like the mindless name calling aimed at Stein.
However, I don't have a problem ridiculing her for the stupid shit she says (wifi 'screens') or noting that her pick of an anti-Bernie VP says a lot about her poor judgement and poor leadership abilities.
IMHO Stein's missteps this season have done a lot to damage the progressive brand. I don't think I am the only one who thinks that. Think Bernie Sanders.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)The Green party has been caught both in Texas and in Pennsylvania (and other places too) taking money from the GOP to act as spoilers. They deserve what they get.
emulatorloo
(44,164 posts)I am talking specifically about DU members over the years who have self identified as Greens who want to help elect Democrats. Obviously not Greens who advocate voting for third party, those folk are quickly shown the door.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)but we support the nominee...as was told to a member recently. You must support Democrats including our nominee.
emulatorloo
(44,164 posts)Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)and has damaged the Green brand which is moot since they are already damaged beyond any help.
PatSeg
(47,556 posts)makes perfect sense. I wish more people could or would express themselves that clearly.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But as (I think) I noted in the OP that it's a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's kind of like how FDR, universal health care and other positions and messages associated Bernie got thrown under the bus and demeaned as "free stuff" etc. simply because he was the challenger.
Now that he is supporting Clinton, he's suddenly lost his pitchfork and horns.
I'm just hoping personality politics doesn't trump (oops) issues moving forward.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)try to support a different candidate.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)because we are attacked by them incessantly.
brush
(53,815 posts)in the presidential cycle?
When are they going to build a grassroots organization that gets supporters registered to vote, runs candidates and wins local offices, then statewide elections and on to Congressional races?
They don't. Every four years they have the absolute hubris to run for the highest office in the land without laid the ground work to support such hubris — and in 2000 they had a huge negative impact in contributing to W Bush's "win" and subsequent disaster of an administration.
Where's the hard work of actually building a viable party?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Wilms
(26,795 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sorry but the show up every four years is their schtick and it's gotten old.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)One candidate. 99.8% of the vote. Problem solved.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It ain't no one but the people's fault for not following along or maybe just showing up.
You want a revolution? It takes more than one person
Wilms
(26,795 posts)There are, actually, more than two candidates.
I can live with that. You can too. HRC is for all intent and purposes,, the President-elect.
Be gracious.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You don't get to tell me how to be, lol. When people go around comparing us to Korea I'm going to I'm going Laugh at how ridiculous they are. Seriously.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)I think we met over at the ER forum, back in the day.
And while I thought Eric Holder did a terrible job with Wall Street, he was no light-weight when it came to voting rights. I see a swing in the right direction there, including a number of court decisions in the last few weeks that smacked the pukes good for their voter suppression actions and attempts.
And I hope we'll see some of that trickle down to a concern over PRIMARY voting rights which took a huge hit through voting site reductions.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Part of the reason the "they are all the same" crap drives me nuts - aside from being untrue- is that is depresses participation. I always tell people that if they need to feel like their vote counts so much, they should get involved locally. Where they can have an impact - but also appreciate how much hard work most public service is!
My parents were immigrants, but also as a woman I have always felt I have a lot to lose! There's never been an excuse to sit in the fence.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)There's your answer!
Or...they can't effect the presidential outcome...because their state swings heavy one direction or the other.
And down-ticket races and primaries?? Forget it. Too much work to consider and to consider the impact. And BOTH parties are happy with that.
brush
(53,815 posts)unmarked "classified" material but gets blown up big — every four years in the Greens presidential runs that is.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)She's polling at 8%. Johnson at 4%. I wonder if each will pull half that in the general. I feel sure they won't affect the outcome. (Just like you can't pin FL2000 on Nader if you look into ALL the details of that contest and take note of the fact that Gore actually won the state. But complaining about Nader is a badge of honor dusted off every four years or whenever his name is mentioned.)
brush
(53,815 posts)And mentioning badges of honor, what the hell is Stein's run for president if not that — especially when she has absolutely no chance?
The honorable thing for her to do is bow out and get on the Dem side since her platform and ours are 80% in alignment v what, 0% alignment with Trumps'?
Yet she runs attack ads against Clinton and nothing against Trump. What's up with that? Is she getting paid by the right? Some contend that was the case with Nader in 2000.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Thank you for correcting that.
Have you considered that she is not going to get a single Trump voter? That despite how surprisingly much Sanders impressed some Republicans she'll not attract any of them? And that her candidacy will not sink Democrats? And how it is important for Greens to get a certain amount of votes to keep viable? And on and on.
Oh, and this is a democracy?
You corrected my typo. So you get it. 4%. Let's check back in when the race is over and see if she got more than 2. 
brush
(53,815 posts)She'll get some Clinton votes, thus lessening Clinton's vote tally v Trump's vote tally, which helps Trump and hurts Clinton.
Is that her agenda since she has no chance at all of winning?
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Of course, if you think everyone who won't support a republican would automatically vote for HRC were it not for a Green being in the race...that's different. And I believe incorrect, as well.
And you should also feel good that she is "attacking" Clinton. That is what EVERY candidate does to the (drum roll, please) FRONT RUNNER.
IOW, GOTV (as usual) and chill.
brush
(53,815 posts). . . you should also feel good that she is "attacking" Clinton.
Those are your words.
Are you serious? Her platform is 80% in alignment with Clinton's, yet she attacks Clinton instead of the orange, unstable, disastrous-for-the-country megalomaniac on the repug side whose platform is totally antithetical to hers.
Yeah, that should make all of us concerned for the welfare of the country and its people feel good
.Wilms
(26,795 posts)And being a democracy, you are entitled.
Donny ain't going anywhere. HRC is the President -elect. Relax and GOTV.
brush
(53,815 posts)Possible TOC violation.
This site's purpose is to help get Dems elected.
Actually, not really.
brush
(53,815 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Only a small number of people actively engage in the hard grind of direct involvement in partisan politics all the time.
Most Clinton supporters and other average "mainstream" Democrats are the same way. You can blame them for midterm losses just as much as progressives.
People have busy lives and jobs, or don't have the personal qualities necessary to work the political system. And they have to be more concerned with paying their bills, and all the otehr pressures of life, rather than obsessing over politics.
And/or they may have other things they channel their beliefs into and work to advance their values, such as community volunteering, participating in issues-oriented advocacy or careers that reflect their social goals, etc.
They support a candidate as their representative. So they show up every four years and root for a presidential campaign, but take less interest in partisan politics or off-year elections.
It's not ideal, but its human nature and social dynamics. It's not just a problem, confined to progressives.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And a big part of that is how we eat our own. We don't get how the lack of unity has harmed us - and will continue to. Wish we'd educate voters better but it seems like they are looking for a savior instead of taking a half hour to find out how shit works. Instead of clinging to how they wish shit worked.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Great post. I suspect the surrogate Bernie supporter bashing will continue. The real question is why? What is the motivation? Why not focus on the real opponent?
emulatorloo
(44,164 posts)Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)Hey, the support for Jill is puzzling...really.
metroins
(2,550 posts)I know of no Bernie bashing since his endorsement.
If a person supports Jill Stein, they are not currently a Bernie supporter.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 8, 2016, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)
She does not deserve any defense from us.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)disturbingly anti-progressive, and painting with a very broad brush.
Jill Stein is annoying but she is not not David Duke or even Ron Paul....and certainly not Donald Trump, or any other joker the GOP might have put up.
I stand by what I said in the OP -- all of it.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Enough already! These transparent attempts to "defend" Jill Stein, and to put a positive spin on the Green Party is (in my opinion) just an effort to re-hash that which has already been decided.
Why not just go the extra mile and compare her to the likes of Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt? (No, I'm not joking ... but I mention it because only someone online already did that.)
The great care you take in parsing your words and splitting those hairs reveals the truth. Apparently I'm not the only one who's not being fooled either. (But, I must admit you're much better at this than Susan Sarandon and Nina Turner are.)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I'm not the smartest person around here, but I'm smarter than you think I am.
People are defending the enemy because they can't come right out and attack our nominee (and expect to hang around here for very long.)
It's basically an "I-hate-Hillary" message, except by proxy.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Big difference than your shallow characterization.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Oh, pleeze... batting your eyes... acting all innocent and shit. I've had kids, I know that routine. You're not fooling me.
But the subtext clearly says ... "so, please indulge me while I sing the praises of the Green party and Jill Stein and how Hillary could do better in the long run if only she was more like Jill."
Actually, Armstead, the only thing that's shallow around here is the effort being put forth to disguise the true intention of the posts that suggest that the Green Party isn't as bad as all that, or that we should ease-up on our criticisms of Jill Stein.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)The following image illustrates the dangers of walking on thin ice. Some people get a thrill out of taking unnecessary risks.
PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's been like this for months. Predictable pattern, always the same.
PragmaticLiberal
(904 posts)I was just trying to be polite 
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)if she elected Trump.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
LenaBaby61
(6,976 posts)For wacka-doodle Jill Stein, and especially not when I see her saying that Hillary is more dangerous than tRump. I mean really. Plus, she spends way to much time partying with and complementing that crowd in Russia.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)does it in my book...after 2000 Nader voters taught america a lesson...we don't need to be taught a lesson, we need americans who can set their fricken egos aside and do whats right
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And bring on .... God knows what. They never put in anti work to be able to have anything to replace it with. Privileged idiots.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That includes EVERYBODY....not just those who one might disagree with.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)From 2001-2009, the air got dirtier, the groundwater was poisoned, there was more mercury in the drinking water, and about one-fifth of America's wetlands were destroyed and counterbalanced with golf course water hazards, all thanks to Ralph Nader.
But on the other hand it's important to recognize that Greens are just the other end of the horseshoe of American politics, directly opposite the knuckledragging racists on the other side and more closely aligned with them than they are with us.
Both ends of the horseshoe have political disruption as a primary goal, despite their idealistic talk. Both ends do not understand or care about the actual political process, align themselves without reservation to completely unqualified leaders who rook them for cash, and are impervious to rational argument. They aren't Democrats any more than American Nazis are Republicans, and it is sheer folly to think that they will align with us on any common goal.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)than the extreme right.....the very fact they share so many common attributes.....above all...is "my way or the high way".....democracy isn't based on this....and it boils my blood when I see people who think negotiating is some how "bad" whether ifs its the right or the left
George Eliot
(701 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 8, 2016, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)
George Eliot
(701 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Rest of us, but some do. My Stein supporting friends do jack shit at the midterms and show up and complain on election years. Lazy and intellectually vacant. I still love them but I'm not making excuses for their ignorance or arrogance.
Orcrist
(73 posts)Because I consider Trump the most dangerous candidate to ever have a realistic chance of being elected president. It's not just a matter of disagreeing on economic policies and social issues like it usually is with a republican. Trump is the perfect blend of cluelessness, narcissism, and lunacy that is extremely dangerous. I can say without any over reactive hyperbole at all that the prospect of him in the White House is a genuine threat to the life of every human being in the United States and perhaps the world. The chance of WW3 or a nuclear exchange are greatly enhanced by a Trump presidency.
Therefore anyone doing anything to get that bastard elected I consider a direct threat to me and my family. Stein helps Trump. That's all she does. She knows damn well that she has no prayer to win. All she can possibly do is bleed some votes from Hillary. But she doesn't care. Her face being on TV is more important to her than any devastation a Trump presidency would unleash on the world. In that regard she is as narcissistic as trump. A sane person who isn't just trying to be a spoiler or a rat fuck operative of Putin drops out of a race when they are only polling at 1 or 2 % this late in the game. But not Stein. Nope she is focusing her ads on battleground states where 1 or 2 points could make the difference. Hmmmm, wonder why?
To hell with her. Why should I or any other Democrat kiss her ass. She is working against us, perhaps as an agent of a foreign power.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)The Greens are in fact supporting Trump and endangering us all as a result...so any abuse heaped on their head that marginalizes them is a good thing...it gives them less influence which they use to help Trump.
brush
(53,815 posts)That's why she's staying in.
She's already got a war chest for her — wait for it — her 2018 run against Elizabeth Warren for the Senate.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Right 
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)
Gman
(24,780 posts)And every bad thing that resulted from supporting Nader to teach the Democrats a lesson. Fuck them. I cannot excuse that know be of malicious stupidity.
George Eliot
(701 posts)You can blame voter oppression, The Court, Jeb Bush, media, but voters have a right to choose. It is fundamental to our form of government. Unless you prefer North Korea.
Gman
(24,780 posts)To hell with idealistic, everybody follow where their conscience takes them, we all get screwed democracy. The program was vote for Gore and some peoples naive visions of democracy caused the Bush administration and all of us got screwed. We knew it'd be a close election and people that voted green in 2000 around were stupidly selfish idiots.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Trying like hell to get Trump elected.
Senator Sanders is an actual progressive trying like hell to get Hillary elected.
Its time to fish or cut bait.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)IMHO this OP makes no sense whatever. Stein is not a democrat, and running AGAINST HRC so she is open to any criticism we care to offer. We have plenty of good DEMOCRATS advocating sound policy for democrats. We do not need Steins BS or any kind of shaming for saying so.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)of how terrible the US is. And she's had dinner with the Russian dictator there.
There is nothing valid about Jill stein and her followers are being duped, or are among the dupers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512350395
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)one is thinking of running for president.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Politicians are going to work to persuade the persuadable.
Jill Stein supporters (or at least, those educated about how are system works) are working to ensure progressive policies are never enacted, solely so they have an excuse to complain about the lack of enactment of progressive policies. I agree that it doesn't necessarily make them right wing. It really means they have a completely different value system than both right and left voters who care about action, rather than feeling good about themselves.
Given a choice between politicians migrating to the left (that will not get them more votes, precisely because such supporters voting behavior is not explained by policies and actions), and migrating to the middle (towards voters who are actually persuadable based on policies and actions), of course politicians are going to migrate toward the middle. That is unfortunate, but green voters have really no one to blame but themselves.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Everyone makes choices about the best way to deal with problems.
Personally, I share the Green's frustration with the entrenched status quo. But I still think it is possible to "fix" the existing political system within it, as Sanders is trying to do.
But not if the parties keep the gates tightly sealed against all criticism and all calls for reform.
To paraphrase the OP, the best way to marginalize groups like the Greens is to actually make reasonable reform possible -- instead of resisting it with broad brushes.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)My point is that the vast majority of green voters are not persuaded by pedestrian things like policies and actions. Even if you don't believe that, politicians certainly do.
You also are assuming that Democrats actually have the power to make such reforms possible. That is typically not a valid assumption. The United States is a very large, diverse country, whose people have a diverse set of political views. There are ALWAYS going to be policies that the Democrats would like to enact, but cannot enact, either because such policies are not approved by a majority, or because structural (constitutional) impediments exist that prevent the majority's will from being enacted.
Green voters do not understand the difference between wanting something, and actually being able to get something. Most people realize that getting what one wants is never a given (even if they really really want it), and have learned this at an early age. Politicians are not going to spend limited time catering towards those who still haven't figured this out as adults.
Please understand that this has nothing to do with the merits of policies favored by the green party. It is simply a discussion of how our system actually works, and what motivates politicians and voters.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)keep Democrats on the defensive.
Yes there are structural barriers, differing opinions etc.
But the Dems should take a page from the GOP and be as adamant about continually punishing liberal/progressive goals instead of always saying "we can't do that."
Criticism is one thing. Criticize all you want as long as you ultimately support the party. Running a candidate in the general election that has no hope of doing anything but splitting the lefts vote is another matter. Where is the sense in saying. "you democrats are only giving us 80% of what we want so we are going to try and throw the election to a republican who will give us absolutely nothing that we claim to want." In what universe is that a sensible course of action for someone that isn't secretly up to some kind of rat fuck, be it funded by a republican or a Russian.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)She is up to no good for sure.
liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)Whatever little they had is completely gone when they put out attack ads on the only progressive candidate.
Where are the damn anti-Trump ads from them? Progressive, my ass...
I dont buy the passive aggressive bullshit from their apologists. Call a spade a spade.
apnu
(8,758 posts)By that I mean they need to start seriously campaigning on the local level and winning elections on the local level. And then from there they need to grow.
That's how third parties rise.
bananakabob
(105 posts)They show no intention of building the party; they just come out every four years with the intent to boost their own egos and make themselves seem like a major player.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and (b) start working locally instead fielding some vanity candidate for president every 4 years, then they'll earn a lot more respect
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...that is a bridge too far. I'm over at JPR and many over there are saying this. Insanity.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's not what I'm talking about, though.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Sorry about that.
Democrats Ascendant
(601 posts)
NO ONE else is talking about her, and she is at irrelant %. I've heard all I can stand from her and her rabid supporters. DU needs to stop letting her trolls on here!!!
LostinRed
(840 posts)To Bernie supporters. She is not the carrier of the revolution Bernie wants
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)FWIW, I agree the best way to neutralize the Greens is for the Dems to try for inclusion. There's good progressive stuff in their platform but unfortunately Jill Stein is a lightning rod. Combined with the revisionest history about Nader in 2000 that's now taken as gospel truth here, nuance on this topic is doomed to fail.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But it seems like everytime I visit DU, the Greens at being attacked and often as surrogates lumped in with all progressives to tap down down all of the ideas involved that transcend the annoying aspects of the Greens
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)at worst. The Greens are not progressive...I on the other hand, am progressive so I am not attacking progressives...Bernie Sanders has moved on and so should those who want a proxy war to refight the primary using the green trolls. Yes, I said trolls, traitors works too. The bottom line when all is said and done is they want to elect Trump and are running ads in swing states. And unless one supports this effort, I have no idea why one defends these folks...who know they will never get elected but want to screw the American people and elect Trump.
emulatorloo
(44,164 posts)Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)Tired of the progressive vs mean Democrats...many if not most Democrats are progressive.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)emulatorloo
(44,164 posts)Many feel the site was trolled hard by people who said they were progressives but were posting stuff from some of the more egregious right-wing sources out there. Like it or not, people go to JPR, read the loudest voices there, see posts by thoughtful progressive voices shut-down by people screaming HILLBOT, and see their worst fears confirmed.
This to me explains a lot of the resistance to those who can't at this time recognize that not every Green Party member is equivalent to Jill Stein or VP Baraka. There is still I think a feeling of being under siege.
I think it is totally understandable if you look at it that way. Reasonable? well no, but as a big ole Pollyana optimist I beleive things will normalize as time passes and everybody won't be so damn touchy.
I'll keep asking people to chill out and remember how our Green Party allies are welcome here at DU. But I'm expecting it to fall on deaf ears for a little while yet.
Lastly I believe that the vast majority of DU'ers believe in progressive change, so I don't think it is correct to say that the majority of DU'ers are attacking progressives.
I can't articulate things well without doing 10,000 revisions, so no doubt this isn't totally clear or well written
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Wouldn't surprise me one bit to discover the "loud" voices aren't DUers trolling, then bringing their own shit back here as "proof".
Too many of those posters write suspiciously the same
The obsession with that place cracks me up. They're nothing
emulatorloo
(44,164 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)emulatorloo
(44,164 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Gore1FL
(21,146 posts)Response to Armstead (Original post)
Post removed
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Edit to add: The Primaries are over. Hillary won. It's well past time to move on.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts) 
Orsino
(37,428 posts)If we really want a Democratic Congress, some Green voters could help.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)they can help on a different site not here. We support Democrats.
Gore1FL
(21,146 posts)Don't we want their votes in those races?
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)is that they support down ballot...not enough...support the Democratic nominee...if you can't do that you don't belong here.
Gore1FL
(21,146 posts)I am suggesting we not have the usual 100,000 daily "I hate Jill Stein and the Green Party" threads because the serve no redeeming purpose but bring plenty of negativity and divisiveness with them.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Of course some Greens have voted for some Dem candidates, and have lobbied their governments on behalf of some concerns we share.
Demsrule86
(68,632 posts)but don't come here if you can't support the nominee. We support the nominee on DU...this is just an excuse for those who don't like Hillary. She is the nominee...we support the nominee on DU.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...of whether common ground can be found with some Greens.
Some of them will be voting for Hillary with us, as as as for Dems on down-ballot races...as some Dems won't.
Response to Armstead (Original post)
Turn CO Blue This message was self-deleted by its author.
emulatorloo
(44,164 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)I like to see them 100% gone....they bring nothing but their egos to the table...and don't care about anything with what would happen to america...our kids....our grandkids
the moral and ethical thing for stein and the greens to do would be 100% support of hillary to STOP TRUMP.....THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING!!
but their fricken egos come first
screw america...
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You can make them 100 pevcent gone by stop paying attention. Stop getting worked up about them.
Stein and the hard core "never Clinton" people are not what is going to make the difference in this election.
brush
(53,815 posts)You say "stop paying attention" but post this OP to get people's attention.
There's a word for that.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Shouldn't even be close
FreeStateDemocrat
(2,654 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)Green supporter is probably somebody who uses "social awareness" just so he can crush puss.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)They are every bit as much, if not more, my political enemy as any fucking Republican.
Fuck 'em all!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)That was easy!
VOX
(22,976 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Clinton is most likely going to win, unless she really screws up. I want her to win, but not excited about it because I don't see her being committed top the kind of change we really Need. . I'm taking a longer view.
I'm so glad your life is so full you have time to do research my attitudes. Not that it's any of your damn business, but Yes I've posted on JPR occasionally.
Was fed up here, and tried it out. But I don't like the tone there, for the opposite reason than here. Too much anti-Clinton toxicity there. Just a mirror image of the rigid "my way or the highway" thinking that some people here (ahem) engage in.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)That is all I need to know.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)BIG FUCKING DEAL.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I couldn't agree more. It is definitely a "BIG FUCKING DEAL."
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Buh Bye
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)you still answer my posts.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)tent pissing in.
The overwhelming majority of my friends are Democrats, and among those few friends who are not Democrats, most are Greens (I have few friends who are Republicans and none of my friends are really Libertarian -- the few who describe themselves as "Libertarians" vote Republican without exception as far as I can tell so I count them as Republicans).
None of my Green friends (and family) support Trump. They are all appalled by Trump. They are pretty consistently voting for Stein, and -- of course -- they all know she is not going to win (they also think there is no chance Trump is going to win either).
Hillary didn't "lose" their vote; a year ago, they were going to vote Green unless Warren ran, and then after Warren declined to run they all got excited about Bernie, but they were never more than potential Green party voters who had a fall-to-summer fling flirting with becoming Democratic crossovers but who have now gone back home to their Green party.
They are progressive by every dictionary or poly sci textbook definition. They are not "fuckers" or "spoilers" or "busters" or "privileged elite exercising the indulgence of a protest vote." They just look on Hillary more-or-less the same way I look on Kasich (who is someone I find pretty agreeable and not incompetent for a political candidate who shares neither my core values nor my idea of which pathway the country should take).
I am trying to get them to vote Democratic in key down-ballot races, and they all seem fairly open to that idea. Demonizing Green party voters does not help us persuade them to join us in down-ballot races.
I don't understand why so many here disparage the idea that we should
(1) reach out to Libertarians and explain how much of our party platform matches better with their values than a Trump authoritarian state would;
(2) reach out to the dwindling remains of the moderate wing of the Republican party and explain how our ticket embraces much of the international trade and foreign policy ideas that used to be more closely associated with the Republican party;
(3) reach out to Greens and explain how much of our party platform moves the country in a direction that may not be parallel to the Green party pathway but which is - at least - not driving the country in the polar opposite direction on a majority of issues (which is how Trump would attempt to govern).
We have tough Senate races in AZ, CO, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, MO, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, and WI as well as tight House races in AK-at large, AZ1, AZ2, CA21, CA25, CA49, CO6, FL2, FL7, FL10, FL13, FL18, FL26, IL3, IL10, IN9, IA1, KS3, ME2, MI6, MI8, MN2, MN3, NV3, NV4, NH1, NJ5, NY1, NY3, NY19, NY21, NY22, NY24, PA8, PA16, SC5, TX23, UT4, VA5, and WI8.
Winning half of these races would make a real difference in what we could accomplish, and winning two-thirds of these races would enable an incredible change. On the other hand, winning just a third of these races would mean gridlock even if we win the White House.
We should not vilify those voters who can help us take back the Senate and win key seats in the House. That should not be a controversial statement.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yo make a good point that some who have animosity to Clinton may well still vote for Dems in other positions.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)They should work from within the Democratic Party and not outside it.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)I'm sorry, but that is the type of reasoning that could lead to a potential Trump presidency.
Your friends are playing Russian roulette with our civil rights. There is far too much at stake.
When they are being that selfish, they are indeed our opposition.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I have had to unfollow several self declared liberals on Facebook because they're still whining about e-mail. Sorry, I'm not responsible for them in any way, shape, or form.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Building coalitions requires listening to people one might not necessarily agree about everything with.
That requires a two way street.
Yes, there are some people who will never step off a specific dot -- but that's true on ALL sides.
But there are also many people with mixed opinions and are persuadable.
But that requires a two way street.
Cary
(11,746 posts)The "persuading" that has been done is the sowing of discord and discontent by "conservatives" who really have nothing else to offer. The Hillary hatred is way, way over blown. And I don't buy into this Ron Paul "left-right paradigm" schtick. "Conservatism" has nothing to offer liberals like myself. And yes I am 100% liberal, regardless. The ugly side of "conservatism" which is the racial anxiety currently embodied by Trump has no place in my cosmology. "Conservatism" is a dangerous ideology and I should not have to convince anyone of that.
Of course for identifying it as such, some people accuse me of "fear mongering." I'm sorry but I have no use for people who cannot recognize "conservatism" as the enemy, and a very dangerous one at that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Conservative and Liberal are useful politicalo labels in some ways, but they are also paradoxical and do not account for the variations.
Life and political systems and human nature are too paradoxical to stick people into narrow boxes. Most people are a mix of liberal and conservative instincts .
One might be a "liberal" in terms of wanting an active role for government in the economy, for example, but "conservative" in the sense of valuing individual freedom of choice.
The paradoxes arise when you start applying that template to personal values.
It is totally possible, for example, to believe in strong liberal government when it comes to regulating business, but "conservative' when it comes to wanting to limit government's power to control things like the right to an abortion.
It is also possible for people to agree on goals but differ in degree or strategy or pace.
To write off large groups of people because they don't fit into a narrow template limits possibilities to actually get anything done or, in a partisan political sense, to build the "big tent" required to gain electoral power.
D23MIURG23
(2,850 posts)If Stein and the Greens want a seat at the table they need to join the coalition, and stop working for Trump. I don't have any use for philosophical debates with people who are willing to elect a fascist to make a point.
No solidarity with backstabbers!
cprise
(8,445 posts)Its a fallacy to confuse purist mindsets with a minority political party. That correlation may hold with some examples, but its not the Greens who pushed an across-the-board privatization agenda (nor the reverse) from schools and water to prisons and the NSA.
This is largely an artifact of the two-party, all-or-nothing system where those parties essentially recycle each others' fumes.
If someone wants to vote Green in a solidly 'blue' state then I'm certainly not going to hold a grudge: Its their vote to cast, not mine... nor does it belong to any party chairperson.
VOX
(22,976 posts)And Jill Stein is simply one more obstruction against Democrats. While I do agree with much of what the Green Party stands for, they can't even pull 1% of the vote nationwide. And no matter how disaffected Republicans may be, they're not going to hop on board a Green platform that includes monetary reparations for African slavery.
Jill Stein is strictly targeting Hillary and Democrats, using right-wing talking points. No doubt it'll eventually be revealed that some wealthy conservative donor has given to her. Just like wingnut pundit/actor Ben Stein (no relation to Jill) donated to Nader in 2000.
we can do it
(12,190 posts)SunSeeker
(51,621 posts)That 2% Stein is polling is enough to give a swing state to Trump.
And then there is her anti-vaxx, anti-WiFi buffoonery.
No, that shit needs to be called out, not coddled.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)kcr
(15,318 posts)They are effectively supporting Trump. Just because they stubbornly refuse to see it doesn't mean they should be supported. Their intent is different, but the outcome is the same. So, no. Until they come around and stop effectively supporting Trump, they get no support from me and I heartily encourage everyone else to do the same. I have no problem acknowledging the intent, but it has to be pointed out that it's the outcome that matters. That effectively they are no different than supporters. That's what matters.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Jill Stein and the Green Party give progressives a bad name. They are the holier than thou, ideologically pure zealots of the progressive movement. The middle of the road independents who decide Presidential elections in this country view them as cultists whose relations to reality is flimsy at best and I am not at at all sure that they are incorrect in their perceptions.
The Greens are progressive equivalent of the Tea Party zealots who march around wearing colonial clothes and tri-cornered hats carrying signs printed with "Don't tread on me!" The real problem is that moderates have a tendency to view realistic progressives through the same distorted lens.
And oh, in a close election they can **** in the stew.
Response to Armstead (Original post)
Kashkakat v.2.0 This message was self-deleted by its author.
BainsBane
(53,041 posts)It's what they do that matters, and Greens are contributing to a Trump victory.
Thoughts mean nothing. Action is what matters.
Whether people vote for Stein or Trump, it's all the same. Nothing could possibly matter less than what they happen to think about it or tell themselves, when the fact is they are contributing to efforts to put the country in the hands of an unstable madman.
The fact is if they didn't want a right wing, racist, megalomaniac with his finger on the nuclear button, they would vote for Clinton. Clearly the well being of the country or American citizens are meaningless compared to their own egos, which makes them indistinguishable from Trump voters.
People lie to themselves all the time. That's why the ONLY judge of character and belief is what they actually do. Voting against Clinton is a vote for Trump, and they damn well know it.
The ones who insist Clinton and Trump are the same are willfully ignorant. Policy obviously means nothing to them. I can speculate as to their motives but the fact is it doesn't matter. They are contributing to Trump's election, and that is ALL that matters.
