[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Lacius · Jul 26, 2016

RevPokemon said:
2. Depends for many people the alternatives are
Jill Stein a progressive who deeply cares and fights for progressive causes or Dont vote which has appeals (especially if you live in a state where the electoral vote is almost gaurented to go one way. But again this is a point we dis agree on since I do not believe in the "lesser of evil"/binary ideologue. Oh well

Except it's a fact that either Secretary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to win the election. To vote for someone other than these two candidates is to care more about making a statement than who actually wins, which is definitely one's prerogative. I care who wins the election, so I would vote for Secretary Clinton even if I were a fan of Jill Stein (I'm not). A person cannot vote for Jill Stein while also claiming to care who actually wins the election.

RevPokemon said:
4. I strongly disagree here. Sure Johnson will probably get some sanders supporters but overall he is getting way more support from conservatives then he is progressives. Look at his endorsements they all are from people who indentify as conservative or who generally support 3rd parties, practically no well known progressives or progressive groups are giving him favor. Ultiamatly I feel he is going to end up with more Never Trump people then people who support Sanders.I still Highly doubt that voting Stein or Johnson will cause Trump to win much like how Nader did not cause Gore to lose or Perot did not cause Bush to lose.That type of Perot support is what I expect to be what happens for Johnson.

First, you're right that by election day, it is very possible if not likely that Governor Johnson will take more votes from Donald Trump than Secretary Clinton. However, I was citing the inarguable truth about the current state of the polls, which show Governor Johnson taking more votes from likely Clinton voters than likely Trump voters. Consistently, Clinton's numbers are the ones that fall when a two-candidate race is turned into a three-candidate race, not Trump's. However, I think this is very likely to change as we move past the conventions and towards the general election. Everyday, Clinton is consolidating more and more Bernie supporters. Only time will tell.

Second, you're correct that Perot did nothing to substantively affect the election because he took votes equally from the major party candidates. However, Nader took votes disproportionately from Gore, and Gore would have won the election if only a fraction of Nader supporters had voted for Gore in Florida alone. The 2000 election is a great example of a third party candidate unnecessarily splitting the Democratic vote and handing the election to the Republican Party. Hopefully history does not repeat itself.

On a slightly unrelated note, it is my opinion that the Green Party, in addition to the Constitution Party and its offshoots, are pointless. They're trolls who come out of the woodwork every four years to "run" for president without doing the work it takes to become reputable political parties (e.g. running for and winning lower elections first). There's also no real niche to fill for these parties, as they're essentially Democrats and Republicans that are further to the left and right respectively. They would be more likely to succeed if they re-assimilated into the Democratic and Republican parties and advocated for their policies there (a la Senator Sanders). The Green Party, for example, would move the Democratic Party to the left, and they would win more elections. Unnecessarily splitting the Democratic vote with no potential for gain is just silly.

Please note that my above criticisms of third party candidates don't extend to the Libertarian Party. While I disagree with the Libertarian Party, they definitely have their own niche to fill. They also regularly pursue lower elections in an effort to assert themselves as a legitimate political party.

RevPokemon · Jul 26, 2016

I agree that caring for who wins the White House and voting for who you belief and agree with are two different things and generally are different. But for me, I agree with the latter just due to personal reasons.

To be honest you could also very easily claim that Gore lost due to all of the Democrats who voted for Bush (11% of Democrats voted Bush) or blame the Democrats who did not vote in the first place.Then there was the fact the physical florida ballot was confusing and many people confused Buchanan with Gore. I myself do not view that Nader cost Gore the election.

On the Green and Constitution they both fill the needs in the political country as many people are not satisfied with the big two parties. For example for a long while when Giulini was ahead in the polls there were talks the Constitution could find favor with social conservatives since he was pro choice on abortion. Likewise the Greens have meet the wants of those who are more progressive then the democratic party. Both major two parties are in a sense rigid and really would not allow such groups to affect their parties since it is not what the democratic and GOP leaders desire. Likewise your somewhat wrong as 3rd parties have constantly ran for lower seats and have actually done much better than they have on higher levels (many senate and representative races have had 3rd parties get into the teens which is something that has not happened in the presidential elections in over 25 years). Plus you could argue that it is in a sense it is a better move to go top down then a grass roots change the bottom up.

As for the Libertarians why don't you hold them like the Constitution? I mean you could argue that they should just join the GOP and help libertarian type people have more control of the party (much like you said the Greens could do). I just do not see how the Libertarians have a niche but the Greens do not.

Lacius · Jul 26, 2016

RevPokemon said:
I agree that caring for who wins the White House and voting for who you belief and agree with are two different things and generally are different. But for me, I agree with the latter just due to personal reasons.

To be honest you could also very easily claim that Gore lost due to all of the Democrats who voted for Bush (11% of Democrats voted Bush) or blame the Democrats who did not vote in the first place.Then there was the fact the physical florida ballot was confusing and many people confused Buchanan with Gore. I myself do not view that Nader cost Gore the election.

On the Green and Constitution they both fill the needs in the political country as many people are not satisfied with the big two parties. For example for a long while when Giulini was ahead in the polls there were talks the Constitution could find favor with social conservatives since he was pro choice on abortion. Likewise the Greens have meet the wants of those who are more progressive then the democratic party. Both major two parties are in a sense rigid and really would not allow such groups to affect their parties since it is not what the democratic and GOP leaders desire. Likewise your somewhat wrong as 3rd parties have constantly ran for lower seats and have actually done much better than they have on higher levels (many senate and representative races have had 3rd parties get into the teens which is something that has not happened in the presidential elections in over 25 years). Plus you could argue that it is in a sense it is a better move to go top down then a grass roots change the bottom up.

As for the Libertarians why don't you hold them like the Constitution? I mean you could argue that they should just join the GOP and help libertarian type people have more control of the party (much like you said the Greens could do). I just do not see how the Libertarians have a niche but the Greens do not.

We can also blame other factors for Gore's loss, but that doesn't change the fact that the Green Party splitting the Democratic vote alone was a variable that would have otherwise changed the outcome of the election.

As for the third parties, I've already explained how the Green Party and the Constitution Party would have a more substantive effect if they moved the Democratic Party and Republican Party further to the left and right respectively. In fact, they're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by not doing so. For example, if the most liberal and progressive of Democrats instead join the Green Party, they aren't in a position to the complain that the Democratic Party is too center-left when they've self-selectively removed the liberals from the Democratic Party and brought down the average. Regarding lower elections, despite the existence of candidates, the Green Party and parties like it hardly put any time or resources into lower elections; it's all about the quadrennial trollfest for them.

If you don't see how the Libertarians have a niche but the Greens do not, you need to do some more research on political parties and the political spectrum. The Green Party, like the Democratic Party, is left-wing. They agree on the fundamentals but usually differ on degree. The Constitution Party and its offshoots, like the Republican Party, are right-wing. They also agree on the fundamentals but usually differ on degree. The Libertarian Party, however, is a different animal that is neither left-wing nor right-wing as they're conventionally defined, occupying its own space on the two-axis political model. To answer your question of why the Libertarian Party should not assimilate with the Republican Party, they disagree on nearly half of their fundamentals. There's no more reason for the Libertarian Party to assimilate with the Republican Party than there is for the Libertarian Party to assimilate with the Democratic Party.

Bug_Checker_ · Jul 26, 2016

This poll shows great news for Donald J Trump.
A spliting of opposition votes never hurt anyone.
Just ask President Al Gore.

RevPokemon · Jul 26, 2016

Lacius said:
We can also blame other factors for Gore's loss, but that doesn't change the fact that the Green Party splitting the Democratic vote alone was a variable that would have otherwise changed the outcome of the election.

As for the third parties, I've already explained how the Green Party and the Constitution Party would have a more substantive effect if they moved the Democratic Party and Republican Party further to the left and right respectively. In fact, they're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by not doing so. For example, if the most liberal and progressive of Democrats instead join the Green Party, they aren't in a position to the complain that the Democratic Party is too center-left when they've self-selectively removed the liberals from the Democratic Party and brought down the average. Regarding lower elections, despite the existence of candidates, the Green Party and parties like it hardly put any time or resources into lower elections; it's all about the quadrennial trollfest for them.

If you don't see how the Libertarians have a niche but the Greens do not, you need to do some more research on political parties and the political spectrum. The Green Party, like the Democratic Party, is left-wing. They agree on the fundamentals but usually differ on degree. The Constitution Party and its offshoots, like the Republican Party, are right-wing. They also agree on the fundamentals but usually differ on degree. The Libertarian Party, however, is a different animal that is neither left-wing nor right-wing as they're conventionally defined, occupying its own space on the two-axis political model. To answer your question of why the Libertarian Party should not assimilate with the Republican Party, they disagree on nearly half of their fundamentals. There's no more reason for the Libertarian Party to assimilate with the Republican Party than there is for the Libertarian Party to assimilate with the Democratic Party.

I do think that Nader had some role in the outcome BUT he was not the sole reason as to why Gore lost. It is foolish to automatically assumed that if it had not been for Nader that Gore would have won the election. My point is Nader was A reason not THE reason. Although I think you understand my point.

The issue with that assessment of the Greens is that the Democratic officials would not have much interest in allowing the party to slip from their control. By leaving the large two parties they are in a position to remove themselves from the problem and work on a solution rather than remain and be a part of the current problem with the political landscape of America. As for lower elections they all put a good deal in effort for local elections and the results have been quite good when you consider how they can reach out.

This is one area where I feel you kind of mess up. You state that the Greens would be better off just joining the Democrats and pushing for a more progressive platform rather than separating and going alone. The Libertarians could easily do that to the GOP (even easier since Weld, Johnson, and a few other libertarians have had experience in the GOP before) and just put their efforts into pushing for more libertarian elements in the Republican party. That could happen (well at least as much as your idea about the greens) if they put the time into it but they have decided not to. It is just retarded to think that the Greens have no niche yet the Libertarians do when they both have niches and can perform best independently.

Lacius · Jul 26, 2016

RevPokemon said:
I do think that Nader had some role in the outcome BUT he was not the sole reason as to why Gore lost. It is foolish to automatically assumed that if it had not been for Nader that Gore would have won the election. My point is Nader was A reason not THE reason. Although I think you understand my point.

I am not saying that Nader was the only reason Gore lost; it was a combination of variables. However, it is true to say that if we focus on this one variable, Gore would have very likely won the election had it not been for Nader splitting the Democratic vote. In hindsight, we could ask a lot of questions: What if Gore did X? What if Bush did Y? But Nader is definitely one thing that could have been changed in order for Gore to win.

RevPokemon said:
The issue with that assessment of the Greens is that the Democratic officials would not have much interest in allowing the party to slip from their control. By leaving the large two parties they are in a position to remove themselves from the problem and work on a solution rather than remain and be a part of the current problem with the political landscape of America. As for lower elections they all put a good deal in effort for local elections and the results have been quite good when you consider how they can reach out.

Democratic officials are a reflection of the Democratic Party as a whole; they don't just pop out of nowhere. If more Greens instead joined the Democratic Party and advocated for change from within, the Democratic officials would likely be proportionally more liberal. If progressives unite as a contiguous Democratic Party, then a strong Democratic Party can have intra-party fights about how far left we should go when the Republican Party cannot even compete against a hypothetical united Democratic Party. In other words, the political landscape becomes an election between different factions of the Democratic Party rather than Democrat vs. Republican. You can see this in play in deeply red or deeply blue places where the real election is the primary, not the general.

Instead, the Green Party will continue to appeal to people and unnecessarily split the Democratic vote with no substantive gain, resulting in the undermining of the Green Party's own goals.

With regard to smaller elections, the Green Party cannot expect to compete in presidential politics when it holds zero federal and zero state offices. However, this doesn't stop the Green Party from siphoning the vast majority of its resources on a presidential election every four years it's destined to lose. And, as I already talked about in length, there's no niche for the left-wing Green Party when the left-wing Democratic Party already exists.

RevPokemon said:
This is one area where I feel you kind of mess up. You state that the Greens would be better off just joining the Democrats and pushing for a more progressive platform rather than separating and going alone. The Libertarians could easily do that to the GOP (even easier since Weld, Johnson, and a few other libertarians have had experience in the GOP before) and just put their efforts into pushing for more libertarian elements in the Republican party. That could happen (well at least as much as your idea about the greens) if they put the time into it but they have decided not to. It is just retarded to think that the Greens have no niche yet the Libertarians do when they both have niches and can perform best independently.

Again, the Green Party and the Democratic Party occupy the same space on a two-axis political compass. Their differences are merely a matter of degree, not position. This is evidenced by the fact that I could find members of each party, and one might not be able to tell which of the two parties they belong to.

The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, occupies a space on the two-axis political compass all by itself. Its differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not a matter of degree; they have fundamental worldview differences. We can break down political ideology into two matters: personal freedom and economic freedom. In general, the Democratic Party and the Green Party both place an emphasis on personal freedom at the expense of economic freedom. The Republican Party and the Constitution Party (et al.) place an emphasis on economic freedom at the expense of personal freedom. The Libertarian Party, however, places an emphasis on both personal freedom and economic freedom. A political ideology that neither cares about personal freedom nor economic freedom would be totalitarian in nature. Those are the four niches, and anything else is just a matter of degree.

RevPokemon · Jul 26, 2016

Lacius said:
I am not saying that Nader was the only reason Gore lost; it was a combination of variables. However, it is true to say that if we focus on this one variable, Gore would have very likely won the election had it not been for Nader splitting the Democratic vote.

Again I said we both agree that Nader was not the only reason as to why Gore lost. Although I feel the 11% of Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush was a bigger deal but we can disagree here.

Lacius said:
With regard to smaller elections, the Green Party cannot expect to compete in presidential politics when it holds zero federal and zero state offices. However, this doesn't stop the Green Party from siphoning the vast majority of its resources on a presidential election every four years it's destined to lose. And, as I already talked about in length, there's no niche for the left-wing Green Party when the left-wing Democratic Party already exists.

The issue is that when it comes to the 3rd parties it is relatively safe to say that it is perhaps better to run on a larger scale and then affect the smaller scale since 1. People are more likely to learn about said party from larger elections and 2. It helps spread the message to a nation wide grassroots level in a way that focusing on concentrated areas could not accomplish.

Lacius said:
Again, the Green Party and the Democratic Party occupy the same space on a two-axis political compass. Their differences are merely a matter of degree, not position. This is evidenced by the fact that I could find members of each party, and one might not be able to tell which of the two parties they belong to.

Under that logic then one could make the case why even vote in the primaries? in the GOP primaries for example Trump, Bush, Cruz,Rubio and so on all (at least to some extent) agreed on the key issues such as reducing immigration, cutting taxes, appointing a conservative supreme court judge and so on. All of those candidates again more or less were the same on the positions widely varied on the extent that they were to be carried out. Likewise when choosing a party in addition to the actual issues there are other things of importance such as how you feel of the leadership and so on which does have some importance.

Lacius said:
The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, occupies a space on the two-axis political compass all by itself. Its differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not a matter of degree; they have fundamental worldview differences. We can break down political ideology into two matters: personal freedom and economic freedom. In general, the Democratic Party and the Green Party both place an emphasis on personal freedom at the expense of economic freedom. The Republican Party and the Constitution Party (et al.) all place an emphasis on economic freedom at the expense of personal freedom. The Libertarian Party, however, places an emphasis on both personal freedom and economic freedom. A political ideology that neither cared about personal freedom nor economic freedom would be totalitarian in nature. Those are the four niches, and anything else is just a matter of degree.

The issue is that previously you had argued that it would be best for Constitutionals and Greens to join the GOP and Democrats as bit would be better for the cause. Yet since you feel that the Libertarians are in a world of their own they would do best as their own party since the ideologue is different from traditional Left-Right politics. Partyist Libertarians generally have been more supportive of the GOP (perhaps due to its earlier classical liberal roots) and to a large degree was shaped by it (considering that many influential people in the libertarian movement had ties to it originally like Rothbard, Friedman, and Ron Paul). So it is only natural to assume that like the Greens they could take over the party by appointing more Libertarians in the GOP (Which there are a few in the LP that could get said GOP positions due to past affiliation). It is relatively simple when you consider that they could move the party more towards personal freedom (pro choice, pro lgbtqi, and so on) to achieve a truly partyist Libertarian party while still being the republican party. The GOP has had this happen more or less when it went from the Old Isolationist Right to the New Right. Either way to say that the Greens could do that in the Democratic party but the Libertarians could not do it in the GOP is simple a stupid thing to assume.

However either ways there are needs for 3rd parties in America, I mean we are the only country pretty much that does not give other parties a chance to even have a fair fight all because of the fact the Democrats and republicans are against it as it would hurt their monopoly on American Politics. What a shame.

Lacius · Jul 26, 2016

RevPokemon said:
The issue is that when it comes to the 3rd parties it is relatively safe to say that it is perhaps better to run on a larger scale and then affect the smaller scale since 1. People are more likely to learn about said party from larger elections and 2. It helps spread the message to a nation wide grassroots level in a way that focusing on concentrated areas could not accomplish.

Starting large doesn't work, grassroots-style campaigning works better on smaller scales first, and there isn't a niche for the Green Party. What you're describing is an idealistic defense of a system that historically doesn't work in reality.

RevPokemon said:
Under that logic then one could make the case why even vote in the primaries? in the GOP primaries for example Trump, Bush, Cruz,Rubio and so on all (at least to some extent) agreed on the key issues such as reducing immigration, cutting taxes, appointing a conservative supreme court judge and so on. All of those candidates again more or less were the same on the positions widely varied on the extent that they were to be carried out. Likewise when choosing a party in addition to the actual issues there are other things of importance such as how you feel of the leadership and so on which does have some importance.

In a general election, you're right that those candidates are roughly the same when contrasted with candidates from other paties. That's why we group candidates into political parities, have a primary contest that zooms in on the intra-party differences between the candidates that allows party members to select who's best, and then allow each party to put forward one candidate. My description of how one groups candidates into political parties a.) Makes the case that there's no real reason for the Green Party to exist, and b.) Also makes the case for political primaries. It's quite a non sequitur and/or misunderstanding of my argument to think my argument can be used against primaries.

RevPokemon said:
The issue is that previously you had argued that it would be best for Constitutionals and Greens to join the GOP and Democrats as bit would be better for the cause. Yet since you feel that the Libertarians are in a world of their own they would do best as their own party since the ideologue is different from traditional Left-Right politics. Partyist Libertarians generally have been more supportive of the GOP (perhaps due to its earlier classical liberal roots) and to a large degree was shaped by it (considering that many influential people in the libertarian movement had ties to it originally like Rothbard, Friedman, and Ron Paul). So it is only natural to assume that like the Greens they could take over the party by appointing more Libertarians in the GOP (Which there are a few in the LP that could get said GOP positions due to past affiliation). It is relatively simple when you consider that they could move the party more towards personal freedom (pro choice, pro lgbtqi, and so on) to achieve a truly partyist Libertarian party while still being the republican party. The GOP has had this happen more or less when it went from the Old Isolationist Right to the New Right. Either way to say that the Greens could do that in the Democratic party but the Libertarians could not do it in the GOP is simple a stupid thing to assume.

Libertarians fundamentally disagree with Republicans on roughly half of issues. In general, Greens and Democrats disagree on few if any issues and only disagree on how far to go. To say a Democratic assimilation of the Green Party is perfectly analogous to a Republican assimilation of the Libertarian Party demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues. I'm not sure how to continue to try to frame this in a way you can understand.

One could argue that before the social conservatives hijacked the Republican Party, it was very similar to the Libertarian Party of today, hence the crossover. However, as I've outlined numerous times, they have fundamental differences that aren't analogous to the differences between the Green Party and the Democratic Party. Plenty of Libertarians and even Republicans advocate for specific personal freedom changes in the Republican Party today, and that is to be commended, but that doesn't mean the Libertarian Party doesn't have a niche of its own in politics, and they're not arguing about mere degrees.

RevPokemon said:
However either ways there are needs for 3rd parties in America, I mean we are the only country pretty much that does not give other parties a chance to even have a fair fight all because of the fact the Democrats and republicans are against it as it would hurt their monopoly on American Politics. What a shame.

Some political parties, like the Green Party, are useless.

RevPokemon · Jul 26, 2016

Lacius said:
Libertarians fundamentally disagree with Republicans on roughly half of issues. In general, Greens and Democrats disagree on few if any issues and only disagree on how far to go. To say a Democratic assimilation of the Green Party is perfectly analogous to a Republican assimilation of the Libertarian Party demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues. I'm not sure how to continue to try to frame this in a way you can understand.

I do not understand how you can not see the critical error in your thinking of that there are no fundamental issues that separate the democratic party and the greens. This could not be further from the actual truth as they are divided in the fact that ultimately have different goals in how to achieve a progressive government (although the few remaining conservative democrats are against that as well) which in turn is a fundamental issue.

Yes there are fundamental differences between the Libertarians and the GOP but there are also key fundamental issues that separate the Greens and the Democrats from each other whether you want to realize it or not (which you seemingly don't).

Engert · Jul 26, 2016

[QUOTE="Lacius, post: 6555789, member: 1249]

No, it's definitely a country.[/QUOTE]

Yes the definition in the dictionary says that it's a country but the practices are like a business because we don't give a shit about our citizens here like other countries do. Like Germany or Canada for example.

By the way did u notice Michelle dress in the democratic convention? Oh. My. Gawd! That's' all the media is talking about.
Hey Obamas what about our surveillance program in USA where u did jack shot about it for 8 years?
Look! Look at my dress! It's fucking awesome!

United States of Amnesia!

k3rizz3k · Jul 26, 2016

I'm a believer that not many actually support Hillary, but are too afraid of putting Trump in power, so will vote for her.

RevPokemon · Jul 26, 2016

k3rizz3k said:
I'm a believer that not many actually support Hillary, but are too afraid of putting Trump in power, so will vote for her.

Again its the part of the misconception that voting is a binary choice.

Engert said:
[QUOTE="Lacius, post: 6555789, member: 1249]

No, it's definitely a country.

Yes the definition in the dictionary says that it's a country but the practices are like a business because we don't give a shit about our citizens here like other countries do. Like Germany or Canada for example.

By the way did u notice Michelle dress in the democratic convention? Oh. My. Gawd! That's' all the media is talking about.
Hey Obamas what about our surveillance program in USA where u did jack shot about it for 8 years?
Look! Look at my dress! It's fucking awesome!

United States of Amnesia![/QUOTE]

Yup no wonder we are one of the richest nations yet last compared to other industrial developed countries in positive things like health care and education

Lacius · Jul 27, 2016

RevPokemon said:
I do not understand how you can not see the critical error in your thinking of that there are no fundamental issues that separate the democratic party and the greens. This could not be further from the actual truth as they are divided in the fact that ultimately have different goals in how to achieve a progressive government (although the few remaining conservative democrats are against that as well) which in turn is a fundamental issue.

Yes there are fundamental differences between the Libertarians and the GOP but there are also key fundamental issues that separate the Greens and the Democrats from each other whether you want to realize it or not (which you seemingly don't).

Can you give me an example of a Green policy position that is contrary to the Democratic Party and isn't just a difference of degree?

RevPokemon said:
Again its the part of the misconception that voting is a binary choice.

As I've already said, if a person cares about who wins, it is a binary choice between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump. To vote for someone else is to put making a statement before caring who wins. If one cares more about merely making statement, then you're right that it's not a binary choice.

RevPokemon · Jul 27, 2016

Lacius said:
Can you give me an example of a Green policy position that is contrary to the Democratic Party and isn't just a difference of degree? .

Legal protections for sex workers
BDS sanctions against Israel
Was against Iraq from day 1 and is not hawkish
Liberalization of drugs
Fair ballot access
Free university education
Disband Nato
Abolisgment of the NSA and CIA
Withdraw from existing free trade agreements

Lacius · Jul 27, 2016

RevPokemon said:
Legal protections for sex workers
BDS sanctions against Israel
Was against Iraq from day 1 and is not hawkish
Liberalization of drugs
Fair ballot access
Free university education
Disband Nato
Abolisgment of the NSA and CIA
Withdraw from existing free trade agreements

Many of these policy positions are actively held by politicians in the Democratic Party, and many if not all that aren't are a matter of degree. Senator Sanders alone holds numerous positions on your list, and some of these are even in the official Democratic Party platform. I feel like you're being disingenuous in an attempt to win an argument. The Green Party and the Democratic Party both have a left-wing worldview, and their differing policy positions are typically a matter of degree.

RevPokemon · Jul 27, 2016

Lacius said:
Many of these policy positions are actively held by politicians in the Democratic Party, and many if not all that aren't are a matter of degree. Senator Sanders alone holds numerous positions on your list, and some of these are even in the official Democratic Party platform. I feel like you're being disingenuous in an attempt to win an argument. The Green Party and the Democratic Party both have a left-wing worldview, and their differing policy positions are typically a matter of degree.

I feel that you have multiple times have tried to move the goal post per sey when ever you felt as if you could for the sake of being right. To my knowledge none of those thngs were officially in the Democratic platform which is what i went by. Granted i understand that there are some individual democratic politicans who hold those views that that point is ultimately moot in tbat we are discussing the actual parties and not individual politicans. Likewise i do not see how you veiw some of them as a matter of degree when they clearly are more than that to many people, they are completely different.i feel you are being very disingenuous in that you (for whatever reason) do not want to own up to the fact there are fundamental differences between the two parties ( Greens and democrats), fundamental issues that matter to certain groups of voters.

dpad_5678 · Jul 27, 2016

Foxi4 said:
Jesus Christ, people actually support Bernie Sanders? The red menace is still doing well, apparently. None of my business, really, but any pick other than Sanders and Stein would be acceptable for the U.S.

Why? Because they are liberals?

Viri · Jul 27, 2016

Step aside boys!

http://webmshare.com/6wYon

Lacius · Jul 27, 2016

RevPokemon said:
I feel that you have multiple times have tried to move the goal post per sey when ever you felt as if you could for the sake of being right. To my knowledge none of those thngs were officially in the Democratic platform which is what i went by. Granted i understand that there are some individual democratic politicans who hold those views that that point is ultimately moot in tbat we are discussing the actual parties and not individual politicans. Likewise i do not see how you veiw some of them as a matter of degree when they clearly are more than that to many people, they are completely different.i feel you are being very disingenuous in that you (for whatever reason) do not want to own up to the fact there are fundamental differences between the two parties ( Greens and democrats), fundamental issues that matter to certain groups of voters.

There is always going to be variation within a party, let alone outside of it. The platform of a party is more of a guideline, and it doesn't mean much more than that. In fact, a party platform has historically been used by candidates to save face after a loss. I personally don't consider it to be too relevant (although university education, drug liberalization, ballot access, etc. are in there). Many Democrats hold views that differ from the platform. Many Republicans hold views that differ from the platform. Many Libertarians hold views that differ from the platform. Many Greens, presumably, hold views that differ from the platform.

In general, Greens and Democrats have similar, often identical, policy positions based on a similar, often identical, worldview with regard to personal and economic freedom. Degree generally accounts for most if not all differences, including the items on your list. For example, Greens and Democrats agree that the government has a role to play in providing universal health care, but there is debate about the degree. Democrats even debate with themselves about the degree of health care reform, and the Green Party would do better to join the adult conversation, where they already agree 90% with some Democrats and 100% with others, instead of irrationally abstaining from it and shouting from the sidelines where they're unlikely to be heard.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Jill Stein is a useless candidate with regard to policy. She and Secretary Clinton have real disagreements, just as Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton have real disagreements. I'm arguing that the existence of the Green Party is useless. The Democratic Party and Green Party are roughly 99% in alignment on policy, and much if not all of that remaining 1% is a matter of degree, not differing worldview.

I'd also like to know how I've "moved goalposts."

RevPokemon · Jul 27, 2016

Lacius said:
I'd also like to know how I've "moved goalposts."

Because at first your argument was that there was/is not valid reasons as to why the greens could have a niche with progressive voters but when i stated the valid reasos as to why they do have a niche you state "well they are just matters of extent". I am sorry but that in my opinion is "moving the goal posts" as you turn the argument from it being about key positions to it being about how said posistions are theoretically the same in principle but are different in actual execution. To a point you acknowledge that there ARE fundamental differences but you recategorize them.

Lacius said:
There is always going to be variation within a party, let alone outside of it. The platform of a party is more of a guideline, and it doesn't mean much more than that. In fact, a party platform has historically been used by candidates to save face after a loss.

Very true but ultimately fair or not offical party guidelines are still the best way to compare how parties compare in regards to policy.

Lacius said:
although university education, drug liberalization, ballot access, etc. are in there).

No not really as the Democrats view the drug issues as part of criminal reform rather than legalizing them on the basis of free choice that consenting adults can make. Likewise the Democrats have opposed multiple times for 3rd parties to have the rights to be on ballot and treated as a legitimate option. Finality only the greens truly on a party platform want free university on the basis of education while the demorats would rather tackle the issues of loans which are ultimately different issues.

Lacius said:
To be clear, I'm not arguing that Jill Stein is a useless candidate with regard to policy.

Lacius said:
Green Party would do better to join the adult conversation, where they already agree 90% with some Democrats and 100% with others, instead of irrationally abstaining from it and shouting from the sidelines where they're unlikely to be heard.

You just did.

[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Whom will/would you vote for?

Hillary Clinton (Democratic Party)

Donald Trump (Republican Party)

Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)

Jill Stein (Green Party)

Other

Darrell Castle (Constitution Party)

Evan McMullin (Independent)

Rocky De La Fuente (Reform Party)

Laurence Kotlikoff (Independent)

Tom Hoefling (America's Party)

Mike Maturen (American Solidarity Party)

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

I love me

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

Ape weak on own. Ape strong in unity.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum