Opinion: Voting Green Party is the same thing as voting for Trump.

[ffr]

“No you’re not!” – selfish Green Party stooge gets destroyed for refusing to vote for Joe Biden

At this point the 2020 election is a binary choice. Either you vote for Joe Biden and you help oust Donald Trump from power in the process. Or you take any other action on election day, and you help Trump remain in power by default. But there are some delusional folks who still don’t understand this reality.

Take, for instance, the guy who tweeted this today: “Serious question. I am not voting for Trump or Biden as neither of these old men are in any shape to be managing a country. I will likely vote Green Party as it aligns closely with my progressive views. Am I considered a Resister?”

How poorly did this selfish question go over? Despite it being a fairly obscure account, the tweet received eighteen thousand negative replies and counting. So many of the replies we’re in the form of “No you’re not,” the words “No you’re” began trending on Twitter.

We’re hoping this guy learns his lesson and decides to join the human race by voting for Joe Biden in 2020. Only a true sociopath would look at the damage that Donald Trump is doing, and then still refuse to vote for Biden, in order to feel special or whatever. Voting Green Party is the same thing as voting for Trump. The difference is that Trump supporters are idiots who don’t know better, while Green Party voters do know better but they’re psychotic enough not to care about the consequences. - Palmer Report

Regardless of who wrote such a stupid question or their motives, the choice cannot be clearer this election, AGAIN!! It is a binary choice. There is no justifiable third option for any reason.

[redstatebluegirl]

1. That isn't opinion that is fact.

Voting green or staying home with your toys because you didn't get what you wanted, gives us another 4 years of trump and you are not, nor have you ever been a Democrat.

[Gothmog]

2. a vote for Jill Stein was a vote for trump

[sop]

3. "Am I considered a Resister?" No, you're considered a political illiterate.

How many times does this have to be explained to some folks?

[Walleye]

4. Say the Giants and the Jets are in the super bowl

But you didn’t like the refs in the playoffs, so you will place a large bet on the Packers? Makes just about as much sense as voting Green Party.

[SharonClark]

5. Is the Green Party really a party with a

platform and goals that the members agree on?

There’s a repug state rep candidate in my state who ran as a Green Party candidate the last election cycle. His main issues are that he’s anti-reproductive rights and he supports Trump.

The GP seems to be an ineffective organization and a shadow of what it once was.

[TheBlackAdder]

6. I thought it was Putin Proxy vote! 🤔

[Aristus]

7. I can't see how anyone with 'progressive' views would feel comfortable with another four

years of Trump just because the Democratic candidate is a left-leaning centrist.

Actually, I can: because they're full of shit...

[dustyscamp]

8. Yeah, they pretty much have bullshit reasoning for voting Green

Things like Democrats created Trump so if we elect them it will happen again, They deserve it for not pushing for a left candidate, Pelosi and other top Dems are just as bad or even worse than Republicans.

https://forums.escapistmagazine.com/threads/so-biden-haters-why-trump-over-biden.311/
Here is some replies from that thread. Some Pro Biden and others Anti Dem

I see a lot of people talking about how stupidly and senile Biden looks. How it seems like he doesn't want to win the Presidency. How he doesn't deserve the vote. I'll grant you all of this.

But the difference is that for a lot of us, while Biden has shown that he potentially isn't a good president, Trump has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that he can never be a good president for the United States. He's been killer for the Republicans. If you're a Republican, I can get why you're thrilled. Trump has shown that he literally will not give anyone but you his ear. He's a winner for you.

But that begs the question of why Democrats, Progressives, Independents, and Centralists would ever allow Trump to remain in power when all Trump cares about is pandering to his base while giving untold power to the Corporations of this nation? I'll grant you even that there were better picks than Biden. He was never my choice. There was definitely better choices than Trump.

I think the root of this question comes from Fencing Sitting due to Morals when weighing Potential Damage against Actual Damage. Would you allow a racist Governor who is harming his constituents remain in office because you found out that the only person who is running against him cheated in college? Do not trust that candidate, for sure, but to allow the Racist Governor to stay in power because his opponent isn't the miracle you've hoped for is beyond me.

Trump on Civil Rights is Documented. Trump on The Environment is Documented. Trump on Education is Documented.

Biden has shown me verbal stumbles, senior moments, and a potential sexual scandal. All things accepted under Trump. They aren't freaking great... but they were never enough to oust Trump. I fail to see why they should weigh more when the person who does it isn't named Trump.

And yes, you do God Damned Vote "Not The Horrible Thing" when you're presented with it. It's such a basic concept, it's laughable that it's even brought up as a question. "Not Trump" is completely a valid stance when you just have to scroll up and see what Trump has accomplished in his time.

I'll sum up with this. I am not a fan of Biden for President. Not as much as I loathe Trump as president, admittedly. I would have rather many other candidates in the position. I think the party did the stupid thing of bankability rather than getting a fighter. He would have never been my first choice. But I'm presented with him versus a President who has a Track record when it comes to average Americans and this land of ours as particularly harmful. My morals are more for removing a known liar and a terrible leader (The President Must Lead for the Entire Country, not just your side). Even if Biden would be just a half step in the correct direction, it is the correct direction.

I believe the direction we need to go in is back to a government that is for the people, not the corporations and hopes that will Trickle Down to Americans.
And how is Joe Biden even one step in that direction? His energetic support for mass incarceration suggests he values private prisons more than the people. His enthusiasm for the Iraq War suggests he values Raytheon (and so on) more than the people. His anti-Medicare4All stance suggests that he values insurance companies more than the people. Simply put, he is not on our side. His treatment of accusers suggests he values his career more than justice. Even if he was on our side, he's going senile and the people around him aren't on our side either.

Then you are arguing that a side that actively opposes a healthcare for all is better?
No, both sides are shit. Just because I don't have any faith in Biden doesn't mean I'm endorsing Trump.

You're arguing that Biden is going to do the right thing because his constituents want him to do the right thing, and I disagree. I think that's incredibly naive. History is littered with broken campaign promises, and this is another one.

Scratch that, this isn't even a campaign promise. Biden has been wishy washy on the subject in every way. You're just putting the words you want to hear in his mouth because you really want a reason to actually want to vote for him.

Maybe if the Democrats didn't have their heads so far up their own rear ends that they can't even smell their own stink because there's no air down there then they wouldn't have put up Hillary Clinton. Didn't you just say you were a pragmatist? How the hell was Clinton a pragmatic choice and not a sign of them having power and getting lazy and overconfident with it?
More like...

...run the national party into fiscal insolvency during the Obama administration...

...making them vulnerable to hostile takeover by a well-connected and exceptionally well-funded candidate's campaign and her corporatist allies, inarguably the least popular politicians and policy elites in the country...

...who purged the party committee, subcommittees, and staff of any not loyal to that candidate and that candidate alone, replacing them with staffers from that campaign...

...who then enacted a fundraising structure and organizations for the sole purpose of defunding and defrauding state parties...

...and sitting atop this giant, unprecedented, mountain of money, ran the single most tone-deaf and incompetent Presidential campaign in American history...

...against her hand-picked opponent, the most obnoxious and loathsome bastard ever to stand for the office...

...and somehow, despite enjoying every systemic, strategic, and social advantage one could possibly hope to enjoy in a Presidential election, still lost.

As I described in the other thread, whenever posts seek to draw an equivalence between them, it's always in broad, sweeping, vague language, or on the broadest areas of policy. Neither candidate will address the deep-seated economic equalities in American life in a meaningful way; neither will address the grotesquely outsized influence of money in politics; and for this reason, "whoever wins we lose".

It's true that neither of the candidates will significantly address those areas of policy. But the conclusion being drawn from that is absolute bollocks. There are a thousand other areas of policy, which have concrete, measurable, drastic impacts on peoples' lives-- and on which the candidates obviously, hugely differ. I made a list of them in the other thread in response to another conversation like this, and nobody really addressed it.

But to ignore the differences in some policy areas because there aren't the meaningful differences you want to see in other areas is.... well, dismissive and borderline insulting, when we recognise the fact that lives and livelihoods are lost over this stuff.

So, sure, yes. Neither candidate will meaningfully ameliorate the enormous economic inequalities, financial influence, lobbying, etc, etc. On that, they're both broadly in the same ballpark. It's fucking tragic, and both candidates are shite because of this utter failure of vision or morality.

But one candidate wants to increase the corporate tax rate by 7%. The other candidate doesn't. Are these the same?

One candidate wants to create a public healthcare option available to all, and introduce a lower limit on the cost of healthcare received. The other candidate doesn't, and only promises to cut 10% from the budget of the existing medicare options. Are these the same? Look at them closely, because thousands of lives depend on which one fucking wins.

One candidate wants a ban on fossil fuel subsidies and net-zero emissions by 2050, and readmission to the Paris Accords. The other candidate doesn't, and has only repealed environmental protection and expanded fossil fuel subsidies. Are these the same? Again, thousands of lives depend on which one wins.

One candidate claims he'll end the Federal use of private prisons. The other doesn't. Are these the same? Thousands of lives... etc, etc.

They don't represent meaningful difference in terms of endemic, systemic economic issues in American society. They're still obviously-- to anybody paying attention-- hugely different, and those differences mean tens of thousands of lives and innumerable livelihoods. You do not ignore that in order to gamble on the idea that at some mythical future point, people will somehow become so sick of right-wing fuckwittery that they'll finally elect a Bernie Sanders. Even if they did, how many lives will have been lost in those decades waiting? How can any moral person willingly accept that cost, if they claim to want the best for people? And what kind of blasted hellscape would that future (hypothetical) good President even inherit?

[BannonsLiver]

9. The Green Party is a Putin front group.

It’s synonymous with Russian fuckery in my book.