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

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.

 

It is a direct quote, Chris (sorry, just can bring myself to call you by a name of God any longer, even using scare quotes).

 

You deserve to be banned from this sub-forum as you are neither a liberal or capable of posting without making personal attacks or false characterizations.

 

I, for the sake of example, and not a libertarian and posted (in agreement with you) that Ayn Rand is evil, yet you "believe" (falsely) that I espouse positions that are an anathema to me, and base your "belief" on zero evidence.

 

Against this, I present direct evidence of your support of a Trump win in your own words.

 

The moderators are evidently allowing you enough rope to hang yourself before they act. I'd be more expeditious, but we all know how this will turn out.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An average estimate of voter turnout over the last few general elections is aprox. 55% of eligible voters. The remaining 45% have various reasons for not voting - restricted access, problems with paperwork, job-related problems, etc. - but I do not personally know a single non-voter who hasn't chosen to not vote. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the non-voters in my life did not and do not vote because they don't believe in the system and they don't like the candidates. These, of course, are the Republican and Democratic candidates that they see on TV.

 

In this article by Live Science, http://www.livescience.com/24561-voter-turnout-low.html the two main reasons for low voter turnout are "inconvenience" and the fact that one's vote just doesn't really count - that is, they do not believe in the system. Other articles state apathy and dislike of the candidates as major reasons.

 

An average of 45% of people don't vote, primarily because they do not believe in the system and, they don't like the Democratic and Republican candidates, and it's inconvenient. Wow.

 

I wonder what would happen if third/fourth/fifth parties were given a voice in the media and in debates. Would more individuals see candidates that they actually like? Would this allow candidates to begin worrying about what individuals wanted, thus causing them to create policies that matter to the people instead of relying on out-dated rhetoric? Would this pull the Republicans and Democrats back to the left? If this were to happen, I am certain more people would vote.

 

I wonder what would happen if we achieved major political reform to allow for ranked voting, dismantle the electoral college, hold inclusive rather than exclusive primaries, etc. Would people begin to believe in the process again? Would more people care if it were worth their time, if they felt like their voice mattered? I think they would.

 

Swing states have higher voter turnout than solid states, for obvious reasons. According to USA Today, in 2008, that disparity was 7.4%. If we were to give third parties access to media and debates, they would become viable parties. So-called solid states could possibly become swing states, which would certainly increase voter turnout. Oregon, for instance, could be a blue/green swing state. I argue that the single change of allowing third parties to have a voice and enter debates would increase campaigning in "solid" states, increase politician/candidate accountability to the populace, decrease or eliminate fear-voting, decrease the pull of big-money donors, and significantly increase voter turnout.

 

So yes, we should care about third parties. It is not only important, but vital to our nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

What you experienced Bill, was enough to disenchant any person of decency. It must have been a repulsive revelation, when you found those activists from wealthy families were actually the polar opposite of what they advocated in public. By freeloading off a charity intended to help the needy, they were not only committing the worst type of thievery but sabotaging the progressive cause in Santa Monica.

 

When you think about it, their behavior might not be that surprising. They were probably operating off the same principles that many wealthy people use to enrich themselves. These well-off imposters were acting out of a sense of entitlement and callousness that had been inculcated in them, from an early age .... The narcissistic, depraved Ayn Rand ethos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An average estimate of voter turnout over the last few general elections is aprox. 55% of eligible voters. The remaining 45% have various reasons for not voting - restricted access, problems with paperwork, job-related problems, etc. - but I do not personally know a single non-voter who hasn't chosen to not vote. EVERY SINGLE ONE of the non-voters in my life did not and do not vote because they don't believe in the system and they don't like the candidates. These, of course, are the Republican and Democratic candidates that they see on TV.

 

In this article by Live Science, http://www.livescience.com/24561-voter-turnout-low.html the two main reasons for low voter turnout are "inconvenience" and the fact that one's vote just doesn't really count - that is, they do not believe in the system. Other articles state apathy and dislike of the candidates as major reasons.

 

An average of 45% of people don't vote, primarily because they do not believe in the system and, they don't like the Democratic and Republican candidates, and it's inconvenient. Wow.

 

I wonder what would happen if third/fourth/fifth parties were given a voice in the media and in debates. Would more individuals see candidates that they actually like? Would this allow candidates to begin worrying about what individuals wanted, thus causing them to create policies that matter to the people instead of relying on out-dated rhetoric? Would this pull the Republicans and Democrats back to the left? If this were to happen, I am certain more people would vote.

 

I wonder what would happen if we achieved major political reform to allow for ranked voting, dismantle the electoral college, hold inclusive rather than exclusive primaries, etc. Would people begin to believe in the process again? Would more people care if it were worth their time, if they felt like their voice mattered? I think they would.

 

Swing states have higher voter turnout than solid states, for obvious reasons. According to USA Today, in 2008, that disparity was 7.4%. If we were to give third parties access to media and debates, they would become viable parties. So-called solid states could possibly become swing states, which would certainly increase voter turnout. Oregon, for instance, could be a blue/green swing state. I argue that the single change of allowing third parties to have a voice and enter debates would increase campaigning in "solid" states, increase politician/candidate accountability to the populace, decrease or eliminate fear-voting, decrease the pull of big-money donors, and significantly increase voter turnout.

 

So yes, we should care about third parties. It is not only important, but vital to our nation.

 

I agree Aleia, a proliferation of parties and candidates would generate far more interest in the political system. The way I see it, three parties would be better than two but five would be enough to give people real choices. Not only would there be five different shades of ideology, but the voter would then have the choice of the personality and leadership styles of five different candidates.

 

The way it is now, not only are voters limited to two choices, but the parties have actually come closer together in the ways that count most, while continuing to be at odds on a competitive, stylistic and tribal-identification level. So a large part of the electorate is left feeling, correctly, that they have very little choice, in reality. Perhaps, many who say they don't vote because of "inconvenience" would no longer feel inconvenienced if they thought their vote was worth something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What you experienced Bill, was enough to disenchant any person of decency. It must have been a repulsive revelation, when you found those activists from wealthy families were actually the polar opposite of what they claimed to advocate. By freeloading off a charity intended to help the needy, they were not only committing the worst type of thievery but sabotaging the progressive cause in Santa Monica.

 

When you think about it, their behavior might not be that surprising. They were probably operating off the same principles that many wealthy people use to enrich themselves. These well-off imposters were acting out of a sense of entitlement and callousness that had been inculcated in them, from an early age .... The narcissistic, depraved Ayn Rand ethos

 

In Junior High School, I had a classmate who, knowing I was a "reader" and a person deeply interested in politics said he had a "little book" he wanted to lend me. I said, "sure."

 

The book turned out to be Atlas Shrugged. Thousands of pages of tripe set in the smallest type font imaginable, but I had goo d eyes and a strong stomach and I plowed through the book. I had no idea when I started who Ayn Rand was, but even without foreknowledge or outside influence, I knew I was dealing with a philosophy of pure evil. I'd read Mein Kampf just before taking on Atlas Shrugged, and both gave be the same chills.

 

I also understood how it might seduce young people by fueling the immature egoism of adolescent minds. Later, I discovered this "friend" was from a John Birch Society" family. Scary. I also made it a habit to "know my enemy" and became fairly well acquainted with Rand's non-fiction works (but could not endure any more of the cardboard-cut-out characters in her fiction).

 

These activists I mentioned would be difficult for he to reconcile as Randians. If they were it would have been one of the great self-con-jobs of all time. In their rhetoric, they sounded indistinguishable from Amjaru Baraka (sans the black nationalism).

 

There were as selfish as Randians. That's true. But justified their thievery as being "in support of the revolution."

 

My belief is that the political spectrum isn't linear—but circular—and that there is a point where far-right Randianism and ultra far-left are hard to separate in their narcissism.

 

I've been reading through the articles and essays of Amjaru Baraka on his website (A Voice from the Margins) and I'm getting that same "chilling" feeling I'm used to when dealing with dangerous extremist ideologues. He's a scary dude.

 

And I don't believe Jill Stein is any better. This is not a progressive alternative, but a cultish and fringe movement that thinks Bernie Sanders is an example of white supremacist exploiters who want to build economic nationalism through the super-exploitation of the world's poor. Insanity party.

 

http://www.ajamubaraka.com/articles/

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I was referring to is the amoral sense of entitlement which Rand made popular among Conservatives. These so-called progressives you got involved with in Santa Monica were frauds. They were, in truth, undercover Conservatives in disguise. It seems to me their loyalty was to their class while their rhetoric pandered to the "lower" class. They were thumbing their noses at the left by acting as criminal parasites on its charity. The inspiration for their rhetoric might have come from the same source as Baraka but I would be surprised if they believed it as he probably does. Although it's kind of in the realm of nebulous theory, I hold with the orthodox idea of a flatline political continuum: Far Right ----------------------------- Middle ------------------------------- Far Left.

 

When they offered you an "in" you rejected their corruption. I expect, that had you "sold your soul" you would have become privy to knowledge of their real allegiance .... Their own economic class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I was referring to is the amoral sense of entitlement which Rand made popular among Conservatives. These so-called progressives you got involved with in Santa Monica were frauds. They were, in truth, undercover Conservatives in disguise. It seems to me their loyalty was to their class while their rhetoric pandered to the "lower" class. They were thumbing their noses at the left by acting as criminal parasites on its charity. The inspiration for their rhetoric might have come from the same source as Baraka but I would be surprised if they believed it as he probably does. Although it's kind of in the realm of nebulous theory, I hold with the orthodox idea of a flatline political continuum: Far Right ----------------------------- Middle ------------------------------- Far Left.

 

When they offered you an "in" you rejected their corruption. I expect, that had you "sold your soul" you would have become privy to knowledge of their real allegiance .... Their own economic class.

 

One can look at all the instances where far-leftists have taken power around the world, and in almost every case those leading "the dictatorship of the proletariat" have turned into criminal parasites themselves.

 

Just look at the late Hugo Chavez's daughter. She is worth $4.2 billion (richest woman in Venezuela).

 

I wish this was a problem that was limited to rightists. Sadly, it is not the case. These activists were not stealth agents of the right. They believed what they were spouting. They justified their theft because they were (in their own minds) were sacrificing their own positions of wealth to bring on the revolution. So they deserved it. Anyone of them could have done better if they got a job. But that would have been less romantic than being revolutionaries.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Value of Your Vote

The value of your vote is what you give it. Should you spend it on a candidate you don’t believe in? Should it be an exercise in fear? It’s up to you. It is my hope that these mathematical calculations will bring you freedom from the idea that only majority party votes matter. A vote is a statement, a vote is personal, a vote is an expression of your citizenship in this country. If enough people vote their conscience and vote for what they believe in, things can change.

 

If you are already a staunch supporter of a major party, then you should vote that way. This paper is not against the major parties at all – but rather against the concept that votes somehow “belong” to only Democrats or Republicans. Votes belong to the voter. There has never been a more important time to vote your conscience.

CON"T

https://fee.org/articles/how-not-to-waste-your-vote-a-mathematical-analysis/


GORE LOST THE CAMPAIGN

 

In Florida, CNN’s exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote. At the same time, 13 percent of registered Democrats voted for Bush!

 

Again, Gore couldn’t hold his own base and because of this, he lost.

 

The Democrats don’t say one word about the fact that 13 percent of their own party members voted for Bush.

 

It’s really difficult to make the argument that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

 

Also note: 16 percent of Clinton’s vote went to Bush! Again, Gore couldn’t hold the previous administration’s support.

 

Bush was declared the election’s winner even though thousands of valid votes had not been counted.

 

Finally, basic mathematics tells us that when someone pulled the lever for Nader in 2000, Bush’s tally did not rise by one singe vote and Gore’s tally did not decrease by one single vote.

Unless the voting machines were even more hackable than has already been demonstrated.

 

So, why do Democrats continue to focus blame Nader and the Greens? It’s certainly easier to vent one’s frustrations upon someone weaker than you than it is to confront powerful, corrupt institutions and a dysfunctional system.

 

And it’s even more attractive if one is part of that system, and if the weaker party could conceivably become a threat to one’s own power some day.

 

http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True liberals and moderates best be asking themselves why in the hell are so many Supply Side Wreckanomic Conservatives backing the Clinton Dynasty?

It sure as hell is not because they suddenly love progressive thinkers. The Clintons are very conservative who successfully dupe America. Trump is a loser who is

representative of all of the bogus GOP presidential candidates aka wing nuts.

If Hillary Clinton and Tom Kaine represent progressive politics the word progressive has lost all of its' meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

big corrupt spenders who start the rumors in fear that Jill Stein can in fact be the best choice.

 

The DNC sucks face it. And so does the RNC. They joined together to keep strong contenders OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES so all that

America gets is the conservative viewpoint.

 

 

League Refuses to "Help Perpetrate a Fraud"

 

And in 1988, the George Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns drafted the first secret debate contract -- a "Memorandum of Understanding" that dictated who could participate and under what conditions. The League of Women Voters refused to implement the contract and issued a blistering press release, stating that "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

 

It is precisely because the League had the courage to resist the demands of the major-party candidates that the CPD was created. The Republican and Democratic parties would not tolerate a debate sponsor that insisted on challenging formats or the inclusion of third-party candidates.

 

In 1986, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee ratified an agreement "for the parties to take over presidential debates." In 1987, the chairs of the Republican and Democratic parties incorporated the CPD. In 1988, the CPD seized control of the presidential debates from the League and has sponsored every presidential debate since.

 

 

 

League Refuses to "Help Perpetrate a Fraud"

http://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Merrill yes, this is so darn true, a fact actually. I remember Nader trying to get into a debate, as a citizen, being held up by guards and people, some people saying what he was doing was only a political stunt.

 

Yet it was not a stunt at all. Seems too many people don't know the constitution, we have all heard those words said again and again. Here read my copy, they will have a little book in their pocket, but do any of them that actually say that actually read it themselves, or do the people listening to them say that read the constitution themselves either, probably not is probably right? And when it comes down to simply reading a copy of the constitution, you don't just read between the lines, it has nothing to do with being a purest, just simple text that today spells out the fact that the system is rigged.

 

Today, nobody believes in prosperity, take a look at the way your government operates or in many ways fails to operate almost daily for proof.

 

Really it is sad, people do not believe in prosperity for all, they believe in prosperity only for a few.

 

For far too many today. prosperity for all is chastened by some notion of whether you're a hotshot or lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, the rest of you suckers are just lucky to have any job at all.

And to hell with meritocracy, people seem to think that they can't make a great college that will teach you how to learn about anything you want to learn about and is affordable - it just is economically impossible they say. How the fucking hell does that make any sense? On the one hand, there is this blaring rift between the extremely rich and the extremely poor, and on the other hand, the rich people are there because they could afford to go to Harvard, and the poor don't even get a basic education in high school because they are just too lazy?

 

Nothing against the non-high school graduates, they are beautiful people, many of those who never got past high school are beautiful, you know...And this is a fucked country, but it could be great again... And I recite this logic that the Republican party (circa Trump daze) exposes to whomever as they often do, and truth be had, they have done so over many decades, yet, so too do the Dem's.

 

BTW, Clinton was in charge when with the Republican support, one salty dog, let's call him Phil, of the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act with the help of Bill repudiated the Glass=Steagall Act of 1933. Well now, honestly, you remember that now, don't yawl???

 

 

Little or even Huuuuuuuge episodic things seem to evade the common thought of the caboodle as though it seems that people don't have any true leaders around to remind them or as though they can't know this without being reminded hence maybe even they believe themselves that they are too dumb... And that is the problem.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True liberals and moderates best be asking themselves why in the hell are so many Supply Side Wreckanomic Conservatives backing the Clinton Dynasty?

It sure as hell is not because they suddenly love progressive thinkers. The Clintons are very conservative who successfully dupe America. Trump is a loser who is

representative of all of the bogus GOP presidential candidates aka wing nuts.

If Hillary Clinton and Tom Kaine represent progressive politics the word progressive has lost all of its' meaning.

 

If a Vladamir Putin loving, Trump enabling, anti-vaxx pandering, pro-quackery, big phama stockholder ($50,000 of Merck) who claims to be a radical, who runs with a VP choice who calls Bernie Sanders a white supremacist, represents "progressives", the god help us all!

 

Jill Stein is no liberal and no progressive. She is a fascist who delights in the opportunity to help Trump. And her next plan is to run against one of the great progressives in the Senate, Elizabeth Warren, in the hopes of playing the spoiler in that race, and getting a Republican win.

 

These Greens have a regressive agenda. Not liberals. Not close to being liberals.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately there is "NO Lessor of Evils", voting for Hillary or Trump.

 

Integrity means voting for another candidate.

 

If Trump or Hillary cannot get the Independents or Un-affliated votes, they don't deserve to be president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately there is "NO Lessor of Evils", voting for Hillary or Trump.

 

Integrity means voting for another candidate.

 

If Trump or Hillary cannot get the Independents or Un-affliated votes, they don't deserve to be president.

 

Jill Stein has zero integrity. Nor does her VP choice Ajamu Baraka.

 

These are evil people. Fifth Columnists.

 

CrushGreen.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jill Stein has zero integrity. Nor does her VP choice Ajamu Baraka.

 

These are evil people. Fifth Columnists.

 

CrushGreen.jpg

 

You have an opinion,

 

So do I,

 

They disagree on this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Stein play buddy-buddy with Vladimir Putin? Enjoying soirees in Moscow sitting at his table to celebrate the "success" of his propaganda organ Russia Today (RT) penetrating the American market?

 

What does she criticise big pharma in public while holding $50,000 in Merck stock?

 

Why does she pander to anti-vaxxers and medical quackery when she's a physician who knows better?

 

Why is she concentrating her attacks on HRC knowing it has the potential to elect Trump (who is immune from Green attacks)?

 

Why is her next move to act as the spoiler against Elizabeth Warren for the MA Senate race in 2018?

 

Why did she choose a VP who calls Bernie Sanders a white-supremacist?

 

I don't believe for one moment Jill Stein is a progressive. The Greens are acting as 5th Columnists, just like 2000 when Nader lied, and people died.

 

Never again.

 

Bill

 

CrushGreen.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Stein play buddy-buddy with Vladimir Putin? Enjoying soirees in Moscow sitting at his table to celebrate the "success" of his propaganda organ Russia Today (RT) penetrating the American market?

 

What does she criticise big pharma in public while holding $50,000 in Merck stock?

 

Why does she pander to anti-vaxxers and medical quackery when she's a physician who knows better?

 

Why is she concentrating her attacks on HRC knowing it has the potential to elect Trump (who is immune from Green attacks)?

 

Why is her next move to act as the spoiler against Elizabeth Warren for the MA Senate race in 2018?

 

Why did she choose a VP who calls Bernie Sanders a white-supremacist?

 

I don't believe for one moment Jill Stein is a progressive. The Greens are acting as 5th Columnists, just like 2000 when Nader lied, and people died.

 

Never again.

 

Bill

 

CrushGreen.jpg

 

Why did the Russians donate a $Million bucks to Clinton while she was S of State?

Then they received permission to mine to huge chunks of land in the US to produce uranium, from US lands.

Sounds like Treason to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Environazis are idiots that cause extra taxes, extra job losses and generally screw everything up.

I'm sorry, but who are you calling environazis? This is the Liberals Only room, Ark. And environmentalists aren't idiots and don't generally screw things up. We are concerned with the environment, and don't think that capitalism should be allowed to destroy the natural world, our home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's actually counterproductive on his part. So is advocating for the corrupt two party system that people are demanding be changed - 44% of us. We want a voice too. We outnumber Democrats by 14% and Republicans by 18%. We left those parties - 44% of all registered voters do not affiliate D or R. Yet, minor parties and issues aren't worth discussing? That is a disgustingly hypocritical and undemocratic idea for anyone that calls themselves Democrat, let alone a Progressive.

Is anyone surprised 44% of registered voters refuse to call themselves Democrats or Republicans? You can not get us back or drive us to the polls for you by reminding us of how bad the other side is. We left the major parties, not because of the behavior of the other side, but because of the bad behavior of the major party to which we were once registered.

Therefore, the only way to satisfy us is to change the party for which you would like us to vote or rejoin. You must improve your party and your candidate. You can not do that by discussing the opposition. It's counterproductive, like shutting us out of your primaries, then trying to fear monger us into voting for who you chose without our input. 44% of registered voters, you should probably start treating us better."

Very interesting and substantial point of view !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you are busy earning your Big Mac money for the day, you pathetic paid Trump whore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this LO area supposed to be free from personal attacks?

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.

thank You.......In the real world we seldom quite get what we want.. especially in politics. For any 3rd party to get ANYWHERE takes a LEADER.. a focal point, a clear message. So.....Gene McCarthy, George Wallace, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Ross Perot.....got enough TRACTION, had enough MESSAGE...charisma, to matter.

 

This time? Stein? Johnson? I do NOT see that at all. I LIKE the original concept of 'Greens" but....Stein can't sell it.. it's not even what seems her aim. Her VP... is on another page....all I get is he's VERY anti Isreal. Almost pro Hamas.... WTF? Barraka seems to skip right over ANY "Greenness" no message on ecology, Green Energy... Hell.. I got FRIENDS who could do GREEN better than Stein/Barracka. Over on the other wing.....Johnson is perhaps less dogmatic...unrealistic than Paul was but Paul had a VISION and you KNEW he was sincere....wrong ..but sincere. Johnson HAS a more REALIST angle but....lacks Paul's Charisma.. message. Rather like Stein is no Ralph Nader.

 

So......with Stein and Johnson NOT a real MESSAGE..... you can as well write in Bruce Springsteen,Joe Montana, Homer Simpson. It sends the same message.

 

I'd RATHER....be a realist. I STILL don't see real SUBSTANCE in the invented scandals aimed at Mrs Clinton. The FUSS about stuff 4-8 yr ago? Why did nobody fuss at the TIME? Well... because it wasn't a PROBLEM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This election would have been the perfect time for a strong third party candidate to really make a strong showing. Unfortunately, there is no strong third party candidate. In my opinion, there's no strong candidate in this election at all....third party or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this LO area supposed to be free from personal attacks?

Don't get yourself in a lather, dear.

 

I usually only post in NHB - thought I was there still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd RATHER....be a realist. I STILL don't see real SUBSTANCE in the invented scandals aimed at Mrs Clinton. The FUSS about stuff 4-8 yr ago? Why did nobody fuss at the TIME? Well... because it wasn't a PROBLEM.

Exactly.

 

This election would have been the perfect time for a strong third party candidate to really make a strong showing. Unfortunately, there is no strong third party candidate. In my opinion, there's no strong candidate in this election at all....third party or otherwise.

Hillary Clinton is the single most qualified candidate to ever run for President. She has been successful and respected in every role she has ever taken on, she has been maliciously "investigated" for DECADES without her enemies being able to find ONE SINGLE THING to point to, and her husband presided over the most successful economy in memory.

 

Those are FACTS - and no amount of vague, accusatory language and perjorative labeling can change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...