Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jah

If The Green Party Can't Win, Should They Be Ignored?

Recommended Posts

I think that all parties would become healthier and we would get better candidates if more parties were brought to the public attention. Right now we have the two major parties and the corporate media controlling the vast majority of what candidates we hear about, no matter how good of a candidate each is or is not. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party. the Communist Party, the Socialist Party, they all should be heard on their own merits and viability of ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if a political party can not win they should not be ignored the people need to learn more about the other parties that aren't the Democrats or Republicans, I think that if they got as much media coverage as there counterparts we would have a four way race between the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian and Green Parties and I think that it would be very interesting to say the least to have 4 people at a presidential debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank progressives for expressing their understanding regarding the importance of inclusion and diversity in public discussion and it's relationship to achieving progressive change.

 

All efforts to control information and discussion are regressive and act to maintain the unsatisfactory status-quo we are working to change. It is the greatest abuse of power in modern society. All lies, deception, manipulation, coercion, oppression, and corruption rely foremost on controlling information and discussion. Such control almost magically makes issues emerge and vanish from our minds and ensures progressive change never occurs.

 

Unfortunately, all issues, corruption, and problems are currently being "solved" organically by replacing them with newer issues in the 24 hour news cycle. We simply ignore them, forget about them, and move on until they come back to bite us in the ass and it becomes okay to discuss them again for another 24 hours. Then - Poof - importance wanes and, rather than being discussed and addressed further, issues are simply replaced with new ones.

 

It's no coincidence we have the Friday Afternoon News Dump to limit discussion. A holiday weekend is always an even better time to release information and limit discussion of controversial issues. However, discussion of an issue can be reduced the most when released just before a major national event requires media to move on. That's simply public relations 101.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the election is decided, I have decisions to make ... I am attracted by both Berniecrats and The Green Party. I supported Bernie but the more I look at the Green Party platform, the better I like it.

 

But for the next 100 days, the matter of defeating Mein Trumpf is of paramount importance. That means sucking it up and voting for Hillary/Kaine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank progressives for expressing their understanding regarding the importance of inclusion and diversity in public discussion and it's relationship to achieving progressive change.All efforts to control information and discussion are regressive and act to maintain the unsatisfactory status-quo we are working to change. It is the greatest abuse of power in modern society. All lies, deception, manipulation, coercion, oppression, and corruption rely foremost on controlling information and discussion. Such control almost magically makes issues emerge and vanish from our minds and ensures progressive change never occurs.Unfortunately, all issues, corruption, and problems are currently being "solved" organically by replacing them with newer issues in the 24 hour news cycle. We simply ignore them, forget about them, and move on until they come back to bite us in the ass and it becomes okay to discuss them again for another 24 hours. Then - Poof - importance wanes and, rather than being discussed and addressed further, issues are simply replaced with new ones.It's no coincidence we have the Friday Afternoon News Dump to limit discussion. A holiday weekend is always an even better time to release information and limit discussion of controversial issues. However, discussion of an issue can be reduced the most when released just before a major national event requires media to move on. That's simply public relations 101.

More of your bullshit cut-and-paste propaganda, you lying con whore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More of your bullshit cut-and=pate propaganda, you lying con whore.

Izzy, do we have snake in the backyard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jah seems pretty liberal to me, imo. I've had a few discussions/debates with him. He seems far left and seems interested in the Green Party. Jmo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is a Trumpist. Already busted. Troll of the worst kind.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is a Trumpist. Already busted. Troll of the worst kind.

 

Bill

I wholeheartedly disagree, Bill. Why do you say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly disagree, Bill. Why do you say that?

 

Comments such as this one:

 

Therefore, it may actually be more prudent and practical in the long run if Progressives help elect Trump.

 

Americans in general always tend to forgo long term benefits just to avoid short term inconveniences. Most would much prefer to elect Clinton and go back to political sleep for 8-more-years.

 

There would be nothing more harmful to the Progressive movement.

 

Electing Trump would ensure the Progressive movement not only survives, but grows in opposition to Trump.

 

If we elect Hillary, there is a much greater probability of the Progressive movement fading away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop taking my words out of context.

 

You try to get me banned from here because I said I believe you hold libertarian economic views.

 

Now, for the second time you manipulate my words.

 

Isn't there a rule about that?

 

Cease and desist immediately.

 

I request moderators remove your misrepresentations of myself and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the entire post from which Bill decided to take my words out of context.

I posted this in no holds barred. I thought some Democrats that think they and Hillary are Liberals may be offended. However, since Bill manipulates my words and calls me names like "Trumper" and "Troll" for this post, I can do nothing else but present the entire truth here. Isn't it obvious I'm a Green Progressive that doesn't trust Hillary and would never vote for Trump.

Posted 25 July 2016 - 01:52 PM

Look to hear the words "Woman" and "Progressive" to be the most frequently repeated descriptive words.

 

Hillary will demonstrate the fact that she holds Progressive social values. Particularly when it comes to - you guessed it - Women. However, she will be very careful with any discussion of Progressive economic policy. It will certainly be limited, purely descriptive, and void of actionable policy and accountability.

 

This would be as disappointing as her choosing a neoliberal economic centrist as a running mate.

 

I'm looking for Hillary to once again blow the opportunity to win over Progressives. I know they have been forwarding the meme that Progressives are already with her, but it's simply not true. If she can not speak plainly enough about Progressive economic and campaign reform related issues, and if she tries to couch her discussion of such issues in nebulous political weasel language, she will not win over additional Progressive voters. She will loose them.

 

Unfortunately, she will likely attempt a tight-rope act. She will likely attempt to balance any economic rhetoric to win over Progressives, but as not to anger her corporate sponsors. If she appears disingenuous in any way, she will likely loose Progressive votes.

 

The question I will be looking to answer is this:

 

Will Hillary fiercely govern and advance the progressive economic policies we demand, or will she maintain the neoliberal corporate capitalist policies both Democrats and Republicans have exclusively advance to solve every problem since 1980?

 

My vote is winnable, but it's up to her to win it. My voting behavior can not be driven by fear. I am much more responsive to hope.

 

Lastly, we will hear over and over again how bad Trump is. They will likely act as if we have all been lost as sea since 2015 and that the general public has no idea, how bad he is. Then they will stress the false dichotomy of the corrupt coercive two party system. In order to dissuade anyone from voting for a 3rd candidate, we will be repeatedly told that Hillary is a better choice than Trump.

 

I know this post will be flooded with the unpersuasive coercive argument that if I don't vote for Clinton, I'm really voting for Trump. I know what to do if that happens. I am ready and willing to fight a President Trump and elect a Progressive candidate in 2020. I am confident in our probability of achieving success at doing so.

 

However, I am much less prepared and less confident of winning a battle against Hillary Clinton if she forwards neoliberal corporate capitalist economic policies and maintains the corrupt elitist electoral process. It's a much more difficult battle to win when fighting an enemy that puts on one of your uniforms in deception.

 

Therefore, it may actually be more prudent and practical in the long run if Progressives help elect Trump. Americans in general always tend to forgo long term benefits just to avoid short term inconveniences. Most would much prefer to elect Clinton and go back to political sleep for 8-more-years. There would be nothing more harmful to the Progressive movement. Electing Trump would ensure the Progressive movement not only survives, but grows in opposition to Trump. If we elect Hillary, there is a much greater probability of the Progressive movement fading away.

 

Given the behavior of Democrats like Obama forwarding the TPP and giving away a public option for healthcare - Given Democrats like Debbie Stabbanow sponsoring bills that allow corporations to hide GMO's behind bar-codes - Given every single piece of bad legislation since 1980 could not have been passed without Democrat vote crossovers or signatures from Democrat presidents...............................................................................etc - Progressives voting for Trump would be a data driven rather than rhetorical based practical argument more likely to bring about Progressive change than voting for Clinton.

 

I don't like practical arguments in a manipulative, corrupt and coercive system. They force a sacrifice of morality. I would much prefer Hillary to emerge as the clear moral candidate for real Progressive change. That is exclusively up to her to convince the skeptical like me, and it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else's behavior but her own.

 

Personally, I can't vote for Trump. Doing so is immoral. However, as of now, I can't vote for Hillary either, because I believe doing so is also immoral. If I simply rely on the practical and am therefore willing to sacrifice my morality; I believe the better practical argument to bring about Progressive change is by electing and opposing Trump. So, it's up to Hillary to convince me she can be trusted. Unfortunately, her behavior and that of the Democratic Party in general is not currently doing a good job showing us they are moral, honest, trustworthy, honorable and willing to put the nations interests over their own ambitions.

 

Sorry, but I'm one of those people with few attachments beyond my own moral constitution. As an outsider, I can criticize behavior with brutal honesty and tell the truth regardless of who it helps and who it hurts, myself and my loved ones included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop taking my words out of context.

 

You try to get me banned from here because I said I believe you hold libertarian economic views.

 

Now, for the second time you manipulate my words.

 

Isn't there a rule about that?

 

Cease and desist immediately.

 

I request moderators remove your misrepresentations of myself and others.

 

Not out of context pal. You are playing games. I called Ayn Rand a sociopath (agreeing with what you said) and you immediately turned around and accuse me of following Ayn Rand.

 

So you are either delusional and off the meds, or you are just another toll seeking attention.

 

Drew, is it you again?

 

Seek psychiatric help.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again Bill, please stop with your personal attacks and present an intellectual argument.

 

What you are doing belongs elsewhere.

 

I have been here for 8-years Bill.

 

Liberals value the intellectual above bald rhetoric.

 

Please share your liberal economic positions.

 

It seems if you disagree with someone, resorting to personal attacks, demonstrates a potential lack of ability to discuss the issue intellectually.

 

The name caller always looses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't like practical arguments in a manipulative, corrupt and coercive system."

 

Okay.... then what other system do we have? How do you propose to change the 'system' that you refer?

 

I would just say that you already have the power to change the system (from within), using the tools readily available to all who

are willing to put in the work at the grassroots level to make that happen. This is what Bernie is talking about when he says he wants to help elect vast numbers of Progressive candidates that (perhaps) share your view.

 

If you are proposing to try and change the 'system' from the outside, then good luck on your quest. There are alternatives available to you as well. You may view the Green Party, or other established party as less manipulative,corrupt, or coercive, but the truth is they have far less power to effect change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Green party candidate Jill Stein wants to effect change, but in the wrong direction. She just doubled-down on her support of anti-vaccination by attacking the Pharma industry instead of affirming that vaccinations have saved millions of lives.

 

The advancement of anti-scientic thinking is alarming, especially when it comes from the mouth of Harvard trained physician.

 

When far-out ideology truncates common sense and an attachment to scientific thing, something is very (very) wrong.

 

The Greens, Jah included, seem to think electing Trump would be good for them.

 

These are Regressives, not Progressives.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Green Party platform contains some good ideas. Unfortunately, Jill Stein is something of a quack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments such as this one:

 

 

 

Therefore, it may actually be more prudent and practical in the long run if Progressives help elect Trump.

 

Americans in general always tend to forgo long term benefits just to avoid short term inconveniences. Most would much prefer to elect Clinton and go back to political sleep for 8-more-years.

 

There would be nothing more harmful to the Progressive movement.

 

Electing Trump would ensure the Progressive movement not only survives, but grows in opposition to Trump.

 

If we elect Hillary, there is a much greater probability of the Progressive movement fading away.

I've seen similar sentiments within the Bernie movement. These people don't like Trump, not at all. They simply take a "burn/bern it to the ground" approach.

 

They believe that Clinton will provide an unproductive complacency where although far left ideals wouldn't be implemented, things wouldn't stark and desperate enough to demand radical change either. They believe she would provide same 'ole, same 'ole (i.e. incremental progress that isn't drastic enough) which would result in apathy within the "change America" movement.

 

Trump's policies, on the other hand, would provide a widespread need for drastic and immediate change once he vacated the White House. It's not a theory I subscribe to, but I know of many who do. It's not pro-Trump sentiment. It's anti-establishment sentiment. It's a belief that is still 'berning' out there.

 

I maintain that Jah is a lefty. Jmo....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Green Party platform contains some good ideas. Unfortunately, Jill Stein is something of a quack.

I'll tell you my experience with the Greens, Bludog, it is only one person's experience, but it is mine.

 

Two decades back I got to know a group of activists who were leading the efforts to get a Green elected to the Santa Monica City Council. Because Santa Monica is a very liberal city, and because—as a progressive myself—I think the best way to build a party is at the grass-roots level, I signed up to help in the campaign.

 

What I discovered was the group of activists working to elect the Green, were also running the local chapter of "Food Not Bombs," which sounded like an awesome way to collect food that might be wasted, and to use it to feed the poor and the homeless.

 

Unfortunately, it didn't take long to discover these "activists" were collecting food, but keeping the best stuff (and the lion's share) to feed themselves, and to throw parties, etc.

 

Several of the activists (the leaders) turned out to be from very wealthy families—enjoying their family pools and washing machines—while pretending to be members of the oppressed masses. None had a job. All justified stealing Food Not Bombs collections for their own use but saying it supported the revolution. They offered be food. I declined.

 

Time spent with "the candidate" gave me ill-feelings that the public face and the inside stories didn't match. There was not compunction about appearing "reasonable" in public, but the things said behind closed doors gave me chills

 

The the end the campaign succeed. The Green was elected with huge numbers. He was even re-elected and made Mayor pro-tem.

 

But after two terms the people of Santa Monica caught on that this wasn't a good guy, and they voted him out.

 

Today as Green leader here in CA he rails against Bernie Sanders (from Mother Jones):

 

The Sanders campaign is absolutely destroying us. I am apoplectically mad right now. I am so disgusted with this.

 

They intentionally went after our voters because they are low-lying fruit on the issues.

 

Now Bludog, I hope my experience is not your experience, and just an isolated case. But at the time I was inside one of the most successful Green efforts to date. It was a eye-opener for me.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't like practical arguments in a manipulative, corrupt and coercive system."

 

Okay.... then what other system do we have? How do you propose to change the 'system' that you refer?

 

I would just say that you already have the power to change the system (from within), using the tools readily available to all who

are willing to put in the work at the grassroots level to make that happen. This is what Bernie is talking about when he says he wants to help elect vast numbers of Progressive candidates that (perhaps) share your view.

 

If you are proposing to try and change the 'system' from the outside, then good luck on your quest. There are alternatives available to you as well. You may view the Green Party, or other established party as less manipulative,corrupt, or coercive, but the truth is they have far less power to effect change.

 

This post was about the hypocrisy of progressive censorship of ideas and its damaging effects on Progressive change.

 

I need to ask: Are you supporting this two party system? Do you think it should be changed? How do you suggest we change the system?

 

You can understand if I would like people to share where they stand, rather than simply criticize others from undisclosed attachments they refuse to share.

 

I do not like practical arguments when they attempt to force people to abandon their moral principals. Even presenting such an argument is immoral. I resent being placed in that position by people trying to obtain and maintain a corrupt power structure.

 

Is there a moral argument for supporting this system? No. Just the practical argument of avoiding perceived discomfort. Which, by the way is unavoidable in a corrupt money driven system that values self-interest over community interest.

 

I don't know how to change the system other than a grassroots movement either creating a new party or taking over an existing party. We know corporations and elites will and have staunchly opposed any such efforts.

 

I live in arguably the most progressive municipality in America. I am so progressive, that I would never attempt to coerce anyone to vote for any candidate or party; nor would I ask them to sacrifice their moral constitution. I can only discuss my own moral reasoning.

 

I do not believe continuing to support Democrats and Republicans in a corrupt two party system can ever lead to change. How can it. Both parties have exclusively forwarded corporate power based policies that maintain the system. Until that changes, nothing can change.

 

I'm not voting for either Hillary or Trump, but I hope she wins. I know this disturbs some people, but please realize you can not influence me with a practical argument that "if I don't vote for Hillary, I am voting for Trump". That is the corrupt immoral coercive argument that maintains the corrupt system. It ensures that is the only argument anyone will ever be able to present to vote for one candidate or another.

 

In this very election, the potential for real progressive change was destroyed by the corrupt system of Democrats and Republicans.

 

At one time, before the DLC, before "The Third Way", before Democrats began triangulating and forwarding all the neoliberal economic policy that turned the entire system over to corporate money interests, Democrats were much, much more Liberal. They always protected and advanced "The New Deal" and "The Great Society", rather than forwarding corporate interests and profits.

 

Unfortunately for us all, I'm nearly certain nothing will change and we will be electing another neoliberal corporate Democrat or insane neoliberal Republican yet again in a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I need to ask: Are you supporting this two party system?

 

It's not a two party system, just 2 very strong parties, and other weaker parties.

 

Do you think it should be changed?

There are many things that I would like to see changed, in the spirit of continuous improvement, or to create a more perfect system. For instance, I think the platform for each party should more of a binding document that would keep elected officials from

saying one thing on the campaign trail, and executing a different agenda after the election.

 

How do you suggest we change the system?"

i support continuing the process that Bernie has started. If you do not believe that Sen Sanders can now walk into the Democratic caucus, and look Sen XYZ in the eye and say, "You know, I have a lot of supporters in your State, you don't want them angry at you, would you". No one at this point wants to be the next Wasserman-Schultz. I count 23 states that went for Bernie during the primaries. That's 46 Senators that will be re-evaluating their positions on Progressive issues.

 

You can understand if I would like people to share where they stand, rather than simply criticize others from undisclosed attachments they refuse to share.

I hope that my posts reflect where I stand. If not perhaps this post will help illuminate.

 

I do not believe continuing to support Democrats and Republicans in a corrupt two party system can ever lead to change. How can it. Both parties have exclusively forwarded corporate power based policies that maintain the system. Until that changes, nothing can change.

Sounds a little defeatist to me... You could consider:

 

a) Give up

B) Work with other Progressives to change the system from within.

c) Support one of the other weaker parties

d) Start your own party, maybe the Jah party.

e) Do something that I have not considered.

 

I would suggest option b, but I am so progressive, that I would never attempt to coerce anyone to vote for any candidate or party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course your ideas can be discussed, but the time for you to develop enough support was well in advance of the actual election. If you can't create enough support to give your candidate a fighting chance to win, then asking liberals to throw away their votes and HELP PUT TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE is the height of irresponsibility.

WIN? Win a single electoral vote? Put ONE person in the congress? The Greens can't and the Libertarians.. not likely. It's like me running in the Olympics.....pointless.

 

ONE puny electoral vote or ONE seat in the house.. is not much. IRRELEVANT. Greens can bring IDEAS but.. if they veer off into.... the lost cause zone... why even bother? It is GREEN...... not "Pro Hamas" or turn the economic system upside down. Those parties are too obscure to even SAY stuff. Push GREEN stuff. Do not shill for lost causes and HELP TRUMP. Okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When any 3rd party got ANY relevance.. there was a rather well known person with a well known agenda to lead. Gene McCarthy, George Wallace,Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Ron Paul. Otherwise.. it has nothing. Going into this stage..... a PARTY can't get notice if they had not by now. I don't know much about Stein and this version of Green. What I see in both Green and libertarian.. is too unrealistic. Too dogmatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop taking my words out of context.

You try to get me banned from here because I said I believe you hold libertarian economic views.

He did? Where?

 

Now, for the second time you manipulate my words. Isn't there a rule about that?

 

No.

 

Cease and desist immediately. I request moderators remove your misrepresentations of myself and others.

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WIN? Win a single electoral vote? Put ONE person in the congress? The Greens can't and the Libertarians.. not likely. It's like me running in the Olympics.....pointless.

 

ONE puny electoral vote or ONE seat in the house.. is not much. IRRELEVANT. Greens can bring IDEAS but.. if they veer off into.... the lost cause zone... why even bother? It is GREEN...... not "Pro Hamas" or turn the economic system upside down. Those parties are too obscure to even SAY stuff. Push GREEN stuff. Do not shill for lost causes and HELP TRUMP. Okay?

Umm...you did see that I am in agreement with you, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No holds barred chat

  • By Imgreatagain

    Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • By deezer shoove

    grgle


  • By rippy38

  • By Str8tEdge

    Where’s at @slideman?


  • By Robot88

    Hola


  • By teacher

    I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • By impartialobserver

    What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • By kfools

    Where does it say 2?


  • By kfools

    So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • By teacher

    How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • By Duck615

    Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • By kfools

    Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • By Imgreatagain

    Mine too. 


  • By Imgreatagain

    I thought it was my location.. 


  • By kfools

    Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • By Duck615

    OK thanks

     


  • By king of the county

    Test


  • By Blue Devil

    Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...