There's nothing wrong with being a liberal, naivety and daydreaming are not sins. Problems arise when we reach socialist territory, that's a big no-no.Why? Because they are liberals?
Well what about Nordic Social Democratic style of policies? Does that count in your mind?There's nothing wrong with being a liberal, naivety and daydreaming are not sins. Problems arise when we reach socialist territory, that's a big no-no.
It's inarguable that the Green Party is occupying the same niche as the Democratic Party. You have not stated valid reasons to think Greens have a niche of their own. There are not fundamental differences between the two political parties. Politicians from each party are often indistinguishable from each other. More on this in my response below.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.
I'll admit the platform is not entirely irrelevant and is a good starting place when comparing party politics. But as I mentioned earlier, much of what you cited as unique to the Green Party is in the Democratic Party platform, and more than that is supported by mainstream Democrats. More on this in my response below.Very true but ultimately fair or not offical party guidelines are still the best way to compare how parties compare in regards to policy.
Let's ignore for a moment that you're literally describing only differences in degree, which is what I said would happen and was my point in my very first post on the topic of third parties (i.e. I'm not moving goalposts).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.
You misunderstood. I'm not arguing that Jill Stein is a useless candidate with regard to policy because I don't think any candidate is useless. It's the Party's existence I have a problem with. I think Jill Stein should change the Democratic Party from within and/or run in a Democratic Primary election of some sort. I thought I explained this already.You just did.
In a situation where one dislikes both major party candidates, I think picking the lesser of two evils is the only logically sound thing to do if one cares who is going to be the next president.can we just pick the person who'll fuck us up the least?
I can't speak for everyone, but my liberalism does not come from naivety and daydreaming. It comes from logical reasoning when trying to figure out what is most conducive to people's well-being and the well-being of the country as a whole. As I think we established a month or so ago, it's the libertarian mindset that is often idealistic.There's nothing wrong with being a liberal, naivety and daydreaming are not sins. Problems arise when we reach socialist territory, that's a big no-no.
Any besides Trump or Clinton, but people are too fucking stupid to vote for anything else. Not that the general election has any bearing at all.I would vote Vermin Supreme.
Oh, wait he's not there. Clinton would have to be it then.
PS: actually, this is all a joke, all of them would be easy worst presidents than Obama was, isn't the idea to improve? good luck with your economy and foreign relations with that failure of a politician or that charismatic fascist dictator impersonator. There is no good choice there.
If a person cares who wins in a general election between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump, then it would be stupid to vote for anyone else.Any besides Trump or Clinton, but people are too fucking stupid to vote for anything else.
What do you mean?Not that the general election has any bearing at all.
With Secretary Clinton's aggregate net favorable rating at -16 and Donald Trump's at -19, you're hardly alone in disliking both candidates. However, if you have any preference between the two, the logically sound thing to do is to vote for the lesser of two evils.I don't like either candidate, there I said it.
I have multiple times stated as to why the Greens do have their own niche which is that they have clear fundamental differences between the actual parties you have just been too ignorant to recognize them. Anyone should be able to realize those issues count as fundamental differences.t's inarguable that the G
reen Party is occupying the same niche as the Democratic Party. You have not stated valid reasons to think Greens have a niche of their own. There are not fundamental differences between the two political parties. Politicians from each party are often indistinguishable from each other. More on this in my response below.
Again I must state that they are actually fundamental differences. BDS, ending Nato, ending the NSA, are all much more than slight differences. Likewise the same is true for university education and the other things that i have mentioned.Let's ignore for a moment that you're literally describing only differences in degree, which is what I said would happen and was my point in my very first post on the topic of third parties (i.e. I'm not moving goalposts).
The Democratic Party's official platform includes language to legalize marijuana on the basis of both free choice and criminal reform, and many Democrats including Senator Sanders go further with regard to drug liberalization.[/QUOTE
Again there you go with ignoring that we are talking about actually party guidelines. Anyway the differences between the two parties is as I have said before a big difference to the point of where it matters.
Again we are talking about party platforms not individuals. The fundamental differences are still there (i.e. loans for education vs. free 4 year public university is a significant difference.). The greens actually believe in a true right to higher 4 year education while the democrats view it as a benefit of society that should be encouraged but not as a right.The Democratic Party's official platform also includes language on free university education sans loans, and Senator Sanders and other notable Democrats have talked about this at length.
I'm not saying you're doing it intentionally, but you can see why I would think you're being disingenuous when, in an effort to paint a divided picture of the two parties, you're citing specific differences between the Democratic Party and Green Party that don't actually exist. You also seem to be in some cases misrepresenting positions generally held by Democrats.
I have repeatedly stated fundamental differences yet repeatedly you attempt to brush them off by claiming they are "extents".The differences on the issues are significant.
In that case then the Socialist party, Social Democrats, Communist, Greens, and Democrats are all the same niche.We can agree the two parties occupy the same political niche; this is not controversial, and it's covered in a Political Science 101 course.
To some point it is arguable that in a sense it would be "useless" as she is "wasting" her time to promote these issues in a bad way rather than working to get them in the democratic party.You misunderstood. I'm not arguing that Jill Stein is a useless candidate with regard to policy because I don't think any candidate is useless. It's the Party's existence I have a problem with. I think Jill Stein should change the Democratic Party from within and/or run in a Democratic Primary election of some sort. I thought I explained this already.
Every current political ideology is idealistic in a sense of that the chance that their ideas could easily could come true. Although it could of course happen by a large event (of countless varieties). Personally I have to say that conservatisms ideas are the most unrealistic in terms of being implemented although certain liberal ideas (i.e. the "entitlement programs") are the most unrealistic in terms of them actually working.I can't speak for everyone, but my liberalism does not come from naivety and daydreaming. It comes from logical reasoning when trying to figure out what is most conducive to people's well-being and the well-being of the country as a whole. As I think we established a month or so ago, it's the libertarian mindset that is often idealistic.
Good to say that we agree here.Regarding third-party ballot access, Democrats aren't going to go around being activists on the topic for obvious reasons. However, plenty of Democratically-controlled legislatures and committees give third-party ballot access. If you want to argue that Democrats don't go far enough and should endorse some sort of preferential voting system, I would agree with you.
Although even someone with your logic could argue that non swing states (i.e. states where one candidates is overwhelmingly ahead like Texas or Vermont) are exemptions.If a person cares who wins in a general election between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump, then it would be stupid to vote for anyone else.
I agree on the conversation, lets let it be done. We can both agree that you and I have very different fundamental ideas when it comes to voting, parties, and the issues and their extent but ultimately that is ok and of course a healthy discussion is always welcome and to that end I say thank you for the discussion.This conversation topic is more than beginning to snowball, and I think we should wind it down.
With Secretary Clinton's aggregate net favorable rating at -16 and Donald Trump's at -19, you're hardly alone in disliking both candidates. However, if you have any preference between the two, the logically sound thing to do is to vote for the lesser of two evils.
From the Democratic Party platform:Again we are talking about party platforms not individuals. The fundamental differences are still there (i.e. loans for education vs. free 4 year public university is a significant difference.). The greens actually believe in a true right to higher 4 year education while the democrats view it as a benefit of society that should be encouraged but not as a right.
Democrats believe that in America, if you want a higher education, you should always be able to get one: money should never stand in the way. Cost should not be a barrier to getting a degree or credential, and debt should not hold you back after you graduate. Bold new investments by the federal government, coupled with states reinvesting in higher education and colleges holding the line on costs, will ensure that Americans of all backgrounds will be prepared for the jobs and economy of the future. Democrats are unified in their strong belief that every student should be able to go to college debt-free, and working families should not have to pay any tuition to go to public colleges and universities.
That is different from free college as it asserts that students should not have to pay for tuition rather than universities should tuition free. They are fundamentally different perspectives. Likewise "having the right" and "should be able to" are also very different fundamentally speaking.From the Democratic Party platform:
What's the difference between not paying tuition and being tuition-free?That is different from free college as it asserts that students should not have to pay for tuition rather than universities should tuition free. They are fundamentally different perspectives.
As I said (which I added in after an edit) They are fundamentally different perspectives. Likewise "having the right" and "should be able to" are also very different fundamentally speaking.What's the difference between not paying tuition and being tuition-free?
To say one should be able to do something is to describe a right, not a privilege. I think you're nitpicking word choice here, and regardless, I don't think the term "fundamentally different" applies here. A fundamentally different worldview would be to say university education is a privilege that has to be earned, whether it's through scholarship and/or tuition (e.g. the right-wing worldview).As I said (which I added in after an edit) They are fundamentally different perspectives. Likewise "having the right" and "should be able to" are also very different fundamentally speaking.
The Green plan views free higher education as a right for students while the Democratic plan views university as a privilege that brings upon benefits to society and thus should be encouraged.
Likewise the issues of something being important enough to be a free right vs. a privilege that should be promoted via government assistance are in my book different.
To a point it is like Private school that is free (which can happen via government vouchers or private scholarships based off of need or academic ability) and public school. One is a privilege the other is a right.
Liberalism in the social-democrat flavour is taking money from the rich in order to give hand-outs to the poor rather than creating an environment where they can earn it themselves, which is political Robin Hoodism in my opinion. Too many safety nets out there to take advantage of. Liberals lack the capacity to see beyond Step #1, the consequences of their choices escape them. For instance, they fail to see or neglect to mention the fact that it's the rich who create jobs for the poor, not the other way around. By cutting into the profits of the rich you're not making them "less rich", nor are you "redistributing wealth", you're just killing jobs since there's a reason why the rich are rich, and it goes beyond the obvious inheritence of wealth - they're rich because they understand how a cost-benefit analysis works. The rich aren't paying the extra tax - you are, by buying dearer goods, paying more for services or by losing your job. That's not logical - it'd be logical to allow industrious people to multiply their wealth as much as possible so that it redistributes itself. That's neither here nor there though, the truth is somewhere in-between of those two polar opposite political stances, which is where I sit most times.I can't speak for everyone, but my liberalism does not come from naivety and daydreaming. It comes from logical reasoning when trying to figure out what is most conducive to people's well-being and the well-being of the country as a whole. As I think we established a month or so ago, it's the libertarian mindset that is often idealistic.