If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Green Party candidate Jill Stein was outside debate site claiming candidate selection for the debate was an inside job and outsiders had no chance. Police declare her offsides and arrest her   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 205
    More: Asinine, Commission on Presidential Debates, Nassau County, matching funds, Green Party  
•       •       •

1413 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Oct 2012 at 4:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



205 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-17 02:58:41 PM
That is just tragic-comic.
 
2012-10-17 03:11:36 PM
Dems and Reps control the debates and thus exclude anyone willing to buck the system.
 
2012-10-17 03:22:06 PM
Green Party, genius. So the tree huggers vote for them when they would have otherwise voted for Obama, effectively voting for Romney. You're not helping.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-17 03:26:21 PM

Mugato: Green Party, genius. So the tree huggers vote for them when they would have otherwise voted for Obama, effectively voting for Romney. You're not helping.


I don't get it either. If the election weren't close it might be a good way to make a statement, but this just makes it more likely that you will get the worst outcome.
 
2012-10-17 03:26:47 PM

Mugato: Green Party, genius. So the tree huggers vote for them when they would have otherwise voted for Obama, effectively voting for Romney. You're not helping.


What makes you think they would otherwise vote for Obama?
 
2012-10-17 03:30:25 PM

Aarontology: Mugato: Green Party, genius. So the tree huggers vote for them when they would have otherwise voted for Obama, effectively voting for Romney. You're not helping.

What makes you think they would otherwise vote for Obama?


Yeah, they're going to vote for the candidate who wants to drill in Yogi Bear's back yard and for the party that denies global warming.
 
2012-10-17 03:31:36 PM
Fark you, citizen, you get a red shirt or a blue shirt.!

/none of this purple shirt shenanigans
 
2012-10-17 03:32:47 PM

Mugato: Aarontology: Mugato: Green Party, genius. So the tree huggers vote for them when they would have otherwise voted for Obama, effectively voting for Romney. You're not helping.

What makes you think they would otherwise vote for Obama?

Yeah, they're going to vote for the candidate who wants to drill in Yogi Bear's back yard and for the party that denies global warming.


Some would vote for Obama, but most. just wouldn't vote
 
2012-10-17 03:33:23 PM

RedPhoenix122: Mugato: Aarontology: Mugato: Green Party, genius. So the tree huggers vote for them when they would have otherwise voted for Obama, effectively voting for Romney. You're not helping.

What makes you think they would otherwise vote for Obama?

Yeah, they're going to vote for the candidate who wants to drill in Yogi Bear's back yard and for the party that denies global warming.

Some would vote for Obama, but most. just wouldn't vote


Grr.... Phone hates punctuation.
 
2012-10-17 03:35:04 PM

Mugato: Yeah, they're going to vote for the candidate who wants to drill in Yogi Bear's back yard and for the party that denies global warming.


that doesn't answer my question. A lot of the green party platform has nothing to do with the environment. They're not just Democrats who hug trees. They're, you know, actually left wing.
 
2012-10-17 03:39:26 PM

Aarontology: Mugato: Yeah, they're going to vote for the candidate who wants to drill in Yogi Bear's back yard and for the party that denies global warming.

that doesn't answer my question. A lot of the green party platform has nothing to do with the environment. They're not just Democrats who hug trees. They're, you know, actually left wing.


The point still stands. Would they otherwise vote for Romney or Obama?
 
2012-10-17 03:42:35 PM

Mugato: The point still stands. Would they otherwise vote for Romney or Obama?


I would assume most wouldn't vote for either of them.
 
2012-10-17 03:43:27 PM
I'd vote Green, but I live in Florida. Too damn close when there is such a vast difference between the two major party candidates.
 
2012-10-17 03:46:12 PM

Aarontology: Mugato: The point still stands. Would they otherwise vote for Romney or Obama?

I would assume most wouldn't vote for either of them.


Well your assumptions aside, my assumption would be that the ones who realistically accept that it's a two party system would vote Obama if there wasn't a Green Party to make them throw away their vote on.
 
2012-10-17 03:47:18 PM
grammar not good today on phone device.
 
2012-10-17 03:52:14 PM

Mugato: Well your assumptions aside, my assumption would be that the ones who realistically accept that it's a two party system would vote Obama if there wasn't a Green Party to make them throw away their vote on.


But they Greens are the ballot in every single state, and they still have the option of a write in candidate.

And in any case, this only matters for people in swing states. I could write in Chuck-E-Cheese for all the influence my vote has on who becomes president.
 
2012-10-17 04:04:55 PM
I really like the Green Party's platform. I'd totally vote Green Party in any local or state election. But not federal elections. Not yet. In my opinion, the Green Party is going about this all goddamn wrong.

If the Green Party was smart, they wouldn't run any candidates for federal elections and just focus on getting wins in local and state politics. Get some good candidates in there and make a difference. Eventually people will see just how good the Green Party can be.

Step two would be taking Congressional seats. Once you take enough of those, then you can change the voting system to not discourage 3rd party candidates.

And THEN you go for the Big Chair.
 
2012-10-17 04:12:43 PM

Mugato: Green Party, genius. So the tree huggers vote for them when they would have otherwise voted for Obama, effectively voting for Romney. You're not helping.


Yes, I can see your point. We should really return to the no party system. as laid out in the Constitution. Then there would be no wasted votes since the losing candidate would become the Vice President and President of the Senate.
 
2012-10-17 04:17:47 PM

notmtwain: Yes, I can see your point. We should really return to the no party system. as laid out in the Constitution. Then there would be no wasted votes since the losing candidate would become the Vice President and President of the Senate.


Did I say multiple parties shouldn't be allowed to run? I simply said that at this point it's counterproductive to whatever their agenda is. That goes for the libertarians and anyone else.
 
2012-10-17 04:26:27 PM
Didn't she get arrested for sitting in the street? Seems like cheap PR stunt to me.
 
2012-10-17 04:28:36 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Didn't she get arrested for sitting in the street? Seems like cheap PR stunt to me.


They did it last time too. The Libertarian guy was arrested as well, I believe.
 
2012-10-17 04:34:09 PM

Lando Lincoln: I really like the Green Party's platform. I'd totally vote Green Party in any local or state election. But not federal elections. Not yet. In my opinion, the Green Party is going about this all goddamn wrong.

If the Green Party was smart, they wouldn't run any candidates for federal elections and just focus on getting wins in local and state politics. Get some good candidates in there and make a difference. Eventually people will see just how good the Green Party can be.

Step two would be taking Congressional seats. Once you take enough of those, then you can change the voting system to not discourage 3rd party candidates.

And THEN you go for the Big Chair.


Yeah, but people get impatient.


notmtwain: We should really return to the no party system. as laid out in the Constitution.


There's no such thing in the Constitution. Just because it doesn't mention parties, doesn't mean it is a "no-party" system.

Sure, Washington warned against them, but apparently it wasn't a pressing enough concern for it to actually make it into the document itself or an initial amendment.
 
2012-10-17 04:53:53 PM
Sorry, there's a conspiracy stopping you from participating in democracy. Nice try, though.
 
2012-10-17 04:53:56 PM

netizencain: Dems and Reps control the debates and thus exclude anyone willing to buck the system.


They learned after Ross Perot got 19% of the vote.

/If someone not batshiat crazy with good ideas actually debated, the two parties might be in serious trouble
 
2012-10-17 04:54:07 PM
I'd love to see some 3rd party inclusion in the debates but a "remote police warehouse" on Long Island? Dubious.
 
2012-10-17 04:54:07 PM

Aarontology: A lot of the green party platform has nothing to do with the environment.


A lot of their platform has nothing to do with reality.
 
2012-10-17 04:55:31 PM

Mugato: Green Party, genius. So the tree huggers vote for them when they would have otherwise voted for Obama, effectively voting for Romney. You're not helping.


I'd like to see one state institute instant runoff voting. Maybe one of the small, wacky states like Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine where there are a lot of independents and there are occasionally third-party candidates that win office. I'd like for it to become part of the conversation - no more of this "you're throwing your vote away!" bullshiat.
 
2012-10-17 04:55:46 PM
So that's what happened to the replacement refs.
 
2012-10-17 04:56:49 PM
The system isn't rigged. If a third party gets good polling data, they are included in the debates.

See Anderson in 1980 and Perot in 1992. If you are polling at less than 1%, why should you be included in the debate? It's a waste of debate time.
 
2012-10-17 04:57:26 PM

indylaw: I'd like for it to become part of the conversation - no more of this "you're throwing your vote away!" bullshiat.


That's going to be the case as long as we use the current election system.

Instant runoff voting would mitigate it, but a proportional representation system would be ideal.
 
2012-10-17 04:57:42 PM

RedPhoenix122: Some would vote for Obama, but most. just wouldn't vote


Then they lose any right to complain when Republicans win races and rape rape the environment.

Either have your people register as Democrats and work from the inside or go for House/Senate/state seats first. Even running for president is just wasting time and money.
 
2012-10-17 04:59:35 PM

Aarontology: Mugato: Well your assumptions aside, my assumption would be that the ones who realistically accept that it's a two party system would vote Obama if there wasn't a Green Party to make them throw away their vote on.

But they Greens are the ballot in every single state, and they still have the option of a write in candidate.

And in any case, this only matters for people in swing states. I could write in Chuck-E-Cheese for all the influence my vote has on who becomes president.


If the green party got enough popular votes they would get public funding in the next election and then your vote would have helped elect a republican. With this set up it'd be better for the green party/leftist people to challenge democrats in the primaries like the teabaggers did.
 
2012-10-17 05:00:23 PM

indylaw: I'd like to see one state institute instant runoff voting. Maybe one of the small, wacky states like Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine where there are a lot of independents and there are occasionally third-party candidates that win office. I'd like for it to become part of the conversation - no more of this "you're throwing your vote away!" bullshiat.


The problem with IRV is you somehow end up with everyone's least favorite candidate. It's not a great system.
 
2012-10-17 05:00:50 PM

sprawl15: indylaw: I'd like for it to become part of the conversation - no more of this "you're throwing your vote away!" bullshiat.

That's going to be the case as long as we use the current election system.

Instant runoff voting would mitigate it, but a proportional representation system would be ideal.


If you are suggesting a system where representation is distributed on strictly a party basis, that comes with it's own flaws. That shifts power into the hands of party leadership rather than to the serving representatives.
 
2012-10-17 05:03:49 PM
Meh, Simpsons Nader did it.

America has become dangerously too conservative for progressives of any stripe to create divisions amongst themselves, IMO.
 
2012-10-17 05:06:06 PM

indylaw: Mugato: Green Party, genius. So the tree huggers vote for them when they would have otherwise voted for Obama, effectively voting for Romney. You're not helping.

I'd like to see one state institute instant runoff voting. Maybe one of the small, wacky states like Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine where there are a lot of independents and there are occasionally third-party candidates that win office. I'd like for it to become part of the conversation - no more of this "you're throwing your vote away!" bullshiat.


this.

Mugato: Green Party, genius. So the tree huggers vote for them when they would have otherwise voted for Obama, effectively voting for Romney. You're not helping.


The Green and Libertarian Parties were created by people who didn't want to vote for Dem or Rep candidates. There's no way they would've voted for either. A vote for Romney or Obama is only helping the companies that already paid for them, not the people. As long as you keep voting one of those big parties, the only thing you are hurting is your civil rights, one at a time.
 
2012-10-17 05:06:42 PM

Lando Lincoln: I really like the Green Party's platform. I'd totally vote Green Party in any local or state election. But not federal elections. Not yet. In my opinion, the Green Party is going about this all goddamn wrong.

If the Green Party was smart, they wouldn't run any candidates for federal elections and just focus on getting wins in local and state politics. Get some good candidates in there and make a difference. Eventually people will see just how good the Green Party can be.

Step two would be taking Congressional seats. Once you take enough of those, then you can change the voting system to not discourage 3rd party candidates.

And THEN you go for the Big Chair.


Nope. It would be nice if that was the way it worked, but between the straight ticket button and the media's complete allergy to covering local races, there is no hope for any of the down-ticket greens without people at the top to grab a few headlines, appear on the ballot next to the major party candidates, drive fundraising, and inspire the GOTV efforts, not to mention the value of getting to influence the conversation between the two major parties (which is why the debates are the holy grail of the third party movements). Plenty of greens have been elected to local offices nationwide (well, mostly just in California), and the media completely ignores all the "good" they do. You've got to be a part of the horse race or they just don't care. Bottom up just isn't a viable strategy in this country anymore.
 
2012-10-17 05:08:11 PM
I voted for Nader in 2000 because I'm a liberal. I voted for Stein in 2012 for that same reason.

So if Romney ends up winning, you Dems can blame me. Again.
 
2012-10-17 05:09:54 PM
My states not in play, so I'm gonna roll up a joint and vote for Gary Johnson.

/If you can't be part of the solution be part of the problem.
 
2012-10-17 05:11:20 PM

salvador.hardin: Lando Lincoln: I really like the Green Party's platform. I'd totally vote Green Party in any local or state election. But not federal elections. Not yet. In my opinion, the Green Party is going about this all goddamn wrong.

If the Green Party was smart, they wouldn't run any candidates for federal elections and just focus on getting wins in local and state politics. Get some good candidates in there and make a difference. Eventually people will see just how good the Green Party can be.

Step two would be taking Congressional seats. Once you take enough of those, then you can change the voting system to not discourage 3rd party candidates.

And THEN you go for the Big Chair.

Nope. It would be nice if that was the way it worked, but between the straight ticket button and the media's complete allergy to covering local races, there is no hope for any of the down-ticket greens without people at the top to grab a few headlines, appear on the ballot next to the major party candidates, drive fundraising, and inspire the GOTV efforts, not to mention the value of getting to influence the conversation between the two major parties (which is why the debates are the holy grail of the third party movements). Plenty of greens have been elected to local offices nationwide (well, mostly just in California), and the media completely ignores all the "good" they do. You've got to be a part of the horse race or they just don't care. Bottom up just isn't a viable strategy in this country anymore.


How many states still have straight ticket voting? We got rid of that in Illinois years ago.
 
2012-10-17 05:14:44 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: If you are suggesting a system where representation is distributed on strictly a party basis, that comes with it's own flaws. That shifts power into the hands of party leadership rather than to the serving representatives.


Eh, there's two things wrong with this. With a fluid system, parties that fark over their constituents would easily be replaced. Also, right now the power is in the hands of party leadership, so even at its worst it would have no different power distribution than today.
 
2012-10-17 05:15:18 PM
I'm voting for Stein. I live in a state that's retarded enough that a vote for Obama would have no value regardless.
 
2012-10-17 05:16:03 PM

skinnycatullus: I'd vote Green, but I live in Florida. Too damn close when there is such a vast difference between the two major party candidates.


Lol! If the election in Florida ends up being close , it won't be the voters that decide the winner.
 
2012-10-17 05:17:44 PM
Honestly, if you are on the ballot in 40 states, there is no reason you should be excluded from the debate by arbitrary polling metrics. I say this as someone who supports Obama. I think she should get a fair shot at the debate to make her voice known. I personally believe that if people heard her speaking next to Obama and Romney, her support would go down, rather than up, but I want to give her the chance to prove herself
 
2012-10-17 05:18:02 PM
Nice. Jillstein.org is down. FARK you killed another one.

Positions
Along the lines of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal solution to the Great Depression, Jill Stein advocates a "Green New Deal"[37] in which renewable energy jobs would be created to address climate change and environmental issues with the objective of employing "every American willing and able to work".[37] Citing the research of Dr. Phillip Harvey, Professor of Law & Economics at Rutgers University, as evidence of the successful economic effects of the 1930s' New Deal projects, Stein would fund the plan with a 30% reduction in the U.S. military budget, returning US troops home, and increasing taxes on areas such as capital gains, offshore tax havens and multimillion dollar real estate. Stein plans on impacting what she sees as a growing convergence of environmental crises in water, soil, fisheries and forests, through the creation of sustainable infrastructure based in clean renewable energy generation and sustainable communities principles such as increasing intra-city mass transit and inter-city railroads, creating 'complete streets' that safely encourage bike and pedestrian traffic and regional food systems based on sustainable organic agriculture.


I would totally vote for her. ...in an alternate reality where good intentions and sound ideas actually translate to good policies. Too bad Republicans exist and therefore we can't have nice things.
 
2012-10-17 05:19:17 PM
I voted Green in 2000. I do not regret it.

/lived in South Carolina so my vote didn't matter
 
2012-10-17 05:19:39 PM

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: If you are suggesting a system where representation is distributed on strictly a party basis, that comes with it's own flaws. That shifts power into the hands of party leadership rather than to the serving representatives.

Eh, there's two things wrong with this. With a fluid system, parties that fark over their constituents would easily be replaced. Also, right now the power is in the hands of party leadership, so even at its worst it would have no different power distribution than today.


Not really no. When your ability to serve is entirely at the discretion of the party leadership rather than the voters, voting against your party's position is eliminated. Party discipline is in fact much stronger than even what we see now.
 
2012-10-17 05:21:16 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Party discipline is in fact much stronger than even what we see now.


Except the voter is under no compulsion to stick with the major parties. Internal consistency and external consistency are disconnected - if the Democrats go full retard, you can just switch to the Progressives or Greens. You're no longer bound to voting for one of the two major parties.
 
2012-10-17 05:25:06 PM

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: Party discipline is in fact much stronger than even what we see now.

Except the voter is under no compulsion to stick with the major parties. Internal consistency and external consistency are disconnected - if the Democrats go full retard, you can just switch to the Progressives or Greens. You're no longer bound to voting for one of the two major parties.


Yes, you can vote for your choice of groups of Party hacks that will rigidly follow the directives of the Party leadership without question.
 
2012-10-17 05:26:20 PM
The very first time I was eligible to vote was in 2004. I voted for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik.

I refuse to support someone I don't like, it's that simple. It's not a wasted vote, as it's not YOUR vote, it's mine. If the American election system or candidate cannot win because I didn't want to vote for them the fault is not mine.
 
Displayed 50 of 205 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report