|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|10-28-2016 03:06 PM|
Jill Stein is a Harvard educated physician and her comments on the economy perfectly match my environmental science classes, so I think that the derisive tone people take towards her is unfounded. She knows what she's talking about and I also think the lack of Greens in higher office has more to do with American delusional attitudes about the environment, the economy, oil and war than the Green party itself being the deluded one. There is one Green in CA I'll never vote for because she over focuses on marijuana, but the Green platform is overall just more progressive than the Democrats.
A friend of mine was going to vote for Hillary in Colorado because of fear and after research he's now voting for Jill Stein. He has a PhD in Chemistry as well as a law degree. Dismissal of Stein voters as deluded or misguided is faulty thinking. Clinton is every bit as corrupt as I say she is. Don't believe me, do the research.
|10-28-2016 11:23 AM|
|10-28-2016 05:43 AM|
Thalassia, I grant that disagreeing with me doesn't make a person psychotic. Or ignorant, naive, disrespectful, fearful, or stuck in a generational mindset. To that last sobriquet, I have to say I know many, many baby boomers, but I don't know a one who "aggressively supports Hillary." HRC is supported more as the last, best hope for preventing a Donald Trump presidency. Period. Her base is not that enthusiastic, her rallies are not so massive. Hillary Clinton hasn't got that Elvis factor.
We learned this year that pretty much half the country is or was open to the idea of a Trump presidency. The next Trump-equivalent will speak in more modulated tones, will guard his personal disgraces more diligently, and will be far less easily baited. But he will know, as Trump knows, that it's easier to win votes by stirring up people's fears and resentments than by sharing information, persuading with logic, or appealing to our stronger, kinder, more confident selves. Christ help us next time around.
Most Democrats I know supported Bernie Sanders, as I did, in the primaries. I don't think HRC is as dishonest as you think she is, but again, I don't believe your thinking she is makes you psychotic. I have nothing at all negative to say about your motives or the health of your mind.
I do have some strong opinions and language for the party's nomination of Jill Stein. I think a political party is capable of doing some psychotic things. And as I've written here before, I think a party that can't do better than a Jill Stein for president is not ready to be fielding presidential candidates. For the party to do so anyway suggests to me a delusion of grandeur, which is a component of at least two known psychoses. I believe a relatively new party without a credible presidential candidate should be using its resources to build from the ground up at this time instead. But this opinion doesn't carry over to Jill Stein supporters or other members of the Green Party. May the party thrive as time goes on, and may its best decision makers prevail. You're right that HRC is a lock to win California. That gives Californians the luxury of casting protest votes. In my battleground state, I must instead use the only vote I have to help choose the next US president.
|10-27-2016 06:24 PM|
No one is "psychotic" because they don't agree with you. Also, Bernie Sanders is a US Senator who took an oath to support the Democratic nominee when he threw his hat in. You can't possibly be that ignorant, that you think a US Senator would run off and run on a third party ticket when his entire political career has been as an Independent and he returned to Independent, so he has to agree to certain things since he ran as a Democrat. He had to. He gets more stuff done this way. He also notoriously said in an interview that he would never tell us who to vote for, and if he ever did, not to listen to him.
Many rational people are refusing to play the two party game this year. No one thinks anyone but Hillary Clinton will win, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE POINT. She rigged the DNC, she probably hired Trump as a fall guy, she's propped up right wing dictatorships in South America and was caught red handed cheating in the DNC with Debbie Wasserman Shultz. I honestly think you and anyone who thinks as you do are the naive ones. She could so rig a national election, I mean you're any already being ruled by fear.
Anyway, veganism will be part of some progressive political party within the next decade due to global warming, so Green party is most likely . A party will have to incorporate it into the entire platform, I agree someone running strictly on veganism couldn't win on a single issue.
HOWEVER, that doesn't make BSV crazy or invalidate her questions, being that there's an entire town in Europe that's now vegan. The world is going to change on a fundamental level and change fast. I think you're afraid to abandon the old infrastructure.
There's room for debate on the topic, but not saying people are crazy because they aren't terrified of Trump to the point of ketowing to 1970s moderate liberal Republican calling herself a Democrat.
Incidentally, Abraham Lincoln was a dark horse in the running, the two parties haven't always been this all powerful and rigid.
It fascinates me that 1977 was the original year the word Millennial was coined, the original projected Strauss Howe year, and people under 40 were more likely to be Bernie or Bust and least likely to vote for Donald Trump than any other age group. People born in 1977 or later are the only people who stayed under forty for the ENTIRE election cycle. Also women over 60 were more likely to aggressively support Hillary, while Gen X remained too split and individual to show the same group ferocity as the two more civic minded generations at their book ends. I'm so fascinated by generational theory. ..though obviously there are outliers in every generation, it tends to explain general age group thinking patterns. Hmm. Of course people quibble over the start/end years of each generation, but that's not the point. It explains trends, not every single person in that age group.
Just different. Not psychotic.
|10-27-2016 01:13 PM|
With all due respect, building from the bottom up is exactly what I'm arguing for, which is not what the Green Party is doing. It puts virtually all its marbles into the presidential race, the top spot, running people who've never held public office before. For president. A new party should take the long view and build for the future by fielding candidates for the 100,000 other offices up for election. Bluntly, a party can't get a president elected if it can't get a dogcatcher elected. Got to start from the bottom up. Forming new parties isn't psychotic, but running hopeless candidates for president is. Worse than psychotic, politically suicidal, is a party running to the left of the Dems or to the right of the Republicans. If you don't already have governors, senators and congresspeople in your party, better chance for a third party candidate would be a true centrist moderate in the ideological center between the two majors. That's what Perot did in 1992. He had his say, got into the post-primary debates and ran a mostly credible race, and without pulling too much support from one side to the benefit of the other side.
If the Greens had run, say, Bernie Sanders as a candidate, the Greens would have had a shot, since half the Democratic Party adores him. Including me. But not being psychotic himself, he wouldn't have had anything to do with a third party candidacy this year. He remembers Ralph Nader and Florida in 2000, even if some of the younger millennials don't. I'm sorry to be insulting, and have nothing bad to say about her former career as a physician, but as a presidential candidate, Jill Stein is my idea of a horrifying joke. Anyone serious about forming more parties than the two Big Boys needs to advocate for a constitutional convention, not just to overturn the Electoral College, but to institute runoff elections where everyone gets to vote their heart in the first round and the winner needs the support of the losers to build a winning coalition.
|10-27-2016 12:58 PM|
I am an environmental science major. One of my professors, a scientist, thinks that bottom up grass roots is really the only way to achieve what we have to do politically in terms of environmental science. He's got a PhD. I'm going to take his opinion over yours, especially since it's disrespectful of you to refer to forming third party candidates as "psychotic" just because that's all you've known in your personal past.
See I'm technically a Millenial. I am interested in the Strauss Howe theory of generation. Baby Boomers created the current structure and enforce it. Gen X is too individualistic, and cynical, to really do much about it. Millenials are a community minded generation like Baby Boomers and The Greatest Generation, and we are predicted to change and enforce an entirely new infrastructure. ..an idea not popular among disillusioned, nomadic Xers.
Boomers will say it can't happen because most want to preserve their own infrastructure, no matter how outdated it is becoming scientifically. X will not always, but mostly respond cynically and guard their individualism. Its up to Millenials to implement the new infrastructure demanded by environmental science and compatible with today's politics.
Between the Bernie-crats, increase of Gary Johnson vote past prior libertarian numbers, increase of Stein voters past prior Green numbers, and attitudes of people born between the late 70s and early 90s, as well as the realistic demand for a completely new infrastructure, we see Strauss Howe beginning to come true.
I also think the Hillary/frail argument is borderline funny at this point, since Trump has fallen so low he has virtually no chance of winning. Even if he didn't have this glaring loss already, I live in a blue state, a state where Greens do hold office, and I won't be dissuaded by your cynical, resigned pessimism.
|10-27-2016 10:24 AM|
Thalassa, I do respect your right to lodge a protest vote, as well as doing your part to help the Green election numbers now while it's so frail and needs something to build from. I'm more about trying to keep Donald Trump from getting elected this time around, as is Bernie Sanders right now.
The thing about Cory Booker is that, unlike Jill Stein, he is electable. He's been a large city mayor and is now a US senator. He was on Clinton's short list for vice-president. There are no Green Party office holders, anywhere in either the House, the Senate, or as mayors of any medium-sized or large cities, as state governors, or as generals or admirals in our armed services. So the positions that groom future presidents have no Greens anywhere. Plus most Greens are meat-eaters, and the party holds no position on meat. Putting meat into its platform would lose more voters than any single thing it could do. The Green Party doesn't even have a vegan or vegetarian caucus, but that might be a good thing to create, since there are apparently more vegans and vegetarians in the US than there are members of the Green Party.
Know of any Greens in any state senates or legislatures? If you find any, you'll have to use Google, just like if you find any small-town Green mayors. Those offices don't prepare someone to be president, except as a stepping stone to incrementally higher offices. But Jill Stein has never held even any of those. She's never been a small town mayor or served in a state senate or state legislature. She hasn't really served anywhere. Not even a member of a town council. Her party kind of stinks at fielding candidates and getting them elected. And if it got better at it, and was able to ensconce her as a member of a town council in a very small town, that would be the highest office she's ever held. But she's the one they're putting up for president? What must the others be like?
Greens must build from the bottom up, not from the top down, if they want to be politically relevant. The nation will be ripe for a Green president when there's a robust number of Green US senators, representatives, governors and mayors. It's so obviously off, how we only hear about them every four years when they want us to vote for some nobody from nowhere for president, when they haven't accomplished any preliminary Green base in the electoral system.
This Humane Party candidate on the video, Clifton Roberts, who's on the ballot in zero states, says he means to run for the Senate, and for President again, in the coming years. Then, with Emily nodding in agreement, he says: "Science is repeating a process over and over until it becomes valid." No, man, psychosis is repeating a process over and over again, expecting a different result than the one you got last time and the time before.
|10-27-2016 10:12 AM|
I don't entirely agree with you. Sanders is pushing Clintons agenda to the left, and yes there's a lot of checks and balances in the house and the senate...but the more people vote through Our Revolution and Brand New congress for Sanders approved candidates, the more a certain kind of politics start rolling in under Clinton by 2018.
The same thing could happen with a vegan or vegetarian president, it just has to be PART of a platform, not the platform entire. I wouldn't vote Humane party just because I want to know what an entire party supports, and if the Green party took a stand for veganism, in 2020, a grassroots movement could be pushed in under the Green president just like Sanders is moving in under Clinton. Bernie taught us how to change things from the bottom up. That could easily involve veganism in the coming decade.
I will vote for Jill Stein as a vegetarian over Corey Booker as a vegan because the Green party is already established and needs momentum. They also logically could adopt the UN ideas about environmental veganism, in the very near future. I'm surprised they haven't already. PROBABLY because they're too busy trying to stop World War 3 and big oil this election cycle.
|10-27-2016 09:50 AM|
Jill Stein is a vegetarian. I'm voting for her even though I know Hillary Clinton is going to win, because I actually was Green party before the primaries started, support themore progressive Bernie Sanders platform, and I think Hillary is a lying deceitful violent moderate Republican who happens to be a feminist.
So Jill Stein it is. We need every step we can take to move America away from a rigid two party system.
I'm happy about Jill being a vegetarian. I think a vegan president is more likely when Baby Boomers are too old (pretty much 2020) and the older Millennials are old enough to be president (2020 or 2024). MAYBE a younger Gen X (younger than Obama) would step up. Stein and Sanders are both Boomers, but from a large scale generational perspective, I think Millenials would be most likely to vote in a vegan.
|10-27-2016 08:47 AM|
I'd look to Cory Booker if I were voting for a vegan candidate: a progressive Democrat who follows a vegan diet and is probably re-thinking his wardrobe. Of course a president couldn't make meat eating illegal, and would promise a million different ways during the campaign never to attempt it -- he or she'd be president of the whole country, not just the vegan sliver. The meat-eaters would have voted that candidate in based on that person's positions on whatever issues they did agree on.
Similarly, a Libertarian president wouldn't be able to remake our system of government into a Libertarian one. Not unless the bulk of the country became Libertarian itself, instead of staying either liberal or conservative but voting based on a liking for a particular Libertarian candidate. Think of a Gary Johnson who wasn't ignorant or goofy. As long as we still had Democrats and Republicans, a Libertarian president would just have to go along with the progressives on their personal liberty initiatives, and support the conservatives on their small-government initiatives.
A vegan president (unless voted into office by a vegan electorate) couldn't do anything to advance a vegan agenda except by persuasion and example. A vegan president could ask Congress to reduce or end subsidies on the meat industries, but could not compel Congress to do so. Except for Booker, I don't think there are vegans serving in either house, so you know how far that would get.
|10-26-2016 12:24 PM|
America's VEGAN Presidential Candidate | Clifton Roberts
Could a vegan president make eating animal illegal? Can animal liberation be achieved through legislation? This election cycle marks the very first time the Humane Party has run vegan presidential and vice-presidential candidates—whose platform explicitly includes the eradication of exploitation through the liberation and legal protection of all animals. I sat down with presidential candidate Clifton Roberts for comment.