Remember the people who were saying we should be nice to Jill Stein?

[DanTex]

Now she's running attack ads against Hillary. In swing states. She's totally committed to bringing about president Trump. Maybe she wants there to be a nuclear war. Maybe she wants ten million people to be deported. Maybe she wants millions to lose their healthcare. Maybe she likes global warming deniers. Maybe she thinks rich people need more tax cuts.

Who knows what she's thinking. The only thing we know for sure is that she is every bit as much an enemy of progressive causes as Karl Rove.

So: fuck Jill Stein and Ralph Nader and every other Green Party saboteur. And after this ad buy, nobody can pretend to be confused as to where she stands vis-a-vis Trump. She is right-wing enabler, plain and simple.

[whatthehey]

1. Only morons. Only morons.

[uppityperson]

6. Some are people with their heads in the clouds also.

[Maru Kitteh]

134. I can't just give it away to someone who doesn't make me feel special

[BlancheSplanchnik]

202. Good one!

[calimary]

248. Unfortunately, Jill Stein's head isn't just up in the clouds. It's on Mars.

Or maybe Neptune. Mars is way too close by.

[Squinch]

2. The ones saying we should be nice to Jill Stein are many of the same ones that are saying

they will NEVER vote for Hillary at JPR.

... so there's that...

[NurseJackie]

5. Fukkem!

[madaboutharry]

3. If you go far enough left,

you run head first into right.

[ncgrits]

11. PREACH IT! nt

[Stonepounder]

17. I usually describe my political feelings as 'somewhat to the left of Karl Marx'.

But I am also a pragmatist. Although I loved Bernie and voted for him in the primary, I always said that MY vote would be going to whoever had a big (D) beside their name. No way am I going to waste my vote - even though I figure Hillary doesn't have a snowball's change here in KY. Currently, voting for anyone other than a (D) or an (R) is effectively voting for one of them (and probably the one you don't want).

So, no, I don't think I'll be running into 'the right' any time soon.

[PatSeg]

36. I agree with you

I am a liberal idealist with pragmatic tendencies. I am voting for Hillary, but the attacks on the "left" from a Democratic site are unsettling to me. I have been here for twelve years and I can't recall this much immature name-calling ever. I lived through the Bush years, so I would never consider voting for a third party candidate. Why is this still an issue at Democratic Underground? Wouldn't this animus be better directed at Donald Trump?

I know people who have been at DU as long as I have and they can't take the meanness anymore. I seriously doubt they will ever come back.

[Leith]

41. Same Here

I saw Stein's commercial on MSNBC a little while ago and all I could do was shake my head. I have too great an appreciation of everything that HRC has worked so hard to accomplish her whole life to cast my vote for anyone else.

[tblue37]

78. +1. nt

[liberalnarb]

112. "To the left of Marx."? I'm just curious, in what way?

[Stonepounder]

175. Not in any specific way, I simply find it a convenient catch-phrase.

I could just as easily say that I am to the left of Bernie. It would take way to long to fully lay out my personal vision of 'the great society', but it would include socialized medicine, a progressive tax structure that actually worked (so that person like Trump actually paid more in taxes than his secretary). Government that actually worked for all its citizens rather than for the .01%. And on and on and on. Take the best of several of the Scandinavian countries and go from there.

[woolldog]

285. That doesn't sound like your vision is to the left of Marx.

[Scruffy1]

236. Over the years I have been involved with many far left groups.

Generally speaking I found the leadership in all of them to be mainly ego driven. If you can't be a big fish in a large pond you just find a smaller pond. Jill stein is a classic. Wealthy (by my standards) and arrogant. Typical upper class vanity. As far as the Green Party goes I have no problems with the members and even have a friend running for local office as a Green. We also have one city council person who is a Green. We had two but one went to prison for taking bribes. We had a D get caught, too. Corruption doesn't care about affiliation. The real problem with trying to build a party from the local level is that local offices are not really involved with policy, but the more mundane tasks of trying to match revenue and expense. There is nothing exciting about streets and sewers. Education policy is completely shaped at the national and state level. Even our roads, sewers, and light rail rely on federal and state money.It is impossible to make any major changes on the local level. This is why third parties are doomed under the electoral system. I'm sure if the Greens had control of the city council nothing would change. As federal power has increased in order to implement significant change you have to go to Washington. This has been an ongoing trend since the flood of 1927 and I don't see any hope for increased local control.

[SticksnStones]

20. The horseshoe theory

The political spectrum isn't linear, it's shaped more like a horseshoe where the extremes -far left and far right - start to come together.

[PatSeg]

39. That is ridiculous

Sounds like something the mainstream media would come up with. Far left is never going to meet up with the far right. That is insulting to liberal Democrats.

[SticksnStones]

64. It's just a theory

Not meant to insult.

This was a thought provoking read...

https://masonologyblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/horseshoe-theory-our-new-religion/

[PatSeg]

71. Oh, okay

I see what they are doing there and historically that is relatively accurate. They are talking about EXTREME left and right. I lived through the sixties and sometimes the extreme left was akin to anarchy.

[SticksnStones]

95. It's an interesting layout of the theory

The extreme right have blown up buildings, in the 60s there was an extreme left faction that blew up buildings. Different causes to be sure, but it's interesting how the extremes will adopt similar techniques.

[PatSeg]

109. Oh yes

And it was really something to behold, though for the most part, the left was less violent. They had no problem destroying property to make a political point, but they didn't want to injure or kill anyone. The extreme right seems more comfortable actually harming people, which we've seen in the south during the Civil Rights movement. The left wanted to make big, grandiose statements of moral superiority.

[lark]

231. In the 60's there were some violent lefties.

SDS, Weathermen to mention two of them.

[PatSeg]

288. Yes that is true

though I wouldn't equate them with the people we call far left today. They were about as extreme as you get and were closer aligned with anarchists, than today's socialists or liberal Democrats.

I find it interesting that today it is the far right that tends to be violent, back then they were often the silent majority.

[lark]

392. It's been a near universal role switch

The far right, whites only, guys are the most violent section of America at this time.

[PatSeg]

402. And instead of the Weathermen and SDS,

we have super right-wing anti government militia groups today, who are often far more violent than their 1960s counterparts. Both tend to sow chaos and fear.

[womanofthehills]

449. My ex husband was teaching at Univ Wisconsin - Madison

In 1970 when "The New Years Gang" in protest of Vietnam War blew up Sterling Hall and destroyed other nearby buildings - killing one person and injuring 4.

We lived there for 2 yrs and there definitely were some violent lefties.

[Johnyawl]

98. Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

Just saying

[PatSeg]

110. That is a very good point

Definitely two side of the same coin, though both were oppressive dictatorships.

[DFW]

173. When extremists take power, oppressive dictatorships result

Left, right, religious, only the labels change.
An elite rules with an iron fist, and dissent is squashed.

[PatSeg]

176. That is true

The ideology is just a means to an end for a power hungry tyrant, though I think some communist leaders were believers in the beginning. Once they get a taste of that power, it is hard to let it go and then their growing paranoia leads to really oppressive measures.

[Squinch]

169. Not so ridiculous.

I have seen many "far left" voters say they will vote for Trump because he isn't as bad as Hillary.

[PatSeg]

171. Yes

Though I really have a feeling that they aren't actually "left". I wonder if some of these voters have any substantive political identity at all. If a supposed Democrat says she/he will vote for Trump over Hillary, that person clearly is not a Democrat. For some people new to politics, this seems to be like reality TV to them - more about personality than policy. Kind of unsettling.

[Squinch]

237. THEY think they are real Democrats, and even further, THEY think

they are the only pure Democrats. Which is insane, but there we are.

It seems to be a matter of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Which is a hallmark of a really, really dumb mind.

[PatSeg]

291. And also indicative

of a person who never had any classes in Political Science or government when they were in school. Maybe like Donald Trump, they learned about politics by "watching the shows".

[SticksnStones]

213. It's an interesting occurance n/t

[Grey Lemercier]

283. not really as both the far far left and far far right are often murderous authoritarians

once they gain power

Hitler meet Mao

Stalin meet Mussolini

[PatSeg]

289. Agreed

As I said earlier, they were more extreme left and right. I really was referring to the very liberal people we have today, many who supported Bernie Sanders. They may be "far left", but I don't see them as "extreme", and I can hardly see them meeting up with the far right contingent that is supporting Donald Trump.

I should have used a different word than "ridiculous", but I was picturing the people I personally know, who are very liberal, so I was being a bit reactive.

[Grey Lemercier]

314. oh yes, absolutely agree that Sanders supporters are nowhere near Maoists

sorry if I gave that impression. 95% of them are great people, just hope they come to their senses on Stein.

[PatSeg]

315. Oh no, not at all

Someone posted something earlier that could have been made to look like some Bernie supporters could be moving far enough left to meet with the right. I was not a Bernie supporter, but I personally know a lot of them (some are family). I am, however, every bit as liberal, I think, as Bernie. I just didn't feel he was the one who could implement those ideas.

I understand the emotional investment in a candidate and recovery takes time.

[womanofthehills]

450. Recovery does take time - I see it slowly happening on Facebook and with my friends

I was a big time Bernie supporter as were most of my friends. I would say about 95 percent of my friends, including myself, are now backing Hillary. At first, I saw many friends on Facebook saying they might vote Green, but with Trump's psycho behavior I rarely see that any more.

[PatSeg]

451. I remember the primaries in 2008

and it took time for emotions to settle down. It certainly doesn't help to have people try to force another candidate down one's throat or to use ridicule and mockery to win them over. The people I know are rational, intelligent voters. They will come to the right decision at their own pace.

[randr]

326. The far right and far left have more in common with each other

then they have in common with most people.

[backscatter712]

212. I call it the Pacman Tunnel of madness.

Because that place where the far-left and far-right meet and find commonality is full of complete batshit insanity.

[SticksnStones]

215. We'll I don't know that I'd go as far as "batshit crazy"

But perhaps there's a zealotry in the extreme ends of the political spectrum that ramps up and spirals unchecked the further one gets into the bubble of one's convictions.

[Hortensis]

192. Fwiw, if you become more and more extreme in PERSONALITY

TRAITS you end up up a lot more like your counterparts on the far right than people in the mainstream -- again, more alike in personality.

POLITICAL POSITIONS are different. One can be what is considered far left on some issues and yet be pretty mainstream liberal in personality, i.e., not at all extremist.

So, although extremism does commonly correlate far left and right political positions, political ideology does not necessarily correlate with extremist personality. Even worse, people with moderate ideologies can have extremist tendencies.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

361. I thought you ran into Gandhi.

[Person 2713]

4. Where is she getting the $ to run these ads? Does she have backing or her donation numbers growing?

[misterhighwasted]

15. He's a fool.

[SusanCalvin]

40. He didn't!

Really, I don't think he would. If he actually did, I am livid. Link?

[oberliner]

47. Apologies

I saw this:

My First Donation to Jill Stein: $27

Made my first donation today. It's not about a candidate, it's about the movement away from politics as usual with delusional candidates who think they do not need grassroots support to get meaningful legislation passed. If Hillary wins, I will pray for her to try to do some of the things she has been pressured into saying she wants to do. If Trump gets in it is the anemic, complicit Democratic Party's fault, not mine. But it will not be the end of the world. It will be the final nail in the coffin of the DINOs and will usher in a new era of true progressives, both in Congress and the White House.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/friendlyuniverse/blog/2016/07/my-first-donation-jill-stein-27

It's a person on his message board, not him. I will self-delete above.

[SusanCalvin]

52. Thanks.

I really didn't think he was that stupid.

[Demsrule86]

256. Both Make it Plain and Thom Hartmann have had Jill Stein on their shows.

I am not listening to that crap.

[SusanCalvin]

271. Yeah, I thought I remembered she'd been on.

She may have good policy positions, but something's going on with those ads. In *Texas* (saw three today). I smell a Republican and/or corporate rat. And a stupid Green Party candidate.

[Demsrule86]

274. Same old same old

This is why I despise Greens...political whores...for sale to the highest bidder...usually the right wing...these people are not progressive.

[SusanCalvin]

277. And that's why this thread is useful.

At least to me, who never paid much attention to her before

Sounds like they're trying to peel off any tiny sliver of Hillary support they possibly can.

[Demsrule86]

287. That is what they do.

But these sort of threads mostly try to convince us that Jill the Gop operative isn't so bad, but she is.

[treestar]

177. That is a good question

probably Republicans.

[auntpurl]

186. My guess is the Koch brothers or similar.

Stein is a useful idiot for the right wing.

[bravenak]

7. Yep. Fuck Jill and her ridiculous bullshit

[SusanCalvin]

42. I'm seriously considering, asocial as I am,

Staging a protest.

I'm not real mad at Nader - I just now disregard him, politically.

Stein, oh I'd have trouble resisting physical violence, were I in her vicinity.

[bravenak]

45. She is really getting stupid these days.

Which is sad because mny of her positions are fine. But she acts so crazy....

[SusanCalvin]

54. She needs to drop out.

And make a BIG deal of it.

If she doesn't, she is not living in the real world.

[bravenak]

59. She has always been kinda delusional, though....

[SusanCalvin]

63. I'll take your word for it.

I never paid much attention to her until just now.

[runaway hero]

8. this is an election.

things like that happen.

[lapucelle]

16. Yes, something like this happened in 2000.

And instead of getting environmental activist, future Nobel Peace Prize laureate as president, we got 9/11, the Irag War, a destroyed economy, and the Citizen's United Supreme Court.

We need to make sure things like this don't happen this year.

[7962]

62. Gary Johnson takes way more R votes than Stein takes D votes

No doubt about it

[Maru Kitteh]

145. And we have to fight for ALL of them. The only thing standing between Trump and the WH

is all of us.

Stronger Together

[CajunBlazer]

483. Now that's a ridiculous argument!

So those supporting Stein are justified because because others who might vote for Trump will vote for Johnson instead. How does that make any sense?

And by the way, there are states, including swing states, where Johnson takes as many or more votes away from Hillary as as Trump. That makes perfect sense when you think about it because the Libertarian ticket is socially liberal and fiscally conservative so they have the potential to to draw voters away from both parties. The Green Party pull voters away from only the Democrats.

In addition, take a look at Jill Steins total lack of experience in management and government offices. She would be defeated if she ran for one of the five places on the Board of Selectmen in her small down of 34K people.

And I guess it is okay that Stein accepted an invitation from the Russian governments propaganda ministry to visit Russia (a virtual dictatorship) where talked about social injustice in the United States.

[7962]

508. You do bring up another point;

if johnson focused his campaign on the Western states only, he could actually win some. After all, he was Gov of NM twice. he;s polling in the 20+% range in Utah.
If the race was close and he won a couple states. he could prevent Hillary from hitting 270.
But thats WAY out there, IMO, because for that to happen Trump would have to win some of the battleground states. And I dont see that happening

[CajunBlazer]

513. I believe that you addressed your own point adequately.

[Grey Lemercier]

9. I was attacked for calling her an anti-science, anti-vax enabling threat in swing states

all of which I stand by 100%. She is utterly unfit for POTUS and is a lightweight on many crucial levels.

[SusanCalvin]

65. I'm sorry you were attacked.

And I appreciate the info.

[geologic]

224. "I'm sorry you were attacked."

SusanCalvin (6,054 posts)
42. I'm seriously considering, asocial as I am,
Staging a protest.
I'm not real mad at Nader - I just now disregard him, politically.
Stein, oh I'd have trouble resisting physical violence, were I in her vicinity.
...

[SusanCalvin]

226. Well, I said I'd have trouble, not that I wouldn't successfully resist. nt

[SusanCalvin]

272. And even more so since I've personally seen the ads.

I wouldn't exactly call them "attack." I'd call them "letting herself be manipulated for no good purpose," not exactly a quality I want in a president.

But, yes, I would resist. Never said otherwise. Sheesh.

[SusanCalvin]

278. Good grief. And the comment wasn't even in this subthread.

What is your major malfunction?

Never mind - I don't really want to know.

[JustAnotherGen]

251. I just saw her ad on MSBC

I have no idea what SHE would do -

Just that everything bad that ever happened Hillary did it. Hurricane Katrina, the Hindenburg, work houses in England 150 years ago. Blah blah blah blah.

She's a Debbie downer.

On top of everything you wrote - she's a Debbie downer.

[misterhighwasted]

10. Add Stein to the list: Libertarian+Tea Party+Christian Coalition =John Birch Society of the Koch Fam

Libertarian+Tea Party+Christian Coalition =John Birch Society of the Koch Family
--------------------

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/29/1227404/-Where-do-Rand-Paul-Ralph-Reed-and-David-Koch-Connect

Where do Rand Paul, Ralph Reed, and David Koch Connect?
Jul 29, 2013 11:37am CDT

--------------------


http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=INSIDER-Proof-Tea--Liber-by-Daily-Kos-John-Birch-Society_Tea-Party_Tea-Party-Movement-151121-736.html

INSIDER Proof: Tea & Libertarian Parties ARE The John Birch Society
-------------------

http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/01/21/the-john-birch-societys-anti-civil-rights-campaign-of-the-1960s-and-its-relevance-today/#sthash.VFB6ZuRS.dpbs


The John Birch Society’s Anti-Civil Rights Campaign of the 1960s, and Its Relevance Today

Founded in 1958, the John Birch Society (JBS) fiercely opposed the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960s and 1970s. Decades later, the rise of the Tea Party and the ongoing “Ron Paul Revolution” have helped the JBS make a comeback as it attracts young people by re-branding itself as “libertarian.” The organization is a significant force behind promoting the nullification of federal laws, as described in the most recent issue of The Public Eye. The JBS has also helped provide fodder for accusations that President Obama, considered by most Democrats to have governed as a centrist, is a Marxist. ...MORE

http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/01/21/the-john-birch-societys-anti-civil-rights-campaign-of-the-1960s-and-its-relevance-today/#sthash.VFB6ZuRS.dpbs


Judging by her stellar VP choice, this is where Stein belongs.
John Birchers fringe.
Koch founded & funded.

[SheriffBob]

247. general walker

remember him from the birchers?

[yardwork]

12. Fuck Jill Stein.

[SusanCalvin]

44. Ditto.

She should drop out.

[DemocraticWing]

241. I'd rather not.

[onehandle]

14. Your 15 minutes are up, 'Doctor' Stein. Get the fuck lost. nt

[freedom fighter jh]

28. She's not a real doctor?

Otherwise why the quotes?

[onehandle]

37. Typo. I meant to say 'Wise smart normal non-egomaniac'

My bad.

[Maru Kitteh]

147. She's a fucking quack.

[freedom fighter jh]

191. I guess that's what you call someone who . . .

graduates from Harvard Medical College and then practices medicine for 25 years.

[CreekDog]

194. it's what you call them if they promote homeopathy and say questions about vaccines are "reasonable"

[freedom fighter jh]

196. Because questions about vaccines are by definition never reasonable.

[CreekDog]

218. she's a physician, she is expected to know better

and homeopathy is bullshit, at least we agree on that.

[reACTIONary]

268. The questions that she is referring to...

.... ARE unreasonable.

[womanofthehills]

468. So why do you think the goverment pays billions of dollars for vaccine injuries"

[CreekDog]

476. No, the government does not pay out billions of dollars for vaccine injuries

if you're going to peddle false numbers i'm going to say you don't know what you're talking about or if you do, then you're not telling the truth.

[Maru Kitteh]

199. Like Dr. Ben Carson is such a genius? Jill Stein is afraid WiFi signals are killing kids.

Medical degrees are just like any other degree. They give them out to anyone who's willing to do the work and half of all graduating classes are below average. I've personally met several MD's who were fucking idiots.

Jill Stein is a fucking idiot and a quack. And she can't get elected to anything above lead dog catcher in her little town.

I know the precious and privileged little malcontents and indigo children who follow her around get their feelings hurt easily - but it's time for us to point out the cold hard truth to them. She's a fraud, a grifter and a joke who has but one electoral goal. Elect Donald Trump.

[freedom fighter jh]

205. I only questioned your calling her a quack.

I still don't see any basis for it.

Do you know why she questions the safety of WiFi signals? What's your basis for dismissing that? Yeah, an MD can be an idiot, but I still don't see any basis for your calling this one a quack.

Can you support "fraud," "grifter," and "joke"? Or do you say those things just because you're afraid she'll help elect Trump?

[Maru Kitteh]

208. I will be happy to provide you an answer to each of those after you answer but one

for me.

Why do you support Jill Stein? Nobody spends this much time worrying about her honor if they do not hold sincere feelings on the matter. I'll more likely respect your sincerely held support if you will explain to me why you support her.

[freedom fighter jh]

210. I just don't see the point of slamming her on irrelevancies.

Argue that Trump is a nightmare? That's a good reason to support Hillary and argue against anything makes her success less likely.

But when you call Jill a bunch of names with no basis, it just looks like hate and you lose credibility.

That kind of crap is the only thing that makes me want to support Jill.

[Maru Kitteh]

227. Your actions show that you do support Jill Stein

You can read through this thread and easily find evidence as to why Jill Stein is

a) A bad fucking joke (no chance of winning)
b) A grifter (Koch money, Karl Rove and the Greens all go for tumbles in the hay together)
c) A quack (no, wifi does not cause kids brains to fry http://www.iflscience.com/technology/no-wi-fi-does-not-cause-cancer/)
d) and a complete fucking fraud. See the above.

Plus - she's a complete asshole, for saying Obama is no different than Romney and basically calling our President a war criminal. FUCK HER. Her current ads and statements make it clear, even though she has NO CHANCE of winning (even the fucking idiot herself knows this) her aim is to damage our Democratic nominee, which means her only electoral goal is to elect Trump.

Fuck her privileged, crazy, corrupt, lily-white limousine ass and the pouty little malcontent indigo kids that enable her.

[reACTIONary]

269. +100 !!

[SwankyXomb]

244. But she is a real worm

[MohRokTah]

18. Jill Stein (G-Moron) IS A FUCKING FASCIST!!!!!

Fuck her and the fascists that are voting for her!

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. Third parties are spoilers.

[SusanCalvin]

49. True.

But Perot got us Clinton I. And he was sure right about NAFTA.

[SunSeeker]

21. I saw one of Stein's Hillary attack ads on MSNBC. Stein is an asshole.

[SusanCalvin]

60. OMG. What on earth is her deal? nt

[GusBob]

22. I don't recall offhand, who was it? Eom

[Gore1FL]

23. It's no less short-sited to tell progressives to fuck-off.

I support Hillary, but certainly not because of the actions of her biggest and loudest supporters. Frankly, I support Clinton in spite of the way the hardliners here behave, not because of it.

[DanTex]

24. I'm a progressive. Jill Stein is the one telling progressives to fuck off.

[Gore1FL]

25. As are you.

See, you've found common ground.

[Expecting Rain]

26. Jill Stein is no progressive

She is a regressive.

[Gore1FL]

30. And the merry-go-round continues.

Is your purpose to destroy unity with people by calling them names or is that just a happy side effect?

[Attorney in Texas]

389. "Progressive" doesn't mean "I drive a Prius" or "I'm a straight-ticket Democrat" or "I volunteer at

the food bank" (those are all laudable, BTW, and many progressives might say all three things, but those hallmarks are not what defines a progressive).

By what definition of the word "progressive" is Jill Stein not a progressive?

Call her unqualified to be president (I agree).

Call her divisive (I agree).

But call her regressive and I don't even understand what your words mean.

[Demsrule86]

486. It does mean that you vote for the Democratic nominee...who is the only one

standing between us and Trump...oh and Texas is in play I hear. Jill Stein is helping Trump ...she can not win. We all know that...so when she attacks Hillary her true colors are showing...Trump colors...she is no progressive.

[DanTex]

29. I'm not running anti-Hillary ads in swing states.

Stein is no progressive. She's a Trump surrogate. She can fuck off, same as Nader and the rest of them.

[Gore1FL]

32. I suspect many progressives are not, either

Telling them to fuck off does little for unity. OPs like yours are intentionally divisive and make DU suck.

[DanTex]

33. Correct. Because Jill Stein is not a progressive. She's a right-wing surrogate.

If you think it's a good thing that Jill Stein is running anti-Hillary ads, just come out and say it. If not, what are you doing in this thread?

Telling right-wingers to fuck off doesn't make DU suck. It's part of what DU is here for. To support progressives and fight against conservatives.

[Gore1FL]

35. You are telling progressives who do not support Hillary to fuck off

Good unity skills there. You dont have to pay a cent to be divisive. Jill Stein could learn a thing or two from you.

[DanTex]

43. No, I'm telling Jill Stein to fuck off. Are you saying she's a progressive?

[Gore1FL]

51. I am saying you posted a divisive OP and should be ashamed.

I am not sure why you are having such a difficult time with this.

Fortunately for Clinton, I will not base my vote on her supporters who act with the civility and desire for unity that you display.

[DanTex]

56. How is my OP divisive? Jill Stein is a right-wing tool, and I'm criticizing her.

I am not sure why you are having such a difficult time with this.

I'll ask again. Are you OK with people running attack ads against Clinton? Last time you didn't answer. Let's see if you find some courage.

[SusanCalvin]

69. I'm a hard-line Bernie supporter.

Your OP is not divisive in any way, shape, or form.

Hillary is the nominee. Trump is the 70 year old toddler.

End of story.

[DanTex]

94. Thank you!

[Gore1FL]

137. Because you label progressives that don;t agree with you as things they are not.

I am sorry this is so difficult for you to comprehend.

Divide on and have fun applying your purity tests as it is clear you are the arbiter of all things progressive.

[PatSeg]

91. Nice to see I'm not alone

I'm afraid if I call for civility, I will be accused of something.

[SusanCalvin]

101. Dunno who you are replying to, but thanks.

I don't mean to lash out or agree with same, but sometimes one is just so very terrified.

So I did in both cases, and I'm not apologizing. Just understanding how it's not pretty.

[PatSeg]

105. I think it was Gore1Fl

I just want to have civil political discussions and this was usually the place I would come for that. I really hope the climate here settles down to something more sane, because it still has that primary feel to it at times.

[Maru Kitteh]

148. Gore1FL was quite uncivil. You have demonstrated a certain selectivenes in your concern for civility

[Gore1FL]

266. I recommend you alert on the post where I was. nt

[Demsrule86]

178. There is no such thing as a progressive who is not supporting the Democratic candidate.

Only two candidates have a real chance to president...if you don't support Hillary than you support Trump.

[Gore1FL]

262. Purity test. Awesome.

In my world we have grey. Also, I am unaware of a law that puts votes for all other candidates in the Trump column. I guess by that reasoning a vote for Johnson a vote for Trump too.

[Demsrule86]

265. No, if you are willing to risk Trump wining then you care nothing for progressive causes.

Because if he got in...he would stack the courts and we would be done.

[Gore1FL]

267. If the Stein voters are not progressive as people on this thread (and others) contend

They are taking a vote away from Trump.

Can we at least get the arguments straight?

[Demsrule86]

275. Any vote for Stein is a vote for Trump...one less vote for Hillary.

They might be progressive if they didn't have her denigrating the Democratic Party so much. Why do you want people to like Stein and the Greens who cost us so much as a country with their meddling in the 2000 election?

[Gore1FL]

279. Or one less for Trump based on the argument that she isn't progressive.

The circular argument is a bit dizzying.

[Demsrule86]

286. It does not work that way.

The Greens siphon off Democratic votes which is how they helped elect Bush in 2000 and defeat Kerry in 2004 with the BS in the early part of the 2004 election. The Greens are of no use to progressives;they have no redeeming value and only hurt our agenda...consider what happened while Bush was president. We lost so much ground...in terms of policy, and we lost the courts. The Greens and their candidate Jill who is a spawn from hell- are now running ads most likely funded by the GOP as happened in 2000 in swing states. So , they are going after Democratic votes and should not be defended on a website dedicated to electing Democrats. Now if we wanted to elect the GOP it would be different...Greens should hang out with the freepers...it is where they belong. They in actuality promote a Republican agenda and are basically paid political whores.

[Gore1FL]

292. So they ARE progressives in political veiwpoint.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[AgadorSparticus]

297. So they SAYYYYY. But when you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, & look like a duck...

You probably ARE a duck.

I get gray. Stein is not gray. She has picked a side. She is helping Trump. Her acknowledgement or lack thereof it, does not make it any less.

[Gore1FL]

366. So you think its a good idea to driver her supporters off?

Sounds like a brilliant strategy.

[AgadorSparticus]

374. They are loooong gone. There's no catching that bus no matter WHAT we do.

The progressive Bernie supporters have pivoted towards the GE. I think it is safe to say no one is going after that very small crowd. They are struggling to remain relevant at this point.

[Gore1FL]

375. So then they aren't hurting Hillary by not voting for her if they were not intending to anyway

problem solved.

[AgadorSparticus]

378. Make no mistake. It is MEANT to hurt Hillary. But fortunately they are irrelevant.

[Gore1FL]

379. Yet we have to discuss for 3 days the merits of disparaging them...

Awesome.

[AgadorSparticus]

380. Because you drag it on. You are responsible for that. Congratulations.

[Gore1FL]

381. Um no.

I pointed out originally that the OP was divisive. Numerous people have decided they must challenge that notion.

If there was no challenge to the obvious observation I made, I would have posted exactly once in this thread.

I recall a time when DU was about unity, building coalitions, and bringing people to vote for the Democratic party. Over the 15 years since I first joined, it has apparently transitioned. It's appears it is now about labeling people and calling them everything from "morons" to "fascists" and suggesting, because of some purity test that they are not progressive.

I'll continue to point it out every time you or anyone else replies to the contrary.

We don't need further division in the Democratic Party, and frankly the arguments that disparaging people is the way to solve that are idiotic and illogical.

[AgadorSparticus]

382. Um, yes. All up and down this thread, you have more posts than the author of OP.

I see a trend. It is the lack of responsibility. Stein puts out attack ads. People call her out and all you do is focus on the people calling her out. You come on this thread, post all up and down attacking people for calling out Stein. Then you state that people drag this on while it is YOU that keeps this going without acknowledging your participation in that.

The democratic party IS unified. 90% of Bernie supporters have pivoted. If anything, it has never been SO unified. Where are YOU? Oh yea. On the sidelines with the rest of the butt hurt folks. You CHOSE that sideline. Now OWN up to it. But don't hide behind lame bullshit excuses like party unity for your anger and bitterness because you didn't get your way.

Perhaps you missed it, but this is not Green Underground. People here are rightfully calling out Stein.

[Gore1FL]

384. Yeah I noticed I have had to respond a lot

Because for some reason, it's necessary to argue constantly that labeling people as "morons" and "facists" and "not progressive" is not a way to attract them to our cause.

FFS, do you want them to vote for Clinton, or Stein?

[AgadorSparticus]

432. You don't get to dictate how people echoes themselves or their politics.

[skepticscott]

383. If they are HER supporters

How can they be "driven off"? They've already left, in case you hadn't noticed. And they left because they hate Hillary so much that they would rather see Trump get elected, or just have the country fall to pieces than vote for her, not (except for a few total whackos) because they think Stein is wonderfully qualified to be president. Hard to respect that kind of thinking.

[Gore1FL]

385. They are progressives. People are claiming Stein is taking them away from Hillary as voters

Either their vote for Stein is hurting Hillary or it is not. If they would rather see trump get elected, they would be voting for Trump.

Someone needs to make up their damn mind as to why they don;t like these people, because the circular logic arguments that I am repeatedly facing in this thread are getting old.

FFS Do you want them as Democratic voters or not? If you do, why are you arguing that driving them away with insults is a good idea? If they are never going to vote for Clinton, why don't you prefer them voting for Stein over Trump?

Why do I have to post this many posts suggesting that insulting progressives is no way to get their vote? Why?

[skepticscott]

459. I'll ask again, since you seem determined to ignore direct questions

If they are already Stein's supporters, as YOU stated, how can they be "driven off", by having their feelings hurt, or anything else? They're already GONE.

[Gore1FL]

462. What about for down ballot races?

Why is it so important to you to call people names?

[skepticscott]

465. My argument is the same as the one I made below

Why are you ignoring it? If they are voting based on hurt feelings, rather than on what will be best for the causes they claim to favor, why would you expect rational arguments to sway them? At that point, what does it hurt to shame them a little? Even if it only sways a few of them, or makes people who might be wavering think again about their choice, there is nothing to be lost.

[Gore1FL]

467. There were people here at DU that argued they were voting in the primary based on hurt feelings

Why would I expect that to not be the case elsewhere?

Additionally, why would I purposefully want to drive off a potential voter? Do you really think that calling people morons, fascists and whatever other names have been used on this an other threads will convince them to join us?

At this point are you really arguing against the merits of good manners and civility, becauer you see no value in good manners and civility or are you just arguing?

[skepticscott]

480. You still refuse to answer my direct question

So I'm going to stop wasting time on you.

Feel free to unleash all the civility you want on the Hillary haters. Good luck with that.

[Gore1FL]

482. I answered it.

Scroll up.

[Demsrule86]

365. No. they mouth progressive platitudes but act as an attachment of the GOP...by

helping to elect Republicans. This is why Jill Stein is running ads in battleground states. She wants to defeat the Democratic nominee.

[Gore1FL]

368. You can only help elect republicans if you vote for Republicans

If your argument is that they should vote democratic, then why is it a good idea to disparage them through labeling, name calling, etc?

[Gore1FL]

338. So why take actions to drive them away?

It makes no sense to label people things that put them in a bad light when you want their support.

[Demsrule86]

364. This is a site that support the nominee.

They don't belong here. And if you are helping Trump with the courts at stake there are few labels bad enough for you...in my opinion...sorry Greens deserve what they get. They take money to defeat the progressive agenda...that is what they really do.

[Gore1FL]

370. So driving off progressives will get them to vote Democratic?

Brilliant!

[Demsrule86]

321. She is running ads in swings states ...these ads target Hillary...and are intended to take

Democratic votes and turn voters against Hillary which could cause some to vote for Trump and not Hillary...so fuck Jill Stein. I fail to see why you defend her.

[Gore1FL]

337. I am not defending her. I am defending progressives

Calling progressives names because they don't agree with you is counter productive to gaining their support. I am not sure why people on this thread don't understand that, or why the concept is that difficult.

[Demsrule86]

367. Greens talk the progessive talk but walk the Republican walk enabling a right wing agenda by

electing Republicans. It makes me laugh when the Greens cry about money in politics...they helped us get the Supreme court that adjudicated United and unleashed all that money.

[Gore1FL]

369. If you want them as allies and voters, why should they be driven off?

Your argument lacks logic.

[Demsrule86]

393. The fact they are running ads in swing states shows they will never be allies

This is a Democratic site...we elect Democrats...Greens don't belong here as they are the enemy and attempt to spoil every election for Democrats.

[Gore1FL]

395. They are part of the liberal coalition that should vote Democratic.

Calling them names won;t bring them to your side.

I really don't know why you don't get that. I really don't know why you feel the need to argue against that.

But you know what? I obviously can't explain the obvious to you so just go ahead and for it and act like Donald Trump all you want: Call people names in an attempt to get their support. Exclude people to get them to join you.

Good luck with that!

[Demsrule86]

487. They are a seperate party and run their own candidates

They compete against Democrats and have accepted money from the Gop to act as a spoiler...they will never come to our side ...never. They are not part of the liberal coalition...because there is no such thing...there is a Democratic party period.

[Gore1FL]

494. Then a vote for them isn't a vote for trump.

This still has little to do with being civil and not name calling.

[BobbyDrake]

55. No, I disagree there.

It's people who come to DU to beg indulgences for Green Party "progressives" who make DU suck, because it means we're stuck with infiltrators acting contrary to the site's purpose.

Jill Stein is running attack ads against our Democratic nominee. I'm disappointed that there seems to be part of that which you appear to be deliberately choosing not to understand. She and her supporters are not our allies, and talk of unity with them is simply ridiculous.

[PatSeg]

129. I think you need to be here a little longer

than two and half months before you can talk about the site's purpose or infiltrators or what makes DU suck.

[Maru Kitteh]

149. This is very RUDE of you! It is uncalled for to wage a personal attack against someone

for not being on DU long enough to satisfy you.

Shame.

[skepticscott]

203. Yes, especially when

the person she was attacking was absolutely right in what they said.

[Maru Kitteh]

207. Yup! Couln't agree more!

Well. It's probably too early for beer.

[skepticscott]

217. Never!

It's 5 o'clock somewhere!

[BobbyDrake]

163. You're entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong.

There's a special spot on my Ignore list for snobbish members who think being here longer makes them superior.

Bye!

[Demsrule86]

179. I don't care how long one is here

Jill Stein still sucks and is as GOP operative really.

[PatSeg]

182. As a rule I don't generally

care how long a person has been here either. I have defended new people who were accused of being concern trolls. In this particular case, I thought the inferences made were inappropriate.

[CreekDog]

195. Very few progressives are supporting Stein

[Gore1FL]

280. By that argument she's taking votes away from Trump. What is your concern, then? nt

[CreekDog]

281. Stop with the BS, she's taking even fewer votes from Trump

she's getting little support from any group, that's what happens when you're at 5% or less in the polls (often less).

[Gore1FL]

284. Exactly. The outrage is BS.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

[CreekDog]

290. No, the outrage isn't BS, it's based on the falsehoods she's peddling

just because lies like hers are believed by a small percentage of people than Trump's whose are believed by a large percentage of people, doesn't make the lies themselves less outrageous.

especially someone who is a Harvard-trained physician, who knows, or used to know better (before it became necessary to pretend otherwise to run as a Green Party candidate).

[Gore1FL]

293. You seem to be talking in circles.

Do her supporters have liberal viewpoints or not?

[CreekDog]

295. what is an example of me talking in circles, please provide quotes.

and i haven't quarreled with her liberal viewpoints here, i've quarreled with her quack viewpoints.

i suspect you don't want to talk about the homeopathy and the vaccines.

[Gore1FL]

296. OK here:

Post 195 in response to my post 35 that was in response to post 29 (which you did not make, but presented the argument that you chose to join).

We done here?

[CreekDog]

300. copy and paste the words. wtf.

grow up.

[Gore1FL]

304. I am sorry I thought you has a mouse with a scroll wheel.

If you can't follow the conversation at hand, I see no reason to try to argue logic with you.

By adding the "grow up" insult, you are doing the same thing I was pointing out. Fortunately for Clinton, I won't base my vote on her supporters that act like you do.

[CreekDog]

313. i can't make your argument for you, and you shouldn't be so lazy as to not back up the accusation

not only that, the readers here should be able to read what it is you're referring to.

my suspicion is that you know your argument won't fly, which is why you told everyone to read here, and there, and there and here and blah and blah, because they probably won't and you'd look silly if they did.

stop being ridiculous and thank you for your concern for Jill Stein.

[Gore1FL]

386. I don't have concern for Jill Stein. You shouldn't really reply to sub-threads you haven't read.

I am not lazy, I gave you what you asked for. Had you bothered to read through the conversation, you'd not be repeatedly posting unrelated accusations.

It is preposterous that I have to defend a post that suggests we should be nice to people if we want their vote and not call them names. I learned that lesson in the 1960s. I am not sure why so many Democrats do not feel it applies in 2016.

I stand by the assertion. Sorry that you disagree and/ or don't understand the conversation. Don't feel bad, you are apparently not alone in either category.

[CreekDog]

427. I criticized Stein for quackery and you're trying to make it sound like I criticized her supporters

quit playing games.

if you are dishonest about my posts, that means that you don't think being honest will let you win the argument.

[Gore1FL]

428. My initial post was about civility. You jumped in on the arguments against me.

We shouldn't be calling progressive voters "morons," "fascists," "not progressive." If that isn't what you were doing than you responded to the wrong post.

[skepticscott]

455. WTF do you mean "if WE want their votes"?

"We" are not running for president. "We" are not asking them to vote for "us". They are choosing whether or not to vote for Hillary Clinton. If they are so juvenile and irrational to say "I'm not going to vote for Clinton because someone who IS voting for her said something that hurt my feelings", then I'm not sure how you expect to get them back in the fold with adult, rational arguments.

[Gore1FL]

457. "We" being fellow progressives.

Why do you think calling them names would cause them to vote for Clinton? What about down-ballot races? What benefit is there to being rude?

[skepticscott]

458. You're great at dodging and ignoring questions

Try answering some of mine instead of always deflecting, and you might learn something.

[Gore1FL]

497. What question didn't I answer? nt

[CreekDog]

493. stop with the BS. when I criticized Stein you later tried to say I was criticizing her supporters

i called Stein a quack.

and you knew that was true so later in the responses to me you tried to say that you were really arguing with my criticisms of her supporters (there weren't any you have posted dishonestly because you were called out on your false claims).

[Gore1FL]

496. How is calling Stein a quack helpful? nt

[BzaDem]

118. Why are you assuming Jill Stein or her supporters are progressives?

If someone came up to you and said that they are going to do everything possible to prevent progressive legislation from being passed or upheld for the next 30 years, you obviously would not consider them progressive.

So why is someone coming up to you and saying "I support Jill Stein" any different? If Jill Stein is a progressive, then the word progressive has lost all meaning.

[Gore1FL]

165. Greens are typically left-leaning.

Otherwise, why the outrage at Jill Stein and not Gary Johnson?

This isn't rocket science.

[Demsrule86]

180. Not really

If they were progressive they would run ads against Trump not the Democrats. Greens are spoilers supported by Koch money.

[Gore1FL]

307. Link? Please show where the Koch brothers are funding Stein as you claim

I look forward to reading an article from a credible source.

[Demsrule86]

323. The right wing funded Nader we know that...now who do you suppose is paying the

political whore known as Jill Stein to run political ads in Michigan a Trump must-win state?

[Gore1FL]

336. I am waiting for links that support your arguments

If you assertions are correct, I'll conclude what that information points to.

[Demsrule86]

491. Here is one

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/more-gop-green-party-ties-found/nRt8C/
There are more.

[Gore1FL]

495. So them voting for a candidate other than Trump isn't a vote for Trump. nt

[Demsrule86]

372. It could be any right wing group...but the money is coming from somewhere...and the Greens

took GOP money before.

ASHINGTON, D.C. -- Green Party organizers say that the flap over money given to a Green Party candidate for Washington state legislature by a Republican proves the flaws in our at-large voting system, and call the Democratic Party's response short-sighted and typically self-delusional about the danger Democrats face from Green 'spoilers.'

"Democrats have colluded with Republicans for decades in blocking third party and independent candidates, by maintaining anti-democratic at-large election systems and through ballot access laws designed by the major parties to give themselves a virtual monopoly on elections in many states," said David Cobb, general counsel for the Green Party of the United States. "So it's difficult for Greens to take seriously Democratic outrage when the system doesn't work to their advantage."

According to news reports published on August 8, Republicans contributed money to the campaign of Green candidate Young S. Han, who announced that the donation will be returned when he learned that it came from a GOP operative hoping that Han would pull votes away from the Democratic candidate. Republicans also recruited Michael Jepson, who had no prior connection with the Green Party, to run as a Green in a Seattle County race. Greens call this kind of manipulation inevitable in at-large elections.



http://gpus.org/other/press/pr_08_10_01.html
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=greens+take+GOP+money

[Gore1FL]

373. FFS

If you want to be rude and label people and accuse them in conspiracy theories as a way to win them over, then please proceed, governor. It's a free country, and if you think that's a way to make allies out of rivals then have at it.

I remember when a call for civility and progressive unity on DU was a good thing, but alas in 15 years of membership, I've seen some sad changes.

[BzaDem]

234. What is the actual evidence in favor of that proposition?

To be clear, I am not talking about all voters who consider themselves greens, or all voters who support the policy goals that the green party officially claims to support. Plenty of such people will support Clinton, including some who don't say they will now. Support for third party candidates tends to dissipate as the election nears. So my question is only tallking about actual green party voters.

The evidence I see (their actual actions) indicates that they want to ensure progressive policies never get enacted. Why would anyone include such a person in any reasonable definition of progressivism? Isn't such a person the opposite of a progressive, by definition?

Sure, they might be against progressive policy for different reasons than conservatives. Conservatives believe that progressive policy produces worse outcomes, in their view. Whereas Jill Stein voters (again, actual voters of Jill Stein, not necessarily people who will claim to lean towards her now) don't actually care about outcomes -- they care much more about having an excuse to complain about the lack of the policy they say they favor. Actually achieving progressive policy would remove that excuse.

Such voters have a completely different values system than most voters, since most voters actually do care about outcomes.

[Gore1FL]

306. To be clear, I am talking about those voters.

I am not going to argue something different than I stated to comply with moving goalposts.

[obamanut2012]

160. Stein would be running anti Trump ads if she was a Progressive

She would be constantly, as in CONSTANTLY tweeting anti Trump and Johnson tweets instead if her constant barrage of anti Hillary tweets.

She isn't a progressive, she is a meglomaniac.

[Gore1FL]

166. Why are people so concerned about a 5% candidate, then? nt

[Demsrule86]

181. You tell me. I have no idea. nt

[skepticscott]

204. Were you born in 2001?

Not remembering 2000? Nader? Most Democrats do

[Gore1FL]

303. Gore won Florida and it was stolen.

This line argument has little to do with calling progressives who you'd like to vote for Clinton names, however which is the point I raised initially.

[skepticscott]

333. If Nader hadn't run

there would have been no opportunity to "steal" Florida in the first place.

And unless you're arguing that such a thing could never happen again, your response is irrelevant.

YOU asked why people would worry about a 5% candidate. You were told why.

[Gore1FL]

335. I am arguing that greens are progressives

and threads that attack progressives are counter productive.

that's been the argument the whole time.

[AgadorSparticus]

299. Why don't you answer the question that if she was progressive, why

Isn't she running attack ads against Trump?

[Gore1FL]

301. I am not a Stein supporter nor do I work with her campaign

That isn't the issue I raised.

[AgadorSparticus]

302. But you are defending her and her campaign.

[Gore1FL]

305. No I am not

I am pointing out that calling fellow progressives names is no way to get them to vote for Clinton.

[AgadorSparticus]

308. I don't think anyone is trying peel those voters away from the green party.

Seems like that is kind of a lost cause to me.

I think what is offensive to everyone is the fact that the green party folks call themselves "progressives" & put out an democratic attack ad and no attack ads for the republican nominee.

That doesn't look like a progressive whatsoever. If they are a TRUE progressive as they say they are, they will put out ads attacking Trump.

People can call themselves almost anything they want. But if you look like a duck, walk like a duck, and act like a duck, then people are going to call you a duck.

[Gore1FL]

309. But the Dems are peeling GOP voters away.

It's weird that we have more in common with Armitage, Whitman, and Scowcroft than environmentalists.

[AgadorSparticus]

310. The democratic party IS the big tent of political views. Always has been.

The reality is that that vast majority of Americans hold views that are moderate. The majority should be represented as per democracy.

P.s. just wanted to add that the moderate are not inherently evil. I think one of the biggest problems we have is the incivility that has been stoked for decades by hate radio and its ilk. If we ever truly put down our battle gear long enough, I think many of us would be pleasantly surprised that the "other" actually wants the same thing. We just may differ in how to go about it. And on some wedge issues, we would just have to agree on disagreeing. But a couple issues do not define us politically.

[Gore1FL]

311. Do you have a link to support that claim?

And one (or more) that says Scowcroft, Armitage, and Whitman are moderates, but that environmentalists are not?

[AgadorSparticus]

316. No. I don't have a link and it is Saturday morning

And i am not going to go digging for it. You talked about areas of gray upthread. One or 2 issues do not define you politically. I think that for some people, their pet issues define their political affiliation. But I don't think that is the majority concensus.

There's plenty who feel the party has left them and it probably has. But they are vastly in the minority. To me, the party is upholding the essence of democracy. The party needs to reflect their majority. Political parties should never represent the minority view. That is not the democratic process. Otherwise it would be an oligarchy. The irony, is the way in which that term was bantered about here on DU.

The party moved right because people were moving right. Not the other way around. The party was doing its job and representing the majority. The question should be why people were moving to the right?

Bernie’s movement shined the light onto the growing minority. It showed the numbers and it got a voice. And rightfully so. And the party responded. That is the essence of democracy. That is the democratic party. BUT it still is not the majority voice.

So, people who want to go to the green party while holding "progressive" ideals, have every right to do so. But ACT like it and don't feign surprise when they are called on for attacking the ONLY nominee that represents progressive ideals.

[Gore1FL]

339. If you can't support your assertions you shouldn't make them. nt

[AgadorSparticus]

344. So you disregard everything else? Figures...

[Gore1FL]

345. "everything else" was continued unsupported assertions, too.

I call bullshit.

Furthermore, it doesn't justify labeling and shunning progressives.

[AgadorSparticus]

348. Here:

"On the other side of the political spectrum, the picture is much different. By the time Bill Clinton left the White House, a plurality -- nearly half! -- of Democrats described themselves as moderate. A quarter called themselves conservative. By last year, the number of Democrats identifying as liberals had surged. ... but a majority of Democrats still call themselves moderate or conservative. Less than one-third of Republicans call themselves anything but conservative."

Granted, numbers are changing. But the majority is still moderate or centrist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/05/28/why-centrist-democrats-can-win-and-centrist-republicans-struggle/

[Gore1FL]

350. Now let's add the Independent graph included in your article:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484


Now, I am not sure if a conservative Democrat is a liberal Republican or what, but the term is more than a little nebulous. It's quite clear that with liberal hitting 45% on the Democrat graph and the over 20% on the independant graph that there is a decent number of people who we probably should court rather than insult.

[AgadorSparticus]

353. I never said anything about insulting the liberal sector.

What I did say is that the liberal sector can't be upset when the democratic party represents the majority which moderate democrats represents 80%.

I dont know what a conservative democrat is, either. Could be a liberal republican. The way things seem to be trending, it seems there is growing numbers in the liberal wing. But that may be offset by disgruntled moderate/liberal republicans looking for a new home.

[Gore1FL]

354. I did. It was the response to the OP that set this all off.

My argument is that OP's like this one repel people we should be attracting.

For some reason the populace of DU took offense to that notion and 3 days later I am still discussing it, and random side arguments associated with it.

[AgadorSparticus]

356. I get where you are coming from but NO ONE

who holds liberal values dear would EVER defend anyone who attacks the only progressive nominee in the GE.

That is NOT defending any liberal cause. Defending Stein itself contributes to the degradation of party unity. You can't defend someone who attacks the democratic nominee and hide behind the party unity card. It doesn't work that way. It takes 2 to tango. Just be fair about it.

[Gore1FL]

357. I'm not defending Stein or her ads

I am defending liberals, who in this thread (and ones like it), are called everything from morons to fascists.

[AgadorSparticus]

396. "Liberals" who put out attacks on the only progressive nominee

Are NOT liberals. And yes. You ARE defending that.

[Gore1FL]

400. Nope. Sorry.

I am saying we shouldn't act like Donald Trump and disparage groups of people, and use inflammatory language to do so.

Take deep breaths and stop putting words in my mouth.

[AgadorSparticus]

404. They have a right to criticize however they want. You don't get to censor them.

[Gore1FL]

405. I am not trying to censor people.

I am trying to get people to be civil and not call potential allies (including in down-ballot races) silly names. It doesn't work for Donald Trump, why would it work for DU posters?

[AgadorSparticus]

412. Because they aren't running for election. This is a discussion board

And they can call any non-democratic official anything they want.

Again, with that stupid party unity shit on people that are lost causes. You apparently, have missed the memo. No one cares about them anymore.

If you don't like people calling them fascists or what not, call them on it. But your rationale is weak. Again, you don't get to dictate to people how they express themselves.

[Gore1FL]

414. "stupid party unity shit" is really a silly thing for you to complain about

My rationale is civility and bringing people together. I used to think that was a liberal value.

Sorry if that offends you.

[AgadorSparticus]

415. It offends me that you feel the need to go around telling people

How they should express themselves. Your arrogance and self righteousness is offensive.

[Gore1FL]

417. ...Says the person who doesn't want others to express themselves.

Do you read your own posts?

[Gore1FL]

387. I am not defending Jill Stein

I am defending people who would vote for her. They people that have been called "fascists", "morons," and "not progressive" in this thread. They are not going to join us if people abuse them rhetorically.

Why is this such a fucking difficult concept?

[Attorney in Texas]

388. How bizarre that it has become controversial to suggest "if your want someone's vote, probably you

might want to refrain from calling him or her a 'fascist moron.'"

[AgadorSparticus]

397. What part of they are not joining us NO MATTER WHAT do you not get?

Besides, why the hell are you on a democratic board defending green voters? This is not liberals underground. According to TOS you should be defending the DEMOCRATIC nominee. PERIOD.

[Gore1FL]

403. Then they aren't detracting from Hillary's vote count by not voting for her.

Make up your mind.

You should alert on me, if you think I am violating TOS by calling for civility. I'll probably appeal, though.

[AgadorSparticus]

407. YOU are the one that keeps bringing up party unity and shit.

I am just responding to you. I have already stated down thread that they are irrelevant.

You aren't calling for civility. You want to censor the way people express things. Get over it. This board does not revolve around you. I see a trend there....

[Gore1FL]

411. "Party Unity and shit" is the attitude I am trying to adjust.

Not all of us think party unity is shit.

And yes I have been saying that calling people names is unhelpful. That is what i have been arguing for 4 days. Not sure why this is controversial.

If you think the Democrats should behave like Donald Trump, you are wrong. Period.

[AgadorSparticus]

413. 90% have already pivoted. It's over.

It doesn't matter if you are I think it is right or wrong. They have every right to express how THEY want to.

[Gore1FL]

416. Is see, so we should pretend we are on a playground and call people names.

Good strategy! I can't imagine why they don't hire you for national campaigns.

[AgadorSparticus]

418. It's not name calling. It is called math. Sorry it offends you.

[Gore1FL]

419. The weird name-calling offends me.

I haven't seen math. I see you typed in numbers that you made up, though. Is that math to you?

[AgadorSparticus]

420. I am not digging up more obvious stuff. Go do your homework.

Are you refuting that 90% of Bernie supporters have pivoted towards Hillary? It has been discussed ad nauseum on here.

[Gore1FL]

425. Math doesn't offend me. Name calling offends me. You haven't presented any math.

You have presented numbers you made up for your post and are calling them factual.

Do you read your own posts? If you did, you would realize you are in full meltdown mode.

[Gore1FL]

422. Math involves numbers.

You should tell the polling organizations of your hypothesis, though. They could take the fall off.

[AgadorSparticus]

424. I don't know what the hell your point is. Noone is sitting on their laurels.

Have you heard of GOTV?

[Gore1FL]

426. My point is being civil is a good thing. For whatever reason, you disagree.

And you have been disagreeing for 4 days now.

[AgadorSparticus]

430. You are going around in circles now. And I am going to call you out on your incivility.

You are passive aggressive and self righteous hiding behind a civil front. I have to give it to you, though. You do it carefully. That is why your haven't been alerted yet.

But make no mistake: You don't get to dictate how people express themselves or their politics.

[Gore1FL]

431. I am not going around in circles. I have said we should be civil. I still am.

I haven't been alerted because calls for civility are rarely alerted on. When they are, the Jury is usually clued in enough to not remove them.

I am not dictating how people express themselves. If you want to use the playground tactics I believe are bad strategy, you are feree to do so. I'll probably ask you to be civil, though. I do recall you trying to silence people who don't agree with you, however. Do you read your own posts?

[AgadorSparticus]

433. It is called TOS.

[Gore1FL]

434. I am familiar with it. In fact, there is a whole section on civility:

"Civility begets quality discussions. Democratic Underground members are highly passionate about politics which means discussions can get heated -- but they don't need to get nasty. There's no reason why a community of intelligent adults who agree on a majority of political issues can't have a conversation without insulting each other or resorting to other anti-social behaviors."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

That's what I am calling for, too!

[AgadorSparticus]

435. Incivility is not tolerated when it is directed at democrats. The rest are free for plucking.

Skinner said you can pick apart the green party.

[Gore1FL]

436. You forgot about this part:

"Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats"

May I ask why you are so dead-set against being civil, or would doing so cause another few days of you replying with continued unconvincing posts?

[AgadorSparticus]

437. Key words are Democratic coalition. The green party is not part of that.

Let me remind you once again, this is DEMOCRATIC underground. Not Green Underground.

I am not dead set against being civil. Hell, my posts are civil. But I have a problem with someone trying to dictate how others express themselves and their politics especially when they are within the bounds of TOS. You don't get to do that.

[Gore1FL]

438. Yeah they are. Let me explain how the two party system for president works.

In Parliamentary systems, people vote for multiple parties and then after the election they build their coalitions. In the U.S., the requirement to get a majority of electors creates a two-party system for president. We build our coalitions before we have the elections. This means liberals (such as Sanders did this time, and even Nader did in the past) run under the major party affiliation and the vote. (A Conservative example would be Libertarian Ron Paul running as a Republican in the GOP nomination contest). Greens are part of that coalition.

Candidates who run as third party for president, miss the point and are never successful. In lower races, the third parties ultimately caucus with one side or the other.

That's why we should be civil to members of our coalition and bring them on-board to vote for the Democratic Candidate.

Why is being uncivil so important to you?

[AgadorSparticus]

439. Is that why the green party put out attack ads on the democratic nominee?

So in supporting the democratic party they are going to attack it? Really??!?!!?? That's real civil....

Don't put words in my mouth. You don't get to determine HOW people express themselves.

[Gore1FL]

440. I am talking about the voters, still.

I specifically said 3rd party candidates miss the point.

I am not putting words in your mouth. You have been arguing with me for 4 days about the merits of being civil. I have taken the pro-civil side of the debate.

I never said get to determine how people express themselves. It is a free country and I can't stop you. But I can ask you to be civil.

Not sure why being able to call people names is so important to you, however. As I have stated, it is counter productive. As I have demonstrated it is against TOS, too. But please proceed, governor.

[AgadorSparticus]

441. Quit hiding behind the word civil. You use it for your own agenda.

I AM being civil. Report me if I am not.

These posts that you claim are uncivil, do not violate TOS. If they do, alert on them.

You don't get to dictate how people express themselves, governor. Pot kettle thing.

[Gore1FL]

442. I am not saying you are uncivil You are arguing that it's a good idea. I am not sure why.

It seems like calling people names is a poor way to get them on your side.

[AgadorSparticus]

443. I didn't say it was a good idea. What I keep saying is that you don't get to tell people HOW to talk

You don't get to dictate HOW they express themselves as long as they are within the bounds of TOS. And if they aren't in TOS compliance, alert them.

But I think your battle cry for civility is misguided in this instance. Btw, people come here and post for various reasons. Rational discussion is one. But that is not the only reason. People vent. And in times as dire as this election cycle, it it to be expected that people will want to come here and vent within the terms of TOS. You should respect that.

[Gore1FL]

445. I am free to tell people my opinion. It's my opinion that calling people names is silly.

It is also counter-productive.

Why is this such a difficult concept?

If people are venting, why can't I vent about being nice to one another? Your argument is not cohesive.

[AgadorSparticus]

446. You just like to harass people then.

You are on the wrong board. But I am sure you know that already.

[Gore1FL]

448. I am not harassing anyone. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else

I am asking people not to be rude and divisive. That is hardly a form of harassment.

[AgadorSparticus]

452. The only divisiveness is your dictating how people should express themselves.

[Gore1FL]

453. I am asking people to refrain from name-calling. The name calling is divisive, to be sure.

I am not doing that. I am asking people not to.

How is asking people to be civil dictating how people express themselves?

Why are playground antics something you feel worth defending?

[AgadorSparticus]

454. They can call green officials whatever they want. You seem

To have a problem with civility only when it comes to the green party. I don't see you raising hell when people call Trump names.

[Gore1FL]

456. It's normal adult behavior not to call people names.

I doubt seriously that Trump can be swayed to vote for Hillary, but I see no useful reason to call him names, either.

[AgadorSparticus]

460. You miss the point entirely.

This is not about changing minds to vote for whomever. This is about civility, remember? But it just shows your hypocrisy. You really need to stop harassing democrats and go defend greens somewhere else. The Democrats here have every right to vent their anger at Jill Stein.

[Gore1FL]

464. You consider suggesting that we not call people names here, harassment?

I would think calling people names would better fit the definition of harassment. In my opinion, we shouldn't do that.

Certainly people can express anger with Jill stein. It's counter productive to be rude to her supporters, however.

Why is a free pass to be rude so important to you? It seems odd that you would spend days arguing for that need.

[AgadorSparticus]

472. It is called free speech. Quit harassing people here.

[Gore1FL]

477. Where have I harrased people?

Manners are a good thing. Not sure why you insist on arguing against that point.

[AgadorSparticus]

499. This is the last time I repeat this. People have a right to express their

Political views however they want in accordance to TOS. This is going around in circles as you are hiding behind the "civility" card. It is clear what you are doing defending the green party on a democratic board. You're harassing people.

[Gore1FL]

501. I never said they didn't have the right.

I said that calling people names was divisive and not a good strategy to bring them to our side.

Not sure why you want to argue against that at all, much less for days on end.

I am not harassing people. To keep claiming so is probably a violation of TOS. But don't worry; I won't alert.

[AgadorSparticus]

504. It is divisive b/c you are defending the green party on a democratic board.

You don't have that problem when people curse Trump. The green party just put put attack ads on the democratic nominee. If we can curse republicans, we can curse greens. If you don't like it, go to Green Underground.

[Gore1FL]

506. I am not defending the Green party. I am suggesting that being uncivil is not useful.

It seems silly and pointless to call people names. It isn't useful nor does it make the person doing so seem credible. Calling Trump and his supporters schoolyard names is also not useful. I don't support him or his followers, either, but if it is important for me to explicitly say it, there it is.

As our president says, "you can disagree without being disagreeable." Why do you think he and I are wrong?

[AgadorSparticus]

461. It is also normal to call people names in their anger.

People have every right to vent here. Again, you do not have the right to dictate how people express themselves within the terms of TOS.

[Gore1FL]

463. I am not dictating.

I am suggesting that name calling is counter productive.

Why are you so insistent on arguing your untenable position?

[AgadorSparticus]

473. My position is not untenable. Yours is, though. You are harassing democrats on a democratic board.

[Gore1FL]

478. How am I harassing people by asking them to not to call people names?

Yeah that's a pretty untenable position on your part.

Why are you arguing against manners, and for divisive behavior? And why are you accusing me of harassing people? Do you have examples?

[AgadorSparticus]

479. Go look all up and down this thread.

[Gore1FL]

481. Responding to people responding to me is harrassment?

That's the story you want to go with?

[AgadorSparticus]

498. It's better than the story you're going with.

[Gore1FL]

500. That being civil is not as divisive as not? That good manners are a positive thing?

How horrific! Goodness. I am pure evil for wanting discourse that rises above Jr. High Playgrounds.

[AgadorSparticus]

502. People can express their opinions however they want. Get off your high horse.

Why do you have to harass them? Oh, yea
.. I know why. Because you feel the need to defend the green party on a democratic board.

[Gore1FL]

503. I never said they couldn't. I just said doing so was divisive and ineffective

If you have to change what I am saying and attempt to disparage me in your attempt to argue, why are you arguing?

Good manners are a positive thing. So is civil discourse.

I am not defending the green party. I am suggesting that calling them names is not helpful.

I am not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.

[AgadorSparticus]

505. It is not decisive if you support the democratic nominee.

The fact that you think it is, tells me you don't support the democratic nominee.

[Gore1FL]

507. The word is "divisive." and has little to do with who I support.

I have stated I am voting for Hillary. Why are you breaking TOS to claim otherwise?

[AgadorSparticus]

510. I know the word is divisive. Auto correct thought otherwise.

If I am breaking TOS, report me. I said you were divisive because you are only sympathetic to those criticizing the green nominee. And I have a problem with that. This is a democratic board and if people choose to call Stein names, they should be able to do so without being harassed about it--especially when her actions call for it. People shouldn't have to self censor because it hurts the feelings of a few who aren't supporting the democratic nominee anyways.

And if people tolerate or support her, then they are tolerating the divisiveness that she represents and sows. It is the same analogy as the silent republicans who hate trump but support him. So, yes, I do have a problem with green apologists on a democratic board. And no, I don't think that the green party really poses any real threat to the election.

I am all for civil discourse. But like I said about 50 posts ago, people posts for different reasons. One of them is to vent. And that is ok. This place may be an echo chamber to many and that is ok too. DU serves many functions. And for some, this is the ONLY place they can retreat to hear those commonalities that get drowned out by the daily media, the hordes of rw'ers on fb or the areain which they live.

I have been on here a long time too. And I remember a time when this was the ONLY place I could find that didn't spew RW crap. So, while I am all in favor of people having civil discourse, I am also going to defend democrats when they are defending democrats....and however they want to defend democrats.

Supporting them is more important to me than worrying about hurting the feelings of a marginalized few. I don't care about those few. But you do. And that is your prerogative but again, this is a democratic board.

[Gore1FL]

511. I don't generally alert, so I'll let your violations go.

Once again, I never said people aren't allowed to call people names. I said it is divisive and serves no benefit. I would like their votes in down-ballot races if nothing else. Calling them names and driving them off is counter productive.

Tolerance is a reason I am liberal. I think tolerance of other people's views is a good thing. Perhaps if we pracitices that, there would be more Dem voters and fewer Green party candidates.

People can vent. I can tell them that their venting is divisive and counter-productive. It's neat how that works.

I've been a member for 15 years. Calling people schoolyard names has never been a reasonable way to defend Democrats. It's neutral at best and divisive and counter-productive at worst. Logical arguments are a better choice. Civility is a much more attractive option.

You clearly care, or you wouldn't be hemorrhaging posts for multiple days that accuse me of doing and saying things that I am not doing or saying.

To repeat our president again, "we can disagree without being disagreeable." That's a good thing and something we should aspire to. I am not sure why you would disagree him or me. It's not an unreasonable position.

[AgadorSparticus]

512. It is not black and white. Tolerance is a great concept that I

Totally agree with you on. And generally, we need a hell of a lot more of that in our world. But there are times and things we should have zero tolerance such as racism, bigotry, etc.

I see things in terms of gray. Sometimes the rant is not meant for civil discourse. People are angry. That's ok. I can respect that. When they are not so angry, you can reason with them then.

I understand that we can "disagree without being disagreeable". But people are not perfect and should be respected for their imperfections too because i think most people on here (that are not trolls), will shift gears in a heartbeat & engage in that discourse you are looking for when you acknowledge them. But to tell them not to be angry with their words is like telling them they can't feel something. Nobody wants that. I spend a lot of time in my profession listening to people and fix them. Often times, it is just the listening that fixes people. They say one of the most powerful things you can do is to acknowledge someone. I mean TRULY acknowledge someone. So, it does strike a chord with me. And maybe that is not what you meant. But that is what I saw.

If it makes you feel any better, I seriously doubt any ranting posts on here will change any real life voting practices. People that come here are pretty politically savvy or wouldn't be here. They are going to do what they are going to do. And green voters are going to do what they are going to do regardless of what is posted on DU.

As I stated before, I am all for civilly. Who wouldn't be? I just think in the meantime we can honor each other even with our spots.

[AgadorSparticus]

351. Here's another one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/21/americans-arent-polarized-just-better-sorted/

[womanofthehills]

470. Maybe she is more interested in pushing the Dem party more to the left

[AgadorSparticus]

471. With Trump as president? Riiiight....

[womanofthehills]

474. Her numbers are so low I don't see her having much of an effect

[AgadorSparticus]

475. That's very true. She won't make a difference. Her #'s are too low.

[SusanCalvin]

174. It's tweets as well?

I'm sure getting a lot of information from this thread, and it sure doesn't make her look good. Has she been pretty much under the radar in the past, or was I just not paying attention to her?

[Maru Kitteh]

214. She ran against Obama in 2012, has called him a "war criminal," said he was just like Romney

and a whole host of other patently offensive and stupid things. The woman is a quack and an idiot.

[SusanCalvin]

228. Thanks. I never really paid attention to her before.

Hopefully nobody else will.

[D23MIURG23]

225. Jill Stein isn't a progressive.

She's a useful idiot.

[Demsrule86]

257. She told Jill Stein to fuck off not a progressive.

Jill is a Green, and they are GOP enablers not progressive.

[catbyte]

27. Yeah, I'm seeing them in Michigan. She has a LOT of nerve equating HRC with Drumpf.

She really turns me off.

[Hekate]

31. Wonder where the money is coming from? Nader took Repub money for his last campaign...

So convinced his cause was pure, he had no shame about it.

[groundloop]

34. Gotta be Koch money or some such right wing super pac

Stein will take attention any way she can get it.

[SusanCalvin]

72. Whoa. I did not know that.

Well, even less respect for him.

There is a reason for parties.

[farmbo]

38. I wonder who paid for Jill's slick ads?

It certainly was NOT wealthy Green Party donors.

Com'on Jill... Inquiring minds want to know.

[SusanCalvin]

73. I wanna know.

And I may get off my duff and go ask her tomorrow.

[GoneOffShore]

46. As a Bernie supporter, I find Stein's message beyond the pale.

Sure, I wanted Bernie to be our nominee.
Sure, if Pennsylvania was a TOTALLY SAFE lock for HRC(and I mean TOTALLY SAFE), I would have considered(I SAID considered), writing in Bernie.

But Jill FUCKING Stein?

Really?!

What planet is this strange woman living on? Brontitlll? Kakrafoon?

Kria? Fucking Kria!?!

Homeworld of the Azgoths, Kria is therefore home to the second worst poetry in the Universe according to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Azgoth poetry was once exceeded in awfulness by a human poet from Essex, England (on Earth), though the Vogons' demolition of that planet leaves the Azgoths in the top spot. Their poetry master, Grunthos the Flatulent, is best known for his work "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in my Armpit One Midsummer Morning", which caused four listeners to die of internal hemorrhaging and forced a fifth to gnaw his own legs off to survive. However, Grunthos was reportedly "disappointed" by this reception, so apparently the Azgoths' poetry isn't as deliberately awful as Vogon poetry seems to be. An attempt to embark on another of his works, "Zen And The Art Of Going To The Lavatory", was thwarted when his major intestine leapt up through his neck and throttled his brain in an attempt to preserve civilization.

[PatSeg]

48. Good lord!

This can't possibly be Democratic Underground. Obviously Democrats are not going to vote for a third party candidate, but the ugly slanderous attacks are beneath Democrats. I think Donald Trump is a big enough target. Why all these diversions to candidates who are of no significance?

There is nothing progressive about these attacks. Why on earth does anyone here care about what Jill Stein has to say?

[DanTex]

53. Stein is running attack ads against Hillary. In swing states.

Same think that Karl Rove does. Yes, this is DU. We don't like people who run attack ads against Democrats. You sure you're in the right place?

[PatSeg]

68. If you are insinuating something,

you need to take care.

I can understand not liking Stein or having problems with her attack ads, but the ugliness I've seen around here lately is very unbecoming. Can't people just state why they object to someone without the nasty slurs? One of the reasons I am a Democrat is because they don't tend to behave like Tea Partiers.

I have a lot of respect for Hillary Clinton and I think she is probably the most qualified people to run for president. I think perhaps Jill Stein has an agenda or a cause, which is rather a turn off for me, but I am not going to call her names. I might say she is unqualified or unelectable, but not the demon's spawn.

The Democrats' opponent is Donald Trump. Why on earth would Democrats waste their energy on anyone else, other than down ballot races?

[DanTex]

75. You're the one insinuating: "This can't possibly be Democratic Underground."

Yeah, this is DU. We support Dems. And we don't take too kindly to right-wingers and their enablers, be it Trump, Giuliani, or Stein.

[SusanCalvin]

76. If she's running attack ads against Hillary,

that's quite enough for me.

[PatSeg]

85. And that is fine

But the language and the name calling is a little over-the-top. I cannot believe anyone here thinks Stein is a threat to Hillary.

[SusanCalvin]

88. Not in a rational world.

But Nader made a real good decoy while two elections were stolen, one in Florida and one in Ohio.

[PatSeg]

96. Some say he got more blame than he deserved

I don't know, but I've never been able to respect the man since. Also I never called him the kinds of names that people are calling Stein.

[SusanCalvin]

116. I see what you're saying.

And I guess I should be ashamed of myself. And maybe I am.

But, really, attack ads in swing states? And where is the money coming from?

[PatSeg]

119. I am in New Hampshire

and I saw her ads twice already.

As for the ad revenue, I am smelling republicans, but this election they don't seem to be very organized or motivated. Most republican politicians really don't want Trump to win, they are just doing whatever they think will save their own careers. This is an election for the history books. I read "Game Change" and "Double Down" - I wonder what the post election book of this one will be.

[SusanCalvin]

121. Yep. Interesting times. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

150. Do not let yourself be bullied by transparent Green-party apologists

Who are so selective in their "concern."

[Charles Bukowski]

93. Seems like you're passive-aggressively defending

Jill Stein. Why shouldn't she attacked? She's running anti-HRC ads in swing states!

[PatSeg]

99. Welcome to DU

Please don't accuse me of something that you cannot confirm.

I don't like the name-calling. Criticizing her campaign or her ads is understandable. Name calling is very immature. I leave that for republicans.

[SusanCalvin]

122. You're right.

But, removing name-calling, I sure agree with the sentiment. And understand the impetus.

[PatSeg]

127. You've been a pleasure to talk with

I have had a lot of people bit my head off lately and presume things about me that are not true, which can be rather upsetting when I am trying so hard to be civil and rational.

[SusanCalvin]

130. Same here.

I'd actually logged out for an extended period due to the toll on my nerves.

[PatSeg]

135. Oh yes

I stayed away most of the time during the primaries. I'd check in occasionally for Breaking News stories and non political topics. I saw what the primaries did to some friends of mine and it was brutal. I was here in 2004 and 2008, I wasn't about to go through that again. From what I can see, I think this year it was far worse.

I am not happy with the way Bernie supporters have been treated even after the primaries are over. I didn't vote for Bernie, I was really on the fence in this primary, leaning slightly towards Hillary because of experience and electability. I have friends who were Bernie supporters and they won't come back to DU. We are talking about long time DUers, well over ten years. This is not a good way to unite a party.

[CajunBlazer]

484. Okay label Stein in a manner she richly deserves - "Totally Unqualified"

She has virtually no experience in management or government office. If she had any chance what so ever of being elected even left wing radicals would hesitate to vote for her. Why would anyone vote for someone totally unfit to be President. They might as well write in Mickey Mouse.

[PatSeg]

492. "Totally Unqualified"

works for me. She definitely does not have the experience or skills to be president.

[SusanCalvin]

97. I agree about over the top, sort of.

I just participated.

Because I'm really pissed and really scared.

Yes, polls today were good. But I will not breathe easy until Hillary is in the WH.

Would I rather have had someone else? Oh God, yes. Was that possible in our current system? No.

[PatSeg]

102. Oh yes, yes, yes

I absolutely will not rest until the votes are counted in November. I am not going to assume anything, as the political climate changes so quickly these days.

I think Hillary has all the skills, intelligence, and experience necessary to be an outstanding president. Though I consider myself more liberal than her, I know the country is likely to elect a more moderate candidate. I am grateful to Bernie for pulling the party more to the left. I think Hillary has the political and administrative skills to implement some of his policies. I guess a lot depends on what kind of congress we give her.

[SusanCalvin]

108. .

[Demsrule86]

466. Of course she is a threat.

Just ask president Gore about the Greens...oh wait...

[SusanCalvin]

79. Waste energy?

Because Stein should drop out. Period.

[PatSeg]

86. Trump is the threat!

[SusanCalvin]

89. Right. And she might make a real good decoy.

Same as Nader did.

[PatSeg]

114. I don't know a lot about her,

but I hope she has enough sense not to let herself become a total joke. I remember when Nader was highly respected and revered. He lost it all in one vanity obsessed political campaign. Then he threatened to do it again! I think his causes gave way to his ego.

[SusanCalvin]

128. As far as I'm concerned

Attack ads against Hillary already make her a (bad) joke.

[PatSeg]

131. I can't figure out what she is trying

to accomplish, if anything. If she wanted to push her more progressive agenda, surely she could have done it without attack ads against Hillary, which could benefit Trump. I don't know, maybe her ego is getting ahead of her ideology. Politics really does strange things to people.

[SusanCalvin]

133. So true.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-overtime-hamilton-cast-album/

[Demsrule86]

183. You see I lived through the 2000 election

I heard the same shit...Gore=Bush from the green traitors...and in the end...the greens helped enact the wars, united, tax cuts for the rich, 9-11 and the death caused because of Katrina...oh and that 's the short list. So you see, I view them as the devil's spawn and not progressive. Oh, and they also helped defeat Kerry as well...they are 2 for 2....in electing the GOP. They never do anything useful or progressive.

[PatSeg]

197. I understand that

And I remember 2000 very clearly. I do not think Stein is a Ralph Nader, who had major name recognition at the time. I would, however, be very concerned about Gary Johnson who is at 15% in some polls. He could be seen as a very attractive candidate to moderates turned off by Trump or liberals who care about the legalization of marijuana (that is honestly a high priority for some voters!) and people who really don't want to vote for Hillary.

Though Gary Johnson could be a threat to Hillary, I don't see that many threads about him at DU. The focus on Jill Stein seems rather disproportionate and honestly quite odd.

THIS is the 3rd party candidate we should be watching:

With Donald Trump plummeting in the polls and Hillary Clinton registering high negatives, the Libertarian Party nominee has a rare opportunity to be the first person outside the two party system to participate in the presidential debates since Ross Perot did so in 1992--a potentially groundbreaking moment that could alter the presidential race.

That opportunity has been underscored by a new Fox News poll that shows the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor, getting 12 percent support. A party qualifies to join a presidential debate if it scores 15 percent in a series of polls leading up to the fall forums.

In addition to the attraction of being someone other than Clinton or Trump, Johnson is helped by his running mate, William Weld of Massachusetts, who like himself is a former Republican two-term governor of a Democratic state. Both men have a certain charm: Johnson is a triathlete who has climbed the highest peaks on all continents and Weld is an old-line Boston Brahmin who once dove fully clothed into the city’s Charles River to show its cleanliness. Pro-abortion and anti-Common Core, they’re libertarian without heeding some of the party’s more extreme freedom-loving, anarchistic elements. (At the party’s convention this spring, Johnson had to defend his belief in driver’s licenses and anti-discrimination laws.)

http://www.newsweek.com/charm-libertarians-johnson-weld-presidential-debates-487371

[Gaytheist212]

187. Attack Ads

Anyone on the ballot in the presidential line whose name is not Hillary Clinton is, by definition, the opposition. She is running against Clinton, therefore she is an opponent. She is running attack ads against Clinton, therefore she is the opposition. Jill Stein, by her own actions and words, has proclaimed herself as part of the opposition of the Democratic Party. I take her actions and words at face value. You cannot look at her words and deeds and conclude she isn't an opponent. She has said she is, so why don't you believe her?

[PatSeg]

320. Welcome to DU

Sorry, I never said that she wasn't an opponent. You must have misread something.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

317. Folks are legitimately upset because she is wittingly or unwittingly enabling Trump...

Folks are legitimately upset because she is wittingly or unwittingly enabling Trump by siphoning left of center vote that would go to Clinton.

Since Trump is an existential threat to people of color I expect to see prominent left of center minority figures call her out if it looks like she is legitimately hurting Clinton's ability to win. It could get ugly for her.

[PatSeg]

322. I understand

Someone here made a point that some of the attacks against Stein are so over-the-top, that it could push some former Bernie Sanders supporters away from Clinton. Of course, I know that is illogical, but there are still a lot of raw emotions left over from the primary on both sides.

Meanwhile, this is only giving a lot of exposure to a candidate that most people have never heard of. I am finding this issue rather perplexing, which is why I tried to draw attention to Johnson's campaign, which I find more threatening.

[obamanut2012]

161. "the ugly slanderous attacks" are Stein attacking Hillary

Not Trump.

Stein is being a non-Democratic spoiler.

SHE IS AN OPPOSITION CANDIDATE, NOT A COALITION BUILDER!

This is DU -- she does not get the nod over Hillary Clinton.

[PatSeg]

170. No one is suggesting

she "get the nod over Hillary Clinton". I am suggesting Democrats can be critical without crass insults. Can't we disagree with a politician without all the vitriol?

This is DU and people should act like Democrats.

[mountain grammy]

50. My nutty cousin supports her..

She's shocked, I tell ya, shocked that the family is voting for Hillary. Oh, by the way, my cousin is enjoying life in Jamaica for the last 40 years..

[FairWinds]

57. Obscenities and name calling . .

To me, if it is unacceptable to aim at Dems,

it should be unacceptable to aim and the Greens, or even Trump for that matter.

Lest we come to resemble the irrational demagogues that we decry . .

Grow Up, DU !!!

[DanTex]

61. Do you have a problem with me calling Trump an idiot?

And telling him to fuck himself?

[FairWinds]

66. Yes, because it shows that . .

you are no better than he is.

And more importantly, because you close off opportunities
for us to reach out to those with whom we disagree.

Respectfully.

[DanTex]

67. Really? I'm no better than Trump is?

Actually I am. Because I'm not an ignorant racist Islamophobe.

[Gore1FL]

140. Your brand of hate is better?

Good argument.

[Maru Kitteh]

153. Your distress over Stein and Trump being called naughty words is such a tell

Having little palpitations because a fucking Cheeto-hued man-baby and a fascist-enabling, anti-vax panderista and all-around ASSHOLE quack are getting called out for their crap on DU.

Give me a break. I don't find your outrage believable. Mostly because you have done your fair share of name-calling yourself when it suited you. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1179350

And somehow NOW you're all offended and righteous?

Please.

[Gore1FL]

164. I understand the difference between the nomination phase and the actual election.

I am amazed that so many do not.

[Maru Kitteh]

206. Oh I see. Your outrage at name-calling is election-cycle dependent and applies only to others. Well

then.

[Gore1FL]

294. As opposed to yours which is apparently constant.

Thanks!

[FairWinds]

190. I'm OK with that lingo, (not that you need my permission)

because those are demonstrable facts.

[ismnotwasm]

84. Have you tried "respectfully reaching out" to a Trump supporter?

As a Democrat? How did that work out?

[FairWinds]

189. Yes, I have, frequently . .

reached out to them, and what is more relevant here,
to Green Party supporters. Many of them are sincere, bright
people.

[SusanCalvin]

83. Sorry, the behavior of Stein reported here

does activate my middle-finger reflex.

[PatSeg]

125. You know

Lately I've analysed how I react to politicians like Trump and before that GW Bush and for the most part I just called them what they actually were. I don't use those cute little derogatory nicknames, many of which don't particularly offend me, but I find them rather pointless.

Donald Trump is clearly a liar, a bully, and a narcissist - those are simply statements of fact. I don't call him more vile names, not so much because HE doesn't deserve it, but because it reflects more on me than him. I watched that New York Times video of the Trump supporters and I don't ever want to be that ugly towards anyone, even Donald Trump.

People really, really need to be careful that they don't become what they profess to hate. Historically, fighting hate with hate has never really worked out too well.

[SusanCalvin]

132. Good points, agree.

Viscerally, I do still sure understand the impetus of the OP.

This is a good, useful thread on many levels, IMHO.

[PatSeg]

136. Yes I think you're right

It has been a good thread. I almost ignored it too.

[MrScorpio]

58. I've never said to be nice to Jill Stein

Not my cuppa tea.

[George Eliot]

70. It is an election. We're not North Korea. Do you hate democracy?

I came to this blog for politics not hate. You don't need to fuck anybody. Just work hard for your candidate. She's mine too but I don't hate everybody that runs against her or who votes for someone else. Johnson is doing same to right - taking votes. See the big picture. And Republicans are voting for Hillary. Esp. the rich ones and that worries me and it should worry if you like her current policies. This idolatry is scary.

[PatSeg]

81. It didn't always used to be this hateful

I stayed away during the primaries, but things still haven't settled down I guess.

Of course, if rich republicans are voting for Hillary, it is because they don't want to see Armageddon anymore than we do. Many of them are quite pragmatic like that.

I really don't like all this hate. That sort of mentality reminds me too much of a Trump rally.

[DanTex]

82. I like democracy, and I also like my right to speak out against right-wing idiots like

Donald Trump and Jill Stein. I understand that Stein and Trump have the right to run whatever ads they want. I support that right.

But when someone like Jill Stein or Karl Rove tries to bring about a catastrophic Trump presidency, I'm going to speak up about it.

[SusanCalvin]

92. Amen, and thank you. nt

[redstateblues]

106. Hear hear!

[Maru Kitteh]

154. I'm with you, DanTex, and THANK YOU for this thread!

[Demsrule86]

259. Baloney. Jill Stein is s a spoiler and if you love Democracy

You don't help elect Trump. Jill Stein never does anything worthwhile. I despise her. The Greens helped bring about United, 9-11, tax cuts, economic collapse, incompetent Bush appointees that killed people like in Katrina and two useless wars by equating Gore and Bush for a full year...and then for parking their sorry Green asses in Florida and really working it...thus allowing the GOP to steal 2000. Therefore, I and many others have only contempt for the Greens...can you imagine the horrors Trump would unleash...maybe even nuclear war. So Jill Stein is the enemy just like Trump.

[womanofthehills]

469. you say "Jill Stein never does anything worthwhile" - definitely not true

While I do not like what she is doing now - she has been an environmental activist.

[Demsrule86]

485. What? Her anti-vax routine?

I don't respect that at all. She is trying to help Trump and taking money from someone...Russians her old pals the GOP? The Greens never do anything helpful...you see some of us view winning elections and making policy and stopping the GOP menace important...but the Greens not so much. She is a spoiled entitled person who cares for no one or she would not attempt to elect Trump. Check your privilege Jill and so should all your supporters and defenders.

[kimbutgar]

74. Who is funding those high priced ads?

I subscribe to all types of political causes never received anything from the Jill Stein email list.

[SusanCalvin]

113. Me either. Follow the money. nt

[Gothmog]

77. There is no need to treat Stein with kid gloves

She is not a nice person

[angrychair]

80. "Jill who"

I would strongly suggest that few, even among the politically active, know who Jill Stein is or give any shits what her opinion is on something.

I would wager a significant amount of money that if you asked 10 random people on a street corner who she was you would get no one.

She is a Sanders wannabe and has never managed to even muster Libertarian numbers nationally. Her commercials mean nothing and will have no impact at all.

[SusanCalvin]

87. I hope you're right.

I'd still like to know who paid for them.

Seriously - that may be the main point of this thread.

Link, anybody?

[PatSeg]

115. Now that is a really good question

I have to say that I was really surprised when I saw her ad during prime time. We have seen conservatives giving money to Democrats to sway an election and vice-versa. It smells very Karl Rovian to me!

[hrmjustin]

90. A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.

The Greens are not our allies.

[SusanCalvin]

123. Amen. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

100. That's like "being nice" to a runaway staph infection. No. You nip that shit in the bud.

And given the fact that Open Secrets reports she had $235,000 on hand on July 21, I'd like to know which crew of GOP ratfuckers is funding this.

[MFM008]

103. I saw one today

She doesn't realize how insignificant she is.

[UCmeNdc]

104. Jill Stein has to be receiving money from GOP sources

How can she afford to run ads in swing states. Why isn't she running ads attacking Trump?

[billhicks76]

111. Hyperbole Much?

We arent afraid of Stein. Gary Johnson will peel off way more republican votes so I wouldnt have a meltdown just yet.

[UCmeNdc]

117. But I still wonder where Jill Steins money resources come from?

To run swing state ads would take a lot of $20 donors. It doesn't seem like that is the case. So Jill Stein must have one or two large Corporation donors.

[SusanCalvin]

120. Bingo. nt

[billhicks76]

124. Ads Cheaper Than You Realize

And radio even more so. Radio ads can be $20 for 15 sec spot.

[SusanCalvin]

138. Good point, but still -

Attack ads against Hillary? Not helpful.

[PatSeg]

143. This is true

But I saw at least two Stein ads on MSNBC tonight. I think everyone is wondering where she is getting the money. I don't really think she is a threat to Hillary though.

[SusanCalvin]

126. I'm afraid of anyone

Who takes or threatens to take a sliver of a point away from Hillary.

[billhicks76]

141. Well Donald Trump Is Handing Votes To Hillary

He's such a screw up and blatantly making mistakes that Hillary is ahead 10-15 points. BBC ran an article today in which George Will and Jeb Bush think a deal was negotiated with Trump to ruin the Republican Party from within. It's a scary thought to not take him seriously though and assume he is some kind of Trojan Horse Ticking Time Bomb because we have seen crazier throughout history. But he has little chance if his peers think Bill Clinton influenced him to join the race. The one thing that could interfere with a democratic win would be a large scale terror attack which we always pray never happens.

[SusanCalvin]

144. Exactly.

In a rational world, he should be DOA.

I will not breathe easy until Hillary is in the WH.

[PatSeg]

139. Good point

But you'll hardly ever see a thread here about Gary Johnson.

[billhicks76]

142. Johnson Has 3-4 Times As Many Vote As Hillary And Climbing Rapidly.

In the MI suburbs he has 15% total.

[PatSeg]

146. Jill Stein

is starting to looking like an orchestrated diversion. Hmmmm...........

[Demsrule86]

184. Excuse me?

"Another battleground poll released Thursday -- Michigan -- also found Clinton holding a significant lead over Trump.
Clinton is ahead of Trump by 9 points, 41% to 32%, among likely Michigan voters, according to a Detroit news/WDIV-TV poll. Clinton's lead is smaller, 6 points, without third-party candidates included."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/politics/clinton-leads-trump-three-states/

[billhicks76]

253. Lol. Typo

More than Jill Stein I meant.

[Demsrule86]

260. You had me searching for a Michigan poll...lol. nt

[billhicks76]

263. Trump Losing Detroit Suburb Republicans Fast

10% have defected to Gary Johnson.

[Demsrule86]

264. I get it...LOL

Good news.

[TwilightZone]

249. I presume that you mean 3-4 times as many votes as Stein.

Johnson has 3-4 times as many votes as Hillary in only his wildest dreams.

[billhicks76]

254. Typo

[underthematrix]

152. Jill Stein likes to lie so just

tweet the following message. Jill Stein is Russian, raised in US as a sleeper agent & has now been activated as a Russian agent.

it doesn't matter if it's true. It's what Fox News did to President Obama for eight years. Let's play their game. I've already tweeted this to Jill Stein.

[ZombieHorde]

155. That means the Libertarian party is pro-Clinton

and are left-wing enablers. Right?

[Demsrule86]

318. What?

They do siphon off voters from Trump so that is helpful..but maybe without these third party spoilers, some would vote for Hillary...racist Libertarians...want to get rid of civil right legislation.

[ZombieHorde]

359. I'm just exploring the logic that left-wing third parties actually

support the right. If that's true, then I think logic would dictate that right-wing third parties actually support the left.

[Demsrule86]

363. You assume they have the same intentions.

I think the Greens want to elect Republicans. I do not believe the Libertarians are trying to elect Democrats only...they are making an effort to create a party and have run for lower offices etc. The Greens are political whores paid by the GOP to act as spoilers.

[ZombieHorde]

377. What is the evidence the Green Party receives money

from the Republicans? I googled it on my phone, but nothing came up.

[Lunabell]

156. She is an idiot and anti-science.

She is a new age guru with stupid ideas about vaccinations and other scientific advancements. And she has no real governing or law experience. Her followers are sometimes as bad as Trump's when trying to talk to them. Blind and stupid. I have a few of them on my facebook page and I don't even bother. They are too emotional and still pissed about Bernie not being the Democratic candidate.

[JSup]

157. If you use your Jillenstein translation device...

...they're really saying, " Stop moving! It's really hard to stab you when you're fighting back!"

[obamanut2012]

158. Who the hell is paying for thiose ads?

It sure as hell isn't the Green Party.

[MBS]

162. That's also what I keep wondering. n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

159. I heard this woman tell Sam Seder the weekend of the 2012 election....

....."It would be better for my cause if Romney won"

Fuck "Doctor" Jill Stein.

[bigwillq]

167. Wow. So many folks obsessed with Jill Stein.

So many posts about her. I'm sure she thanks you all for the free press.

[PatSeg]

172. Its rather bizarre, isn't it?

I was only vaguely aware of Jill Stein's existence until I saw so many threads about her on DU. We've always had a handful of forgettable fringe third party candidates, who are rarely of any consequence. I really would have thought that Trump was a big enough opponent for us.

I don't think it is constructive to give her this much attention.

[workinclasszero]

168. I knew all along that JPR's anti vax nutter darling

was a front for Trump and nothing more.

PO Jill!

[colsohlibgal]

185. You Can Hate Her But...

The anti vax rap is false, Snopes blew that one up days ago.

[workinclasszero]

193. Snopes didn't blow up anything

Jill Stein’s anti-vax game: How and why the Green Party candidate is pandering to the anti-vaccination crowd
Jill Stein sows doubt and fears about vaccinations, and the supposed Snopes debunking did nothing of the sort

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/jill_steins_anti_vax_game_how_and_why_the_green_party_candidate_is_pandering_to_the_anti_vaccination_crowd/

[oberliner]

200. Here's what was on Snopes

Dr. Stein's stated position is that she "supports vaccinations" and acknowledges that "we have a real compelling need for vaccinations," so it's not true to say that she is on record as holding an anti-vaccination political position. However, her somewhat equivocal statements surrounding that issue allow for a fair bit of leeway and interpretation — many others who proclaim to "support vaccinations" in concept effectively undercut their positions by raising objections to the "vaccination process" or the "vaccination industry."

http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/

Sort of a mixed bag.

[workinclasszero]

201. She is disingenuous

She talks out of both sides of her mouth.

But, as you can see if you click that Vox link above, the accusation is not that Stein herself is personally anti-vaccination. The accusation is that Stein panders to anti-vaccination crowd by sowing doubts about vaccination safety and validating their completely unfounded suspicions that the FDA is somehow working for shadowy corporations.

“Dr. Stein uses a common anti-vaccine dodge in which she denies that she’s anti-vaccine, but then repeats anti-vaccine tropes about vaccines not being tested the same way as other drugs (if anything, they’re tested more rigorously), corruption in big pharma, etc.,” David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and pro-science blogger explained to me. “She even walked back a Tweet from saying ‘there’s no evidence’ that vaccines cause autism to ‘I’m not aware of evidence linking vaccines to autism.’ Talk about an antivaccine dog whistle!”

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/03/jill_steins_anti_vax_game_how_and_why_the_green_party_candidate_is_pandering_to_the_anti_vaccination_crowd/

[rjsquirrel]

409. Those are weasel words

It doesn't matter what she thinks personally. Many of her ardent supporters are white, suburban, professional upper middle class anti-vaxxers. So she panders to them shamelessly with insinuation that she is on their side the same way Trumpndoes with white nationalists.

I too smell a GOP funded ratfuck when I see Stein commercials. Be good to get it out there about who is paying for these ads if so. It would ruin Stein with her minuscule base of loony toons rich college town hippies.

[FighttheFuture]

216. Not to go off track here, but the MMR vaccine has some questions about its safety.

While you can go one way and say all vaccines are dangerous, you can equally go the other and say they are all safe and ignore contradictory evidence. Japan has banned MMR. Their mistake was not pushing for mandatory vaccines covered by MMR separately, interspersed over time and leaving it to the parents discretion.

[Maru Kitteh]

229. Stein is an anti-science pandering quack. There. Now we're back on track. I know you were worried.

[zappaman]

238. yeah right.

[hrmjustin]

188. Jill Stein is our competition. That is why we are not being nice to her.

Some seem upset by this but they should not be. Jill Stein and the Greens are not our allies and that is why she gets challenged here like Trump.

A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.

[Politicub]

198. Greens are a millstone around the neck of the progressive moment

Their "burn down the house to save it approach" harms the most vulnerable. I don't know how greens are able to sleep at night.

The Sanders approach to pull America's progressive party - yes, the Democratic Party - to adopt more liberal policy positions worked. It's proven.

Jill Stein only cares about Jill Stein.

[zappaman]

209. I had someone here tell me they actually thought she would be a fine president.

[DanTex]

221. Stein and Nader are a reminder that the far left can be as crazy as the far right.

And they both have the same goal: electing Republicans.

[hunter]

242. I'm far left, and a radical environmentalist.

Jill Stein doesn't represent me.

I'm a practical voter. I'm enthusiastically supporting Hillary Clinton in this election.

Left wing anti-intellectualism and fascism are as distasteful to me as right wing anti-intellectualism and fascism.

We won't make this nation a better place by telling people what they need. We make this nation a better place by asking people what they need and figuring out how to deliver it, usually by means of very messy politics.

I'm far to the left of Obama, or California Governor Jerry Brown, but both men are very competent leaders who have cleaned up the messes left by their predecessors and have accomplished many great things.

Hillary Clinton will be a similar leader.

Years ago I was a Sierra Club member. I quit because it was a bunch of clueless white people who didn't recognize the absurdity of someone with an affluent lifestyle calling themselves "green." Any resident of a Brazilian Favela has a much smaller impact on the earth's environment than somebody who lives in a big house, drives a "green" automobile and takes yearly airline vacations to places like Tibet.

The affluent U.S. lifestyle is not, and never can be, green.

Sorry, Kermit...

[Maru Kitteh]

223. Fuck that Naderite "Dems are just Repukes" steaming load of bullshit. This is NOT Green Underground.

[Akamai]

219. Amen! Amen! Thom Hartmann has been saying this same thing for a long, long time -- that Jill Stein

is a spoiler who is only in it for the ego. However, sure could be that Koch and others are bankrolling her candidacy to sabotage the Dems and Sec. Clinton.

[D23MIURG23]

220. Jill Stein is a fucking embarassment.

She is an anti-vaxer with a medical degree.
She is a purported leftist who campaigns for Trump.

She and the other Green Party stooges should fuck off. They are no use to anyone. (Anyone except Trump that is)

[Peacetrain]

222. Saw the commerical for the first time locally.. and she is dismissing Trump as just clueless.

and a full out attack on Hillary..

[Maru Kitteh]

233. Jill Stein calls Trump clueless. Cue Alanis Morissette!

They're both clueless assholes.

[lark]

230. Didn't know she was this bad.

Man, how stupid is she, anyway? Just glad she's tipped her hand so maybe some die hard Bernie folks will now not support her and vote for the person that can keep Drumpf out of the WH and away from those nuclear codes. Just the thought is terrifying.

[Stellar]

232. These third party people should be going for 2020 because...

Right now, they are all spoilers to me at this point and I just have no patience or time for them, and they can all kma!!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

235. Is it neccessary to claim the Greens are the enemy?

I suppose next it's our duty to reject their entire platform instead of adopting it and form a coalition with them.

[Squinch]

239. It is accurate to claim that Stein is the opposition. But spin on if you feel you must.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

240. LOL!! It's "spin" to go to the extreme.

[DanTex]

243. The Greens declared us the enemy. Jill Stein is running ads against Hillary as we speak.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

252. Still consider it to be bad policy to call everyone else the enemy....

This leads to immaturely hating everything they stand for which leads to absurdly being against clean energy just because she's for it.

[Demsrule86]

324. Yes it is neccessary to claim the Greens are the enemy.

because they are the enemy...she is running attack ads in swing states...thus Jill Stein is the enemy. I want nothing to do with the Greens who are political whores who take money from the far right to throw elections to the far right and hurting the progressive cause in election after election.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

347. The Greens don't do that. Ralph Nader does that....

He ran as a Green in 2000 and you blame the Greens for him allowing Republicans to pay to get him on the ballot in Michigan even though he wasn't a member of the Green party at the time and they want nothing to do with him.

Ralph Nader never built the movement he said he would and became more involved with raising money than fighting for the Cause. Then the money became his Cause.

[Demsrule86]

371. Who is paying for Jill stein's ads...it will come out.

And I am betting it is the right wing. Yes I blame the Greens...in the end he ran as a Green and they certainly helped him...and later went after Kerry and Obama too...you know who they don't go after? Republicans.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

376. Next you'll claim they're a republican front group.

[Demsrule86]

390. Based on their actions and who they help...the might as well be a GOP front group but no

I think they are paid whores...and for sale to the highest bidder.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

408. I used to hear that about Greenpeace from someone in the Sierra Club.

[Demsrule86]

421. Exactly right. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

444. This is why we lose.

[Demsrule86]

490. WE have lost due to Green Spoiler who hurt the country and millions of innocent people

by their actions...Bush enacted so much bad stuff..and they helped elect him twice. They had to screw with Kerry right? I despise the Greens.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

509. Ralph didn't lose us the 2000 election. Fat Tony did.

[hrmjustin]

334. The Greens are not our allies.

They are our competition.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

352. I believe in forming coalitions.....

I see them as our potential partners.

Then it becomes two against one against the Republicans.

[hrmjustin]

355. No. We are competeing for the same voters.

They win no elections so no real coalitions are possible.

They are out to hurt the Democratic Party and Hillary.

I understand many people have some warm feeling to for the Greens but they really are not our allies.

If they want to turm their ideas into reality they need to work within the Democratic Party like Sanders supporters did.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

360. We need to attract the folks attracted to them by adopting their positions...

With the observation you make of having a better chance of actually getting things made into actual laws.

You aren't going to attract those who consider voting Green by trashing the Green Party and all it represents.

I still remember when Democrats and Liberals were the fractured party doing really STUPID divisive crap to each other. Someone would say they fight for clean air and someone would step forward and claim that person wants dirty water, then someone would call both of them out and claim they MUST be pro-war. All of them blame each other for losing the last election.

Meanwhile the Republicans in power are snickering.

[flamingdem]

245. She seems rather vile

Nader lite

[SheriffBob]

246. the worst mistake I made in my life

.Was voting for ralph nader.

[jeanmarc]

250. Can't stand her

I've only seen two interviews with her and her hyperbolic views don't work when she's running harder against Clinton than Trump. She can go fuck herself.

[Onyrleft]

255. A lot of people have seen the ads in the past few days.

OpenSecrets shows her with under a quarter million as of July 21st. This raises questions about the funding of the new ad campaign.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiY2O-QqqvOAhWozIMKHdoKDvMQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.opensecrets.org%2Fpres16%2Fcandidate.php%3Fid%3DN00033776&usg=AFQjCNGRZ5ojGzkXkpmS4qSoATSfTeFWMw&sig2=YyxGLEVOjAmHFonv2abWeg

[Still In Wisconsin]

258. Here's my take: Jill Stein DOES want to see President Trump and all the resulting mayhem...

then, in her deluded mind, the Green Party would ride in on a white horse and rescue all of us from the rubble.

I have known several over the years who harbor similar delusions. And no, none of them are Bernie Sanders supporters-- several WERE Naderites.

[Lithos]

261. I've no problem being nice to her...

Thinking it would be nice to show her the door...

An anti-vaxxer conspiracy panderer has no place in national politics. She should lose her Medical license for such crap.

L-

[greatlaurel]

273. Good point. Some folks are saying that she may not have been able to recertify.

What I was told was that Board testing and certification requirements for practicing physicians changed a few years ago and became much more stringent. This might explain why someone would give up a lucrative teaching gig.

It is really too bad there is not a real national press anymore to investigate someone who is spending vast sums of money on TV ads attacking HRC while giving a pass to Trump the demagogue who is pushing dog whistles inciting violence against minorities and women. Someone should find out where Stein's money is coming from.

Stein is just as dangerous. She sounds like someone with similar personality issues as Trump, desperate for attention. She looks creepy and chilling in those ads.

[Lithos]

276. There has been a lot of money given to opposite spectrum candidates

Especially those in these kinds of elections to draw off voters.

Nader took a lot of RW money back in 2000. I'm thinking this year will see the same with a lot of Jill's money coming from RW supporters. Nader as I recall spent more time attacking Gore than Bush, I'm seeing a lot of echo with Jill this year. No proof about the money, though it would not surprise me now.

L-

[ronnykmarshall]

270. To hell with Jill Stein.

She's an asshole.

[Whimsey]

282. Where does Bernie fit in this?

He's decided he is going to remain an independent because that is how he was elected to the senate. So do we get to stop treating him as a democrat?

[Ken_Jones21]

312. Stein is anything but Presidential material

After all, this is a woman who holds anti-vaxxer beliefs, despite practicing internal medicine for over 20 years. Not to mention, her positions on foreign policy are terribly naive and unrealistic. And her "brilliant" choice of Ajamu Baraka as her VP further cements just what a joke her campaign is. After all, Baraka pretty much called Bernie Sanders a white supremacist.

But if the far left is so disgusted with Clinton/Kaine that they decide to vote Green this year, then it's their choice. Though they should keep in mind what happened in 2000, where we ended up with 8 years of Bush.

[PatSeg]

319. Welcome to DU

Most people have never heard of Jill Stein. I mostly noticed her because of all the noise being made here recently here. I still find her inconsequential as a candidate, but I think we disregard Johnson/Weld at our own peril.

I am finding the anger directed at Stein out of proportion to her actual impact on this election. It is rather puzzling.

[uppityperson]

346. Welcome to DU.How did you find this forum, I am always interested in learning that

[Rex]

325. No.

I never saw anyone say we should be nice to her, not here.

[PatSeg]

328. Me either

I must have missed something, though I may have been accused of it.

[Rex]

329. Greens are hated on this site, it is very obvious.

As a matter of fact, any other party is hated on - we do not like anything but the two party system.

[PatSeg]

330. I've tried to imagine what it must be like

to live in a country with 3 or 4 major parties. It seems like that would be healthier for a democracy. And I really like the idea of runoff elections.

Oh well, have to make the best of what we have.

[Rex]

331. We do.

Yeah just imagine if we were like Germany with over a dozen political parties. That is a lot of political parties.

[PatSeg]

332. Wow, that would be really overwhelming

I had no idea they had that many. I don't think a lot of people in this country have the education or attention span for that many parties. Many have a hard time with just TWO.

[Rex]

343. Also Germany is smaller and not made up of states that are gerrymandered into

customized voting blocks. At least I hope they are not, that would be sad.

[PatSeg]

349. I suppose it is hard

to compare our country with all its diversity to a smaller one, though you'd think a country as diverse as ours would have more parties not less. Of course in Germany, they may try to do everything they can to discourage the rise of one nationalistic party and many smaller parties would be a big help in that respect.

[brooklynite]

341. ...and the Chancellor of Germany has alway comes from two of them...

With the exception of two weeks in 1974 when there was an Acting Chancellor from the Free Democratic Party, the head of the German Government has either been from the Christian Democratic Union (Center-Right), or the Social Democratic Party (Center-Left). Seems eerily familiar.

[Rex]

342. Not only that they all got logos!

[Wolf Frankula]

327. I know a few Greens

Most of them are Escalade Environmentalists; full of conviction that OTHER people should use less, not they. They think they have helped the environment when they update their Facebook page supporting putting a zoo lion in an open sanctuary.

Then there are the primitivists. They want to return to the good old days of hunting and gathering, (after 99% of the earth's population dies) but with cell phones, air conditioning and the Internet.

Lastly there are the self haters. They don't like being human and call for the extinction of the human species. They don't begin with themselves. They want to be trees.

And how come we only hear of the Get Republicans Elected Every November party in presidential years? They don't run candidates for legislatures, the House or Senate, just for President. And they take Republican money. Could it be they're just Gooper stalking horses?

Wolf

[Demsrule86]

362. You are exactly correct.

They are political whores who take money from the GOP to betray progressives.

[randome]

340. I don't even want to read this thread so I'll just throw this in.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Gothmog]

358. Stein is trying to get trump elected

She is just as bad as Nader

[Attorney in Texas]

391. Stein is trying to expand the Green Party and to pull the electorate to the left. She isn't trying

to get Trump elected (and she couldn't do it even if she tried).

As "bad as Nader?" In a democracy, why are minority parties and candidates "bad"? Is Baraka as "bad" as Stein? Is Johnson-Weld "bad," too? Is Castle also "bad"?

Was Perot "bad" in 1992 or was he only "bad" in 1996?

Was Anderson "bad" in 1980?

Was Teddy Roosevelt "bad" in 1912?

Was Lincoln "bad" in 1860?

[Demsrule86]

394. She is not trying to expand the Green Party

She takes money from the GOP...they have for years in all sorts of elections...the fact that Republican support Greens and even run as Greens to fool the electorate says it all...she is in collusion with the GOP which makes here an evil troll.

[hrmjustin]

398. Of course she is. Stein wants to hurt Hillary and get Trump elected.

The Greens are not our allies.

[Attorney in Texas]

401. The Minnesota Twins are not the allies of the Chicago Cubs. Yet it is silly to say that the Twins

are trying to get the Red Sox to win the World Series.

The Green Party represents 5% or less of the electorate (which means they suck worse than the Twins), but they do not want Trump to win the presidency any more than the Twins want the Red Sox to win the World Series.

[hrmjustin]

406. That assumes their motives are good and pure.

I don't think they are. I think the Greens and Stein hate Hillary and are willing to throw the election to Trump.

[Demsrule86]

399. All those you listed were bad for the party they split with.

Lincoln caused the demise of the whigs...and civil war (which I think was inevitable but...still he did in the Whigs)
Nader was another spawn from hell who elected Bush...and yes he is very bad and the greens were certainly to blame.
Perot was bad for the GOP for sure...but he helped us... so depends on which side you are on He hurt the GOP and was a former member so he was a spoiler too.
Teddy Roosevelt helped elect Woodrow Willson...so the GOP considered him a spoiler.
Anderson was a GOP but actually siphoned off votes from Carter. He gave the commencement address at my college once and was popular with many young people.

All but Anderson damaged their parties so they acted as spoilers. And Anderson may have helped elect Regan in 80 so I consider him a spoiler of epic proportions as this ended liberalism for years. And most hurt the chances fo their party. And with Trump running we risk the courts for 30 years or so, risk LGBT rights and even their lives, risk immigrants,risk minority rights and will probably lose civil rights laws,risk a woman's right to choose and of course the entire world as Trump has suggested the use of nukes is fine with him. Millions of innocent Americans will be harmed by a Trump presidency. it takes a certain sort of arrogance and privilege to sacrifice others for any political view... and those who attempt to spoil the election for Hillary Clinton are poster children for privilege. Some have said voting down ballot but not for the top of the ticket is ok...I say it is not enough in this election year. No matter who is in Congress...Trump still gets to pack the courts and that would be disastrous for real progressives and all Americans...and I do not consider those voting for Stein or Stein herself progressive: such people help only the GOP and their actions speak much louder than any progressive words uttered along the way

[WillyBrandt]

410. Take the higher path, or: Let us now praise Jill Stein

Thoughtful disagreement is acceptable, but there is a fine line between disagreement and attack.

Every Democrat must exercise judicious self-control so that we never refer to Jill Stein as an opponent,
much less an enemy; we must not make hay of her mistakes; we must give her the benefit of the doubt; and we must win over Jill Stein not by negativity but by our own compassion and magnanimity. Your typical human being has pros and cons, but for Jill let us take the higher path and see only the (few, scarce) pros and focus on our own shortcomings. Your typical competitor expects to be treated to a competition, but for Jill let us consider her a competitor in only the petty details of an fleeting election, since in a larger, more spiritual, sense she is our ally for the greater cause.

It bothers me how Democrats try to denigrate Jill Stein, just because she's an awful craven asshole, supported by a toxic alliance of Putin, the cynical far right, and the delusional far left.

Because as Democrats, we are supposed to be better than this. The fact that she warrants no respect is precisely why she must be afforded it.

(Did I get that right? Hard to keep up with her apologists nowadays. Sorry for the cross-post.)

[Curtland1015]

423. That's about right!

[Demsrule86]

488. Hillarious.

I loved this post.

[lapucelle]

429. I'm a high school teacher in the NY metro area

and one of my students had a parent who worked at Hofstra University who won two tickets to the 2012 presidential debate in an office lottery. My incredibly excited 17 year old student went with her mom.

I asked her the next day how the debate was, and the first thing she told me about was about woman arguing loudly with security and police, demanding to be let into the arena because she was part of the debate. She caused such a ruckus that she was taken away when she refused to leave. Ah, I thought, Jill Stein showed up.

My student, who was really smart, enjoyed the debate, but the other thing that stuck in her mind was this: Obama and Romney were both so larger than life and handsome that they didn't look like regular people; they looked like movie stars! The crazy person (at least in the eyes of my student who had no idea that she was a third party candidate) and the handsome candidates were the two things she kept talking about. Ah, to be 17...

Neither third party candidate reached the 15% threshold this week to qualify for the debate, so neither will be on the debate stage. I wonder if Jill will show up at the debates anyway.

[Scurrilous]

447. @#$% Jill Stein.

Can't be said enough.

[Blue_Tires]

489. kick