|
NewForumSoftware posted:http://www.justicepartyusa.org/platform The Justice Party didn't even bother to nominate a candidate this year, they supported Bernie Sanders. Like it is literally impossible for me to third-party vote for their candidate so... I'm not sure what point you're making is here?
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The Justice Party didn't even bother to nominate a candidate this year, they supported Bernie Sanders. So? That means you can't support them? Bernie Sanders was the best candidate the left put up this year imo. The fact that he came from inside the party is irrelevant. If next election Bernie (or another progressive democrat) doesn't step up and they have to put someone up like Rocky Anderson (candidate from 2008) who is willing to actually stand up for what's right, I will support them as well. Look the point is you do progress no favors by just bitching about the Greens when the topic of third parties come up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:So? That means you can't support them? Yes. It literally means that. It is impossible for me to vote for their candidate. I voted for Sanders and now I'm voting for Clinton who Sanders endorsed. You're pointing at an entirely irrelevant group and saying 'support them!!" when they don't even nominate someone themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The Justice Party didn't even bother to nominate a candidate this year, they supported Bernie Sanders. The web poll is still up asking if they should support Bernie months after he lost the nomination. Also it has 250 votes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yes. It literally means that. It is impossible for me to vote for their candidate. I voted for Sanders and now I'm voting for Clinton who Sanders endorsed. Maybe part of the problem is American's feel like voting is the only way to participate in a political party. Shame really. BiohazrD posted:The web poll is still up asking if they should support Bernie months after he lost the nomination. Also it has 250 votes. So? You realize Bernie made a pretty controversial decision by endorsing Hillary (at least amongst progressives), it's not about the nomination. Look, you can laugh at the people putting actual good ideas up, but I think it makes a lot more sense to support them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Maybe part of the problem is American's feel like voting is the only way to participate in a political party. Shame really. I volunteered and campaigned for Bernie Sanders because, unlike these people, Bernie Sanders had the actual capability to influence things even if he was likely to lose the presidential election. Unlike the Justice Party, Sanders supports more of my politics than he doesn't while also being relevant. Hillary Clinton supports less of my politics than Sanders does but is still around 70% while having actual capability to change things. Why should I volunteer for the group that actually has a chance of being meaningful? ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I volunteered and campaigned for Bernie Sanders because, unlike these people, Bernie Sanders had the actual capability to influence things even if he was likely to lose the presidential election. If you say so. I'm not telling you to volunteer and campaign for them, I'm telling you that you can participate in the political process in such a way that supports progressive third parties and the "best candidate". Like I said, it just does nothing productive to poo poo on the Greens, and that seems to be all progressives want to do when it comes to discussing third parties. It feels way more like tribalism than anything. I get you're upset some progressives won't vote for Hillary but if you think making GBS threads on the Greens is going to help your candidate at this point I don't really know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I wouldn't say maybe for the greens. Anti-vaccination policy would lead to many, many preventable, horrible deaths. Actively subverting humanity's ability to eradicate disease is just as mustache-twirlingly evil as anything the libertarians advocate. Jill Stein hates modern medicine! If you vote Green you are voting to kill a billion people! Hillary sent a stand down order! Benghazi! https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/759142652243644416
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:If you say so. I'm not telling you to volunteer and campaign for them, I'm telling you that you can participate in the political process in such a way that supports progressive third parties and the "best candidate". Like I said, it just does nothing productive to poo poo on the Greens, and that seems to be all progressives want to do when it comes to discussing third parties. Okay. How should I support 'progressive third parties' in a way that is not literally wasting my time? The Insect Court posted:Jill Stein hates modern medicine! Jill Stein has stood by her viewpoint of "I support vaccinations but maybe we should ask questions" which is a cowardly and pathetic viewpoint. She is also an attention-seeking glory hog who does more damage to the Greens than anything else and it's a drat shame for the Green party that they don't have a better candidate. Half of my problem with the Greens isn't the Greens themselves but Jill Stein who is a terrible candidate. NewForumSoftware posted:It feels way more like tribalism than anything. I get you're upset some progressives won't vote for Hillary but if you think making GBS threads on the Greens is going to help your candidate at this point I don't really know what to tell you. Bullshit. It isn't tribalism. I'm tired of people who use third party as "I'm going to say I don't have to vote and rely on others to make compromises for me!" ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Jill Stein has stood by her viewpoint of "I support vaccinations but maybe we should ask questions" which is a cowardly and pathetic viewpoint. She is also an attention-seeking glory hog who does more damage to the Greens than anything else and it's a drat shame for the Green party that they don't have a better candidate. Half of my problem with the Greens isn't the Greens themselves but Jill Stein who is a terrible candidate. Hillary Clinton posted:""I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines…We don't know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism - but we should find out.""
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Okay. How should I support 'progressive third parties' in a way that is not literally wasting my time? When people bring up the Green party as a reason to laugh about Leftist third parties mention there are actually other parties out there that aren't as batshit crazy. At this point these parties need publicity and leadership, feel free to step up. You can identify yourself as a member of the Justice party (ok maybe you have to register Dem to participate in the primary) and still vote for Hillary because she's the lesser of two evils or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Did you actually read the link you posted? hint: It's showing that while Clinton hedged on it in 2008 she came out strongly in favor of it in 2016. I didn't vote for Clinton in 2008. NewForumSoftware posted:When people bring up the Green party as a reason to laugh about Leftist third parties mention there are actually other parties out there that aren't as batshit crazy. At this point these parties need publicity and leadership, feel free to step up. You can identify yourself as a member of the Justice party (ok maybe you have to register Dem to participate in the primary) and still vote for Hillary because she's the lesser of two evils or whatever. Because the Justice Party doesn't actually have strong solid outlines for what they intend to do, not even in the generic way that presidential candidates do. Thye say "We're anti-(X!)" Great. What does that mean? What is your plan? How do you intend to do these things? If you can't answer that question in even the generalized way I get from Clinton and Sanders then why should I want to support you? ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I've investigated most third parties. They boil down to "single-issue voters" or "things I agree with but no capability or plans to execute those things." I'm very wary of those platform changes. After the conventions, pretty much all discussion regarding policy has been curbed since election is now just a manifestation of the concept of humiliation. There really haven't been any assurances that the policies will be followed through, and as more conservatives support Hillary as time goes on, there's less of an onus for her to do so. Obviously, this is all just a prediction, but it's more inline with the trends of other presidencies than the idea that she'll be a progressive crusader. Edit: Should note that the perspective I'm arguing from isn't just as a voter, but someone who's actively involved in politics. MizPiz fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
quote:Because the Justice Party doesn't actually have strong solid outlines for what they intend to do, not even in the generic way that presidential candidates do. Thye say "We're anti-(X!)" Great. What does that mean? What is your plan? How do you intend to do these things? If you can't answer that question in even the generalized way I get from Clinton and Sanders then why should I want to support you? I don't know there's a pretty significant platform that I already linked to you. Example: quote:Effectively Combat Human-Caused Climate Instability. The energy usage of our country and our world have increased—and, in light of the transition of much of the world from undeveloped or developing to developed, will continue to increase—at alarming rates. Our country, with only 5% of the world's population, utilizes 25% of the world's energy. We must substantially reduce our energy consumption and our overall environmental impact, and we must make a rapid transition from energy derived from fossil fuels to energy that is clean, safe, and renewable. There are many steps we must take to address the devastating effects of the climate crisis, including the development of a green economy, and: What more do you want to see exactly? Again, I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's way better than the platform the Democrats put out. The only real issue I take with the Justice Party is that they support GMO labelling. They don't want to ban them or anything, but I don't think that's a smart idea. Those are the sorts of compromises I want to make with a political party, not looking the other way when Hillary says we need to increase our airstrikes overseas or collect even more data on our citizens during a debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:I'm very wary of those platform changes. After the conventions, pretty much all discussion regarding policy has been curbed since election is now just a manifestation of the concept of humiliation. There really haven't been any assurances that the policies will be followed through, and as more conservatives support Hillary as time goes on, there's less of an onus for her to do so. Obviously, this is all just a prediction, but it's more inline with the trends of other presidencies than the idea that she'll be a progressive crusader. Okay. Why do you believe any third party candidate would stick to their platforms in the face of election? Keeping in mind that if for some reason Jill Stein won the election she'd be forced to compromise with both the GOP and the Dems? NewForumSoftware posted:What more do you want to see exactly? Answers on how they actually plan to do those things. Like this: Require automobile manufacturers to quickly and dramatically increase the miles per gallon of all vehicles; Okay. How? How are you going to do this? With Democrats I can at least acknowledge they have tons of political power. How would the Justice Party do this? How would they force automobile manufacturers to quickly and dramatically increase the miles per gallons? What is their plan? This is more relevant for third parties because they have less power than the big two parties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Did you actually read the link you posted? I'm noticing a pattern in his posts
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Like this: Really? The government ALREADY mandates MPG requirements for vehicles. You don't seem to understand that the point of supporting the Justice Party isn't to get their politicians elected into office. The goal is to get a large enough fraction of the population to identify with that group so that it's very clear what the Democrats need to do to recapture those voters and support. Supporting Hillary purely because "she is the better than Donald Trump" is pretty weak. Voting for her, sure. But you should probably be holding your nose as a progressive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:The problem is that the Democratic leadership have been actively preventing the type of radical drag the far right pulled off since 1972. The '68 riots, McGovern, and even Carter pushed the party as a whole to a firmly moderate position to try to be more appealing to Republican leaning voters. Bill essentially proved this mentality not only by winning both his elections, but also through his policies. The Democrats have been doing everything they can since then to prove they're the big tent party by being a synthesis of right and left wing politics, including blocking policies that were supported by a majority of the population. You gotta admit that creating an opposition party at least seems like the more effective way to push for left wing policies than trying to be part of a party that takes your support for granted. Wait, what? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the public option fail because of Lieberman who was not a Democrat?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Really? The government ALREADY mandates MPG requirements for vehicles. Yes. How will a presidential candidate force change on this when they are an outsider from both parties? What is their plan? NewForumSoftware posted:You don't seem to understand that the point of supporting the Justice Party isn't to get their politicians elected into office. The goal is to get a large enough fraction of the population to identify with that group so that it's very clear what the Democrats need to do to recapture those voters and support. Okay. Except I can't see any way, shape or form that it would be easier to turn a complete nothing party into a relevant political force without somehow having to bend, change or compromise on their principles and platform than it is to work within the existing framework of a large platform to incrementally push them to the left. Like how do you grow the Justice party to the point that the Democrats have to pay attention to it while still keeping to every ideal mentioned there? I an all in favor of optimism and ideals but optimism and ideals must also face reality. I want to hear actual facts and actual plans not "we're better than the Democrats on paper!" ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Wait, what? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the public option fail because of Lieberman who was not a Democrat? Part of the issue is that Obama wasn't actually calling for a public option. That bill was never proposed by him, and it drat well should have. Part of the GOPs success has been actually negotiating like a smart person. If you have a job interview and they ask how much you want to make, you should throw a number that is higher than what you expect. It's called an anchor. Obama never even attempted to put forth an anchor. In fact, his eventual plan was so cordial to Health Insurance companies it's hard not to conclude that's exactly who wrote the whole bill. Which means it's basically pointless because the whole purpose of a public option is to kill the absurd health insurance industry. ImpAtom posted:Like how do you grow the Justice party to the point that the Democrats have to pay attention to it while still keeping to every ideal mentioned there? When progressives that you know are frustrated with the Greens (since they are the most major and visible leftist third party) point them in the direction of the Justice party. Ultimately yeah, if the country just isn't that progressive, it may take a long time or even never be effective. The point is we have to try. We have a responsibility as people who know that the policies pursued by both major parties are unsustainable in the long run and to make our voices as loud as possible. Part of that is coalescing behind a single party that most closely embodies your political leanings. The truth is the internet and demographics are on our side. Why do you think Bernie saw such a huge showing of support this election cycle? The progressive message resonantes with a lot of people in this country and we need to give people a party that supports that as it's own entity, not just as a force for change from within the dems. Both are important. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The truth is the internet and demographics are on our side. Why do you think Bernie saw such a huge showing of support this election cycle? The progressive message resonantes with a lot of people in this country and we need to give people a party that supports that as it's own entity, not just as a force for change from within the dems. Both are important. Okay. So why should I encourage these new progressives to associate themselves with an outside party instead of encouraging them to associate themselves with the Democrats and force the Democrats to change from the inside? Why is an outside source needed? It can't be to scare the Democrats into thinking they'll lose their majority because that just isn't possible barring something catastrophic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Okay. Purely for the sake of argument, I don't think she would stick to the platform, but she's be in a much better position to negotiate policies.. Assuming she does get elected, it would be such an embarrassment for both the GOP and Dems that they'll automatically be on the defensive when it comes to any legislation, seeking to appeal to the people who voted for Stein by being more align with the Green platform. Any attempt to fight against Stein or the Greens will painted as being virtually counter-revolutionary since it would be a clear case of the elite trying to retake power from the people. This is all purely hypothetical, though, since I don't think nor want Stein to win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Jill Stein hates modern medicine! If you vote Green you are voting to kill a billion people! Hillary sent a stand down order! Benghazi! Hilariously, the regulatory people draw far more heavily from academia and medicine then they do drug companies. It's disingenuous to go vaccines are great and I totally love their benefits while simultaneously saying that the decades long approval process is corrupt and we can't trust that. She's dogwhistling to the anti vax crowd, and that's dangerously stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:
A large reason that Bernie got so much support in the first place is for the simple fact that he was running in the Democratic primary. If he had ran 3rd party, his coverage from the media would have been essentially non-existent. MizPiz posted:Purely for the sake of argument, I don't think she would stick to the platform, but she's be in a much better position to negotiate policies.. Assuming she does get elected, it would be such an embarrassment for both the GOP and Dems that they'll automatically be on the defensive when it comes to any legislation, seeking to appeal to the people who voted for Stein by being more align with the Green platform. Any attempt to fight against Stein or the Greens will painted as being virtually counter-revolutionary since it would be a clear case of the elite trying to retake power from the people. Or they would just stonewall her to ensure that essentially nothing gets done since it has happened before. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Wait, what? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the public option fail because of Lieberman who was not a Democrat? He became an independent in 2006, but is still considered a blue dog, and you are right that he is largely blamed for it failing, however, at least 12 Democrat senators voted against the public opition with even more support disappearing when the super-majority wasn't needed. blackguy32 posted:Or they would just stonewall her to ensure that essentially nothing gets done since it has happened before. You're forgetting that this is a scenario where a third party candidate actually won the presidential election. This would closest thing to a non-violent revolution America has experienced, and the established parties would have to walk on eggshells if they were to oppose or even block the Green's policies. MizPiz fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Any third party that only becomes active during presidential elections is absolute poo poo. If you want to make changes via a third party you start at the lower tiers: Local, State, and the House of Representatives. That's where the real shaping and turning of a party's platform and goals occurs. Voting for a vanity party (which is what most third parties are in presidential elections) is useless at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Hilariously, the regulatory people draw far more heavily from academia and medicine then they do drug companies. It's disingenuous to go vaccines are great and I totally love their benefits while simultaneously saying that the decades long approval process is corrupt and we can't trust that. She's dogwhistling to the anti vax crowd, and that's dangerously stupid. So have we gone from "  IF YOU VOTE STEIN YOU WILL KILL A BILLION PEOPLE YOU GENOCIDAL MONSTER " to "Stein's criticism of the FDA's advisory board is misguided"? And can someone tell me why it was ever the first one, other than the aforementioned need of Hillary supporter to justify their choice?I've never said that Stein is a better choice than Clinton, merely that the hysterical ranting from certain Clinton supporters directed at any progressive whose discomfort with Clinton's more conservative or reactionary positions leads them to support a third party is exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:So have we gone from " So what I'm getting from you is you don't actually read anything anyone says, including links you post yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Stop trying to make the argument about Clinton and her supporters. It doesn't matter who the nominees are; voting third party is always pointless. If you're dissapointed Bernie lost, get over it like I did and fall in line and vote for Hillary like senpai said to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Is there anything at all to justify the fear of Clinton becoming a Republican on Inauguration Day? I don't believe that myself, but I'm wondering if people have anything to back that up besides their dislike of her.
Motto fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Again, more parties than just the Greens. Justice? There are leftist parties in America that don't believe nuclear energy and GMOs are going to kill us all. Who cares? No one's voting for them, and no one's paying attention to the people who vote for them. This is a two-party system. MizPiz posted:The problem is that the Democratic leadership have been actively preventing the type of radical drag the far right pulled off since 1972. You think the Republican leadership hasn't tried to fight the drastic rightward shift of the past decade? The moderates are only just starting to regain ground now that a lot of the extremists have completely botched their time in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Who cares? No one's voting for them, and no one's paying attention to the people who vote for them. This is a two-party system. The "drastic rightward shift" has been happening for the past 50 years. The Tea Party weren't some political phenomenon that sprang from nowhere, they were the updated version of the silent majority that have been the base of the Republican party since Nixon. They're only now fighting against it because it became a threat to them holding power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Honestly if third parties really wanted to push policy and influence politics they would run candidates in local and state elections on their platform. I have no idea why they do not do this. As far as throwing away your vote? Yeah it pretty much is. A vote cast for one of the outliers is one less vote for one of the big two and those votes add up and can cost a candidate the election. But hey, vote how you want it's a free country. Just know that I'm gonna be pretty pissed if third party voters help herald in the era of God Emperor Trump and he starts sending all the Muslims to internment camps. I don't wanna have to find a new doctor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Okay. So why should I encourage these new progressives to associate themselves with an outside party instead of encouraging them to associate themselves with the Democrats and force the Democrats to change from the inside? Why is an outside source needed? It can't be to scare the Democrats into thinking they'll lose their majority because that just isn't possible barring something catastrophic. The Democratic Progressive Caucus really needs to advertise better. Unless of course people are just being contrarian and don't actually care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Just know that I'm gonna be pretty pissed if third party voters help herald in the era of God Emperor Trump and he starts sending all the Muslims to internment camps. I don't wanna have to find a new doctor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Motto posted:Is there anything at all to justify the fear of Clinton becoming a Republican on Inauguration Day? I don't believe that myself, but I'm wondering if people have anything to back that up besides their dislike of her. Considering her record in congress, and what she attempted to do as First Lady, no. Seriously, she has a pretty good record when it comes to trying to fight for people. SCHIP and Hillarycare are two examples of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You won't need to find a new doctor, because you'll be sent to the same internment camp. Are you sure? Because I am white as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Are you sure? Because I am white as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
At best, third party candidates can be used to frighten the big parties in order to chase their base so they don't lose the election due to a small percentage their base's votes being transferred to the third parties. An example of this in action is the current presidency election. Hillary Clinton was struggling significantly with the independent vote as much of the Democratic leaning base went toward Jill Stein for a more progressive platform or Gary Johnson for one that was simply more populace and less hippie. Prior to the first debate Stein was getting over 3% of the national vote while Johnson was getting about 8% (with roughly half being Democratic leaning voters). This resulted in Hillary only leading Trump around 1% nationally. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this is why she took a more "fiery" and "populace" stance during the debate. I'm not saying that this is the ONLY reason why her poll numbers went up significantly, however she was able to eat a lot the third party vote after the debate, which I have no doubt that her different tone significantly helped. So in reality in the modern era, voting third party IS a protest vote. However, in a protest one lays down arms once their complaints are met. And it's up to the major parties whether or not they answer those complaints.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
MizPiz posted:The "drastic rightward shift" has been happening for the past 50 years. The Tea Party weren't some political phenomenon that sprang from nowhere, they were the updated version of the silent majority that have been the base of the Republican party since Nixon. They're only now fighting against it because it became a threat to them holding power. I'm talking about the drastic rightward shift in Congress, where the lunatic fringe has gained enough influence to paralyze the leadership.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 15:23
|
|