EPTIt's not like there isn't room for such a party to exist, it's just the Greens have too much garbage to be viable for the general voter base.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5645
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
It's not like there isn't room for such a party to exist, it's just the Greens have too much garbage to be viable for the general voter base. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 19 2016 13:24 TheYango wrote: If the Greens want to get to 5% they can start by ditching the actual insane part of their voter base and developing an actually reasonable "left of the Democrats" progressive platform. Without that, I see no reason to waste a vote supporting a party that dilutes legitimate progressive policy with crazy bullshit. It's not like there isn't room for such a party to exist, it's just the Greens have too much garbage to be viable for the general voter base. there are state-level orgs like the DFL in minnesota that are quite progressive and have been able to influence policy in a meaningful manner. but the greens are too pure for that. the impression i get is they're more interesting in jerking themselves than the actual minutiae of policy and governing. the isidewith thing tends to be a little too general and is only directionally accurate. last time i took it iirc i scored highest w/ stein, but that's because the questions are things like "how much should we be doing to address global warming" and i choose the answer "a lot" which is what stein probably literally says while clinton might say "we need to do the utmost to address climate change which is one of the leading challenges facing humanity in the 21st century, but we must also act with respect the various stakeholders and invest not only on green energy and renewables but also on cleaner ways to generate energy using carbon based methods as part of our transition". | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24391 Posts
On October 19 2016 06:36 Plansix wrote: Clinton floated the idea of amending the Constitution to deal with election finance reform. I think both proposals have the same chances of success. Honest question, have you looked closely at her plans for campaign finance reform? It looks to me she wants unlimited campaign contributions so long as they are disclosed, unless you go for the federal matching thing she's talking about, in which case you are limited on what size donations you can receive? Am I reading that right? | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 19 2016 13:36 GreenHorizons wrote: Honest question, have you looked closely at her plans for campaign finance reform? It looks to me she wants unlimited campaign contributions so long as they are disclosed, unless you go for the federal matching thing she's talking about, in which case you are limited on what size donations you can receive? Am I reading that right? As I understand it, the PAC and SuperPAC system is a legal loophole to skirt past donation limits. Overturning Citizens United would make these illegal (again?). Nothing in there about removing existing limits. So no, you're not reading that right... | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24391 Posts
On October 19 2016 14:41 WolfintheSheep wrote: As I understand it, the PAC and SuperPAC system is a legal loophole to skirt past donation limits. Overturning Citizens United would make these illegal (again?). Nothing in there about removing existing limits. So no, you're not reading that right... I don't think you're reading that right either, or are familiar with the differences between PAC's and superPAC's? Support a constitutional amendment. Clinton supports amending the Constitution to allow Americans to establish common sense rules to protect against the undue influence of billionaires and special interests and to restore the role of average voters in elections. That's the closest she comes to saying there would be any limit on contributions outside of the federal system she outlines (unless I missed it). She very specifically says there would be limits there, she's not so specific about the hundreds of millions of dollars currently outside of it. When talking about that, she seems to be focusing on the "unaccountably" of it, not that it should be limited. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On October 19 2016 14:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't think you're reading that right either, or are familiar with the differences between PAC's and superPAC's? That's the closest she comes to saying there would be any limit on contributions outside of the federal system she outlines (unless I missed it). She very specifically says there would be limits there, she's not so specific about the hundreds of millions of dollars currently outside of it. When talking about that, she seems to be focusing on the "unaccountably" of it, not that it should be limited. That's because contributions limits already exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Federal_contribution_limits I would agree that US elections are financially bloated monsters, but not touching existing limits is not the same as creating unlimited contributions. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
On October 19 2016 13:35 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/788505812696117248 I've read about Obamas half brother before, seems like a switched on guy.Gives hope that many of the long term dem supporters are waking up to the fact the establishment doesn't have their best interest at heart despite what the talking head puppets say. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8202 Posts
70 nobel laureates from all fields wrote an open letter saying they support strongly Hillary Clinton and that in the interest of science and the safeguard of our freedom she must become president of the united states. Clearly a rigged election, no nobel supports Trump. Very unfair. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8202 Posts
On October 19 2016 15:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: I've read about Obamas half brother before, seems like a switched on guy.Gives hope that many of the long term dem supporters are waking up to the fact the establishment doesn't have their best interest at heart despite what the talking head puppets say. Yes but Trump does. He always cared about you. I mean look at his life and his career. You know the guy who made a fake university, who is self obsessed to a pathological level and has tried all his life to screw people over to make money with shady business practice and not paying people CLEARLY cares about you. lol How can you write stuff like that and not realize that thinking Obama and Clinton don't care about the average american but Trump will is not just delusional, it's crazy. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 19 2016 16:00 Biff The Understudy wrote: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5806f564e4b0dd54ce364558 70 nobel laureates from all fields wrote an open letter saying they support strongly Hillary Clinton and that in the interest of science and the safeguard of our freedom she must become president of the united states. Clearly a rigged election, no nobel supports Trump. Very unfair. Did you interview all recipients or something? lol | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12583 Posts
And then I remembered white men. And it made me feel sad inside. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6605 Posts
On October 19 2016 16:00 Biff The Understudy wrote: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5806f564e4b0dd54ce364558 70 nobel laureates from all fields wrote an open letter saying they support strongly Hillary Clinton and that in the interest of science and the safeguard of our freedom she must become president of the united states. Clearly a rigged election, no nobel supports Trump. Very unfair. Is the eminent Bob Dylan represented? | ||
|
Fprime
Canada64 Posts
On October 19 2016 17:02 Nebuchad wrote: I was going to say that at this point, the majority of <blanks> probably supported Clinton. And then I remembered white men. And it made me feel sad inside. To be fair, that's American white men who mostly support Trump. A large majority of the white men in all the other Western countries do not. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12583 Posts
On October 19 2016 17:18 Fprime wrote: To be fair, that's American white men who mostly support Trump. A large majority of the white men in all the other Western countries do not. That actually did make me feel better. Thanks  | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On October 19 2016 13:12 Nyxisto wrote: If you like Stein's policies you need to vote for Clinton because voting for Jill is a vote for Trump, you are acting as a spoiler. The death of politics, summed up in a sentence. | ||
| ||
