Jill Stein wants to be "Plan B" for Sanders supporters; Gary Johnson won't fight her for them - Polidicks

[quote]This year Dr. Jill Stein is leading the Green Party ticket for president. She has run before — Stein garnered almost 470,000 votes in 2012 running as a Green. [B] Stein is hoping to capitalize on the wave of support Bernie Sanders experienced over the past year in his challenge to Hillary Clinton from the left.[/B] Stein told The Guardian she would even be willing to let Sanders run in her place as the Green candidate. Sanders didn't respond and has now endorsed Clinton. Stein is heading to Philadelphia to go to the Democratic National Convention — or at least to be outside of it. She is planning to take part in protests on the street in support of "economic justice" and a "Green New Deal," among other causes.[/quote] [url]http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487252170/green-partys-jill-stein-wants-to-be-plan-b-for-bernie-sanders-supporters[/url] [quote]Libertarian Party presidential nominee [B]Gary Johnson said he is not going to pursue Sen. Bernard Sanders’ supporters with the same gusto as Green Party candidate Jill Stein. [/B] “I agree with 75 percent of what Bernie has to say. But when it comes to economics, Jill and Bernie seem to be very closely aligned,” he told The Washington Times. “I am who I am, and I do believe that ultimately is the reflection of most people.” Ms. Stein has aggressively courted the activists who backed Mr. Sanders’ far-left and anti-establishment campaign. She has led rallies outside the Democratic National Convention and[B] implored Mr. Sanders’ followers to quit the Democratic Party[/B] as part of the #DemExit movement.[/quote] [url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/28/gary-johnson-libertarian-wont-fight-green-partys-j/[/url]

Good, we need a progressive champion if Bernie's given up.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50793725]Good, we need a progressive champion if Bernie's given up.[/QUOTE] He hasn't given up though. Change isn't confined to the result of one election.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50793733]He hasn't given up though. Change isn't confined to the result of one election.[/QUOTE] The DNC pretty thoroughly brow-beat him into supporting Hillary and the DNC despite all the corruption. He's done for the time being, he can't do anything about the corrupt system for fear of bringing "disunity" to the democrats, so he's out of commission till November.

Bernie supporters need to just let the presidency go for now and focus on congressional elections. I'm sorry but there is no changing who will be the Democratic nominee now. Even if he did get elected, he couldn't have implemented (most) of his ideas without Congress behind him anyways. Bernie supporters need to be looking to get a progressive Congress elected. EVERY SINGLE SEAT in the House is up for election in November.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50793733]He hasn't given up though. Change isn't confined to the result of one election.[/QUOTE] People need to remember this. Bernman will be in politics for years to come. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Reshy;50793741]The DNC pretty thoroughly brow-beat him into supporting Hillary and the DNC despite all the corruption. He's done for the time being, he can't do anything about the corrupt system for fear of bringing "disunity" to the democrats, so he's out of commission till November.[/QUOTE] He actually did help bring about large changes to the party platform so that's good

Can someone explain why the Libertarian party is on the ballot in all states, but not the Green Party?

[QUOTE=Reshy;50793725]Good, we need a progressive champion if Bernie's given up.[/QUOTE] Where did he give up? Last I checked he lost the nomination but was actively working to reform the Democratic party from within and was meeting impressively great success considering how much of his platform made it into the party's platform. Even Clinton has changed some of her espoused views to match Sanders' better. (Albeit in her case it remains to be seen just how much she actually upholds, this is less of a concern with Democrats in general however.) Him running was never about him winning the presidential race anyways. That was simply one goal that would help but either way his campaign got the ball rolling for his goal. It's not about Bernie Sanders, it's about changing the way things are. And regardless of his success running for the Democratic nomination he has had great success influencing the party even if it's not a 100% success. And there's still more he wants to do to change the party more and get more independents into office.

Ever see Rocky? Bernie Sanders is basically Rocky Balboa. He just wamted to go the distance and prove a point, and he succeeded.

[QUOTE=Reshy;50793725]Good, we need a progressive champion if Bernie's given up.[/QUOTE] He didn't give up. He's continuing down the path that he believes will bring about the greatest change, even if sacrifices have to be made.

[QUOTE=Cow Muffins;50793753] Even if he did get elected, he couldn't have implemented (most) of his ideas without Congress behind him anyways.[/QUOTE] Didn't everyone say that about Obama and Obamacare?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50793793]Can someone explain why the Libertarian party is on the ballot in all states, but not the Green Party?[/QUOTE] The Green Party is a lot less popular as far as polling and actual votes go usually.

Jesus, I really hope the Green party doesn't get too many votes. Jill Stein and the American Green Party are a bunch of fucking clowns.

Just fuck off already, Stein. Your shit is going to hand Trump the election. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50793793]Can someone explain why the Libertarian party is on the ballot in all states, but not the Green Party?[/QUOTE] Because the Libertarians are an actual party. The Green Party are Spoilers who pop up every four years to sabotage the Democrats and then fade back into nonexistence until it comes time for them to serve their Republican shadow masters again with dud candidates like Ralph Nader or Jill Stein who only serve to siphon Democrat votes.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50793793]Can someone explain why the Libertarian party is on the ballot in all states, but not the Green Party?[/QUOTE] Because ballot access is done on a per-state basis rather than a national basis. I can't remember the exact requirements, but it might be something like a candidate would need 1,000 signatures from enrolled voters to be included on the ballot in a certain state. Which the Green Party hasn't achieved.

Too bad the Green Party has retarded policies like "ban GMOs" and "Nuclear power is bad mmkay"

[QUOTE=Reshy;50793725]Good, we need a progressive champion if Bernie's given up.[/QUOTE] Even if the Democrats abandon their platform its pretty fucked up to say that Sanders and the people who represented him at the negotiations gave up. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Reshy;50793741]The DNC pretty thoroughly brow-beat him into supporting Hillary and the DNC despite all the corruption. He's done for the time being, he can't do anything about the corrupt system for fear of bringing "disunity" to the democrats, so he's out of commission till November.[/QUOTE] What is he going to do in November? Why do you think he doesn't want to bring disunity to the party? Why do you think he has worked with the Democrats for decades and never once collaborated with Green?

Hello my name is Ralph Nader and I approve this Bush [IMG]https://terrifictop10.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/election-of-2000.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=certified;50794400]Just fuck off already, Stein. Your shit is going to hand Trump the election. Because the Libertarians are an actual party. The Green Party are Spoilers who pop up every four years to sabotage the Democrats and then fade back into nonexistence until it comes time for them to serve their Republican shadow masters again with dud candidates like Ralph Nader or Jill Stein who only serve to siphon Democrat votes.[/QUOTE] They are also borderline commie with some economic policies.

[QUOTE=sb27;50794444]Because ballot access is done on a per-state basis rather than a national basis. I can't remember the exact requirements, but it might be something like a candidate would need 1,000 signatures from enrolled voters to be included on the ballot in a certain state. Which the Green Party hasn't achieved.[/QUOTE] There is also a monetary part to it, some states require a payment of up to $25,000 to register as a party on the ballot. And since it's state by state, some states where the Green Party doesn't have enough money may not have the funds for it.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;50793733]He hasn't given up though. Change isn't confined to the result of one election.[/QUOTE] it is if this is your first election

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50794969]Hello my name is Ralph Nader and I approve this Bush [IMG]https://terrifictop10.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/election-of-2000.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] It's pertty awful to think that Gore won the popular vote overall but lost because of the whole Supreme Court thing and the Electoral College. Unless I'm missing something. I forgot, what is the point of the Electoral College again? It seems to run so counter to democratically voting for a President,[HR]considering that Nader got zero electoral college votes despite getting 15% nationally.[/HR] I'm wrong, I'm thinking of Perot. I think my point still stands though that it's not a great system.

Nader didn't get 15% nationally, he got around 2.5%. It was Ross Perot who got 19% nationally but 0 electoral college votes. Regardless, Ralph Nader had more of an effect on the election than Ross Perot because of the negative effects of the spoiler effect. Assuming all or close to all Green Party votes would otherwise have gone to Al Gore, Nader lost not only Florida but also New Hampshire as a result of this. Winning either of these states would have won the election for Al Gore.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50795548]It's pertty awful to think that Gore won the popular vote overall but lost because of the whole Supreme Court thing and the Electoral College. Unless I'm missing something. I forgot, what is the point of the Electoral College again? It seems to run so counter to democratically voting for a President, considering that Nader got zero electoral college votes despite getting 15% nationally.[/QUOTE] Because the creators of the constitution didn't want dumbass voters to vote for idiots and vote in a tyrannical dictatorship or a monarchy. It's literally there because the people who founded the country knew how stupid voters were and wanted to make sure there was some degree of abstraction. Also because getting a proper vote count from every state would have been more difficult back then, so using representatives from each state made more sense. It's a dumb system with very understandable reasons for existing.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50795568]Because the creators of the constitution didn't want dumbass voters to vote for idiots and vote in a tyrannical dictatorship or a monarchy. It's literally there because the people who founded the country knew how stupid voters were and wanted to make sure there was some degree of abstraction. Also because getting a proper vote count from every state would have been more difficult back then, so using representatives from each state made more sense. It's a dumb system with very understandable reasons for existing.[/QUOTE] The anti-democratic elements of the founding fathers in my view are more demonstrated by the Senate. The electoral college was more created by technological issues (as you mentioned) and for a compromise to represent small states better (the 'Connecticut compromise') as they were originally fearful that in a proportional system with no minimum representation, they would be trampled.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50795568]Because the creators of the constitution didn't want dumbass voters to vote for idiots and vote in a tyrannical dictatorship or a monarchy.[/QUOTE] Well let's hope it does its job this time. In the interests of democracy it probably should no longer exist as reasons FlashMarsh mentioned are not as important today.

Their literally is no reason for the electoral college to exist today, although it did make sense back in the 1700's. It might not have been a part of Hillary's platform, but one of her stances for years has been for replacing the electoral college with a direct popular vote. Trump was also critical of the electoral college back in 2012, calling it a "disaster for democracy", for the record.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;50795548]It's pertty awful to think that Gore won the popular vote overall but lost because of the whole Supreme Court thing and the Electoral College. Unless I'm missing something. I forgot, what is the point of the Electoral College again? It seems to run so counter to democratically voting for a President,[HR]considering that Nader got zero electoral college votes despite getting 15% nationally.[/HR] I'm wrong, I'm thinking of Perot. I think my point still stands though that it's not a great system.[/QUOTE] The reason neither did not get a electoral vote was because their support was spread out so thinly across the whole country that they were an insubstantial minority at any one location.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;50794143]Didn't everyone say that about Obama and Obamacare?[/QUOTE] And they were right, the Obamacare you got was completely neutered. [editline]29th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50795626]The reason neither did not get a electoral vote was because their support was spread out so thinly across the whole country that they were an insubstantial minority at any one location.[/QUOTE] Yeah but 15% across the country is pretty fucking high. The electoral college is bullshit, straight up.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50794969]Hello my name is [b]THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM[/b] and I approve this Bush [IMG]https://terrifictop10.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/election-of-2000.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] FTFY Like Mage said, Gore won the popular vote nationally ([url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000]50,999,897 to Bush's 50,456,002[/url]) but lost the electoral college's support. So somehow, according to the way things are rigged, that translates into Bush being the victor lol-- despite the American people voting for Gore. Not the first time this has happened to us in our country's history either. So the 2000 election is actually a perfect historical indictment of how shitty our current system is and a terrific reason why we need to destroy the electoral college-- not a reason why people should not support alternative parties/the Green Party. No more of that "throwing your vote away" rhetoric. It distracts from the actual issues and just helps reinforce this garbage two-party red/blue order of things.