i think the greens need to really be a third party. Either they go for the gold, or they drop out. If you are a third party, that means going forward as a third party would. Which is run candidates in ALL states, drop the silly "only vote for Greens in safe states, and vote Dem in battleground state" nonsense.
Otherwise, the greens are just the Dems by another name.
My problems with the Greens stem from their stance in the 2004 election. Telling voters to vote Kerry in battleground states.
So, third parties need to act like third parties. Otherwise they are meaningless. They play into the whole paradigm that i just spent time decrying.
The Green party needs to adhere to an important creed in environmentalism: "Think Globally, Act Locally."
The Greens Party in Germany holds seats in Baden-Wurttemberg; running for President gains attention and is important, but the Party should focus on gaining seats in local/state governments, and on the national level in the House.
while thats a great point, i dont think this is the Greens problem nor do i see it as the defining issue that prevents any third party from gaining office.
I think plain and simple, people have bought into the false idealogy of a 2 party system, and anything that threatens to destabilize that is ridiculed, mocked and ignored.
And as far as environmental policy, I see that as a political issue across the board. The standard belief in the 2 parties is that environmentalism is important but both support drilling, both support wars (few if any people talk about the environmental damage wars cause), and most politicians subscribe to the "lets do a LITTLE to help environmental causes, but not TOO much".
So, I think across the board, the environmental activists should demand immediate and radical steps to address climate change.
Personally I think voters should throw out anyone who is prowar, and pro torture and is too mealy mouthed on the environment
2012-11-15 23:03:20Presidential Vote Totals So Far
Thursday, November 15, 2012 23:13
At least two states, Georgia and Wyoming, have released their official election returns for President (although Georgia hasn’t released write-in totals). A few other states have election web pages that continuously update, as more votes are counted; these states seem to be Alaska, Arizona, California, and Washington. Wyoming says there are 2,035 presidential write-ins, but the state web page doesn’t break them down.
When one combines the election night totals from the states not mentioned above with the totals for the states that are mentioned above, these are the minor party and independent presidential national vote totals so far:
Libertarian, Gary Johnson, 1,213,306
Green, Jill Stein, 432,296
Constitution, Virgil Goode, 118,551
Peace & Freedom, Roseanne Barr, 56,349
Justice, Rocky Anderson, 38,889
America’s Independent Party, Tom Hoefling, 33,509
independent Randall Terry, 12,986
independent Richard Duncan, 12,148
Party for Socialism and Liberation, Peta Lindsay and her stand-in, 9,138
Reform (three different presidential candidates together) 6,525
Will Christensen, Oregon Constitution Party, 4,283
Objectivist, Tom Stevens, 4,066
Socialist, Stewart Alexander, 3,946
Socialist Workers, James Harris, 3,868
Grassroots, Jim Carlson, 3,172
American Third Position, Merlin Miller, 2,833
We the People, Samm Tittle, 2,504
Twelve Visions, Jill Reed, 2,394
independent Jerry Litzel, 1,196
Socialist Equality, Jerry White, 1,130
Constitutional Government, Dean Morstad, 1,106
NSA Did 911, Jeff Boss, 907
Prohibition, Jack Fellure, 519
The Politico election returns web page, as of November 15, says that President Obama has 62,611,250 votes, and Mitt Romney has 59,134,475. Staff at Politico seem to be updating their totals as some states release new figures, and yet no one at that web page, as of November 15, has updated their totals to take account of the new, official figures from Georgia and Wyoming.
Among the parties that were on the ballot for president in both 2008 and 2012, the only ones that polled more votes in 2012 than in 2008 are the Republican, Libertarian, Green, Socialism & Liberation, Reform, and Objectivist Parties. Among those, the Libertarian, Socialism & Liberation, and Objectivist Parties polled their highest presidential vote totals ever, and it is very likely the Republican Party did as well, but that won’t be known for sure until all the votes are counted.
Current percentages are: Obama 50.61%, Romney 47.80%, all others 1.59% (of which Gary Johnson has .98%). In 2008, percentages were: Obama 52.93%, John McCain 45.65%, all others 1.42%.
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I voted for Gary Johnson.
I will be working hard to get Rand Paul the nomination in 2016. Working these past two-three years for the Ron Paul campaign shows me people are on the edge of waking up. Four more years of Obama will take care of that.
I will be working hard to get Rand Paul the nomination in 2016. Working these past two-three years for the Ron Paul campaign shows me people are on the edge of waking up. Four more years of Obama will take care of that.
I hope the ticket becomes Paul/Amash.
I did as well partly because of you and others here.
I'm on board with this very much so. I will see what I can do here in Georgia
to help the cause.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
I will be voting against Ron Paul's bouncing baby boy:
" With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.
Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.
I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be." -- Rand Paul
I will be voting against Ron Paul's bouncing baby boy:
" With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.
Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.
I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be." -- Rand Paul
ron paul and his son have nothing in common. Rand identifies as part of the tea party movement, something his father has never really been a part of. I see Rand as a republican straight off, Ron paul is a libertarian, much more independent.
Makes little sense to vote for him just because of who his dad is
i think the greens need to really be a third party. Either they go for the gold, or they drop out. If you are a third party, that means going forward as a third party would. Which is run candidates in ALL states, drop the silly "only vote for Greens in safe states, and vote Dem in battleground state" nonsense.
Otherwise, the greens are just the Dems by another name.
My problems with the Greens stem from their stance in the 2004 election. Telling voters to vote Kerry in battleground states.
So, third parties need to act like third parties. Otherwise they are meaningless. They play into the whole paradigm that i just spent time decrying.
I think they're actually being very smart, as well as selfless and showing how much they really care about what they stand for. What they are doing IS best for what the stand for right now. All what you suggest would do is make things worse for the causes in which they believe. They are acting realistically.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
i think the greens need to really be a third party. Either they go for the gold, or they drop out. If you are a third party, that means going forward as a third party would. Which is run candidates in ALL states, drop the silly "only vote for Greens in safe states, and vote Dem in battleground state" nonsense.
Otherwise, the greens are just the Dems by another name.
My problems with the Greens stem from their stance in the 2004 election. Telling voters to vote Kerry in battleground states.
So, third parties need to act like third parties. Otherwise they are meaningless. They play into the whole paradigm that i just spent time decrying.
I think they're actually being very smart, as well as selfless and showing how much they really care about what they stand for. What they are doing IS best for what the stand for right now. All what you suggest would do is make things worse for the causes in which they believe. They are acting realistically.
The purpose of a third party or a 4th or 5th for that matter, is to provide an outlet for issues not being discussed by the 2 major parties. If the Greens are a third party they'd push back against the Dems and Repubs, because neither party is discussing the issues that Jill Stein ran on. By telling their party members not to vote Green in battleground or key states, they are essentially conceeding the election and arent providing a voice. What about all those people in all the battleground states who feel Obama wasnt dealing with the issues important to them? Why should the Greens tell anyone to vote Dem when clearly the Dems are as clueless and as bought and paid for as the Repubs are.
The Greens strategy makes little to no sense. If they support Dems, thats fine, but dont claim you are a third party who offers a valid alternative to the 2 major parties, because a third party doesnt ONLY run in safe states. A third party doesnt favor either of the 2 major parties over the other, because if they did, why would they run in the first place. If they thought Dems are better than Repubs why run AT ALL?
The issues of peace, combating militarism as well as global hegemony, torture, the environment etc.. arent things that sort of need addressing. They need to be addressed in all states, in every state. It should be a national issue. And if they arent running a 50 state campaign, they arent dealing with the issues in a meaningful manner.
By telling people to vote Dem, you deny the real facts of the matter, which are that their is no real difference between the 2 major parties and that both bow down to their corporate masters. Plain and simple. If you want a viable alternative to this, theres no other option but to be a third party, be a third party candidate and run as such.
Ron Paul didnt endorse Romney. and Nader didnt endorse Romney or Obama. A viable, real third party movement doesnt happen unless we treat the 2 party system as the problem. Any concession to it will legitimize it.
i think the greens need to really be a third party. Either they go for the gold, or they drop out. If you are a third party, that means going forward as a third party would. Which is run candidates in ALL states, drop the silly "only vote for Greens in safe states, and vote Dem in battleground state" nonsense.
Otherwise, the greens are just the Dems by another name.
My problems with the Greens stem from their stance in the 2004 election. Telling voters to vote Kerry in battleground states.
So, third parties need to act like third parties. Otherwise they are meaningless. They play into the whole paradigm that i just spent time decrying.
How would voting Democrat help the causes that the Greens believe in? Ifyour issues are war, militarism, the drug war, the environment and torture, and you look at the 2 major parties, who dont deal with these issues, thats why The Greens ran in the first place. No one was saying lets end the war, and lets end the drug war, EXCEPT for third party candidates. So, how would voting Dem bring us or the Greens any closer to realizing their goals of seeing issues like that enacted and real? Who else would discuss these issues? Lets face it Voting for Obama isnt going to end the war, and thats largely because he ran on a prowar platform. if Im antiwar and a Green why should i vote for someone who's part of the system and prowar?
As I said, it makes no sense. Either you believe in the 2 party system, and believe both parties are fair and just or that one is at least, then why run as a third party at all? Why not just support the Dems?
And if you are against the 2 party system and have created a third party, arent you by definition suggesting the 2 parties are currupt? If so, why tell people to choose one of the corrupt parties and dissuade them from voting Green?
How would voting Democrat help the causes that the Greens believe in? Ifyour issues are war, militarism, the drug war, the environment and torture, and you look at the 2 major parties, who dont deal with these issues, thats why The Greens ran in the first place. No one was saying lets end the war, and lets end the drug war, EXCEPT for third party candidates. So, how would voting Dem bring us or the Greens any closer to realizing their goals of seeing issues like that enacted and real? Who else would discuss these issues? Lets face it Voting for Obama isnt going to end the war, and thats largely because he ran on a prowar platform. if Im antiwar and a Green why should i vote for someone who's part of the system and prowar?
As I said, it makes no sense. Either you believe in the 2 party system, and believe both parties are fair and just or that one is at least, then why run as a third party at all? Why not just support the Dems?
And if you are against the 2 party system and have created a third party, arent you by definition suggesting the 2 parties are currupt? If so, why tell people to choose one of the corrupt parties and dissuade them from voting Green?
That's correct... the two big parties don't give a fuck. They are bought and sold already! Third parties, in my opinion, are the only real hope for this country... I will never vote for the two big corporate whore parties.
How would voting Democrat help the causes that the Greens believe in? Ifyour issues are war, militarism, the drug war, the environment and torture, and you look at the 2 major parties, who dont deal with these issues, thats why The Greens ran in the first place. No one was saying lets end the war, and lets end the drug war, EXCEPT for third party candidates. So, how would voting Dem bring us or the Greens any closer to realizing their goals of seeing issues like that enacted and real? Who else would discuss these issues? Lets face it Voting for Obama isnt going to end the war, and thats largely because he ran on a prowar platform. if Im antiwar and a Green why should i vote for someone who's part of the system and prowar?
As I said, it makes no sense. Either you believe in the 2 party system, and believe both parties are fair and just or that one is at least, then why run as a third party at all? Why not just support the Dems?
And if you are against the 2 party system and have created a third party, arent you by definition suggesting the 2 parties are currupt? If so, why tell people to choose one of the corrupt parties and dissuade them from voting Green?
No, that s not what I meant. What I mean is that the Dems are definitely the better of the two as far as the Greens are concerned (clearly that is the case). I imagine that the Greens are better able to work with them in their efforts to slowly grow their own agenda. I think they're being smart. They are facing the reality that they cannot at this point be a viable third party no matter what they do - that is simply a fact. But what they're doing now is the ONLY way they might become a viable one in the distant future - baby steps, and realistically trying to make matters as good as they can be for them by trying to encourage consistent Dem wins federally, as opposed to Reps. It makes good sense. They are reasonable enough to know that if they want to grow into a third party they need an extreme amount of patience while attempting to stack the deck even just a It in their favor any chance they get. If the country continues to lean left instead of right (and hopefully down the road lean further left), that is a future benefit to them. It is their only option right now. They CANNOT be a viable their party yet. I admire them for not plowing forward uselessly to risk the party's existence altogether.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
ron paul and his son have nothing in common. Rand identifies as part of the tea party movement, something his father has never really been a part of. I see Rand as a republican straight off, Ron paul is a libertarian, much more independent.
Makes little sense to vote for him just because of who his dad is
I wouldn't have voted for Ron Paul because I disagreed with several of his stances but I have an immense amount of respect for him. As for Rand, being from KY I see his policies firsthand and have read a slew of comments and seen dozens of appearances, he is NOT his father. Rand is definitely a Republican and not part of the tea party movement nor a Libertarian. I hope that everyone who thinks he would be a good substitute for his father really does their research.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
How would voting Democrat help the causes that the Greens believe in? Ifyour issues are war, militarism, the drug war, the environment and torture, and you look at the 2 major parties, who dont deal with these issues, thats why The Greens ran in the first place. No one was saying lets end the war, and lets end the drug war, EXCEPT for third party candidates. So, how would voting Dem bring us or the Greens any closer to realizing their goals of seeing issues like that enacted and real? Who else would discuss these issues? Lets face it Voting for Obama isnt going to end the war, and thats largely because he ran on a prowar platform. if Im antiwar and a Green why should i vote for someone who's part of the system and prowar?
As I said, it makes no sense. Either you believe in the 2 party system, and believe both parties are fair and just or that one is at least, then why run as a third party at all? Why not just support the Dems?
And if you are against the 2 party system and have created a third party, arent you by definition suggesting the 2 parties are currupt? If so, why tell people to choose one of the corrupt parties and dissuade them from voting Green?
No, that s not what I meant. What I mean is that the Dems are definitely the better of the two as far as the Greens are concerned (clearly that is the case). I imagine that the Greens are better able to work with them in their efforts to slowly grow their own agenda. I think they're being smart. They are facing the reality that they cannot at this point be a viable third party no matter what they do - that is simply a fact. But what they're doing now is the ONLY way they might become a viable one in the distant future - baby steps, and realistically trying to make matters as good as they can be for them by trying to encourage consistent Dem wins federally, as opposed to Reps. It makes good sense. They are reasonable enough to know that if they want to grow into a third party they need an extreme amount of patience while attempting to stack the deck even just a It in their favor any chance they get. If the country continues to lean left instead of right (and hopefully down the road lean further left), that is a future benefit to them. It is their only option right now. They CANNOT be a viable their party yet. I admire them for not plowing forward uselessly to risk the party's existence altogether.
I dont think thats a viable argument. Plowing forward is plowing forward. And running in all 50 states, a real campaign that tackles issues of importance to the majority of americans is the only way forward. Thats just plain common sense.
The argument of when they can run, or when its safe for them to run, or when they can REALLY run is a straw man, thats been around for over a decade, probably more. The truth is, Dems dont want a third party to run, because it siphons votes and thus the Dems lose power. After Nader in 2000, the same argument was put forth between Kerry and Bush, then Mccain and Obama, and finally Obama and Romney. After 2000, the argument went, Nader cost Dems the election, and when its safe and when not as much is at stake THEN a third party can run. 2004 brought the same argument, it was too important an election so Nader was castigated for running, same in 2008, and same in 2012 with other third party candidates. The argument by the Dems for when a third party candidate can run is alot like moving goalposts. It always is put into the future. Oh next time, when it isnt as important, THEN you can run. But the next election, everyone acts like its too important and third party candidates are told they are siphoning votes and costing the election.
I look at it alot like the Dems reaction to the wars. We were continually told, "we dont have power" for 8 years and that when they finally had power, then they'd end the war. They got power, and lo and behold, the argument remained the same, Obama doesnt have power, the republicans in congress and the house wont go along with him, he's cleaning up Bush's mess so his hands are tied, he can't pull out of the wars because he needs to fix the mess Bush made. The goalposts get moved again, and its the same old tired game. Same with the Patriot Act or Impeaching of Bush, the argument was continually made, "we dont have power we cant do anything", when they got power and were elected primarily to end the policies of the Bush administration the argument was slightly altered, "we cant do anything because Republicans wont work with us".
As I said, I think the 2 party system needs to be challenged and ultimately abolished. There isnt a choice for voters. and as long as both parties are ruled and owned by money and the corporations nothing will get done. Obama was funded by the same people and corporations that funded Bush and Romney and Mccain. Its the same old story.
You are absolutely right, the country does lean left. On most issues the country is far to the left of the Dems. On the environment, civil rights, torture, war, drugs, gay marriage and equality, all these issues the majority of americans favor policies that are to the left of Obama. It was part of the reason he was elected in the first place. To tip the country back to where it should be
this starts at the local level. Get 3rd party canidates elected locally then go statewide to create an actual experienced voice then go national. Its going to take a long time, but in the menatime you actual change locally.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
By no means is this a commentary on 3rd party Voters...but it is funny...
Kodos: It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us!
Man: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
Perot's response...
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Comments
Otherwise, the greens are just the Dems by another name.
My problems with the Greens stem from their stance in the 2004 election. Telling voters to vote Kerry in battleground states.
So, third parties need to act like third parties. Otherwise they are meaningless. They play into the whole paradigm that i just spent time decrying.
while thats a great point, i dont think this is the Greens problem nor do i see it as the defining issue that prevents any third party from gaining office.
I think plain and simple, people have bought into the false idealogy of a 2 party system, and anything that threatens to destabilize that is ridiculed, mocked and ignored.
And as far as environmental policy, I see that as a political issue across the board. The standard belief in the 2 parties is that environmentalism is important but both support drilling, both support wars (few if any people talk about the environmental damage wars cause), and most politicians subscribe to the "lets do a LITTLE to help environmental causes, but not TOO much".
So, I think across the board, the environmental activists should demand immediate and radical steps to address climate change.
Personally I think voters should throw out anyone who is prowar, and pro torture and is too mealy mouthed on the environment
Thursday, November 15, 2012 23:13
At least two states, Georgia and Wyoming, have released their official election returns for President (although Georgia hasn’t released write-in totals). A few other states have election web pages that continuously update, as more votes are counted; these states seem to be Alaska, Arizona, California, and Washington. Wyoming says there are 2,035 presidential write-ins, but the state web page doesn’t break them down.
When one combines the election night totals from the states not mentioned above with the totals for the states that are mentioned above, these are the minor party and independent presidential national vote totals so far:
Libertarian, Gary Johnson, 1,213,306
Green, Jill Stein, 432,296
Constitution, Virgil Goode, 118,551
Peace & Freedom, Roseanne Barr, 56,349
Justice, Rocky Anderson, 38,889
America’s Independent Party, Tom Hoefling, 33,509
independent Randall Terry, 12,986
independent Richard Duncan, 12,148
Party for Socialism and Liberation, Peta Lindsay and her stand-in, 9,138
Reform (three different presidential candidates together) 6,525
Will Christensen, Oregon Constitution Party, 4,283
Objectivist, Tom Stevens, 4,066
Socialist, Stewart Alexander, 3,946
Socialist Workers, James Harris, 3,868
Grassroots, Jim Carlson, 3,172
American Third Position, Merlin Miller, 2,833
We the People, Samm Tittle, 2,504
Twelve Visions, Jill Reed, 2,394
independent Jerry Litzel, 1,196
Socialist Equality, Jerry White, 1,130
Constitutional Government, Dean Morstad, 1,106
NSA Did 911, Jeff Boss, 907
Prohibition, Jack Fellure, 519
The Politico election returns web page, as of November 15, says that President Obama has 62,611,250 votes, and Mitt Romney has 59,134,475. Staff at Politico seem to be updating their totals as some states release new figures, and yet no one at that web page, as of November 15, has updated their totals to take account of the new, official figures from Georgia and Wyoming.
Among the parties that were on the ballot for president in both 2008 and 2012, the only ones that polled more votes in 2012 than in 2008 are the Republican, Libertarian, Green, Socialism & Liberation, Reform, and Objectivist Parties. Among those, the Libertarian, Socialism & Liberation, and Objectivist Parties polled their highest presidential vote totals ever, and it is very likely the Republican Party did as well, but that won’t be known for sure until all the votes are counted.
Current percentages are: Obama 50.61%, Romney 47.80%, all others 1.59% (of which Gary Johnson has .98%). In 2008, percentages were: Obama 52.93%, John McCain 45.65%, all others 1.42%.
2012-11-15 23:03:20
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/ ... 70206.html
Sigh...
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I will be working hard to get Rand Paul the nomination in 2016. Working these past two-three years for the Ron Paul campaign shows me people are on the edge of waking up. Four more years of Obama will take care of that.
I hope the ticket becomes Paul/Amash.
I'm on board with this very much so. I will see what I can do here in Georgia
to help the cause.
" With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.
Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.
I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be." -- Rand Paul
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/ ... lly-crazy#
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
He's a sellout to the Liberty movement. I will never vote for him... I can't support someone that endorsed Romney.
Makes little sense to vote for him just because of who his dad is
The purpose of a third party or a 4th or 5th for that matter, is to provide an outlet for issues not being discussed by the 2 major parties. If the Greens are a third party they'd push back against the Dems and Repubs, because neither party is discussing the issues that Jill Stein ran on. By telling their party members not to vote Green in battleground or key states, they are essentially conceeding the election and arent providing a voice. What about all those people in all the battleground states who feel Obama wasnt dealing with the issues important to them? Why should the Greens tell anyone to vote Dem when clearly the Dems are as clueless and as bought and paid for as the Repubs are.
The Greens strategy makes little to no sense. If they support Dems, thats fine, but dont claim you are a third party who offers a valid alternative to the 2 major parties, because a third party doesnt ONLY run in safe states. A third party doesnt favor either of the 2 major parties over the other, because if they did, why would they run in the first place. If they thought Dems are better than Repubs why run AT ALL?
The issues of peace, combating militarism as well as global hegemony, torture, the environment etc.. arent things that sort of need addressing. They need to be addressed in all states, in every state. It should be a national issue. And if they arent running a 50 state campaign, they arent dealing with the issues in a meaningful manner.
By telling people to vote Dem, you deny the real facts of the matter, which are that their is no real difference between the 2 major parties and that both bow down to their corporate masters. Plain and simple. If you want a viable alternative to this, theres no other option but to be a third party, be a third party candidate and run as such.
Ron Paul didnt endorse Romney. and Nader didnt endorse Romney or Obama. A viable, real third party movement doesnt happen unless we treat the 2 party system as the problem. Any concession to it will legitimize it.
Beautiful... Kuhn was right in so many ways.
As I said, it makes no sense. Either you believe in the 2 party system, and believe both parties are fair and just or that one is at least, then why run as a third party at all? Why not just support the Dems?
And if you are against the 2 party system and have created a third party, arent you by definition suggesting the 2 parties are currupt? If so, why tell people to choose one of the corrupt parties and dissuade them from voting Green?
That's correct... the two big parties don't give a fuck. They are bought and sold already! Third parties, in my opinion, are the only real hope for this country... I will never vote for the two big corporate whore parties.
I'll keep an open mind and research.
I wouldn't have voted for Ron Paul because I disagreed with several of his stances but I have an immense amount of respect for him. As for Rand, being from KY I see his policies firsthand and have read a slew of comments and seen dozens of appearances, he is NOT his father. Rand is definitely a Republican and not part of the tea party movement nor a Libertarian. I hope that everyone who thinks he would be a good substitute for his father really does their research.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
I dont think thats a viable argument. Plowing forward is plowing forward. And running in all 50 states, a real campaign that tackles issues of importance to the majority of americans is the only way forward. Thats just plain common sense.
The argument of when they can run, or when its safe for them to run, or when they can REALLY run is a straw man, thats been around for over a decade, probably more. The truth is, Dems dont want a third party to run, because it siphons votes and thus the Dems lose power. After Nader in 2000, the same argument was put forth between Kerry and Bush, then Mccain and Obama, and finally Obama and Romney. After 2000, the argument went, Nader cost Dems the election, and when its safe and when not as much is at stake THEN a third party can run. 2004 brought the same argument, it was too important an election so Nader was castigated for running, same in 2008, and same in 2012 with other third party candidates. The argument by the Dems for when a third party candidate can run is alot like moving goalposts. It always is put into the future. Oh next time, when it isnt as important, THEN you can run. But the next election, everyone acts like its too important and third party candidates are told they are siphoning votes and costing the election.
I look at it alot like the Dems reaction to the wars. We were continually told, "we dont have power" for 8 years and that when they finally had power, then they'd end the war. They got power, and lo and behold, the argument remained the same, Obama doesnt have power, the republicans in congress and the house wont go along with him, he's cleaning up Bush's mess so his hands are tied, he can't pull out of the wars because he needs to fix the mess Bush made. The goalposts get moved again, and its the same old tired game. Same with the Patriot Act or Impeaching of Bush, the argument was continually made, "we dont have power we cant do anything", when they got power and were elected primarily to end the policies of the Bush administration the argument was slightly altered, "we cant do anything because Republicans wont work with us".
As I said, I think the 2 party system needs to be challenged and ultimately abolished. There isnt a choice for voters. and as long as both parties are ruled and owned by money and the corporations nothing will get done. Obama was funded by the same people and corporations that funded Bush and Romney and Mccain. Its the same old story.
You are absolutely right, the country does lean left. On most issues the country is far to the left of the Dems. On the environment, civil rights, torture, war, drugs, gay marriage and equality, all these issues the majority of americans favor policies that are to the left of Obama. It was part of the reason he was elected in the first place. To tip the country back to where it should be
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Kodos: It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us!
Man: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
Perot's response...
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2