Jill Stein and Green Party (platform) What are your views of their policies and platforms? Do you think the fact that Barack Obama's low voter enthusiasm will either cause his base to stay home or go Green?

More importantly do you think Jill Stein will reach her goal of 1,000 donors? (Ideally each giving the max of $2,500 in 2011 and 2012 which is $2,500,000 each year or $5,000,000 in all)

The Green National Convention 2012 will be in 14-15,2012. Will they get their funding threshold of 5% of the popular vote or not. Will you consider spreading the message?

I think tackling the duopoly will require all three of the Big Three political parties becoming viable options as well as the candidates they field. I have seen positive responses to Jill's message in the United States elections 2012 thread.

I have already formed a strategy. I have experience with campaigns from in High School when I volunteered to campaign among High School seniors back in 2004 for Ralph Nader (though I should have considered David Cobb, even though I also campaigned for Michael Badnarik). I also campaigned for Bob Barr at my college in 2008, but without campaigning for either Ralph Nader or Cynthia Mc Kinney.

Note: Would you consider voting for a candidate that didn't make ballot access in your state or district? While the Big Three do make ballot access in enough to theoretically get 270 or more, they hardly ever get all 51 states (if you count DC). This is basically asking if you would consider ever voting write in. Write-in candidacy is an inconvenience, but worth it. You have to write or type the name of the candidate from memory while voting rather than just checking or pushing the button next to them.

Edit: Kent Mesplay is another option, but I tend to predict that Jill Stein will be the candidate.

Youtube

edited 9th Nov '11 11:29:39 AM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

I'll get back to you after we get the Greens to win up here in Canada. Damn I was pleased to see Elizabeth May get her seat last election.

That said, are there really big differences between Green party candidates from different countries?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I don't think so, Radical, aside from addressing issues specific to whatever country they're in.

But uh... I don't think the Green Party is going to make much of a dent this time around. People tend to vote Democrat or Republican when they know the Green party can't win. (And led to a Republican win at some point, I believe.)

Basically, the Green Party needs to grab a far more significant amount of the voters to lead to something other than someone winning because the liberal vote was split in two. Also, they'd do better to try going for small positions than president in significant enough number for a Green presidential candidate to matter in the future.

@Radical Taoist:Green Party Candada Website Youth Youtube Channel They seem to have no real difference with the US one. Green Party US Website Facebook Twitter Youtube

Global Greens Website They are both part of the Global Greens a international network for green parties.

Note: I just checked the general debate requirements:

• Here
  • Summary: The Commission also released the 2012 Candidate Selection Criteria, which will be used to determine who is invited to participate in the general election debates. In addition to being Constitutionally eligible, candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination. The Gallup Organization will advise the CPD in the application of its Criteria to polling data as it did in 2000, 2004, and 2008.

edited 9th Nov '11 12:24:10 PM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

The problem with the Green party is the only effect they ever have is ensuring republican victories via splitting the liberal voterbase in 2.

That is what divides people who vote on principle from people who vote for reasons of pragmatism. Principalists don't care who wins, but that the people that they vote for share their ideas. The opposite are pragmatist who want to vote for a winner, with some leeway on the part of ideas.

Also, nice slogan:

Let's take our democracy back from Wall Street

Glass Booth Take the test to see who is closest to you overall and on various (18) issues.

edited 9th Nov '11 12:36:22 PM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

...and? Theres no point in voting on principle if it enables the side that considers your side heathen devils to win.

I may be far more liberal than the Democratic party, but unless another party can guarantee enough votes to beatthe republicans, not voting Dem is essentially allowing the party I hate most to take power.

edited 9th Nov '11 12:39:19 PM by Midgetsnowman

I don't think I'd vote for them purely on the basis of thinking nuclear disarmament is inherently idiotic.

They're good for any position other than Congress or the Presidency, I guess...

USAF713 on his phone or iPod.

Oh, shit, doublepost. Fucking phone...

edited 9th Nov '11 12:44:37 PM by USAF721

USAF713 on his phone or iPod.

Double Post

Also emphasis on what word you not voting for them because of nuclear disarm? Or are you not voting for them despite it? Your wording allows both readings.

I don't think I'd vote for them, purely on the basis of thinking nuclear disarmament, is inherently idiotic. or... I think I'd not vote for them, purely on the basis of thinking nuclear disarmament is inherently idiotic.

edited 9th Nov '11 12:47:17 PM by secretist

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

Er... both of those phrases mean the same thing to me.

I would not vote Green because I think nuclear disarmament is bad, to the extent that they advocate for it completely for the US.

USAF713 on his phone or iPod.

I'm also pretty sure that they'd have to get congressional agreement or something for that as well.

Frankly, I'd be more likely to vote Green if there were eligible Texas candidates. And, you know, they were making themselves more relevant on state and local levels. Given their relatively low presence in my life I'm just not that likely to vote Green for president.

Alright, now that I am on the computer...

Green Party Platform critique (obviously an opinion)(link provided in OP):

Political Reform:

• Alright, I guess. I'll just go through the things I'm meh on or against.
  • I see their idea of everybody being able to subpoena everyone as being somewhat counter-intuitive, but I'd rather see it in action before I pass judgement.
  • Statehood for DC... is stupid. Give all the non-Federal land back to whichever State—Maryland or Virgina—originally owned it. They're too small, in my opinion, to qualify as State material.
  • Prisoners... having the right to vote... alright, these people are fucking stupid. Then again, when someone says "prisoners," I think "violent offenders," as that's more or less the only people I think worth throwing in prison.
  • Whether or not felons should have the right to vote back depends entirely on what they did, in my opinion.

Community:

• No objections immediately come to mind. I'm wary of what they consider to be "encouraging non-military community service," though, as they give off a rather anti-military, peacenik vibe I don't really trust (not that there's anything wrong with being pacifist, but they don't strike me as rational or practical about it).

Free Speech and Media Reform:

• Hm... this is intriguing.
  • This Fairness Doctrine sounds like a Cult of Centrism thing, and though I don't use that term lightly, I prefer media that is less "balanced" and more "logical and rational." I feel perfectly fine deeming hardline YE Creationism and such to be irrational and illogical, but I think it's fair to at least put the (economic) Rightist and Leftist ideas on the same general plane, for the sake of argument. Is this something the BBC uses...?
  • Establish substantial public interest obligations for broadcasters and hold them accountable, and revoke licenses from outlets that fail to satisfy these obligations.

Hm. I raise my eyebrow at this because I can see the communities censoring things they deem "inappropriate" in the name of either Think of the Children!! or for political ends. I may not be following exactly what this means, however.

• I wonder what they consider to be "promoting greater opportunity for women and minority ownership of media outlets," exactly.
• Mm... "net neutrality." That's a loaded weapon of a term.
• How would universal internet coverage work, exactly? I honestly don't know how they'd set such a thing up.
• Prohibit commercial advertising targeted to children under 12 years old, as well as advertising in public places such as schools, parks, and government buildings.

While I agree, the first half of this idea is "unenforceable law ahoy" territory...

Foreign Policy:

• Ah, Green Party. You came so close, and yet landed so... so... very far away from the mark.
  • The U.S. is obligated to render military assistance or service under U.N. command to enforce a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Vagueness ahoy.

• We seek the permanent repeal of the veto power enjoyed by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

~sigh~

You dipshits, the veto isn't the problem, it's the absolute power of the veto. Taking away the veto would just make the Security Council worse, and in a much different direction.

• We urge our government to sign the International Criminal Court agreement and respect the authority of that institution.

...and what laws does this institution uphold, exactly? Just curious.

• Our government does not have the right to justify pre-emptive invasion of another country on the grounds that the other country harbors, trains, equips and funds a terrorist cell.

I'll take this on its face for it's Exact Words value.

• Our government should establish a policy to abolish nuclear weapons.

Ah, yes, here is why the Green Party is a direct threat to national security if they get anywhere within a thousand miles of DC (except, perhaps, the SCOTUS...).

• Declare that the U.S. will never threaten or use a nuclear weapon, regardless of size, on a non-nuclear nation.

Right... that sounds like it would go very poorly if, say, China dumped all its nukes and then just used human wave tactics on us. Not that such a thing is likely, but hey, you never know.

Let's try:

• Maybe (I don't know the specifics of that treaty)
• No (though I might agree to stop the testing of nuclear weapons).
• Fuck no.
  • We urge our government to end all stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons and all research, use, and sale of such weapons; and sign the convention that will establish the decrease and inspection of all nations' stockpiles of such weapons, which the U.S. abandoned.

...can't the cures for biological weapons also be weaponized? If so, that's a glaring loophole in an otherwise acceptable idea...

• The U.S. must allow foreign teams to visit the U.S. for verification purposes at least annually.

• From where?
• To verify what?
  • The United States government must reduce our defense budget to half of its current size.

...that's probably unrealistic. Or at least, for the foreseeable future. Reducing it by a third seems more reasonable.

• Close the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly known as the School of the Americas, in Ft. Benning, Georgia.

...what is this, and is it important?

• The U.S. is the largest arms seller and dealer in the world. We urge our government to prohibit all arms sales to foreign nations and likewise prohibit grants to impoverished and undemocratic nations unless the money is targeted on domestic, non-military needs. In addition, grants to other nations may not be used to release their own funds for military purposes.

Let's try:

• No, you're fucking stupid.

The aid thing is fine, though. I can live with that.

• The U.S. must not be a conduit for defense contractors to market their products abroad and must shift our export market from arms to peaceful technology, industrial and agricultural products, and education.

News flash: the American arms industry is a huge economic boon. Though I'd prefer that it be a public thing that we could control, I would not even consider stopping the sale of stuff—military or non-military—to non-stupid countries that want it. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. What other nations do with the shit we sell them is not our business, as long as it doesn't affect us, people we like, or is directly aiding in something stupid like genocide.

• The U.S. must prohibit all covert actions used to influence, de-stabilize or usurp the governments of other nations, and likewise prohibit the assassination of, or assistance in any form for the assassination of, foreign government officials.

I'm going to say no to this first part, because there's all sorts of tinpot dictatorships that deserve it.

• We must build on the Earth Charter that came out of the 1992 U.N. environmental Earth Summit. New definitions of what constitutes real security between nations must be debated and adopted by the foreign policy community.

...what is this "Earth Charter," why does it sound suspiciously supranational, and why do I not feel inclined to trust something named the "Earth Charter" out of the UN in relation to international security?

---

That's all I feel like writing in this particular Wall of Text. I'll pick apart the rest later, I guess.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Forget Presidents. Let's get some Green Governors into office!

This is the institute by which the U.S. government trained most of the death squad leading officers and paramilitary leaders in Latin America. Two out of every three countries that speak Spanish have seen murders and civil rights abuses from the graduates of this fine institution.

edited 9th Nov '11 3:29:47 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Oh, yeah, the Green Party would make for some great State governments (they're kind of like the Progressive Party from the early 1900s, but with shittier foreign policy), but I would not have a problem with undermining anything and everything stupid a Green President—or worse yet, a Green Congress—would do in relation to foreign policy and the military.

Anything and everything outside of Federal Government and perhaps the SCOTUS, sure, I'll vote for them, but for fuck's sake, keep them away from anything related to foreign policy, because they're just stupid on that front.

Couldn't it be used for something else instead of being shut down, or would that just be a waste of money and time?

edited 9th Nov '11 3:32:00 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

The thing about Governors is exactly my point. If they can get and hold offices on a state level I think that will pave the path to their success more efficiently than running for President every time. Although, I can understand that for some running for president can be more about getting out their policies and spreading the philosophy of their party. Though at this point they may be preaching to the choir.

Well, as regards the military cutting; if they could get in enough of their party to influence that then they could get at least some of the military spending cut. (theoretically, anyway.) Maybe not half, and maybe not a third, but they to gain the need the influence necessary to cut it at all. Of course, a large part of the problem is I and many don't know how important certain parts of their platform are to them and how willing they are to compromise some parts to gain the other parts.

Ah, you ninjaed me, USAF.

edited 9th Nov '11 3:37:00 PM by AceofSpades

While I don't know the technological particulars, it is certainly possible to have universal internet access in the US, seeing as how many cities here in the US have managed it.

Net neutrality isn't a loaded term, it's an accepted one, and a very good goal.

And, um. No, the US not selling arms is actually intelligent. A rather substantial number of people who currently hate us and are doing damaging shit are the ones we sold guns to in the first place. Including Al-Qaeda, by the way. I mean, even if you're not into the pacifist hippie stuff, it's hard to ignore that we as a country have done a fine job of giving other countries the means to attack us with our own stuff.

And I would think that "non-military community service" means... just that. There's a crapton of non-profit stuff that benefits cities that could use more jobs and more volunteers.

edited 9th Nov '11 3:41:01 PM by Jeysie

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

I mean in terms of infrastructure—i.e. telephone poles, underground wiring, etc. While I'd support it anyway, it might take some... creative... replanning of urban areas to pull off, and that's ignoring the ridiculous annoyance that would be getting it out to rural areas (who I'd probably just be like, fuck it, take this satellite uplink and deal with the weather as it comes).

It's a loaded term to me because the connotation of being pro-piracy/anti-copyright or some variation on that theme comes with it.

Such is why I said we should only sell to non-stupid countries.

"Non-stupid" — Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, some of the less shitty African countries, Mexico and the rest of Latin America (except maybe Venezuela...), etc.

"Countries" — we don't sell to arms groups, period. Or at least, we shouldn't, if we can help it.

Well, I'd just like to know about what they plan to do, specifically...

I am now known as Flyboy.

The Green Party won't win.

There's my prediction; that's about all I have to say.

Edit: Sorry for being so brief.

edited 9th Nov '11 4:00:49 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

@USAF 713

Honestly, we could just simply use the infrastructure we have now for the most part. Rural areas would be the only sticking point, but even there, if you can get them telephone service, I don't see why at least DSL wouldn't be possible.

It would probably be only the people way out in the middle of absolute nowhere that would be impossible... and honestly, I doubt most people live in the middle of absolute nowhere unless they want to be left alone and not communicate with anyone.

As for Net Neutrality, I suspect it's more just the usual personal websites and similar services. Yes it also makes pirating still possible, but there's way more that rides on Net Neutrality than just that.

And, well... to be frank, the vast majority of non-stupid countries can probably make their own stuff fine anyway, and us selling them arms is more of a convenience matter than anything. And weapons in some of those countries would have an easy time of making their way into... less friendly countries.

Well, for one, just actually making said community jobs available to be applied for would be nice. I actually looked for some government jobs during my job search, and I found like bupkiss that wasn't either military or the US Forest Service. Even though there's gotta be jobs in city cleanup and maintenance, and in government administration, and in the various social services and assistance bureaus, and so on.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

I would assume we're using a better benchmark that just shitty old DSL...

'Tis true... we could always provide an opt out for people...

I know, I'm just saying.

I don't care why they want our stuff, as long as they aren't using it for stupid shit like genocide and/or against us. And it's not that difficult to watch this shit to see where it goes after it leaves our hands... assuming people aren't stupid, but the people who watch arms seem to have a significant inclination towards stupid—perhaps more so than the general population, even.

Besides, I wouldn't advocate selling bleeding edge things to anybody but the top of the mailing list—Britain, Canada, the ANZACs, maybe Germany with some strong stipulations against sharing with France and the other not-in-crowd of the EU, etc. Selling things like the F-16C isn't going to hurt us even if it does end up with someone who's less than wonderful. What are they going to do with an old plane from the Cold War when we should be upgrading sometime in the near future anyhow?

It would, but I don't know what the Green Party advocates on the issue, in terms of hard ideas. Such is why I asked.

I am now known as Flyboy.

@USAF 713

Nothing wrong with DSL... I find the only difference between the DSL I used to have and the cable I have now is that really big stuff downloads faster. The normal web surfing and even streaming isn't that much different.

And, well, I guess my point is: Not selling arms to anyone just isn't dumb to me. The countries we can trust with it also either don't need it, or we'd be letting them use it during a joint venture anyway. If we can't find a better way to make lots of money than selling ways to kill things to people, I think we have issues.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

You think?

It creates jobs, and, given that supranational world government is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future, we might as well profit off the Roman peace we created and can no longer get rid of without some cataclysmic conflict.

I would object if we were selling biological/chemical/nuclear weapons, or some other stupid WMD. Small arms and vehicles, though? Hardly.

I simply think that large chunks of Green foreign policy make it delusional, though I certainly empathize with their military isolationism, demand that we spend less on the military, go only on UN-backed missions, etc.

Still, the sheer stupidity of them wanting to get rid of nukes—coupled with the lesser stupidity of wanting to get rid of the international arms industry (which won't help anything, just help cut ourselves out of the market and let other people make money off it instead)—makes me want them no where near our foreign policy either way.

edited 9th Nov '11 5:01:38 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

@USAF 713

There are plenty of other things we could be doing that would also create jobs, and even some exports, but in more productive ways. Many of which the Greens want to implement along with these ideas. Taken in isolation, it would be dumb to lose all those jobs, but they do offer replacement ideas.

Same thing with the foreign policy, really. They trade having the big threatening stick with being a country that actually doesn't act like a dick, decreasing the number of people that would hate us enough to attack us.

Granted, I don't think we should get rid of nukes entirely either, but a lot of the stuff the Greens want to get rid of is only necessary to begin with because we go around pissing everyone off regularly. Improve foreign relations again, and we need less of a stick because it becomes a bad idea to attack us for other reasons.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

It's throwing away jobs for nothing, though.

The United States could not sell a single rifle, bullet, plane, tank, ship, or otherwise to any other nation for the rest of our time on this planet and nothing would ever change. We'd just open the market wide for others—AKA shooting ourselves in our economic foot.

No thanks. What we gain in morale high ground we lose in revenue we could have spent fixing stuff and getting people out of poverty.

I am now known as Flyboy.