What gives with all the green party shit?

i ignore them.

But there is nothing to be gained posting about idiot not voting for us on DU.

Those who support her are lost causes just like those voting for Johnson are lost to Trump.

I don't see anyone complaining about posts critical of Giuliani. Or Ted Cruz. Or Newt Gingrich. Or Bill O'Reilly.

Were about any of those characters, I might well ask the same thing.

And most Americans know those folks. The Green party and their candidate is unknown to pretty much 95% of Americans.

I think the greens are nutty, but I think the same thing about one of my uncles. And I hate neither one of them. I truly think it strange we spend so much time 3 months before and elections on the green subject.

But I realize I am new here and still have a lot to learn about the dynamics of the site. A site I love, by the way.

Have a nice evening.

But I'm newish too so just my opinion and with you on the overload today

I am not new here and I think it is very strange as well. Believe me, you are not alone!

Hardly worth all the drama being generated.

People who vote for a Green for president are usually voting for Democrats in down-ticket races. If we do enough to alienate them, they might just stay home instead.

We're hurting ourselves with this strategy. We would do better to just ignore them.

Including, of course, right here.

For whatever goofy missteps a Green Party candidate may make, the fact is the Greens were talking about "ridiculous" things like climate change and economic disparity long before the Democrats would timidly approach those issues.

And if those issues are becoming slowly "mainstreamed" by now (though perhaps not quite in time viz. climate change -- we'll see), it's in thanks to groups like the Greens, and others like them, for beginning those conversations.

And I asked because I truly was puzzled about it. But in my mind the Democrats have been talking about Climate Change for a while as well. Al Gore for instance.

I do not hate political radicals although I may often chuckle at them. I was just curious on a site like DU why there were getting some much attention. Not like they are going to be a player in the election.

Have a nice evening.

Ego before country..don't want see a repeat...stein should be ashamed ....

That he played a major role in doing serious damage to this country.

You don't forget it if you lived through it.

Although full disclosure I was on the other side then.

I only asked because of all of the discussion about it on here tonight. I thought it odd. There will always be a hard left who see the Democratic Party is a center right party and sites like DU draw them since it is a left leaning site.

And before anyone responds, I realize that compared to Europe the Democratic Party would be a centrist based party. But we are not Europe.

And at least after this cycle the word socialist will not be on the level as pedophile as it was in this country for so long.

We are talking about a very small group of people who's ideology would be better defined as manic.

attempting to speak for Green Party members now.

They are pathetic.

It bothers me too. Trashing people seems to be the new political discussion

And Stein is following in his footsteps of concentrating her campaigning in the swing states, where it will have the most impact.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called “Florida and New Hampshire” simply “the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket,” when Cook was writing about “The Next Nader Effect,” in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, “Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush’s Florida ‘win’]. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush’s ‘win’ in that state].” If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States — even more indispensable, and more important to Bush’s “electoral success,” than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation’s chief Ken Lay.

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn’t even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn’t count in these calculations at all.) Nader’s 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida “victory” for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, “Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?” (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, “We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore.” David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, “Nader to Crash Dems Party?” and he wrote: “In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader’s Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore’s loss.” Nationwide, Harvard’s Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, “Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?” (also on the internet) presented “Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates,” showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader’s voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn’t have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn’t been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida’s Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn’t included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.

They can and will tilt close states to frumps column in the Electoral College race where it counts not national popularity polls.
Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes but a handful of Green fucks in Florida gave us two wars and an economic meltdown. The Green party is an enabler to put disaster in the Oval Office.

Voter suporession, jeb, and truthfully Sandra O'Connor because she knew better and lived to regret it. That's what loyalty to party gets you.

So instead of taking away the rights of voters, vote for people who will get rid of the corruption.

candidate I reserve the right to express my totally disdain for the Green's objective in helping to elect trump. If it had not been for Nader (the Green Party) the other factors you mention would not have been decisive! But regardless of what happened in 2000, we don't ignore or excuse the Green's anti-Democrat behavior, they are agent provocateur for the puke's efforts to elect a disaster for our country. Fuck the Greens and every negative action they take in helping the pukes elect a threat to our country's survival as POTUS.

There are several of those in the GD2016 thread list. Maybe not posting those will help. I don't know.

He will be voting for Hillary. He used to be a party activist, but Ralph Nader's egotism and spoilerism (is that a word?) ruined it for him.

First past the post elections by nature devolve into two party nations. Until we change the Constitution to allow proportional representation or instant runoff voting, all 3rd parties will be are intentional spoilers. If they were serious and not intending ratfuckery, why would they not concentrate in left strongholds like OR and CA? What nontreacherous reason could there be to concentrate efforts in swing states?

skip the black licorice at the next party you attend. It'll turn your poops green if you eat enough of it.

to fulfill their fevered and sick fantasies of being able to run up and down the halls of DU screaming "we told you so! we told you so!"

It is a most twisted, ignorant, self-centered and amoral choice of action to vote for a third party out of spite and ego, knowing that the vulnerable of society will suffer the consequences of your pride and conceit.