Should GD 2016 be renamed to more accurately reflect the discussion topic,

[cali]

variations of how awful Stein and the Green Party are?

To repeat: She is irrelevant in the 2016 elections. She may or may not have been prior to choosing Ajamu Baraka as a running mate, but hey, nothing like picking a running mate who slams Bernie as a "white supremacist" when you want to draw Bernie's voters into your fold. Hell he smashmouthed Cornel West for supporting Bernie.

Jill Stein is inept, ergo her irrelevance. The Greens can't seem to emerge from the shadows because of their long running ineptitude and their off the shelf dogmatism.

So why the Orwellian hate sessions? Whether she takes money from corporations or whatever doesn't matter because she doesn't matter in this election.

No offense, but it's pointless and it's making GD2016 a one note kind of forum.

Sorry, to offend, but this isn't a the fight.

[baldguy]

1. Because Nader gave us GWB, & Stein is putting herself in the same position to give us Trump.

And per Bernie Sanders, we need to do everything we can to stop Trump.

[auntpurl]

8. Oh for heaven's sake, no she's not!

Nader got 2 million votes. Stein won't get half that, a third! She's polling at 2% and even that won't hold. Talking about her on DU raises her profile above what it merits. I agree with the OP.

[baldguy]

9. In 2000, Nader got 2.8 million votes, 2.74%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Other_nominations

Which, according to you, is exactly where Jill Stein is polling.

I remember what happened in Florida. Never again.

[auntpurl]

11. Sorry, typo, was supposed to be 2 million, not 20 million obviously!

But even still, Nader was polling higher than Stein is now. The Greens always poll higher than their actual votes.

I too remember what happened in Florida, and I remember living through the Bush years. This is not the same thing. Ralph Nader was an asshole, but he was a serious man. Jill Stein is a wackadoo.

[CajunBlazer]

53. Did you know that Nader got only 3% of the votes in Flordia

And still received many times more votes than would have been necessary to swing the election to Gore had those votes gone to him instead of Nader?

All it takes is a close election which comes down to one key state for a third party candidate to **** in the stew.

Look up Jill Stein's experience in management and public office and ask yourself why anyone would vote for this totally unqualified candidate.

[Exilednight]

15. Answer this question if you truly believe that: Is it Nader's fault

that a minority of voters liked his policies, or Gore's fault that he didn't appeal to Green voters?

If you can't answer this simple question, then your argument holds no validity. Axelrod gave the best answer on this when speaking of why Edwards lost the primary in '04 and why Obama beat Hillary in '08.

[baldguy]

19. It's Nader's fault that he lied in saying that there's no difference between the two major parties

And that he got a few assholes to believe it. The devastating 8 years of the Bush Regime proved that.

Jill Stein is going after those same assholes, seeking the same effect.

[Exilednight]

20. Then why didn't Gore counter the argument?

Axelrod said it best, when a candidate loses its the candidates fault, and at some point they have to close the deal.

I don't go around complaining that Sanders loss is Hillary's fault. It's a 100% Sanders fault. His policy was good and better for this country, but he had a poor strategy to win.

[Demsrule86]

26. I don't agree...the Greens helped elect Bush...and even if Gore said it was not true

which he did...the Greens repeated it endlessly ...fuck the greens.

[rjsquirrel]

40. How about this: it was democrats' fault

that we didn't recognize the threat that crazy Ralph represented and do more to destroy and delgitimize his foolishness earlier on in the campaign season?

So I'm all in in mocking Stein.

[CobaltBlue]

2. Lack of confidence

I think these Green Party threads are popping up because there are people who are feeling insecure.

Perhaps people don’t understand United States presidential elections … and, seriously, they are not able—even when these national and state polls reports are posted as topic threads—to figure out who is likely to win in 2016.

☹️

[stonecutter357]

3. no fuck Jill Stein .

[uponit7771]

4. The video of her in Russia is worthy of discussion, it defines what folk think of the Greens and the

... far far left being not that different from the far far right in their out of perspective privileged positions.

Few of the people spouting those positions would be hurt by a tRump win

[bluedye33139]

27. And the shallowness of her lgbtq position

If you can't avoid partnering with right-wing freaks who are part of a network that kidnaps tortures and kills gay people, what value are you as a progressive?

[Adrahil]

5. I get the sensitivity, Cali....

But the Greens are actively courting Those whose supported Bernie. They do so under the guise of being more "Progressive," but make no mistake, they are seeking to grow at the expense of the Democrats, and consequently, help Republicans get elected. If they wee successful, they would wind up making the Left a permanent minority party. I think it's worth making sure folks know that, most individual Greens I know are just idelaists, and most of them are honestly not considering the consequnces. And some, as you know, reall DO want to destroy the Democratic party.

But I agree that some of the threads here are a bit over the top.

[cali]

7. No sensitivity here. I've never had the slightest bit of interest in the Green Party

As you know, we have a vibrant, pragmatic progressive third party here. I have no respect or admiration for Stein. Never have. She's inept, hypocritical and frankly, makes no sense to me. I find her quite irritating.

BUT she's irrelevant. And you know how I feel about orgies of hate.

[Adrahil]

12. I do, and I agree that....

We should avoid silly displays of anger. I think Clinton is handling it perfectly by simply ignoring her.

I think it's worth pointing out that the Green's strategy is actively harmful, but I also agree that "orgies of hate," are counter-productive. I already gave my "fuck Jill Stein" to get it out of my system. I think we need to focus on taking down the Orange Menace.

[cali]

13. And taking back the Senate and making a 10+ seat gain

in the house. Wouldn't it be nice to get rid of inhofe as chair of the environmental committee and see Pat back as chair of the JC?

[Adrahil]

17. Oh Yes!

From a practical point of view, that is as important as keeping the Presidency.

[auntpurl]

6. I've trashed all the Stein threads.

I'm gonna trash this one too, no offense. She is totally irrelevant, and it's a complete waste of time. Agree completely.

[LexVegas]

10. How many topics on the front page should we eliminate. I think there should only be 5. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Data from the poll of polls article at CNN.

Comparing the two-way and four-way ballot tests, the Poll of Polls suggests Johnson is faring better than most third party candidates do once the chaos of the primary and caucus nomination process is over. Typically, support for third-party candidates dips once the major-party tickets are set, but Johnson's support appears to be holding. At 9% in the Poll of Polls average, he lags behind the 15% threshold he'll need to meet to get on stage at the presidential debates this fall.

Note that it is Johnson doing better than usual, not Stein.

And the effect of the third party candidates on the poll numbers?

When third party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are included, the margin remains the same,

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll-of-polls/index.html

Stein is having zero effect on the outcome.

[Capt. Obvious]

35. You just can't help but defend your hero

[Warren Stupidity]

42. "Not having any effect" - is a dismissal as irrelevant.

What you can't help doing is making this personal. Good luck on your mission!

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. I am honestly perplexed about the rash of Green Party threads

the Green Party is irrelevant. Jill Stein is irrelevant. Anyone blithering about Nader and 2000 should wake the fuck up. I remember 2000 quite well; Gore never at any point had anything like a 12 point lead in any national poll. The two percent of votes the Greens may expect to get at the polls won't affect the race and certainly won't affect Clinton's chances against Trump.

[Exilednight]

18. My biggest problem with any 3rd party is simple.

They only go after the brass ring. They need to start looking at lower offices and run for the house and Senate seats.

They show up once every four years and run for one office and look for a candidate that is a bit out there (I hate the terms fringe or extreme, we don't have Hitlers and Stalins running for office) and can make the most noise.

Running for lower offices would temper their policies and help build a good foothold, but until they do that all they can do is kill k and scream and get a handful of votes.

[LostOne4Ever]

21. Agree. nt

[Armstead]

22. Because there is too much Binary Thinking

People apparently are not supposed to have mixed feelings, or opinions any more complicated than A=Good, B=Bad. "For us or against us."

Sanders addressed a legitimate vacuum and challenged the status quo in our political system in tghe primary. But Bern is also smart and pragmatic, and he made the necessary adjustments when the situation in this election became clear.

Bernie is still Bernie. Same guy, same long term goals. But It's funny how he lost his horns and tail to many people as soon as he said "I'm with Clinton." He suddenly became a good guy to many who have previously demonized him ,

Stein has been trying to fill the same role in the General. But she is inept, and this is not the time for that. . And those who are sticking with her are not being realistic.

That doesn't make her or them awful people. But to some people, challenging the status quo from "the left" means she and her small number of supporters are demons who must be quashed -- even though her impact in the election will be negligible.

[Blue_Adept]

33. Leave no room for error

And you know, part of this whole thing is educational for a lot of people. A lot of dems have been largely ignoring the Green party because they thought they knew what it was and it was an ally of sorts and an outlet for people who couldn't deal with the nominee in a given cycle.

But there has been SO much revealed about the current leadership of the Greens that you end up looking at them in a whole new light. And we've seen how others have been taken advantage of by outside influences that you do not leave these stones unturned.

[DanTex]

38. Stein is against us. She is running ads attacking Hillary. That's "against", by any definition.

Yes, Jill Stein is an awful person. She is trying to get Trump elected president, which makes her as awful as any other Trump surrogate.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. An interesting side effect of moving to a ranked voting

system is that it quickly ends this sort of idiocy. Candidates and parties have to build alliances across party boundaries in order to win elections and cannot alienate voters inclined to view them as their second or third choice.

[Armstead]

45. We should have a more parliamentary system

The whole system is too subject to either/or gridlock overall, rather than coalitions coming together find solutions and compromise on specific issues.

[Vattel]

47. How would a more parliamentary system help to overcome gridlock?

Not disagreeing with you, just want to know in greater detail what your thinking is.

[Armstead]

49. Because people can look for common ground and form alliances on specifics

It would allow for more fluidity through coalitions and bargaining among a wider spectrum. If there were more room for multiple parties, the major parties would have to be receptive to coalitions on specific issues -- and negotiations and construt=ctive compromise.

In our system people are forced to be on Side A (Blue) or Side B (Red) on an array of issues.Being a Democrat or Republican means you have to buy a whole package on every issue. It doesn't allow for shades of opinion or differences over different issues.

Therefore the GOP is the "pro-family, values " anti abortion, anti gay, pro Christian, pro-conservative free market conservative economics side.

But there are people who are very liberal/progressive on some issues, but more conservative on others. For example, someone might be very progressive on economic issues, but also anti-abortion.

It should be possible for people to work together on shard economic goals, evenj though they may be on a different "side" on another issue.

[Vattel]

57. Thanks, I see your point

[Armstead]

58. Sure

Your reasonableness is refreshing

[uponit7771]

50. She can challenge the status quo and not be an asshole at the same time

[Armstead]

52. Challenging the status quo automatically makes one an asshole in the opinion of those who....

support the status quo.

Personally, I agree with you that Stein is being an asshole at the moment. But Stein is not the issue really. Objectively, she simply represents a consistency of those who believe the Democratic Party is irredeemably corrupt.

It's more a matter of how wide or how narrow the Democratic Party will be as an agent of change on issues where change is needed. It's all relative.

Bernie was considered an asshole by many here in the primaries. But once he changed his approach, he was suddenly defined as a non-asshole......But he also became an asshole to some who are more opposed to the status quo than he is.

Where does one draw that line?

[UCmeNdc]

23. I do think it is good to examine the Green Party and their attacks on the Democratic Party.

DU is about the getting Democratic Party's candidates elected. The attacks by the Green Party against the Democratic Party is relevant toward ultimately electing Democratic candidates.
Just because the Green Party might get only 2% of the final vote is irrelevant. The Green party tries to dilute the Democratic Party message with political attacks. Why not examine the motives behind the Green party's attacks?

Ultimately understanding Jill Stein's and the Green party's political motives and the ability to neutralize their attacks against the Democratic Party will get Democratic candidates elected.

[Demsrule86]

25. 2% in a swing state is significant too...nt

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Only if it represents voters who would otherwise

vote for your preferred candidate.

[Demsrule86]

56. How about if they didn't vote at all which is likely...

but go ahead defend the Green slime.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Perhaps you don't understand plurality elections?

If voter x will only vote green or not at all, and if the green candidate has no chance of getting more votes than the democratic candidate, x's vote is if no consequence. It does not affect the outcome.

It does matter if x is a normal democratic voter who has been persuaded to vote green, thus reducing the vote total of the democratic candidate.

So far the polling data tends to show that the Green Party is not pulling any significant numbers of democratic voters, but is instead getting its usual2-4% of voters, voters who are not normal democratic voters.

[Demsrule86]

24. No she is not

She runs anti-Clinton ads in swing states and you brought up the Greens...you know we will never accept Green voters who vote for Stein or Trump.

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. You haven't been paying attention to the polls I guess?

a lot of those "swing states" are "safely Democratic" because Trump is such a disaster of a candidate. We're looking at Arizona and Georgia being swing states, in this election.

[Blue_Adept]

30. Stein isn't an ally in this electoral season, she's an opponent

And opponents get taken down. If you don't do that, you get taken to task for it.

Secondly, it's the August prior to an election; this is the definition of silly season as we get a whole range of things as the campaigns usually work the groundwork for the final run. Trump's not doing it so it's just a mess and plenty to go after him there. Hillary is keeping her head down and doing the hard work of proper events and campaigning.

Stein's laying attacks on the Democratic Party. So she's going to get savaged - and rightly so.

Third, folks just want to talk about something. So many people want to be on forum moderation that they should just do that instead of complaining about it as pseudo-moderators. Or put it in ATA to adjust the rules of this forum so that attacks on Stein are off-limits if that's what you want to see.

[Capt. Obvious]

31. Now, now, we are a big tent party

let's not leave out the attention given to JPR.

[Demsrule86]

34. I have deleted a post that I view as possibly divisive but

I am done hearing about Greens and that political whore Stein. Thus I am trashing this OP and any that come later. What is the point? It feels like proxy re-fight of the primary for some. I won't do that.

[MineralMan]

36. Actually, looking at the GD 2016 thread list,

I'm not seeing a predominance of threads about Stein at all. There are some, of course, but she is a candidate whose name will be on the ballot, after all. There are many, many more threads about Trump, because he is one of the main candidates.

I can't see why DU shouldn't discuss all candidates in the forum dedicated to the 2016 election. I think you may be focusing on one set of threads and missing all the others that aren't about that topic.

[womanofthehills]

54. Actually, I don't see "discussion" about Stein - mainly name calling

Threads starting F...k her. She only has 2 % for Gods sake. No one likes her - agreed - but it's a turn off to come on to this site and see such hostility.

[DanTex]

37. The Greens are allies of the GOP. Why shouldn't we talk about them?

And it's not some far-out hypothetical that the Greens could throw a national election to the GOP. It happened once already. I agree with you, I don't think Jill Stein is going to pull of what Nader did, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize her.

Are there any other GOP allies that you object to having discussed here? How about Rudy Giuliani, can we talk about him?

[liberal N proud]

39. Are we not able to discuss more than one enemy?

Do we have to focus only on Don the Con?

I think we are all have the capacity to focus on more than one threat be it from Don the Con, the Republicans and their shadow candidate or the Libertarian and even the Green parties.

We need to keep an eye on beating all of them, not just Don the Con.

[BainsBane]

46. Ya'll are giving her free advertising

name recognition.

[liberal N proud]

48. On DU?

OK

[BainsBane]

51. Yes.

[ismnotwasm]

55. Oh for gods sake.

Last edited Tue Aug 9, 2016, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)

If GD 2016 were to be renamed judging by number of post topics, it would be more accurate to call it the "Trump Sucks" forum.

The Greens have a couple of assholes in charge. It's a combo of horror and stupidity in motion, ugly and facinating. Plus there are a number of disturbed individuals who think the Greens are a great choice because they will "never vote for Hillary" and promote the Greens as a viable choice. These same types have bought into the most idiotic of conspiracy theories and the most egregious of lies regarding Hillary throughout the primaries and continue to spread shit all over the place. Fuck them and fuck the Green Party. They can now reap.